Remove ads

Attempting to Fulfill the Plan: GDI Edition

Reader mode
Yeah, I'd prefer to not try to get two phases at once.

If we are trying to get both phases over the next couple of turns (as opposed to only phase 5), then I think I'd prefer shifting a die from fusion to alloys. It has no net cost, and has a small chance of giving us a net benefit.

Having less variability on phase 6 planning the following turn would also be a small, but nice, benefit.
 
Rakuhn said:
So unless the +10% chance to the rest of the benefits makes it up, I think you are right. Especially since we probably aren't intending to do phase 6 any time soon.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Phase 6 of Alloys is something I'm still unsure about to be honest. Its half as STU expensive now, and it doesn't give the cost reductions that the previous phases did, but it gives a bonus to tib income, and if it only increased things by 90 RpT that would pay back the STU spent to get it. Plus the income boost would be nothing to scoff at.

If instead of increasing Tiberium Mining it increases our Maintenance Reductions that wouldn't refund the STU, but the text says '(Improves Tib mining efficiency)' not maintenance reductions so...


Anyway, have my own Draft Plan:

[] 2063Q3 Draft Plan Piercing The Veil

-[] Infrastructure (5/5 Dice, +27 bonus, 80 R)
--[] Rail Network Construction Campaigns (Phase 6) 0/260 (3 dice, 45 R) (42% chance)
--[] Suborbital Shuttle Service (Phase 2) 110/220 (1 die, 25 R) (82% chance)
--[] Postwar Housing Refits (Phase 1) 114/160 (1 die, 10 R) (97% chance)

-[] Heavy Industry (5/5 Dice + 2 Free Dice, +34 bonus, 240 R)
--[] U Series Alloy Foundries (Phase 4) 32/550 (5 dice, 200 R) (93% chance)
--[] 2nd Gen. CC Fusion Plants (Phase 2) 75/325 (2 dice, 40 R) (100% chance, 2/4 median Phase 3)

-[] Light Industry (4/4 Dice, +29 bonus, 85 R)
--[] Reykjavik Myomer Macrospinner (Phase 5) 883/1100 (2 dice, 40 R) (17% chance)
--[] Bergen Superconductor Foundry (Phase 4) 235/640 (1 die, 30 R) (1/5 medium)
--[] Adaptive Clothing Development 0/60 (1 die, 15 R) (90% chance)

-[] Agriculture (6/6 dice, +29 bonus, 50 R)
--[] Reforestation Campaign Preparations (Phase 1) 252/815 (4 dice, 20 R) (4/7 median)
--[] Agriculture Mechanization Projects (Phase 2) 26/230 (2 dice, 30 R) (74% chance)

-[] Tiberium (7/7 dice + 2 Free Dice, +39 bonus, 260 R)
--[] Red Zone Border Offensives (Stage 4) 158/210 (1 die, 25 R) (100% chance)
--[] Deep Red Zone Tiberium Glacier Mining (Stage 4) 0/200 (3 dice, 90 R) (95% chance)
--[] Tiberium Inhibitor Deployment (BZ-4) 52/90 (1 die, 30 R) (100% chance)
--[] Tiberium Inhibitor Deployment (BZ-9) 59/90 (1 die, 30 R) (100% chance)
--[] Forgotten Experimentation 0/260 (2 dice, 60 R) (10% chance)
--[] Coordinated Abatement Programs (Phase 1) 82/190 (1 die, 25 R) (47% chance)

-[] Orbital (7/7 Dice + 2 Free Dice + Erewhon, +34 bonus, 210 R)
--[] GDSS Columbia (Phase 5) 643/1030 (2 dice, 40 R) (2/4 medium)
--[] Hospital Bay 0/315 (3 dice, 60 R) (28% chance)
--[] GDSS Shala (Phase 4) 486/520 (3 dice + Erewhon, 80 R) (100% chance, 3/11 medium for Phase 5)
--[] Life Support Processor Development 0/80 (1 die, 30 R) (75% chance)

-[] Services (4/4 Dice, +35 bonus, 70 R)
--[] Regional Hospital Expansions (Phase 2) 85/275 (1 die 25 R) (1/2 medium)
--[] Library Enhancement Programs 0/185 (2 dice, 30 R) (56% chance)
--[] University Program Updates 137/250 1 die 15R 38%

