To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest)

[Void Stalker]

Does anyone have a list of when each ship commissioned? I am adding a third page to my ship event tracker spreadsheet to track ships and their captains. I did find a deployment list for 2306.Q2 where we had 2 Excelsior, 1 Constitution-A, 7 Constellation, 2 Centaur, 12 Miranda, 4 Soyuz and 4 Oberth (including T'mir on detached intel duty). Backtracking from ships built and lost we would have had 1 Excelsior, 1 Constitution-A, 6 Constellation, 13 Miranda and 4 Soyuz along with the 3 EC ships.

 

[Iron Wolf]

Saavik is just floating around for a bit. She might come back for a big role later. T'Lorel and Nash were kinda just lucky -- if you think about it Ainsworth floated in a void for a long time before getting to be a star in the GBZ

 

[Simon_Jester]

On a completely separate tangent, I think Saavik was promoted way too soon, especially considering that Vulcan(oids) in general are supposed to have slower career progression due to their lifespan.

Click to shrink...

That rule has on the whole NOT been followed during the quest. Prominent Vulcans mostly seem to get their promotions about as fast as everyone else, once they reach a given rank. A rigorous statistical analysis might well show some degree of extra slowness, but people like Revak and T'Lorel suggest the effect can't be that dramatic.

At the same time, it seems very possible that MOST Vulcans choose to leave Starfleet voluntarily some time before their hundredth birthday... in which case they're staying around longer but not vastly, vastly longer than Earthlings who normally step down in their sixties and seventies and start a second career.

 

[Steven Kodaly]

At the same time, it seems very possible that MOST Vulcans choose to leave Starfleet voluntarily some time before their hundredth birthday...

Click to shrink...

One wouldn't want to get bored playing with starships, after all. That would legitimately be terrible! It's important to keep things fresh in one's life.

 

[Nervos Belli]

Are there any other species in the Federation with comparable lifespans to Vulcans? Rigellians maybe? Otherwise you could enter this weird zone where all your senior staff gets Vulcanized because once they're in their chose spot they just won't leave.

 

[Void Stalker]

So I just finished through 2307. I have so far ID 2 of the 6 Constellations that we started with and have names for 4 more that were either from the start or the 1 that commissioned in 2302.Q1. That does mean that I am only missing 1 Constellation name for the ones we had through 2307. For Centaur, we started with 0 and commissioned 3 during this time period, of which I only know 1 name, the Yukikaze that was commissioned in 2302.Q1 with a second unnamed Centaur that was lost during the Battle for Kadesh. For Miranda I have 3 of the starting 13 named, and like the Constellations we had 1 more commission 2302.Q1, at this point I have 6 named Miranda that were either amongst the initial 13 or was the one commissioned in 2302. Oberth we started with 0, commissioned 3 in 2303, one of which is the T'Mir and commissioned a 4th in 2306, for the three unnamed I have two of the names just don't know which year they were commissioned.

One thing I need to do is go back and check the omakes for potential ship and character names.

So Unknown as of end of 2307:
Miranda-
10 from game start
1 from 2302
T'Kumbra, Eketha, Miracht, Faithful, Svai and Calypso are from the 11 Miranda above.

Constellation
4 from game start
1 from 2302
Stalwart, Docana, Polaris and Vigour from the 5 Constellation above

Centaur
1 from 2302-lost at Battle for Kadesh
1 from 2306

Oberth
2 from 2302
1 from 2306
Suvek and Hawking from the 3 above.

 

[charysa]

That rule has on the whole NOT been followed during the quest. Prominent Vulcans mostly seem to get their promotions about as fast as everyone else, once they reach a given rank. A rigorous statistical analysis might well show some degree of extra slowness, but people like Revak and T'Lorel suggest the effect can't be that dramatic.

Click to shrink...

I suppose... but which side of the balance is Revak supposed to be? Because I still haven't figured out if he's supposed to be Commodore or RA for the last few years...

Miranda-
10 from game start
1 from 2302
T'Kumbra, Eketha, Miracht, Faithful, Svai and Calypso are from the 11 Miranda above.

Constellation
4 from game start
1 from 2302
Stalwart, Docana, Polaris and Vigour from the 5 Constellation above

Click to shrink...

