Lurking as I am, I was curious about a few longer ranged plans.

First and foremost, with the recent shakeup in our build plans thanks to the new parallel building bonus, have we determined what we want to do with our Consties? The refrain seems to be that we are crew limited over resource limited. Are we thinking about upgrading all our Consties, or "selling" them via the MWCO and replacing them with Rennies? I can see arguments either way (namely that, if we have the berths and resources, it would seem reasonable to just build Rennies as replacements for Consties; on the other hand, we may not have the +1OET to spare and would be better off just refitting the Consties we have on the theory that the hulls you have are better than the hulls you don't). @SynchronizedWritersBlock 's analysis post does not make me think highly of the Constie, that is certain.

Second, I don't think it's been discussed what we plan on doing with the Kepler exactly. How do we want to deploy them? Just take advantage of Forward Defense and deploy a Kepler per Border Zone? One per sector? Just have a few to split between SigInt and the Border Zones? etc.

(this isn't a post to try to redirect discussion at all)
I don't know about 'selling off' unwanted cruisers to the member fleets-they might not want our leavings any more than we do when they can tool up for and build Rennies of their own. The Constellation is not a good cruiser, but it's not so bad that we should press to have them delisted ASAP. A new refit may be forthcoming as well-A1 let's call it, which might do a better job than the proposed A refit of turning it into something useful.

I think the Keplers should be built up to at least a 1:1 ratio with the Olberths, and maybe we should build them 1:1 or 2:1 with the Ambassadors as well-but in the short term of the first five years after we get our first one, concentrate them in the border zones, rotate the Olberths to 'safer' stations, and build with gusto to help us get up to our science requirements. The main point of the class is to put an Ambassador sized sensor and science platform on an escort which is more survivable than current options. We've never had more than one Olberth building at once, I think, and I'd like to break that tradition with the Kepler-type. They might require more resources, but I think they'll be well spent.
 
Bear in mind that with the push for construction of new Renaissance and Constitution-B cruisers by many of the member worlds, they may not want our used Constellations either. The crew requirements are lower, but so is the performance.

I can see someone like the Betazoids or the Risans wanting to buy a ship like that, because they lack the native industry to build better ships for themselves even if they work from Federation designs. But that's not a very big market.

We'll want to hold onto the Cheron no matter what, too, and she would benefit from a refit...
By Cheron do you mean Challorn?

@Simon_Jester given that a refit eats a year of berth time either way, and crews deduct a year before the build is complete, we would be down a hull for the same amount of time whether we were mothballing a Constie to crew a Rennie or upgrading a Constie.
Thing is, the "down a hull for a year" cost of replacing a Constellation with a Rennie is in addition to the berth cost... mm, you may actually be right, if I'm doing the accounting that way.

Given that the MWCO allows us to "sell" mothballed ships apparently, we might be able to sell of our excess Consties instead of holding them in reserve, too. Given how hard it is to acquire crew...
That's a fair point, but I would say that holding them in reserve is good enough.

The most likely scenario for us getting to activate reserve ships is if a war starts some time AFTER we've built up to our Combat cap. Once we hit the cap we won't be adding new ships to the fleet, so our crew and resource stockpiles will start to become large.

Then the Threat level skyrockets, and the Combat cap rises with it. That leaves us free to add new ships- but building ships takes time. That is when it's helpful to have new ships ready to go as soon as you can commit crews to them. Which we'll be able to do, because we'll be stockpiling crews again.

In other words, if we mothball Constellations, we're not doing it in case we need them in 2318, we're doing it in case we need them in 2328. By that time, realistically we'll have built up to our Combat cap, Patricia Chen will no longer be running Shipyard Operations so building ships will be taking longer, and we're more likely to have a reserve of crews ready to go to operate new ships if only we were allowed to use them.

