www.ditl.org

Teaos wrote:If the Feds have no other option they will ram as we have seen. The Klingons would rather fight to the last.

Doesn't "no other option" = "not having other weapons available?"

Teaos wrote:Going down guns blazing is far more heroic than ramming.

Klingons don't give style points. For a Klingon, there is no greater honor than victory, and no greater death than dying in battle. Besides, by the time you decide to ram someone, you have no weapons left (as others have already said)

To get back to the original issue, has anyone took the rough number of ships added up the crew and multiplied by three? The standard of the last two centuries or so is that for everyone soldier/sailor/airman at the pointy end of the spear, there are three in support. So for the thousand crew on the Galaxy class there are three thousand guys hauling cargo, staffing bases and other assorted unpleasent jobs.

With the automation in the future I think you would need less in supply than you do now.

Teaos wrote:With the automation in the future I think you would need less in supply than you do now.

Then we'll have a generous estimate won't we.

Indeed. At the very least we can use this to get a high-end estimate.

Captain Picard's Hair wrote:Feds might be more likely to retreat.

For he who fights and runs away may live to fight another day, but he who is in battle slain may never rise to fight again.

Most Fed. Captains seem to be willing to withdraw and come back another time if there is no hope of winning. They may just buy time for others to withdraw as well. Witness Call to Arms, Sisko was only fighting to buy time to complete the minefield. Once the field was completed he hightailed it out of there promising ala McArthur "I shall return."
As for picards ramming, if it's the only way to win and its the lives of about 1000 of ur crew vs. Billions of people throughout the Federation, I could see (and did see ) a captain calling a ramming.

me,myself and I wrote:As for picards ramming, if it's the only way to win and its the lives of about 1000 of ur crew vs. Billions of people throughout the Federation, I could see (and did see ) a captain calling a ramming.

Good point: Picard did give the order under unusual circumstances.

Exactly. I only see Fed captains using such a tactic when a great deal more is at stake than "just" the ship or task group.

Mikey wrote:Exactly. I only see Fed captains using such a tactic when a great deal more is at stake than "just" the ship or task group.

Sacrificing yourself in a pointless gesture is assine, if you can't win than the best course of action is to withdraw and come back when things favour you. Your crew and your ship are a valuable asset and can't easily be replaced.

Now that does not apply when the stakes are "your planet and everyone in your nation are going to die" and your the only one around.

Cpl Kendall wrote:Now that does not apply when the stakes are "your planet and everyone in your nation are going to die" and your the only one around.

That's the situation I was referring to as the only one in which I would expect a Fed captain would actually sacrifice his ship in an offensive gesture.

Especially when your warp drive is disabled, and you can't withdraw...

That argument sounds familiar from somewhere...

The USMC practices...
"No retreat and no surrender with Executive Order."

SF is not the USMC. Fighting to the last is a rare thing for the SF, but.... We have seen them do so when they feel it is the "Right" thing to do.
E-C, no hope of winning but went to battle anyways.
Defiant in the Wormhole.
Second Dominion War battle of DS9 (SoA).
SF vs the Borg (every single time if God-Janeway isn't there).

Deepcrush wrote:The USMC practices...
"No retreat and no surrender with Executive Order."

What century is that from?

Deepcrush wrote:E-C, no hope of winning but went to battle anyways.

After a heck of a lot of convincing...