Remove ads

Attempting to Fulfill the Plan: GDI Edition

Reader mode
[X] Plan Consumer Slam
For Cryo's plan I really think there's very little reason not to do prospecting, not just for income purposes but also for pushing Tib back below the surface. Shuffling dice around to do 5R options should be very possible.

For Void's plan I really don't like Tube Artillery. Ground Forces is at 'Decent' and making shells fully sustainable is probably going to need Shells Phase 4, Tube Artillery, and whatever thing (or 2 things) that pop out after Tube Artillery is done. I think at this point besides doing Ablat Phase 1, all military dice should be MARVs, and things that are Steel Talon / Navy, as the two remaining most underinvested branches.

Edit: FYI, QM mentioned in Discord that we shouldnt monofocus Ablat as there are other important things. So I won't vote for Ablat Phase 2 in future turns.

[X] Plan Lofty Alternative
 
Last edited:
I thought we had Word of GM on Discord that Tiberium Prospecting doesn't give Abatement? It's just a really cheap Tiberium project to let us use our Tiberium Dice without stretching the military thin or taxing the budget much. @Ithillid?
 
jadankorr said:
For Cryo's plan I really think there's very little reason not to do prospecting, not just for income purposes but also for pushing Tib back below the surface. Shuffling dice around to do 5R options should be very possible.

For Void's plan I really don't like Tube Artillery. Ground Forces is at 'Decent' and making shells fully sustainable is probably going to need Shells Phase 4, Tube Artillery, and whatever thing (or 2 things) that pop out after Tube Artillery is done.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, but there's a difference between leaving things "kinda okay" and leaving things "really great," and we kind of want to be somewhere in the middle there. Right now the ground forces are "kinda okay," and Ground Forces are sort of the backbone of everything else we do.

I think at this point besides doing Ablat Phase 1, all military dice should be MARVs, and things that are Steel Talon / Navy, as the two remaining most underinvested branches.

Edit: FYI, QM mentioned in Discord that we shouldnt monofocus Ablat as there are other important things. So I won't vote for Ablat Phase 2 in future turns.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You mean not now or not ever?

Also, while monofocusing Ablatives may be a mistake and all, I would think that logically, the Navy and the Steel Talons would want anti-laser ablatives too. Their ships and especially battlemechs get shot at with laser cannons too, y'know.

Chimeraguard said:
I thought we had Word of GM on Discord that Tiberium Prospecting doesn't give Abatement? It's just a really cheap Tiberium project to let us use our Tiberium Dice without stretching the military thin or taxing the budget much. @Ithillid?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I dunno, man, following Discord channels is exhausting to me and I almost never do it.

I'm not saying that Tiberium Prospecting itself gives abatement, to be clear.

I'm saying that as a matter of basic logic, if we actually dig up the tiberium that the prospecting finds, it's going to contribute to the ability of the Blue Zones to not get overrun by tiberium.

Which, again as a matter of basic logic, should ultimately cash out in the form of abatement somehow, because abatement is how we model GDI's efforts to stop Blue Zones from turning Yellow.
 
Chimeraguard said:
I thought we had Word of GM on Discord that Tiberium Prospecting doesn't give Abatement? It's just a really cheap Tiberium project to let us use our Tiberium Dice without stretching the military thin or taxing the budget much. @Ithillid?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It won't directly give abatement, and I thought that was clear in the writeup. It does eventually lead into larger scale projects that will however.
 
@Simon_Jester To just quickly snap off a reply, I think Ablat Phase 2 can wait until weve done at least 2 Steel Talon deployments. I havent really thought through the exact sequence if thats what you are asking.

In terms of artillery, I do want to eventually (not sure when but definitely within this plan) swing back to it, because as youve said its a major part of pushing into YZ, which we definitely want to do. I just think that when the Steel Talons and Navy are are on fire, we should put out the fire first.
 
Crazycryodude said:
Good news, the chances of failing two 1-die attempts in a row is right about 10%, meaning it has a 90% chance to succeed at least one of the two rolls. Doing two 1-die rolls back to back instead of a single 2-die roll is trading off ~8-9% chance of overall success for a 67% chance to save 10 PS. If PS is so precious and needs to be hoarded then I think those numbers suggest taking the small downgrade in overall success chance in exchange for a large chance to save PS is the right choice.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The chance for the second roll to fail is still 32%. Yes, the overall chance we'll fail two tries in a row is 10.24%. But the first roll doesn't affect the second. If we fail the first roll, the second roll will still have the exact same 68%/32% success/failure chance. Unlike what we're used to with Planquest rolls, where even bad rolls give some progress, here two dice over two turns is much riskier than two dice on the same turn.

