[X] Base Plan Continuity

[X] [PERSONAL] Caitian Frontier Police R&D: 2310s Equipment

[X] [DOCTRINE] Admiral Lathriss: Forward Defence

[X][BOOST] Vulcan Science Academy
 
Last edited:
Secondly, the point is that narratively it makes sense for protracted ground combat to result in research into better armor, weapons, and other equipment to help keep people alive during ground combat. Even if the research projects inspired by the Caitian Frontier Police's R&D teams don't pay off for a decade, that doesn't mean that the CFP won't engage in such R&D.
Even narratively I don't see why one of the two projects that both offer better survivability options would make sense and the other not.

Why wouldn't the current situation make the CFP explore the possibility of personal shields, better training methods, better tricorders to find contraband and avoid ambushes, transport enhancers to facilitate evacuation of injured personnel in adverse circumstances, and miscellaneous equipment that "reduces crew losses"? The techs from 2310 Equipment seem as least as fitting to research in the current situation as those in 2310s Personal Protection, some of the techs in the latter pretty much only apply to ship battles which don't particularly concern the CFP.
 
Last edited:
. The Federation had, despite its charter being written with the intent of welcoming new species into the fold, failed to actually ratify a new member since its twenty-second century foundation. While Starfleet captains and admirals continued their endless struggle with the member fleets for resources and operational freedom, the political machinery of the Federation had begun to calcify in its four-member state.
Note that certain canon scenes imply that the federation has had new members join, and that works with our canon if we assume they don't matter. In other words, if you change the bolded part to 'failed to actually ratify a new major member,' then everything is more canon compliant. This leaves the Deltans in the cold, but I have no way to square them with the quest anyway.


[X] Continuity
[x] [DOCTRINE] Admiral Lathriss: Forward Defence
I don't think I care enough about the others to vote on them.

I'm voting Forward Defense because I find it more in character for how we've been playing the Federation. Of the four problems we've dealt with, we used Forward Defense in three of them, and ignored the third. Given that two of them resolved positively, and the other two are ongoing, I see no reason why we'd change our policies now.

Also, in regards to which doctrine is better, I have a few words. First, the combat discount mechanics are comparable when the average combat of the fleet is near 5C. Forward Defense is better the lower the average combat is, while Fleet in Being is better the higher the average combat is. While combat is probably going up long term, we have the ability to decide combat scores of new ships. I know that the other thread likes their 7C cruisers, 8C explorers, and 3 to 5C escorts, but we aren't required to accept those designs. If we want to, our next explorer could have five combat.

I know @Simon_Jester has said that building a fleet of low combat vessels is abusing forward defense, but I don't really buy that argument. To me, the combat discount mechanic represents weapons the council admits our ships need given that space is a dangerous place. As @open_sketchbook has said, a good mechanic is one where the most min-max thing to do is the same as the most in character one. The most min-max thing to do with Forward Defense would be to build a fleet of around 80 Excelsior style low combat Explorers and 100 forward posted Oberths. If you went to Councilor Stesk, and told him that Starfleet wanted to get around their combat limitations by building that sort of fleet, I'm pretty sure his response would boil down to: 'working as intended, will not fix.' Part of my whole problem with Fleet in Being actually is that the above sort of fleet becomes more penalized.

Second, is the difference between the benefits of the two doctrine's industrial benefits. For reference:
PREREQS - Key Infrastructure
Focused Industry
The Fleet in Being is about bulk and presence, which members need to help fund.

0 / 25 Mineral Contributions (+10 BR/SR from each Member World)
0 / 25 Personnel Contributions (+0.25/0.25/0.25 Crew from each Member World)

PREREQS - Frontline Infrastructure
Dispersed Industry
To furnish your wider areas of operation, you need to stretch your industrial base further afield.

0 / 25 Colony Efforts (+5 Resources from colony worlds)
0 / 25 Redundancy (Federation starts duplicating critical industry in more places)
However, don't forget that this is also a thing:
PREREQS - To Boldly Go
Frontier Service Training
An emphasis starts in Starfleet Academy on training for safety while on the frontier.