For Mirandas there is also the USS Lion, Nash's old ship. And Bon Vivant mentioned here.

For Constellations there's also USS Selaya from before the game start, mentioned here as Straak's old ship, which he commanded for 5 years before going on shore duty. And USS Challorn, Thuir's old ship at quest start. And USS Kearsage, Ainsworth's ship at the first vote for 5YMs. ...You sure we had only 4 Consties to start with?

 

[lbmaian]

Does anyone have a list of when each ship commissioned? I am adding a third page to my ship event tracker spreadsheet to track ships and their captains. I did find a deployment list for 2306.Q2 where we had 2 Excelsior, 1 Constitution-A, 7 Constellation, 2 Centaur, 12 Miranda, 4 Soyuz and 4 Oberth (including T'mir on detached intel duty). Backtracking from ships built and lost we would have had 1 Excelsior, 1 Constitution-A, 6 Constellation, 13 Miranda and 4 Soyuz along with the 3 EC ships.

Click to shrink...

I've been maintaining a version of Briefvoice's ship build planning spreadsheet with history going back to quest start: Boldly Go Shipbuild w/ History

The fleet tab here shows initial ships we started with, changes due to ship construction, and notes on actual divergences due to ship "loss" (includes Stargazer here). I was planning to add ship NCC registry numbers and names, but haven't got around to it yet.

edit: I was just going to look at the ship database in Database for To Boldly Go and find any mentions in story posts to figure out which ship is which.

 

[lbmaian]

So Unknown as of end of 2307:
Miranda-
10 from game start
1 from 2302
T'Kumbra, Eketha, Miracht, Faithful, Svai and Calypso are from the 11 Miranda above.

Constellation
4 from game start
1 from 2302
Stalwart, Docana, Polaris and Vigour from the 5 Constellation above

Centaur
1 from 2302-lost at Battle for Kadesh
1 from 2306

Oberth
2 from 2302
1 from 2306
Suvek and Hawking from the 3 above.

Click to shrink...

Some of this wrong, quantity wise. Here's what I have:

2301.Q1 (game start):
Soyuz: 4
Miranda: 12
Constellation: 6
Constitution-A: 1 (Cheron)
Excelsior: 1 (Excelsior), 3 EC (Enterprise, Courageous, Sarek)

2302.Q1 (first shipyard ops):
Miranda: +1
Centaur: +2
Constellation: +1
Excelsior: +1 (Kumari)

2303.Q4:
Miranda: -1 (Miracht lost to Biophage)

2304.Q1:
Oberth: +3
Miranda: -1 (Faithful lost to Biophage)
Centaur: -1 (Centaur* lost to Biophage)

Also Yukikaze served in EC for a quarter while Sarek was being repaired

* This ship was never explicitly named, but if this is one of the first two Centaurs and the other is called Yukikaze, this has to be the class leader and hence named USS Centaur

2306.Q1:
Centaur: +1
Oberth: +1
Excelsior: +1 EC (Miracht)

2307.Q1:
Soyuz: -4 (all scrapped)
Constellation: +1 (NCC-1808, confusion reigns on what this ship's name is, due to loose name tracking very early in the game)

2307.Q4:
Excelsior: +1 (Endurance)

2308.Q1:
Constellation: -1 (Polaris lost in Dawiar incident)
Centaur => Centaur-A: 1 (Yukikaze)

2309.Q2:
Excelsior: +1 EC (S'harien)

2309.Q4 (first time non-Excelsior ships are named during commissioning):
Centaur-A: +4 (Winterwind, Lightning, Gale, Bull)

2310.Q1:
Excelsior: +2 (Salnas, Avandar)

2310.Q2:
Centaur-A: +1 (Blizzard)

2311.Q1:
Excelsior: +1 (Thirishar)

2311.Q2:
Centaur => Centaur-A: 1 (Zephyr)

2311.Q3:
Miranda: -1 (Lion lost to temporal anomaly in Aga Carmide, returns later)

2311.Q4:
Excelsior: -1 EC (Miracht lost to automatic defense of Geruda III)

2312.Q1:
Excelsior: +0 EC (Stargazer completes construction but is sent on Kadeshi Expedition and thus doesn't count towards fleet totals for deployment or logistics purposes)

And I'll stop at that point since our fleet changes start getting hectic at that point. Many of the initial or earlier constructed ships can have their names inferred from their NCC registry numbers or updates/omakes mentioning them, but the whole naming and NCC registry numbering was rather loose early on (see that 2307 Constellation).

