Remove ads

Attempting to Fulfill the Plan: GDI Edition

Reader mode
[X] Focus on New Start Ups

The co-ops already have capital, if they want to invest in new ventures they can do it without our help. Focus on New Startups will help more individuals who otherwise can not get funding to realise their dreams.

A competitive market is a healthy market. I don't want co-ops to gain a monopoly.
 
Last edited:
Void Stalker said:
Of note it need 1 tib dice each time we take it, the rest can be infra dice. And it increases our processing capacity which we need (the other way to do so is tiberium dice only)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Lightwhispers said:
It's not even close to "just a political statement". It gets us more mitigation using Infrastructure dice, it gives us an opportunity to peel off support from the NOD hardliners, it increases Tib Processing Capacity, as well as giving us Political Support and smacking Initiative First in the nose. Yes, it requires 1 die per turn to be a Tiberium die, but that's not a critical issue.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Sure, it Could use only 1 Tiberium dice each time, but reality says otherwise with how often more than one Tiberium dice has been used Per Turn for such planned city projects. That and it's still Each Time. Which means if people choose to invest only 1-2 infrastructure dice while spending strictly 1 Tiberium dice per turn, the overall number of turns to complete it, and thus the amount of Tiberium dices will be used for it, will still be a significant number. So yes, it IS a critical issue.

In terms of Tiberium processing, there are FAR better alternative for the same dice and resource spent, such as the Tiberium processing plant. The amount benefits overall in all categories combined that the Mecca/Jeddah planned cities give is so little that I see little argument for any other reason than trying to keep Nod away from it, which is already done even with the current progress rate, so I'm not concerned nor convinced more needs to be done for it.

As for the Initiative First, I could hardly care less about them for this issue.
 
[X] Both
[X] Focus on Fair Allocation

Not in the mood for playing favorites with the market. In Serbian experience that never ends well.
 
[X] Both
[X] Focus on New Start Ups

Both votes being more of a narrative choice than pure mechanics.
I want to do as much as possible to make things better in Mecca and the surrounding area; we owe it to those people.
And while I'd like to give both existing coops and new start ups money, I've less interest in older, already moneyed groups getting more. Thus I go with giving a "leg up" to the new folks on the block.
 
marids said:
In terms of Tiberium processing, there are FAR better alternative for the same dice and resource spent, such as the Tiberium processing plant. The amount benefits overall in all categories combined that the Mecca/Jeddah planned cities give is so little that I see little argument for any other reason than trying to keep Nod away from it, which is already done even with the current progress rate, so I'm not concerned nor convinced more needs to be done for it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Mecca/Jeddah is a way to buy abatement with Infrastructure dice. Your argument doesn't make any sense to me, we can't afford 1 Tib die to unlock the Infra pool and get like 300+ progress towards processing/income/abatement but we CAN afford 1 Tib die to only get the ~85 on a Tiberium sector project? The numbers aren't adding up, one Tib die as the admission price for tagging in like 4 Infra dice is a very efficient use of Tib dice. If we were going to spend 5 Tib dice on Mecca that would be a problem but we're not, we're going to spend 1 Tib die and 4 Infra dice, letting us use another sector's pool to get all sorts of nice Tiberium-related benefits. It's a very good trade.
 
Durabys said:
We should tell her loudly the terms: GDI will only start to consider negotiations with Nod about stopping the use Ion Cannons and Kinetic Impactors only if Nod stops using (not stops building, just stopping to use) any Nuclear (Nod tactical nukes), Biological, Chemical and Von Neumann (Tiberium) weapons of mass destruction (aka bombs aka massive explosive/fallout devices).
Yes. We know how much Nod loves Tiberium. Furthermore, we cannot stop them using it. It means they can build and use Tiberium-based tech for power generation, armor, cybernetic enhancement, as an additive to flamethrowers, or rifles that shoot Tib-bullets at the enemy. All as is before. The difference is that they can use Tiberium for anything but mass death devices (LT-bombs, World Altering Missile, TW2 Chemical missiles, Cluster warhead hyper-chemical explosives, Tiberium Field catalyst explosion device). They can build themselves an arsenal of those if they want. FINE! *grumbles* But if they do not use any of those (including Nod tactical nukes), we are willing to consider starting initial negotiations.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
...they don't represent the wider Nod faction though, just the ones involved with Mecca, that demand is functionally impossible.

Especially as we wouldn't be able to trust the myriad warlords all over the world to be on the same page, while they can work together each of the Nod cells also function as their own separate faction.

More to the point even then Ion Cannon strikes are currently what let us keep larger overt pushes from Nod being a thing, so cutting back on those completely would suddenly have Nod transition to not needing to be as stealthy as even if we can see them we could no longer stop them massing their forces via Ortillery (we also wouldn't be able to disrupt logistics or launch deep ion strikes into Nod territory when places of interest are found by our scouts, which would let them have a much easier time building up their infrastructure). There would be a lot more ground battles and then FAR more of our people would die from the constant fighting that what would be saved by Nod cutting back on their heavier weapons.

On top of that it would just encourage them to divert their resources into man portable warcrime weaponry, from a practical viewpoint a handful of superweapons that take a large amount of resources and time to research, build and deploy that we can counter with specialists, commando's, acts of heroism and espionage are comparatively easier for us to deal with than them arming every single Militant with crazy tiberium guns that look like they belong in Borderlands.

Plus on the actual theoretical negotiation side of things promising to stop using one technology if the other side doesn't use multiple others probably wouldn't be received well as even if we have a lot more Ion cannons due to the rebuilt network (which we might want to increase at some point going by Nod's heavier arsenal and new bioweapon armies) i don't expect them to see things that reasonably as a lot of them are fanatics, they'd see it more as GDI agreeing to stop using one of their trump cards in exchange for a bunch of theirs.
 
