- Location
- USA
Not all Captain's are equal and I think that highlights a reason to get Seruk to move on so we have control over who gets added to our EC captain pool
Not all Captain's are equal and I think that highlights a reason to get Seruk to move on so we have control over who gets added to our EC captain pool
Better to create a Vice Admiral position for personnel, has a long term benefit and allows us to either replace Seruk or turn him to our side, depending on whether we like what he has to offer or not. I can't say that I'm particularly unhappy with his decisions so far.Not all Captain's are equal and I think that highlights a reason to get Seruk to move on so we have control over who gets added to our EC captain pool
Yes, it's already crewed it (coming soon, pretty exciting, isn't it? )Are those after Earth crews its Excelsior? Because otherwise I don't see how they have the crew to do it.
It's kind of like ... do you want a particular sector to be building up? Do you want the sectors bordering the Sydrax to focus on self-defence? Do you want the inner sectors focusing on building up their infrastructure to get extra shipyard berths for your emergency use? Do you feel a war is coming on and you want people to get ready to absorb the potential losses? Do you want to see a member world focus on escorts, or do you want them to change to match your doctrine?I don't know what the benefits are of changing member world priorities. Or rather, I don't know what I would know that's better than what they would know.
(Are the Amarki seriously trying to compare their cruiser to a Centaur-A?)
Resources
Name - BR - SR - Off - Enl - Tech
Andor - 185 - 185 - 6 - 5.5 - 5.5
Vulcan - 135 - 130 - 0.5 - 0 - 0
Tellar - 205 - 115 - 1.35 - 0 - 0
Earth - 165 - 195 - 2.6 - 1.8 - 1.8
Amarki - 180 - 220 - 3.5 - 2 - 4
Betazoids - 125 - 135 - 1.6 - 2.4 - 1.6
Caitain - 276 - 260 - 8.6 - 8.6 - 6.4 [Only now coming down from wartime budgets]
Rigel - 295 - 145 - 2.25 - 6 - 1.75
For the first time out I'll also include a vote to choose between pushing Fed designs, pushing native designs, or letting people decide.
Being able to take or offer five year loans at 20% total interest (borrow 50, pay 60 in 5 years) for bulk and special resources could also be a possibility.
YesWhat does "letting people decide" mean - you mean default to let the member fleet choose?
Well, I suppose that is something that has been asked for a lot.Can we sell/trade/buy ships rather than just ship designs? Vulcans, for ex, are looking to build up defense. Can we sell them a Constellation? (like a mothball, but better)
It finishes next quarter (2311.Q2)
For the Amarki: We should want them to build Centaur-A now, Renaissance a bit later (hugely better than their existing cruiser design), and design a new escort in cooperation with Starfleet in a few years.
This will all be going into yearly MWCO posts.Are you going to threadmark this, or otherwise establish a threadmarked member world fleet status page, ala our current fleet status page?
Well, the Amarki would also like to start their own Next Gen Escort project, so that's still on the cards.but I also want to encourage them to keep designing and building their own ships.
I wouldn't want to discourage them from building more Rialas (cheaper and more resilient than the Excelsior), or a successor along similar lines (though maybe in cooperation with the Rigellians), but their modern cruiser has almost exactly the same stat distribution as the Renaissance, just all stats lower by 1 (D lower by 2). It doesn't make any sense for them to be building more of those. And for the escort Starfleet and the other Members would want an improvement over the Centaur-A as well, and are unlikely to have very different priorities. I don't think we need to all use exactly the same ship classes, but maybe we can encourage the Caitians And Apiata to cooperate on their next generation escort, for example, their needs seem more similar to each other than to Starfleet and the other members.I've voiced this before, but I would really prefer that member fleets stay with ship designs and doctrines that are optimized for their own nature and aesthetics. Apiatans, with their natural predilection toward swarm doctrine, come to mind here. I find just having a single Federation-wide design ethos boring, even if it may somehow be the most efficient way to play the game. Having member fleets use better Starfleet ship designs is fine, but I also want to encourage them to keep designing and building their own ships.
Incorrect. Akuz is fixated on the most meme-y circumstance, but as I mentioned before it was stated that Nash got away with firing on a Cardassian vessel with no militarization cost to us, when the Cheron just suffered an aggressive flyby and we got dinged for that. There are Kirk rules, and we pay 5pp to get access to them.Nash has no plot shields, you're talking about Oneiors combat simulator crashing as if its intrinsic to her character rather than a lucky coincidence which fine if you're making that statement as a joke but otherwise it's kind of misleading you know?