Now, you will notice that my plan does make that kind of bet with the L&CI Recruitment Drive. But that costs half the PS and is more likely to succeed. I'm much more willing to fail it this turn and pay an extra 5 PS to get it done next turn, than I am to fail the (much more important) Technology Codevelopment Programs that also costs twice as much PS. But, if people want I'm willing to switch that die to something that doesn't cost PS; Interdepartmental Communication Initiative has a 38% chance to complete on one die and (I think?) costs us nothing if it fails. Or I could just leave that third die inactive to be safe.
 
Last edited:
Derpmind said:
But, if people want I'm willing to switch that die to something that doesn't cost PS; Interdepartmental Communication Initiative has a 38% chance to complete on one die and (I think?) costs us nothing if it fails. Or I could just leave that third die inactive to be safe.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

My preference is no change to your plan.

I prefer to get both PS cost actions done now and know where we stand next turn. Definitely want codevelopment to be guaranteed this turn, even if we want to pay a bit more. Let's not gamble on losing the PS and having it delayed. The dice gods are fickle at times.
 
Derpmind said:
But, if people want I'm willing to switch that die to something that doesn't cost PS; Interdepartmental Communication Initiative has a 38% chance to complete on one die and (I think?) costs us nothing if it fails. Or I could just leave that third die inactive to be safe.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Neutral is my thought on it.

If possible I'd prefer it was done with 2 dices than 1 to minimize the chance of having to spend yet 5 more PS at a later turn to get it. But compared to the Codevelopment it's much less critical to get ASAP, and much more likely to succeed on 1 dice as well.

Thus considering how many people might've voted for your plan with having it as a condition, overall I'd say it's probably better to not change it for now.
 
jadankorr said:
@Simon_Jester To just quickly snap off a reply, I think Ablat Phase 2 can wait until weve done at least 2 Steel Talon deployments. I havent really thought through the exact sequence if thats what you are asking.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Eh. Maybe one, maybe two.

The problem is that Ablatives Phase 1 is a tiny-scale rollout that's basically just a handful of wunderwaffen vehicles equipped with the stuff. It's barely enough to be relevant in a localized military push, let alone a broader strategic level.

The only reason the Ground Forces are more or less okay is all we've done with artillery and shells. They don't actually have better equipment, just a shitload of big-ass guns bombarding the opposition, which is admittedly nice. But if Nod starts actually rolling out the truly superior weapons tech everyone keeps talking about, and if they're all they're cracked up to be... that's going to be a problem.

[Personally I'm skeptical of this stuff being revolutionary rather than incremental, but that's me]
 
Last edited:
Simon_Jester said:
I'm flattered that you are like the only person voting for my plan, which even I had kinda given up on.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm in a sappy mood, I guess.

Chimeraguard said:
I thought we had Word of GM on Discord that Tiberium Prospecting doesn't give Abatement? It's just a really cheap Tiberium project to let us use our Tiberium Dice without stretching the military thin or taxing the budget much. @Ithillid?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Still worth doing if it lets us get a better idea of what the Doom Timer looks like, in game.

Concerning the Navy, what does our submersible fleet look like, if any? What does our ASW look like? Does Nod use subs at all?
 
@Simon_Jester I suppose my answer to this is a bit meta-gamey. QM has said in Discord that each phase of Ablative Rollout is considered one deployment. So that probably equalizes the deployments a bit in my mind. I understand its not really fully equal, since later phases are stronger than earlier phases. But if the military can look at Phase 1, and say that it counts as one, im not gonna gainsay them on that. So that means Ablat Phase 1 must have enough value to be counted as a deployment in of itself, even if it supposedly only really affects things on the tactical level.

So if the deployments are kinda sorta 'squint your eyes' equal, and the QM has said dont monofocus on Ablat, I think my overall stance is 'fix the fires in Talons/Navy first'.

Thanks for the conversation btw. I probably wont be replying more, busy IRL.
 
jadankorr said:
@Simon_Jester I suppose my answer to this is a bit meta-gamey. QM has said in Discord that each phase of Ablative Rollout is considered one deployment. So that probably equalizes the deployments a bit in my mind. I understand its not really fully equal, since later phases are stronger than earlier phases. But if the military can look at Phase 1, and say that it counts as one, im not gonna gainsay them on that. So that means Ablat Phase 1 must have enough value to be counted as a deployment in of itself, even if it supposedly only really affects things on the tactical level.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
To be fair, there's something to be said for being able to pick a specific armored corps and say "these tanks are now going to be twice as hard to kill with lasers" and then jam them down the enemy's throat at a location of your choosing, even if the rest of your military is not similarly upgraded.

I think that to some extent the reason it counts as a deployment is that the military is so excited to see this stuff hit the field at all that we get extra brownie points for doing it. They'll reason, perhaps correctly, that if they want more of some specific thing they can always ask and that the real battle is just getting the stuff into production at all.