I don't think there's going to be a sudden surge that would let us recrew anything in reserve unless something like a serious war unlocks mechanics that allows us to draft personnel or something. Even so, we're still better off building Miranda-As in that circumstance rather than reactivating Consties (since I doubt such a surge would be fast enough that we would save time reactivating ships as compared to new construction).
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if there was the possibility of, say, taking a 1/2/1 Starfleet crew from our crew pool, filling them out with a 1/2/1 force of new volunteers, and putting them on a Constellation-A from mothballs. This would almost certainly be faster than building a whole new Miranda-A.

Real reserve fleet activation often works like this, with a ship having a "nucleus crew" that knows how to operate it and can help bring fresh recruits up to speed quickly.
 
One thing that bears consideration is that a lot of our decade-old ships might, theoretically, be getting somewhere close to Blooded status given that they've all passed a number of event checks and so on over the past ten years. It might actually not be such a good idea to replace the ships if it means giving up the possibility of more Blooded ships.

@OneirosTheWriter, is experience tracking implemented for all ships? And if so, is there any significant proportion of our Constellations, Mirandas, and/or Centaurs that are likely to gain an experience level in the next few years?
 
Then we retrofit some more weight on them. I mean, in reality it's not unknown to literally cut a submarine in half and stick in a fifty-foot extension to buy yourself some more space to work with. Starfleet apparently bolted on extra nacelles in refits at some points, that's got to change overall weight. Another 25kt would buy us how much?

Literally nothing.

One thing that bears consideration is that a lot of our decade-old ships might, theoretically, be getting somewhere close to Blooded status given that they've all passed a number of event checks and so on over the past ten years. It might actually not be such a good idea to replace the ships if it means giving up the possibility of more Blooded ships.

@OneirosTheWriter, is experience tracking implemented for all ships? And if so, is there any significant proportion of our Constellations, Mirandas, and/or Centaurs that are likely to gain an experience level in the next few years?

Only special events give non-EC ships veterency I'm pretty sure more than 50% of our non ec ships that have a crew rating have it from omake rewards. I believe non-ec ships don't track xp at all.
 
Last edited:
Bear in mind that with the push for construction of new Renaissance and Constitution-B cruisers by many of the member worlds, they may not want our used Constellations either. The crew requirements are lower, but so is the performance.

I can see someone like the Betazoids or the Risans wanting to buy a ship like that, because they lack the native industry to build better ships for themselves even if they work from Federation designs. But that's not a very big market.
I don't know about 'selling off' unwanted cruisers to the member fleets-they might not want our leavings any more than we do when they can tool up for and build Rennies of their own. The Constellation is not a good cruiser, but it's not so bad that we should press to have them delisted ASAP. A new refit may be forthcoming as well-A1 let's call it, which might do a better job than the proposed A refit of turning it into something useful.

This may be true. On the other hand, I doubt they'll "pay" much in resources or crew, and if you can get a ship half off without using berth time, it may be worth it to them. Who knows what drives their thinking or what Oneiros would say.

By Cheron do you mean Challorn?

*checks front page* Eeyup.

As for the rest of your post... as I already stated, since 2104 our Combat Cap has gone up 120 points. I think that while hitting the combat cap is going to happen eventually, it's not going to be in 10 years, because our cap won't be 310 in 10 years. It'll be something else. I think we'll be spending a lot of time chasing the cap before we actually get close to hitting it.

Even in a situation in which we were at a static cap and we'd be buying +Threat ever Snakepit so we could push out another pair of Rennies or something, we still should be able to build ships for the mothball fleet alone and have modern ships available for STAT recrewing.

I can see a mothball use, but I think we're going to A) be chasing the combat cap for longer than 10 years due to changes in threat level and B) there may be better options.
 
We're probably going to be chasing the combat cap longer than ten years because in ten years we will have new memberships and new territory to defend, never mind changes in threat or a possible intervening war with Cardassia or the Klingons and Romulans beating each other or anything else that may convince the Council Starfleet's military function is important. I doubt it's a static number related purely to threat level when we're expected to provide protection to Federation members.
 