0 / 25 New Curriculum (+1 to DC of all sabotage attempts)
0 / 25 Spirit of Adventure (+1/1/1 to Explorer Corps recruiting)

Thus, for this post, I'm only going to compare '0 / 25 Mineral Contributions (+10 BR/SR from each Member World)' to '0 / 25 Colony Efforts (+5 Resources from colony worlds).' It seems generally accepted that the first is better, but that depends on what counts as a resource. As I see it, there are a few different interpretations, and some of them make the latter far better. Also, it's worth remembering that we seem to be getting twice as many colonies as new member worlds, so the benefit per world only needs to be half as good. Now to my possible interpretations (you might have others):
  1. BR colonies produce +5 BR, SR colonies produce +5 SR, research colonies produce nothing extra.
  2. BR colonies produce +5 BR, SR colonies produce +5 SR, research colonies produce +5 RP
  3. If a colony produces BR, SR, or RP, then it produces 5 more.
  4. If a colony produces BR, SR, RP, or PP, then it produces 5 more.
  5. Every colony produces +5 BR/SR.
One seems to be what everyone is assuming, but I don't see why that necessarily follows. This would only be comparable if we had five times the colonies instead of two times. Two makes the most sense to me, and is probably better if RP is worth more than BR or SR, which seems to be the case. However, given that tech eventually makes our non-research colonies as good at research as our research colonies, it's hard for me to articulate why they then wouldn't also produce five extra RP. This leads to case three, which definitely seem better then the bonus from focused industry. Case four, once our colonies produce PP, is absurdly better then any other scenario. The only counter I have is that is that points are resources. However, if that's the case, then scenario five looks compelling. It also seems to be balanced against what focused industry gives, which is a decent argument that we should expect it.

It would help if @OneirosTheWriter could clear this up.
 
Omake - A Federation of Fear - Leila Hann
A Federation of Fear (part one: the Songbird and the Cuckoo)


Heirarch Kakix raised his neck high and shook his head. "To please Cardassia? No. It is not for our benefactors alone that we must build an empire. So too, must we build one to ever hope of standing alone."

Heirarch Thaah bared his fangs, an expression of annoyance as he looked back at his counterpart. "Then what care do you even have for the yapping dogs and their offerings? The Yrillians are too disunified and short-sighted to ever threaten us. The Orions have easier prey, and problems of their own besides. Against whom, save the Federation, should we ever have need to stand alone?"

Kakix let out a frustrated whistle. He had made his case to the Triumvirate not a fortnight ago, and was getting tired of repeating it to every Hierarch who couldn't be bothered to watch the records. Around them, the light of the twin suns glinted off of gold wall panels and glistening soapstone tiles around the Many Coloured Courtyard. Behind the outer wall, the tops of the original Sacred Arbor trees swayed in the afternoon wind.

"The Cardassians," Kakix finally said, "are far from us, in space and in culture. They may grant us the most favorable of policies, the most generous of trade values, the best of their potent technology, but their is no interest for them in supporting us once the Federation falls, and no honor for us in a future as mere clients to a nation of silent secret-keepers." He rapped his gold-plated talons against the tile floor. "The way forward is in the building of empires, Thaah. First the Gretarans. One day not far off, the richer Yrillian Garden. It is my hope that we shall always be friends with Cardassia, but once the perfidious Federation crumbles it shall be the end of our client status. We must learn to find our own riches, build our own infrastructure, develop our own technologies that equals that of the Great Powers." He flicked a clawed, jeweled hand skyward and let his voice ring out. "Conquest and tribute will fund the raiders that Cardassia demands today, but shall be our lifesblood when Cardassian aid runs dry tomorrow." He lowered his voice again. "Or even tonight. Their Central Command is still not responding to our entreaties."

