Remove ads

Attempting to Fulfill the Plan: GDI Edition

Reader mode
[X] Plan Having Tasted The Fruit, Nothing Shall Be Impossible For Them v2
[X] Plan Animal Space Science
Edit: + plan.
 
Last edited:
[X] Plan Having Tasted The Fruit, Nothing Shall Be Impossible For Them v2

Not having to do the IHG refits just gave us 2 turns worth of tiberium die. Since we still have ZOCOM oversterch it's mean most of the die we just gain will probably goes into mines/ofshore platforms (for the money goal) or inhibitors (to slow the tiberium).

The rail update also indicate than the military will soon poke the NOD frontline so I think we need to finish the forteress ASAP before they start doing it (and it will eliminate the military logistic malus so as good as another rail campaign).

Edit : Add a new plan

[X] Plan Animal Space Science
 
Last edited:
Alright. Very interesting turn. Lots of stuff happening.

My main takeaway are that it's time for the new vehicles. As a addendum to this I feel we need to knock out any remaining tech projects. I don't care about deploying anything unless it's incredibly beneficial but we NEED to figure out what the tech does and what we can get from it. Plus with the amount of new tech projects that are going to be showing up we need to keep up with it. Each one should only need a single dice a turn and get slow walked. We can do that.

Second takeaway is our red zone stuff is over stretched. Rest is required.
Ithillid said:
The practical spike on the other hand, is actually far safer. It is not simply an accelerator strapped to a spike. It is using technology from the Visitors to summon Tiberium towards the surface, not accelerate its spread.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And this makes this worth the political cost. It sucks that it's such a political landmine but if this is what it does it's absolutely needed.
Ithillid said:
  • While GDI does not need this quantity of food for the moment, it has three key advantages. First, it provides the opportunity to build orbital food stockpiles that can be deployed to the surface at a moment's notice. Second, it means that GDI does not need to rely as much on surface food production that is vulnerable to Brotherhood disruption. Otherwise, it prepares the ground for larger scale habitation faster, due to not having to worry nearly so much about establishing local food supplies.
  • Militarist Support/Starbound Opposition
  • Multiple bays would do little but expand food production, limited to no impact on food diversity or technological advancement
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Eh... we have plenty of food. I would pass.
Ithillid said:
  • While ultimately fruit would still be doled out by lottery, especially the longer term varieties, it would ensure that GDI can produce enough for most people to at least have some tree fruits in their diet, assuming that reselling does not happen.
  • General Political support.
  • Fully luxury goods, panem et circenses
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Hard pass. We need useful stuff not doubling down on a luxury project.
Ithillid said:
  • While Seo is quite excited about numerous potential projects presented by the agricultural department, Dr. Dinesh Bora has reminded him that any novel crops are to be shared with Nod. Severely curtailing the number of projects that the GDI is willing to authorize.
  • Likely to include requirements for low/zero gravity in most cases to render the samples useless to the Brotherhood.
  • Militarists, Initiative First Oppose, others support or are neutral.
  • Multiple bays would both increase and speed the array of new crops, including programs for radiotrophic crops that could be grown for example on the lunar surface.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Definitely want 2 of these. More new crops. Perhaps moon farms. Absolutely yes.
Ithillid said:
While a relatively wasteful use of the space, it would be an immediate progression towards the goal, and not require work on lunar or other habitation stations.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Eh... that's another hard pass. I think more people would be useful but... it outright says it's a waste for agriculture projects and is pursuing population goals instead. Nah. Let this station focus on agriculture.
Ithillid said:
  • Increase in the diversity of food that spacers eat, improving morale and long term health.
  • Relatively inefficient use of cubic space
  • Supported primarily by Developmentalist and market interests.
  • Otherwise unpopular.
  • Some ability for scientific experimentation.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Another wasteful use of space but this has more use I think. Unless we leave all animals on earth we'll need to know how they will work in space. Plus potential science stuff. That's a yes.
Ithillid said:
  • Current stocks are starting to reach their lifetime limits before they degrade to the point of non-viability. Currently unable to reconstitute DNA from computer storage for those that have already degraded too much. Many lifeforms never had samples taken in the first place.
  • First bay restores creatures from stocks and starts replenishing them, tiny increase in genetic diversity over time.
  • Multiple increases the number of creatures restored and microbiomes created. Scientists may also introduce genetically modified lifeforms to fill missing ecological niches.
  • Mixed popularity: wasteful space spending, but it does improve the signal that the GDI believes that Tiberium can be beaten, and that some of Tiberium's destruction has been stolen from it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Wow... that's a depressing bit of info. Yeah we need this. Two even. Save what we can.
Ithillid said:
  • Boost to biotech.
  • Esoteric enough to be neither popular nor unpopular
  • Can increase future colony self-sufficiency, and reduce colony cost. More impactful for larger colonies, and ones further from Earth, than are expected to be built in the next decade.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Absolutely yes. Space crops.