So we go to fifty then. I was trying to be conservative. The point is you fit all this on a 150kt hull, another sixth or even third of the ship's own weight being available should probably buy you something.

To be honest whilst i'm probably using a couple of days old version of the spreadsheet recreating the Oberth at 150kt looks to be explicitly impossible. I've a ship sitting on basically 0 in all stats and I'm only just under 200kt.
 
Only special events give non-EC ships veterency I'm pretty sure more than 50% of our non ec ships that have a crew rating have it from omake rewards. I believe non-ec ships don't track xp at all.

The one counter-example is the Cheron, which we got told one day had increased crew rating after what seemed like merely a routine Event response.

@SynchronizedWritersBlock did an events analysis sheet showing every non-Explorer Event recorded in the logs. I don't see a per-specific ship Event count in there, but it should be easy enough to pull out.

We're probably going to be chasing the combat cap longer than ten years because in ten years we will have new memberships and new territory to defend, never mind changes in threat or a possible intervening war with Cardassia or the Klingons and Romulans beating each other or anything else that may convince the Council Starfleet's military function is important. I doubt it's a static number related purely to threat level when we're expected to provide protection to Federation members.

On the other hand if it literally never comes up then it was a pretty pointless game mechanic, wasn't it? I expect it'll matter eventually.
 
So we go to fifty then. I was trying to be conservative. The point is you fit all this on a 150kt hull, another sixth or even third of the ship's own weight being available should probably buy you something.
The problem is that the Olberth is kinda a little bit broken to make it work? Like, if you want to expand the science lab, then you'll probably bump it up to SIX techs per ship or other terrible things will happen. Which come to think of it, means that people with PhDs and dozens of papers to their names are squeezed onto an Olberth hot-bunking as-is. Do we really want to make the crowding problem on our ships even worse? I mean, even on the Excelsior, we have dormitory-style rooms for some of the officers, so what the heck are the accomedations on an Olberth like?
 
Last edited:
Maybe you can buy a crew decrease for your extra weight then. "We took out a bunch of PhDs and replaced them with new fume hoods that actually have ventilation! Now there won't be a raid on fans every time the ship visits a world that uses rotating blade technology."
 
EDIT:

Given that the Oberth's tiny tonnage is broken, and we've known it was broken since game start, I really don't think we should imagine Oberth refits somehow making the ship drastically more capable, without also retconning it to be significantly larger.

Although retconning the Oberth to be larger isn't actually a bad idea.

ORIGINAL POST:

The problem is that the Olberth is kinda a little bit broken to make it work? Like, if you want to expand the science lab, then you'll probably bump it up to SIX techs per ship or other terrible things will happen. Which come to think of it, means that people with PhDs and dozens of papers to their names are squeezed onto an Olberth hot-bunking as-is. Do we really want to make the crowding problem on our ships even worse? I mean, even on the Excelsior, we have dormitory-style rooms for some of the officers, so what the heck are the accomedations on an Olberth like?
To be fair, the dormitory-style rooms for Excelsior officers (are you getting this from one of my omakes, or from another source)...

Starfleet may well still be in a mindset of not wanting the crew accomodations to be too big, and preferring not to inflate them so much. The Excelsiors might well have room to spare to give every officer their own quarters, maybe even every crewman. After all, a 100-kiloton cruise liner can provide accomodations for several thousand passengers.

But even if the tonnage is available, it may be considered desirable for junior officers and crew to not have isolated cabins to themselves. Sharing the rooms may be more conducive to discipline for a variety of reasons.
 
Last edited:
A real life "repair ship" isn't the same as a mobile drydock. It has cranes, lot of trained repair personnel, and lots of machine tools to make parts, so it can do a lot of good for fixing a ship- but it's no substitute for a shipyard berth.

