I will confess that I wasn’t in the best of moods when I read the posts, which no doubt added some perceived tone that wasn’t there. So, I also apologize for reacting stronger than I should have.
I definitely think that as far as tactical doctrine is concerned, the outlined procedure is worthy of adding to our library.
In addition to working out tactics for large-scale invasions, securing bases, etc., I was thinking that another interwoven tactic related to crew development would be to talk to officers (probably helm first) about the idea of honing skills related to reactionary tactics. I think we do a good job planning out our approach, but learning to deal with instinctual reactions, like how quickly do you retreat once your shields fail, how do you plan your escape vector, etc. would be a good thing to really work on. New officers especially would benefit from this.
I started working with my helm officer some time ago to stop him from automatically taking evasive maneuvers once we started taking damage. Our manuals even reference the fact that helm officers are encouraged to “take initiative” when it comes to this sort of thing. But sometimes that can interfere with tactic implementation. I try to use the commands, “Prepare for evasive action.” as well as “Stay in there!”, especially when in close range combat. As my helm officer will probably agree, it’s tough to force yourself to do that, but since a captain would tend to know how far a ship can be pushed before things start to get really bad, it turns into developing a level of trust between the captain and especially the helm officer. To me, I think this is an interesting process to develop, especially when it comes to gaining a trust level as well as a good communications process between key positions. Thoughts on that one?