To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest)

[Chaos Blade]

In and by itself that sounds sensible, but there is also a vote otion that says: Hold as practicable, but withdraw if the Cardassians push. This only makes sense if "aim to hold" means "and keep trying to hold it even if the Cardassains push". I am not ready for that kind of commitment, especially as we voted for a fleet distribution that doesn't put a heavy emphasis on reinforcing the GBZ, namely 'Less GBZ, More CBZ and HBZ'.

[X][NASH] Hold as practicable, but withdraw if the Cardassians push

[X][LIGHT] Change Civilian Colony Building to Yellow Light in Miele subsector, automatically change to yellow light in any subsector if all adjacent GBZ subsectors are fully explored, fortified and uncontested.

Click to shrink...

I think the difference is how much effort is put into keeping Enio, and how much an issue we will make it.
I feel that by fortifying it, making a show of intent to the Cardies, we might get more political goodwill from the Ashala pact members. a lukewarm effort would seem neither one nor the other and would let the Cardies the idea that they can out-will us.
We really don't want that.

The issue with aim to hold is that we want to make Enio ours, that is the intent. it is, I believe, and here I agree with @Nix, a matter of how much we are willing to commit to keep it. it is far from being an " all in" vote in my opinion.
the second option, otoh, seems more like a try and hold it, if possible, but invest nothing into the sector, meaning we can cut it off easier.
And given how expensive this whole endeavor was, both in men and material, it would make us seem indecisive to the Cardies, weak willed.

Bear this in mind, if we do not fortify it, we will surely see a cardassian attempt there, if we do, we are likely to see a feint or proves but I don't think we will see a concentrated effort in the short term.

In other words, we would be sending them a message in a language they can understand and might allow us to reach a compromise at a latter date

 

[Nix]

In and by itself that sounds sensible, but there is also a vote option that says: Hold as practicable, but withdraw if the Cardassians push. This only makes sense if "aim to hold" means "and keep trying to hold it even if the Cardassians push".

Click to shrink...

Of course it includes "and keep trying to hold it even if the Cardassians push a bit", i. e. be willing to fight a battle that's even enough we aren't assured of victory. The point is that there is no basis at all for treating it as "and keep trying to hold it no matter how hard the Cardassians push". I'm not claiming threshold for bailing is identical. I am claiming that the threshold for bailing is still pretty reasonable.

 

[Chaos Blade]

Of course it includes "and keep trying to hold it even if the Cardassians push a bit", i. e. be willing to fight a battle that's even enough we aren't assured of victory. The point is that there is no basis at all for treating it as "and keep trying to hold it no matter how hard the Cardassians push". I'm not claiming threshold for bailing is identical. I am claiming that the threshold for bailing is still pretty reasonable.

Click to shrink...

Ultimately, we could request clarification from the Quest Master and co...

 

[SynchronizedWritersBlock]

But the commander is Nash Ka'Sharren. Her thresholds for engagement are already higher than normal. She sees an equal fight as one she can risk, and she sees unequal fights as necessary for an objective. This has been her policy since the Battle of Kadesh. I do not want to encourage her to double down on a high threshold for retreat! Her high thresholds will be higher than what other people, including us, consider normal and acceptably risky.

This isn't an existential threat like Kadesh. It's not a war-winning move like Ixaria Approach. This is a long-term attritional strategy to buy us time to develop and fortify the rest of the GBZ. Committing harder to defense isn't necessary or desirable.

 

[Chaos Blade]

But the commander is Nash Ka'Sharren. Her thresholds for engagement are already higher than normal. She sees an equal fight as one she can risk, and she sees unequal fights as necessary for an objective. This has been her policy since the Battle of Kadesh. I do not want to encourage her to double down on a high threshold for retreat! Her high thresholds will be higher than what other people, including us, consider normal and acceptably risky.

This isn't an existential threat like Kadesh. It's not a war-winning move like Ixaria Approach. This is a long-term attritional strategy to buy us time to develop and fortify the rest of the GBZ. Committing harder to defense isn't necessary or desirable.

Click to shrink...

