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.

That's because the point is such a tangent from the actual discussion that it's barely worth addressing. Yes I do know that forward defense is a defense doctrine. Yes I was the one who originally pointed out that an escort fleet benefits massively from a -1 combat. However, the clearest 'this is a cruiser bonus' we have is also in the doctrine, and it was even clearer in the original draft. While it might not be very good – as has been pointed out by others – its also not clear cruisers need anything more. It's worth noting that its opposite number appears to be a starbase bonus, which also isn't particular grand.

On the other hand, I would support a -1C for cruisers to appear somewhere between Forward Defense, Lone Ranger, and a hypothetical advanced doctrine set building from them. It would create a nice progression.
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.

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.

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.
The combat cap is a great mechanic for limiting overall fleet size and fleet militarization at the same time.
Yes.

And it was introduced first.

But clearly covering militarization can be handled by the other system that came later.

:rolleyes:
This is why I've got a lot of respect for him, by the way, as a game-runner.
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.

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.
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.
 
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.
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.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.

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.

And generally, we've tried to keep interior sector fleet strength low and fleet strength on sectors bordering action high. I'd happily put less ships in Vulcan sector if I could, and the only reason we had so many in Tellar sector is we were worried about Sydraxian attacks on a world that's now being transfered to the Sydraxian border zone anyway.
 
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.
...those are the exact same thing as covering defense requirements. Having them there frees up more of our ships to move around as needed.
 
Last edited:
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 also have a long running goal with our shipbuilding to have an excelsior for every sector for event response, that is very in line with Fleet in Beings focus on area coverage.
 
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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.'

This doesn't prove a thing about the more general point, which is that militarization (including but not limited to militarization for buying warlike ship classes) is the obvious mechanic for keeping Starfleet from becoming, well, too militarized.

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.
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.

Trying to slip something past him so that we can get big rewards without costs or penalties, by careful tuning and manipulation of the numbers, is spiteful and foolish, and a terrible way to play this sort of game.

Yes.

And it was introduced first.

But clearly covering militarization can be handled by the other system that came later.

:rolleyes:
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.

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.
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.

Building, say, a swarm of Combat 5 scale 6.5 pocket explorers so we can park them on the borders and pretend they're Combat 2 is not going to fly. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.
 
My personal vision of Fleet In Being has never been one of a static Home Fleet remaining at anchor, eternally vigilant and never doing much-rather I prefer to think of a solid core that can respond to any crisis, which allows us to whittle off bits from other postings and send them where they are really needed-that can be interior, but we can bite the penalty for combat and send them exterior as well. Even if Threat dropped to zero right now, we'd still be safely under the Combat cap. Our incoming builds may change that, but there's no reason to presume that Starfleet cannot look both inward and outward at the same time, facing two directions like Janus.

Also we obviously need a good All-Rounder Explorer design at all times-for the Explorer Corps whose missions are dangerous and require everything. Purposefully handicapping our front-line explorers and having a entirely separate High Quality design for the Explorer corps is possible, but feels like cheating.
 
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."
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Enclaves and Exclaves? I think that's the real answer.
 
Enclaves and Exclaves? I think that's the real answer.
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.

It depends on how they are being balanced and the form of which the bonuses take. Oneiros could be intending for total event rates to be balanced for both FiB and FD for the current mix of 6 (soon 8) core sectors and 3 (soon 4) border zones. In which case the balance between the event rate per tech bonuses isn't a guaranteed assumption.

As the Federation expands, we may by default keep around the same ratio of 2 core sectors per 1 border zone. It's what we started out with in 2301, and it's what we currently have, and it's what we will have about 2 years from now (post SBZ and Rigel/Apiata ratifications). If FD is taken, we'll likely start creating more border zones as can be supported by pp and garrison requirements to reduce that ratio to be more in favor of FD's bonuses.

So it's still too premature to say that FiB will result in higher total event rate, even after the full tech trees are researched.

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.

FiB does provide better bonuses for starbases than FD, but I don't consider them a significant enough factor.

The bulk of our defenses will be ships, with starbases and outposts providing a supportive role. It doesn't look like that at the moment, but we're just now getting into stride with ship builds, and we have a lot starbases and outposts that already existed or were built before any doctrinal bonuses can play out (at least 200pp worth in total) to supplement our current defenses.

Even if starbases and defensive infrastructure are important, +1pp/starbase doesn't compare too badly vs +2D/starbase, faster build times, and the equivalent of +2 skill in starbase research. On the starbase cost side, border zone starbases may end up being slightly cheaper overall in FD than in FiB due to the Public Awareness tech, and we'll likely be building more starbases in border zones that eventually become core sectors as the Federation expands.

