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 (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?
aren't we giving them to the member fleets at one point?
pheonix89
Wants to be Seven Of Nine
- Location
- North American Plaguelands
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Oh, I have no problem mostly stopping Excelsior construction for Ambassadors if we can make a 3 mt Ambassador without serious losses (they're still good use for the 2.5 mt berths) but phasing them out isn't that great an idea until much later. Remember that a total stats being equal, a single larger ship is at a big advantage, so phasing out explorers and heavy cruisers should be very rare.
Nope. Not sure where this came from. They don't get phased out until we start hitting Combat cap, if we desperately need the crew for our build capabilites of Rennies/Excelsiors/Ambassadors, or if they have Soyuz-style systemic failures. We just stop building them the minute the Rennie is available.
That was only talked about in an omake, and as an idle discussion rather than any kind of actual agreement at that. We're not any more obligated to hand them over to member fleets than we are any other ships we build
- Location
- Tulsa Oklahoma
Why do our member states have a need for their own independent fleet separate from starfleet? I mean, with the ban on member home fleet from leaving orbit of their home planet, it makes said ships pointless wastes of crew and material that could be useful for the Federation as a whole. Also, as long as home fleets exist, there is the risk of schisms to expand into civil wars. Such a danger is, to me, intolerable, so I would hope to have home fleets as an institution disbanded, or at the very least prohibited from carrying any form of shipboard weaponry.
pheonix89
Wants to be Seven Of Nine
- Location
- North American Plaguelands
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Looking at non explorer canon ships from the front page and how long we'll probably keep using them. The Explorers are largely a straight upgrade path to the end, where we get the questionable utility of the Ambassador-Galaxy upgrade for non Explorer Corps ships, and the Galaxy-Sovereign sidegrade.
The Rennie will probably keep getting built even after we get the Niagara and Nebula, because the Rennie's the best generalist ship at/under 1 mt till the Intrepid shows up and obseletes all ships on that scale other than the Defiant. Seriously take a look at the statline and costs on that thing - Excelsior level stats save for science 10!, dirt cheap for its era, uses escort berths.
We'll never get the Nebula. Relative to the ambassador it gives up 1 combat, 3 science, 1 shield and 2 presence for 5 hull. Oh, and it gets less lone ranger perks. And needs more crew. And isn't even cheaper. And needs 4mt berths, while we can probably squeeze the ambassador down to 3mt.
Akiras are sweet. Fit in a 2.5 mt berth, almost match the Defiant for combat, and have pretty good presence and great defense.
New Orleans is a straight upgrade to the Centaur.
The Saber is junk. Literally just a cheaper pre-refit Centaur with one more point of D. It's not even quicker to build - literally the only time it's worth building is if we're in a hideous hideous br/sr crunch, but not a berth or crew crunch and need combat power so badly that it's worth building something inferior to something 2 generations old.
The Steamrunner is meh. It's a worse fighter than the Intrepid, and from the same timeframe, and of course terribly inferior at non-combat. It's also cheaper and has a lower crew cost. Worth using in a mix with Intrepids. Assuming the Defiant isn't an option.
The Defiant is flatly the best combat ship in the game. Everything that can hope to fight it one vs one is much more expensive and takes longer to build. Akiras are a close. Problem is that there's going to be militarization issues with spamming them.
The Rennie will probably keep getting built even after we get the Niagara and Nebula, because the Rennie's the best generalist ship at/under 1 mt till the Intrepid shows up and obseletes all ships on that scale other than the Defiant. Seriously take a look at the statline and costs on that thing - Excelsior level stats save for science 10!, dirt cheap for its era, uses escort berths.
We'll never get the Nebula. Relative to the ambassador it gives up 1 combat, 3 science, 1 shield and 2 presence for 5 hull. Oh, and it gets less lone ranger perks. And needs more crew. And isn't even cheaper. And needs 4mt berths, while we can probably squeeze the ambassador down to 3mt.
Akiras are sweet. Fit in a 2.5 mt berth, almost match the Defiant for combat, and have pretty good presence and great defense.
New Orleans is a straight upgrade to the Centaur.
The Saber is junk. Literally just a cheaper pre-refit Centaur with one more point of D. It's not even quicker to build - literally the only time it's worth building is if we're in a hideous hideous br/sr crunch, but not a berth or crew crunch and need combat power so badly that it's worth building something inferior to something 2 generations old.