 

[Simon_Jester]

So I just finished through 2307. I have so far ID 2 of the 6 Constellations that we started with and have names for 4 more that were either from the start or the 1 that commissioned in 2302.Q1. That does mean that I am only missing 1 Constellation name for the ones we had through 2307. For Centaur, we started with 0 and commissioned 3 during this time period, of which I only know 1 name, the Yukikaze that was commissioned in 2302.Q1 with a second unnamed Centaur that was lost during the Battle for Kadesh. For Miranda I have 3 of the starting 13 named, and like the Constellations we had 1 more commission 2302.Q1, at this point I have 6 named Miranda that were either amongst the initial 13 or was the one commissioned in 2302. Oberth we started with 0, commissioned 3 in 2303, one of which is the T'Mir and commissioned a 4th in 2306, for the three unnamed I have two of the names just don't know which year they were commissioned.

One thing I need to do is go back and check the omakes for potential ship and character names.

So Unknown as of end of 2307:
Miranda-
10 from game start
1 from 2302
T'Kumbra, Eketha, Miracht, Faithful, Svai and Calypso are from the 11 Miranda above.

Click to shrink...

The Mirandas are among the ships where there's going to be the most wiggle room. They don't respond to events very often and therefore rarely appear in captains' logs. Among Mirandas that existed RELATIVELY early in the game (that is, are not post-2310 Miranda-A construction) we have...

As noted, USS Lion was Nash ka'Sharren's ship for at least a year or two prior to her taking command of the Enterprise-B in January 2301.

USS Thunderhead was an un-refitted Miranda at some point in time. MOST of those would be game-start ships as we built few new Mirandas in the stock configuration.

Let's see... hm. USS Dryad was active as early as 2303. @AKuz places her as present for the Dunwich IV incident, though NOT participating in the bombardment of the colony. In early 2308 she rescued the survivors of the Dawiar attack on the USS Polaris, and she performed additional brave and remarkable deeds under Captain Sadek in the 2310s.

USS Shield, well. According to my joke-head-canon the Shield is actually an exact duplicate of the USS T'Kumbra, spat out by a temporal anomaly in the Vulcan sector some time during the Rogers admiralty. Starfleet and the Vulcan Space Council have been searching for that anomaly, without success, ever since.

Starfleet just sort of rolled with it, but for some time adopted a policy of never permitting Shield and T'Kumbra to be in the same star system at the same time, for fear of causing some kind of explosion. This policy may have been waived, because both vessels are now operating in the Gabriel Expanse...

[This is based on the fact that for a while early in the game they shared an identical registry number (Oneiros made a minor copy-paste goof).]

Constellation
4 from game start
1 from 2302
Stalwart, Docana, Polaris and Vigour from the 5 Constellation above

Click to shrink...

The known list of Constellations is Challorn, Docana, Kearsarge, Polaris, Sappho, Selaya, Stalwart, and Vigour. If we have any other Constellations they seem to have avoided being named.

So the problem you have is two unidentified Constellations of the six on your listing, is that right? The unidentified ships could be, if I understand your methods correctly... hm.

Well, Challorn, which was definitely active in 2301 as Michel Thuir's command that discovered the Ulith III Biophage on the world of that name. Any of Kearsarge, Sappho, and Seleya could be the sixth Constellation.

Based on the first introduction of the USS Sappho, and the conclusion of that piece by IronWolf... It would be reasonable to infer that Sappho was commissioned some time after the Biophage crisis, since we know much of the crew were Biophage veterans, even though as far as I can tell the ship herself did not participate in the Biophage crisis. However, she must have been completed during or prior to 2306, as the first overt mention of the Sappho was in the 2307Q1 captain's log.

Centaur
1 from 2302-lost at Battle for Kadesh
1 from 2306

Click to shrink...