I am not seeing how fortifying Enio runs counter-purpose towards fortifying and securing the rest of Gabriel.
Yes, Nash is agressive, and she has committed in circumstances were many wouldn't but... we put her there for that reason.
She also isn't an idiot. if we fortify Enyo we bolster the odds of keeping Enyo.
yes Nash will be bold and agressive there as well, but we will be commiting more resources and, I'd suggest more personnel as well, to her command and it should be enough to disuade Cardassian Antics in the short term (at least any serious antics, a prove or what not shouldn't be unexpected)

Additionally, think how the council would take our withdrawal from Enyo? after all the lives and ships lost there? that would be a political hot potato... we need to keep something off this ill thought adventure, and Enyo is it.

 

[Nix]

And look at what happened to the Cardassians at 24 Enio and again at 45 Gabriel. Even a fighting retreat will bleed us ships left and right. Retreats will be at a heavy price, and fixed defenses on the scale we can deploy out here at the tail end of our logistics chain with one engineering team are trash worth about 1-2 ships. Unless you want to build double starbases with quadruple weapons platforms, but I don't think we have that option.

Click to shrink...

IIRC we have seen an engineering team in the GBZ build a station in 1 quarter, and an outpost in 2 quarters. And we know that between the 2314.Q4 and 2315.Q3 GBZ reports all of the following were completed by the three engineering teams present:

• Three outposts reinforced
• Repair yard completed (probably took 1 engineering quarter to finish)
• A series of minefields layed at strategic points

That means that at most each of those tasks can require an engineering quarter. A weapons platform is almost certainly easier to construct than a station, so we can probably construct two in a single quarter (if they take a quarter they would be too useless compared to just building a station instead).

Assuming the Cardassians wait 2 years (they could launch a small attack much sooner but that's how long I'd expect before they feel ready for a major battle again) an engineering team dedicated to a location could build a second outpost, reinforce both outposts, lay a triple strength minefield, and build a pair of weapons platforms.

Minefields and outposts are not potent. We have seen exactly how potent they are and they bleed at most 3 smaller ships from a fleet, more likely 2 smaller ships. We would need an order of magnitude greater defenses to raise the ante acceptably.

Basically, the two orders will shift the threshold for an acceptable fight after accounting for defenses. And we have seen that defenses are only worth <10% anyway. The plan that chooses more fights because it has "aim to hold" is a bad plan, because we should not be choosing close fights.

Click to shrink...

How much of a difference outposts (and weapons platforms) make depends on the size of the battle. In a small to mid sized battle even a single reinforced outpost (C9 H15 L15) is a big deal. With the current GBZ garrision we can't post a fleet big enough to make fixed defenses irrelevant, so if the Cardassians send a huge fleet we need to bail anyway. In an actual battle I'd expect outposts and weapons platforms to be somewhere between 20% and 50% of our C+L+H score, and that doesn't even account for the minefield. A realistic fleet might be something like 1 Excelsior, 2 Renaissance, 2 Centaur, 3 Miranda on our side, and even that might be pushing it. We are not going to be able to park the entire GBZ fleet in Enio all the time.

 

[SynchronizedWritersBlock]

I am not seeing how fortifying Enio runs counter-purpose towards fortifying and securing the rest of Gabriel.
Yes, Nash is agressive, and she has committed in circumstances were many wouldn't but... we put her there for that reason.
She also isn't an idiot. if we fortify Enyo we bolster the odds of keeping Enyo.
yes Nash will be bold and agressive there as well, but we will be commiting more resources and, I'd suggest more personnel as well, to her command and it should be enough to disuade Cardassian Antics in the short term (at least any serious antics, a prove or what not shouldn't be unexpected)

Additionally, think how the council would take our withdrawal from Enyo? after all the lives and ships lost there? that would be a political hot potato... we need to keep something off this ill thought adventure, and Enyo is it.

Click to shrink...

Anything that ups Nash's threshold for acceptable engagement means we will likely lose more ships, up to and including an entire fleet, in those riskier engagements. You think we can hold the rest of Gabriel with half our ships destroyed? This is a situation where fortifying makes the "lose everything" condition far more likely.

In order to hold all of Gabriel, the number one consideration is to keep the fleet intact. Without the fleet, we lose the entire expanse. As long as we can wave the fleet around, the Cardassians can't commit to a full offensive. As long as we have enough ships to patrol, the Cardassians can't aggressively raid without many losses. And so on.

