Attempting to Fulfill the Plan: GDI Edition
- Location
- alphen aan den rijn
[X] Plan Stabilizer, Mecca and Pathfinder
- Location
- canada
Oh damn, we really shouldn't have forgotten (lol) about the air support that was promised to the Forgotten, more specifically for which part of the Airforce that would be most used for that effort, and thus which one would need to be upgraded ASAP. Otherwise they'd be at even more risk while doing those long-range missions that are probably far away from the usual GDI operations and patrols.
If only you posted that earlier... Oh well, I'll still vote for it anyways if that's of any consolation. But really though, it's a good point you've brought to attention for the next turn at the very least.
[X] Plan Stabilizer, Mecca and Pathfinder
[X] Plan Governor Spam + Pathfinder + Mecca Dice
[X]Plan In the Eye of the Maelstrom v3.3:
*delurks*
Gentle reminder
1) It takes a lead time of 12-18 months for a shipyard to put its first cruisers into service.
2) Nod is actively operating a first generation of multimission submarines right now and probably building a second and third generation to attack GDI cargo shipping and warships
3)We spent nothing on Shipyards last turn, in order to roll out Stabilizers and finish Phase 1 URLS
4)The Navy is explicitly complaining about being behind its rollout schedule, with its Confidence being set at Low, behind every other GDI military branch besides the Steel Talons
In spite of all that? All the implicit and explicit warnings?
A lot of us are still making and voting for plans that slow walk Cruiser Shipyards in favor of stuff like URLS despite having been explicitly told *by the QM* that there are enough rockets and missiles in production to meet current needs.
It doesnt matter how many missiles and tanks and shells you build for the Army if the Nod navy sinks the convoys carrying them from the BZ where it was produced to the battlefront where its needed. If you cant get construction equipment to Mecca because it got sunk. Or if the Treasury loses Tib and Cap goods shipments because they got hijacked by Nod submarines.
The Global Defense Initiative is a collection of geographically dispersed coastal BZs held together by ocean shipping routes.
Economic production and military logistics is dependent on the Navy protecting ocean shipping lanes.
Thats why the Cruisers are Very High Priority. For everyone. The convoys MUST get through.
And the Navy cant do that without ships. And ships take TIME to build; shipyards take time to spool up.
I do not believe it is defensible to spend less than 4 dice on Governor Shipyards this turn.
Not after stopping spending on them last turn in order to finish URLS Phase 1.
My two cents.
/relurking
VOTE
[X] Plan Governor Spam + Orbital Cleanup
Gentle reminder
1) It takes a lead time of 12-18 months for a shipyard to put its first cruisers into service.
2) Nod is actively operating a first generation of multimission submarines right now and probably building a second and third generation to attack GDI cargo shipping and warships
3)We spent nothing on Shipyards last turn, in order to roll out Stabilizers and finish Phase 1 URLS
4)The Navy is explicitly complaining about being behind its rollout schedule, with its Confidence being set at Low, behind every other GDI military branch besides the Steel Talons
In spite of all that? All the implicit and explicit warnings?
A lot of us are still making and voting for plans that slow walk Cruiser Shipyards in favor of stuff like URLS despite having been explicitly told *by the QM* that there are enough rockets and missiles in production to meet current needs.
It doesnt matter how many missiles and tanks and shells you build for the Army if the Nod navy sinks the convoys carrying them from the BZ where it was produced to the battlefront where its needed. If you cant get construction equipment to Mecca because it got sunk. Or if the Treasury loses Tib and Cap goods shipments because they got hijacked by Nod submarines.
The Global Defense Initiative is a collection of geographically dispersed coastal BZs held together by ocean shipping routes.
Economic production and military logistics is dependent on the Navy protecting ocean shipping lanes.
Thats why the Cruisers are Very High Priority. For everyone. The convoys MUST get through.
And the Navy cant do that without ships. And ships take TIME to build; shipyards take time to spool up.
I do not believe it is defensible to spend less than 4 dice on Governor Shipyards this turn.
Not after stopping spending on them last turn in order to finish URLS Phase 1.
My two cents.
