Remove ads

To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest)

Linked contents
To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest) Starfleet Ship Design Bureau, Refit ("To Boldly Go...")
Reader mode
Some thoughts on the vote...

[ ][TRAIN] Full Training
(The full regime of Starfleet enlisted training complete with the science and diplomacy basics. This force is small enough there is still plenty of cream to recruit from the population, and you have no interest in dumb grunts. - Will take five years for Peacekeeper Corps to reach full size, and results in the smallest number of deployable units)
[ ][TRAIN] Peacekeeper Course
(There is a lot of material in the full course that just isn't applicable when you aren't going to be operating a starship. You can strip some out and it will become much easier to draw in people who are still extremely competent and reliable, but aren't as deep in the sciences. - Will take three years for Peacekeeper Corps to reach full size, and results in a normal amount of deployable units)

Having more deployable units is really good. Quantity has a quality all its own. On the other hand, the Full Training means that in an emergency the Peacekeepers will also act as an Enlisted pool for starship crew, since they're all Starship certified. Hmmm. Though "Enlisted" isn't the crew pool we generally have issues with. On the other hand, you never know.

When developing the static systems that will protect the resource and research colonies, some of which over the last couple decades have developed substantial civilian populations to support the miners and researchers, there is a question of priority. What should your Engineering ships start on first?
[ ][COL] BR Colonies
[ ][COL] SR Colonies
[ ][COL] Research Colonies
[ ][COL] Shipyards

While shipyards are most important, the vast majority of our big yards are around major worlds and already quite well defended. I'd guess SR colonies are second most important and do tend to be in very vulnerable, border zone areas?

Select an Equipment supplier for the Security Operations Command [Defence]. These costs will be handled by budget extensions, much like for Starfleet Medical Command.
[ ][DEF] Go with the MACO's industry and their focus on rapid movement and fire (deployable units+ gain 10pp)
[ ][DEF] Go with Tellar State Forces industry and their super-heavy focus (deployable units--, gain 40pp)
[ ][DEF] Go with the Amarkian industry and their infantry focus (deployable units++, gain 0pp)
[ ][DEF] Go with Honiani industry with their focus on slugging it out (deployable units-, gain 30pp)
(The Honiani option does not include warplate)

Not really inclined to go for short term gain on a force that's supposed to last for years, though I am a bit tempted to go for MACO for narrative reasons... I really like the sound of "rapid movement and fire" more than getting bogged down, and the fact of the matter is that humans are very good at war.

Select a Vice-Admiral from the following short-list.
[ ][VADM] Vice Admiral Syzi ch'Zelil
[ ][VADM] Vice Admiral Revak
[ ][VADM] Vice Admiral Victoria Eaton

My man Revak, it is your time! Though... Eaton is currently basically retired and out of the game. This might be her one chance to come back.


Going to leave it there and think longer before actually voting.
 
Chaos Blade said:
[ ][COL] Shipyards
-let's start with the critical infrastructure, then to research, then to SR and finally to BR
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Counter-argument would be that shipyards tend to be around heavily defended homeworlds, while our resource colonies are very vulnerable in border zones; some outside Federation sapce.

I'd go SR colonies then BR colonies then Shipyards then Research in my order.
 
[X][TRAIN] Peacekeeper Course
we need numbers, not starship crew.

[X][COL] SR Colonies
our shipyards are already well protected. SR is the most important after that.

[X][DEF] Go with the MACO's industry and their focus on rapid movement and fire (deployable units+ gain 10pp)
I like the MACOs from a narrative perspective, on their focus or speed and firepower, and the fact that they have the second highest amount of doods to deploy.

and i dont really have an opinion on the vadm.

note: the reason numbers is such a focus for me is because we went with the border zone distributed groups. this means we will have more groups, and that means we will need more troops to get sufficient force numbers at each deployment area.
 
Briefvoice said:
Select an Equipment supplier for the Security Operations Command [Defence]. These costs will be handled by budget extensions, much like for Starfleet Medical Command.
[ ][DEF] Go with the MACO's industry and their focus on rapid movement and fire (deployable units+ gain 10pp)
[ ][DEF] Go with Tellar State Forces industry and their super-heavy focus (deployable units--, gain 40pp)
[ ][DEF] Go with the Amarkian industry and their infantry focus (deployable units++, gain 0pp)
[ ][DEF] Go with Honiani industry with their focus on slugging it out (deployable units-, gain 30pp)
(The Honiani option does not include warplate)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Now this is IMO the most complicated/hardest choice here. I don't think we're concerned about any pp gain considering we easily put down the 50 pp for better peacekeeper options this snakepit. That makes it a question between "focus" and deployable units. In that respect, we're only got flavor text to go off on whether "super-heavy focus" is worth the cost of a much smaller size of units.