I wouldn't want to discourage them from building more Rialas (cheaper and more resilient than the Excelsior), or a successor along similar lines (though maybe in cooperation with the Rigellians), but their modern cruiser has almost exactly the same stat distribution as the Renaissance, just all stats lower by 1 (D lower by 2). It doesn't make any sense for them to be building more of those. And for the escort Starfleet and the other Members would want an improvement over the Centaur-A as well, and are unlikely to have very different priorities. I don't think we need to all use exactly the same ship classes, but maybe we can encourage the Caitians And Apiata to cooperate on their next generation escort, for example, their needs seem more similar to each other than to Starfleet and the other members.
However, the MWCO also presents an opportunity forhomogenizationassimilation, which is what I'll almost always be voting against.
I agree, but let's not lose sight of the fact that the person Ajam gained the trust of had started to have doubts because of Nash.I'd give Ajam the most credit for Grey October. She improvised and executed a spectacularly successful infiltration mission with no support whatsoever.
An idea I had that I think would be better is to offer to pay the br cost of Miranda refits for 1-2 years to help get all the Mirandas turned into Miranda-As.Or hell, don't even bother with the loan part. Just "btw, if anyone needs more structural materials Starfleet's running a surplus, have some".
Instead, what about offering to all the member worlds that have a Miranda that we will cover the BR cost of a refit for the next few years. It will encourage the 4 main worlds to move up their Miranda refits, is limited by berth space so we can't be charged much at once, isn't discriminatory because any member could have built a Miranda as soon as they joined the UFP (even though no-one did) and it would not be an issue again as we only plan to do refits as filler projects around designing a new ship (like filling in gaps around building Rennies) so they won't often come up.
Narrative wise we could announce it as the inaugural project of the MWCO to organize and disburse the resources and encourage co-operative shipbuilding throughout the UFP which could result in some kind of reward back to Starfleet. More pp, better/more MCWO options, something something.
Real talk, the cost is the only particular reason to push Nash out, and that's been imposed on us by an Old Guard. Her tenure is not particularly unique among Enterprise captains for time-in-chair; and she's not exactly old either. We have no pressing need for her as a Commodore.
Simply put we're letting a persnickety Vulcan push us around based on how he thinks things should be done rather than what's best.
Not really. I'd still be against third term even without Seruk making an issue of it.Simply put we're letting a persnickety Vulcan push us around based on how he thinks things should be done rather than what's best.
We seem to have some pretty clear promotion pathways already. There's no real indication she's holding things up unless @OneirosTheWriter (not Seruk) says otherwise. Plus thanks to your shipbuilding plan there's going to be tons of good Excelsior billets in the coming yearsI'd vote to not give her another extension because I want to see some fresh blood in the logs and clear the promotion pathways, so that isn't a universal thing. Ideally we can have enough former Enterprise captains to form a club.
But why? Personal distaste?Not really. I'd still be against third term even without Seruk making an issue of it.
*shrugs*
Considering a militarization point costs 60pp, add another 60 to Nash's benefit columnIncorrect. Akuz is fixated on the most meme-y circumstance, but as I mentioned before it was stated that Nash got away with firing on a Cardassian vessel with no militarization cost to us, when the Cheron just suffered an aggressive flyby and we got dinged for that. There are Kirk rules, and we pay 5pp to get access to them.
Also, laying Grey October entirely at Straak's feet is incorrect. Nash planted the seed of doubt, Ajam nurtured it, and Straak harvested the fruit.
We seem to have some pretty clear promotion pathways already. There's no real indication she's holding things up unless @OneirosTheWriter (not Seruk) says otherwise. Plus thanks to your shipbuilding plan there's going to be tons of good Excelsior billets in the coming years
Also you may not personally like her antics in the logs but that's entirely subjective.
But why? Personal distaste?
The cost is a pretty big hurdle but imo it's the only really like, rational reason to pass up on her. Doing so for other reasons means we're informally capping EC captains at two terms -- I will not be voting for any additional outing with Straak if this is what we're basing it on.
Yes? I have no problem with informally capping EC captains at two terms.But why? Personal distaste?
The cost is a pretty big hurdle but imo it's the only really like, rational reason to pass up on her. Doing so for other reasons means we're informally capping EC captains at two terms -- I will not be voting for any additional outing with Straak if this is what we're basing it on.