Remove ads

To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest)

Linked contents
To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest) Starfleet Ship Design Bureau, Refit ("To Boldly Go...")
Reader mode
AlphaDelta said:
My 2¢:

Base strike: If it's good enough for the member with a hat is literally militaristic space elves, it's good for the security of the Federation.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Not necessarily. We don't use Rialas after all. And our overall economic/cultural/military/strategic situation as Starfleet is radically different than that of a single member people.

Consider Doctrine on a Federation wide basis rather than a member level.
 
Remove ads
Aeondrac said:
How doctrines shape our nominal war goals is as important as the direct mechanical bonuses.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't think doctrines will directly affect our war goals.

But I can see them affecting our war support in an emergent fashion. Decisive battles or critical base strikes will swing war support wildly, while raiding and attacks on industrial targets will incur softer changes, and all the while war support dwindles the longer the war lasts and the larger the economic pain the members are suffering.

AlphaDelta said:
My 2¢:

Base strike: If it's good enough for the member with a hat is literally militaristic space elves, it's good for the security of the Federation.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I take a different point of view: Starfleet should pick doctrines that are complementary, not necessarily the same, as the member fleets. If Amarkia (and others) specialize in base strike, then why not let them take the lead for such operations?

That said, I consider our strategic and stylistic choices on warring to be at least as important as member fleet synergy. More so because with all the various doctrines represented across the Federation's members, any choice Starfleet makes is bound to be synergistic to some extent.
 
Nix said:
It's both Base Strike AND Decisive Battle, as I said before they don't actually differ all that much on the strategic level while on the offense. Decisive Battle prefers/is better able to deal with scenario 3, Base Strike prefers/is better able to deal with Scenarios 1 and 2, but they are both equipped to deal with all three scenarios, both have bonuses for pitched battles as well as for assaulting fortifications.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You said that, but your explanation wasn't credible, because it wrongly stated that the objectives of operations under each doctrine would be similar. However, we have specific WoG that the methods by which each doctrine aim to our political goals (and end the war in our favor) are very different. The doctrinal goals (logistics, infrastructure, warships) inform the operational objectives. So I would strongly disagree that a set of Decisive Battle operations would resemble a set of Base Strike operations. In each, good operations would be designed to further the goal of destroying ships or infrastructure respectively, and therefore would have very different objectives.

The impetus for Base Strike to accept a Scenario 3 and wreck a fleet is to enable current or future operations against infrastructure by taking ships out of action. The impetus for Decisive Battle to accept Scenarios 1 and 2 is... to settle for less or to change the way the enemy fleet operates in the future. Which brings me back to my original points on the subject, which is that DB has a lot more trouble accomplishing its objective operationally, poorer opportunities for forcing moves, and fewer tools to use.

Nix said:
No, threatening does not at all require your position to be known, rather the opposite. The greater the uncertainty about your position the larger the area you effectively threaten. If your position is so uncertain the enemy has no idea you are even in the general area in the first place you have a decisive advantage, one that Decisive Battle does not particularly help you exploit, but at that point you shouldn't need much help. The very point of threatening is that ignoring the threat is worse for the other side than the action you are trying to manipulate them into, so the enemy not even knowing about the threat is perfe
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I disagree. This type of uncertainty as axiomatically good is one of those principles that falls apart in practice. The more certain your position is, the more forcing it is. I don't particularly care about a position so uncertain that the enemy reaction could be any number of moves, I care about positions that are forcing a single move that I can predict. Positions where if the natural, mandatory moves are prosecuted to their full extent, the result is our objectives are met. This does not mandate uncertainty but rather requires a strong degree of certainty in the forcing aspect. Uncertainty has its place, but not in forcing specific movements that can be reacted to in a consistent way. And yes, that does mean attempts to force a decision require both certainty to force enemy action and uncertainty to surprise the enemy, in a contradictory way, but that's exactly what I mean when I say Decisive Battle has major difficulties actually prosecuting its objectives.