The Steamrunner is meh. It's a worse fighter than the Intrepid, and from the same timeframe, and of course terribly inferior at non-combat. It's also cheaper and has a lower crew cost. Worth using in a mix with Intrepids. Assuming the Defiant isn't an option.
The Defiant is flatly the best combat ship in the game. Everything that can hope to fight it one vs one is much more expensive and takes longer to build. Akiras are a close. Problem is that there's going to be militarization issues with spamming them.
That's literally never been an issue, and it's above our paygrade. Also, freaking colony ships have weapons, so no, member disarmament isn't happening. Especially given that any starship is a WMD.
Last edited:
There are probably factions in the government who believe the same as you, but it doesn't look like they have the influence to push such a thing through. Instead of disarmament, I suspect merger into Starfleet is more palatable.
We're not going to keep the Renaissance either. Or the Centaur. Or (if the quest lasts long enough) the Excelsior. Every ship has its day. And every day comes to an end.
I do think the ConnieB has the stats to give us a few decades of good service (though much of that service may be to member fleets).
It will likely take a decade to replace the ConnieBs.
The R&D and ship building cycles in this game are slow compared to how most games work. We just can't afford fast replacement cycles in one area (like light cruisers) without neglecting other areas.
Indeed, I worry that we will end up short on escorts and next-gen explorers when it comes time for the big Rennie build push due to berths and crew being over-allocated to the Rennie (honestly, what IS it with that ship that makes it so popular with so many in this Quest?)
fasquardon
My view is that we should keep the Constitutions until we're pushing the militarization cap.
Because the Federation a a voluntary federal arrangement where the member worlds reserve great powers of self-government for themselves, including the right to maintain their own fleets. Note that there does not appear to be a big distinction between the armed ships and the freighters that they build for themselves. If necessary, an independent fleet ensures they would not be helpless if they ever chose to secede from the Federation.
There is no such ban, or at least were have not been told of any such ban. They normally keep the home fleets close to home because exploration is Starfleet's job, but presumably they use them for all normal purposes more locally.
The Defiant's biggest weakness is its pathetic Science, which is going to really screw it in any situation where it has to deal with cloaked ships. Oh what's that, two our biggest regional rivals use cloaking technology? I mean, it was great for the war it was used in, but there are other wars where it wouldn't perform so well.
- Location
- Patriarchova
Eh, Gaeni intro was too long ago. Don't want to bother digging around for every established detail about their post-contact events and who was in charge of the sector at the time, so no omake.
On the other hand, check this out:
On the other hand, check this out:
pheonix89
Wants to be Seven Of Nine
- Location
- North American Plaguelands
- Pronouns
- She/Her
The Rennie is popular because we've got a servicable escort in the Centaur-A and a great Explorer in the Excelsior, but our Cruiser is pretty damn bad.
Constellations are roughly competative 1 to 1 with Centaurs assuming even refit status, but Centaurs build faster and need less crew. The Rennie OTOH is very slightly weaker than an Excelsior combat-wise.
Which is why you group them with Intrepids and let that 10 science handle cloaking issues. Two Defiants plus an Intrepid costs less than a Sovvie and can beat a Sovvies.
Last edited:
lbmaian
a thirsty squirrel
- Location
- USA
Arg, this thread moves too fast. A bit busy at the moment, so apologies if this outdated:
On Excelsior-A refit stats: I agree that the 2308 refit wouldn't work out well, but with 3 years of ship/explorer research with the same fudge factors as the 2287 probably had (extrapolating backwards and factoring in the previously used scale settings, the 2287 Excelsior must have had some fudge factors), an Excelsior-A refit is pretty good by my rough modeling by 2311 (or 2312 if explorer research delayed). It could have +1 in up to6 5 stats. That's why I think an Excelsior-A refit within the next 5 years is going to be decent.
On the Ambassador: If the Excelsior-A refit actually is that good, then it does reduce the urgency of the Ambassador a bit. At least to the point where I'd be fine with delaying the Ambassador by a year or so, especially if further improves reliability or even reduces a tier of fudge factors.