-[] Military (7/7 Dice + 2 AA dice, +31 bonus, 160 R)
--[] Strategic Area Defense Networks (Phase 4) 125/345? (2 dice + 1 AA die, 60 R) (57% chance)
--[] Stealth Disruptor Deployment 0/170 (2 dice + 1 AA die, 45 R) (87% chance)
--[] Shark Class Frigate Shipyards (Seattle) 0/240 (3 dice, 60 R) (65% chance)
--[] Unmanned Support Ground Vehicle Development 0/80 (1 die, 20 R) (72% chance)

-[] Bureaucracy (4/4 Dice, +29 bonus, 0 R)
--[] Administrative Assistance 2 dice (SADN)
--[] Administrative Assistance 2 dice (Stealth Disruptors)

1155/1225 Budget
Numbers are based on the current Probability Array
 
Last edited:
doruma1920 said:
--[] Reykjavik Myomer Macrospinner (Phase 5) 883/1100 (2 dice, 40 R) (17% chance)
--[] Bergen Superconductor Foundry (Phase 4) 235/640 (1 die, 30 R) (1/5 medium)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If we are starting the next batch of armor factories soon it's probably worth putting 3 dice on Reykjavik to more likely potentially finish it this turn.
doruma1920 said:
--[] Combat Laser Development 0/80 (1 die, 25 R) (72% chance)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Didn't we just complete this?
 
bigking321 said:
If we are starting the next batch of armor factories soon it's probably worth putting 3 dice on Reykjavik to more likely potentially finish it this turn.

Didn't we just complete this?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Gah! You saw nothing! Meant USGV.

As for, Reykjavik. I think it might be a better idea to take a step back from the Zone Armor while the first set rolls out and finish some of the other needed projects like the Sharks, Islands, Orca Wingmen, Stealth Disrupters, and Infantry Drones. That is going to take a turn or two and so we can afford to slow roll Reykjavik.
 
doruma1920 said:
As for, Reykjavik. I think it might be a better idea to take a step back from the Zone Armor while the first set rolls out and finish some of the other needed projects like the Sharks, Islands, Orca Wingmen, Stealth Disrupters, and Infantry Drones. That is going to take a turn or two and so we can afford to slow roll Reykjavik.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Shrug. Fair enough.

I'm just kinda excited to knock out a mayor keystone project. Finally see what fun stuff comes of it.
 
I am curious to see what the scale of the next set of zone armor factories is.

On one hand, the first batch was (iirc) a lot of the upper end suits, and also minimally benefited from the Zone Armor Revisions (from the Nod gacha). So it would seem like the next set should be somewhat cheaper.

On the other hand, I suspect that the next set of factories will produce a greater number of suits, and thanks to:
-being richer
-racking up discounts

Each factory may be larger in scale than the prior set
 
Oleg-14191 said:
TBF the only real problems in Tib are Income and Refits.
We have cheap projects for a lot of Abatement and Processing.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I mean, it's not that we're struggling to do any of these things. We know what to do and are confident we can do it.

But there's a virtually infinite amount of work we CAN do in Tiberium. It's all important. It all helps delay the destruction of the Earth, supercharges our economy, or both. My point is that Tiberium is worth every die we can throw at it, and there is no shortage of good, important things to do there. That's true of many categories, of course, but it's especially true of Tiberium.

Rakuhn said:
Yeah, I'd prefer to not try to get two phases at once.

If we are trying to get both phases over the next couple of turns (as opposed to only phase 5), then I think I'd prefer shifting a die from fusion to alloys. It has no net cost, and has a small chance of giving us a net benefit.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Again, fusion dice are important in the long run, so I don't want us to get in the habit of viewing them as a target to be strip-mined to accelerate other projects on the off chance of getting them done faster.

There is not 'no downside' to us being roughly 85 Progress (median result) further away from the next fusion phase, even if we complete the current fusion plant phase. Because our demand for Energy is great enough that if we want to continue to build up a surplus, we need to average considerably more than one phase of fusion reactors per three turns, and that's about the best pace we can hope for at one die per turn of investment in the long run.
 
Last edited:
Simon_Jester said:
Again, fusion dice are important in the long run, so I don't want us to get in the habit of viewing them as a target to be strip-mined to accelerate other projects on the off chance of getting them done faster.

