Remove ads

To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest)

Linked contents
To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest) Starfleet Ship Design Bureau, Refit ("To Boldly Go...")
Reader mode
Suffice to say that my original suggestion, which I've been fighting a running battle against about half a dozen people over ever since, was in the specific context of Briefvoice's spreadsheet as of the time that I made the suggestion.

In that context, the build decision comes down to something very close to a one-for-one replacement of a Centaur-A versus a Constitution-B; the only thing that gets deferred is a Constellation refit (which we can do pretty much any time we like, later in the decade). No Renaissance build that is planned under that plan gets delayed, until (at worst) something that would start in 2318 or so. Bu which time it is so difficult to predict our future crew availability precisely, that random X-factors play a larger role in determining how many ships we build than the presence or absence of the crew of this particular ship.

If you have a problem with the context itself, take it up with Briefvoice, not me.
_______________

More generally, the argument that saving the two enlisted and two officer units which would have to be spent crewing a ConnieBee is important is at least worthy of respect; in my opinion it is the only reason why we wouldn't just automatically do this.

The catch is, we need to make yet a different change to Briefvoice's plan, if we are to be onsistent and apply that argument consistently.

Because quite frankly, if we're trying this hard to conserve crew to build the maximum number of Renaissances before we run out of crew stockpile some time around 2320, we shouldn't be building that Centaur-A in that berth either- we should be focusing strictly on refits, and if need be leaving a few berths idle for a year or so (in 2313) while we accumulate the crew that will man future Renaissances.

An Oberth would be slightly better in that slot than a Centaur-A, because it consumes one enlisted instead of two; tech income is not a problem. But even then, we should be focusing on maintenance of the aim- maximizing our Renaissance build before we're forced to slow down production rates to something in line with our ongoing yearly crew production.

If you wish to advocate a position along these lines, I will give it serious consideration as an alternative to both Briefvoice's current spreadsheet plan and my proposed modification of same.
 
*looks at Affiliates*

Huh, next Snakepit may be the first one in a while we only do 3 Diplopushes. Unless people really want to push on the Sotaw (Romulan problems) or the Bajorans (obstructed by Cardassians, Idk if pushes would have any effect).
 
Simon_Jester said:
Suffice to say that my original suggestion, which I've been fighting a running battle against about half a dozen people over ever since, was in the specific context of Briefvoice's spreadsheet as of the time that I made the suggestion.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Again, you are being ridiculous by even considering the identities of particular 1mt berths. In so far as Briefvoice's plan is a useful approximation off what we are actually likely to do and as long as we are crew limited (almost certainly going to be the case) deviating from it to build extra Connie-Bs implies delaying something that costs crew somewhere, likely either a Renaissance or an Excelsior, and assuming that it's a Renaissance makes the most sense and keeps things simplest. What's listed for the particular berth you propose building in is just about the least relevant factoid you could imagine.
 
Last edited:
Forgothrax said:
*looks at Affiliates*

Huh, next Snakepit may be the first one in a while we only do 3 Diplopushes. Unless people really want to push on the Sotaw (Romulan problems) or the Bajorans (obstructed by Cardassians, Idk if pushes would have any effect).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Prolly 3 pushes, yes, unless something happens on the Cardie front or the Explorers manage to find someone again.
 
Nix said:
Again, you are being ridiculous by even considering the identities of particular 1mt berths. In so far as Briefvoice's plan is a useful approximation off what we are actually likely to do and as long as we are crew limited (almost certainly going to be the case) deviating from it to build extra Connie-Bs implies delaying something that costs crew somewhere, likely either a Renaissance or an Excelsior, and assuming that it's a Renaissance makes the most sense and keeps things simplest. What's listed for the particular berth you propose building in is just about the least relevant factoid you could imagine.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You missed my point.

Either it is, or is not, of critical importance that we build the maximum possible number of Renaissances and Excelsiors before our stockpiled crew surplus runs out some time in the late 23-teens.

If it is not that important, then the short-term value of having one more cruiser in the mid- to late- 2310s rises in relative importance, while the "this might hypothetically mean we have one less Renaissance done when our crew stockpile runs out" falls in relative importance.

If it is that important, then we should be building no new ships aside from Excelsiors, Renaissances, and possibly Oberths, until such time as the crew stockpile runs down and we have to settle for building ships at the maximum rate we can recruit new crew. We can refit, but shouldn't be doing any new construction except of the aforesaid classes.