Thaah almost laughed out loud at this. "Still, they hide their heads in shame. So broken in spirit over a mere prodigal daughter?" He then narrowed his eyes and picked thoughtfully at his feathered sash. "Whatever heresies the Federation committed on your planet, Kakix, I am not the only Heirarch here on the homeworld who has begun to question the wisdom of our choice-"

Kakix didn't give him time to finish the sentence, raising his neck skyward and letting out a piercing shriek that turned heads all the way across the courtyard. "It was not YOUR shrine who the aliens defiled! Not YOUR hospitality who was flung back in your eyes! Your people may have forgotten what it means to be Sydraxian, but on Kar-Akar the streets echo with songs of rage and revenge! The Triumvirate represents the will of all Sydraxians, not just your constituents. And they have MADE their decision!"

The younger Hierarch raised his own neck to look Kakix in the face, but he looked more bemused than angry. "That their decision has been made, I am not such a fool to deny. But when we look back upon that ruling with the wisdom of retrospect?" He slowly lowered his head again and smiled grimly. "It may be someone else who appears the fool. Good day, friend Kakix."

Kakix watched him depart, breathing a little more deeply than he had realized at first. Why did this feel so much like lying? The Sydraxite Heirarchy needed an empire, and its people needed to commit fully. With or without Cardassia. Stagnation would, eventually, mean death.

"One of those days, Hierarch?"

An unpleasantly familiar voice spoke from behind him. It was all Kakix could do not to draw his dagger.

"I think perhaps a vacation would do you well, friend Kakix, my lord Hierarch. You're certainly not going to get much done here unless you can keep your calm."

He turned around. The young gardener wore the same, placid smile as always, and walked with a confidence that belied the dirt and water on his dark workrobe. "Been a while," the gardener continued, "I was starting to fear I wouldn't see you again unless I transferred back to Kar-Akar."

"I have no news to give you," Kakix growled, stepping closer to the gardener and lowering his voice, "and you already know that. So. Why are you here, you noxious little eel?"

The gardener pouted. "Eel? There's no need to be speciesist, Hierarch."

"There's no need for you to infiltrate this palace when you could have knocked on my front door."

"Ah." The gardener nodded, contrite. "You have a fair point. There are some bits of culture shock that never quite end, I suppose. But regardless." He began leading Kakix out of the courtyard, into a shadowy alcove where no one could see them. "I've prepared a new data package for you. Something our mutual friends would be quite upset if they knew we knew. It concerns a certain convoy that vanished in the borderzone."

"Of course, the Cardassians never tell us what they know. The Federation?"

"Not precisely." The gardener led him into the walk-in closet that contained the rakes, pruning shears, and fertilizer bags that were the tools of his alleged trade. "It would seem the Cardassians weren't being entirely truthful about the situation with a certain insectile species. There's no damning proof, but my organization would be quite surprised if the fate of your missing ships was completely unrelated."

"And you're telling me this, why?" Kakix screwed up his nose against the fertilizer stench as the gardener closed the door.

"I'm telling you this because the more people there are who know, the less we'll have to fear in the future should the Federation crumble and Cardassia decide to make slaves of us instead of clients."

Kakix's jaw kept clenching itself tighter. "Oh yes, your people have so much to fear from the Cardassians. Its not like you've been making yourselves useful to them."

The gardener raised his neck a bit. "I'm afraid I don't follow. Do you mean that-"

With a furious shriek, Kakix grabbed him by the shoulders and hoisted him up, banging him against the stone wall and digging his claws into the prosthetic skin of his shoulders. "I MEAN THAT YOU FRAMED THE STARFLEET VISITORS!"

The gardener wriggled like the slime-covered fish he truly was under all the plastic surgery, but quickly regained his cool. "Yes. Yes we did. Could you please put me down, Hierarch?"

"Why should I?" Kakix pushed his jaws within centimeters of the gardener's face. "In fact, why shouldn't I kill you right now?"

