I was actually talking about just ramming a standard starship like a cheap Takaaki, rather than any dedicated suicide ship, into an expensive Excelsior.

I'm assuming there's some technobabble reason that doesn't fly, beyond the whole civil and non-escalating conflict thing, which can be pretty flimsy in a total war situation. I mean, it's pretty telling that Starfleet didn't ram ships into the Borg Cube that was about to hit the Sol system and that's a situation about as desperate as it gets.
It's also pretty telling that Worf was about to ram the cube with the Defiant in the Battle of Sector 001. He's a Klingon, he thinks of things like that fairly readily; a lot of Starfleet officers might honestly not think of ramming attacks except as a last resort- by which point their ships may not be in condition to do so.

At Wolf 359 it's reasonable to conclude that the Cube would just have taken any individual ship attempting a ram and blown it out of space entirely.

In general, full-sized starships are so expensive that even if they're cheaper than the things you ram them into, most military planners won't really have that relentless an attritional mindset towards them. To be fully functional as starships they have to have so much equipment and for practical purposes require a large enough crew that blowing one up can't be a "no big deal" experience. You may accept losing a few in a battle, but there's a natural psychological reluctance to develop tactics that involve blowing up ten billion dollar assets (as it were) to kill an enemy's thirty billion dollar assets. Especially if success isn't guaranteed.

Having our members create their own ships would represent a loss of control over them though. We would much rather have the Vulcans build some Miranda replacements we have a use for during crises than whatever abomination they would create if they, Risa and Betazed created some joint ship design office.
Have you seen any indication that the Vulcans and Betazoids are doing anything other than starting to adopt Federation ship designs voluntarily despite their economic costs? They might at some future date, but it's equally plausible that they'll continue to expand their budget and assets to allow them to keep building our ships, especially as long as we continue to offer designs like the Kepler and Constellation-A in the one-megaton class.

We could also face some grumbling from the council if their member fleets can no longer rely on Starfleets Ship Design Bureau. Designing the default Federation ship classes isnt actually part of Starfleets core duties but it is something Starfleet has done for forever and that has probably become an expectation.
If so, then the member fleets are just going to have to conform to Starfleet's design doctrines, or they're actually going to have to communicate this need of their to us directly. If they want us to do the work of designing their ships for them, and they want us to design ships we can't use for them, then they need to contact us directly, rather than passive-aggressively waiting around for us to do it spontaneously.

But that doesn't mean we should go around designing ships we have no intention of using, purely on spec that an unspecified member world fleet might want them.

That doesn't quite explain the Borg Cube situation though, which is clearly not making any attempt at evasion, and Starfleet is clearly sending a massive wave of starships on very close passes.
At Wolf 359 or at the Battle of Sector 001? You need to clearly differentiate between the two fights.

At Wolf 359 the Federation's anti-Borg tactics are still in their infancy and the Cube seems highly effective at isolating and pulverizing individual Federation ships while laughing at their weapons. It doesn't help that via Locutus, they probably have expert knowledge of what it looks like when a Starfleet ship prepares a ramming attack.

At Sol, the anti-Borg tactics and weapons are better developed, but by the very nature of that, they have much more hope of defeating the Cube by conventional means. Since ramming is NOT guaranteed to work (see below) and since squadrons of ships launching conventional attacks seem to be making a solid impression and considerable damage, I can see the Federation sticking to a doctrine that involves fairly conventional ship attacks, and not resorting to exotic desperation maneuvers. At least, not as overall fleet doctrine.

...

Furthermore, in both cases, the Borg cube has highly effective tractors (capable of casually immobilizing a Galaxy) and extreme firepower. Individual ramming ships would almost certainly get picked out form the mass. They could then be blown apart while being held at bay with tractor beams (or rather, their cousins the pressor beam, which is the traditional term for a tractor set to 'push' instead of 'pull').

So unless the Federation decides to have entire squadrons of ships ram the Cube at once, it's not going to work out for them unless they get marvelously lucky. And it would be very out of character for the Federation high command to order entire squadrons of ships to ram an enemy all at once. That's the kind of decision individual captains might take for themselves... but as noted above, individual actions along those lines aren't likely to be very effective.

I don't think technobabble is really required.
 
