By the end of this coming 4 year plan I want the monitors fully implemented. They provide basically a modular hull that we can shift to whatever mission profile we need at the time. It is a way to gain extra hulls on very short notice in specialties. Submarine hunting or convoy defense to actually going on the offensive. It can be shifted around to shore up weaknesses or enhance strengths and give our navy a lot of wiggle room when it comes to doing their jobs.
The US Navy is trying more or less this approach and it has limits.

It has limits especially if the underlying hull design is something that might reasonably be called a "monitor," that is to say, well protected, slow, and defended in large part by having a low target profile that potentially verges on "semi-submersible."

i'd rather have the amphibious assault ships, which are much more of a game-changing asset.

It also means that more hulls in the water brings us closer to overcoming the current NOD advantage in the waters. At the moment we are the ones barely holding on and defending our own supply routes and convoys while they can freely perform raids on our assets and not even seem to need to worry about defending their own convoys!
Nod doesn't do a lot of oceangoing convoy operations. Their industry tends to be more distributed and uses more advanced (but more polluting) methods to extract and make stuff from tiberium. What commerce they do have seems to travel in giant cargo submarines that are difficult to keep track of.

More generally, remember that Nod was unable to cut our supply lines across the oceans in the recent war, despite having every reason to do so. We are the ones who can feel secure putting our only really major computer chip foundry in one Blue Zone and shipping the products all over the world.

I think they take our navy a lot more seriously than you think. Even their specialist naval warlord only manages to inflict moderate damage while fighting a fleet that is itself only a fraction of our total sea power.

*looks up the math that was done... thanks Derpmind*
Assuming no further income from this turn:
Tiberium‌ ‌Processing‌ ‌Capacity‌ ‌(2115/3070)‌, so +2115
Taxation Per Turn: +30
Space Mining Per Turn: +100
Maintenance Reductions: +40

Total, minus Space Mining (because we get 100% of that), is 2185R/turn
20% budget = 437 rounds to 435 +100 = 535Rpt - 165Rpt for commitments = 370Rpt + reserve
25% budget = 546.25 rounds to 545 + 100 = 645Rpt - 165Rpt for commitments = 480Rpt + reserve
30% budget = 655.5 rounds to 655 + 100 = 755Rpt - 165Rpt for commitments = 590 Rpt + reserve

So, assuming we keep a reserve of 150R, that means we have between 520 and 740 Resources Q1
If we go for one of the higher-saving plans, that jumps by another 150ish, to between 670 and 890R
Yes. And if we're seriously trying to push our tiberium mining income, with a meme plan level "seven plus seven" dice commitment, the first 280 R of that goes to tiberium alone, plus 5-10 R for each die we spend on a Red Zone operation instead of vein mining. Figure 300 R, and we're left with a discretionary budget of 220 R (low end, low reserve and 20% GDP) to 590 R (high end, high reserve and 30% GDP). Theoretically more if we can cast off some line-items.

If we commit to spending the 100 R from space mining on Orbital, which we probably should if we don't want Starbound to grumble about defeating the purpose of the bill they worked hard to pass...

Well, that leaves us with between 120 R and 490 R to spend on all categories apart from Tiberium/Free and Orbital. Assuming we don't do any spinoff bureaus or otherwise gain/lose any dice this turn, by my count that's 30 dice not counting Bureaucracy.

...

At the low end (low reserve, 20% GDP), we have an average of 4 R per die, which means a LOT of dice being left fallow (realistically including Orbital, so things aren't quite that hopeless).

At the high end (high reserve, 30% GDP), we have an average of 16 R/die, which is downright comfortable, when you think about it.

So again, there is a very wide range of places we can be standing in at the start of 2062Q1, and I strongly recommend that we avoid making any irreversible spending commitments now that will bind us then.
 
And, switching designs and manufacturing techniques in the middle of construction sounds like something that would *at least* not help. That's how I see it, at least.
But we aren't switching designs or techniques.
We are upgrading our lift-to-orbit capacity, and moving much of the fabrication to Enterprise. Those are just about making it logistically easier.
 
Yes. And if we're seriously trying to push our tiberium mining income, with a meme plan level "seven plus seven" dice commitment, the first 280 R of that goes to tiberium alone, plus 5-10 R for each die we spend on a Red Zone operation instead of vein mining. Figure 300 R, and we're left with a discretionary budget of 220 R (low end, low reserve and 20% GDP) to 590 R (high end, high reserve and 30% GDP). Theoretically more if we can cast off some line-items.

If we commit to spending the 100 R from space mining on Orbital, which we probably should if we don't want Starbound to grumble about defeating the purpose of the bill they worked hard to pass...

Well, that leaves us with between 120 R and 490 R to spend on all categories apart from Tiberium/Free and Orbital. Assuming we don't do any spinoff bureaus or otherwise gain/lose any dice this turn, by my count that's 30 dice not counting Bureaucracy.

...

At the low end (low reserve, 20% GDP), we have an average of 4 R per die, which means a LOT of dice being left fallow (realistically including Orbital, so things aren't quite that hopeless).

At the high end (high reserve, 30% GDP), we have an average of 16 R/die, which is downright comfortable, when you think about it.