There is not 'no downside' to us being roughly 85 Progress (median result) further away from the next fusion phase, even if we complete the current fusion plant phase. Because our demand for Energy is great enough that if we want to continue to build up a surplus, we need to average considerably more than one phase of fusion reactors per three turns, and that's about the best pace we can hope for at one die per turn of investment in the long run.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I agree with your stated reasoning of not wanting to see Fusion as something that can be put aside. It is a very important project to continue putting effort and resources into, to make sure we aren't blindsided later. That said, I think it is defensible in this case, where a project can make future Fusion dice expenditures more effective, and might produce energy in and of itself. Basically, 1 die Fusion this turn and 3 dice Fusion next turn has a small net statistical Energy benefit to 2 dice Fusion this turn and 2 dice Fusion next turn (both between alloys improving per dice efficiency, and the small chance of energy from DAE).

Now, the problem comes with "will we actually spend 3 dice on Fusion next turn". I figure that if DAE does not improve, then we'll need to. If it does, then we're looking at ~+9 Energy more than we were expecting before the end of the plan, and we might re-evaluate.

If it was only those factors, then yeah, trying to eke out that tiny bit of efficiency wouldn't be worth discussing for anything other than analysis for analyis's sake.

What really tips me towards wanting six dice is:
-Less chances of a plan winning in Q4 that overkills phase 6 (if we aren't doing bladed alloys anytime soon, none of the following would be convincing to me)
-Knowing that I'll finally able to decommission my project analysis tool soon
-Seeing what effect, if any, completing phase 5 has on the sub-departments
-'Guarantee' that we'll get that 1/16 | 1/36 discount on Q4.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That all said, I'll happily vote for a five dice alloys plan. It's a minor preference for six, rather than a major factor on my decision making for me.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to ballpark a few numbers here with regards to the benefits of Phase 6 this turn.

Let's assume that the mining efficiency upgrade takes the form of a percentage increase to our mine output. Our current total mining is ~3100 2690 R/t, last I checked. (Plus it's a nice round number and I do remember it being north of 3k.)

So:

Percentage IncreaseAbsolute Increase (Rounded)STU Increase
1%26.9 (25)
2%53.8 (50)
3%80.7 (80)
4%107.6 (110)1
5%134.5 (135)
6%161 (160)
7%188.3 (190)2
8%215.2 (215)
9%242.1 (240)
10%269 (270)3

I don't know where on this scale the increase will fall, but I am reasonably confident it will fall on it. I don't expect it to be any higher than 10% (though I would certainly not complain!) but I do believe that this table is fully illustrative of why I think it is very worth just... finishing. On top of allowing us to begin work on other HI projects sooner, it will substantially increase our income without needing to have spent Tib dice to do so (though yes I am fully aware that 6 FD in Tiberium could do a lot of work too) and improve our future mining income upper and lower limits for rolls.

It may be (incredibly) expensive, but I believe it's worth the expense.
 
Last edited:
For comparison:

Visitor Dedicated Income
[ ] Harvesting Tendril Deployment (Phase 1)
A substantially novel development in Tiberium harvesting, GDI can now begin to deploy the Harvesting Tendril in significant numbers. While it will not be able to entirely replace the existing harvester models with the current project, future projects will make it into the standard, and redefine how GDI approaches laying out Tiberium mining projects.
(Progress 0/600: 30 resources per die) (+90 Resources per turn) (-1 STU)
(Progress 0/750: 30 resources per die) (+100 Resources per turn) (-1 STU) (Increases efficiency of future Tiberium harvesting operations)

For about a ~10% increase in income, and increased the max rolls for each income option in the future (I think the latter amounted to a 25% increase in income/STUs on average). Other benefits: more resistant to mutation? more thoroughly removing tiberium 'infection'?

Nod Dedicated Income
[ ] Tiberium Harvesting Claw Deployment
While not as critical as the new tendril harvesters, harvesting claws have potential to improve the efficiency of the vein mines, and reduce overall equipment damage.
(Progress 0/380: 15 resources per die) (-3 Energy, -2 Capital Goods, -1 Labor) (+5 resources per turn) (Improves efficiency of Vein mines)

I think this increased the min rolls for Vein mines by +5 Resources each, for a ~10% increase in income for a particular project. Other benefits: improved drone technology, decreased casualties

So, as a Visitor tech, it probably lies somewhere between those two values.
For more explicit comparison:
(+100 Resources per turn) (-1 STU) (Increases efficiency of future Tiberium harvesting operations)
(+5 resources per turn) (Improves efficiency of Vein mines)
(-4 Energy, -2 STUs) (Improves Tib mining efficiency)

Previous projects explicitly stated the amount that they'd increase income for prior operations, but phase 6 does not. On the other hand, tendrils specified future, which had a much greater efficiency than retrofitted ops. And Vein mines did not, and had an approximately equal retrofit and future efficiency. So I could see it going either way on whether this applies to our currently existing operations or not.