/relurking
VOTE
[X] Plan Governor Spam + Orbital Cleanup
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- Viewer
[X] Plan Governor Spam + Orbital Cleanup
- Location
- Outside the Box
- Pronouns
- She/Her
I'm not sure know what you're trying to say here, except that you may have misread the amount of dice I'm using. My plan still spends 1 die on Arcologies, the same as we've done in previous turns. It also spends five dice on Mecca, specifically 1 Tiberium die and 4 Infrastructure dice. The plan you're currently voting for (and that mine is a variation of) only spends 4 dice on Mecca: 1 Tib and 3 Infra.
We spent 1 die on a shipyard last turn. We never stopped our investment into the shipyards. /pedantic
Last edited:
- Location
- Wall Gazing
[X] Plan Governor Spam + Orbital Cleanup
Dmol8
The Undead Unhinged Lunatic of the Web
- Location
- Belgrade,Serbia
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
This page's vote tally:
Edit: So Plan Governor Spam + Orbital Cleanup overtook Plan Stabilizer, Mecca and Pathfinder and there has been some reshuffling in the low vote plans with my own Plan In the Eye of the Maelstrom v3.3: having 5 votes already. Some people must have edited votes for it after I posted it.
Edit: So Plan Governor Spam + Orbital Cleanup overtook Plan Stabilizer, Mecca and Pathfinder and there has been some reshuffling in the low vote plans with my own Plan In the Eye of the Maelstrom v3.3: having 5 votes already. Some people must have edited votes for it after I posted it.
Last edited:
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
My big concern is that we need better artillery, not just more shells for existing artillery. Part of the reason we need so damn many shells is because our artillery guns are inaccurate weapons we hastily pressed into service because any cannon was better than none and we were phasing out conventional-propellant artillery anyway in favor of railguns for a lot of applications. But because our cannons are inaccurate, we end up taking longer and using more ammo to blast any given target, so we burn through ammo faster, so we need more.
The longer we keep manufacturing the old cannons and the bigger the system we build to feed shells into it, the worse this problem gets. Because the existing shell factories would have to be refit to accommodate the needs of new guns.
If we just want to make the military consumable situation better, I suggest we manufacture ablatives, because the military unambiguously needs all it can get. I also suggest we do the Tube Artillery Development project. It won't eliminate our existing guns, and it will probably make the artillery a lot more effective per unit of shell production.
Then we mash the Shell Plants button, presumably alongside making new artillery factories.
I know people are dreading doing development of new stuff, but this is a case where we're locked into a seriously inefficient weapon design due to having (justifiably and with reason) rushed development/deployment of an improvised weapon in the first place. We really should have our second-generation tube artillery ready to go for Tib War Four.
Don't get me wrong, we need more shells, but if we keep this up forever we're just kicking our own asses by not taking the time to do things right while it's still semi-peacetime.
Yeah, I figured. But we're in a situation where we really do need to improve the artillery's effectiveness. The heavy guided missiles made more available by URLS help with that (as the Discord quotes point out), because they supplant some of the roles where artillery is used to engage from long range when a guided weapon would be a better choice.
But just making more shells and shipping them out isn't enough to solve the problem. Among other things, it's a heavy logistics burden- shipping out shells to units engaged in frontline combat tends to be the biggest chunk of logistics requirements, in terms of how many tons of what the unit will need. So anything that lets artillery get the job done by expending less ammunition, or lighter ammunition, has major payoffs.
Reread the Quarter Two results.
Just having the URLS missiles available to hang off their pylons has improved Orca air support performance considerably, and being able to arm our Firehawks and Apollos with higher-performance air-to-air missiles has helped reduce Nod's air threat. Deploying the upgraded Orca version soon will help more, but it's not a "you must do this to avoid fucking over the Forgotten" task to the same extent.
I could maybe justify three (say, two on Hampton Roads and one on the last one), but I really, really think we need to get this project put to bed.
Two reasons.
1) We're gonna be busy with ASAT next quarter. Nobody wants our existing moderately secure ASAT system to be all we have defending the Stabilizer against Nod. Unlike Q2 and Q3, we are fairly likely to have at least a couple of fusion dice left over in Q4, so we're more likely to see ASAT expansion next quarter... which competes with everything else we do in Military. As such, we won't want to have to do a big cruiser
2) We don't want to still be doing this in 2058. It's going to be painful having a quasi-mandatory 20 R/die project to take care of early in the next Four Year Plan, when it'll be competing for resources with other cost-intensive things we want to do. Things like further sensor rollouts before Nod learns we've cracked their stealth and compensates, or developing plasma weapons, or of course all the other Resource-heavy things we could want.