 

[Night_stalker]

[X][NASH] Hold as practicable, but withdraw if the Cardassians push

[X][LIGHT] Change Civilian Colony Building to Yellow Light in Miele subsector, automatically change to yellow light in any subsector if all adjacent GBZ subsectors are fully explored, fortified and uncontested.

 

[Nix]

Anything that ups Nash's threshold for acceptable engagement means we will likely lose more ships, up to and including an entire fleet, in those riskier engagements. You think we can hold the rest of Gabriel with half our ships destroyed? This is a situation where fortifying makes the "lose everything" condition far more likely.

In order to hold all of Gabriel, the number one consideration is to keep the fleet intact. Without the fleet, we lose the entire expanse. As long as we can wave the fleet around, the Cardassians can't commit to a full offensive. As long as we have enough ships to patrol, the Cardassians can't aggressively raid without many losses. And so on.

Click to shrink...

Nash probably won't even be the admiral in charge by the time of the next attack, since she's scheduled to be out in 3 quarters. And even in the worst case scenario of losing half of the Starfleet garrison force there would still be the member fleets and the other outposts at other locations, and it's not like the Cardassian fleet would remain undamaged. Pushing past Enio immediately would be a gamble for them even in that case.

 

[charysa]

[X][NASH] Hold as practicable, but withdraw if the Cardassians push

I'm pretty sure the Cardassians are putting together a counterattack right now, with the reinforcements they called in. Y'know, just like what we did when we called in our reinforcements after losing the Republic. So IMO this vote is only going to be useful in determining how much ships and people we lose in that fight.

Also, we've been "sending messages" and "showing intent" to them ever since we met and with every fight, diplomatic, espionage, and military. But it's never affected the next time they attacked or ran espionage against us, so I don't see any point in nebulously sending them messages through our actions. Let the FDS communicate our intent through a comm signal like a normal polity does things.

 

[Gingganz]

In other words, we would be sending them a message in a language they can understand and might allow us to reach a compromise at a latter date

Click to shrink...

We have already sent the message I wanted to send: "Fuck with us and we fuck you right back."

If we fortify Enio, the message looks more like: "The GBZ is our. Get out!" I doubt the Cardassians are willing to accept that without a major war.

The way I see it, we have to find a balance: If we are to nice, the Cardassians will see us as weak and get aggressive. If we push too hard, however, their pride will force them into all-out war. Neither alternative is appealing.

 

[Chaos Blade]

Anything that ups Nash's threshold for acceptable engagement means we will likely lose more ships, up to and including an entire fleet, in those riskier engagements. You think we can hold the rest of Gabriel with half our ships destroyed? This is a situation where fortifying makes the "lose everything" condition far more likely.

In order to hold all of Gabriel, the number one consideration is to keep the fleet intact. Without the fleet, we lose the entire expanse. As long as we can wave the fleet around, the Cardassians can't commit to a full offensive. As long as we have enough ships to patrol, the Cardassians can't aggressively raid without many losses. And so on.

Click to shrink...

And this is the problem, we aren't planning orders in related to the objective we want to keep, we are planning orders taking into account qualities of the transient field commander we have there at the moment.
@Nix is right that before the year is done, Nash is going to be out of the hot seat at Gabriel, so planning orders based on how nash will interpret them is... less than wisse.

Yes, we should consider what our commanders will do with their marching orders, but up to a point.
But how that goes from keeping Gabriel to Loosing the fleet? you lost me.
Do you think the Cardassians have the numbers to do a massed attack *now*? we should have the better part of a year to reinforce Enio, both with infrastructure and ships.

Do you really expect a short term all out effort from Ashala? if so, why?

Specially if we show we are willing to commit for Enio? you think they will try then? risk it all? that goes against what we know of the Cardassians...

We have already sent the message I wanted to send: "Fuck with us and we fuck you right back."

If we fortify Enio, the message looks more like: "The GBZ is our. Get out!" I doubt the Cardassians are willing to accept that without a major war.

The way I see it, we have to find a balance: If we are to nice, the Cardassians will see us as weak and get aggressive. If we push too hard, however, their pride will force them into all-out war. Neither alternative is appealing.

Click to shrink...