So I have a few questions for the thread to support future building plans and fleet distribution.

Assume for the time being that this is for the next 5-6 years, so answer with existing ship types only. No Ambassadors or Keplers.

1. What is our goal for Starfleet presence in the Gabriel border zone? How many ships do we want there?

Would welcome answers in terms of X Now + Y every Z years. Like, 75 Combat now + 8 Combat per year. Or in terms of X frigates, X cruisers, and X Explorers.

2. What kind of sector fleet do you want to see for Interior sectors with 1 member homeworlds? With 2 member homeworlds? With 3 member homeworlds?


Again, can answer in specific ship types or C/S scores or however you want.

3. What kind sector fleet do you want for sectors with extensive open borders and limited border zone protection? (ie Rigel or Ferasa)

4. What kind of Sector fleet do you want for our border zones?

5. How will "Mutual Support", the ability of Border Zones to respond to Events neighboring sectors at a -2, change these answers?
 
@Briefvoice

1) I would like to have the ability to outnumber the Cardassians, including member fleets, at 1.5:1 C. Whether this includes their affiliates or not depends on said affiliates. The Cardassians have acted aggressively towards us, but haven't gotten their affiliates in on it except to guard their rear areas.

2) I think I would have to determine how many events certain sectors seem to generate to answer that.

3) Somewhat heavier than other home sectors, but still dependent on the answer for #2.

4) Moderate in the RBZ/KBZ/SBZ, heavier in the LBZ/CBZ.

5) I would maintain a Constie per home sector, fill out Defense requirements with Mirandas, and dump everything else in supporting border zones unless there is no supporting border zone (Rigel and Ferasa, perhaps). Maybe not so aggressively initially, but I think that between Chen's bonus and Mutual Support a lot of our needs will be answered by massing in the BZs.

Actually, I'm honestly surprised that @OneirosTheWriter kept In Excelsis the same as the draft document because it really mucks with the sheet designs; we shouldn't have exceptions like that, they make no sense.

Would concur. Do we even have an official sheet Excelsior? I seem to remember that we had a reference design at some point. It would seem to have a lot of empty space in it's frame regardless, which may be helpful. A 2327 E-B refit that fills the frame and allows us to do a full-out rip-and-tear of a lot of the components might allow for a more potent ship if build time is pegged arbitrarily to 3 years and we get a big enough crew discount, but even then the E-B is going to be significantly more SR heavy than a sheet design.

Yes, I meant to imply that picking this research would be a commitment towards recruiting a shield team next year, either from a member or as snakepit request (pp shouldn't be an issue given we bought most backlog items and will get the ambition and council goal rewards). A shield team would IMO be the highest priority anyway, along with warp tech. There is also a chance an event bonus from the battle of 24 Enio will make it moot because that should allow AA to complete both projects before 2323.

I will factor the AA assignment out into a task though.

Mmk, thanks. Do you have any projections for our RP income? If we get 2 teams from each ratification, and we have 5-6 more over the next few years stacked up, I'm concerned we will start to run low.

Also, do you think we can have Mobility Focus + Coutnerpunch done by 2326? Rapid Prototyping could save us a nice chunk of SR and a few quarters on the New Model Cruiser.
 
So I have a few questions for the thread to support future building plans and fleet distribution.

Assume for the time being that this is for the next 5-6 years, so answer with existing ship types only. No Ambassadors or Keplers.

1. What is our goal for Starfleet presence in the Gabriel border zone? How many ships do we want there?

Would welcome answers in terms of X Now + Y every Z years. Like, 75 Combat now + 8 Combat per year. Or in terms of X frigates, X cruisers, and X Explorers.

2. What kind of sector fleet do you want to see for Interior sectors with 1 member homeworlds? With 2 member homeworlds? With 3 member homeworlds?


Again, can answer in specific ship types or C/S scores or however you want.

3. What kind sector fleet do you want for sectors with extensive open borders and limited border zone protection? (ie Rigel or Ferasa)

4. What kind of Sector fleet do you want for our border zones?

5. How will "Mutual Support", the ability of Border Zones to respond to Events neighboring sectors at a -2, change these answers?

