Fortunately there is nothing that says we have to train new captains on escorts. Cruisers work just as well and are very much supported by Lone Ranger.
Eh,
sort of supported.
Part of the issue is that right now there isn't much dimorphism between an escort and a cruiser. If we weren't constrained by the tyranny of all our one-megaton berths and were free to design
larger cruisers (i.e. 1.5 or 1.8 megaton designs), there'd be a bigger gap in size.
And I suspect that it's fairly likely that our next generation of cruiser will look like that. Unless of course we go the 'pocket explorer' route to game the bonuses from Lone Ranger, in which case either the cruiser category or the escort category is liable to just wither away entirely for practical purposes.
Honestly if we consider that the modern day escorts are impossibly crew light, or at least that's what I've been told, then the only real difference between escorts and cruisers compared to the Excelsior goes away.
The ship design rules are in the process of being massively altered and even, to some extent, retconned, so that may cease to be true soon.
Look at the mechanics of this very quest. The way we spend resources to earn more resources by "getting" minor powers, "absorbing" minor powers, or "stealing" minor powers from our rivals. We treat our affiliates and members with respect and dignity, but it can't be denied that we also commodify them. This quest is very true to the spirit of Trek, for better and for worse.
Separate from your "true to the spirit of Trek" criticism, you DO have a point. One of the side effects of any game with mechanics is the tendency to view expansion and success as 'winning.'
Although one of the flaws in this
specific game's mechanics, that makes this happen, is that diplomacy doesn't seem to happen "by itself." That means that we're directly expending one of our resources (pp) in a way that has this impact of rapidly recruiting and expanding the Federation. The Diplomatic Corps, left to its own devices, would do very little to bring about expansion of the Federation.
Depends on how you define conquest, I suppose.
From my perspective, Star Trek is fundamentally a story about imperialism. Most of the great powers expand their empires by force of arms or political backstabbing. The Federation expands its own by offering economic and cultural incentives. However, utopian empire-building is still empire-building.
That begs the question,* though,
whose empire is it, anyway?
The Federation doesn't obviously 'belong' to the humans, or to the Vulcans, or to anyone else. Humans are over-represented in Starfleet in canon, but that is no more proof of human 'ownership' of the Federation than it proves the Jem'Hadar 'own' the Dominion.**
You can make a very good case that the Federation is just about the most mutualistic and mutually supportive inter-species polity
possible. It's not governed for the benefit of any single individual, or any particular oligarchy. It tolerates a lot of cultural differences, including some that test the very outermost limits of what we'd be willing to put up with in real life.
So
in addition to Drake's point that the Federation is supposed to be about peace and exploration... Calling the Federation's process of integrating members into itself "conquest" or "imperialism" is stretching those words so far that they become meaningless. It's like saying a horse has five legs, because you're counting a tail as a leg.
Or rather, you're implying the existence of an empire... but there's no emperor. And there isn't even really an imperial metropole to consume the resources of the periphery, the way there was for the European colonial empires of, oh, 1550-1950. When we sign up new member species they become just about as much the 'metropoles' of our 'empire' as the existing species were. And the only clearly exploited 'colonies' are uninhabited planets with rare mineral deposits.
The Federation just plain isn't
structured like an empire.
______________________________
*Not just in the usual sense of 'invites the question,' but in the proper sense of 'assumes an answer to the question, then uses that assumption as the conclusion of one's argument.'
**There are several reasons to protest "THAT'S NOT A GOOD ANALOGY." I am aware of them. My point is that in itself, "X is prominent in the nation's military" does not imply "therefore, X rules the nation." Other factors must be considered.
That is absolutely NOT supposed to be the narrative of the Federation though.
The Federation is about like-minded species creating Starfleet. Starfleet is not supposed to be a political tool for empire-building, it's supposed to be a tool for exploring the galaxy and making discoveries- peacefully whenever possible, not-so-peacefully when not. The point is peaceful exploration and discovery whenever possible.
Frankly, the idea that we're adding species to the Federation who do NOT have a real interest in that mission and instead are joining for mutual defense against foreign powers, or revenge on foreign powers, or as a techonological kick in the pants is very irritating and disturbing. I feel that it IS going to lead us into simple empire-building at which point we'll be looking at the Cardassians across the table and saying 'we're not so different, are we?'
