- Location
- Central Standard Time
Wait, there's a tech node with the same name as the quest?
[X] Forward Defense
Also, IDC about mechanical benefits. I like narrative benefits better, and this will keep things interesting along our frontiers.
Wait, there's a tech node with the same name as the quest?
You...do know that Forward Defense is a defensive doctrine, not a Ship Design doctrine, right? And there is only one tech in it that benefits Cruisers? That 'flat -1 to combat' benefits ESCORTS more than cruisers. And the bonus to researching new cruisers, while okay, isn't something I would write home to mum about and tell her I have to get. Lone Ranger gives some benefits to cruisers but the lion's share to Explorers, Swarm benefits apply to either Escorts or Everyone. Cruisers haven't got their own doctrine, and it shows.
"Forward defense" isn't a fleet construction doctrine. It's a deployment doctrine. There's no particular reason why forward defense should favor the construction of cruisers, or for that matter why centralized deployment of a fleet should favor it.
So this doesn't invalidate or even address Vehrec's point that while there are doctrines that provide significant mechanical benefits to escorts and explorers, there isn't really one for cruisers. Except for the one side-benefit they get from Lone Ranger, which is one of the main reasons people voted Lone Ranger in the first place as far as I can tell.
Yeah, because you cranked up the science stat. In fact, you're spending almost as much tonnage on the science suite as you are on the guns. The only difference between this and one of our normal explorer-class ships is a relatively fragile hull and a stupidly nerfed Presence stat. Raising Presence would be an obvious and easy step. I doubt it would even require us to weaken the ship that much.
Your ability to deliberately minmax Oneiros's formulas and still get an effective warship that is also a pretty fair general-purpose explorer except for low presence... does not really disprove any of my points.
Yes.The combat cap is a great mechanic for limiting overall fleet size and fleet militarization at the same time.
Which is why you've spent the last two pages arguing he's bad at it?This is why I've got a lot of respect for him, by the way, as a game-runner.
On the other hand, not all events are good, and I at least would prefer that bad events happen away from our home sectors. Remember, the biophage came from event rolls. If this tech reduces the chance that the moon explodes, V'ger or the whale probe shows up, or whatever happened with Romulus, then that seems worth considering.And it's true that Forward Defense has a second technology in Independent Captains that both increases border sector events and decreases home sector events. But you know, if we think it's a bad idea we don't even have to research it. Independent Captains isn't a prerequisite for anything else, so we can leave it on the shelf and not decrease home sector events at all.
Fleet in Being has one more node than Forward Defense, it does not take much longer to research in totality, we are not going to get the full benefits of either for a while. Also T2 Fleet in Being gives us global discounts on starbases, which is a really big benefit.It's true that Fleet in Being has a Technology that increases Event Rate.... VERY VERY HIGH UP THE TECH TREE AND WE MIGHT NOT GET TO IT FOR DECADES.
And I would like to further point out that Fleet in Being is actually more in line with how we have been playing than Forward Defense. We have been building starbases to cover defense requirements, distributing ships across our sectors to handle event response and using the Explorer Corps to push back the frontiers.
...those are the exact same thing as covering defense requirements. Having them there frees up more of our ships to move around as needed.We haven't built a single starbase with the motivation of covering defense requirements. We build the one in the RBZ because it was a good chance to get more coverage on our border, not because we wanted more ships there. We built the one at Vega to help defend against Sydraxian attacks. We built the one in the CBZ because we wanted more support against the Cardassians. It was never done with the motivation that we wanted to move ships back to interior sectors.
Err how is building starbases to increase our defenses not building starbases to boost our defenses? Starbases were built to free up ships for elswhere/bolster total defensive ability, that is part of what Fleet in Being encourages.We haven't built a single starbase with the motivation of covering defense requirements. We build the one in the RBZ because it was a good chance to get more coverage on our border, not because we wanted more ships there. We built the one at Vega to help defend against Sydraxian attacks. We built the one in the CBZ because we wanted more support against the Cardassians. It was never done with the motivation that we wanted to move ships back to interior sectors.