1. Let's say by default increase by 5 combat per year, but adjust for changes on the Cardassian side?

2. Note that it's not just homeworlds that generate events but also major worlds (the event that resulted in the discovery of Fornost VII-19 was rolled for Leas Akaam). If there's only one ship in a sector it should at the very least be a Constellation-A, and it would be nice to be able to avoid single ship fleets entirely. The more worlds generating events the more ships, generally.

3. Should have an Excelsior and two other ships.

4. Should have an Excelsior and three other ships.

5. Interior sectors neighboring a border zone having multiple ships becomes lower priority, but is still desirable. About half of all garrison ships should be in border zones (percentage rising later on as there won't be much point in having more than 4 ships in an interior sector even if we should have enough ships for that).
 
Last edited:
5) I would maintain a Constie per home sector, fill out Defense requirements with Mirandas, and dump everything else in supporting border zones unless there is no supporting border zone (Rigel and Ferasa, perhaps). Maybe not so aggressively initially, but I think that between Chen's bonus and Mutual Support a lot of our needs will be answered by massing in the BZs.
Uh... Miranda-As are absolutely pants at event response and aren't very good at filling out Defense requirements either, compared to Centaur-As or (if you aren't too short on Enlisted) new-build Constellation-As Are you sure about the underlined passage? I think for ships like the Centaur-As and the Cheron, it makes more sense to use them in interior sectors at least as often as borders.

Unless of course we see our event rates in home sectors outright flatline- but so far we haven't been given reason to expect that.

Ehhhhhh...I don't know that I necessarily want them as affiliates just yet.
Don't blame you. Those numbers-for-eyes are *creepy.*

The Miranda-A represents the ABSOLUTE low end of Combat Capability I find acceptable on a Combat Ship. I do not give a single fuck what the council thinks on this matter, the Cardassians and now the Horizon have taught us that we're not in peacefull waters here.
Calmly, Hawke, calmly. Indignation against fictional characters will get us nowhere.

I'm a bit confused by your expections. Is your idea of a 'combat ship' one that always wins? One that outpowers its opponents in one-on-one? Because winning battles by outnumbering the enemy is a time-honored tactic, you know. It can work for us, not just for the enemy.

Wasn't expecting such a high stat line at that max tonnage or fast build speed. Was hoping for at least C3 S1 H3 L3 P1 D1. This is meant to be the emergency combat spam ship. I don't think there's need for it now, but if large-scale war is imminent, it's something to consider.
Low Defense is kind of counterproductive for our ships. It's strongly implied to mean low speed, which means that ships with low Defense are likely to slow down a fleet's maneuvers. It also impacts performance overall rather heavily, since we can't guarantee that the low-Defense ship will stay OUT of the phase of battle in which Defense checks matter.

I don't see why not. I think the Ares was basically a completed design before it was sunk for political reasons. I was actually thinking of designing a successor called the Athena for member nations.
The Ares contains most of the same technology as an Excelsior and requires a berth of nearly the same size to construct. The Tauni would do better to build two smaller cruisers than one Ares. Today, any member world likely to want a similar battlecruiser would probably just build their own, as the Amarki effectively already do. Also...

Leslie:

"Look, 'being a battlewagon' wasn't the only thing wrong with the Ares. If that were all, then the Council could have salvaged the ship just by ripping out a couple of shield generators and torpedo magazines and installing some extra labs or something. That ship had a lot of design issues and teething problems, not least that it was designed by a bunch of wild-haired goofballs who kept altering the blueprints in the middle of the prototype construction. I took over at Quality Assurance right around the time that tangle of troubles was hitting its peak, and let me tell you, that ship was a mess. Half the field effect emitters were allergic to the other half, things like that."

[shakes his head sadly]

"The amount of work it'd take to get a safe, reliable ship out of the Ares design would be enough that you'd do better designing a whole new ship."

Eddie is going through and nicking parts so even restoring the prototype to try and make something from that is an increasingly worse idea.
Leslie:

"Eh, if you only wanted to take her out for one dance, or it was a war emergency, you'd just replace all the Cat-Ten I had the kids pull with Cat-Eleven. The emergency refurbishment instructions are on file back in San Francisco. Cat-Ten cable was a good example of some of the gold-plated silliness that went into that ship. The design team took what was supposed to be a cheap and nasty pocket battleship and started throwing every extra feature they could into it; Rogers would have been a lot better off passing it on to the Excelsior's lead design experts, but a lot of them had resigned. And Rogers was a Tactical man, didn't know much about shipbuilding or how to ride herd on those who thought they did."