I suspect that the same will be true of our repair ships. Thankfully, tractor beams are a thing, which means we can generally tow a ship (or even multiple pieces of a ship). And apparently, tractor beams continue to work at warp speeds, though not necessarily at high warp.

can it, tow at warp? I mean the warp field of the tow would have to be big enough to accommodate both ships, the mechanics of warp towing is probably going to be interesting...
Still we'd probably want a lot of warp capable tows, if warp towing is doable, and a couple of moveable drydocks for ships that can't be towed at warp and for other purposes (the UFoP denies its possible use as force projection since war is not one of the federation's aims)
 
Maybe you can buy a crew decrease for your extra weight then. "We took out a bunch of PhDs and replaced them with new fume hoods that actually have ventilation! Now there won't be a raid on fans every time the ship visits a world that uses rotating blade technology."

It is a legacy design built around pure handwaving. We literally don't build like that anymore, as that size does not work under the new system and so trying to modify it under the new system does nothing. If we get graced with a magic upgrade due to GM intervention, we can be happy, but we have no justification for asking for changes to a tiny impossible ship.
 
I suppose that even Starfleet has cases of, 'It was good enough for me as an Ensign, so it's good enough for them.'
Well, in this case it might be a valid argument. Officers aboard a starship have to be able to work together towards common goals. They have to be disciplined, organized, tolerant of minor irritants, and willing to try and minimize the irritations they impose on others around them. Making people share quarters can help with that.

can it, tow at warp? I mean the warp field of the tow would have to be big enough to accommodate both ships, the mechanics of warp towing is probably going to be interesting...

Still we'd probably want a lot of warp capable tows, if warp towing is doable, and a couple of moveable drydocks for ships that can't be towed at warp and for other purposes (the UFoP denies its possible use as force projection since war is not one of the federation's aims)
I don't know anymore.

Honestly, for the sake of my own mental health I've recently decided to pretend that the game runs entirely on narrative and occasional bits of Star Trek canon, with the absolute bare minimum of rules-referencing required to play the game at all. While I acknowledge that a more complicated ruleset exists, engaging with it seems pointless at the moment.

I have no idea if there are rules about which ships can and cannot tow one another.

I'm pretty sure that in-story, Courageous had to be towed after hitting that mine. Hadn't they ejected the warp core? But I don't really know the answer to that one either.
 
Ship Experience Analysis

Pulling from that non-EC event tracker spreadsheet. Notably the Cheron was promoted to Bloodied after 11 events (one of them a failure). No other ship has had 10 events, much less 10 successful events.

  • Avandar (Excelsior) - 3 events (2 success/1fail)
  • Bon Vivant (Miranda) - 6 events (4 success/2 fail)
  • Bull (Centaur-A) - 2 events (2 success)
  • Calypso (Miranda) - 1 event (1 success)
  • Challorn (Constellation) - 6 events (5 success; 1 failure; 3 of successful events were after it made Blooded)
  • Cheron (Constitution-A) - 14 events (13 success; 1 failure; was promoted to Blooded after 10 successful and 1 failed events)
  • Docana (Constellation) - 4 events (3 success; 1 failure)
  • Dryad (Miranda) - 1 event (1 success)
  • Eketha (Miranda) - 2 events (2 success)
  • Endurance (Excelsior) - 6 events (6 success)
  • Excelsior (Excelsior) - 5 events (5 success)
  • Fidelity (Miranda) - 3 events (2 success; 1 failure)
  • Gale (Centaur-A) - 2 events (1 success; 1 failure)
  • Hawking (Oberth) - 4 events (4 success)
  • Inspire (Oberth) - 1 event (1 success)
  • Intrepid (Miranda) - 1 event (1 success)
  • Kearsage (Constellation) - 6 events (4 success; 2 failure)
  • Kumari (Excelsior) - 8 events (8 success; 6 were after it was made Bloodied as honors after the battle of Kadesh)
  • Lightning (Centaur-A) 1 event (1 failure)
  • Salnas (Excelsior) - 1 event (1 success)
  • Sappho (Constellation) - 4 events (4 success)
  • Selaya (Constellation) - 3 events (2 success; 1 failure)
  • Stalwart (Constellation) - 5 events (3 success; 2 failure)
  • Suvek (Oberth) - 1 event (1 success)
  • T'Kumbra (Miranda) - 4 events (3 success; 1 failure)
  • Thirishar (Excelsior) - 2 events (1 success; 1 failure)
  • Thunderhead (Miranda) - 2 events (1 success; 1 failure)
  • Vigour (Constellation) - 4 events (1 success; 3 failure)
  • Winterwind (Centaur-A) - 2 events (2 success)
  • Yukikaze (Centaur-A) - 3 events (2 success; 1 failure)
If we take the Cheron's example as meaning that a ship needs 10 successful Events to advance to Bloodied (which is broadly in line with how fast our Explorer Corps Ships get to Bloodied) then the Endurance is probably closest at 6 successes, with the Excelsior slightly behind at 5 successes. The Challorn and the Kumari have a lot of successes, but they are already Bloodied and we know it takes even more experience to make the jump from Bloodied to Veteran.