It would be reasonable to suppose that the Centaur-class escort lost at Kadesh was in fact USS Centaur. This implicitly raises the question of where the name-ships of the Oberth, Miranda, and Constellation are, but since they would seem to date back to 2280 or earlier, "lost or scrapped before game start" seems at least plausible.

Oberth
2 from 2302
1 from 2306
Suvek and Hawking from the 3 above.

Click to shrink...

Does this include T'Mir in your accounting? If not, the only other Oberths we have are Torbriel and Inspire, and I am FAIRLY sure they were commissioned much later (say, around 2310).

 

[Iron Wolf]

I believe Sappho is 1808, as I remember distinctly for some reason getting the "last" constellation named

 

[charysa]

Registry numbers for the first two Centaurs are kinda weird. Prototype ships should get the number NX-***1. But instead, USS Yukikaze got NCC-2101, which means USS Centaur is NX-2102? NCC-2102? And also, either both were built as prototypes or a prototype wasn't built for the class...

 

[Night]

Registry numbers for the first two Centaurs are kinda weird. Prototype ships should get the number NX-***1. But instead, USS Yukikaze got NCC-2101, which means USS Centaur is NX-2102? NCC-2102? And also, either both were built as prototypes or a prototype wasn't built for the class...

Click to shrink...

At least here, ships lose their NX after shakedown.

 

[Simon_Jester]

One wouldn't want to get bored playing with starships, after all. That would legitimately be terrible! It's important to keep things fresh in one's life.

Click to shrink...

Also, we know from Spock in The Deadly Years that "middle age" can hit Vulcans pretty hard, when he experiences an aging virus:

Spock: "I must differ with you, Doctor. I'm having difficulty concentrating, which is most disturbing; my eyesight appears to be failing, and the normal temperature of the ship seems to me to be increasingly cold."
McCoy: "I did not say you weren't affected, Mr. Spock. You are perfectly healthy- that is, for any normal Vulcan on the high side of a hundred."

Click to shrink...

It's entirely possible that for most Vulcans, retirement around the age of one hundred is relatively normal, especially given how highly their society appears to esteem monastic contemplation and the like. Given that they often start their adult life a bit later than humans, though not always, the differential between them and 23rd century humans isn't quite so sharp.

More active Vulcans may start a second (or third!) career, possibly one that lets them stay closer to home.

I believe Sappho is 1808, as I remember distinctly for some reason getting the "last" constellation named

Click to shrink...

I believe it.

Registry numbers for the first two Centaurs are kinda weird. Prototype ships should get the number NX-***1. But instead, USS Yukikaze got NCC-2101, which means USS Centaur is NX-2102? NCC-2102? And also, either both were built as prototypes or a prototype wasn't built for the class...

Click to shrink...

Policies may not have been entirely consistent throughout Federation history. Centaur may well have been NCC-2100. We have good reason to think that the USS Constitution was NCC-1700, not 1702 or something.

Since Centaur and Yukikaze were laid down prior to the start of the Kahurangi admiralty and may well have had their registry numbers assigned prior to her time in office as well, I think we're just going to have to shrug this one off.

 

[aeqnai]

Policies may not have been entirely consistent throughout Federation history. Centaur may well have been NCC-2100. We have good reason to think that the USS Constitution was NCC-1700, not 1702 or something.

Since Centaur and Yukikaze were laid down prior to the start of the Kahurangi admiralty and may well have had their registry numbers assigned prior to her time in office as well, I think we're just going to have to shrug this one off.

Click to shrink...

Not to mention USS Excelsior being the NCC-2000.

 

[charysa]

It's entirely possible that for most Vulcans, retirement around the age of one hundred is relatively normal, especially given how highly their society appears to esteem monastic contemplation and the like. Given that they often start their adult life a bit later than humans, though not always, the differential between them and 23rd century humans isn't quite so sharp.

Click to shrink...

Hm... Vulcans do seem to have higher incidences of degenerative disorders once past 100... Sarek had his heart attacks. Tuvok had his neural disorder...

 

[Simon_Jester]

Basically, while Vulcans can live to be as much as two hundred years old, and certainly remain functional and capable of contributing very much to society even past the age of one hundred, 100 is definitely "past their prime" for a Vulcan, physically speaking.