[snorts]
 
The Excelsior looks to be a more or less obsolete design as of mid 2320s parts tech, and we could replace it today with something cheaper. Keeping build time low is the biggest challenge but the challenge would be the same in designing an Excelsior-cruiser. And by no means do we want to withdraw our EC Excelsiors from EC service.

Actually, I'm honestly surprised that @OneirosTheWriter kept In Excelsis the same as the draft document because it really mucks with the sheet designs; we shouldn't have exceptions like that, they make no sense.
And there is no possibility of further upgrade potential to a -B refit as the -A becomes obsolete?
 
Mmk, thanks. Do you have any projections for our RP income? If we get 2 teams from each ratification, and we have 5-6 more over the next few years stacked up, I'm concerned we will start to run low.

Also, do you think we can have Mobility Focus + Coutnerpunch done by 2326? Rapid Prototyping could save us a nice chunk of SR and a few quarters on the New Model Cruiser.
IIRC in the year since the previous snakepit we had rp income increases of 23 (4*2 rp for mines, 5 rp event, 5rp Gaeni, 5 rp Ked Paddah) along with the 3 new teams, essentially breaking even at the current activation cost, and 2320s Research Centers will complete soon, dropping activation costs and increasing income. The current rate of recruitment (2-3 teams per year) should be sustainable indefinitely, and we do have a significant surplus to account for the next generation of generic teams. Even if we fall short we can just use fewer of the generic teams.

Is it possible to get Mobility Focus + Counterpunch done by 2326? Definitely, it would be possible to get them done by 2320 if we prioritized them over mutual support. Is it likely we will actually complete them by then? I think so, just looking at Lathriss we could do Mutual support 2317-18, Frontline Infrastructure 2319-20, Dispersed Industry 2321-22 (another team does Deep Space Construction concurrently), Mobility Focus 2323-24, Counterpunch 2325-26.
 
That sound you hear is the screams of our entire engineering and shipbuilding departments about how it doesn't work that way.
(Screams internally)
With our technology that increases berth size we can even add an Oberth or two.
(Screams externally)
So I have a few questions for the thread to support future building plans and fleet distribution.

Assume for the time being that this is for the next 5-6 years, so answer with existing ship types only. No Ambassadors or Keplers.

1. What is our goal for Starfleet presence in the Gabriel border zone? How many ships do we want there?

Would welcome answers in terms of X Now + Y every Z years. Like, 75 Combat now + 8 Combat per year. Or in terms of X frigates, X cruisers, and X Explorers.

2. What kind of sector fleet do you want to see for Interior sectors with 1 member homeworlds? With 2 member homeworlds? With 3 member homeworlds?


Again, can answer in specific ship types or C/S scores or however you want.

3. What kind sector fleet do you want for sectors with extensive open borders and limited border zone protection? (ie Rigel or Ferasa)

4. What kind of Sector fleet do you want for our border zones?

5. How will "Mutual Support", the ability of Border Zones to respond to Events neighboring sectors at a -2, change these answers?

1) 80 C + 8-10 every year, with more centaurs
2) 1 Garrison Frigate per Homeworld, per every two Major World's (not counting Homeworlds), plus one Flagship per every four major worlds (counting Homeworlds, rounding up)
3) Ideally, zero sectors would meet this criteria.
If any exist: One Garrison Frigate and one escort frigate for every Homeworld, one Escort Frigate per every three additional major worlds, one Flagship for every two Major Worlds (counting Homeworlds), and at least one Excelsior.
4) One Escort and Flagship per Major World, one Escort per every two installations, at least one Excelsior, at least one Science ship
5) ... Decrement everything inside.
 
2. Note that it's not just homeworlds that generate events but also major worlds (the event that resulted in the discovery of Fornost VII-19 was rolled for Leas Akaam). If there's only one ship in a sector it should at the very least be a Constellation-A, and it would be nice to be able to avoid single ship fleets entirely. The more worlds generating events the more ships, generally.
.

