Meanwhile, I am very sorry for distraction. I just wish to see Leslie constructing agonizer booth from his cupboard equipment and stuffing designer team of this god-awful abomination of starship engineering from STO into it.


Horizon Class. Science Ship. AND WHY.

Goddamn that ship is ugly.

I've always been kinda lowkey enraged at how ugly that entire design family is.
 
[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 Revak
 
Asking voters to please reconsider the Tellarites. Consider the structure of this organization. They're going to be stretched across the borders, designed for fast deployment to trouble spots. A tiny amount of superheavy Tellarite tanks is not going to get the job done. Not enough of them and too difficult to move. Meanwhile, the MACO strike a nice balance between loads of deployable infantry, but they actually use guns instead of stabbing people like the Amarki favor.

I'm gonna refer to this quote, as it's the most info we have:
"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"

The organization isn't just deployable assets. It's also static ones. In this respect, the Amarki option is for very cookie-cutter defensive troops but many deployable units that can cover a lot of ground. The Tellar would be the opposite, with very strong static garrisons but relatively fewer deployable units. The thing is, in any of the four choices there's no impact on the number of troops that can be part of a static defense, only mobile. We'll have enough Peacekeepers to protect our colonies, starbases, shipyards, etc. (Even if that might be with fewer but better equipped forces.)

The Human and Amarki options focus on having large numbers of deployable units, but in exchange those units are not as well equipped. What I think puts the Honiani and Tellar as the better choices is that they'll be both higher quality in both static garrison and in mobile response units. We'll have less locations vulnerable to attack, and our mobile units will be better equipped. I'd much rather have smaller but higher quality elite responders than large numbers of not-so-elite troops, especially since the Peacekeepers are meant to be the first ones to show up, not the only ones. (Like we have smaller numbers of Explorer class ships for difficult events instead of going with swarm doctrine.) We don't need a general military to replace all Federation ground forces. We need an expert force that can respond asap to the biggest and most challenging problems, then call in the member forces if we need numbers to follow up.

Though of course, this is just the starting point. We'll in the future probably have chances to cover for any weaknesses the Peacekeepers end up having, but for now I want any option that boosts Peacekeeper quality as much as reasonably possible. (The 5 year training option lets our Peacekeepers double as Enlisted ship crew, which isn't really what we're aiming for.)

Feel free to disagree with all that. After all, we don't really have much beyond speculation to go on unless Oneiros wants to give us more:
There actually are fewer deployable teams. Whether there is a difference in capabilities is a question only Shark can answer, no one else knows.
 
I'm torn because while rapid movenment and fire seems to fit in great with the forward defense strategy we currently have, and having enough the units to protect everywhere is a valid concern, but at the same time quality over quantity is a philosophy that has served the Federation very well so far, and I'm worried that MACO style Peacekeepers wouldn't have the specialty to hold off an extended heavy assult on our facilities, which is I'd say one of the most, if not the most important duties of such a ground force if the fleet can't relive them for a while.

I'm guessing the extra PP from the Tellar is because they seem to often be the least represented of the founding four species, or because the largest portion of the Council likes this option (or maybe those options with PP where lobbied for the hardest).

@OneirosTheWriter just to clarify, why do certain options award us PP, in particular the Tellar option. And secondly, if 10, 20 years down the line we are unhappy with our contractor's specialty or decide that the doctrine of the Peacekeepers needs to change can we change contractors (I'm guessing if we did the Corps would be out of comission for a year or two while they reorganized to a new doctorine, upsized, downsized,etc)?
 
A basic doctrinal breakdown, inasmuch as it's possible.

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

Maneuver warfare. You know it if you've studied Gulf One. Go deep, wreck the other guy's rear areas and roll up his flanks, have the guns to make a path if you can't figure out a way around. Usually pretty reliable answer if the offensive is an option at any scale. A clever commander can be very effective with mobile defense, but a not-clever one might just go squish. Still they have enough guns to make a credible roadblock. Just make sure the reinforcements arrive in time.

[ ][DEF] Go with Tellar State Forces industry and their super-heavy focus (deployable units--, gain 40pp)

Sounds like heavy armor. Not as mobile as MACO probably, but still reasonably mobile. All the guns in the world, able to take a pounding. Lack of deployable units likely has more to do with cost, both in actual unit terms and in political will, rather than an emphasis on fixed defenses; this is a wrecking ball, their idea of "defense" is "overrun the enemy landing zone and have a merry time blowing up his shuttles". (Your standing force would be mostly committed to colony defense, basically. Also heavy armor takes up more mass and space on spaceships.)

[ ][DEF] Go with the Amarkian industry and their infantry focus (deployable units++, gain 0pp)

Good for occupation and peacekeeping, less for taking ground though they can if the ground favors them. Don't expect them to overcome an enemy on open terrain, but they'll take the building intact if you can get them to it. Much will depend on the quality of the recruits rather than their doctrine or equipage. Good infantry can clown on almost anyone, though possibly at cost. Okay infantry can't. Probably the only option I don't recommend given the Federation likely doesn't want the political costs of possible heavy losses.

[ ][DEF] Go with Honiani industry with their focus on slugging it out (deployable units-, gain 30pp)

Defensive tilt. Logistics and heavy weapons backing dug-in infantry. Holds ground. Doesn't take it, except slowly after it's been properly pulverized. Fine for most of our purposes, unless we lose a planet, then it's not. May ironically be the best from a "supporting other missions" standpoint as they have the bodies and the mindset to do major civil order operations, and the engineering capacity for disaster relief.
 
