Remove ads

Attempting to Fulfill the Plan: GDI Edition

Reader mode
Crazycryodude said:
We're not even talking about learning how to do zero g animal medicine or anything, all our space colonies are built with artificial gravity. The animal husbandry bay is pretty explicit about being a commercial ranch to grow consumer products for market consumption, backing up the concept of "a chicken" just in case the absolute worst happens is presumably already covered by somebody below our level of abstraction. Commercial livestock are going to be the absolute last thing we lose, if only because they're so otherwise useful and widespread across society already.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Are you sure? Because we can't even fill our ranching domes, and we're presumably trying to make good use of them. A chicken is not simply a chicken. There is a genetic variety throughout domesticated animals that humanity has been cultivating, the hard way, for many generations. Such a thing could be lost, even if some odds and ends of those species remain intact.

The exact research projects that are a part of this bay aren't disclosed, but I think that shows it isn't just a ranch.
 
Shadows said:
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever a restoration bay cannot fulfill that role. It is going to be part of how they function regardless.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
What part about small habitats to sustain individual species is reflective of the ability to create viable larger scale ecosystems off of Earth?

You seem to have concluded that anything of scientific remit with animals rests entirely on the restoration bay when the restoration bays are entirely focused on bio diversity and species restoration. Not long term ecological stability in space. These are different tasks, and things useful for restoring a species- small individualized biomes for instance, preclude working with larger and more complicated ecosystems and their scalability.

I reiterate- examining how to maintain a biosphere off of earth is more complicated than just spamming small tailored biomes for a select few species each. The ranch fundamentally has scientific applications. Assuming the restoration bay completely trivializes those applications is above all- an assumption.
 
[X] Plan Science, self-sufficiency, and cold space
-[X] Experimental Crops Bay x1
-[X] High Efficiency Void Crops Bay x2
-[X] Species Restoration Bay x2
-[X] Animal Husbandry Bay x1
 
Karugus said:
What part about small habitats to sustain individual species is reflective of the ability to create viable larger scale ecosystems off of Earth?

You seem to have concluded that anything of scientific remit with animals rests entirely on the restoration bay when the restoration bays are entirely focused on bio diversity and species restoration. Not long term ecological stability in space. These are different tasks, and things useful for restoring a species- small individualized biomes for instance, preclude working with larger and more complicated ecosystems and their scalability.

I reiterate- examining how to maintain a biosphere off of earth is more complicated than just spamming small tailored biomes for a select few species each. The ranch fundamentally has scientific applications. Assuming the restoration bay completely trivializes those applications is above all- an assumption.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

A ranching bay teaches us absolutely nothing about maintaining biospheres whatsoever beyond 'what is the most optimal set of conditions for our commercial livestock'.
 
Shadows said:
A ranching bay teaches us absolutely nothing about maintaining biospheres whatsoever beyond 'what is the most optimal set of conditions for our commercial livestock'.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is a useful set of information for our expansion into space.
I don't think that the Animal Husbandry bay is important for synergizing with the Species Restoration bays - I think it's valuable for in its own right, especially since Shala is supposed to be a testbed for agriculture as a whole.

This may not be exactly a refutation of/related to your argument, but I want to boost the awareness that some want the bay for reasons completely unrelated to the Species Restoration bays.
 
Is it just me or is the vote clock glitched? It is reading as 1 day, 1 hour left for the vote for the last 4 hours for me.

//Edit: Okay it seems to be working now.
 
Last edited:
I just have a feeling that there's is going to be some animal shenanigans happening on the station, like a monkey getting loose in the ventilation system, and some scientists trying to get a capybara out of the dangerous animal enclosure not that the capybara is a danger it's just very distracting having them in there.
 
Plot twist: it turns out that the capybara's genes were re-sequenced incorrectly and it has some amazing ability to just be chill, so it can wander around randomly while there are lions and bears and shit and none of them try to eat it. Just... peace out.

We take advantage.

[cut to the TCN negotiations]

Kane: "I wish to pet this creature."

