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
lbmaian said:
I like it and will probably vote for it.

But to be fair to other voters, I think we should list other options.

Replacing the Centaur-A with an Oberth seems to have support.

Replacing the Connie-B and a Miranda-A refit with two Centaur-As could also work (note: haven't tested this myself) and could be the primary significantly alternative option. (I still prefer that Connie-B though.)

edit: I also find it interesting how Chen's bonus actually restricts our options a bit. It acts like a puzzle that introduces another optimizing angle to differentiate between plans.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You should remember that we only vote on builds one year at a time, though. Like for instance, there won't actually be a Centaur-A in my proposed 2312 build schedule even though you can see it on the sheet, because it wouldn't happen until 2313. And it would only be then that people could vote between that or an Oberth or whatever.
 
Another idea might be open 'Finishing/Speciality' Schools instead of Satellite Academies.

Basically, we have say, 1st-3rd Years on Earth, and then we have smaller Academies set up on other worlds that teach particular subjects. Say, Weapons and Tactical Officers on Amarkia, Science on Vulcan, Engineering on Indoria, things like that.

Basically multiplies out capacity on Earth by a third without having to expand that particular academy. Might also give better quality personnel because they are going to places that culturally specialise in that sort of thing.
 
Last edited:
Maybe regional feeder academies that teach the basics (this is a uniform, you wear it, this is an airlock, you do not open it unless wearing the proper protective equipment) before a transfer to Earth for the main academy years.
 
lbmaian said:
On the contrary, refits become even MORE important now. The crew problem has become much more serious now, and what's great for delaying them? Refits.

In fact, we should consider going overboard when designing new refits, assuming they don't increase crew costs. Adding more stats at the expense of increase BR and SR cost is worthwhile, when crew has become even a larger bottleneck then before. Like I've been advocating for the Constellation-B.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Or, you know, we can do new design that will have similar or better stat on the same crew and wouldn't obsolete as soon (and which in turn can be refittet if needed long after current ones will be obsolete).
 
AKuz said:
I think part of the Starfleet Academy experience is going to the same place with the same culture and the same touchstones and being able to network and potential to forge connections with every other student.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Once Starfleet and the Federation gets to a certain size it sorta becomes almost impossible to do so. Plus it sets you up serious group think when everyone comes from the same educational background. Diversity of experience and educational background is an asset not a liability.
 
lbmaian said:
I'm thinking that our Renaissance combined with Oberths or next science escort (if it comes soon) will be pretty good as a backstop to our Excelsiors. Renaissance have P4 while Oberths have S5.

So perhaps we could just ensure our future cruisers have decent presence (which IIRC tends to be pretty cheap, though who knows when the parts are balanced) and keep designing science escorts, and that should suffice.

That also assumes that most events allow at least two or so ships to respond. If most events only allow a single ship to respond, then that forces our hand to build good generalist ships.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Relying on the Renaissance past our next two non-Ambassador designs is kind of what I'm recommending we don't do. I mean, it's not a bad ship, but into 2325 prototyping I feel we should start designing to what Starfleet actually does, rather than having a ship that responds at 8 but can resolve at 3.
 
Pyro Hawk said:
Another idea might be open 'Finishing/Speciality' Schools instead of Satellite Academies.

Basically, we have say, 1st-3rd Years on Earth, and then we have smaller Academies set up on other worlds that teach particular subjects. Say, Weapons and Tactical Officers on Amarkia, Science on Vulcan, Engineering on Indoria, things like that.

Basically multiplies out capacity on Earth by a third without having to expand that particular academy. Might also give better quality personnel because they are going to places that culturally specialise in that sort of thing.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
kyuden said:
Maybe regional feeder academies that teach the basics (this is a uniform, you wear it, this is an airlock, you do not open it unless wearing the proper protective equipment) before a transfer to Earth for the main academy years.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Maybe both? 1st years go to local academies, then feed into Earth for two years, then back out into culturally appropriate academies for the fourth years
 
AKuz said:
Maybe both? 1st years go to local academies, then feed into Earth for two years, then back out into culturally appropriate academies for the fourth years
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

We could probably move the post-commissioning curriculum outside of San Francisco as well.

@OneirosTheWriter what's Starfleet's offerings does Starfleet offer at the Graduate level? I'm guessing that they have a Staff College for up and coming mid level officers (the equivalent to say a Naval War College) and a Command School for Senior Officers.
 
Briefvoice said:
You should remember that we only vote on builds one year at a time, though. Like for instance, there won't actually be a Centaur-A in my proposed 2312 build schedule even though you can see it on the sheet, because it wouldn't happen until 2313. And it would only be then that people could vote between that or an Oberth or whatever.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

While true, the fact that next year's build will influence builds in the years after that indicates that we must take a multi-year approach when voting for a plan.

I'll try to come up with some alternate plans that fit...

al103 said:
Or, you know, we can do new design that will have similar or better stat on the same crew and wouldn't obsolete as soon (and which in turn can be refittet if needed long after current ones will be obsolete).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You're missing the point. New builds, regardless of how crew efficient they are, will cost crew. Refits, at least all the ones we know about, do NOT cost any crew. So to save crew while filling up berth space, refits are the best solution for this.

Every refit that's scheduled helps delay our crew crunch for the amount of time it spends in the berth.