Last edited:
Of course, there's also the possibility that "less units" means "less units" and there will be no mechanical difference between units other than having fewer of them.
 
[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

I am also pleased to see the Risan aircars will be procured in at least limited numbers.
 
Of course, there's also the possibility that "less units" means "less units" and there will be no mechanical difference between units other than having fewer of them.

I really doubt that. If that's the case, then it's really just a question of pp spending in disguise: We have a budget of 40pp, the Tellar option costs 0pp, the Honiani 10pp, MACO 30pp, and Amarki 40pp. If that's all it is, then the answer is that the Amarki option is the best, because it "costs" us the most pp. That would only be true if the fluff didn't matter at all.
 
[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 Revak
 
[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 Revak
 
I have no clear best option for most of these. So for the moment I'll just vote for the one I feel strongest on.

[X][TRAIN] Peacekeeper Course
 
[X][TRAIN] Peacekeeper Course

[X][COL] Shipyards

[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][TRAIN] Full Training
[X][COL] SR Colonies
[X][DEF] Go with Tellar State Forces industry and their super-heavy focus (deployable units--, gain 40pp)
[X][VADM] Vice Admiral Revak

Would prefer Honiani industry but that's never going to win so TSF is a decent option-2.
 
Last edited:
[X][TRAIN] Full Training
[X][COL] SR Colonies
[X][DEF] Go with Tellar State Forces industry and their super-heavy focus (deployable units--, gain 40pp)
[X][VADM] Vice Admiral Victoria Eaton
//
The quality approach.
 
[X][TRAIN] Full Training
[X][COL] SR Colonies
[X][DEF] Go with Tellar State Forces industry and their super-heavy focus (deployable units--, gain 40pp)
[X][VADM] Vice Admiral Victoria Eaton
//
The quality approach.
Quantity is a quality of its own. Everything can be solved with more manpower, it's all a matter of ratios.
 
[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] Research Colonies
[X][VADM] Vice Admiral Victoria Eaton
 
I think I'd like to see Victoria Eaton (back) in command here.
From her 'bio':

"As methodical a mind as there is with an eye for every detail."

Seems good for setting up a brand new, very large Command.
Also very, very British. She loves her tea.

Our first quest captain of the USS Courageous, assigned for a Five Year Mission in 2301 Q1.
Received a personal message of commendation for her "ferocity" from the Klingon Chancellor in 2302 Q1, in response to her actions in the Battle of Tregh'bak.
She's pretty badass.

Also, she was commander of Starfleet Tactical from 2321 to the end of 2324.
Given that we had considered placing the Peacekeepers in Tactical, this experience seems very valuable.
By contrast, Revak is the consummate political animal, while Eaton is a fighter. I like that about her. Revak might have an edge smoothing any political trouble the Peacekeepers get into, but I don't think he'd bring much unique to the table- tactically- in their formative years. Eaton has the experience in war and peace and exploration.

Eaton isn't just a warrior though- she would appear to be quite a strong scientist with a focus on sensors, scans and surveys: her bonus in Tactical was "+3 to Sensor research, +1 S to survey events"

[X][VADM] Vice Admiral Victoria Eaton
 
Last edited:
Going to close the vote in four hours.
Not going to provide any clarification about the troops types then?
And... that's less than 24 hours. What's the rush all of a sudden? There's quite a bit of debate going on, even if we don't have the information.

Edit- I've got to go to sleep, so won't see any info before the vote closes. I'm missing info to make the choice on troop type, just trading number of troops for pp seems... lacking.

[X][TRAIN] Peacekeeper Course
[X][COL] SR Colonies
[X][VADM] Vice Admiral Victoria Eaton
 
Last edited:
[X][VADM] Vice Admiral Victoria Eaton

this is the only positive position I have strong feelings on. I have fairly negative feelings about the Amarki option, but it's not a situation where "if you don't like this, vote for the other of the two"
 
Not going to provide any clarification about the troops types then?
And... that's less than 24 hours. What's the rush all of a sudden? There's quite a bit of debate going on, even if we don't have the information.

Edit- I've got to go to sleep, so won't see any info before the vote closes. I'm missing info to make the choice on troop type, just trading number of troops for pp seems... lacking.

[X][TRAIN] Peacekeeper Course
[X][COL] SR Colonies
[X][VADM] Vice Admiral Victoria Eaton
The problem is that if we start trading off on exact troop type impacts I'm going to have to do an absolute power of work beyond what's already been done and this isn't actually a ground combat game, so I'm leaving all that up in the air as much as I can. There is probably going to be an increase in quality, commensurate to whatever the gap between the pp value and the value of the units is.

And ... yeah, I suppose I can extend the voting a bit.
 
Meanwhile, I am very sorry for distraction. I just wish to see Leslie constructing agonizer booth from his cupboard equipment and stuffing designer team of this god-awful abomination of starship engineering from STO into it.


Horizon Class. Science Ship. AND WHY.
Oh? I like it!

The problem is that if we start trading off on exact troop type impacts I'm going to have to do an absolute power of work beyond what's already been done and this isn't actually a ground combat game, so I'm leaving all that up in the air as much as I can. There is probably going to be an increase in quality, commensurate to whatever the gap between the pp value and the value of the units is.

And ... yeah, I suppose I can extend the voting a bit.

Exact is not needed, we just need to know 3 things:
  • Does this choice affect only deployable units?
  • Does less deployable units mean proportionally better deployable units?
  • What is the PP reward for exactly? Pure politics or is there a trade of somewhere? Where? Troop quality?
This info really should have been part of the post. This keeps happening again and again, with us having to guess instead of making informed decisions.
 
Back
Top