No disagreement there - it's why I'm voting for your plan. I'm only disagreeing about the absolute urgency of the Ambassador.
Well to properly compare them, you need to compare 1 level of a single fudge factor vs 1 ship design research node. Or 1 tier across all fudge factors vs 1 tier of across all ship design research. Either way, there's no question that a level of fudge factor can provide much more improvement than a level of ship design research and much quicker to boot (though considering how some of techs improve the same design saving, some of them are pretty close to that ~5% improvement). So I'll concede on the point of the opportunity loss caused by a ship design project being insignificant, especially the growing number of research teams.
However, I'm concerned about the fudge factors introducing reliability problems in a mainline explorer class, and that we can't rely on their being a reverse "overall reliability" factor that's on the warp core test spreadsheet. That's why I'm interested in trimming down fudge factors, or alternatively (and less preferable), there better be damn good stats for the reliability cost.
Yeah...we should really standardize on some terminology, and the over-used words "design" and "tech" just leads to confusion. It's why I've been preferring "fudget factor".
First, the appearance of the Ambassador so early back in 2304 does not necessarily indicate it would be a good reason to go for it. Using 2304 global tech values and using the latest spreadsheet version (with the reliability mechanic and shield bug fix), the best Ambassador I could come up with had ~95% reliability and required tier 4 fudge factors and that's at either 3.0mt or 3.1mt.
I'm not at all confident we can "fudge" with the canon 3.1mt tonnage if we fully adopt the canon design ala Renaissance (which I'm not sure we can do), since unlike br and sr (and crew to a lesser extent), what berths a ship design can fit in is an extremely critical factor. The difference between 3.0mt and 3.1mt is the forcing of us to research and construct 4mt berths.
I'm asking Oneiros what his intentions are regarding custom ship design vs canon ship design and what exactly the mechanical differences can be in SDB: Sci-Fi - Starfleet Ship Design Bureau ("To Boldly Go...") | Page 30
On Excelsior-A refit stats: I agree that the 2308 refit wouldn't work out well, but with 3 years of ship/explorer research with the same fudge factors as the 2287 probably had (extrapolating backwards and factoring in the previously used scale settings, the 2287 Excelsior must have had some fudge factors), an Excelsior-A refit is pretty good by my rough modeling by 2311 (or 2312 if explorer research delayed). It could have +1 in up to
On the Ambassador: If the Excelsior-A refit actually is that good, then it does reduce the urgency of the Ambassador a bit. At least to the point where I'd be fine with delaying the Ambassador by a year or so, especially if further improves reliability or even reduces a tier of fudge factors.
No disagreement there - it's why I'm voting for your plan. I'm only disagreeing about the absolute urgency of the Ambassador.
Well to properly compare them, you need to compare 1 level of a single fudge factor vs 1 ship design research node. Or 1 tier across all fudge factors vs 1 tier of across all ship design research. Either way, there's no question that a level of fudge factor can provide much more improvement than a level of ship design research and much quicker to boot (though considering how some of techs improve the same design saving, some of them are pretty close to that ~5% improvement). So I'll concede on the point of the opportunity loss caused by a ship design project being insignificant, especially the growing number of research teams.
However, I'm concerned about the fudge factors introducing reliability problems in a mainline explorer class, and that we can't rely on their being a reverse "overall reliability" factor that's on the warp core test spreadsheet. That's why I'm interested in trimming down fudge factors, or alternatively (and less preferable), there better be damn good stats for the reliability cost.
Yeah...we should really standardize on some terminology, and the over-used words "design" and "tech" just leads to confusion. It's why I've been preferring "fudget factor".
First, the appearance of the Ambassador so early back in 2304 does not necessarily indicate it would be a good reason to go for it. Using 2304 global tech values and using the latest spreadsheet version (with the reliability mechanic and shield bug fix), the best Ambassador I could come up with had ~95% reliability and required tier 4 fudge factors and that's at either 3.0mt or 3.1mt.
I'm not at all confident we can "fudge" with the canon 3.1mt tonnage if we fully adopt the canon design ala Renaissance (which I'm not sure we can do), since unlike br and sr (and crew to a lesser extent), what berths a ship design can fit in is an extremely critical factor. The difference between 3.0mt and 3.1mt is the forcing of us to research and construct 4mt berths.
