Given what everyone else on Nimbus III had been like up to that point, I don't think I'd want to open the cells anyway - they're probably just going to try to kill us too.
(Incidentally, it's not necessary to fight everyone in the bar, if you can just keep your personnel under control - just fight your way out of the arena, then head straight for the door, and you only have to take out the ones who are in your way. The rest of the bar is too busy killing each other to bother with you just yet...)
Given what everyone else on Nimbus III had been like up to that point, I don't think I'd want to open the cells anyway - they're probably just going to try to kill us too.
Pretty true, at best I'd say the cells contain "the lesser of evils" being used by the greater.
They could still give the option to open'em for the die-hard "white knight" caliber of captain to exercise their "free all the (slightly more) innocent" tendencies on.
(Incidentally, it's not necessary to fight everyone in the bar, if you can just keep your personnel under control - just fight your way out of the arena, then head straight for the door, and you only have to take out the ones who are in your way. The rest of the bar is too busy killing each other to bother with you just yet...)
Oh, definitely. I just do it because I like it. Think the first Michael Keaton Batman movie and the Joker's proclamation- I go in bellowing "This bar needs an TRIBBLE!" then proceed to give it a very thorough one.
(And if I could open those holding cells and the occupants didn't have some really compelling tales of innocence abused, I could be even more thorough about it.)
I just wanted to ask about the federation faction.
In number of occasions Devs said that they will never put in the game playable BAD factions so as i was playing with my federation character the STF "storming the spire" i have noticed that in optional objective we are killing innocent escape shuttles from voth faction.
Isnt that in the contradiction to Federation faction play?
We are doing genocide against another faction who just wanna escape the lost battle
If you read the notes, i believe it says they are leaving with omega particles...
You can STOP unarmed shuttlecraft without blowing them up
Tractor beams? Viral Matrix? Warp Plasma? Some mission-specific game mechanic?
Then what? You still have to destroy the Omega Molecules that are in enemy hands. Are you going to bring the shuttle aboard? A shuttle piloted by hostile forces,carrying hazardous materials and that could probably blast a significantly large hole in your ship if self destructed? Or are you going to risk sending out your own shuttle with a boarding party knowing that the Voth (who have a tendency to launch cloaked ambushes) might still try to recover the materials?
My Romulan Liberated Borg character made it to Level 30 and beat the (old) Defense of New Romulus with the skill point bug.
Then what? You still have to destroy the Omega Molecules that are in enemy hands. Are you going to bring the shuttle aboard? A shuttle piloted by hostile forces,carrying hazardous materials and that could probably blast a significantly large hole in your ship if self destructed? Or are you going to risk sending out your own shuttle with a boarding party knowing that the Voth (who have a tendency to launch cloaked ambushes) might still try to recover the materials?
This reminds me of the way the Geneva conventions distinguish between paratroopers(who you can shoot in mid-air) and people escaping an aircraft in a parachute. Are they armed? That's it. If they're carrying a weapon you can shoot them.
Then what? You still have to destroy the Omega Molecules that are in enemy hands. Are you going to bring the shuttle aboard? A shuttle piloted by hostile forces,carrying hazardous materials and that could probably blast a significantly large hole in your ship if self destructed? Or are you going to risk sending out your own shuttle with a boarding party knowing that the Voth (who have a tendency to launch cloaked ambushes) might still try to recover the materials?
No one said the Good path was Easy. Evil is Easy. Good is Hard. Good guys often give their lives in the pursuit; Evil guys just accidentally get killed trying to get away with the Loot. It's the nature of service - you give your life for the mission, rather than let the mission fail. But maybe I read that part of the rulebook wrong...
Please reconsider ARC. Please make it optional, at the least. PLEASE.
It seems the vast majority of your most active players (forum regulars) hate the idea... and while that's a small subset of the playerbase, I think it's an important constituency.
THE PLAYERS DO NOT WANT THIS.
^this, there is that 6 part story that ends in sacrifice. Never have I felt more like Kirk than that instance.