"What would have happened had we not acted, friend Kakix? Would you have ever gotten your empire? Would you have even stayed in power this long, with your warriors chomping at the bit for glory without an external enemy in sight while the rest of the populace grew accustomed to peace? You could have picked a fight with the Yrillians, perhaps, but how would that have gone for you without Cardassian support?"

Kakix narrowed his eyes, realization setting in. "It wasn't just you and the Cardassians. You couldn't have known we had Federation visitors that quickly. One of the other Hierarchs helped plan it."

The gardener nodded resignedly. "Yes. I'm not going to tell you which one though. Could you please put me down?"

Slowly, Kakix acquiesced. The gardener fondled his shoulders where the Hierarch's claws had pierced the skin. "You needed the Federation to be your enemies. You need Gretaran tribute, and Cardassian support, to keep your people in luxury and your war fleet larger than the Yrillians', and you could have never gotten it unless your people had a convincing casus belli. And we need you as well. The balance of power with the Cardassians is precarious. A captain of theirs defects to the Federation, and they shut down their entire diplomatic channel for months, leaving us to fend for ourselves. They give us duranium, dilithium, and plasma torpedoes one day, and leave our freighters to aliens they provoked the next."

The gardener shook his head, and gave Kakix the first really earnest gaze that he had ever seen from him. Kakix's own eyes fell to the filthy floor.

"Everyone benefits from the current arrangement. But that arrangement won't last if we clients don't have contingencies of our own, and the Cardassians decide to see how far they can push. My people have the intelligence network. Your people have the armies and warships."

There was a long, tense silence.

"Take this data package. You can reveal its contents to the Triumvirate, or keep them to yourself, as the situation demands. We trust your judgement, Hierarch."


_____________________________

A/N: thanks to @Simon_Jester for the "songbird and cuckoo" title.
 
Last edited:
No. A two-dimensional representation of the galaxy is not going to be perfect. On the other hand, saying that the galaxy is 'three-dimensional' is disingenuous because it's ignoring the very distribution of stars that you were talking about and the fact the Milky Way is a barred spiral galaxy.

Yes, the galaxy is a thin disc shape. However, "thin" is a very relative term at the sizes we're talking about. Its many star systems thick in the spiral arms, even if the galactic plane has most of the heaviest concentrations. There's plenty of room for empires to have complicated three dimensional borders with each other.

Note that certain canon scenes imply that the federation has had new members join, and that works with our canon if we assume they don't matter. In other words, if you change the bolded part to 'failed to actually ratify a new major member,' then everything is more canon compliant. This leaves the Deltans in the cold, but I have no way to square them with the quest anyway.

I'm pretty sure the Caitians were also canonically members before Camp Khitomer. This quest isn't perfectly canon-compliant, and I'm fine with that.

As for the Deltans, I'm just going to assume that they were retconned into Betazoids.
 
Starfleet is a defensive force, we are explicitly charged with defending the Federation. Also Foward Defense isn't about exploration, it actually lowers our net event rate, it is about positioning military force as close to the borders as possible.
Starfleet's exploratory mission seems to take priority over its combat mission, whether the combat in question is offensive OR defensive. Starfleet certainly can and does fight if need be, but there's a reason we call them 'explorers' and not 'battleships.'

So what it comes down to is picking a defense doctrine that is in keeping with Starfleet's mission and normal behavior.

Turtling up is not normal for Starfleet. It makes sense if we want to think of ourselves building fortresses and 'castling' in the expectation of warfare. But that's not Starfleet's normal behavior. Having lots of ships pushed out into deep space is.

Even narratively I don't see why one of the two projects that both offer better survivability options would make sense and the other not.

Why wouldn't the current situation make the CFP explore the possibility of personal shields, better training methods, better tricorders to find contraband and avoid ambushes, transport enhancers to facilitate evacuation of injured personnel in adverse circumstances, and miscellaneous equipment that "reduces crew losses"? The techs from 2310 Equipment seem as least as fitting to research in the current situation as those in 2310s Personal Protection, some of the techs in the latter pretty much only apply to ship battles which don't particularly concern the CFP.
That's a fair point. I got distracted by the phaser rifles.