I'm asking Oneiros what his intentions are regarding custom ship design vs canon ship design and what exactly the mechanical differences can be in SDB: Sci-Fi - Starfleet Ship Design Bureau ("To Boldly Go...") | Page 30
Last edited:
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
That "ban" is a figment of your imagination, the Federation has gone over a hundred years without a civil war or threat thereof as far as we know, and in fact the member fleets are a tremendously useful asset to us because in the event of a crisis, that is our strategic reserve force. We already tapped (in effect) two of our member fleets for support in the biophage crisis, for instance.
You would appear to have just cross-posted from the Mirror Universe version of our quest, where civil war within the Terran Empire is likely and absolute centralization of brutal power is a necessity. And while I respect your opinion I suggest you find the mirror-thread and put it back there where it makes sense in context.
That's a smart move. I like that.
I will be disappointed if Thuir ever reaches crazy to match his skill. The entire point of Thuir's existence as a character is that he's the sensible man. The one who goes "NOPE NOPE NOPE" when it comes time to feed redshirts to biophages.Looks like Thuir is getting into the hang of things.
The Exploration Corps: the place where you put the the crazies whose skill equals their insanity so the rest of the Starfleet can work in peace.
He's like... the designated driver. The man who is so ultra-sane, it burns. And we love him for it.
Yep! Flames, screaming...
Because it can do most of the same things we actually do with our escorts (serve as rear area utility ships), only significantly better than they do. People felt a serious pinch in the general inadequacy of basically all our ships except the Centaurs and Excelsiors, and the Renaissance-class promises to put an end to that inadequacy by giving us a very solid multirole ship that fits well into our existing infrastructure.
For that matter, I'm not sure we WANT to replace refitted older ships, unless we desperately need to cannibalize them to keep crewing new construction. Miranda-As serve a valuable niche role as "fighty" ships, because they're about as cost-effective a fighting escort design as we have available or are likely to obtain in the foreseeable future. Note that I said fighting escort- they're not multirole ships or science vessels. But instead of thinking of them as unsatisfactory multirole ships... Think of them as little mini-Defiants. We could use a squadron of mini-Defiants to throw at military threats, couldn't we?
Constellation-As are less obviously desirable, because they are strictly inferior to the Rennie and ConnieBee as utility cruisers- in particular, their Presence stat is absolutely pants, and in combat their durability is much, much lower. They're cheaper, especially in special resources and manpower, but you get what you pay for.
IF we can manage to turn out enough cruisers that we are no longer hurting for multirole utility cruisers, THEN I'd favor retiring the Constellations, even in their refitted state. But on the other hand, it's going to be quite a while before we reach a place where that starts making sense, or where there is any need for us to do so.
Yeah. Those stats actually ARE in the first post of the ship design thread... but the ship design team aren't the only people who might reasonably need to know them.
As a stopgap, I'll quote from that thread:
Our Ships
Constellation 2284-2370 [310m 700k t]
C3 S2 H2 L2 P2 D3
Cost [70br, 40sr, 3 years], Crew [O-2, E-4, T-2]
Constellation-A Now-2370 [310m 700k t]Cost [70br, 40sr, 3 years], Crew [O-2, E-4, T-2]
C4 S3 H2 L2 P2 D4
Cost [70br, 45sr, 3 years], Crew [O-2, E-4, T-2]
Constitution-B 2310-Now [289m, 1m t]Cost [70br, 45sr, 3 years], Crew [O-2, E-4, T-2]
C5 S3 H3 L4 P3 D5
Cost [100br, 80sr, 3 years], Crew [O-3, E-4, T-4]
Renaissance 2320-2360 [330m 1m t]Cost [100br, 80sr, 3 years], Crew [O-3, E-4, T-4]
C5 S3 H4 L5 P4 D5
Cost[100br, 80sr, 3 years], Crew [O-3, E-5, T-3]
Cost[100br, 80sr, 3 years], Crew [O-3, E-5, T-3]
Miranda 2280-Now [277m, 655k t]C3 S1 H1 L2 P1 D2
Cost[60br, 40sr, 2 years], Crew [O-1, E-2, T-1]
Miranda-A Now-Now [277m, 655k t]Cost[60br, 40sr, 2 years], Crew [O-1, E-2, T-1]
C3 S2 H2 L3 P1 D2
Cost[60br, 45sr, 2 years], Crew [O-1, E-2, T-1]
Centaur 2300-Now [315m 800k t]Cost[60br, 45sr, 2 years], Crew [O-1, E-2, T-1]
C3 S2 H2 L2 P2 D2
Cost[80br, 60sr, 2 years], Crew [O-1, E-2, T-2]
Centaur-A 2308-Now [315m 800k t]Cost[80br, 60sr, 2 years], Crew [O-1, E-2, T-2]
C3 S3 H2 L3 P3 D3
Cost[80br, 70sr, 2 years], Crew [O-1, E-2, T-2]
Cost[80br, 70sr, 2 years], Crew [O-1, E-2, T-2]
Amarki Ships
Riala ???-Now [???m, 2.1m t]
C6 S4 H5 L7 P5 D6
Cost [210br, 130sr, 4 Years], Crew [O-?, E-?, T-?]