2) 1 Garrison Frigate per Homeworld, per every two Major World's (not counting Homeworlds), plus one Flagship per every four major worlds (counting Homeworlds, rounding up).

Good points about major worlds generating events. Do we have any idea how many major worlds are in each sector? I know not all of them are on the map, but a lot are and we could make some pretty good guesses.

Going by the Council Member spreadsheet we have 62 major worlds among members and major affiliates. Would be good to know what sector/border zones those are located in.
 
5. How will "Mutual Support", the ability of Border Zones to respond to Events neighboring sectors at a -2, change these answers?
We'd need more ships with high D stats to mitigate the -2 penalty on responding to such events. That means Excelsiors and Rennies on the border though the D2 at penalty for the Constie isn't the worst but not exactly preferable.

Mutual Support should read more as border zone ships responding to emergencies, we should try to keep neighboring interior sectors stocked with ships so that border ships don't have to respond but can if need be. So while the ships on the border may not be optimized (See Centaur) for responding to neighboring sectors they can still be of use to the sector itself.
(Screams internally)

(Screams externally)


Got you covered.
 
Good points about major worlds generating events. Do we have any idea how many major worlds are in each sector? I know not all of them are on the map, but a lot are and we could make some pretty good guesses.

Going by the Council Member spreadsheet we have 62 major worlds among members and major affiliates. Would be good to know what sector/border zones those are located in.
It should be reasonable enough to assume that major worlds with unknown location are in the same sector as the homeworld of that species (Orion excepted). It looks like the number of major worlds in a sector loosely correlates with the defense requirements (or rather the other way round).
 
So I have a few questions for the thread to support future building plans and fleet distribution.

Assume for the time being that this is for the next 5-6 years, so answer with existing ship types only. No Ambassadors or Keplers.

1. What is our goal for Starfleet presence in the Gabriel border zone? How many ships do we want there?

Would welcome answers in terms of X Now + Y every Z years. Like, 75 Combat now + 8 Combat per year. Or in terms of X frigates, X cruisers, and X Explorers.

2. What kind of sector fleet do you want to see for Interior sectors with 1 member homeworlds? With 2 member homeworlds? With 3 member homeworlds?


Again, can answer in specific ship types or C/S scores or however you want.

3. What kind sector fleet do you want for sectors with extensive open borders and limited border zone protection? (ie Rigel or Ferasa)

4. What kind of Sector fleet do you want for our border zones?

5. How will "Mutual Support", the ability of Border Zones to respond to Events neighboring sectors at a -2, change these answers?

  1. Im with @Forgothrax a 1.5:1 ratio on ours(incl memberworld) to Cardassian combat. An increase of something like nix's proposed 5 per year depending on Cardassian movement seems optimal. I'm actually rather curious to see what the GBZ turn should into once the discovery phase is mostly complete.
  2. I feel we should aim for the excelsior per sector goal, and at the very least a constellation-a or preferably a centaur in garrison. I'd like to start moving the centaurs in and put our better vessels in the outer borderzones.
    • For sectors with additional major worlds such as Leas Akaam, I think an additional frigate per major world is sufficient. Sectors with additional member worlds do a fair job of providing additional guard for themselves, but maybe another frigate or cruiser for the more forward sectors?
  3. It depends on the border, but I think those areas without a borderzone don't really need the extra protection anyway, or we would have established a border.
  4. Excelsior+2xRennie+Oberth(if we are discounting keplers)
  5. Pull more ships with high stats out of the sectors bordering the borderzones. Essentially, we can pull rennies and veteran cruisers out to the borderzones and they will handily pass events even with the -2 malus while keeping our borders just that much tighter.
 
And there is no possibility of further upgrade potential to a -B refit as the -A becomes obsolete?
Even if we were upgrading the -A to -B, which is probably a good idea, we would not want to build any -B as what we would want to build are a new design or the Ambassador or Ambassador-A.

The upcoming phaser array technology in the mid 2320s likely will result in refits to every single design we don't want to decommission, the Kepler excepted.
 
Even if we were upgrading the -A to -B, which is probably a good idea, we would not want to build any -B as what we would want to build are a new design or the Ambassador or Ambassador-A.