TBH, if less deployable units means higher quality equipment, then gaining pp for choosing those is outright confusing. I'd expect to have to pay pp for that instead.
 
OneirosTheWriter said:
[ ][TRAIN] Full Training
(The full regime of Starfleet enlisted training complete with the science and diplomacy basics. This force is small enough there is still plenty of cream to recruit from the population, and you have no interest in dumb grunts. - Will take five years for Peacekeeper Corps to reach full size, and results in the smallest number of deployable units)
[ ][TRAIN] Peacekeeper Course
(There is a lot of material in the full course that just isn't applicable when you aren't going to be operating a starship. You can strip some out and it will become much easier to draw in people who are still extremely competent and reliable, but aren't as deep in the sciences. - Will take three years for Peacekeeper Corps to reach full size, and results in a normal amount of deployable units)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I feel that Starfleet diplomatic training, at least, is important for the Peacekeepers. While I do see the point as regards sciences training, I'm still inclined towards Full Training.
 
[X][TRAIN] Peacekeeper Course
Seems pretty obvious to me. Also prevents conflict between recruitment for Enlisted and Peacekeepers.

[X][COL] Research Colonies
As BV said, shipyards are already well protected.

But, keep in mind the upcoming patch. It is very unlikely that we will still have so much more RP then we know what to do with after, and BR will be much more important too.

If we lose a resource colony, we build a cheaper ship or leave a berth bare for a bit. If research slows down though... problems.

[X][DEF] Go with the MACO's industry and their focus on rapid movement and fire (deployable units+ gain 10pp)
I would pick them irrelevant of mechanics. Starfleet ground forces should not be masses of infantry, superheavy tanks, or focused on slugging it I believe.

[X][VADM] Vice Admiral Victoria Eaton
She is very good at combat. Revak might bring a political bonus, but Eaton will boost performance I am sure.
 
Last edited:
Redhead222 said:
eaton doesn`t sounds like the pick i would make.
revak i do not remember much of right from right now? i know he did some good here and there but nothing standing out in my mind right now
syzi ch`Zelil is ringing no bells at at right now.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Eaton is of course one of the quest's first three EC Captains and has had a remarkable career through Starfleet.
Revak was on the EC Panel but not selected. He has shown up in a number of interesting places courtesy of his extensive political connections, and is currently Chief of Staff for Starfleet Ops.
Syzi ch'Zelil is also former EC Panel that didn't get selected but nonetheless managed to work her way up the ranks and is currently in charge of the Spinward Theatre.
 
Gravitas Hunt said:
I feel that Starfleet diplomatic training, at least, is important for the Peacekeepers. While I do see the point as regards sciences training, I'm still inclined towards Full Training.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think you're being misled by the mention of diplomatic training in the first vote. it sounds like what would be dropped is the "how to run a starship" and associated sciences stuff.
 
OneirosTheWriter said:
Eaton is of course one of the quest's first three EC Captains and has had a remarkable career through Starfleet.
Revak was on the EC Panel but not selected. He has shown up in a number of interesting places courtesy of his extensive political connections, and is currently Chief of Staff for Starfleet Ops.
Syzi ch'Zelil is also former EC Panel that didn't get selected but nonetheless managed to work her way up the ranks and is currently in charge of the Spinward Theatre.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
thanks for the info
 
[X][TRAIN] Peacekeeper Course
If we were going to go for 5 years I'd rather they be specialized in their own functions as opposed to running starships.

[X][COL] SR Colonies
[X][COL] Research Colonies

One of these.

[X][DEF] Go with the MACO's industry and their focus on rapid movement and fire (deployable units+ gain 10pp)

Speed is life, especially in a distributed deployment like our people will likely see.

[X][VADM] Vice Admiral Revak

Boots on the ground need a savvy political operator.
 
Last edited:
I know we are not voting on the policing force top person, but I hope Derrie Nixa gets the spot. She is one of the federations top cops, and seems to have the most interplanetary experience by now.
 