That and the Transwarp story. Two AWESOME stories.
Can you refer me to that 6-part series?
Please reconsider ARC. Please make it optional, at the least. PLEASE.
It seems the vast majority of your most active players (forum regulars) hate the idea... and while that's a small subset of the playerbase, I think it's an important constituency.
THE PLAYERS DO NOT WANT THIS.
People need to watch some real 'Star Trek' and not that politically correct garbage that was TNG. Hell, even the 'modern' writers of th TNG 24th century era had to come up with 'Section 31' to explain why the Federation hadn't been conquered by the Klingons, Romulans or the Cardassians because (if we go by Picard) the majority of Federation ship captains were willing to let the Federation fall to uphold some humanistic principle; and discussing Shakespeare while drinking Earl Gray tea, instead of defending and protecting Federation assests. :eek:;):P
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
People need to watch some real 'Star Trek' and not that politically correct garbage that was TNG. Hell, even the 'modern' writers of th TNG 24th century era had to come up with 'Section 31' to explain why the Federation hadn't been conquered by the Klingons, Romulans or the Cardassians because (if we go by Picard) the majority of Federation ship captains were willing to let the Federation fall to uphold some humanistic principle; and discussing Shakespeare while drinking Earl Gray tea, instead of defending and protecting Federation assests. :eek:;):P
I understand that everyone has their fave series, but politicizing TNG as being 'politically correct' just because it's not some gunsmoke western in space is kind of tedious. I love the original series, but TnG in it's incarnation came at the right time and only strengthened the franchise.
And as to Section 31. I don't think, had Gene Roddenberry been alive, that that concept would have been used. I think he envisoned a future in which such things weren't even necessary ( i recall a ToS episode in which Abe Lincoln apologized for calling Uhura a negress or something similiar and her reply being that 'we've learned not to fear words'). I'll take the more cerebral aspects of such a future over star wars clonage anyday, although a nice mix between the two isn't so bad in the long run.
TnG gave us Borg.
Nuff said.
"Do you know what power is? Power is control of men who are lesser than you."
This reminds me of the way the Geneva conventions distinguish between paratroopers(who you can shoot in mid-air) and people escaping an aircraft in a parachute. Are they armed? That's it. If they're carrying a weapon you can shoot them.
This paragraph was added after WWII. And is quite controversial.
Why?
Because in all air forces military air crews are issued with side arms (yes, by all means, do let an armed enemy soldier to land on your territory ).
No, really. Shuttles are carrying Omega molecules and it's entirely within your orders to destroy them.
If no, you are risking survival of your entire Federation.
You are traitor of all innocent civilians in Federation space.
You are doing bad job as their defender.
There is no explanation for not destroing those shuttles and not following orders should be met with court martial.
This is war.
Good that KDF does not have such high "moral" problems.
I'm reminded of an exchange from TNG: "Descent, Part I":
PICARD: No one is more aware of the danger than I am. But I am also bound by my oath and my conscience to uphold certain principles. And I will not sacrifice them in order to--
ADM. NECHAYEV: Your priority is to safeguard the lives of Federation citizens, not to wrestle with your conscience.
That said, I still believe the story justification for the entire season 8 scenario needed a lot more thinking-through. All they gave us is an excuse plot for dinosaurs with gorram laser beams.
Unless I'm mistaken he's referring to the Purity series, the last six Spotlights. You might also enjoy Infinite Realities by Captain Revo.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Now far as this topic goes. Lets put it this way. You are captain of modern day destroyer. Bunch of Al Queda are sailing in unarmed speed boats. But they have weapons grade plutonium.
Do you risk letting them get away with something that could kill millions later on, or do you shoot first and ask questions later.
Sorry in this case taking down shuttles filled with Omega particles, Blow them out the sky and not even think twice about it.
Sorry Omega Directive, WHICH JAMES T KIRK WROTE HIMSELF, [if you played Star Trek Legacy] says you shoot first, sorry I'm going to listen to Captain Kirk there.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
...Which is why we don't have a Prime Directive in any modern-day Earth military.