No. we responded to their attacks by counterattacking, that is reaction. Fortifying Enio would be a deliberate action: This we'll keep.
Not fortifying Enio would work against us. Think Cardassianly here, how would they see this action? they think us culturally weak, and not taking this action would work to cement that on top of that we are indecisive... might even be a worse option than withdrawing (no, actually withdrawing would be the worst option)

EDIT: fixing doublepost

 

[Raron]

Nobody mentioned that Enio sector may be rich in resources by itself? We only know of strategical locations where the Cardassians have built outposts, but that doesn't mean that there aren't any more in that sector (example Dorsata has only one mine built, but 5 unbuilt yet). Their exploration of the sector has hit 100%, but we haven't even begun exploring it.

Likewise, if they gather up a fleet big enough to overrun Enio, why would they stop there? We where only required to stop due to the fact that there was a starbase blocking us. If we go full retreat, there is nothing stopping them from attacking Firefly and Dorsata sectors, and through them other sectors. Enio is a strategic location since it forces them to a fight on our terms. And abandoning everything we currently hold and for which we payed a heavy price seems foolish. This is not a war in which we need to eliminate as many ships as we can, this is colonization race. While we do need to preserve our ships, we likewise need to capture territory and deny the enemy their spoils.


@Redhead222 your vote is currently not counting due to missing of brackets since you miss brackets

 

[Redhead222]

@Redhead222 your vote is currently not counting due to missing of brackets since you miss brackets

Click to shrink...

thanks and edited

 

[SynchronizedWritersBlock]

And this is the problem, we aren't planning orders in related to the objective we want to keep, we are planning orders taking into account qualities of the transient field commander we have there at the moment.
@Nix is right that before the year is done, Nash is going to be out of the hot seat at Gabriel, so planning orders based on how nash will interpret them is... less than wisse.

Yes, we should consider what our commanders will do with their marching orders, but up to a point.
But how that goes from keeping Gabriel to Loosing the fleet? you lost me.
Do you think the Cardassians have the numbers to do a massed attack *now*? we should have the better part of a year to reinforce Enio, both with infrastructure and ships.

Do you really expect a short term all out effort from Ashala? if so, why?

Specially if we show we are willing to commit for Enio? you think they will try then? risk it all? that goes against what we know of the Cardassians...

Click to shrink...

Setting aside Nash, then, even though I think that is extremely unwise...

If we want to keep our holdings in the Gabriel Expanse, the whole thing, we need to keep our GBZ fleet intact. What we can't do is fight riskier battles to "hold" a particular subsector for...no reason. If the Cardassians are taking Enio away from us, then they are committing enough forces to do so. Holding Enio becomes impossible the moment they can find the forces. But in the process of fighting for Enio, if we attrit away half the fleet in battles, then we will lose the entire GBZ.

The balance of fleets is very swing-y, if we lose half and they lose a quarter, then they can roll up the entire member commitment. The idea that we can lose more than once is false and based on faulty assumptions about attrition that have not played out over any battle we've fought in the game to date. Once enough of an advantage in strength is gained, there is no stalling a fleet.

The Cardassians won't attack unless they like their odds. But if they like their odds, we don't like our odds. That means that the only battles we fight will be disadvantageous to us. Advantageous battles won't happen, the Cardassians will choose not to attack. In the face of disadvantageous battles, we should choose not to fight, because again, losing means losing the entire GBZ.

Fortifying works best if we pressure them at the same time so that they have to risk attacking at a disadvantage, like Hybor did with his raiding prelude and the taking of prisoners. We aren't doing this; the Cardassians can form up a large fleet at their leisure. It doesn't matter if it takes a month or if it takes five years.

 

[Theunderbolt]

[X][NASH] Hold as practicable, but withdraw if the Cardassians push

[X][LIGHT] Change Civilian Colony Building to Yellow Light in Miele subsector, automatically change to yellow light in any subsector if all adjacent GBZ subsectors are fully explored, fortified and uncontested. Automatically change Mining Colony Building to green light in any subsector if all adjacent GBZ subsectors are fully explored, fortified and uncontested.

 

[Chaos Blade]

Setting aside Nash, then, even though I think that is extremely unwise...

If we want to keep our holdings in the Gabriel Expanse, the whole thing, we need to keep our GBZ fleet intact. What we can't do is fight riskier battles to "hold" a particular subsector for...no reason. If the Cardassians are taking Enio away from us, then they are committing enough forces to do so. Holding Enio becomes impossible the moment they can find the forces. But in the process of fighting for Enio, if we attrit away half the fleet in battles, then we will lose the entire GBZ.