Unless the boost to event probability is really small, "more events" will not take long to pay off as much or more than "cheaper starbases." Saving 5pp or so on a starbase every few years is unlikely to be as good a benefit as receiving significantly more events in our border/frontier zones.Fleet in Being has one more node than Forward Defense, it does not take much longer to research in totality, we are not going to get the full benefits of either for a while. Also T2 Fleet in Being gives us global discounts on starbases, which is a really big benefit.
That's because we're struggling to build ships fast enough to meet the Defense requirements of the rapidly expanding Federation. If we weren't chronically short on ships, I suspect you'd see more of our ships concentrated at the frontiers.EDIT:
And I would like to further point out that Fleet in Being is actually more in line with how we have been playing than Forward Defense. We have been building starbases to cover defense requirements, distributing ships across our sectors to handle event response and using the Explorer Corps to push back the frontiers.
It has all the things a decent explorer has except Presence, which you deliberately cranked all the way down in order to prove a point. Basically, you took an (extremely fudged, unreliable) scale 8 explorer, and cranked down Hull and Presence in order to boost the other four stats. You're calling it a warship for no reason other than its low Presence. A high Science stat is shared both by your idea of a good warship, and by the Pacifist Party's idea of a good explorer. So your decision to keep it high in order to avoid militarization penalties is a very effective attempt to minmax... but one which also undermines your claim that this is a 'pure warship.'Why yes, my warship has a sensor suit so it can detect cloaked vessels. You know, that thing that two of our three major rivals use.
I'm not sure why you think that makes it a decent explorer.
Which ties into my original point about how your ability to game the system via minmaxing cannot be used to provide evidence about the system. The reason this game works is not because its rules are somehow perfectly balanced or logical; it's because Oneiros is not stupid.However, the sheet's formula is nowhere near perfect at detecting warships. At best, it acts as a supplement to other systems. It's worth remembering that a lot of militarization points are more about preventing slow ships then well armed ships because of the way Defense used to cost.
Both combat cap and militarization date far enough back into the game mechanics that they are part of the original core rules of the quest. Ship customization came later, and the tech tree in its present state came quite a lot later.Yes.
And it was introduced first.
But clearly covering militarization can be handled by the other system that came later.
My argument is that deliberate manipulation of those bonuses by artificially engineering the fleet with ship designs that make no design sense EXCEPT to extract maximum mechanical bonuses from our doctrine trees is a bad idea. It is not an idea that is likely to give us superpowers and a huge fleet. On the contrary, it is likely to result in our ships being forcibly reclassified and us being thwacked with political problems.Which is why you've spent the last two pages arguing he's bad at it?
My argument is essentially 'these techs are working as intended' when they encourage a larger but less militarized fleet. As far as I can tell, you've spent this time arguing that it is fundamentally game breaking to even try to do that.
Quite possibly in the short term, but in the long term Fleet in Being again probably offers a bigger boost to event rate than Forward defense, because we have more home sectors than border zones and this is really unlikely to change.Unless the boost to event probability is really small, "more events" will not take long to pay off as much or more than "cheaper starbases."
Enclaves and Exclaves? I think that's the real answer.The major problem with show canon vs our map vs all other fanon maps is that the Cardassians explicitly have a Federation, Klingon, and either have a Romulan border or one close to their space. That suggests they're either in the middle of all three powers, or somehow above/below them either entirely or in some areas. The latter option is kinda hard to chart in any conventional 2D sense.
EDIT: I bring this up ALL THE TIME because I remember watching DS9 and being like "??? but how" when they said the Klingons had crossed their border with the Cardassians due to all the maps putting them like, completely opposite each other.
Doesn't solve the tricky Rommie-Cardie border issue (An episode established the Rommies were letting the Cardies go through their space to attack the Feds through the Neutral Zone, which would necessitate a solid border between their main territories somehow)
For event rates we can probably assume that the techs are roughly equal on an individual basis, given that there are no modifiers listed and event rate modifiers apear all over the tech tree. Having major divergences would be rather odd as most significant difference are listed on the tech tree for other things.
Given that we really can conclude that at most the techs are equal, if the Forward defense acts as a global modifier and the changes are proportional to the number of borderzones/regular sectors and if it is a per sector modifier like the rest of the techs then Forward Defense does result in lower total events. We are regardless of doctrine not going to be able to just randomly declare new border zones to stack the bonus. Even with a generous ability to generate new zones, even without anything to justify them, we will still have more core sectors than border zones and this isn't going to change.