Well, Eaton certainly has experience, all the way from the Syndicate War. IIRC, she also carries her phaser set to disintegrate, which might be good or bad, depending on how you look at it. Still, I think she would be a good choice.
[X][TRAIN] Peacekeeper Course
[X][DEF] Go with the MACO's industry and their focus on rapid movement and fire (deployable units+ gain 10pp)
[X][COL] SR Colonies
[X][VADM] Vice Admiral Victoria Eaton
 
Since it's relevant to the vote: Research colonies are going to become pp colonies, likely at a reduced rate, and will also be on the list of things that make breakthroughs on your research projects. RP won't exist.
 
Last edited:
[X][TRAIN] Peacekeeper Course
[X][COL] Research Colonies
[X][DEF] Go with the MACO's industry and their focus on rapid movement and fire (deployable units+ gain 10pp)
[X][VADM] Vice Admiral Revak
 
[X][DEF] Go with the Amarkian industry and their infantry focus (deployable units++, gain 0pp)
[X][VADM] Vice Admiral Victoria Eaton
[X][COL] Research Colonies
[X][TRAIN] Peacekeeper Course
 
Last edited:
Briefvoice said:
Iorin Grann is our current Chief of Staff. Arguably his current position is more important than Peacekeeper Command.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I remember him now, vaguely anyway.
Weren't there comments about his fairly meteoric rise and being young for the role of our Chief of Staff.
His first Starship Captaincy was the USS Yukikaze in 2310.

Ah well.
Being Tellarite, I'm sure he'll appreciate being able to grumble about the irony of being promoted past the first, prime opportunity to shape his dream job, the very year it comes into existence.
Chen would probably have some comment about... appropriate ambitions.

Still, It's probably just as well. He's also very useful in his CoS role, we voted for Grann because:

[][COS] Iorin Grann: +2 on rolls to prevent Intrusions or otherwise oppose sabotage attempts
 
Last edited:
[X][TRAIN] Peacekeeper Course
[X][COL] SR Colonies
[X][DEF] Go with the MACO's industry and their focus on rapid movement and fire (deployable units+ gain 10pp)
[X][VADM] Vice Admiral Victoria Eaton

Edit: Changed Vote
 
Last edited:
Derpmind said:
Now this is IMO the most complicated/hardest choice here. I don't think we're concerned about any pp gain considering we easily put down the 50 pp for better peacekeeper options this snakepit. That makes it a question between "focus" and deployable units. In that respect, we're only got flavor text to go off on whether "super-heavy focus" is worth the cost of a much smaller size of units.

TBH, if less deployable units means higher quality equipment, then gaining pp for choosing those is outright confusing. I'd expect to have to pay pp for that instead.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is a very important question we're voting on in haste. Is a given deployable unit of Tellarite-pattern Heavy Battle-Mechanised Troops better than lightly armed Amarki-pattern or MACO pattern forces?

In the hypothetical-
Say it's 2332. Peacekeepers are up to speed.
We're trying to do a full scale military deployment somewhere like Bajor, where things have gotten bad under a cruel and ambitious Gul.
Maybe something like 'Protect civilians from Cardassian and sympathiser forces as we make it untenable for them to remain in-system' (by taking space superiority).

On the face of it, as presented, we'd need a much larger proportion of our forces in the Tellarite pattern than the Amarki or MACO pattern.
Except... if narratively the QMs would consider the Tellarite ~~battlemech~~ troops as, well, better.

On Discord, Swb had some info, but doesn't have the definitive answer:

"quoting GM chat:
```[10:02 AM] Oneiros: this is the defence component - there's a static part and a mobile part to them. The static ones will be protecting sites like colonies.```
so you have fewer units to deploy, but your static defenses are of higher quality"


But is there this additional question of the magnitude, the force multiplier of heavies versus light troops?
Or is the ~~army~~ Peacekeeping force overall of similar military capability- but the heavier composition pre-weighted and balanced towards static, defensive deployments?
 
Last edited:
Briefvoice said:
Counter-argument would be that shipyards tend to be around heavily defended homeworlds, while our resource colonies are very vulnerable in border zones; some outside Federation sapce.

I'd go SR colonies then BR colonies then Shipyards then Research in my order.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I am not sure, I understand your logic and agree shipyards should have less priority because if we are fighting over them, things have already gone very wrong.
But I am not sure we should leave Research colonies at the end, because both of the cost of replacing the science personnel and the cost of having them and their research captured by forces hostile to the federation.
SR and BR, the repair of the facilities should be more straightforward and while loosing them would hurt us... can't say it would be less painful than loosing research colonies
 
In a conventional war, you'd kill the enemies' logistics. That includes disabling resource-generating facilities. SR and BR are required for building spaceships which are the things used to make war, so, killing SR and BR sites would have a higher priority.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top