 

[lbmaian]

So the problem you have is two unidentified Constellations of the six on your listing, is that right? The unidentified ships could be, if I understand your methods correctly... hm.

Well, Challorn, which was definitely active in 2301 as Michel Thuir's command that discovered the Ulith III Biophage on the world of that name. Any of Kearsarge, Sappho, and Seleya could be the sixth Constellation.

Based on the first introduction of the USS Sappho, and the conclusion of that piece by IronWolf... It would be reasonable to infer that Sappho was commissioned some time after the Biophage crisis, since we know much of the crew were Biophage veterans, even though as far as I can tell the ship herself did not participate in the Biophage crisis. However, she must have been completed during or prior to 2306, as the first overt mention of the Sappho was in the 2307Q1 captain's log.

Click to shrink...

Alright, let's resolve this. *puts on ridiculous detective hat*

First mentions of Constellation ship names:
USS Selaya: 2306.Q1 To Boldly Go: Sci-Fi - To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest) | Page 173
- The Rock Whisperers's former command!!!
USS Vigour: 2306.Q2 Captain's Log: Sci-Fi - To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest) | Page 200
USS Stalwart: 2303.Q1 Captain's Log: Sci-Fi - To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest) | Page 39
USS Challorn: 2301.Q3 Captain's Log: Sci-Fi - To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest) | Page 11
USS Docana: 2302.Q4 Rat Race: Sci-Fi - To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest) | Page 31
USS Kearsage*: 2301.Q1 To Seek Out New Life: Sci-Fi - To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest) | Page 2
- Yes, the historical name is supposed to be "Kearsarge". Heck even memory-alpha lists a Challenger-class Kearsarge. But apparently in the TBG universe, the mountain that these ships were named after was called "Kearsage". *shrug*
USS Sappho: 2307.Q1 Captain's Log: Sci-Fi - To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest) | Page 273
USS Polaris: 2303.Q4.M2 Biophage Crisis: Sci-Fi - To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest) | Page 69

2307.Q1-commissioned Constellation: 2307.Q1 Shipyard Ops: Sci-Fi - To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest) | Page 259
- Only noted as NCC-1808
- Iron Wolf begging to name the just-launched NCC-1808 as Sappho: Sci-Fi - To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest) | Page 269

So USS Sappho is the 2307-commissioned Constellation with registry number NCC-1808?


Now the NCC registry numbers:

2308.Q1: NCC Registry Log established: Sci-Fi - To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest) | Page 337

First mentions of the NCC registry numbers for all the Starfleet Constellations except the earlier mentioned NCC-1308: 2310 Ghost & Whispers crisis's status page: Sci-Fi - To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest) | Page 568
USS Selaya, Constellation, NCC-1803
USS Vigour, Constellation, NCC-1804
USS Stalwart, Constellation, NCC-1807
USS Challorn, Constellation, NCC-1809
USS Docana, Constellation, NCC-1810
USS Kearsage, Constellation, NCC-1811
USS Sappho, Constellation, NCC-1812

Very notably, both NCC-1308 and USS Polaris are not mentioned here! And USS Sappho, which presumably should be NCC-1808, has registry number NCC-1812 here!

And just to confirm, the Sappho still has registry number NCC-1812: 2314.Q1 Shipyard Ops: Sci-Fi - To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest) | Page 1364

Now the first mention of NCC-1813, attached to what else but the Polaris:
Sci-Fi - To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest) | Page 361
"We have confirmed that the USS Polaris (NCC-1813) has been destroyed in the Action of 22809 against hostile ships of the Dawiar in the Oriolis System with the loss of 83 crew."

BUT the 2312.Q1 registry log update contradicts this: Sci-Fi - To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest) | Page 887
"NCC-18xx - Constellations
-1813-1814 UESPA; 1815-1817 Vulcan; 1818-1820 Andor; 1821-1823 Tellar"
Meaning that not only is NCC-1813 supposed to assigned to an UESPA Constellation, none of the other missing Constellation registry numbers below NCC-1812, such as NCC-1802 or NCC-1805, are reserved for the member fleets.

