Is 35% too much to ask, when we're essentially doing the same thing with all the spin-offs?I'm not sure about them, I consider 35% too much of an ask in the narrative, while also the spinoffs are effectively a permanent increase to our income, while the increased budget is only for the next 4 years. Granted, it takes about 4 plans to pay off, so it may well just get to that phase when we start the sequelquest.
Yeah, for me, the second I look at one of these plans, I instantly go into info overload mode and my eyes glaze over.
I guess that doesn't make me a very good financial administrator.
Sorry I'll leave you alone I just thought you would want to have some input since it's a plan your voting for.
[flushes with embarrassment]I've skimmed the last day's worth of pages, so I'm not sure if this was mentioned or not. But this isn't how the budget works.
One answer is that it's a permanent weight off our budget.Something I don't get, and I'm not sure why no one's asked this, is why neither of the leading plans considers simply taking a bigger piece of the budget, rather than taking the Light Industry Grants. For only spending -10 PS for 30%, or -20 PS more for 35%, you could gain 115 RpT (or 110 RpT), compared to spending -30 PS taking the Light Industry Grants for 55 RpT. By taking a budget increase instead of spinning-off the PS expensive Light Industry Grants, both plans could save 20 or 10 PS while gaining 60 or 55 RpT in budget. (Heck, Plan All The Spinoffs could switch that grant out for a 35% budget cut and gain 170 RpT for no PS cost on net.) Why are you both paying more PS to get less RpT?
Didn't we take the maximalist "6000 points of stations" goal last Plan? Plus additional objectives for space involving the moon mines? To the point where we had to scrape up two extra Orbital dice just to pull it off?The plan I want (going too far into SPAACE like Simon's plan after several years of doing the middle path look really weird)
Saying one thinks the other person is "trying to" do whatever one sees as the worst consequence imaginable of the action one sees them taking... That's not a good thing to do. It's equivalent to accusing the other person of bad faith.And I think most posters seems to want to be dick just for the sake of it (and probably provoke Troubles MK2 in short order)
You do realize that you're making arguments no one can disagree with you about without opening themselves up to you accusing them of "going too much into IRL" here, right?Without going too much into IRL it's at least part of why there is rise of far-right parties and thinking in Europe and America : years (or decade) of the governement stopping to listening to part of the population for one reason or another.
Well, for starters, we might want to do things like reforestation and poulticeplant deployment, which don't contribute to that target.Why is nobody taking 60 agriculture goods again? I really want to un-neglect our agriculture sector.
My prediction is that the thread is overwhelmingly likely to handle the housing refurbishing anyway, whether we promise to do it or not. The thread's been feeling guilty and unhappy about low quality housing for many in-game months, and if we're given an opportunity to improve things after the current refugee wave settles in, I predict that we'll do it.This plan for now since Simon's Initiative First plan doesn't promise to handle the housing refurbishing,
Real talk, with those goals and us planning ahead sensibly, we really don't need more than ten dice on Military per turn. Not if we plan ahead and use good judgment.Not settling for 25% allocation, even if I'm side-eying the only 2 free mil dice option from simon's plan.
I, for one, have no intention of doing so. The reason I'm not promising it is because I don't consider it to be politically effective, not because I don't intend to be doing a lot of Talons stuff.
Your analysis here parallels mine. Notably, I think at this point nearly everyone is planning to shovel something like 14-21 Free dice into tiberium mining in early to mid-2062, because that's the only way to rebuild our budget properly.Given we only have 32 spare HI dice with our current commitments, I find it unwise to commit to Nuuk Phase 5. Therefore I would recomend either sticking with Reykjavik or Reykjavik and Bergen...
Given that we are likely to produce an additional 10 Consumer Goods just from side projects, or from the Consumer Goods from Agriculture Goal I see no reason not to take the 120 commitment.
Income
As such I do not think the 1500 target is reasonable. The 1200 target is reachable, but we should expect to have some Free dice investment to ensure we reach it. The remaining two goals are completely achieveable with out current dice.
Because building giant ambitious space colonies is my own goal and I genuinely want to pursue it, both for its own sake and to punish Kane?Why are people voting for an absolutely backbreaking 20k-space-population capstone that's going to fold the whole rest of the plan around it, when you could do something more laid-back that offers the flexibility to pursue your own goals?
Well yes, I am counting on that.Ok, thinking about Orbital for a moment and the 20k commitment. We are counting on the cost of Space Pop per die down once Columbia is complete.