The upcoming phaser array technology in the mid 2320s likely will result in refits to every single design we don't want to decommission, the Kepler excepted.
I suppose my point is, if we have a -B excelsior design +in excelsis that is likely equivalent to or slightly better than a new design if we include the crew reductions and build time then why would we stop production? IIRC there's a project somewhere threat would allow us to build excelsiors in cruiser berths.
 
Some of the comments should note that we have Independent Captains, a T3 FD tech, coming up. It increase BZ event rate and draws down home sector event rate. This will make garrisoning home sectors less of a priority.

2310s Starbase Control adds +1D to all ships in sector too, which should help compensate for the -2C from Mutual Support.

Ugh... Looking at all this us making me itch to dump the Miranda, or at least bolt on a pair of decent Nacelles. They're worse than a liability, they're a false sense of security and actively harmful if they bump better ships out of skirmish. And in peacetime they're almost worthless in event response.
 
Some of the comments should note that we have Independent Captains, a T3 FD tech, coming up. It increase BZ event rate and draws down home sector event rate. This will make garrisoning home sectors less of a priority.

2310s Starbase Control adds +1D to all ships in sector too, which should help compensate for the -2C from Mutual Support.

Ugh... Looking at all this us making me itch to dump the Miranda, or at least bolt on a pair of decent Nacelles. They're worse than a liability, they're a false sense of security and actively harmful if they bump better ships out of skirmish. And in peacetime they're almost worthless in event response.
You'll note that they're all dumped into a sector with no events right now :V

Sweeping Tactical review could keep them out of the Skirmish phase, the problem is we don't have the ships to replace them in Skirmish for five years until the first wave of Keplers.
 
I suppose my point is, if we have a -B excelsior design +in excelsis that is likely equivalent to or slightly better than a new design if we include the crew reductions and build time then why would we stop production? IIRC there's a project somewhere threat would allow us to build excelsiors in cruiser berths.

You're missing the point. An Excelsior is already more resources expensive than a replacement, and a refit will only increase that. The crew cost will be roughly similar (probably 4/4/4 or 4/5/4 for a replacement vs 5/4/4) but it does hit our rarer officer corps harder. Not to mention that a B-refit will likely require literally ripping out entire sections of the ship to replace entire frames worth of parts wholesale, and while we don't have refit rules yet I suspect we won't be allowed to do that. Not to mention that the Excelsior uses subframes that are over 30 years old now, and I doubt those can be upgraded. That will also increase costs and retard stat improvement.

Refitting the Excelsior to make it competitive will not only be expensive, it's likely to not be feasible. If Oneiros wants to let us rip out all the guts down to the skeleton and replace them with modern equivalents and call that a refit I guess that's ok, but that's the only way to significantly improve the Excelsior.
 
If I understand you correctly, SWB...

You are saying that it is very likely that by the time we derive any benefit from building an Excelsior-B refit, we will be able to build a roughly two-megaton cruiser with comparable performance and lower cost, and therefore have no need to build new ones?

Seems reasonable. Just because Starfleet kept using their Excelsiors up through the 2370s doesn't mean they were building new ones.

It sort of parallels what seems to have happened to the Connie; the only reason we built new Constitutions was because we had no viable one-megaton cruiser designs ready for serial production at the time. If we were in a better position to plan ahead and start a two-megaton cruiser in the late 2320s or early 2330s, then the need to build Excelsior-Bs to parallel the Constitution-Bs will never arise.
 
Last edited:
2. What kind of sector fleet do you want to see for Interior sectors with 1 member homeworlds? With 2 member homeworlds? With 3 member homeworlds?
I'd like to avoid single-ship sectors if practical; I'd like to see at least one additional ship for each additional homeworld past the first, but I don't know if that will be workable given our desire to flatten any Cardassian fleets in the Gabriel Expanse.
 
Wanna bet the Gaeni's medium term ambition is going to become "Build Amby"? Say hello to 10% shield pen on that ship...

The Amby technically being a tech ship is a very happy coincidence :)

C3 S1 H2 L4 D4 is doable. I can't squeeze H3 on something that size. The D stat is basically free, you actually have to cripple the ship to get D less than 3 these days, and 4 fit by swapping Nacelles and didn't end up costing additional SR. C4 might be possible with tech not on the sheet yet (Isolinear). 50/45, 1/2/1 crew, aye. E: Forgot it was a 45sr design.

