Talk:Broken Promises (Resolution)/After Action Report

Can I recommend that instead of saying the damage was so extensive to the Embassy, that a new one had to be built, that instead we say that the old Embassy was used for a new government ministry of some type, after our departure, and that in turn we're moving in to another nearby building that was vacated by the Romulans? I can't imagine what kind of damage could be done to a building that would make it cost more to fix than putting up a new building. I think it's also more in line with what would happen these days in terms of normal government operation. --Wolf /^{talk page} 03:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The assessments on this wiki page are a summary of the USS Resolution's senior officers' observations and professional recommendations at the end of the Resolution's mission in 2386. Specifically, the Resolution's Chief Engineer stated the following: "The Embassy suffered heavy damage during the attacks. It seems that whoever did the attack wanted to cause a major damage without destroying the building so the ruin would be a show of force. The structural integrity is below safety limits. As an engineer, i would suggest choosing a different building but the political points that Captain explained on the surface are correct. We must rebuild the same embassy, to show those who defied us in the first time. It will take some time and heavy work but not impossible." The "attacks" she is referring to are unknown attacks to the Embassy between 2383 and 2386. I think that the Embassy assessment notes can be changed to "The Embassy suffered heavy damage after 2383 and will require extensive repairs before it can reopen.", and that new sentence would clarify the repairing of the Embassy instead of constructing a new Embassy. --Unum 15:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not so much that we're going to repair the old Embassy and move back in, but just that, instead of building a new Embassy for the next round, we're going to move into a pre-existing building that the Laudeans were using. :) --Wolf /^{talk page} 21:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)