And if the choice is 'die to complete mission' or 'live but fail mission,' the proper choice, remembering the oath of service, is the former. And since every Starfleet member (officer and enlisted) takes the oath, afaik, they must all be prepared to give their lives in service.
Saving other people's lives (and your crew) vs following the Prime Directive is EXACTLY the question Starfleet captains are supposed to 'wrestle with'.
[I'm most confused that if they're escaping with particles, which are likely 'contained' somehow, HOW exactly is blowing up the shuttles going to keep them from detonating? (I think this may have been mentioned before in the thread)]
Please reconsider ARC. Please make it optional, at the least. PLEASE.
It seems the vast majority of your most active players (forum regulars) hate the idea... and while that's a small subset of the playerbase, I think it's an important constituency.
THE PLAYERS DO NOT WANT THIS.
In terms of mowing down the bad guys without remorse, Season 8 makes a lot more sense than the rest of the game IMO, at least from the FED perspective. The existence of Omega Particles immediately invokes the Omega Directive, which suspends the Prime Directive. This means "do anything and everything necessary to eliminate the threat."
There were, however, no Omega Particles that I can recall in "Divide et Imperia"...
The plot of Divide et Impera is that an Undine infiltrator(the fake Zelle) tricks the Starfleet admiralty into launching a preemptive strike on what "Zelle" claims is a Romulan bioweapons research station. you find out during the mission that it's not, but "Zelle" escapes on a Romulan ship.
Kestrel originally planned it as part 1 of 3, but the rest of the mission never got made. Presumably parts 2 and 3 would have had you hunt down "Zelle" and fix things.
When it comes to "Divide at Impera" That mission should have been over after you scan the first room on medical supplies, the captain should have told the Admiral "No. This is in breach of more regulations than I care to name and that's ignoring that it stands against the Federation's founding principles! Do it yourself."
People need to watch some real 'Star Trek' and not that politically correct garbage that was TNG. Hell, even the 'modern' writers of th TNG 24th century era had to come up with 'Section 31' to explain why the Federation hadn't been conquered by the Klingons, Romulans or the Cardassians because (if we go by Picard) the majority of Federation ship captains were willing to let the Federation fall to uphold some humanistic principle; and discussing Shakespeare while drinking Earl Gray tea, instead of defending and protecting Federation assests. :eek:;):P
Captain Sisko is from the same time period as Picard. The guy who bribed, murdered and blackmailed in the name of the Federation.
Then there was also Captain Maxwell from the USS Phoenix.
My argument about this subject in particular is that Cryptic uses combat as filler, even when it is against the lore. There is one mission early on in the Fed chain, you have to save somebody, and you kill 200 people (Klingons?) to save one person. Its just ridiculous.
The large issue is that there are no alternative mechanics for most of this stuff. On ground there's no knockout gas or a knockout blow or anything like that. There are some things like stealth kits but even those have problems.The game would be way better if it was more goal-based and less micro-managing. Obtain the data crystals, however you can do it, rather than kill squad A through M now pickup the data crystal. Then you could do it with stealth, or with knockout gas, or whatever.
Then there is the subordinate issue, we have these mechanics in space, but the missions arent written to use them.
As i see it Voth faction are first in Gama quadrant and they inherited sphere technology and harvesting omega particles.
The Voth never attack alpha sector and not ever opposing a treat to the way of life of the federation faction.
When Gateway was discovered Federation,Romulans and Klingons agree they will not destroy gateway because of possibility to travel to Gama quadrant.
But they ended invading the sphere and find out that Voth faction is having omega particles.
So as we recall from series no other faction in alpha quadrant have ever stabilized the omega particle and driven by that thought they come up with plan to go to war against Voth faction because they have weapon of mass destruction.
If Federation were explorers like they are introduced to us from movies and series they would never go to the war because some faction technology is superior to them.