EDIT: This suggests another hidden benefit to having more big powerful ships. They're more likely to pile up the Event successes and get crew experience.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to choose to believe regular Starfleet ships can gain experience levels because it makes narrative sense. If so, it does provide an added reason not to replace ships- or at least, not to replace ships with a strong track record of successes.

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, My good man.
Noted. Didn't remember seeing junior officer quarters aboard the Excelsior in that movie. Never actually saw Flashback aside from a few Youtube clips.
 
I'm going to choose to believe regular Starfleet ships can gain experience levels because it makes narrative sense. If so, it does provide an added reason not to replace ships- or at least, not to replace ships with a strong track record of successes.

Depends entirely on what you're replacing them with, a refit of the same ship should presumably keep the crew bonus, an entire new ship won't but it might still be better to replace the ship entirely if the bonuses are large enough.
 
Depends entirely on what you're replacing them with, a refit of the same ship should presumably keep the crew bonus, an entire new ship won't but it might still be better to replace the ship entirely if the bonuses are large enough.
Suffice to say that a refitted Constellation-A with a Blooded crew can match or even outperform a Green Constitution-B or Renaissance in event response. And they can do it with a smaller crew.

[EDIT: The 'outperform' outcome will rarely happen unless we get a better refit than the one presently on offer. But our spreadsheeteers seem to think that is a thing that can happen, so shrug.]

The real question is whether we're patient enough to wait for ships to develop experienced, 'shaken down' crews that can perform on this level. It takes a while, and it'll take longer if the Constellations are placed in sectors where they are frequently 'robbed' of the chance to respond to events by other, faster ships.
 
Last edited:
Suffice to say that a refitted Constellation-A with a Blooded crew can match or even outperform a Green Constitution-B or Renaissance in event response. And they can do it with a smaller crew.

The real question is whether we're patient enough to wait for ships to develop experienced, 'shaken down' crews that can perform on this level. It takes a while, and it'll take longer if the Constellations are placed in sectors where they are frequently 'robbed' of the chance to respond to events by other, faster ships.
Honestly maybe the way to do it is just kind of determine some "cutoff" points? Part of the issue with the Constellations is that they're old; yes that's some of why they're not as awesome stat-wise but from how @OneirosTheWriter has presented things, it seems like genuine age ends up a factor as well.

Crews that have only been on a ship for a couple years seem like idea "swap" candidates, as they're unlikely to be Blooded, whereas those with a decade of experience could probably get by with a refit, at least for a while.
 
The Constellations are little or no older than the oldest Excelsiors, and they're certainly not much older than the Excelsior-class as a design.
 
Back
Top