Damn. Cheap. Nice.the QM said:For the people doing Bay math, Shala and Columbia bays range from about 150-400
We've already spent the entire Third Four Year Plan laying the industrial groundwork for that kind of thing. That was the whole point of our existing strategy- build up industrial infrastructure so we could 'boom' later. And do things like sustainable space colonies supported by the admittedly kinda shitty living conditions on Enterprise and the kind of moon mines we have right now.I'm worried about falling into the same trap with space. Yes 20k people is a big headline number, but it's such a big number that it would require sacrificing critical offworld industrial development in favor of just cramming more sardines into the densest Columbia bay available because we gotta hit the big magic number regardless of if it's optimal for development 10 years from now, the target is due in 2.
True. I suspect the average bay cost will be somewhere in the middle of that range; I'm tentatively projecting 1500-1800 or so.And Shala/Columbia have 6 bays each, giving us a range of 900-2400 progress for filling out each of them.
Nope, the maximalist goal was "all 4 stations completed". We went for the equivalent of the 10k goal.Didn't we take the maximalist "6000 points of stations" goal last Plan? Plus additional objectives for space involving the moon mines? To the point where we had to scrape up two extra Orbital dice just to pull it off?
Yeah, I think that the people voting to ghost IF by not listing any of their demands are wrong in their analysis of the probable consequences, and their view of the current situation of the party, but I don't think it's being done in bad faith.Saying one thinks the other person is "trying to" do whatever one sees as the worst consequence imaginable of the action one sees them taking... That's not a good thing to do. It's equivalent to accusing the other person of bad faith.
Regarding that...Because building giant ambitious space colonies is my own goal and I genuinely want to pursue it, both for its own sake and to punish Kane?
I don't mind doing large space colonization, but I don't want to lock us hard into a goal that is, pessimistically, in the ballpark of 12,000 progress (roughly twice the size of Shala+Columbia+bays, since 10k population is the banchmark for a fully-developed Columbia and Shala), when we already have at minimum filling out Enterprise's bays to finish. That's not counting the other infrastructure we'll have to build to support a space population that notably hasn't been touched, such as Lunar water (going to be important for making Lunar colonies to house people, I expect) and power satellites (which we haven't got a timeline on, but have been noted as necessary once we get more extensive space infrastructure).Because building giant ambitious space colonies is my own goal and I genuinely want to pursue it, both for its own sake and to punish Kane?
Should I replace the Socialist promise of [] Complete at least five phases of Blue Zone Arcologies with [] Increase GDI income by at least 1200 points?
Nope! I'm counting on it. Because I'm already planning to spend all our Free dice on tiberium mining in the first few turns anyway, and those are the turns where "inability to fund all Department Dice" is likely to actually be a problem.Right @Crazycryodude and @Simon_Jester you may want to reconsider taking the [ ] Do not activate Free Dice unless all Department Dice are active. (Putting Free Dice on the Tiberium Department is excepted.) objective in light of this.
I'm gonna go in and fix that. Thank you for linking a QM post.Your plans are invalid until they actually specify what projects are being promised.
See here: Attempting to Fulfill the Plan: GDI Edition
I'm doing that promise not because I need the Biodiversity Party's votes, but because I want to do it anyway. Among other things, if we do succeed in saving the Earth, restoring it to anything like "garden world" status is going to be incredibly challenging and I want us to have some practical experience at it.Drop the reforestation prep. The Biodiversity Party is just too small for us to care enough about them to actually obligate us. If we have slack or think its a good idea, sure, but don't actually obligate us.
So see.The Bays likely will be, but at the opportunity cost of using up Bay slots.
The Lunar Base likely won't be, as we'll need to lay down some serious infrastructural foundations first.
Unsure about additional habitat stations. If they were more efficient then they sound like they are going to be sardine cans, because they would only achieve efficiency by reducing amenities.
If you're right, we're going to build the arcologies whether we promise to do them or not, because we're not just going to let our Housing buffer run down to zero. And the thread collectively hates making people live in low quality housing; the only reason that's still even a thing is that we can't help it what with the refugee wave pouring in on us.We do need a lot more good quality Housing, and it isn't going to come from Apartment Blocks. So I'd lean towards the Arcology goal.
Honestly, I'm down for that, because I think it's a good way to react to our current situation. We've got hopes of pushing back tiberium, but we very much do need to know how to get people into space if we can't save the Earth... And there aren't any miracles forthcoming in terms of "how to save the Earth."Regarding that...
I did a bit of mathing: Columbia+Shala will take an average of 50 dice between them, assuming we complete the station bay and Leopard 2 factory. Assuming the bays average around 275 after discounts, that's 3 dice average per bay, which is another 36. Assuming we take Q1 to complete the fusion shipyard and Leopard 2 factory, we'll have 90 more Orbital dice for the plan... so we'll have 4 Orbital dice left over after completing the stations and their bays.
And ithillid has said that 20k would be "pretty much" Shala, Columbia, All +Max Density add-ons, then another habitation station.
20k by the end of plan is probably committing an average of 4 free dice per turn to Orbital... which means we are going to be very tight on options for pretty much everything else.