Looks like a plan I like is already here. Very good.

[X] Plan Having Tasted The Fruit, Nothing Shall Be Impossible For Them v2
 
[X] Plan We Have Dominion Over and Stewardship Of All Living Things
-[X] Core Crops Bay
-[X] Experimental Crops Bay
-[X] Animal Husbandry Bay
-[X] Species Restoration Bay x2
-[X] High Efficiency Void Crops Bay

Fundamentally, I am approaching the GDSS Shala not as a lynchpin of our space-borne industry, but as a testbed. The Shala is a proof-of-concept station, no more, no less.
By that metric, the focus should be on a diversity of bay types, to maximize our gains of knowledge. We should be experimenting with the widest varieties of crops and animals.

I ultimately doubled up on the Restoration Bay A.) Because GDSS Columbia is right there, and thus "space habitation" isn't a high priority for Shala specifically, and B.) because the verbiate on the Restoration Bay suggests more immediate gains for higher investment in this particular bay type.

I recognize it's tempting to go all-in on one or two types of bays, but the fact is, we need to use this opportunity to test as many things as possible, so that the next round of construction can be better-equipped to do these things in more massive quantities.

EDIT: Corrected formatting of this plan having 2 of the SRBs.
 
Last edited:
MSH said:
We don't have any ways of getting new samples from species that went extinct without getting them, and computerized samples are beyond our ability to resurrect - sadly, two bays of microbiomes will probably get us to capacity.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Alas, that's not what the description says.

  • First bay restores creatures from stocks and starts replenishing them, tiny increase in genetic diversity over time.
  • Multiple increases the number of creatures restored and microbiomes created. Scientists may also introduce genetically modified lifeforms to fill missing ecological niches.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Bolded entire second point and underlined for additional vigorous emphasis. What we don't have, we'll have to invent, and having more space to work with allows us more flexibility to do exactly that. The more effort we put into saving what we can, the better the results.
Simon_Jester said:
Making meat for spacers isn't a big deal for me, but I do think learning more about how to raise animals in space is important- not least because it's going to strongly synergize with long term efforts on species restoration.

The way I see it, learning how to deal with veterinary medicine complaints on a space station by working on pigs and chickens is a lot safer than learning how to do it with the laboriously cloned sole reproductively viable specimen of a new species.

What I don't understand is what the double experimental crops bay is for, compared to the high importance of the triple species restoration bay (which I approve of) and other desirable things.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I don't think we will be learning space veterinary medicine on the sole viable specimens of new species. I imagine it will be on things that we do still have some numbers of that are supposed to be part of these microbiomes. And in that, the knowledge gained isn't any different, and does allow you to get even more hands on experience with dealing with the special needs of what will eventually once again be wild animals.

As for the second, it's spelled out in the text that more experimental bays = more projects made available.
 
KnightDisciple said:
Fundamentally, I am approaching the GDSS Shala not as a lynchpin of our space-borne industry, but as a testbed. The Shala is a proof-of-concept station, no more, no less.
By that metric, the focus should be on a diversity of bay types, to maximize our gains of knowledge. We should be experimenting with the widest varieties of crops and animals.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The thing is that the core crops bay doesn't actually do anything very valuable that the core station itself doesn't. Shala is already a big orbital Food factory, after all. We don't need to expand the existing food factory to have 40% more capacity for it to be functional as a testbed. Thus, I'd prefer to double down on something else as well.
 
Simon_Jester said:
The thing is that the core crops bay doesn't actually do anything very valuable that the core station itself doesn't. Shala is already a big orbital Food factory, after all. We don't need to expand the existing food factory to have 40% more capacity for it to be functional as a testbed. Thus, I'd prefer to double down on something else as well.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Hm.

@Ithillid how much does the Core Crops bay replicate what's in the "core" of Shala herself? I know you mentioned 1 of the bays is Fruiticulture.
 
[X] Plan Save the Biosphere, Do Science

I'm a bit biased towards ecology spending, but a 3rd preservation bay probably is a better use of the space than commercial livestock. I'm on board with eventually bringing modern livestock to space but I think it can wait until we have a proper Lunar city to build a ranch for, the demand's not there at the moment and will need time to grow, whereas the genetic capital left to salvage from the biosphere is only going to dwindle every turn.

Of course we have to then actually build those 3 preservation bays instead of leaving them penciled in for years upon years, but I think that we can push for it after the population target is hit at least, and they can't be THAT expensive.
 
Ithillid said:
Mostly. There are a few crops in the bay that you don't see on Shala, but at the same time, rice, beans, corn, wheat, etc is basically the core of what both Shala and the CCB are doing.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Hm.

I think I'm going to keep it as-is, then; even if it's just "a few crops", every ounce of diversity-of-crops we can get into this station is worth it to me.
 