Cruiser Mark 2 2301-Now [???m, 967k t]Cost [210br, 130sr, 4 Years], Crew [O-?, E-?, T-?]
C4 S2 H3 L4 P3 D3
Cost [100br, 100sr, 3 Years], Crew [O-?, E-?, T-?]
Cruiser Mark 1 2279-Now [???m, 696k t]Cost [100br, 100sr, 3 Years], Crew [O-?, E-?, T-?]
C3 S2 H3 L2 P1 D3
Cost [70br, 70sr, 2 Years], Crew [O-?, E-?, T-?]
Light Escort ???-Now [???m, 459k t]Cost [70br, 70sr, 2 Years], Crew [O-?, E-?, T-?]
C2 S2 H2 L2 P1 D2
Cost [50br, 50sr, 2 Years], Crew [O-?, E-?, T-?]
Heavy Escort ???-Now [???m, 681k t]Cost [50br, 50sr, 2 Years], Crew [O-?, E-?, T-?]
C2 S2 H3 L3 P1 D2
Cost [70br, 70sr, 2 Years], Crew [O-?, E-?, T-?]
Cost [70br, 70sr, 2 Years], Crew [O-?, E-?, T-?]
Thing is, the Ambassadors aren't invincible by any stretch of the imagination. We totally want them, I favor developing them, I just don't want us to rush them to the exclusion of other concerns, and we need to balance "we need stronger ships" against "a few more years of tech and we will have stronger ships across the board."
Bluntly, Rennies aren't better than ConnieBees by enough of a margin to justify one-for-one replacements unless we are near our Combat cap. The ConnieBees are ALMOST as good as utility cruisers, and ALMOST as good in a fight. Not quite, but close. Realistically, the ship that replaces the Constitution-Bs won't be the Renaissance; it will be the ship that replaces the Renaissance.
See, the problem is, in that case, the research mechanism itself is fundamentally toxic. Because it's this big complicated THING that, under that assumption set, you cannot understand without understanding other big complicated things. Without a mass of number-crunching that serves mainly to drive away some of our most enthusiastic participants, the people writing the fun omakes and creating fun characters, who just lack the time or the inclination to spend dozens of hours mastering a very specific approach to number-crunching.
If we can't say, in-character "we want ships that can hold their own in a fight in the future, start researching weapons," and have that be adequate grounds to research weapons because there are ABC and XYZ more optimal ways to make ships that can hold their own in a fight without bothering to do actual weapons research...
That's a fundamental problem with gameplay. In which case we need to either have the research system black-boxed so it doesn't eat up time and energy... Or we need a research system that IS, on some fundamental level, comprehensible to the players who haven't spent hours playing with the ship design spreadsheet.
What I'm saying is that these issues should in fact be brought to the game designer's attention.
If the things it makes sense to do IC and the things it makes sense to do OOC due to game mechanics start to differ sharply, then that is a problem. We've already seen Oneiros step in to deal with things like that before, because Oneiros is doing a good job with the game design here.
Given the great complexity and intricacy of our combat mechanics, it would very much surprise me if there weren't certain aspects of the system that need to be "nerfed" or "buffed" for the sake of good gameplay. We're only going to find that out by openly discussing how things are going, and by talking about both what we expect to happen IC, and what it makes 'optimal' sense for us to do OOC, and how those things come into conflict.