Voth has never threaten to the Federation or any other faction in alpha quadrant that they will use omega particle for destruction.
So i simply dont se the justification in Federation faction of invading someones homeland.
Voth are having every right to repel the attacks and they should construct the weapon of mass destruction in order to defend themselves from outer forces who wanna destroy their home.
So in future if some faction have successfully stabilize the omega particle we should destroy them???
I'm reminded of an exchange from TNG: "Descent, Part I":
PICARD: No one is more aware of the danger than I am. But I am also bound by my oath and my conscience to uphold certain principles. And I will not sacrifice them in order to--
ADM. NECHAYEV: Your priority is to safeguard the lives of Federation citizens, not to wrestle with your conscience.
Captain Sisko is from the same time period as Picard. The guy who bribed, murdered and blackmailed in the name of the Federation.
Then there was also Captain Maxwell from the USS Phoenix.
Yeah, there's pretty much enough evidence in the shows that reveal Picard was an idealist and hardly representative of Starfleet and the Federation as a whole. He was the diplomatic side of Starfleet, that's why he got all of the cushy diplomatic missions on a ship filled with children. He wasn't part of Starfleet's more militant wing.
Sisko? Kirk? Now these guys were willing to do anything to keep their ships, crews, and Federation safe. I'd say they're better representatives of Starfleet's military muscle.
Yeah, there's pretty much enough evidence in the shows that reveal Picard was an idealist and hardly representative of Starfleet and the Federation as a whole. He was the diplomatic side of Starfleet, that's why he got all of the cushy diplomatic missions on a ship filled with children. He wasn't part of Starfleet's more militant wing.
And then they gave him the Sovereign which was their latest and greatest (and possibly most powerful) vessel yet...
Yes, I have played the mission before. It's a good example of what was being discussed in this thread IMO. In the case of "Divide et Imperia", there is reason to "wrestle with one's conscience" when it comes to needlessly blowing away innocent Romulan scientists, especially as the mission unfolds and there is a complete lack of evidence found. Capturing Zelle would not have brought those people back.
It's a bit different when the Omega Directive is invoked.
Yes, and no. It's specifically stated that the facility was for production of Bio-weapons. Therefore certain types of medical supplies would be needed for that.
Sisko? Kirk? Now these guys were willing to do anything to keep their ships, crews, and Federation safe.
And not necessarily in that order. If keeping the Federation safe required sacrificing crew or ship, well, I think Commodore Decker showed where the line was on that one.
There is one mission early on in the Fed chain, you have to save somebody, and you kill 200 people (Klingons?) to save one person.
But at that point in the story, the Empire and the Federation are still at war. The cease-fire seems to occur shortly after you dispatch B'vat, who was keeping things stirred up as much as possible even after it became plain that both sides were being threatened by the Borg and Undine.
And not necessarily in that order. If keeping the Federation safe required sacrificing crew or ship, well, I think Commodore Decker showed where the line was on that one.
The Romulans hit the ship with a Tachyon pulse to force them to stop scanning. Data ordered the crew to fix it so they could resume looking for the Romulans immediately, even though it meant that all of the crew on three decks would get radiation poisoning. Heh, Data's actions were totally understandable IMO. It's not like the crew would die immediately, and the Sutherland did have the supplies they needed to keep it from actually hurting the crew.
and well, If the Sutherland hadn't found the Romulan fleet... It could have resulted in a full scale war between the Federation and the Klingons.
Are you talking about "Purity" and "Transwarp Trouble"? I haven't played "Purity", but "Transwarp Trouble" was great.
yes the purity missions IMO probably the best set of missions i've played yet. Transwarp came a close second.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
While I rarely have time to post (and really ought to be working on some Christmas cards to family instead of this), I thought it might be a good idea to inject some real-world input into this discussion on rules of engagement and so forth. If nothing else, hopefully it'll increase some civic awareness that might be useful when people here look at military situations in the news in real life.