[+2 bargaining power]
 
There will be future stations and lunar options.
I don't think we lose out on much if Animal Husbandry ends up being 2-3 bays on Shala II or a dedicated arcology on the moon.
However, I do think we are likely to get some benefit from specialising Shala. One larger facility is going to be able to do more than two smaller facilities, and the areas that we focus on now are ones that we don't need to worry about expanding upon for a while.
If we want a decent investment in space Animal Husbandry, I think we should either do multiple bays on it now, or hold off until later and build a big facility then. I really can't see the lunar city not having a large ranching dome attached to it at some point, so I don't see any point duplicating a small(ish) one on Shala.
 
[X] Plan Having Tasted The Fruit, Nothing Shall Be Impossible For Them v2

Food variety plus SCIENCE!
 
Strunkriidiisk said:
Considering how much damage farming and ranching has historically done to the biosphere it probably shouldn't be.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There is a big difference between shouldn't and isn't. Our fruiticulture bay needs pollinators for the fruit plants to properly grow well fruit, and bees are among the best or at least the most prolific pollinators. So we probably have space adapted bees on Shala, and to keep the bees alive when the fruit plants are not flowering we need other flowering plants for them to draw nectar from. So by just supporting a single sustainable fruiticulture bay we have to create a limited polliculture biosphere.
 
Oledoms said:
If there is a chance that QM will create dedicated Stations for the Bays we did not take, that would be awesome, I really want that Adv. Mats. Station to cater to our growing STU Roster.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It was originally planned to work the opposite way, IIRC: the bays are a proving ground which later dedicated stations then expand on, our choices now determining our early competencies. Later bay stations would let us make a proving ground for advanced materials, but a full station for it would be farther out.

Been a while though, maybe things are different now.
 
Prime 2.0 said:
It was originally planned to work the opposite way, IIRC: the bays are a proving ground which later dedicated stations then expand on, our choices now determining our early competencies. Later bay stations would let us make a proving ground for advanced materials, but a full station for it would be farther out.

Been a while though, maybe things are different now.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah. That's part of my concern. The core triad of human agriculture is annuals, perennials, and animals. We've got perennials, broadly speaking, covered with the fruticulture bay we already have. Annuals are well covered by the core station. But if we leave animal husbandry out of Shala's design entirely, then for a long time our space agriculture is going to be seriously deficient, and we'll have to play catchup at a later time.

The advanced research and ecological aspects of Shala's design are important, don't get me wrong, but I do think we need to budget at least one of the six remaining bay slots to animal husbandry and settle for five of the available seven slots being used for research and ecology.

(though my personal favorite plan would be Animal Husbandry x1, Experimental Crops x1, Void Crops x1, Species Restoration x3, which gives me as much species restoration as the current runner-up plan AND an animal husbandry bay like the front-runner has, at the price of us not developing new genetically modified crops as fast.

Voidseer said:
There is a big difference between shouldn't and isn't. Our fruiticulture bay needs pollinators for the fruit plants to properly grow well fruit, and bees are among the best or at least the most prolific pollinators. So we probably have space adapted bees on Shala, and to keep the bees alive when the fruit plants are not flowering we need other flowering plants for them to draw nectar from. So by just supporting a single sustainable fruiticulture bay we have to create a limited polliculture biosphere.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Though I wouldn't be at all surprised if we futz around with the onboard environment so there are always trees in bloom in some part of the fruticulture bay.
 