So again, there is a very wide range of places we can be standing in at the start of 2062Q1, and I strongly recommend that we avoid making any irreversible spending commitments now that will bind us then.
Yup. And that's why my preference is to do a high-reserve plan, and do at least 25%, which would allow us to do a somewhat less abrupt transition - essentially, having the Reallocation dip stretch over Q4 to some degree, so that we're able to get back to regular operation quicker.
My understanding is that Derpmind wants to do a high-reserve plan and then take a 20% budget, to give more income to other departments.
But we aren't switching designs or techniques.
We are upgrading our lift-to-orbit capacity, and moving much of the fabrication to Enterprise. Those are just about making it logistically easier.
My understanding is that the orbital manufacturing allows somewhat more efficient designs/architecture as well as just being logistically easier, but I'm not positive on that.
 
Yup. And that's why my preference is to do a high-reserve plan, and do at least 25%, which would allow us to do a somewhat less abrupt transition - essentially, having the Reallocation dip stretch over Q4 to some degree, so that we're able to get back to regular operation quicker.
My understanding is that Derpmind wants to do a high-reserve plan and then take a 20% budget, to give more income to other departments.
Yeah. I think, honestly, that high-reserve/20% planning falls into the trap of acting on the assumption of not only "what the rest of the government does is important too," which is true, but also in effect "what Treasury does is less important," which is not. The difference between us taking 20% and 25% is the difference between other branches of the government getting 75% and 80%. From their point of view, that means they're splitting a 6.67% budget increase among themselves, while we take a pretty sizeable hit ourselves. I don't think it's so good.

In any event, I haven't yet come to firm conclusions about anything post-reallocation, precisely because so much is uncertain and we don't really even know how much money we'll have to play with until we see the outcome of those votes. Between the possibility of divesting ourselves of some line items and the 20/25/30 question, it's hard to predict.
 
But even with the deployment of the mid-scale plasma cannons, I'm not sure they would be switched out - railguns allow for more varied operation, and possibly even artillery-style fire missions. Unless size proves to be a problem, I imagine they would be more likely to go on the Titans for direct-fire blastyness.
Of course they would. That's their Thing. They build overpowered, overengineered machines with bleeding edge technology, with just enough jank to be charming. Then everyone else gets a turn to remove the jank and build economical versions.

Even if the plasma guns aren't as good railguns, their job is to find out. By finding a few Scorpion Tanks and seeing which gun needs to shoot more for there not to be anymore Scorpion Tanks.
 
It's a LOT of money to lock ourselves into spending, even if we will totally and indisputably get our money's worth out of it in the event that we decide to spend it.
Nice to know you didn't read my post much before shooting it down. You seem to just not care about my entire post after that point.

First off, I end by with this as my second to last paragraph:
I would suggest neither of these until after your new plan goals are set and you know what new dice expansion and contraction effects are kicking in though. I would suggest working out which projects to research first.
So your counter point of, too expensive for now, doesn't actually make sense as a rebuttal.

I spent a lot of time writing out the conditions of use for such a department. You seem to have dismissed that part entirely. If you actually care about the details... I've written them out already.

Second off, the department will add 30 points per turn to refit projects. Likely only military ones as its a military dice. That means 120 point project will take a solid year. A 350 point project will take 3 years. 450 will take 15 quarters. Almost four years. The point is wide spectrum progress. Also good when the refit project has a tiny amount of progress left. Leaving the projects up to just this department means they'll not finish for literally years on end.

Also, you'll still have to pay for the finished the projects, eventually, for anything outside the double digit progress range its mainline investment for anything seriously wanted. The Senate will get cranky if you spent no dice what-so-ever on the refits as theyy take so very long. You'll still have pay the end price of resources and major resources for the project at the end. So no, its not a broken get out of jail free card, its something that lets you make cross the board progress while focusing down them down one at a time.

In Short:
Proper use of the Department of Refits requires forethought and planning to use properly. Plan things out a head of time before investing in said department. Having no refit projects for the department is a waste of resources. Senate gets cranky when you slow play their projects and that is a cost. Also its a military refit so the energy sector and tiberium sector refit probably won't count.
 
Revoting because my previous vote ended up not being included

[x] Plan Attempting To Have Banks In Chicago
[x] Plan Refugees and Research
 
Yeah. I think, honestly, that high-reserve/20% planning falls into the trap of acting on the assumption of not only "what the rest of the government does is important too," which is true, but also in effect "what Treasury does is less important," which is not. The difference between us taking 20% and 25% is the difference between other branches of the government getting 75% and 80%. From their point of view, that means they're splitting a 6.67% budget increase among themselves, while we take a pretty sizeable hit ourselves. I don't think it's so good.

In any event, I haven't yet come to firm conclusions about anything post-reallocation, precisely because so much is uncertain and we don't really even know how much money we'll have to play with until we see the outcome of those votes. Between the possibility of divesting ourselves of some line items and the 20/25/30 question, it's hard to predict.

What is your current plan again? Can I get a link?
 
So you closing the vote early again?

I'm not speaking for Ithillid here but...

Normally unless people object yeah. The lead plan has almost twice as many votes as the second place plan. Most of the regular players/voters have voted. There's been no votes for a couple of hours and the last vote was also for the lead plan, increasing it's lead.

I Mean maybe "[ ]Plan Attempting to Increase the Budget" Could see a turnaround but I doubt it.

If you want to object and there's still discussion going on Ithillid might let the clock run out. he offered to let the vote finish once when I objected based on my plan that has no other support and the vote was even more lopsided.

If people want to object and ask for the vote to be extended they can. I personally am fine right now with calling it.

Which is besides the point since Ithillid may not see this for several hours.
 
Back
Top