Basing this on a US military perspective, the Omega Directive is basically a contingency plan (CONPLAN) that would be activated by various stated criteria and direct various stated responses. Among other things, it would likely promulgate some sort of reporting process that would go all the way up to the President of the Federation, though in the Voyager episode they obviously couldn't execute that part of the plan due to lack of ability to communicate.
My conjecture of what would realistically would have happened would first involve whatever Starfleet personnel (probably the Enterprise-F CO) reporting it up the operational chain of command. The intel would go to the equivalent of a combatant commander (COCOM), who's responsible for whatever area of space that the Enterprise-F came from or is considered to be "chopped to"; the COCOM would report that up to whoever is equivalent to the secretary of defense, who would bring it up to the president. (Note that Joint Chiefs of Staff are in the administrative chain of command, not the operational chain of command.) This could happen within minutes with the various subspace communications the seem to show in the various media. The order would probably be given back down to execute whatever response the chain of command deems best, with more detail being promulgated at lower levels, and this would involve a transition to wartime rules of engagement (ROE).
Now, when not in a designated combat zone, most military units operate under a self-defense posture. In what's known generally as international Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC), it is recognized that all units have an inherent right to self-defense, and they are allowed to use deadly force in response to imminent threat of a hostile act. Without getting too much into the weeds, there are standards of response that must be adhered to, such as proportionality of response and due diligence in avoiding the possibility of harming noncombatants.
(As an aside, for the paratrooper vs. ejecting aircrew discussion, paratroopers are considered combatants while they are coming down and can be engaged. Aircrew are more complicated; for example, when a combat pilot is in a combat aircraft, he/she is considered a combatant, but if the person bails out they are considered "aircrew in distress" and a NONCOMBATANT while they are parachuting down and CANNOT be engaged, but once they reach the ground they are considered "evading personnel" and regain a combatant status...)
Once war is declared, wartime rules of engagement are usually much less restrictive on targeting of combatants, though ROE must be approved by Judge Advocate General (JAG) personnel to meet standards of LOAC. Often all military units of an enemy force may be designated as hostile and can be engaged at will, even if they are not a direct threat to friendly forces. For example, it would be considered normal during a declared state of war to attack enemy aircraft on the ground, an enemy supply depot, massed enemy ground forces, etc. even if those particular places/units are not (yet) involved in attacking friendly forces.
In this case, I haven't had a chance to play the mission yet, but if the shuttles are Voth military vessels with only military personnel aboard, they are legitimate targets under wartime rules of engagement, even if they are unarmed. The fact that they are carrying Omega particles may invoke specific procedures, but the shuttles would still be valid targets in a LOAC/ROE sense. (Think films from WWII of planes shooting at freight trains in Europe carrying military hardware.) Even if there were civilian personnel involved, the personnel generating the specific ROE for an Omega scenario would be likely to designate (while working with the JAG) collateral damage criteria that would deem some level of civilian casualties to be acceptable given the extreme danger that Omega particles could pose.
One important note is that people who disregard LOAC/ROE in a situation will likely to at least be relieved of command and potentially go to prison, etc., and the "just following orders" thing does NOT work if you're an officer. Under LOAC you MUST refuse to execute orders that violate LOAC/ROE; if someone gives you an order that seems not right to you, you're supposed to ask for clarification. If they still insist on telling you to execute an illegal order, you are supposed to reject it; if you follow it and commit a violation, you will be held responsible in addition to the people above who gave the order. This would have been applicable in the shooting Romulans with phasers situation that was discussed previously (e.g. someone suggested you just set the phasers to stun anyway).
Okay, that's my two cents for the moment. (I know it's pretty long, but in real life you do have to learn this stuff and know how to apply it.)
Comments
(Incidentally, it's not necessary to fight everyone in the bar, if you can just keep your personnel under control - just fight your way out of the arena, then head straight for the door, and you only have to take out the ones who are in your way. The rest of the bar is too busy killing each other to bother with you just yet...)
Pretty true, at best I'd say the cells contain "the lesser of evils" being used by the greater.
They could still give the option to open'em for the die-hard "white knight" caliber of captain to exercise their "free all the (slightly more) innocent" tendencies on.
Oh, definitely. I just do it because I like it. Think the first Michael Keaton Batman movie and the Joker's proclamation- I go in bellowing "This bar needs an TRIBBLE!" then proceed to give it a very thorough one.
(And if I could open those holding cells and the occupants didn't have some really compelling tales of innocence abused, I could be even more thorough about it.)
If you read the notes, i believe it says they are leaving with omega particles...
Then what? You still have to destroy the Omega Molecules that are in enemy hands. Are you going to bring the shuttle aboard? A shuttle piloted by hostile forces,carrying hazardous materials and that could probably blast a significantly large hole in your ship if self destructed? Or are you going to risk sending out your own shuttle with a boarding party knowing that the Voth (who have a tendency to launch cloaked ambushes) might still try to recover the materials?
My character Tsin'xing
No one said the Good path was Easy. Evil is Easy. Good is Hard. Good guys often give their lives in the pursuit; Evil guys just accidentally get killed trying to get away with the Loot. It's the nature of service - you give your life for the mission, rather than let the mission fail. But maybe I read that part of the rulebook wrong...
It seems the vast majority of your most active players (forum regulars) hate the idea... and while that's a small subset of the playerbase, I think it's an important constituency.
THE PLAYERS DO NOT WANT THIS.
Can you refer me to that 6-part series?
It seems the vast majority of your most active players (forum regulars) hate the idea... and while that's a small subset of the playerbase, I think it's an important constituency.
THE PLAYERS DO NOT WANT THIS.
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
I understand that everyone has their fave series, but politicizing TNG as being 'politically correct' just because it's not some gunsmoke western in space is kind of tedious. I love the original series, but TnG in it's incarnation came at the right time and only strengthened the franchise.
And as to Section 31. I don't think, had Gene Roddenberry been alive, that that concept would have been used. I think he envisoned a future in which such things weren't even necessary ( i recall a ToS episode in which Abe Lincoln apologized for calling Uhura a negress or something similiar and her reply being that 'we've learned not to fear words'). I'll take the more cerebral aspects of such a future over star wars clonage anyday, although a nice mix between the two isn't so bad in the long run.
TnG gave us Borg.
Nuff said.
"Do you know what power is? Power is control of men who are lesser than you."
This paragraph was added after WWII. And is quite controversial.
Why?
Because in all air forces military air crews are issued with side arms (yes, by all means, do let an armed enemy soldier to land on your territory
No, really. Shuttles are carrying Omega molecules and it's entirely within your orders to destroy them.
If no, you are risking survival of your entire Federation.
You are traitor of all innocent civilians in Federation space.
You are doing bad job as their defender.
There is no explanation for not destroing those shuttles and not following orders should be met with court martial.
This is war.
Good that KDF does not have such high "moral" problems.
PICARD: No one is more aware of the danger than I am. But I am also bound by my oath and my conscience to uphold certain principles. And I will not sacrifice them in order to--
ADM. NECHAYEV: Your priority is to safeguard the lives of Federation citizens, not to wrestle with your conscience.
That said, I still believe the story justification for the entire season 8 scenario needed a lot more thinking-through. All they gave us is an excuse plot for dinosaurs with gorram laser beams.
Unless I'm mistaken he's referring to the Purity series, the last six Spotlights. You might also enjoy Infinite Realities by Captain Revo.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Click foundry, you'll see them.'
Now far as this topic goes. Lets put it this way. You are captain of modern day destroyer. Bunch of Al Queda are sailing in unarmed speed boats. But they have weapons grade plutonium.
Do you risk letting them get away with something that could kill millions later on, or do you shoot first and ask questions later.
Sorry in this case taking down shuttles filled with Omega particles, Blow them out the sky and not even think twice about it.
