Remove ads

For a Moment, There Was Hope [Space Vehicle Design Quest]

Reader mode
Looking at it again, the only thing KC has going for it is Hazard-free Budget. Even on the civilian market, it doesn't look like they value Payload more than Utility or vice versa, they just want both high and Weight low. KC gives +2 in those stats for +1 Weight, CMIC give +4 in those stats for +1 Weight.

Unless we're concerned that we may need to spend exactly 3 Budget next phase (which should be the last IIRC), I don't think there's any reason to pick it. If we spend any less CMIC gets us more bang for our Weight increase, while if we need to spend any more we're stuck with one of the 1 Budget Hazard options anyway.

[] CMIC (+1 Payload, +3 Utility, +1 Weight. 3 Budget.)
[X] Internal Development (-2 Weight, 1 Budget. 2 Hazard.)
 
Last edited:
Well, let's look at what we got here.

Havocfett said:
Equipment Manufacturer

Remaining Budget: 5

[ ] KC (+2 Payload, +1 Weight. 2 Budget.)

[ ] RTI (+3 Payload, +1 Utility, -1 Weight. 1 Budget. 3 Hazard. Unpopular.)

[ ] CMIC (+1 Payload, +3 Utility, +1 Weight. 3 Budget.)

[ ] Internal Development (-2 Weight, 1 Budget. 2 Hazard.)

Current Design

Payload: 7
Utility: 7
Weight: 7
Maintenance: 4
Unit Cost: Low
Hazard: 0
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

KC: it's 2 budget for an effective +1 stat. That's... really not great. The one thing that if offers is that it's the only way to get free of this mess that doesn't take hazard and leaves us with more than one point of budget going into the final round.

RTI: 1 budget and 3 hazard for +5 stat. That's... also not great. RTI is also unpopular, and it's with with good reason. 3 hazard is a lot... and stats that sound impossibly good aren't actually a good thing when you're dealing with people who have a known behavior of lying about their products.

CMIC is 3 budget for an effective +3 stat. That's actually pretty nice... and the fact that the stat boost is all in utility means that we get a bit more weight to woo Quebec with. That's nice. The real downside here is that it leaves us with 1 budget heading into the last round. So that's a special kind of hazard of its own... though I can't help but think it's not as bad as real hazard.

Internal Development is 1 budget and 2 hazard for +2 stat. That's even worse numbers than RTI... on paper. 2 hazard is a lot.

So for me...?

[x] CMIC (+1 Payload, +3 Utility, +1 Weight. 3 Budget.)

We're at the point where we get to pick our gambles. I'm gambling that there will be some option in the final round that costs 0 or 1 and isn't utterly awful. As long as we get that, this is the most efficient option from an "open market" perspective, and as a bonus it panders to the Quebecois really effectively.

If you're not voting CMIC...

- I think that KC is pretty hard to justify. By comparison, it saves one budget and grants one payload, at the cost of three utility. At this point, Utility is notably more valuable to us than payload is (because Quebec). This only makes sense if you're betting that all of the 0-budget and 1-budget options will be terrible but there will be some 2-budget option that won't be. That's a very thin slice to bet inside. I guess it could be useful as a way to set up a relationship with these KC guys? That might be helpful? Musabayev was specifically called out as -Access. This might be a way to get a bit more access? It feels like a pretty thin argument to me, though... especially given what it would cost.

- RTI just seems like a terrible idea in every possible way. Why would you do this thing?

- Internal Development... well, at last it has a plan. If we make the hazard check, it's heading into the last vote with three budget instead of 1, which is a meaningful difference, and trimming back that extra 2 weight is going to make the stats look really good from the public option perspective. Also, it'll mean that we have our own in-house Magnetic Chain Extraction option, and having technologies in-house is nice. So... basically, this is gambling that the hazard roll won't burn us, but at least there's a valid reason to make that gamble.
 