The balance of fleets is very swing-y, if we lose half and they lose a quarter, then they can roll up the entire member commitment. The idea that we can lose more than once is false and based on faulty assumptions about attrition that have not played out over any battle we've fought in the game to date. Once enough of an advantage in strength is gained, there is no stalling a fleet.

The Cardassians won't attack unless they like their odds. But if they like their odds, we don't like our odds. That means that the only battles we fight will be disadvantageous to us. Advantageous battles won't happen, the Cardassians will choose not to attack. In the face of disadvantageous battles, we should choose not to fight, because again, losing means losing the entire GBZ.

Fortifying works best if we pressure them at the same time so that they have to risk attacking at a disadvantage, like Hybor did with his raiding prelude and the taking of prisoners. We aren't doing this; the Cardassians can form up a large fleet at their leisure. It doesn't matter if it takes a month or if it takes five years.

Click to shrink...

I am not seeing a reason to not Fortify Enio there.
Fortifying is also a way of deterrence, since means they will have to mass fleets to hit us, and that is a buildup that our intel department should see coming, unless they are asleep at their stations. and if that happens, we can reinforce our Gabriel force accordingly or, if we deem that unsuitable, to pull out.
So, the cardassians just got a kick in their teeth and have concluded a war on the opposite end of their territory... the idea that they will attack under those circumstances strikes me as extremely unlikely. us fortifying Enio is just telling them we will make a fight of it if they try...

And given that they are in worse shape than us, I don't see them rushing into a fight this soon, maybe next year, but by then we will have more hulls in gabriel and, again we should have a heads up if they try a stand up fight.
Worse comes worse, we can disengage then.

Yes, we do need the fleet intactish, but if we show unwillingness to commit to our gains, we are only proving the Cardassians right on their assessment of our character, and that *will* see an upsurge in their shenanigans within Gabriel.

 

[Void Stalker]

Cardassians may have the forces now, we did get Intel that they are moving in reinforcemnets now that their other war has ended

 

[tryrar]

[X][NASH] Order Rear Admiral ka'Sharren to fortify subsector Enio and aim to hold. You promise additional engineering resources.

[X][LIGHT] Change Civilian Colony Building to Green Light in Miele subsector, automatically change to Green Light in any subsector if all adjacent GBZ subsectors are fully explored, fortified and uncontested.

[X][LIGHT] All Member World - Fleet Unit GBZ Access - Green Light
All Member World - Auxiliary GBZ Access - Green Light

 

[Briefvoice]

Additionally, think how the council would take our withdrawal from Enyo? after all the lives and ships lost there? that would be a political hot potato... we need to keep something off this ill thought adventure, and Enyo is it.

Click to shrink...

We didn't launch that expedition to capture Enio sector. We did it to rescue the prisoners, and as a secondary activity to discourage more raiding. I think the Council will assume that Starfleet knows what it's doing, militarily speaking.

It's really interesting watching the same process that drives so many questionable military decisions in real life play out in this thread. People don't want to "look weak" and they're reluctant to give up territory that lives were spent taking, and it always leads to hanging on in a position even when it's not such a great idea to do so.

Yes, we do need the fleet intactish, but if we show unwillingness to commit to our gains, we are only proving the Cardassians right on their assessment of our character, and that *will* see an upsurge in their shenanigans within Gabriel.

Click to shrink...

Of course, an alternate Cardassian assessment of our character is, "Those dummies are are incapable of letting go of anything they take, even when it would be sensible to do so. Of course we would have released Enio in their place. Never over-extend yourself".

 

[SynchronizedWritersBlock]

I am not seeing a reason to not Fortify Enio there.
Fortifying is also a way of deterrence, since means they will have to mass fleets to hit us, and that is a buildup that our intel department should see coming, unless they are asleep at their stations. and if that happens, we can reinforce our Gabriel force accordingly or, if we deem that unsuitable, to pull out.
So, the cardassians just got a kick in their teeth and have concluded a war on the opposite end of their territory... the idea that they will attack under those circumstances strikes me as extremely unlikely. us fortifying Enio is just telling them we will make a fight of it if they try...