The part that I'm actually worried about, though, is whether "tib mining efficiency" applies to all Tiberium harvesting, or if it only applies to vein mines/bore holes.
 
Last edited:
Rakuhn said:
I agree with your stated reasoning of not wanting to see Fusion as something that can be put aside. It is a very important project to continue putting effort and resources into, to make sure we aren't blindsided later. That said, I think it is defensible in this case, where a project can make future Fusion dice expenditures more effective, and might produce energy in and of itself. Basically, 1 die Fusion this turn and 3 dice Fusion next turn has a small net statistical Energy benefit to 2 dice Fusion this turn and 2 dice Fusion next turn (both between alloys improving per dice efficiency, and the small chance of energy from DAE).

Now, the problem comes with "will we actually spend 3 dice on Fusion next turn".
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Given that I feel like I have to fight like a mad bastard and claw and bite to keep us doing two dice per turn...

Personally, I'm pessimistic enough about this actually happening that I don't see it as being worth a small chance of missing out on the +1 Energy from a hypothetical improvement to the DAE that may or may not materialize.

So long as we have an Energy surplus of more than about +15, there will always be an attractive project in Heavy Industry that seems like a better use of second and third dice than building new fusion plants. Right up until we start having to shut down the 144 Energy worth of reactors we built during the Third Four Year Plan, and are staring rolling blackouts squarely in the face.

Shadows said:
I don't know where on this scale the increase will fall, but I am reasonably confident it will fall on it. I don't expect it to be any higher than 10% (though I would certainly not complain!) but I do believe that this table is fully illustrative of why I think it is very worth just... finishing. On top of allowing us to begin work on other HI projects sooner, it will substantially increase our income without needing to have spent Tib dice to do so (though yes I am fully aware that 6 FD in Tiberium could do a lot of work too) and improve our future mining income upper and lower limits for rolls.

It may be (incredibly) expensive, but I believe it's worth the expense.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
My main point of opposition is not in the lack of adequate benefits, but in the potential risk of such an enormous surge of 'shock effort' on a single project.
 
Last edited:
Simon_Jester said:
.


My main point of opposition is not in the lack of adequate benefits, but in the potential risk of such an enormous surge of 'shock effort' on a single project.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

There is a risk I suppose, but I would counter that unlike the rush job on the 1st Gen Fusion reactors that we're now dealing with, this is different in that there would be only one phase worth of rush effort rather than a full year and many phases, and this is after having already completed the first four phases the slow and steady way. I don't think the effects will be near so marked even if they do appear. Unlike Energy, this would entail a far smaller proportion of our Alloy production.
 
Derpmind said:
We did a development project for Microfusion, then got the option to build something that'll keep improving the tech, rather than roll it out everywhere. The same thing happened with the repulsorplates. Only now that the tech has reach its 2nd generation are we able to build a big factory for the plates.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That intermediate step for repulsor plates also gave benefits though. Small scale production can still have deliverables.
@Ithillid I'm finding it confusing that a development project appears to have lead to another development project. What exactly does the Microfusion Lab do?
Did the development project give us microfusion cell capability, or is the new lab project required, or is it another project after that that unlocks the tech for use?

doruma1920 said:
--[] Reykjavik Myomer Macrospinner (Phase 5) 883/1100 (2 dice, 40 R) (17% chance)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Could we not do 3 dice, instead of going with a 1:6 chance of completion and hoping to save a tiny amount of resources?
Saving 20R doesn't seem worth it for delaying the completion of this project by another quarter.
We aren't going for just military use here. This phase produces stock for private industry too.
 
HousePet said:
Could we not do 3 dice, instead of going with a 1:6 chance of completion and hoping to save a tiny amount of resources?
Saving 20R doesn't seem worth it for delaying the completion of this project by another quarter.
We aren't going for just military use here. This phase produces stock for private industry too.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

We could do that. It is entirely reasonable to move the die on Bergen in my plan to Reykjavik. However, that die is being used to get us a die closer to Bergen, and while there are civilian applications for the myomers using a die that could be used to work on Bergen. My goal with slow rolling the end of Reykjavik isn't to save the resources, but to save the die, and get closer to completing Bergen in the process. If the roll fails we should be around 1042/1100 progress (assuming perfectly average rolls), which is within finishing range for 1 die. If someone's plan puts 3 dice on it I'd consider that a perfectly valid strategy to get additional Energy and Cap Goods, both of which are always in demand.