Building new Constitution-Bs is of course out of the question under those conditions... but building Centaur-As is not particularly wise either. Because they use significant enlisted crew and could easily make the difference between having or not having enough enlisted to crew one more Renaissance some time around 2320.
 
Simon_Jester said:
You missed my point.

Either it is, or is not, of critical importance that we build the maximum possible number of Renaissances and Excelsiors before our stockpiled crew surplus runs out some time in the late 23-teens.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
... why would you think importance is a binary quality? Having a strong and versatile fleet is important, and we are crew limited, so everything that costs crew will have some downside somewhere else that needs to be considered. Being crew limited certainly isn't an argument against building Centaur-As though, one of our most crew efficient designs and certainly more crew efficient than either the Connie-B or the Renaissance. That doesn't mean crew efficiency is the only thing we should optimize for either, though.

Maybe you should go to bed? You are usually making more sense than this.
 
Last edited:
OneirosTheWriter said:
Appreciate the active discussion, but let's be careful about declarations about losing respect.

I'd like to think we're all approaching this in good faith and not arguing simply to win points.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Hey boss, while you're here... Is there any point to diolopushing the Bajorans right now? Is the "obstruction" something to do with not having enough diplomacy points, or will it require narrative resolution?
 
Nix said:
... why would you think importance is a binary quality? Having a strong and versatile fleet is important, and we are crew limited, so everything that costs crew will have some downside somewhere else that needs to be considered. Being crew limited certainly isn't an argument against building Centaur-As though, one of our most crew efficient designs and certainly more crew efficient than either the Connie-B or the Renaissance. That doesn't mean crew efficiency is the only thing we should optimize for either, though.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
What I'm saying is, either we should be optimizing for number of 'the right ships,' (*) OR we should be optimizing for crew efficiency, OR we should be prepared to strike compromises.

If we optimize for number of 'the right ships,' a Centaur-A doesn't qualify because it's not one of the 'right ships.'

If we optimize for crew efficiency, we should be emphasizing Rennies less and Centaur-As more in terms of what we end up building later in the decade... in which case the crew crunch we're afraid of will be quite a bit slower to materialize, and may never materialize at all.

If we compromise, then among the factors involved in the compromise is "how many ships will we have four years from now, how good will they be, what will we need them for?" Short-term concerns do influence our construction plans, and rightly so, unless we shift our approach rather dramatically from what we've customarily done- which represents an organic and flexible approach that i for one favor.

I don't think we can so casually reject the arguments for one more Constitution-B, unless we also reject the other, similar arguments for fudging and compromising in our construction plans more generally. At which point we really ought to pick a single defined objective and stick to it, so that at least we'll be optimizing for something, rather than just randomly striking down compromise decisions as 'not good enough' some of the time while leaving them in place at other times.
________________________

*That is, Excelsiors and Renaissances, if we go by the thread consensus.
 
Last edited:
Simon_Jester said:
What I'm saying is, either we should be optimizing for number of 'the right ships,' (*) OR we should be optimizing for crew efficiency, OR we should be prepared to strike compromises.

If we optimize for number of 'the right ships,' a Centaur-A doesn't qualify because it's not one of the 'right ships.'

If we optimize for crew efficiency, we should be emphasizing Rennies less and Centaur-As more in terms of what we end up building later in the decade... in which case the crew crunch we're afraid of will be quite a bit slower to materialize, and may never materialize at all.

If we compromise, then among the factors involved in the compromise is "how many ships will we have four years from now, how good will they be, what will we need them for?" Short-term concerns do influence our construction plans, and rightly so, unless we shift our approach rather dramatically from what we've customarily done- which represents an organic and flexible approach that i for one favor.

I don't think we can so casually reject the arguments for one more Constitution-B, unless we also reject the other, similar arguments for fudging and compromising in our construction plans more generally. At which point we really ought to pick a single defined objective and stick to it, so that at least we'll be optimizing for something, rather than just randomly striking down compromise decisions as 'not good enough' some of the time while leaving them in place at other times.
________________________

*That is, Excelsiors and Renaissances, if we go by the thread consensus.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Eh? The Centaur-A isn't the "wrong" kind of ship at all. Its a good, well rounded escort.

In two years, we'll be able to build better cruisers. We want to have as many ships as possible as quickly as possible, but we also want to save resources for those new cruisers. Thus, building a cheap escort for now is the sensible option.
 
Last edited:
Simon_Jester said:
What I'm saying is, either we should be optimizing for number of 'the right ships,' (*) OR we should be optimizing for crew efficiency, OR we should be prepared to strike compromises.
[...]