Again, I feel this goes back to your mistake about the overall objective of operations under each doctrine. Menacing uncertainly is good... for operations where the objective is to destroy infrastructure where the enemy is not: for operations under Base Strike.


Just as Decisive Battle has +2 to intercept, other doctrines have bonuses to not being intercepted and to making it to structures under threat. For example, Base Strike would have as much as +4 to avoid this.

Arguing on ship design advantages violates my premise of relative equality. I do agree that much will be won or lost, many advantages gained or discarded, in ship design. But that's not the subject at hand. I will say that if we can make the Kepler, what stops an enemy from making a D6 ship that doesn't have to spend on presence?
 
Last edited:
Random Member said:
I'm 70% sure @Leila Hann has a folder of images like this prepared in advance and simply whips them out once someone makes an appropriate post.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You can feel free to believe or disbelieve me, but there have only been three or four times in this thread so far that I've had a pic ready in advance.

The turtle doctrine was not one of those times. Neither was my reaction to @tryrar's reaction.
 
Briefvoice said:
This quest is a written narrative influenced by random rolls and player votes. If you've found yourself starting to argue that Decisive Battle is inherently incapable of working then you've probably wandered too far into 'realism'. It'll work because it'll be written to work, performing better against some enemies than others, but you can't argue doctrine itself is illegitimate. Not when the finger of god is on the scales.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I am arguing that, I'm afraid. It doesn't really bother me that you think I can't.
 
Briefvoice said:
This quest is a written narrative influenced by random rolls and player votes. If you've found yourself starting to argue that Decisive Battle is inherently incapable of working then you've probably wandered too far into 'realism'. It'll work because it'll be written to work, performing better against some enemies than others, but you can't argue doctrine itself is illegitimate. Not when the finger of god is on the scales.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I would also like to point out that many of the arguments for why it "can't" work are in fact not as airtight as they're made out to be; I'll go into that more later.

Thanks! Wow, it makes Starfleet look really behind the curve if everyone else has their doctrines firmly in place. I wouldn't have thought there would be at least one or two "haven't developed it yet".
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Probably also some fleets that have committed to the techs and researched the base techs, but haven't gone up the trees.

lbmaian said:
Speaking of which, Vulcan, Risa, Betazed, Gaen are notably missing in that table.

Which means they're not considered tier 2 powers. Not even Vulcan. *sad face*
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That, or the Vulcans don't really have a body of warfighting doctrine as such. Given their relative pacifism, there may be a lack of support for abstract war planning. Among those Vulcans who do think about warfare, I'd expect a willingness to do whatever seems logical and expedient, rather than focusing in advance on one class of operations and tactics in the event of a future emergency.

So they might well not have a fixed doctrine of their own.
 
Leila Hann said:
You can feel free to believe or disbelieve me, but there have only been three or four times in this thread so far that I've had a pic ready in advance.

The turtle doctrine was not one of those times. Neither was my reaction to @tryrar's reaction.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
...have you ever thought of becoming an official commission artist? I'm sure there are several quests who'd love your art!
 
Simon_Jester said:
That, or the Vulcans don't really have a body of warfighting doctrine as such. Given their relative pacifism, there may be a lack of support for abstract war planning. Among those Vulcans who do think about warfare, I'd expect a willingness to do whatever seems logical and expedient, rather than focusing in advance on one class of operations and tactics in the event of a future emergency.

So they might well not have a fixed doctrine of their own.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well keep in mind that the doctrines aren't all about "warfighting" and ships aren't just used for war. The fleet design doctrines and defensive doctrines in particular influence the ship building and deployment patterns.

OneirosTheWriter said:
Uh, can someone jog my memory, I'm trying to recall if Demora Sulu was involved in any of the Battles of Lora or Deva...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
She commanded the Republic, right? Yeah, she was in both battles then.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top