...

Hmm...it's curious that FD doesn't include discounts on deep space stations, despite the tech containing "deep space" in the name.

@OneirosTheWriter, is Forward Defense's Deep Space Construction supposed to contain techs for deep space stations as well? It's odd that a tech that's called "Deep Space Construction" doesn't contain any bonus for a, well, deep space construction.

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.

Please consider the context of what you're quoting - that was a joking reply to a supposedly canon situation that in all likelihood has no bearing on TBG.

And FD would actually decrease the chances of such "random crises" in core sectors. Well, assuming that crises are all event-based.

FiB and FD are geared for different types of crises. FD is more optimal for the more common conventional threats that are on par with Starfleet tech and power. FiB is more optimal for the crazy shit you see in canon Star Trek movies or other out of context threats like the Borg.

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.

I agree that the same amount of exploration will be done with either FiB and FD, and that neither have any direct impact on FYMs. But it's FD's exploration that I favor more from both a narrative and mechanical perspective.

If I was part of the Federation Council, I would belong to the expansionist faction, and I want the Federation to keep expanding. FD, with its increased amount of events that can involve bordering neutrals and affiliates, helps with that. There's even the chance (albeit unlikely) that it would be a border zone sector event that finds a new species - border zones are, after all, the least thoroughly explored Federation sectors.

Someone also pointed out a long time ago that border sector garrisons may be able to better support FYMs, because FYMs tend to explore within or just outside border zone areas. Recent examples include further Lapycorias and Themis system events that FYMs partook in.

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.

I want to mark this post as informative but I can't bring myself too :/

edit: typos
 
Last edited:
Too busy hugging to informative, wish I could do both.

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.
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.

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.
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.
 
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.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
The offer is appreciated, but I suspect there isn't much I could farm out that wouldn't require an in-depth reading in.
 
[X] Base Plan Continuity
[X][BOOST] Vulcan Science Academy
[X][PERSONAL] Caitian Frontier Police R&D: 2310s Equipment
[X][DOCTRINE] Admiral Lathriss: Forward Defence
 
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.

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.
 
I want to say to everyone that I do appreciate the responses and condolences, and the hug ratings. It has put a smile on my face at a time when I'm a bit short of them.

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.
Specific border zones, declared as such. So you would declare a Rimward Border Zone, for instance, with opportunities to that extent.
 
Omake - A Fedeation of Fear Pt 2 - Leila Hann
A Federation of Fear (part two: a Betrayal of Elves and Giants)



"I don't think I ever told you," Ara smiled as she put her wineglass back down, "but you really do look like the tree spirits from our ancient myths."

The tiny, green-skinned man's face flushed a darker shade. A coy, almost feminine, smile graced his lips. "Is that what all this 'elf' business I've been hearing is about?"

Ara laughed, her deep voice reverberating around the sitting room. "No one ever told you? Yrillians have called Orions that for centuries."

The Orion raised his hands. "Ah. This is my first mission coreward. I'm a bit ashamed to say that I've never actually met one of you in person before."

"Mmm. And what do you think of us?" Ara took another sip of wine and leaned over further, letting her collar hang open just far enough to be suggestive. The little man made his coy, plump-lipped little smile again and looked at her through the corners of his bright eyes. "Of Yrillians? I think I'd need more experience to make such a judgement. You, personally?" He did his shy little blush again as he rose from his seat. "I can hardly complain."

He turned around and bent over to pick up another bottle of that exotic liquor his ship had brought, offering Ara a rather spectacular view before straightening up to pour them each a shotglass. From the main dining hall outside, loud, angry voices shouted over each other as the rest of their respective delegations haggled. As a senior member of the work group, Ara had spent the better part of the day shouting and banging her fist with the best of them. The stubborn little mite of a Delbaj couldn't seem to get it through her head that Cardassian weaponry just wasn't coming as quickly these days, and even less of it was going to anyone not affiliated with the Consolidation faction. After a frustrating, unproductive day, she was glad to learn that not all of the Syndicate visitors were so irritating.

"Here," he made a broad, winsome smile this time, brushing a stray lock of thick, carmine hair from his eyes before offering her a shotglass, "one more toast. To health!"

"To health." She smiled back before downing the liquid, careful not to break the puny alien shotglass in her hand. She was starting to lose coordination. She wasn't going to let this beautiful little man outdrink her, but damn, how much could he drink?

"Its good, isn't it?" He sat down again, this time on the couch beside her, his feet not quite reaching the floor. By way of response, Ara wrapped an arm around the rippling skin and muscle of his bare shoulders. Strange, did she feel him flinch a bit at her touch? He'd be the first Orion she ever met who reacted that way to physical contact. She resolved not to take it personally, but still, even in her drunken state, it struck her as odd.