If we compromise, then among the factors involved in the compromise is "how many ships will we have four years from now, how good will they be, what will we need them for?" Short-term concerns do influence our construction plans, and rightly so, unless we shift our approach rather dramatically from what we've customarily done- which represents an organic and flexible approach that i for one favor.

I don't think we can so casually reject the arguments for one more Constitution-B, unless we also reject the other, similar arguments for fudging and compromising in our construction plans more generally. At which point we really ought to pick a single defined objective and stick to it, so that at least we'll be optimizing for something, rather than just randomly striking down compromise decisions as 'not good enough' some of the time while leaving them in place at other times.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You are engaging in a bait and switch here. Of course we are compromising between different objectives, but it looks like building a Connie-B is equal or worse regarding all relevant objectives (short term fleet capability, mid-long term capability, refit potential, combat:science ratio, ship type mix). And more than one thing being optimized for does in no way imply all arguments are valid. In particular arguments that are based on assuming wrong trade-offs should be dismissed.
 
Last edited:
Forgothrax said:
Hey boss, while you're here... Is there any point to diolopushing the Bajorans right now? Is the "obstruction" something to do with not having enough diplomacy points, or will it require narrative resolution?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You'll still get the points, but there is a "no" block in the way. Would require a narrative resolution, but at the moment, the Cardassians and Cardassian aligned blocs within Bajor simply won't allow the change in affiliations.
 
OneirosTheWriter said:
You'll still get the points, but there is a "no" block in the way. Would require a narrative resolution, but at the moment, the Cardassians and Cardassian aligned blocs within Bajor simply won't allow the change in affiliations.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The question then is whether a continual Bajor push to hurt the cardassians' grip will create a meaningful loss of their PP equivalent, or just get them to start the occupation early.

I'd rather not risk it, personally. But next year's intel could change my mind. And who knows, maybe building Bajor relations now will make Commodore Frisko's job easier once we do take the CBZ.
 
Last edited:
Leila Hann said:
The question then is whether a continual Bajor push to hurt the cardassians' grip will create a meaningful loss of their PP equivalent, or just get them to start the occupation early.

I'd rather not risk it, personally. But next year's intel could change my mind.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yea, it would depend on what the Cardassians are likely to do as a result. If it doesn't have much benefit and only raises tensions further, I'm happy to wait for our chance to remove the opposition while we focus on other things.
 
Derek58 said:
Yea, it would depend on what the Cardassians are likely to do as a result. If it doesn't have much benefit and only raises tensions further, I'm happy to wait for our chance to remove the opposition while we focus on other things.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Assuming that improving Bajor relations DOESNT speed up the occupation timetable, and that the cardassians are still acting the way they have been by then...

An occasional Bajor push here and there over the next few years might get us to the point where they'll beg us for help when and if the occupation does start. Assuming that our cruiser rush has paid off by then and our fleet is stronger than the cardies', this could be a perfect opportunity for us to take the CBZ. We'd have a clear objective (liberate Bajor), a clean conscience, and a chance to destroy as much of the CDF as they decide to send into battle, which should weaken them to the point where they can no longer afford to fuck with us like they have been.

I'm sure the apiata would be glad to help out too.


EDIT: to be clear, I'd rather prevent the occupation from ever happening. I'm just saying that with a good preexisting relationship with the bajorans, we might be able to turn it to our advantage if it does happen.
 
Last edited:
In the most terribly pragmatic sense, "starting the Occupation early" is an awful outcome for the Bajorans, but it's also an awful outcome for Cardassia. The Occupation is an open-ended manpower sump that will make the life of Cardassian diplomats hell. I would prefer to avoid it, but it would create a highly exploitable situation diplomatically if nothing else; "The Cardassians are excellent friends, are they not? They stab you in the front, not the back." Their affiliates would almost certainly take steps back.
 
Last edited:
Nix said:
You are engaging in a bait and switch here. Of course we are compromising between different objectives, but it looks like building a Connie-B is equal or worse regarding all relevant objectives (short term fleet capability, mid-long term capability, refit potential, combat:science ratio, ship type mix). And more than one thing being optimized for does in no way imply all arguments are valid. In particular arguments that are based on assuming wrong trade-offs should be dismissed.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Fine, I'm not only wrong, I've been lying like a used car salesman the whole time by even bringing it up, saving the first two enlisted is highly important but the next two enlisted aren't important enough, and I should just back out of these decisions because I do not know nearly enough accounting and logistics to be entitled to opinions, hence my losing all the respect.

I suppose I'd started to forget my place.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top