Recognizing that to be the case, if there is NOT the creator intent that we be able to (eventually) custom-design ships that perform incrementally better than their canon counterparts...
I'm not sure we should even have a custom sheet. Or maybe it should only exist so that once in a while we can petition Oneiros himself, or one or two duly appointed proxies, to design a specific ship that meets our requirements. For instance, what happened with the ConnieBee. Or, yes, trying to design a decent science vessel in the 2330s or so.
Having half a dozen people vigorously playing with the design sheets, all the time, whether we need specific custom designs to fill gaps or not... That is a disproportionate amount of effort if all we're trying to do is fill in a few very specific narrow gaps in the list of canon designs.
That level of involvement only makes sense if we are, for example, looking critically at the Ambassador's stat-line and going "okay, can we tinker with this to make it three million tons instead of 3.1?" Or looking at the Niagara and saying "let's make this less bloated?" Or looking at the Galaxy and going "okay, can we fit another point or two of Hull in here? Can we make it reliable?"
And conversely, having such a magnificently detailed tech tree that exists in large part to support the thriving ship design sub-community only makes sense if we're actually trying to design new ships all the time, regularly, and seriously considering our own designs as viable counterparts or replacements for canon classes with their as-built tonnage and other stats.
Yes. This.
[X] Base Plan Lone Ranger, Counter Intel and Ambassador Prep
Is the one Amarki's eyes supposed to be transparent? Also, I am really getting a kick out of the resigned horror on the Romulan's face.
- Location
- Patriarchova
You can see the biophage tendril going through Aelin's eye. Its foreshadowing.
One thing to remember about the Constitution-B is that they are a triple omake award. Being able to build them at all was a reward, having the pp cost of the project cut was a reward, and being able to build the first four at a substantial sr discount is a reward.
Under how the game would have proceeded otherwise, we would be talking about how our refit Constellations were going to stand up to the Cardassians for the next nine years.
Under how the game would have proceeded otherwise, we would be talking about how our refit Constellations were going to stand up to the Cardassians for the next nine years.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
May I just say that I really like the "First season" spread, and I hardly ever press 'like' on a post, but I 'liked' yours, Leila.
On a game-historical note, this is also why the Rennie is so popular. It was viewed as our shining future salvation from the all-round mediocrity and inferiority of a Centaur/Constellation fleet in the face of Klingon, Romulan, and ultimately Cardassian cruisers.
Yeah. Then we'd really be in the soup. As it is, we got to build "about ten" of a ship that is damn near as good as a Renaissance, starting nearly ten years before we get to mass-produce Renaissances.
On a game-historical note, this is also why the Rennie is so popular. It was viewed as our shining future salvation from the all-round mediocrity and inferiority of a Centaur/Constellation fleet in the face of Klingon, Romulan, and ultimately Cardassian cruisers.
- Location
- somewhere
That's a bit of an exageration, the Souvereigns would have a 93.6% chance of winning (not taking doctrine or evasion into account). Add another Intrepid and they'd have the upper hand (62.5% chance the escorts win).
Ah, I thought that was what you were going for but wasn't sure. Maybe have some tendriling on the eyeball as well?
pheonix89
Wants to be Seven Of Nine
- Location
- North American Plaguelands
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Oops. What's the odds on 2 Defiants + Intrepid vs Sovereign?
Gear
Set Moon to Ramming Speed!
It was suggested as a possible cost to balance out making the Connie's cheaper to build, essentially having the home fleets pay part of their cost in exchange for getting them later on.
But Oneiros never aknowledged that post, then the omake about the old Connies came out, which got us that discount on the first four ConnieBees, and it seems like people are just assuming it'll happen, which as far as I know, it won't.
- Location
- somewhere
Given how awesome the stuff 'T2: 2310s Message Networking' leads to – especially public outreach in Federation Datanet – is there a reason none of the current plans try to grab it? I get that it doesn't improve our shipbuilding directly, but free diplomatic pushes would be rather synergistic with what we've been told is in Xeno-psychology. Together, those two tech groups would significantly help in winning the peace against Cardassia. Similarly, while Colony Datanet isn't as good as Colony Cores, it gives the most similar bonus I've found outside of computing.
Last edited: