Page 4 of 14

Re: Enterprise D - Staffing Breakdown

Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 11:15 pm
by Mikey
Yar and Work were both security, and they both manned tactical.

Re: Enterprise D - Staffing Breakdown

Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 11:17 pm
by Mark
Mark wrote:
Bryan Moore wrote:
Mikey wrote:Tactical seems to be attached to security.
Then I would want more than 36 security personel. I understand others have cross-training, but automation or not, you're going to want people manning various equipment related to the defensive systems in a fight.
I had assumed that operations would actually man tactacal during a situation, with engineering doing maintence on those systems, with security's assistance. Are there actually desingnated Tactical Personel?
I was referring to the ACTUAL tactical locations, like the torpedeo loading bay, and the phaser control rooms to moniter the equipment in battle.

Re: Enterprise D - Staffing Breakdown

Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:01 am
by Bryan Moore
Mark wrote:I was referring to the ACTUAL tactical locations, like the torpedeo loading bay, and the phaser control rooms to moniter the equipment in battle.
Well this is what I was going for. There's gotta be a lot of tactical equipment. Torpedos, phasers, deflectors, shields. And I would think you'd want at least one person near the battle bridge just in case you need a quick separation.

Re: Enterprise D - Staffing Breakdown

Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:03 am
by Mark
Bryan Moore wrote:
Mark wrote:I was referring to the ACTUAL tactical locations, like the torpedeo loading bay, and the phaser control rooms to moniter the equipment in battle.
Well this is what I was going for. There's gotta be a lot of tactical equipment. Torpedos, phasers, deflectors, shields. And I would think you'd want at least one person near the battle bridge just in case you need a quick separation.
Well, during an alert situation I'd figue there would be a surplus of people around, because everybody would their designated "battlestation". All off duty personel would be on duty, and thus manning all of those other areas that wouldn't really need somebody all of the time. My figures were for an ordinary day of curising along. Figuring battlestations would require alot more effort

Re: Enterprise D - Staffing Breakdown

Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 am
by Aaron
Bryan Moore wrote: Well this is what I was going for. There's gotta be a lot of tactical equipment. Torpedos, phasers, deflectors, shields. And I would think you'd want at least one person near the battle bridge just in case you need a quick separation.
Lets be honest, in combat the battle bridge should be fully manned with the XO on station. What with the main bridge sticking up on top like a nipple, it only makes sense to have a manned backup.

Re: Enterprise D - Staffing Breakdown

Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 6:08 am
by Teaos
The battle birdge was a good idea, shame it wasnt the main bridge.

Re: Enterprise D - Staffing Breakdown

Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 8:57 am
by Sionnach Glic
Agreed. One of Starfleet's stupider moves.

Re: Enterprise D - Staffing Breakdown

Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 1:46 pm
by JudgeKing
Here is Ent-D staffing breakdown

Capt. Jean-Luc Picard
Capt. Edward Jellico
Commander William T. Riker
Commander Elizabeth Shelby
Lt. Commander Data
Lt. Commander Geordie La Forge
Lt. Worf
Lt. Reginald Barclay
Lt. Natasha Yar
Lt. Armstrong
Ensign Sito Jaxa
Ensign Simon Tarses
Dr. Beverly Crusher
Counselor Deanna Troi
Nurse Alyssa Ogawa
Ensign Ro Laren (renegade)
Ensign Wesley Crusher (deceased)
Chief O'Brien

Everyone else is nameless cannonfodder.

Re: Enterprise D - Staffing Breakdown

Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 1:52 pm
by Teaos
Weslet isnt decessed, you left out O'Brien and if your putting in dead people what about Yar? You also left out Barclay and many other characters we saw a bit of.

Re: Enterprise D - Staffing Breakdown

Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 2:26 pm
by JudgeKing
JudgeKing wrote:Here is Ent-D staffing breakdown

Capt. Jean-Luc Picard
Capt. Edward Jellico
Commander William T. Riker
Commander Elizabeth Shelby
Lt. Commander Data
Lt. Commander Geordie La Forge
Lt. Worf
Lt. Reginald Barclay
Lt. Natasha Yar
Lt. Armstrong
Ensign Sito Jaxa
Ensign Simon Tarses
Dr. Beverly Crusher
Counselor Deanna Troi
Nurse Alyssa Ogawa
Ensign Ro Laren (renegade)
Ensign Wesley Crusher (deceased)
Chief O'Brien

Everyone else is nameless cannonfodder.
There updated.
Weslet isnt decessed, you left out O'Brien and if your putting in dead people what about Yar? You also left out Barclay and many other characters we saw a bit of.
Sorry, there is no one named Welset in TNG.

Re: Enterprise D - Staffing Breakdown

Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 2:27 pm
by Teaos
The fact that we saw him in Nemises would imply he's either alive or that SF is employing corpes nowadays.

Re: Enterprise D - Staffing Breakdown

Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 2:29 pm
by JudgeKing
Teaos wrote:The fact that we saw him in Nemises would imply he's either alive or that SF is employing corpes nowadays.
Either could be true.

1) Either he's alive.

2) Likely since Starfleet is made of drooling vegetables.

Re: Enterprise D - Staffing Breakdown

Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 9:11 pm
by Mark
Here's one for you. During a Red Alert, everybody reports to their battlestations. Where do the civilians go? Each to there own quarters which would spread them out somewhat or to emergency locations deep inside the hull for maximum protection? Or would even certain civilians (meaning the able bodies adults) have certain designated battlestations?

Re: Enterprise D - Staffing Breakdown

Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 9:13 pm
by Sionnach Glic
I imagine they're just told to go to their quarters and stay out of the way unless told otherwise.

Re: Enterprise D - Staffing Breakdown

Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 9:17 pm
by Mark
Rochey wrote:I imagine they're just told to go to their quarters and stay out of the way unless told otherwise.

But would that be a smart move, considering most of the quarters we've seen APPEAR to be near the outside of the hull (basing that on the windows)? A hull breach could wipe out several families. Not saying that your wrong, because I've always assumed the same thing, but wouldn't that be kind of unwise?