Sorry Omega Directive, WHICH JAMES T KIRK WROTE HIMSELF, [if you played Star Trek Legacy] says you shoot first, sorry I'm going to listen to Captain Kirk there.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
And if the choice is 'die to complete mission' or 'live but fail mission,' the proper choice, remembering the oath of service, is the former. And since every Starfleet member (officer and enlisted) takes the oath, afaik, they must all be prepared to give their lives in service.
Saving other people's lives (and your crew) vs following the Prime Directive is EXACTLY the question Starfleet captains are supposed to 'wrestle with'.
[I'm most confused that if they're escaping with particles, which are likely 'contained' somehow, HOW exactly is blowing up the shuttles going to keep them from detonating? (I think this may have been mentioned before in the thread)]
It seems the vast majority of your most active players (forum regulars) hate the idea... and while that's a small subset of the playerbase, I think it's an important constituency.
THE PLAYERS DO NOT WANT THIS.
My character Tsin'xing
Kestrel originally planned it as part 1 of 3, but the rest of the mission never got made. Presumably parts 2 and 3 would have had you hunt down "Zelle" and fix things.
My character Tsin'xing
Captain Sisko is from the same time period as Picard. The guy who bribed, murdered and blackmailed in the name of the Federation.
Then there was also Captain Maxwell from the USS Phoenix.
Are you talking about "Purity" and "Transwarp Trouble"? I haven't played "Purity", but "Transwarp Trouble" was great.
The large issue is that there are no alternative mechanics for most of this stuff. On ground there's no knockout gas or a knockout blow or anything like that. There are some things like stealth kits but even those have problems.The game would be way better if it was more goal-based and less micro-managing. Obtain the data crystals, however you can do it, rather than kill squad A through M now pickup the data crystal. Then you could do it with stealth, or with knockout gas, or whatever.
Then there is the subordinate issue, we have these mechanics in space, but the missions arent written to use them.
The Voth never attack alpha sector and not ever opposing a treat to the way of life of the federation faction.
When Gateway was discovered Federation,Romulans and Klingons agree they will not destroy gateway because of possibility to travel to Gama quadrant.
But they ended invading the sphere and find out that Voth faction is having omega particles.
So as we recall from series no other faction in alpha quadrant have ever stabilized the omega particle and driven by that thought they come up with plan to go to war against Voth faction because they have weapon of mass destruction.
If Federation were explorers like they are introduced to us from movies and series they would never go to the war because some faction technology is superior to them.
Voth has never threaten to the Federation or any other faction in alpha quadrant that they will use omega particle for destruction.
So i simply dont se the justification in Federation faction of invading someones homeland.
Voth are having every right to repel the attacks and they should construct the weapon of mass destruction in order to defend themselves from outer forces who wanna destroy their home.
So in future if some faction have successfully stabilize the omega particle we should destroy them???
Yeah, there's pretty much enough evidence in the shows that reveal Picard was an idealist and hardly representative of Starfleet and the Federation as a whole. He was the diplomatic side of Starfleet, that's why he got all of the cushy diplomatic missions on a ship filled with children. He wasn't part of Starfleet's more militant wing.
Sisko? Kirk? Now these guys were willing to do anything to keep their ships, crews, and Federation safe. I'd say they're better representatives of Starfleet's military muscle.
And then they gave him the Sovereign which was their latest and greatest (and possibly most powerful) vessel yet...
Because he has brains and he is not happy trigger douche who wanna kill everyone in universe.
As Spidermens uncle has said "With great power comes great responsibility"
My character Tsin'xing
But at that point in the story, the Empire and the Federation are still at war. The cease-fire seems to occur shortly after you dispatch B'vat, who was keeping things stirred up as much as possible even after it became plain that both sides were being threatened by the Borg and Undine.
The Romulans hit the ship with a Tachyon pulse to force them to stop scanning. Data ordered the crew to fix it so they could resume looking for the Romulans immediately, even though it meant that all of the crew on three decks would get radiation poisoning. Heh, Data's actions were totally understandable IMO. It's not like the crew would die immediately, and the Sutherland did have the supplies they needed to keep it from actually hurting the crew.
and well, If the Sutherland hadn't found the Romulan fleet... It could have resulted in a full scale war between the Federation and the Klingons.