Indeed, NCC-1813 is specifically identified just two years later: 2314.Q3 Licori Council Session: Sci-Fi - To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest) | Page 1591
UES Jupiter, Constellation-class, NCC-1813

Oddly enough, UESPA seems to have 3 Constellation names, despite only have 2 Constellations:
UES Jupiter, as noted above
UES Luna: Sci-Fi - To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest) | Page 615
- As this is at Vega, where UESPA only has 1 Constellation and 1 Centaur-A here: Sci-Fi - To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest) | Page 568
- The Yorkshire mentioned in this update is the Centaur-A, so Luna must be the Constellation.
UES Venus: Sci-Fi - To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest) | Page 771
- Never mentioned explicitly to be a Constellation, but the name of it follows same pattern (celestial bodies in Sol system).
- So it could be possible that the UES Venus is actually a Miranda, despite the name. And hey, there's a tiny city called Venus in Texas, that could have grown to be a major or historically important city by the 24th century!


All and all...




So here's my theory:

The USS Sappho is the 2307-commissioned Constellation. Her current registry number is NCC-1812.

The NCC registry was undergoing a process of revamp after the ratification of Amarkia. There was a "beta" version of it available in 2307, and when the Sappho was launched, it was assigned the preliminary registry number of NCC-1808. The USS Polaris for whatever reason was assigned registry number NCC-1813.

A year later, the NCC registry is finalized. The accountants realized that the 2307 beta registry didn't make room for earlier ships that are presumably destroyed or decommissioned before 2301, and the wanted to order all Starfleet ships by commission date. So they assigned final registry number of NCC-1812 to the Sappho.

But during this whole process, the Polaris is destroyed in the same quarter the registry is being finalized. In all the confusion, the after-action report mistakenly identifies Polaris as its old registry number of NCC-1813, when that registry number is now allocated to an existing UESPA Constellation (and hey, Jupiter and Polaris are both celestial bodies, right? ). The Polaris would've been given a NCC registry number according to its commission order (so one of NCC-1802, NCC-1805, NCC-1806, or NCC-1808, depending on when it was commissioned, but definitely before Sappho, NCC-1812). But as the ship was destroyed, we never got to see its actual registry number.

Registry numbers for the first two Centaurs are kinda weird. Prototype ships should get the number NX-***1. But instead, USS Yukikaze got NCC-2101, which means USS Centaur is NX-2102? NCC-2102? And also, either both were built as prototypes or a prototype wasn't built for the class...

Click to shrink...

My headcanon, which I think I've heard from someone else before:

There was a NX-2100, the prototype for the Centaur class. It unfortunately had a not-so-great life.

You see, it wasn't just the Centaur that was being designed and prototyped the 2290s. There was also the Ares project. Now the Ares project was just an unfolding disaster, and Admiral Rogers was eager to get it out the door ASAP in whatever technically functional state. As the Council put more and more pressure on Rogers to explain what the hell was going on with this "cost-efficient explorer" project, in their desperation, Starfleet shifted resources from the nearly complete Centaur project to the Ares project.

That in turn did not bode well for the quality assurance of USS Centaur, NX-2100. And so, when the NX-2100 was starting its trial runs, let's just say that bad things™ happened, and the Centaur ended up being broken down for parts to start construction anew without the fatal flaws that plagued the prototype. At this point, the Starfleet engineers were confident they had a handle on the design - in fact, they already were starting preliminary plans for a quick post-launch refit that ended up happening in 2306. So they started building two Centaur-class ships at once. The original Centaur did technically launch, but it was never commissioned for service, so why not reuse that name?

That USS Centaur ended up with registry number NCC-2102 rather than NCC-2101 was just a side effect of the 2308 NCC registry revamp, which strictly ordered the registry numbers of Starfleet ships by commission date. Of the two Centaur-class ships under construction, the hull of USS Centaur may have been laid down first, and it may have been named first before her launch, but slight technical difficulties delayed its commission date until after the USS Yukikaze.

Indeed, it's because the Yukikaze was commissioned first that all subsequent Starfleet Centaur-class ships ended up having names patterned after "Yukikaze" - all wintery or windy names.