SynchronizedWritersBlock said:
Relying on the Renaissance past our next two non-Ambassador designs is kind of what I'm recommending we don't do. I mean, it's not a bad ship, but into 2325 prototyping I feel we should start designing to what Starfleet actually does, rather than having a ship that responds at 8 but can resolve at 3.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I don't disagree that the Renaissance is not optimal when coupled with the Oberth. But if we can get a science ship which science event response would beat the Renaissance, and then let the Renaissance backstop Excelsiors on presence events, I think that would be workable.

Renaissance would respond to science events at +8 while resolving at +3, so we need a science ship that at least beats that +8 (so at least S7 D2). Meanwhile, Renaissance would respond to presence events at +9 while resolving at +4, and for the supposedly less common presence events, that may be fine. Plus whatever ships we have are going to be serving as backup to Excelsiors and Ambassadors.

The replacement to the Renaissance or next cruiser build could follow the same principle of being decent at presence and mediocre at science, as long as the contemporary science ship of the time will tend to beat it at science event response.

This definitely isn't the only approach we could take. I think all the following are viable but have different pro and con landscapes:

1) Cruiser that's good at combat, decent at presence, and mediocre at science (like Renaissance), coupled with science ships
2) Generalist cruiser (decent at all but excels at none), coupled with science ships and perhaps compensate loss of combat with more combat/generalist escorts
3) Cruiser that's mediocre at combat and good at presence and science, coupled with a cruiser that's good at combat (edit: although to avoid event response, this ship would have to have low defense, which also hurts its garrison abilities)
4) Cruiser that's mediocre at combat and good at presence and science, coupled with heavier emphasis on combat/generalist escorts

and others...
 
Last edited:
Another random thought while reading through the new posts... Can we institute a "use by" date for ships... Kind of like the Navy does today. Air craft carriers have a 30 year shelf life, etc. Then they are either scrapped or go through a complete overhaul.

Edit: or join the mothball fleet.
 
lbmaian said:
You're missing the point. New builds, regardless of how crew efficient they are, will cost crew. Refits, at least all the ones we know about, do NOT cost any crew. So to save crew while filling up berth space, refits are the best solution for this.

Every refit that's scheduled helps delay our crew crunch for the amount of time it spends in the berth.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Or, you know, we can scrap or mothball obsolete ships freeing said crew for newer ones. The only reason we didn't do it and gone for refits is because refits looked faster and not as straining on our shipbuilding capacity.
 
@OneirosTheWriter

Look at it this way, the moment we lose Patricia, or she's moved out of her slot, it's going to throw our carefully planned construction timetables into chaos again...

And hey, it could be worse. We could be gaining free experience towards that T4 tech(I believe?) from institutional knowledge gained from the experience of the workers in the shipyards whilst Chen's in change.
 
lbmaian said:
I don't disagree that the Renaissance is not optimal when coupled with the Oberth. But if we can get a science ship which science event response would beat the Renaissance, and then let the Renaissance backstop Excelsiors on presence events, I think that would be workable.

Renaissance would respond to science events at +8 while resolving at +3, so we need a science ship that at least beats that +8 (so at least S7 D2). Meanwhile, Renaissance would respond to presence events at +9 while resolving at +4, and for the supposedly less common presence events, that may be fine. Plus whatever ships we have are going to be serving as backup to Excelsiors and Ambassadors.

The replacement to the Renaissance or next cruiser build could follow the same principle of being decent at presence and mediocre at science, as long as the contemporary science ship of the time will tend to beat it at science event response.

This definitely isn't the only approach we could take. I think all the following are viable but have different pro and con landscapes:

1) Cruiser that's good at combat, decent at presence, and mediocre at science (like Renaissance), coupled with science ships
2) Generalist cruiser (decent at all but excels at none), coupled with science ships and perhaps compensate loss of combat with more combat/generalist escorts
3) Cruiser that's mediocre at combat and good at presence and science, coupled with a cruiser that's good at combat (edit: although to avoid event response, this ship would have to have low defense, which also hurts its garrison abilities)
4) Cruiser that's mediocre at combat and good at presence and science, coupled with heavier emphasis on combat/generalist escorts

and others...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The problem is assignments. One explorer per event is the only assignment criteria we can rely on. So if one event gets both a Rennie and a Kepler responding in support, that can mean another event is doing without either. Nor does having a mix of ships available prevent a ship like the Rennie from responding alone depending on how the rolls and other ships' assignments go. Meanwhile if ships did not respond to events inappropriate to them, they would tend to be available for events appropriate for them slightly more often.

Obviously this doesn't happen often, but I think we can agree that failed events throw consequences at us, and that we're more likely to fail the ones with bad consequences. I also don't think we'll ever really have the ships to deliver our ideal mix to every event. An explorer and a cruiser and an escort responding together frequently enough that the risky events are mitigated seems unlikely.

It is precisely because we must have good-Defense ships to meet garrison requirements that those same ships must also have good Science and Presence. Good Defense can't really be separated from good Science and Presence without increasing the risk to those ships. Not to mention, all our cruisers get +1 response anyway (yes, I missed this earlier), which is effectively a +1D just for event rolls, meaning they're even more likely to have to deal with all types of events.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top