"It is," she agreed.

"I do like you," the green man continued, "much more than I expected. I can see why you're so popular with your people."

"More than you expected? Does my work group have an unfortunate reputation?" She squeezed him closer.

"Hmm. Maybe a bit. The sad fact is that from a Cardassian perspective, the Orion Syndicate is no longer worth the trouble."

"Shows how much they know, doesn't it." She giggled as he squeezed her shoulder back.

"They're not stupid. Not as smart as they think, perhaps, but no fools either. They were reluctant to let the Syndicate keep any foothold at all in Yrillian space, except that your faction made a good go-between for arms dealing. But now they're ready to cut their losses, what with so many other problems to deal with in their own space, and our Shodars losing so much ground to the Federation. More and more, they see us as a destabilizing influence in a Yrillian Garden they'd rather unify."

"Let's talk about something less depressing, hon."

The Orion sighed, and nodded. "Yes, of course. You've earned a pleasant evening, Headwoman Ara." He smiled his plump-lipped, pouty smile again and looked her in the eyes. She smiled back, and let her hands wander down his sides. He put his own hands on either of her statuesque cheeks, and fondled her lovingly. She let out a drunken giggle.

An instant later, ten thousand volts of electricity passed through her body, and she slumped onto the armrest as a smoking ruin.

"I wasn't lying," the green-skinned man dusted off his hands as he stood up, the smile gone from his face, "I did like you, even if you aliens all touch people too much." He threw the wine and shot glasses on the floor to break them, and poured a vial of Orion blood from his belt on the opposite wall. Cardassia had ruled that the Syndicate had to be let go, and the Lecarre had decided that this was the perfect opportunity to demonstrate that they could do its job better anyway.

He was gone by the time the rest of Ara's work group found the scene. The Delbaj and her retinue didn't live long enough to miss him.


________________________


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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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.
:facepalm:

Building starbases frees up ships to go elsewhere, that is true regardless of defense doctrine, however Forward Defense does not boost starbase construction as much as Fleet in Being does.

Fleet in Being provides global discounts to starbase construction, Forward Defense only provides discounts to building starbases in border zones. While we will build starbases to cover defense needs in both cases, one provides more bonuses to starbase contruction than the other.

Fleet in Being incidentally provides bonuses to starbase research and defense as well.
 
Last edited:
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?

My intended angle was that the Cardassians want the Yrillians to be united under a central, Cardassian-client government. According to the Yrillian brief someone wrote a while back, the Orion Syndicate wants to keep the Yrillian central government weak so that they can keep doing criminal stuff with them. The Cardassians tolerated this until now because they could use the pro-Orion Yrillian factions to channel aid to the Syndicate for anti-Federation activities, but now the Syndicate no longer seems worth the cost of a strong Yrillian client.

It should be noted that by using black ops like this to undermine Orion/Yrillian relations, the Cardassians are able to get the Syndicate out of Yrillian space without having to visibly betray the Syndicate themselves. Thus, they can still use the Syndicate for shenanigans, it'll just be a little harder to fund them.

As for the Lecarre's own relations with all of the above groups...wait for the finale. :)
 
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.

It does a very good job of explaining why there were no new Federation members. And perhaps the lack of minor species like the aforementioned Deltans and whatever can be handwaved away as simply being in a separate location in this AU.

However, it doesn't explain why the Federation knew very little about its surrounding neighborhood by 2300. With a century of even very minor exploration, and nations simply knowing about other nations, the Federation should have gotten at least some idea of the existence of Amarkians (through Orions) and Dawiar (through Caitians) and Gretarians (through Yrillians, though perhaps they weren't warp capable yet). And minor species shown in the canon 23rd century Federation wouldn't make sense as simply immigrants, if the Federation was stupid enough to not somehow ask such immigrants where they came from or what else is out there, even if they came from destroyed civilizations.

There is one way the TBG setting could work without requiring any retconning in this quest (I think), but would be a HUGE retcon of canon Star Trek: Have the TBG Federation establish itself in the 23rd century, rather than the 22nd century.

All the major events of both canon 22nd and 23rd centuries would have to be merged into an action-packed century of the new Federation's survival against Romulan and Klingon aggression. The lack of exploration, limited contact with other nations, general lack of known species, only 4 member nations, the relatively tiny fleets that both Starfleet and Romulans (and possibly Klingons) have shown - these all would make sense with such a canon retcon.

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.

I have to admit, I had little idea what was going on here, or what faction this Orion man belonged to, until Lecarre was mentioned.
 
Back
Top