 

[Simon_Jester]

Oddly enough, UESPA seems to have 3 Constellation names, despite only have 2 Constellations:
UES Jupiter, as noted above
UES Luna: Sci-Fi - To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest) | Page 615
- As this is at Vega, where UESPA only has 1 Constellation and 1 Centaur-A here: Sci-Fi - To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest) | Page 568
- The Yorkshire mentioned in this update is the Centaur-A, so Luna must be the Constellation.
UES Venus: Sci-Fi - To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest) | Page 771
- Never mentioned explicitly to be a Constellation, but the name of it follows same pattern (celestial bodies in Sol system).
- So it could be possible that the UES Venus is actually a Miranda, despite the name. And hey, there's a tiny city called Venus in Texas, that could have grown to be a major or historically important city by the 24th century!

Click to shrink...

Leslie:

"That one's easy to explain. You think UESPA only names their four-stackers for planets and moons? Those names have been in circulation for hundreds of years."

My headcanon, which I think I've heard from someone else before:

There was a NX-2300, the prototype for the Centaur class. It unfortunately had a not-so-great life.

Click to shrink...

Because "got blown up by massed ion cannon fire over Kadesh" wasn't bad enough?

 

[lbmaian]

Leslie:

"That one's easy to explain. You think UESPA only names their four-stackers for planets and moons? Those names have been in circulation for hundreds of years."

Click to shrink...

Well just by going by naming conventions, UESPA named its constellations after planets and moons (although they only had two), while their Mirandas are named after cities.

Because "got blown up by massed ion cannon fire over Kadesh" wasn't bad enough?

Click to shrink...

That's the NCC-2302 Centaur, not the NX-2300 Centaur (according to above headcanon).

Though the fact that both Centaurs met unfortunate ends is another reason to avoid naming all the other Centaurs based off the "Centaur" concept (whatever that may be).

 

[Simon_Jester]

Well just by going by naming conventions, UESPA named its constellations after planets and moons (although they only had two), while their Mirandas are named after cities.

Click to shrink...

I have my own headcanon for how the... very peculiar character of some of the UESPA and Starfleet ship names happened, going clear back to the Earth-Romulan War, but it's a bit involved to go into right now. I wouldn't assume that UESPA is in the business of having extremely hard-and-fast patterns for how it names ships, in any case.

 

[lbmaian]

Older stuff:

Now, whether this pattern continues is going to depend on the exact balance of crew requirements aboard a ship, versus what it contributes to the battle. I can totally imagine that the more crew-efficient Ambassadors and InsertHeavyCruiserNameHeres will be change the situation. On the other hand, even generalist frigates of that ship generation bid fair to be combat monsters compared to the typical C3H2L3 frigate statline of 2310-era ships like the Centaur-A and Miranda-A, and their crew requirements aren't much higher (I'm seeing 1/3/2 on offer).

Click to shrink...

I'm pretty sure SWB's point is premised on future explorers and future frigates that he's statted out having comparable crew efficiency. Since we're dealing only with vanguard and later phases, and the effects of S and D are far less important than CHL here, let's assume crew efficiency here is just (C+H+L)/(O+E+T).

So given:
a) the above assumed context
b) the fairly reasonable assumption that casualties on a ship are on average proportional to the hull damage % and the total ship crew
c) simplifying to purely random targeting (sticky targeting would be even worse for frigates)
d) assume that the skirmish phases are already adequately handled, i.e. we're talking purely about vanguard escorts for frigates here
e) all else being equal

Then:
Vanguard and heavy metal phase frigates would be tend to be the first to suffer crew casualties.
Because crew efficiency is comparable between frigates and explorers, frigates overall are worse for us attritionally in crew, and depending on overall damage, potentially in resources as well (although I consider this less likely, given the huge resource inefficiency of explorers).

This is all definitely not the case with today's ship classes. Miranda-As have a crew efficiency of 2. Excelsiors have a crew efficiency of 0.94 (upgraded to 1.06 with the refit). Egillahs have a crew efficiency of 1. It's actually worse than this, because I'm completely ignoring the evasion advantages that frigates have over explorers, even taking into account the bonus to accuracy that S gives.