I may have gotten a bit frazzled- long day yesterday- but what I'm trying to say is that I don't actually consider it an improvement to spend one die on arcologies and five dice on Mecca instead of spending two-and-four. I think that given the political pressures we're under, two-and-four is closer to the allocation balance that we need.
Furthermore, if this trend continues through Q4 (and I doubt we'll suddenly be shorting Mecca in Q4 anyway), we still throw eight dice at a project that only has about 740 Progress left to full completion. 6 Infra + 2 Tiberium gives us something like 660 Progress, which yes doesn't finish Mecca Phase 4 unless we're very lucky, but at that point it's just a matter of 'tapping' it over the finish line with, say, 1 Tiberium + 1 Infrastructure in 2058Q1. Theoretically suboptimal, yeah yeah, but it's not going to impact the Tiberium Stabilizer rollout (since we spend a Tib die in Q4 either way), and it's not enough to seriously impact our overall attempts to fulfill the plan.
And I really don't want to walk into the planning negotiations for the Third Four Year Plan with half the legislature glaring at us because there are like umpty million Blue Zone residents who live in grim gray commieblocks constructed as refugee housing, all of whom want homes in an arcology or an actual house, only we refuse to build houses and we've been building arcologies at the slowest rate possible that is consistent with not completely abandoning the project for... like, a year.
That's the kind of combo that undermines your negotiating position, y'know? Among other things we're going to be under a lot of pressure to get at least one round of arcologies, probably more, done by the 2059Q4 elections, simply because otherwise all those voters are gonna take the lack of good housing as evidence that either:
1) Free Market Party was right all along, OR
2) If not, they should pressure their Market Socialist representatives to pull control of the housing situation away from Treasury and force us to fund co-ops that will build actual houses in the expanding Blue Zones- remember, as far as many voters know GDI is currently winning against tiberium, OR
3) Worst yet, they may conclude Initiative First was right all along and that Treasury is constantly wasting GDI's budget on passion projects in the Yellow Zones that have minimal direct benefits for Blue Zone residents.
Theunderbolt
"Prepare for trouble..."
- Location
- USoA
[X] Plan Governor Spam + Orbital Cleanup
- Location
- Outside the Box
- Pronouns
- She/Her
I think you're seriously overestimating whatever penalties we might face from not investing "enough" into arcologies. Most likely, next year it'll be a plan goal from the FMP, and all the dice we've put into it will simply make it easier to complete. I don't think we're going to get any cookie points for an unfinished project that only a small portion of the congress cares about, regardless of how much partial progress we've put into it.
- Location
- The Underdark
It is four rounds of arcologies, and really five rounds because of the people that keep coming in.
- Location
- USA
I see my error. Somehow added another+ last time I looked. Which is very different.
- Location
- New York
[X] Plan Governor Spam + Orbital Cleanup
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
I don't think "only a small portion of the congress" cares. We've been getting pressure from Developmentalist politicians too, remember.
Also, think about the underlying political reality. People who vote for the FMP list aren't the only ones who want to live in arcologies. They probably aren't even the main group that want that.
The biggest constituency for demanding that we build more arcologies is "everyone who now lives in a commieblock," which is a pretty wide cross-section of our society.
Shit, there are probably Starbound voters who want us building more arcologies... because while they are totally SPACESHIP about our SPACESHIP and love SPACESHIP to pieces, if they can't live in a moon base just yet, they don't want to have to live in a commieblock.
There's a reason that it's one of the few civilian projects that gets labeled "High Priority."
...
Now, as to whether us being at, say, 400/600 on a phase of Arcologies as opposed to 300/600 is going to make any difference in our negotiating position or not... I suppose I really can't be sure.
But I'm pretty sure we're going to run into an 'unexpected' (and by that I mean COMPLETELY EXPECTED) problem with a lot of legislators wanting to demand that we build arcologies. I think we're in collective denial about how much frustrated desire there among the public and the legislature to see us working on that.