Last edited:
Again, this deal to nix ion cannon strikes is a regional, seasonal, limited and negotiated ceasefire with the specific warlords we're already working with. It's not a total ban on all ion cannon strikes everywhere all the time. If the Middle Eastern warlords use the lack of ion cannon cover to do warcrimes during pilgrimage season that's all the justification we need to go back on our half of the ceasefire too, utterly wipe them out, and make Mecca a 100% GDI operation. They don't want that, and they aren't idiots, so they won't do it.
 
And now for politics.

Market Socialists Party: Gained 2 Seats (+2 Strong Support)
United Yellow List: Gained 1 Seat (+1 Strong Support)
Starbound Party: Gained 2 Seats (+2 Weak Support)
Socialist Party: Gained 5 Seats (+5 Weak Support)
Biodiversity Party : Lost 1 Seat (-1 Weak Support)
Developmentalists: Lost 9 Seats (+1 Strong Support, -10 Weak Support)

Time will tell if the Developmentalist Party fracture will get worse.

Also minor error, the Status of Parties section still says the Independents have 12 seats when they now only have 11 seats.
 
Last edited:
[X] Offer Transit Rights
[X] Focus on Existing Cooperatives

I don't feel like picking up another phase of a project when we have so many commitments like:
-Shipyards
-ASAT
-Tib Stabilizer network with /2000 progress needed
-North Boston
-RWSP
-Ablat/Shells/URLS
-Logistics/Power
-Token Steel Talon development
-Enterprise/Philadelphia/Shala/Colombia Station development
-Lunar and other space mining
-New Scrin gravity drive ships that are an entire line item in the Treasury themselves (not just the factory)
 
Crazycryodude said:
Mecca/Jeddah is a way to buy abatement with Infrastructure dice. Your argument doesn't make any sense to me, we can't afford 1 Tib die to unlock the Infra pool and get like 300+ progress towards processing/income/abatement but we CAN afford 1 Tib die to only get the ~85 on a Tiberium sector project? The numbers aren't adding up, one Tib die as the admission price for tagging in like 4 Infra dice is a very efficient use of Tib dice. If we were going to spend 5 Tib dice on Mecca that would be a problem but we're not, we're going to spend 1 Tib die and 4 Infra dice, letting us use another sector's pool to get all sorts of nice Tiberium-related benefits. It's a very good trade.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
HAH! I believe that when I see it! As far as I know, it has been and always will be something like 2 tib dice and 1 infra dice on average pretty much every turn, with sometimes an equal amount of tib dice spent, and other times no infra dice spent at all, all the while wasting the potential of the tib dice for what it was meant to do vs this waste of effort.

As for the idea of buying abatement with infra dice, it makes no sense to me since the Cost in terms of resources to get the abatement is what's my problem to begin with. If people were truly willing to spent that much more infr dice in the proportions you described, then I myself might've believed it. But after this many turns seeing how people choose to allocate tib dice for planned cities? I have zero trust in any sort of gains in terms of cost efficiency for how much abatement is gained by the way the tib and infra dice is spent, not when the infra dice seems to have plenty of projects of it's own that people will want to spend infra dice on per turn, and when the abatement options from the tib options are much better in comparison.

So overall, until I see a trend of people actually putting up plans to maximize the cost of tib dice spent with more infra dice spent over the planned cities, and people voting for them, I won't believe it's in any way a more efficient way to spend tib dices in actual practice over the potential theoretical gains. Thus this is essentially just pushing a political agenda at the cost of the Treasury's other commitments and future plans.
 
Restrictions on ion cannon strikes is also completely beyond the Treasury's remit. It's something for the Military and Parliament to deal with.

Also, I'd say 'hahahaha no, but if you tell us where these hajji columns are at any one time and permit our representatives to check and/or travel along with them we will not mistake them for major military movements and thus not strike them with ion cannon fire'.
 
marids said:
HAH! I believe that when I see it! As far as I know, it has been and always will be something like 2 tib dice and 1 infra dice on average pretty much every turn, with sometimes an equal amount of tib dice spent, and other times no infra dice spent at all, all the while wasting the potential of the tib dice for what it was meant to do vs this waste of effort.

As for the idea of buying abatement with infra dice, it makes no sense to me since the Cost in terms of resources to get the abatement is what's my problem to begin with. If people were truly willing to spent that much more infr dice in the proportions you described, then I myself might've believed it. But after this many turns seeing how people choose to allocate tib dice for planned cities? I have zero trust in any sort of gains in terms of cost efficiency for how much abatement is gained by the way the tib and infra dice is spent, not when the infra dice seems to have plenty of projects of it's own that people will want to spend infra dice on per turn, and when the abatement options from the tib options are much better in comparison.

So overall, until I see a trend of people actually putting up plans to maximize the cost of tib dice spent with more infra dice spent over the planned cities, and people voting for them, I won't believe it's in any way a more efficient way to spend tib dices in actual practice over the potential theoretical gains. Thus this is essentially just pushing a political agenda at the cost of the Treasury's other commitments and future plans.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Thank you for informing us that you do not trust us to vote the way we have informed you we intend to vote. I will keep that in mind.
For reference, the current plan is to put 1 Tib die on Mecca, and the rest + several Free Dice towards Stabilizers. Because that is a critical project. In the past, we used more than one Tib die on planned city projects because we were conserving Resources, and because Infrastructure dice were going towards desperately needed Energy. That is no longer the case.

Edit:
To be less snippy: by saying "I'll believe it when I see it", you are, by implication, saying that we are lying.
Instead, we have different analyses of the benefits of the project, especially since you seem to have a trend of ignoring the narrative/non-explicit benefits of a project in favor of the pure numbers. Which, again, is not how a PlanQuest works.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top