As for the combat vs generalist debate, my understanding is that the generalist is going to be more efficient overall, but the combat design would be more efficient for crash-building-oh-god-we're-going-to-war. As part of the sweeping tactical review, we're thinking of asking for the generalist frigate to take over the combat frigate's role entirely (which the Council should be happy about) but it won't be able to fulfil crash-build requirements as well. What if we asked for the combat role to be redefined as a purely combat vessel - everything the Federation hates in a vessel, optimised purely for combat efficiency/resource - which we only ever have on the books for crash-building purposes? We'd commit to only ever building one of these ships per class/refit (as the prototype run) unless we believed we were shortly going to be at war and needed combat power fast.

It would be an overall move towards less militarisation by phasing out combat-oriented vessels from regular production, whilst still ensuring we're able to build such vessels fast in times of war, not held back by a lack of prototyping.

Click to shrink...

I have a ... potentially stupid idea.

We go ahead a design such a completely combat-focused frigate and eat the design militarization cost.

We DON'T build this ship though. Instead, we leverage the more military nature of most of our member fleets, and in many cases, huge crew surpluses. Specifically, we'd loan them resources and berth space to build such ships, with their only responsibilities being to crew it and maintain it (or not, after SoEs are over).

I don't know if this is possible, but from a narrative standpoint, it should be feasible. At least, this sort of roundabout way to ramping up Federation strength during war might be more amenable to the Council than Starfleet directly building such ships and constantly increasing militarisation.

The by far most significant cost of a separate design is tying up a high skill team for 3 years.

Click to shrink...

On the other hand, if we're dealing with fairly incremental designs, like if this nominal Aphelion could reuse lots of frames and parts from the Kepler, it might not require 3 years of research, or even a high skill team. And really, the contributions of a single research team, even a high skill one, is still relatively small compared to the overall research effort in the long run. Research teams are still more of a bottleneck for new ship designs than pp and rp, but perhaps still not that much of one.

edit: sp

 

[Leila Hann]

I have a ... potentially stupid idea.

We go ahead a design such a completely combat-focused frigate and eat the design militarization cost.

We DON'T build this ship though. Instead, we leverage the more military nature of most of our member fleets, and in many cases, huge crew surpluses. Specifically, we'd loan them resources and berth space to build such ships, with their only responsibilities being to crew it and maintain it (or not, after SoEs are over).

I don't know if this is possible, but from a narrative standpoint, it should be feasible. At least, this sort of roundabout way to ramping up Federation strength during war might be more amenable to the Council than Starfleet directly building such ships and constantly increasing militarisation.

Click to shrink...

Problem, Councilor Stesk?

 

[Simon_Jester]

Older stuff:

I'm pretty sure SWB's point is premised on future explorers and future frigates that he's statted out having comparable crew efficiency. Since we're dealing only with vanguard and later phases, and the effects of S and D are far less important than CHL here, let's assume crew efficiency here is just (C+H+L)/(O+E+T).

Click to shrink...

Can you give me concrete examples? I've honestly forgotten what I should expect "future frigates" and "future explorers" to even look like anymore. And from what you're telling me, I can't use the past as even a vague guideline towards future patterns.

Put that together and I might as well pack it in and not bother.

 

[lbmaian]

Can you give me concrete examples? I've honestly forgotten what I should expect "future frigates" and "future explorers" to even look like anymore. And from what you're telling me, I can't use the past as even a vague guideline towards future patterns.

Put that together and I might as well pack it in and not bother.

Click to shrink...

Sure.

2323 Generalist frigate:
Sci-Fi - Starfleet Ship Design Bureau ("To Boldly Go...") | Page 176
Vanguard+main battle crew efficiency: (4+4+5)/(1+3+3) ~= 1.86 (ignores 22% evasion)

2327 Light explorer:
Sci-Fi - Starfleet Ship Design Bureau ("To Boldly Go...") | Page 170
Vanguard+main battle crew efficiency: (7+5+7)/(4+4+4) ~= 1.58 (ignores 12.5% evasion)

Mind, estimated design years aren't the same (although still pretty close), and I don't know how optimized these designs are. Automated subframes may also change the picture. Anyway, the crew efficiency is drawing pretty close by this point.

edit: I also don't know how more combat-focused frigate and explorer designs would compare. Mirandas are hardly generalist frigates, after all.