I see it as kind of a tossup, so I'm not sure I should be changing my vote, but you're not wrong to point this out at all.

Note that certain canon scenes imply that the federation has had new members join, and that works with our canon if we assume they don't matter. In other words, if you change the bolded part to 'failed to actually ratify a new major member,' then everything is more canon compliant. This leaves the Deltans in the cold, but I have no way to square them with the quest anyway.
The Deltans could be affiliates who have deliberately turned away from heavy industry and space travel to the point where few of them travel and join Starfleet?

I mean, this was always going to be a problem, given how many different kinds of aliens we saw in the first six movies who were not expanded on in TNG and who never (or seldom) appeared in TOS. Retconning Deltans into Betazoids actually makes a LOT of sense, too, since it seems like Roddenberry himself kind of conflated the two. So I like Leila's idea.

I'm voting Forward Defense because I find it more in character for how we've been playing the Federation. Of the four problems we've dealt with, we used Forward Defense in three of them, and ignored the third. Given that two of them resolved positively, and the other two are ongoing, I see no reason why we'd change our policies now.
Which four, by the way? I count the Biophage, the Cardassians, the Sydraxians, and, um...?

Also, in regards to which doctrine is better, I have a few words. First, the combat discount mechanics are comparable when the average combat of the fleet is near 5C. Forward Defense is better the lower the average combat is, while Fleet in Being is better the higher the average combat is. While combat is probably going up long term, we have the ability to decide combat scores of new ships. I know that the other thread likes their 7C cruisers, 8C explorers, and 3 to 5C escorts, but we aren't required to accept those designs. If we want to, our next explorer could have five combat.
This is true, but if we adopt ships that are significantly lower Combat than their probable rivals (including ships we know the other powers have in the pipeline but haven't completed yet, like the Galors)... Our ships are going to lose a lot.

Low Combat results not just in failing to harm the enemy in ship-to-ship fights, and in failing event checks that require combat, but also in getting hit more often in ship to ship fights, because of the "them or us" mechanics.

If two otherwise identical ships with Combat 2 and 4 fight, the Combat 4 ship hits 2/3 of the time, while the Combat 2 ship hits 1/3 of the time. This can easily result in the less heavily armed ship being destroyed without even breaching the shields of the big-gun ship. Unless we make our low-Combat ships so much cheaper that we can afford to heavily outnumber the enemy at the point of contact in a ship-to-ship battle, we'd be setting up our ships to get blown up a lot.

Because we have ships getting drawn into fights that use the combat engine about, oh, once every few years... and ships roll Combat checks even more often than that. Our next big 'emergency' situation is probably going to involve an actual war, too, or at least some squadron-sized battles; I was pleasantly surprised when we got out of Grey October without shooting.

I know @Simon_Jester has said that building a fleet of low combat vessels is abusing forward defense, but I don't really buy that argument. To me, the combat discount mechanic represents weapons the council admits our ships need given that space is a dangerous place...
Thing is, the combat cap is also supposed to reflect the rough size of fleet the Council thinks we needs. Doubling our Combat score by building our ships to an arbitrary limit that will not move over time in order to take maximum advantage of a specific mechanical bonus, while totally neglecting a wide variety of ship types that the Federation canonically has and arguably needs (such as cruiser/escort vessels that don't cost several hundred resources apiece), and having most of our ships be 'pocket explorers' unworthy of the name and probably incapable of seriously confronting what will by the TNG era be cruiser designs of enemy powers...

I just don't see a way for this to feel anything other than gamey.

I want us to capitalize on Forward Defense, I just don't want it to turn into a bizarre, mutant "how hard can we exploit this mechanic" race.