Crazycryodude said:
[X] Plan Save the Biosphere, Do Science

I'm a bit biased towards ecology spending, but a 3rd preservation bay probably is a better use of the space than commercial livestock. I'm on board with eventually bringing modern livestock to space but I think it can wait until we have a proper Lunar city to build a ranch for, the demand's not there at the moment and will need time to grow, whereas the genetic capital left to salvage from the biosphere is only going to dwindle every turn.

Of course we have to then actually build those 3 preservation bays instead of leaving them penciled in for years upon years, but I think that we can push for it after the population target is hit at least, and they can't be THAT expensive.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Regardless of how many species bays we vote to have, I'm dropping several dice on them starting next turn.
 
Shadows said:
Alas, that's not what the description says.

Bolded entire second point and underlined for additional vigorous emphasis. What we don't have, we'll have to invent, and having more space to work with allows us more flexibility to do exactly that. The more effort we put into saving what we can, the better the results.

I don't think we will be learning space veterinary medicine on the sole viable specimens of new species. I imagine it will be on things that we do still have some numbers of that are supposed to be part of these microbiomes. And in that, the knowledge gained isn't any different, and does allow you to get even more hands on experience with dealing with the special needs of what will eventually once again be wild animals.

As for the second, it's spelled out in the text that more experimental bays = more projects made available.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

What you're suggesting goes directly from too small to need more bays to too large to be plausible. Earth's greater ecosystem, even with microbiomes and the absolute greatest neo-organisms filling the gaps, is far too large and fragile to restore on this space station.

This place is a testbed and a renewal bed. We can get fresh genetic information, breed fresh organisms, and work on neo-organisms. It will hold back the tide of extinction. What we cannot do is maintain a mini-Earth. While we don't know exactly how this system will work, they're going to have to trade what biomes are being renewed as they finish work on old ones. Two bays is fine for that, since I hope we're all in agreement to take finished products and reintroduce them on Earth. It may be slower, but it's not embracing extinction to have two bays instead of three. Slower progress could honestly be beneficial to our pacing, if we find a general work crunch coming against us later.

The husbandry bay isn't at all same - domesticated animals are tied to us and our environs. Their place in the ecosystem is only a little less unique than our own, and moving them out beyond Earth will be as essential to our inhabitation as the void crops are likely to be. Yes, we have to keep restoring their populations on Earth too, but this testbed is not less valuable than restoration bays. I'd drop the second experimental crops bay before I'd drop husbandry.

Those are the practical terms. In moral ones, I don't see anything different. If we have a responsibility to life, we have it to our domesticated species as well.
 
Last edited:
MSH said:
What you're suggesting goes directly from too small to need more bays to too large to be plausible. Earth's greater ecosystem, even with microbiomes and the absolute greatest neo-organisms filling the gaps, is far too large and fragile to restore on this space station.

This place is a testbed and a renewal bed. We can get fresh genetic information, breed fresh organisms, and work on neo-organisms. It will hold back the tide of extinction. What we cannot do is maintain a mini-Earth. While we don't know exactly how this system will work, they're going to have to trade what biomes are being renewed as they finish work on old ones. Two bays is fine for that, since I hope we're all in agreement to take finished products and reintroduce them on Earth. It may be slower, but it's not embracing extinction to have two bays instead of three. Slower progress could honestly be beneficial to our pacing, if we find a fast pace coming against us later.

The husbandry bay isn't at all same - domesticated animals are tied to us and our environs. Their place in the ecosystem is only a little less unique than our own, and moving them out beyond Earth will be as essential to our inhabitation as the void crops are likely to be. Yes, we have to keep restoring their populations on Earth too, but this testbed is not less valuable than restoration bays. I'd drop the second experimental crops bay before I'd drop husbandry.

Those are the practical terms. In moral ones, I don't see anything different. If we have a responsibility to life, we have it to our domesticated species as well.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I am quoting the QM.

I am not suggesting anything not verbatim in text.

We don't need animal husbandry in space more than we need the greatest ability to restore what has been lost on Earth. Period. Dot.
 
So, results commentary:
First, Rakuhn noticed, and I confirmed, some discrepancies in income, which ended up with knocking 15 RpT off of the expected income. (But no change to reserves, fortunately.)

-Gachapalooza. That is all.
-We have enough Arcologies that they are not all completely full, which is a very nice thing.
-We now have significantly more rapid-response capability, as well as more high-speed passenger transport, which is nice for civilians and military.
-*screams in Refining plans*
-Good news about how the spikes look like they will turn out. "I will draw you, Tiberium, as poison is drawn from a wound!"
-Largest. Ambulance. Ever.
-ASF-1 Saber seems like it made of Goes Fast, and Ugly, which sounds about right for GDI.
 
I get that you're saying that more bays gives us more biomes and more neo-organisms, as stated in the text. I'm saying it doesn't follow from that statement that we have a greater necessary throughput.

I know we'll get more done faster with additional resoration bays. What I'm saying is - is that really a good idea? We only have so much ability to introduce the products of the restoration bays to Earth.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top