So if the deployments are kinda sorta 'squint your eyes' equal, and the QM has said dont monofocus on Ablat, I think my overall stance is 'fix the fires in Talons/Navy first'.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm starting to become more of a Navy advocate myself. Because looking at the conversation around our troubles projecting power towards South America, I'm thinking "wow, a Navy that can't hammer Nod back from the coastline more or less at will is a major handicap," especially with the Suez and Panama Canals gone.
 
Simon_Jester said:
I'm starting to become more of a Navy advocate myself. Because looking at the conversation around our troubles projecting power towards South America, I'm thinking "wow, a Navy that can't hammer Nod back from the coastline more or less at will is a major handicap," especially with the Suez and Panama Canals gone.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The big thing standing in the way of getting the Navy up to code (besides power, geez, imagine how much a C&C3 Tiberium Wars Shipyard would cost) is that the actual rollout/refitting the Shipyards to make Cruisers instead of Battleships costs a bit of Capital Goods, and we're spending all our existing Capital Goods on YZ Light Industry.

I think the best play to push navy would be do Governor Cruisers Development next turn, while pushing say, Chemical Precursors in LCI. Then we build the Shipyards the turn after with the now-available Capital Goods.
 
TripleTango said:
We don't have a submarine fleet, or we don't have dedicated ASW?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You don't have a submarine fleet, you do have ASW configurations for your Orcas. They don't have as much endurance as some would like, but they work generally well enough.

TripleTango said:
As opposed to a transport role?

Really? That's weird, I thought GDI's seaborne logistics would be a priority for interdiction and even NOD can only pull the terror-attack sucker punch so many times in a row.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The tricky thing is that a submarine that is quiet enough to get close to a convoy, deliver an attack, and survive, is very, very expensive. You see some Type 21 equivalents firing electric torpedoes sometimes, but not proper SSNalikes. On the other hand, a transport variant is something that drug cartels manufacture.
 
TripleTango said:
As opposed to a transport role?

Really? That's weird, I thought GDI's seaborne logistics would be a priority for interdiction and even NOD can only pull the terror-attack sucker punch so many times in a row.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think what it comes down to is that Nod is actually very limited on heavy industry, and shipyards are definitely heavy industry. They're big targets that can't be easily concealed because they have to be on a coastline, so any attempt to build large naval strike vessels of any kind (including attack submarines) trips over that issue.

Force GDI to respond to a campaign of submarine warfare, and they will, rather effectively. Whereas they cannot respond to distributed fleabites.
 
Ithillid said:
The tricky thing is that a submarine that is quiet enough to get close to a convoy, deliver an attack, and survive, is very, very expensive. You see some Type 21 equivalents firing electric torpedoes sometimes, but not proper SSNalikes. On the other hand, a transport variant is something that drug cartels manufacture.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Simon_Jester said:
I think what it comes down to is that Nod is actually very limited on heavy industry, and shipyards are definitely heavy industry. They're big targets that can't be easily concealed because they have to be on a coastline, so any attempt to build large naval strike vessels of any kind (including attack submarines) trips over that issue.

Force GDI to respond to a campaign of submarine warfare, and they will, rather effectively. Whereas they cannot respond to distributed fleabites.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I mean, I know that attack subs need some sophistication but at the same time there's the Avatar. That's not light, insophisticated or inexpensive by any stretch.

And you don't need SSNs to give convoys a hard time--there exist modern classes of diesel-electric or air-independent propulsion subs that have sneaked up on the Enterprise battlegroup. (Now if only I can remember where I saw that...)

I do see the point re:shipyards, though. Hmm.

Ithillid said:
You don't have a submarine fleet, you do have ASW configurations for your Orcas. They don't have as much endurance as some would like, but they work generally well enough.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Are there other ASW platforms? Do we/did we not have a general purpose frigate/destroyer class? Do we make use of underwater unmanned vehicles?
 
TripleTango said:
Are there other ASW platforms? Do we/did we not have a general purpose frigate/destroyer class? Do we make use of underwater unmanned vehicles?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Not really. No. Quite a few of them, but rarely as anything other than a convoy perimeter.

Edit: Basically, prewar naval doctrine was heavily influenced by politics. Which typically emphasized big heavy capital ships to the near exclusion of all else, because that was big and impressive and a mark of GDI's material superiority. Rolling up with a carrier and a handful of battleships was something that GDI could do and generally cowed everyone else into submission. The thing is that NOD turned around and found good ways to counter that, generally with stealth fielded artillery and stealth bomber strikes.
With the new naval command very aware of the problems the fleet had, there is a push towards smaller, lighter, more diversified and more survivable. So cruisers as the mainline combatant and carrier escort. Escort carriers, hydrofoils, and eventually frigate and destroyer weight vessels if needed.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top