One seems to be what everyone is assuming, but I don't see why that necessarily follows. This would only be comparable if we had five times the colonies instead of two times. Two makes the most sense to me, and is probably better if RP is worth more than BR or SR, which seems to be the case. However, given that tech eventually makes our non-research colonies as good at research as our research colonies, it's hard for me to articulate why they then wouldn't also produce five extra RP. This leads to case three, which definitely seem better then the bonus from focused industry. Case four, once our colonies produce PP, is absurdly better then any other scenario. The only counter I have is that is that points are resources. However, if that's the case, then scenario five looks compelling. It also seems to be balanced against what focused industry gives, which is a decent argument that we should expect it...
All in all, I feel like this is a good argument in favor of "pick the doctrine that feels more like what Starfleet would do."
 
In canon, by the time of what we'd probably call the early Roger Admiralcy the Feds definitely had as members:
and a lot of other unnamed species seen in Fed Council scenes, on starships, and generally around the background.

Suffice it to say that's a tad more complexity than was really feasible to deal with at the start of the quest. I'm personally down with ruling this as an AU where the Founding Four never got round to admitting new members until now, for whatever varied reasons we come up with.
 
I'm assuming the Federation is full of little enclaves of refugees and their descendants from all kinds of strange races and planets that failed critical science tests. Especially in the post Orion empire age, where lots of their colonies have access to remnant Orion tech.
 
In canon, by the time of what we'd probably call the early Roger Admiralcy the Feds definitely had as members:
and a lot of other unnamed species seen in Fed Council scenes, on starships, and generally around the background.

Suffice it to say that's a tad more complexity than was really feasible to deal with at the start of the quest. I'm personally down with ruling this as an AU where the Founding Four never got round to admitting new members until now, for whatever varied reasons we come up with.
I blame the Temporal Cold War creating another alternate timeline.
 
Non-voting observer?

I'm assuming the Federation is full of little enclaves of refugees and their descendants from all kinds of strange races and planets that failed critical science tests. Especially in the post Orion empire age, where lots of their colonies have access to remnant Orion tech.
That is likely- lots of little colonies that failed or partially failed, individual ships that scattered a thousand light years or more from their parent civilization when they finally found a perfect world for their own species' needs, intelligent 'species' that are actually genetically modified descendants of some ancient empire but are now so different as to be unrecognizable as the originals...

And such colonies would hardly even show up on the economic radar in many cases.

Basically, I want to strike a compromise between the gameplay-necessary "four member races, not THAT many minor species in the quadrant near us" assumption we're forced to make for play... And the interesting "encounter lots of new species" premise of TOS and TNG.
 
Which four, by the way? I count the Biophage, the Cardassians, the Sydraxians, and, um...?
I'm counting the Grey October incident and the Cardassians in General separately.
The Deltans could be affiliates who have deliberately turned away from heavy industry and space travel to the point where few of them travel and join Starfleet?
I'm not sure that works. I think they've actually gotten more screen time then the Caitians did. Especially in uniform. Specifically, Illia and whoever this is seem to be clearly Starfleet members.

I can accept everyone else who appears in the council scene being a minor race that doesn't matter at our scale, and have been running on that assumption, but that doesn't work as well for them.
Thing is, the combat cap is also supposed to reflect the rough size of fleet the Council thinks we needs.
I don't actually see it that way. I see it as another mechanism to limit how militant we are, thus building a giant un-militarized fleet is fine. Since it would let us do that anyway – just not as well – it seems to just generally be terrible at the job you think it does. Maybe it doesn't do that job?
 
[X] Continuity
[X] [PERSONAL] Caitian Frontier Police R&D: 2310s Equipment
[X] [DOCTRINE] Admiral Lathriss: Fleet in Being
[X][BOOST] Vulcan Science Academy
 
It will be a sad, sad day when the Excelsior-B design, sometime around 2340, reclassifies all our Excelsiors as Cruisers and our combat cap fills up significantly.

Or maybe if we try to avoid that we'll get spanked for ignoring the '2.4 Megaton Cruiser' tech.