Personally I prefer slow rolling it to get the most use out of our dice. But that does not mean getting the resources immediately is not a valid strategy.
 
There is a 5:6 chance that we have to take a die away from Bergen to finish Reykjavik the turn after with that arrangement.
A 1 in 6 chance of saving a die is not worth delaying a capstone project.
 
HousePet said:
That intermediate step for repulsor plates also gave benefits though. Small scale production can still have deliverables.
@Ithillid I'm finding it confusing that a development project appears to have lead to another development project. What exactly does the Microfusion Lab do?
Did the development project give us microfusion cell capability, or is the new lab project required, or is it another project after that that unlocks the tech for use?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Let's look at the actual text to the lab:

"Any deployment of the microfusion cells is going to be on a distinctly small scale, in large part due to the combination of the need for hydrogen fuel, and the sheer cost in elerium to produce stable, usable fusion in a package that can be effectively man-portable. However, there are many jobs where the sheer energy density of an MFC would be useful both to the military and more civil administrations."

So, we're talking about very small scale deployments, on a wide variety of fronts, and completing this project doesn't immediately deliver any positive benefit in any fields. An extra phase of testing and deployment is only logical.
 
Let's look at the actual text for the completion of the development project:

"The first generation microfusion cell is about two meters long, making it only 'micro' in comparison to the full-scale generators. While the fuel and fusion cells are only about fifty centimeters long between them, the vast majority of the unit is the direct energy conversion system, using a series of electrostatic converters. Although the unit is an inconvenient size and shape for many things, it can provide a substantial amount of power pretty much anywhere in the Solar system, in a package significantly smaller than a standard issue fission or large scale fusion reactor."

So, we have a working design. One that could potentially be used in space vehicles, or ships, (or SMARVS?). Unclear whether it is small enough to use in our larger tanks.
The lab seems to be about refining the design to make it even smaller (maybe by only 50%), but that tells us nothing about whether the first generation design is going to be used anywhere.
 
Warning:bad estimations made on little sleep on a subject we don't know much about beyond googling in the last 15 minutes

Note that downscaling the generator from 2 meters to 1 meter is actually a pretty big deal. It goes from being as large as an 18 wheeler's fuel tank to around the same size found in a modern "light truck" aka SUV or pickup. 1 meter-ish in length energy storage/production is a pretty good size to start slamming the things in all over the place. We ain't making fusion powered power armor with it (yet) but it'll go in pretty much every single vehicle we could possibly want.

That said, I think a 2 meter design, assuming it meets the reliability/stability standards for combat at that foot print, could easily end up in MBT and larger vehicles like SMARVs.
 
6 feet might be a bit long for an MBT engine, but Mammoth Mk III-IV? We could probably get them into that. SMARVs would certainly be possible. If we can get it down to ~3 feet, most of our vehicles could probably take it.
 
Phht said:
6 feet might be a bit long for an MBT engine, but Mammoth Mk III-IV? We could probably get them into that. SMARVs would certainly be possible. If we can get it down to ~3 feet, most of our vehicles could probably take it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Looking at a picture for an Abrams powerpack getting pulled...


...it looks a little longer than one of the servicemen would be if they laid down beside it. So roughly 2 meters long.

You could absolutely cram a microfusion cell in there, plus the superconductor motors to drive the tracks. (I mean, I wouldn't want to try converting a hot plasma beam directly into shaft power, that's just nuts.)
 
Last edited:
HousePet said:
There is a 5:6 chance that we have to take a die away from Bergen to finish Reykjavik the turn after with that arrangement.
A 1 in 6 chance of saving a die is not worth delaying a capstone project.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
To agree with that for slightly divergent reasoning, a 17% chance of saving a Light Industry die isn't worth a 59% chance of delaying a capstone project. After all, three dice still might not finish the project.

But adding a fourth die only increases the chance of completion by 22%, and there is a 76% chance that that fourth die goes to waste.

A 17% chance of saving a die (by not investing a third die in Reykjavik) isn't worth a 59% chance of delaying the project, I agree.

I do think a 76% chance of saving a die (by not investing the fourth die in Reykjavik) is worth a 22% chance of delaying the project. But that's about ten times as favorable a risk/reward ratio. Anyway, I prefer three Reykjavik dice.
 
So is the GD-10 going to be a thing/already a thing, or is is too overcomplicated to be viable?
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top