Does scrapping Soyuz literally mean that, or can we just sell them to less advanced affiliates of the Federation for whom they would still be worth something and would be a way for them to gain experience with starships.
 
Does scrapping Soyuz literally mean that, or can we just sell them to less advanced affiliates of the Federation for whom they would still be worth something and would be a way for them to gain experience with starships.
I think in this decommission them and send them to the breakers to recover what resources we can.

Also build plan is uncontested, name is currently 8 to 5 Endurance vs Discovery, there are 3 other names receiving a vote each
 
Does scrapping Soyuz literally mean that, or can we just sell them to less advanced affiliates of the Federation for whom they would still be worth something and would be a way for them to gain experience with starships.
The way I understood it, they're basically flying rustbuckets that keep malfunctioning. Who would want them?
 
[X][NAME] Discovery
[X] Plan Build Excelsior and 4 Centaur-A
[X] Scrap Soyuz
Does scrapping Soyuz literally mean that, or can we just sell them to less advanced affiliates of the Federation for whom they would still be worth something and would be a way for them to gain experience with starships.
Literal scrapping. The Soyuz class ships are falling apart.
 
Hi everybody!

I've been frantically trying to archive-trawl my way through this quest fast enough to keep up with you for some time now... right now I'm about up to half way through 2406. I started a-omakeing as I went, but I wanted to make a few general remarks.

Oneiros, may I just say that this is a beautiful little combat engine you've come up with. If you ever find a way to make money off it, you deserve every penny.

Also, the entire Biophage crisis made magnificent reading, as I fondly imagine it made for delightful gameplay. It was good to see the original characters, including and especially Blue Lesbian Kirk (who is now part of my Star Trek headcanon). It was also good to see the TOS cast bouncing around on the edges of the conflict. In particular the many sighs of relief posters expressed when "McCoy, Leonard H." showed up to help Starfleet Medical settle the Biophage's hash once and for all. And now to see Sulu step up into the Explorer Corps position.

...

I did have one question that has to do with @OneirosTheWriter 's org chart.

Victoria Eaton was promoted from command of Courageous to head of Starfleet Data Modeling. The omake I have in mind involves a conclusion drawn at the intersection between tactics and the results of simulations.

The question is, is Eaton an appropriate person to give a presentation on high-level conclusions regarding a mixed military-political audience on this subject? I'm hoping she hasn't just been promoted above the level where we get to keep paying attention to her. :(
 
I just had a thought regarding the build plan. We've currently got two Centaur class ships active. Should we drop one of the new-build Centaur Refits to refit both of the old ones?
 
Yeah, dropping construction of one Centaur to finish retrofitting two sounds bad, if we're trying to increase defensive potential as fast as possible up to some reasonable threshold. Taking two ships (temporarily) out of commission to add +2 to our defenses, while delaying a future +3 addition to our defenses, doesn't sound like it adds up. If it was me, I'd say leave the refits on existing hulls to be done after the first Centaur-As are available as proof of concept.

That's good IC naval engineering too, in my opinion. That way, if something turns out not to work in practice on the actual refitted design, we haven't accidentally messed up the ships we already have.
 
Also, the refit for Centaurs won't be available until Q4 of this year. The four we are planning on building will be standard Centaurs.
 
I did have one question that has to do with @OneirosTheWriter 's org chart.

Victoria Eaton was promoted from command of Courageous to head of Starfleet Data Modeling. The omake I have in mind involves a conclusion drawn at the intersection between tactics and the results of simulations.

The question is, is Eaton an appropriate person to give a presentation on high-level conclusions regarding a mixed military-political audience on this subject? I'm hoping she hasn't just been promoted above the level where we get to keep paying attention to her. :(
Oneiros is probably sleeping by now, but my opinon: Eaton is certainly qualified for that, and while tactics aren't really within her current responsibilities Starfleet Data Modeling doing something of that nature in cooperation with Starfleet Tactical Command sounds reasonable enough to me, and sure, why shouldn't Eaton give a presentation on the results?
 
We're delaying until one quarter before the next shipyards event? Wouldn't building them now to get the hulls out and active be more effective than saving one quarter?
We currently have neither the resources nor the finished design, so no. Also building and then refitting is a bit more expensive.
 
One thing that bugs me, why would we have to construct Constitution-Bs instead of refitting mothballed hulls? I get that the basic logic of the quest is driven by keeping fleet sizes down to a manageable level, but there were at least a dozen Connies once upon a time, and a lot of them must have gone into mothballs when the class was retired in the 2290s (end of The Undiscovered Country, more or less).

Or do the costs we've been seeing reflect the (extensive) refits required?

Or is this just something I've missed because I'm not fully caught up yet?
 
One thing that bugs me, why would we have to construct Constitution-Bs instead of refitting mothballed hulls? I get that the basic logic of the quest is driven by keeping fleet sizes down to a manageable level, but there were at least a dozen Connies once upon a time, and a lot of them must have gone into mothballs when the class was retired in the 2290s (end of The Undiscovered Country, more or less).

Or do the costs we've been seeing reflect the (extensive) refits required?

Or is this just something I've missed because I'm not fully caught up yet?
Well, @OneirosTheWriter hasn't said if there are any others beside the one still in service existing, so best to assume not until told otherwise. And in any case, the Connie-B refit is all about making it classified as a LC so it can be built in 3 years rather than 4, and with less crew(most notably, it has worse stats in some areas), it doesn't help any existing Connies in any ways
 
I guess what's confusing me is, in terms of in-game logic, are we actually talking about a modified Constitution-class ship, or an entirely new design that just happens to be Connie-shaped?

In the latter case, it seems really, really weird if all the hulls of the Connies historically in service had been scrapped as of 2300, leaving only Cheron even in existence. In the former case, you'd think we could still reactivate some of those hulls and modify them, even if we'd need completely new crews and a lot of special resources to fabricate new equipment that replaces old equipment.
 
I guess what's confusing me is, in terms of in-game logic, are we actually talking about a modified Constitution-class ship, or an entirely new design that just happens to be Connie-shaped?

In the latter case, it seems really, really weird if all the hulls of the Connies historically in service had been scrapped as of 2300, leaving only Cheron even in existence. In the former case, you'd think we could still reactivate some of those hulls and modify them, even if we'd need completely new crews and a lot of special resources to fabricate new equipment that replaces old equipment.
What do you want me to say? We can't magic a dozen Connies into existence because it's not logical according to canon they were scrapped at this time, even though they would help immensely.
 
I guess what's confusing me is, in terms of in-game logic, are we actually talking about a modified Constitution-class ship, or an entirely new design that just happens to be Connie-shaped?

In the latter case, it seems really, really weird if all the hulls of the Connies historically in service had been scrapped as of 2300, leaving only Cheron even in existence. In the former case, you'd think we could still reactivate some of those hulls and modify them, even if we'd need completely new crews and a lot of special resources to fabricate new equipment that replaces old equipment.

Presumably they were also lost in our predecessor's fight with the Federation Council over militarization that gave us the silly fleet that we started with.
 
Back
Top