Thus, for this post, I'm only going to compare '0 / 25 Mineral Contributions (+10 BR/SR from each Member World)' to '0 / 25 Colony Efforts (+5 Resources from colony worlds).' It seems generally accepted that the first is better, but that depends on what counts as a resource. As I see it, there are a few different interpretations, and some of them make the latter far better. Also, it's worth remembering that we seem to be getting twice as many colonies as new member worlds, so the benefit per world only needs to be half as good. Now to my possible interpretations (you might have others):
  1. BR colonies produce +5 BR, SR colonies produce +5 SR, research colonies produce nothing extra.
  2. BR colonies produce +5 BR, SR colonies produce +5 SR, research colonies produce +5 RP
  3. If a colony produces BR, SR, or RP, then it produces 5 more.
  4. If a colony produces BR, SR, RP, or PP, then it produces 5 more.
  5. Every colony produces +5 BR/SR.
One seems to be what everyone is assuming, but I don't see why that necessarily follows. This would only be comparable if we had five times the colonies instead of two times. Two makes the most sense to me, and is probably better if RP is worth more than BR or SR, which seems to be the case. However, given that tech eventually makes our non-research colonies as good at research as our research colonies, it's hard for me to articulate why they then wouldn't also produce five extra RP. This leads to case three, which definitely seem better then the bonus from focused industry. Case four, once our colonies produce PP, is absurdly better then any other scenario. The only counter I have is that is that points are resources. However, if that's the case, then scenario five looks compelling. It also seems to be balanced against what focused industry gives, which is a decent argument that we should expect it.
We would need a benefit 4 times as good-each Member World produces 20 resources total, while Colony Efforts only produces +5 resources per colony unless it produces two kinds of resource natively-I see no good reason why an income of 1 PP or 3 RP should be increased by 400% or 160%. And those resources aren't easy to secure-they're burried deep in trees that will take decades to complete. Nor do I see any reason why you would assume that each colony would produce 10 resources instead of 5 as a result of a single tech. 1 is consistant with other technologies-2 would be overpowered, 3-5 are pipe dreams.
 
It will be a sad, sad day when the Excelsior-B design, sometime around 2340, reclassifies all our Excelsiors as Cruisers and our combat cap fills up significantly.
This. Very much this.

I'm not sure that works. I think they've actually gotten more screen time then the Caitians did. Especially in uniform. Specifically, Illia and whoever this is seem to be clearly Starfleet members.

I can accept everyone else who appears in the council scene being a minor race that doesn't matter at our scale, and have been running on that assumption, but that doesn't work as well for them.
The Deltans sure as heck didn't get more screen time than the Betazoids. They show up all over the place in those six movies, but then we never or hardly ever see them again. Probably because they existed as much for the fetish material for Gene Roddenberry as for anything else...

I really, really think it makes more sense, for purposes of making a playable game, to retcon Deltans as Betazoids.

EDIT: I mean, who says there can't be Betazoids who shave their heads?

I don't actually see it that way. I see it as another mechanism to limit how militant we are, thus building a giant un-militarized fleet is fine. Since it would let us do that anyway – just not as well – it seems to just generally be terrible at the job you think it does. Maybe it doesn't do that job?
We have militarization to stop us from being militant, and that even includes us getting militarization points for building warships. Including relatively small and lightly armed warships, as long as they are warships.

The combat cap doesn't make sense as a redundant mechanism to stop Starfleet from becoming too much a 'military.' Where it does make sense is as a limit on the overall size of the fleet. I mean, think about it. There has to be SOME cap on the size of the fleet, right? The Council won't pay to maintain a thousand ships at our current level of industrialization; even a hundred would be pushing it.

So how would that cap be implemented? We already have floors in the form of requirements for Defense and Science, so the cap can't be in those stats. A Presence cap doesn't make sense either. Limits on the total Hull or Shields would be extremely hard to justify narratively, especially since those two stats serve similar purposes. We could just game the system by having strongly-shielded but light-hull ships or vice versa.

