Yes!
If I had to vote for a plan that wasn't my own, this would be it. I'll leave it a few hours, maybe a day or two, before committing though.
To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest)
- Thread starter OneirosTheWriter
- Start date
- Sci-Fi
-
- Tags
- star trek exploration fully automated luxury gay space communism top level canon #hashtagcontent all-encompassing space amoeba cardassian boy bands cardassian magical girls darkest bureaucracy debate makes the qm cackle like palpatine hoh is an empire quest it has to be foreign infiltrators more ships ship happens singers delenda est starfleet this is not an empire quest ur waifu is collective?
Yes!
If I had to vote for a plan that wasn't my own, this would be it. I'll leave it a few hours, maybe a day or two, before committing though.
- Location
- Patriarchova
Auxiliaries go without saying, and they've never been given stats. No need to bother defining those roles.
Some changes. Adapted @Briefvoice's system of stat reqs for roles, but no new combat frigate yet. Added his phase-out system and added a "soft" time restriction for phase-out. Added some roles or descriptions of roles that are specific to doctrine: vanguard line should receive vanguard cruiser bonuses, vanguard frigate will need torps to use torpedo charge, and so on. Added @AKuz's SIGINT role as I feel an eventual SIGINT profile later for the Oberth would reflect what we might want to do with them after the Kepler is deployed. Clarified the Connie-B.
- Location
- Germany
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Why do we have ressource restrictions in the role definition? That type of restriction is fluent and depends on available income, production facilities and demand.
- Location
- alphen aan den rijn
yes because humor is so eazy to notice in text format
- Location
- Patriarchova
This. I was going to put a resource limit on my Light Garrison role, but realized there was really no reason for them. If the ship wasn't cheap, it would have good enough stats to be either a Science Ship or a Heavy Garrison. We'll never build an expensive ship that doesn't qualify for another role.
Last edited:
- Location
- Germany
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Even the stats are only snapshots valid at a certain point in time, prone to change with technological developments/threats.
[x] SynchronizedWritersBlock
- Location
- somewhere
To be frank it seems more than just a bit inappropriate. And it doesn't seem to fulfill half the actual purpose such a system is supposed to have, or at least neglects to state how it's supposed to do it?
A tactical role system is needed for two things:
- Define how ships are supposed to be used.
- Giving a framework for specifying the needs for a new class, in preparation for requesting a class design project.
Perhaps (2) won't be needed anymore and we can just request any role combination in the snakepit going forward? This is precisely why I don't like it that you as co-DM are proposing this, it's not at all clear whether the plan is supposed to imply a DM-ruling that would make it work and fit for purpose or not.
Last edited:
AKuz
Been Better
- Location
- A Rising Tide of Horrors
- Pronouns
- She/Her
[x] SynchronizedWritersBlock
- Location
- Patriarchova
I'm in kind of an awkward position here, because my DM duties pretty much consist of writing captain's logs and presenting tactical options during some story arcs (the latter of which are all stamped by Oneiros). I don't really know much about the ship building system, I don't work directly with the combat engine, and when it comes to event generation/response I just use the mechanics I've been given.
In other words: the parts of the game that I master overlap only very minimally with this vote, and I always have Oneiros overseeing it when that overlap comes up.
That said, I obviously am very close to the situation and may not be able to judge it objectively. If other people agree that I shouldn't be proposing a plan for this vote, I'll take it down.
Last edited:
I would sure be in favor of getting rid of #2. This whole business feels like a bunch of pointless hoop-jumping to me. I don't know why we need the Tactical Operations gatekeeping device. If we want to do a new ship design we should be able to request it in the Snakepit. End of story.
The 60 SR limit is no problem and I consider keeping the combat frigate spammable a good thing. If I had an idea what crew costs would be on a modern design I'd impose a crew limit too.
On second thought, I like both of these plans. They're both simple and to-the-point.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
... But I LIKED the idea of stat requirements not being attached to roles, so that roles can be kept unchanged as new generations of ships emerge to fulfill them with better tools...
[This is now obsolete]
I think this is important and can stand to be shouted more loudly.
In SWB's system, roles were things we use ships FOR. Whether the ship is particularly good at that role is beside the point. Mirandas answer distress calls because every ship does so. It's an empirical fact of one of the capacities, or roles, that we use our ships in.
Meanwhile, profiles were kinds of ships we need. That is, ships that fill certain related clusters of roles. Llike "Five Year Missions, serving as flagships, and being heavy-hitting battlewagons in wartime." Three disparate roles, which all require a big, versatile, high-powered ship. The profile of a ship that can do all these different jobs implicitly tells us the design specifications: "It needs to be tough and survivable, have every type of facility we can fit into the largest possible hull, and be heavily armed. Expense is a secondary concern." We end up designing an Ambassador.
A different cluster of roles might lead us to a different type of ship design with different requirements. Say, "serving as interior sector flagships, being heavy-hitting battlewagons, and participating in the Vanguard phase" might result in us designing a big heavy cruiser like the Kaldar-class, even though there's clear overlap with the roles of an Ambassador.
The two classes of things were clearly differentiated.
That is, a "role" is simply a name for what a ship does, not what it is. A "profile" is what a ship needs to be and have in order to fulfill a related cluster of roles.
I... rather liked that.
Night
Widow Null
- Location
- Hoff
To be honest @Nix I'm unclear on why you believe a sweeping tactical rework would not examine eliminating or revamping parts of the system, such as the class-request system. All the more so because were are in an escalating game of new classes and refits with our rivals and the old one wasn't very responsive.
Goldenlima
Statistical Anomaly
Might want to stick a maximum build time requirement on the role if it's supposed to be spammable.
- Location
- Actually pretty lost
I think that you're fine on the basis that as you said you don't actually have any control or special insight into the relevant mechanics, but that's not at all obvious to the casual reader. Hell, your plan triggered an alert for the thread! I don't think you should take it down, but in future very maybe explicitly spell out in the disclaimer exactly how disconnected from the relevant mechanics you are in as much detail as you did in this post?
- Location
- somewhere
It would help to be very very explicit (to the degree of stating/repeating what you think is already obvious/known) about (a) in what capacity you are posting (e. g. just as a player), (b) what sort of secret background knowledge might have influenced the post (e. g. just knowledge of the event system, and whether that gave you any insights that you think made a substantial difference), and (c) whether there are any implicit QM rulings to assume (such as whether the plan is actually rule-conformant). Not just in this case but whenever you and/or the other co-QMs are participating as players.
It also seems like asking Oneiros whether a plan proposed by one of his co-QMs is rule-conformant would be rather awkward.
Last edited:
This is a fine summary but doesn't guide ship design or provide outlines for how to define new designs from new needs or how to rid ourselves of old designs, specify a refit project, and so on. I appreciate the clarity, but we actually need a fair bit of crunch in this vote because it interacts directly with the SDB sheet.
If we take what you've listed at face value, our most pressing need would be a more numerous heavy garrison ship and we would have far too much light garrison coverage and adequate skirmishers. Also we wouldn't define any new ships even though that's why we chose to spend the PP on this right now.
[X][ROLES] Plan Leila Hann
I take voting for Leila Hann's plan as a vote for "let's do away with all this bullcrap and just order the ships we think we need when we think we need them".