My character Tsin'xing
yes the purity missions IMO probably the best set of missions i've played yet. Transwarp came a close second.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
Basing this on a US military perspective, the Omega Directive is basically a contingency plan (CONPLAN) that would be activated by various stated criteria and direct various stated responses. Among other things, it would likely promulgate some sort of reporting process that would go all the way up to the President of the Federation, though in the Voyager episode they obviously couldn't execute that part of the plan due to lack of ability to communicate.
My conjecture of what would realistically would have happened would first involve whatever Starfleet personnel (probably the Enterprise-F CO) reporting it up the operational chain of command. The intel would go to the equivalent of a combatant commander (COCOM), who's responsible for whatever area of space that the Enterprise-F came from or is considered to be "chopped to"; the COCOM would report that up to whoever is equivalent to the secretary of defense, who would bring it up to the president. (Note that Joint Chiefs of Staff are in the administrative chain of command, not the operational chain of command.) This could happen within minutes with the various subspace communications the seem to show in the various media. The order would probably be given back down to execute whatever response the chain of command deems best, with more detail being promulgated at lower levels, and this would involve a transition to wartime rules of engagement (ROE).
Now, when not in a designated combat zone, most military units operate under a self-defense posture. In what's known generally as international Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC), it is recognized that all units have an inherent right to self-defense, and they are allowed to use deadly force in response to imminent threat of a hostile act. Without getting too much into the weeds, there are standards of response that must be adhered to, such as proportionality of response and due diligence in avoiding the possibility of harming noncombatants.
(As an aside, for the paratrooper vs. ejecting aircrew discussion, paratroopers are considered combatants while they are coming down and can be engaged. Aircrew are more complicated; for example, when a combat pilot is in a combat aircraft, he/she is considered a combatant, but if the person bails out they are considered "aircrew in distress" and a NONCOMBATANT while they are parachuting down and CANNOT be engaged, but once they reach the ground they are considered "evading personnel" and regain a combatant status...)
Once war is declared, wartime rules of engagement are usually much less restrictive on targeting of combatants, though ROE must be approved by Judge Advocate General (JAG) personnel to meet standards of LOAC. Often all military units of an enemy force may be designated as hostile and can be engaged at will, even if they are not a direct threat to friendly forces. For example, it would be considered normal during a declared state of war to attack enemy aircraft on the ground, an enemy supply depot, massed enemy ground forces, etc. even if those particular places/units are not (yet) involved in attacking friendly forces.
In this case, I haven't had a chance to play the mission yet, but if the shuttles are Voth military vessels with only military personnel aboard, they are legitimate targets under wartime rules of engagement, even if they are unarmed. The fact that they are carrying Omega particles may invoke specific procedures, but the shuttles would still be valid targets in a LOAC/ROE sense. (Think films from WWII of planes shooting at freight trains in Europe carrying military hardware.) Even if there were civilian personnel involved, the personnel generating the specific ROE for an Omega scenario would be likely to designate (while working with the JAG) collateral damage criteria that would deem some level of civilian casualties to be acceptable given the extreme danger that Omega particles could pose.
One important note is that people who disregard LOAC/ROE in a situation will likely to at least be relieved of command and potentially go to prison, etc., and the "just following orders" thing does NOT work if you're an officer. Under LOAC you MUST refuse to execute orders that violate LOAC/ROE; if someone gives you an order that seems not right to you, you're supposed to ask for clarification. If they still insist on telling you to execute an illegal order, you are supposed to reject it; if you follow it and commit a violation, you will be held responsible in addition to the people above who gave the order. This would have been applicable in the shooting Romulans with phasers situation that was discussed previously (e.g. someone suggested you just set the phasers to stun anyway).
Okay, that's my two cents for the moment. (I know it's pretty long, but in real life you do have to learn this stuff and know how to apply it.)