Last edited:
Cost: 1085 Resources, 60 RpT,


[ ] Plan STU Industries
-[ ] Infrastructure 5 Dice (+27) 75R
--[ ] Yellow Zone Fortress Towns (Phase 7) 93/250 2 dice 40R 63%
--[ ] Rail Network Construction Campaigns (Phase 6) 108/245 1 die 15R 6%
--[ ] Postwar Housing Refits (Phase 2) 33/150 2 dice 20R 89%
-[ ] Heavy Industry 5 Dice 3 Free Dice (+34) 160R
--[ ] Second Generation Continuous Cycle Fusion Plants (Phase 4) 117/270 2 dice 40R 77%
--[ ] North Boston Chip Fabricator (Phase 5) 406/1805 3 Dice 45R
--[ ] Second Generation Repulsorplate Factories 365/525 2 dice 50R 72%
--[ ] Microfusion Cell Laboratories 0/150 1 die 25R 5%
-[ ] Light and Chemical Industry 4 Dice (+29) 120R +5PS
--[ ] Bergen Superconductor Foundry (Phase 4) 523/610 4 dice 120R 100% (+5 PS)
-[ ] Agriculture 6 Dice (+29) 85R
--[ ] Reforestation Campaign Preparations (Phase 1) 737/805 1 die 5R 77%
--[ ] Spider Cotton Plantations (Phase 2) 60/160 2 dice 40R 99%
--[ ] Tarberry Plantations (Phase 3+4) 3/130 1 die 10R 23%
--[ ] Laboratory Meat Deployment (Phase 1) 0/170 2 dice 30R 54%
-[ ] Tiberium 7 Dice 1 Free Die (+39) -9 PS 205R
--[] Tiberium Inhibitor Deployment (BZ-1 Northern Europe) 30R 0/75 1 die 80% (+1 PS)
--[ ] Enhanced Harvest Tiberium Spikes 145/180 1 die 20R 100% (-5 PS)
--[ ] IHG Tiberium Processing Plants (Stage 1) 0/150 2 dice 70R 85%
--[ ] Forgotten Experimentation 0/260 2 dice 60R 10% (-5 PS)
--[ ] Coordinated Abatement Programs (Phase 3) 93/175 1 die 25R 73%
-[ ] Reclamator Hub Red Zone 8 North (Progress 0/250) (Wyndham) 1 Dice
-[ ] Orbital 7 Dice 1 Free Die Erewhon (+34) 180R +20 PS
--[ ] GDSS Shala (Phase 5) 868/975 2 dice 40R 99% (+20 PS)
--[ ] Species Restoration Bay 0/255 2 dice 1 Erewhon 60 R) 43%
--[ ] Spaceport Bay 0/295 (3 dice, 60 R) 42%
--[ ] High Density Housing Bay 0/295 1 die 20R
-[ ] Services 4 Dice (+35) 190 R -5 PS)
--[ ] Primitive Prototype Portal Construction 279/400 1 die 100R 40%
--[ ] Autodoc Systems Deployment 0/280 3 dice 90R 44% (-5 PS)
-[ ] Military (7/7 Dice 1 Free Die 1 AA Die (+31) 155 R
--[ ] Orca Wingmen Drone Deployment (Phase 2) 196/215 AA die, 20R 97%
--[ ] Stealth Disruptor Deployment 0/160 2 dice 30R 67%
--[ ] Reclamator Hub Red Zone 8 North (Progress 0/250) (Wyndham) 2 dice 40R +1 STU
--[ ] Island-Class Assault Ship Deployment 70/135 1 die 25R 82%
-[ ] Binary Propellant Exploration (Tech) 0/60 1 die 10R 92%
--[ ] Inferno Gel Development (Tech) 0/40 (1 die 10R 100% (-5 PS)
--[ ] Modular Rapid Assembly Prototype Factory 102/265 1 die 20R
-[] Bureaucracy (4/4 Dice, +29 bonus, -60 RpT)
--[] Administrative Assistance: Orca Wingman Drones
--[] Transfer Funding to InOps 1 die auto (-60 RpT)
--[] Predictive Modeling Management 1 die auto

My plan looks a lot like Simon's plan, but that's more convergent evolution than copying. Though there is a good bit of copying.

I'm putting a die on Microfusion Cell Laboratories, and I'm paying the STU cost with a MARV hub on Northern Australia, using a pair of military dice and a tiberium die. Military is also finishing off things that didn't last turn, getting the Stealth Disruptors out, and doing both Inferno Gel and Binary Propellant Exploration. With Advanced Rocket Fuels coming up I feel this is a strong opportunity to push our chemical sciences forward, while eating up a bit of our excess Political Support and giving the Munitions Department more projects.

Agriculture is finishing the first stage of Reforestation, getting another phase of spider cotton out, possibly finishing two phases of tar berries, and lab meat. Tiberium is doing some science and raising our refining cap. And a blue zone Inhibitor.

Orbital. Finish Shala, building both a Species Restoration Bay, a Spaceport Bay, and getting a start on the High Density Housing Bay.