So, yes, if you are being very clear that this is a "put most of our discretionary resources into building orbital commieblocks every turn" type of plan, I respect that. But I feel like that's not being fully addressed.
If building the second "10000 people live here" space facility is as hard as building the first, then the idea of the "orbital evacuation" target was always kind of a joke from the beginning, since getting even one million people into space would take thousands of Orbital dice.I don't mind doing large space colonization, but I don't want to lock us hard into a goal that is, pessimistically, in the ballpark of 12,000 progress (roughly twice the size of Shala+Columbia+bays, since 10k population is the banchmark for a fully-developed Columbia and Shala),
I wouldn't be surprised if those ones did give a small trickle of consumer goods.Well, for starters, we might want to do things like reforestation and poulticeplant deployment, which don't contribute to that target.
My prediction is that the thread is overwhelmingly likely to handle the housing refurbishing anyway, whether we promise to do it or not. The thread's been feeling guilty and unhappy about low quality housing for many in-game months, and if we're given an opportunity to improve things after the current refugee wave settles in, I predict that we'll do it.
I think people who are estimating the costs by extrapolating linearly from the dice costs of building Columbia and basically going "so what if we had to build five Columbias instead of one" are kind of missing things.
Plan | All the Spinoffs | ATGTS without IF | ATGTS with IF | All the Spinoffs with IF |
Capital Goods | Pick 4: 44 LCI | Pick 3: 16 LCI | Pick 3: 16 LCI | Pick 4: 44 LCI |
Consumer Goods | Take 120 : 0 | Take 120 : 0 | Take 120 : 0 | Take 120 : 0 |
Consumer Goods from Agriculture | Take 50 : 13 Agri | Take 40 : 8 Agri | Take 40 : 8 Agri | Take 50 : 13 Agri |
Income | Take 1200 : 67 Tib | Take 1200 : 67 Tib | Take 1200 : 67 Tib | Take 1200 : 67 Tib |
Space Pop | Take 10k : 35 Orb | Take 30k : 102 Orb | Take 30k : 102 Orb | Take 10k : 35 Orb |
RZ Abatement | Take 40 : Covered by Income | Take 40 : Covered by Income | Take 40 : Covered by Income | Take 40 : Covered by Income |
BZ Arcologies | Take 5 : 35 Infra | Take 5 : 35 Infra | ||
SADN | 17 Mil | 17 Mil | 17 Mil | 17 Mil |
ASAT | 11 Mil | 11 Mil | ||
LHA | 3 Mil | 3 Mil | ||
Steel Talons | 16 Mil | 16 Mil | 16 Mil | 16 Mil |
GFZA | Take 6 : 12 Mil | Take 8 : 16 Mil | Take 8 : 16 Mil | Take 6 : 12 Mil |
Mil Development Projects | Take All : 10 Mil outside of Steel Talons | Take 10 : 4 Mil outside of Steel Talons | Take 10 : 4 Mil outside of Steel Talons | Take All : 10 Mil outside of Steel Talons |
YZ Fortresses | 6 Infra | 6 Infra | ||
Dept of Core Crops | 16 Agri Max | 16 Agri Max | ||
100 Space Mining | 20 Orb | 20 Orb | ||
Probe | 2 Orb | 2 Orb | ||
RZ Border Offensives | 8 Tib : Covered by Income | 8 Tib : Covered by Income | ||
Reforestation | ??? | ??? | ??? | ??? |
Processing | 2 Tib | 2 Tib | 2 Tib | 2 Tib |
Dept of Alt Energy | 16 HI Max | 16 HI Max | ||
Munitions Dept | 16 Mil Max | 16 Mil Max | 16 Mil Max | 16 Mil Max |
Refit Dept | 16 Mil Max | 16 Mil Max | 16 Mil Max | 16 Mil Max |
Improved Hewlett Gardener Refits | 2 + ??? Tib | 2 + ??? Tib | 2 + ??? Tib | 2 + ??? Tib |
New Remaining Dice | ||||
Infrastructure | 34 | 69 | 63 | 28 |
Heavy Industry | 16 | 32 | 32 | 16 |
Light and Chemical Industry | 20 | 48 | 48 | 20 |
Agriculture | 20 | 41 | 41 | 20 |
Tiberium | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 |
Orbital | -22 | -67 | -67 | -22 |
Services | 77 | 77 | 77 | 77 |
Military | 13 | 29 | 29 | 13 |
-[X]Developmentalists
...
--[X] Commit to at least four industrial capstones
-[X]Socialist (0/1/2/4) Socialist Party: 426 seats (200; 190; 26; 10)
--[X] Commit to at least four industrial capstones
[X]Capstone projects
-[X] Pick 3 - While only committing to completing three industrial capstones is likely to require calling in some favors, it will provide significant flexibility for the future. (-10 PS)