And given that they are in worse shape than us, I don't see them rushing into a fight this soon, maybe next year, but by then we will have more hulls in gabriel and, again we should have a heads up if they try a stand up fight.
Worse comes worse, we can disengage then.

Yes, we do need the fleet intactish, but if we show unwillingness to commit to our gains, we are only proving the Cardassians right on their assessment of our character, and that *will* see an upsurge in their shenanigans within Gabriel.

Click to shrink...

Fortification means more enemy forces are required, but the fortification vote as written also commits us to a different set of objectives. It is the different set of objectives, which would in turn raise the threshold for an acceptable battle, that I think are bad and wrong. You say at worst we can disengage, but this vote sets the circumstances under which we are willing to disengage.

They completely replaced their losses in the Gabriel by moving in assets from elsewhere. They have lower reserves outside, but their GBZ fleet is likely at full strength.

We never saw the reinforcements they got last time coming. We had inaccurate reports of Konen strength, still don't know Dylaarian strength, Intel was unable to furnish us with estimates of Cardassian reinforcement even after we took the outpost right next to 67 Gabriel... fact is we may see an attack coming, but we have no guarantee of seeing it. I seriously doubt we will see it coming far enough to rush in reinforcements fast enough to counter it. I give no credence to that idea whatsoever, given the travel time of our reinforcements in this last campaign. If you're saying we will see their buildup, well, we already have seen it: they should have approximate parity with our current forces given what Intel already told us.

The idea that we can demonstrate character to the Cardassians to affect their actions has repeatedly been dragged through the mud, and in any case, fortifying isn't demonstrating such character. We have to actually hunt and destroy their assets to do that. Turtling up looks weak. Affect the enemy by killing things they care about.

 

[SuperSonicSound]

I'm not sure I understand SWBs point very well here, he's arguing that holding the system isn't feasible no matter how many defences we plonk down because the Cardassians can mass a giant fleet of ships and we'll lose our ships in the engagement. Doesn't that then logically follow that the GBZ is already lost?

If we can't hold the system with a giant fleet ball and as many fixed points of defence that we can shove into the system how can we hold any part of the GBZ where we won't have those kind of defences in place?

 

[Katsuragi]

[X][NASH] Order Rear Admiral ka'Sharren to fortify subsector Enio and aim to hold. You promise additional engineering resources.
(Options will be added to the Snakepit to apportion resources - failing to follow through on support will almost certainly lead to disaster)

 

[Chaos Blade]

Cardassians may have the forces now, we did get Intel that they are moving in reinforcemnets now that their other war has ended

Click to shrink...

They might have the hulls, but do keep in mind they just finished a war not too long ago. there is a question of how willing to go all in against us they are, because treaties asides, if they try too hard it could devolve into a general war.
I feel it will be some time before they try something, if we fortify Enio.
They need to lick their wounds and start integrating those worlds they took, so the question is how much time we have before they decide to give it another go. they do desperately need a win against us but, how far will they go to try?
The Syndraxians? are closer to us than to them today.
Their last push ended in a bloody nose and some land gains for us.


They aren't idiots nor a poorly commanded AI in a PC game, so... what will they try and when are the questions we should be asking ourseves. Frankly, I don't think we will see anything serious short term, specially if we fortify Enio.
And if we do, we will also have sensors aimed at the enemy starbase...

 

[Gnarker]

@OneirosTheWriter, @Leila Hann, @AKuz, @Iron Wolf, to clear up all this arguing, what do the GBZ votes actually mean in regards to how comitted we are? If our intent is 'commit to holding and building additional defenses enough to see off any minor raids and modest attacks, but in the event of major Ashalla attacks sufficient to out-/match our combined fleet and defenses, do a fighting retreat with the intent of dragging them through as many minefields as possible without losing too many ships of our own' which of the options given would reflect that? Or do we need to do an intermediary write-in, that combines the 'Hold as practicable but withdraw as necessary' with 'Aim to hold's defense-building?

Separately, are we sufficiently far along to unilaterally redlight attacks on Sydraxian claims, or do we need to wait on the politicians for that? Similarly, how would 'Attack on Dylaarian claims: Red Light, but with provisional Yellow Light in the event of major or prolonged Dylaarian attacks on the Federation and her allies' be received? They did make some abortive attempts during the last campaign, if those continue we may want/need to react in kind.