Services, Portals and Autodocs.

Bureaucracy, an AA die for Wingmen Drones, funding for InOps, and the Predictive Modeling.
 
Without seeing the new projects I'm not going to update the Friends of Inferno Gel draft yet, but I anticipate shifting 5 Orbital dice towards lunar arcologies if they open and 3-6 Tib dice towards tidal/oceanic if that project has reduced ZOCOM strain as is hoped, and dependent on what the Visitor tib refinement situation looks like.

For the whole political will of IHG to have collapsed overnight, I'm anticipating big things.
 
Simon_Jester said:
I get the sense that this is one of those things where opportunity cost reigns. We can get a 40%-ish expansion of what Shala's core already does, and only a fraction of that will go to increase in variety of crops, or we can get a 100% or at least 50% expansion of our capacity to refresh new species.

Plus, it's not like we can't test other food crops later on other stations when we build them. It's okay if we don't try to grow every kind of edible grain known to man on Shala all at once, with some of the more obscure ones having to wait five or ten years until there's more grain-growing volume in space. We won't be delaying our opportunity to learn so much essential information.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I gave my reasoning, I stand by it.

Besides, we both know my plan never had a chance of winning. I didn't post it 30 seconds after the vote opened, and I can't sit and monitor the thread 24/7 to post long essays on why my plan is better. I had to post it to get the bug out of my brain, no more no less.
 
KnightDisciple said:
I gave my reasoning, I stand by it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
As did I. As do I.

Besides, we both know my plan never had a chance of winning. I didn't post it 30 seconds after the vote opened, and I can't sit and monitor the thread 24/7 to post long essays on why my plan is better. I had to post it to get the bug out of my brain, no more no less.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Oh. Really? Is that the problem?

The two leading plans were posted hours apart, and I've looked through several pages and the plan creators haven't been writing essays. Or at least nothing I can imagine someone handing to me and saying "here, this is an essay" without me laughing at them.

...

Also, there's kind of a contradiction in what you want here.

If you want people to be willing to revisit their vote choices so that later-posted plans have a good chance of winning, you'll need a lot of very active discussion going on. That kind of discussion leads to the same essay-writing you strongly imply to be a bad thing for the game, and tends to strongly favor the plans that have outspoken partisans to make sure their supporters stay convinced.

If you want people not to be camping the discussion thread and to write lots of words, you're likely to get the kind of vote thread where people just show up, check to see which of the top 2-3 plans is winning, and vote for whichever one or two they like best, then don't discuss their choices and leave. And then it's even more important to get first mover advantage.
 
Simon_Jester said:
As did I. As do I.

Oh. Really? Is that the problem?

The two leading plans were posted hours apart, and I've looked through several pages and the plan creators haven't been writing essays. Or at least nothing I can imagine someone handing to me and saying "here, this is an essay" without me laughing at them.

...

Also, there's kind of a contradiction in what you want here.

If you want people to be willing to revisit their vote choices so that later-posted plans have a good chance of winning, you'll need a lot of very active discussion going on. That kind of discussion leads to the same essay-writing you strongly imply to be a bad thing for the game, and tends to strongly favor the plans that have outspoken partisans to make sure their supporters stay convinced.

If you want people not to be camping the discussion thread and to write lots of words, you're likely to get the kind of vote thread where people just show up, check to see which of the top 2-3 plans is winning, and vote for whichever one or two they like best, then don't discuss their choices and leave. And then it's even more important to get first mover advantage.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Just drop it, at this point, please. I don't have the energy to keep going on this. I'm not changing my plan more. Please leave it alone.
 
Simon_Jester said:
The two leading plans were posted hours apart, and I've looked through several pages and the plan creators haven't been writing essays. Or at least nothing I can imagine someone handing to me and saying "here, this is an essay" without me laughing at them.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The thing is, there have been a *lot* of post by various different people pushing the vibe-based intent of "let's save more species", and from what I have seen, seeming to ignore the question of "what will result in better space stations?" (Or at least give it minimal attention.) And a lot of the other posts have been "your post is wrong because [X]", even if [X] being wrong only negates a small part of the argument.

Please be a bit kinder to people who don't have the spoons to engage with that.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top