That leaves a Combat cap.

And you will note that as long as we build roughly 'balanced' designs, there is a wide band between the minimum necessary to meet Defense/Science requirements, and the maximum that triggers the combat cap. This band indicates roughly the gap between the minimum fleet the Council wants us to have to meet its needs, and the maximum fleet they are prepared to pay for.

Sure, we could in effect widen the band by building our ships with fewer weapons while keeping them otherwise identical. But in the long run this would have significant drawbacks, and the Council might well start asking awkward questions- I would, if I were in their position.
 
Last edited:
It will be a sad, sad day when the Excelsior-B design, sometime around 2340, reclassifies all our Excelsiors as Cruisers and our combat cap fills up significantly.
Yeah, we'll have to hand them over to our member world fleets and we'll only get half of them back during war from the Decisive Battle tech.

I think it's worth remembering that this comes from Lone Ranger, and automatic reclassification is a stronger argument against Combined Arms then Lone Ranger.
We would need a benefit 4 times as good-each Member World produces 20 resources total, while Colony Efforts only produces +5 resources per colony unless it produces two kinds of resource natively-I see no good reason why an income of 1 PP or 3 RP should be increased by 400% or 160%. And those resources aren't easy to secure-they're burried deep in trees that will take decades to complete. Nor do I see any reason why you would assume that each colony would produce 10 resources instead of 5 as a result of a single tech. 1 is consistant with other technologies-2 would be overpowered, 3-5 are pipe dreams.
Just checking, but your argument seems to be that it would be absurd if two comparable techs had a comparable bonus?

So how would that cap be implemented?
A tonnage or number of ship cap, comparable to the ones in the Washington or London Naval Treaties.

Basically, the task you seem to think our combat cap is supposed to do, it doesn't do. It does do what I think it's supposed to do. There are plenty of ways to limit the fleet which would actually limit the fleet. This doesn't really limit the fleet now, and it really wouldn't at all under Forward Defense plus Lone Ranger. I think it's more sensible to assume that's not its purpose.

As to the question, 'why would the council have redundant system to keep Starfleet from being to militarized?' I'd chalk that up to getting burned by our predecessor. It is entirely possible to build nearly pure warships that don't get any militarization, but the combat cap starkly limits the appeal of such ships.
 
I agree with the conclusion but I do NOT think that the game as played supports the idea of there being no room for things to get entangled 'above' and 'below' each other. Most Star Trek ships only travel at a few hundred times the speed of light- warships cruise faster and can sprint quite a lot faster, but that's about it.

I'm very sure that star trek ships move much faster than a few hundred times the speed of light, it's not typical for journeys to take many months or even years from one star system to another. At least if you go by the depictions in the series.

That said they do sometimes do rather daft things in the show writing so eh.
 
[X] Continuity
[X] [PERSONAL] Caitian Frontier Police R&D: 2310s Equipment
[X] [DOCTRINE] Admiral Lathriss: Fleet in Being
[X][BOOST] Vulcan Science Academy
 
supposed to do. There are plenty of ways to limit the fleet which would actually limit the fleet. This doesn't really limit the fleet now, and it really wouldn't at all under Forward Defense plus Lone Ranger. I think it's more sensible to assume that's not its purpose.

As to the question, 'why would the council have redundant system to keep Starfleet from being to militarized?' I'd chalk that up to getting burned by our predecessor. It is entirely possible to build nearly pure warships that don't get any militarization, but the combat cap starkly limits the appeal of such ships.

The thing is that the whole militarization issue is a political matter - if Oneiros/the Fed Council thinks we have to many combat ships they can simply say so and order us to stop expanding/build certain ship classes. There is no need for a complicated system (which would be necessary when it comes to dealing with things like possible threats, general mentality of the Council etc.) when the GM can easily handle that via narrative.
 
Back
Top