Fleet in Being also incentivizes and discounts starbases which provide rather hefty bonuses from techs (defense boosts, response boosts, event increases) we are going to research in the medium term anyway.
That is really an argument to not have Forward Defense though, if random crises keep popping up in core areas we really want to have ships in place to cover them.
Again, the Explorer Corps and our border fleets will still be doing that and our own space contains a lot of stuff that isn't extensively explored.
Shit shit day
-
Yes, you'll be able to create border zones on all borders, and/or subdivide further. The idea is that the fleet positions on the outer edges, whether explored or unexplored.
Assuming you haven't missed anything for the sake of argument, that would require us to beeline for that particular tech, which we may or may not actually wind up doing given that there are many other desirable techs.Quite possibly in the short term, but in the long term Fleet in Being again probably offers a bigger boost to event rate than Forward defense, because we have more home sectors than border zones and this is really unlikely to change.
EDIT:
Also if we concentrate on event booster techs with Admiral Lathriss we gain the Fleet in Being booster 5-6 years after would have gained the first Forward Defense event booster, given the neccessary planning horizon for our tech research that is not actually that long.
Thank you for answering that question, I am so sorry for what's happening and again, anything I can do to help, however small, I will be happy to do. I've got (comparatively tiny) troubles of my own that your quest has helped me to cope with, so you've got a lot of karma saved up in my book, among (no doubt) others.Shit shit day
-
Yes, you'll be able to create border zones on all borders, and/or subdivide further. The idea is that the fleet positions on the outer edges, whether explored or unexplored.
And I would like to further point out that Fleet in Being is actually more in line with how we have been playing than Forward Defense. We have been building starbases to cover defense requirements, distributing ships across our sectors to handle event response and using the Explorer Corps to push back the frontiers.
The offer is appreciated, but I suspect there isn't much I could farm out that wouldn't require an in-depth reading in.Too busy hugging to informative, wish I could do both.
Assuming you haven't missed anything for the sake of argument, that would require us to beeline for that particular tech, which we may or may not actually wind up doing given that there are many other desirable techs.
Thank you for answering that question, I am so sorry for what's happening and again, anything I can do to help, however small, I will be happy to do. I've got (comparatively tiny) troubles of my own that your quest has helped me to cope with, so you've got a lot of karma saved up in my book, among (no doubt) others.
Well, if you need something written along the lines of "I need this, this, and this to happen" I just may be able to do it, though my hours don't exactly line up with Australia's.The offer is appreciated, but I suspect there isn't much I could farm out that wouldn't require an in-depth reading in.
Yes, you'll be able to create border zones on all borders, and/or subdivide further. The idea is that the fleet positions on the outer edges, whether explored or unexplored.
Specific border zones, declared as such. So you would declare a Rimward Border Zone, for instance, with opportunities to that extent.So just to clarify: Do we still need border zones to get the Forward Defense bonuses? Or does "outer edges" mean that the bonuses also apply to any sector that has external borders?
Right now, there are only 2 completely internal sectors (Andor, Vulcan), and after the SBZ, only 3 (Andor, Vulcan, Tellar), with the remaining 9 sectors all having external borders. So Forward Defense bonuses providing bonuses to 9 out of 11 (soon to be 9 out of 12) sectors is pretty ludicrous.
Wrong, though.
I pointed out earlier that building starbases to cover home sector defense requirements allows us to push ships outwards, which would have MORE OF A BENEFIT under Forward Defense than under Fleet in Being. Building any type of starbases, the math is in favor of FD, and in fact is something we should be doing under FD.
Assuming canon, the Syndicate is being written of by the Cardies? Guess they can admit the Feds do have enough internal strength to keep up the pressure.
But the Lecurre (at least, that is what I assume the 'Orion' in this piece was) want to take over the role?
A/N: just my attempt to explain how the Federation still only had four members by 2300 in this timeline, and why that might have changed so quickly during the events of the quest.
A/N: this one was written with the assumptions that 1) the political situation described in the Yrillian intel brief is accurate, and 2) between the Syndicate's predicament and Cardassia's post Kadak-Tor isolationism the latter sees the former as just not worth it anymore.
If either of those assumptions are in error, feel free to disregard this as non-canon.