E2: Really need to stop posting before I've tweaked to hell and back. D3 does mean 40sr instead of 45, so there's that.

Thanks, what's the build time on that?

If we can somehow get that down to the minimum build time of 16 months, a 2 EAS research time, and can convince the Amarki to design it with their combined fleet doctrine bonuses, then the optimistic time from ship class project start to production would be: 15mo (snakepit to following year's EAS) + 20mo (prototype time with combined fleet doctrine's 1.25 build time modifier) = 35mo ... which is nearly 3 years.

Hrm, I was hoping for a ship class that could be reactively designed and ready for production within a year of imminent war (a time which seems to be par for the course in TBG from warning to crisis). This scheme may not work out unless the Amarki or another ship class-prolific member fleet decides to be proactive.

It's also pretty telling that Worf was about to ram the cube with the Defiant in the Battle of Sector 001. He's a Klingon, he thinks of things like that fairly readily; a lot of Starfleet officers might honestly not think of ramming attacks except as a last resort- by which point their ships may not be in condition to do so.

<snip>

I don't think technobabble is really required.

Well uh I suppose I appreciate the time you spent making this wordy response, but if you read on further, I already came to the same conclusion.

The only technobabble I needed to speculate on is some reason a starship can't just warp into an enemy starship. FTL collisions at close ranges can't really be reacted to, after all. Either it's impossible, imprecise enough, subspace bubble collapse dampens/obviates the M/AM explosion, ... or the more likely reason that even in a warp bubble you'd collide with the shield and then you follow all the conventional pitfalls of a torpedo trying to penetrate the shield frequency modulation (and other technobabble).

Low Defense is kind of counterproductive for our ships. It's strongly implied to mean low speed, which means that ships with low Defense are likely to slow down a fleet's maneuvers. It also impacts performance overall rather heavily, since we can't guarantee that the low-Defense ship will stay OUT of the phase of battle in which Defense checks matter.

Ah this was in the context of the recent roles and profiles discussion, where battle restrictions are a thing and "emergency combat spam" role in battle is to participate in the vanguard and main phases of battle. Which, along with the example of the D1 Oberth in the Arcadian War, meant I didn't put much value into the D stat for this role.

Fortunately, even D2 at 2320s tech level is essentially free. In fact, I think it would be harder to enforce a max of D1 at that point.
 
In regards to the upcoming Steering Committee, I took a look at the past reports we have gotten, in regards to major categories. I filtered out as much of the one shot incidents out, or events that are over (Biophage), but this should help identify reports that are rather aged. I did not include the GBZ review, or the Romulan-Klingon War update.

Who Rpt Group Last Rpt
Cardassian Diplomatic Posture Report
2315​
  Fleet Strength
2316​
  Shipbuilding
2314​
  Shipyards
2316​
  Suspected Force on Border
2316​
  World Locations
2309​
Dawair Diplomatic Posture Report
2316​
Hishmeri Fleet Strength
2316​
Klingon Diplomatic Posture Report
2308​
  Fleet Strength
2311​
  Suspected Force on Border
2316​
Licori Fleet Strength
2314​
Romulan Diplomatic Posture Report
2308​
  Fleet Strength
2316​
  Ship Design
2313​
  Shipbuilding
2314​
  Shipyards
2315​
  Suspected Force on Border
2316​
Sydraxian Diplomatic Posture Report
2310​
  Fleet Strength
2310​
  Shipbuilding
2314​
Yrillian Diplomatic Posture Report
2316​
  Fleet Strength
2313​
 
Hrm, I was hoping for a ship class that could be reactively designed and ready for production within a year of imminent war (a time which seems to be par for the course in TBG from warning to crisis). This scheme may not work out unless the Amarki or another ship class-prolific member fleet decides to be proactive.
I mentioned several times that once we have the Centaur successor one thing that ought to be possible would be to design a cheaper and more vanguard-oriented variant using the refit mechanic. Even if not we would still be able to save design time by reusing the same frames, and also reduce the prototype penalty as demonstrated by the hospital ship.
 
Back
Top