The Federation is not supposed to be the Space UN or even the Space NATO. They're supposed to be better than that.
It's not so far-fetched that some individual Bajorans may have an interested in the mission- but everything we know about their current culture says they'd have no investment in peaceful exploration and discovery. By that metric, the 'space puppies' are shoo-ins for Federation membership- and the Bajorans are probably decades away at the most optimistic estimate.
If we forget the mission, and just sign people up when it's in their individual best interests and they're willing to chuck warships in the communal pot, the Federation should fall apart when people's interests diverge.
I don't disagree.
Of the species we've recruited
so far...
The Amarki are clearly on board with the "join us for exploration and discovery" angle, even if they have more of a martial interpretation of what the exploratory mission means.
The Betazoids and Rigellians, well, they sure didn't join us for protection against an external threat. The Betazoids may not be big explorers but they sure are big on meeting and understanding people. Conversely, the Rigellians are a peaceful mercantile culture, and mercantile cultures are often big on exploration. Not too worried about them.
The Caitians? Well, they were affiliated with us before the Dawiar became a problem, so I don't think they're just signing up for defense. It's a little unclear what they really
want out of Federation membership, because there are several plausible answers to that question.
...
Of the species who may soon join us:
The Caldonians and the Risans are peaceful explorers, no problems there. They are if anything
more peaceful-explorey than the original four members, with the possible exception of the Vulcans.
The Qloathi were originally introduced as being 'like us' in terms of being a reasonably sophisticated species out to do its own exploration. They don't have any obvious record of war or violence or anything else that might make us wonder whether they're suitable. No problem there.
The Indorions are enthusiastic builders, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they approve of our "to boldly go" mission AND its peaceful bent. Maybe they'd be just as happy to stay at home and build the ships for us instead of crewing them, but that's okay. They're worried about Cardassia, but anyone in their position would be, I don't blame them for that. Not so much of a worry.
The Gaeni are by inclination scientists and explorers. Sure, they covet knowledge and are willing to be underhanded for it, in ways that the Federation doesn't approve of. But like the Amarki, they
accept the Federation's mission, they just have a slightly different take on what it should look like. Not so bad.
The Orions are... NOT a great fit for the Federation, but then, Orion space has been fighting a major ideological civil war for the past... decades? Century? And it's all about "what should our civilization look like?" They're struggling to define themselves, and maybe if we help them get free of the oppressive hierarchies that historically dominated their species, they'll decide they DO like the idea of being free to explore and develop in a peaceful, mutualistic way.
The Seyek and the Apiata are an issue, since they seem a bit more "build an empire" inclined, and a big part of their desire to join us seems to be defense. They're a worry.
...
As for neutrals- the Gretarians would make great friends. The Kadeshi are a big question mark, although their planned migration is liable to make the issue moot in the near future. I agree that the Bajorans are... unlikely to fit in well with us. The Yrillians... not sure, really, I suspect a lot of their people would like us but others wouldn't. Trying to force them to fit into our mold would be problematic.
The Dawiar? We don't really know. They're very new to the interstellar scene, still exploring and trying to get a handle on what's out there. Exploration has to be important to them on some level, but at the same time, without more knowledge about their culture we don't know how well they'd fit in with us.
The Federation's political narrative doesn't match their reality, and it never has. It may be something to
aspire to, sure, but...
- The Federation in its current form exists because of the Romulan War.
- Not all Federation races care about exploration. Not even all of the original four did (the Tellarites have certainly never been depicted that way).
- Starfleet's mission of exploration requires a constantly expanding frontier, and you can't push back the frontier unless you keep building starbases and/or absorbing more species to support your explorers.
The Federation is an ideological state, but it is still a state.
I do think Drake takes the matter a little far, in that I think the Federation has plenty of room for species that don't
personally desire to explore and are just in it for the "peaceful coexistence and not having to worry about getting mugged by Klingons" benefits.
But at the same time, if it's "imperialism" when someone voluntarily signs up to join your alliance because they like you and think the alternatives are lame, then "imperialism" has been stretched so broadly that it means almost nothing.