Last edited:
[X] Internal Development (-2 Weight, 1 Budget. 2 Hazard.)

We've got some budget saved up to throw at extra problems, and the stats look good already. Cutting down on weight looks like the best way to improve stats, and we should be able to manage the 2 hazard.
 
Actually... thinking on Internal Development, one of the things we see is that it tells us what the hazard is.
- It might take longer than we'd like (this isn't great, given how tight our budgets are. Also, Quebec might care.)
- It might not live up to the hype... ie, it might have somewhat worse numbers.
That's it.

@Havocfett - do we know how time-sensitive the Quebec contract is? If our engineers do go somewhat late, are they going to probably be okay with it, or will they drop us like a bad habit, or do we just not know?

dash931 said:
We've got some budget saved up to throw at extra problems, and the stats look good already. Cutting down on weight looks like the best way to improve stats, and we should be able to manage the 2 hazard.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If you're only thinking about the open market, that's correct. If you're considering the Quebec contract in any sort of meaningful way, then adding utility is worth more.
 
Last edited:
Sirrocco said:
CMIC is 3 budget for an effective +3 stat. That's actually pretty nice... and the fact that the stat boost is all in utility means that we get a bit more weight to woo Quebec with. That's nice. The real downside here is that it leaves us with 1 budget heading into the last round. So that's a special kind of hazard of its own... though I can't help but think it's not as bad as real hazard.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It leaves us with 2 Budget. As for hazards.

Basically, its rolls. If we roll well we can do stuff like prototype new and exciting tech - or as in the case of stuff like bribes, roll to see public reactions. Or other stuff, as you noted on the hazards related to in house work.
 
Last edited:
[X] CMIC (+1 Payload, +3 Utility, +1 Weight. 3 Budget.)

[X] Internal Development (-2 Weight, 1 Budget. 2 Hazard.)
 
Sirrocco said:
Actually... thinking on Internal Development, one of the things we see is that it tells us what the hazard is.
- It might take longer than we'd like (this isn't great, given how tight our budgets are. Also, Quebec might care.)
- It might not live up to the hype... ie, it might have somewhat worse numbers.
That's it.

@Havocfett - do we know how time-sensitive the Quebec contract is? If our engineers do go somewhat late, are they going to probably be okay with it, or will they drop us like a bad habit, or do we just not know?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Like in real life, if the delay is under a decade it'll probably be fine.

(Like in real life, some projects may come up against that limit, but this isn't one of them.)
 
Sirrocco said:
- Internal Development... well, at last it has a plan. If we make the hazard check, it's heading into the last vote with three budget instead of 1, which is a meaningful difference, and trimming back that extra 2 weight is going to make the stats look really good from the public option perspective. Also, it'll mean that we have our own in-house Magnetic Chain Extraction option, and having technologies in-house is nice. So... basically, this is gambling that the hazard roll won't burn us, but at least there's a valid reason to make that gamble.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
To me the biggest draw of internal development, and the one that has me calling it the civilian market pick, is scale of adoption. A state or particular massive company could afford the cost to run a fleet of motherships big enough to handle a bunch of heavyweight miners, but how many others can do so?

Compared to the 8 Weight of a CMIC pick the 5 Weight of Internal Development is almost a 50% decrease. How many miners are out there that fall into the category of "not being able to utilize a Weight 8 miner but can use a Weight 5 one?" CMIC may have the better Payload/Utility to Weight ratio to attract the eye of those that can use it, but at almost half the weight I expect a successful Internal Development miner to have more people actually consider it as an option to buy instead of dismissing it as "too heavy for them to use."

I agree on the other points though, if we're adding weight to add capability CMIC gives us more capability in the one that matters more for the same weight increase as KC, while RTI focuses more on payload too while possibly scaring off some of the public with the association.
 
Okay. Vote change.

[X] CMIC (+1 Payload, +3 Utility, +1 Weight. 3 Budget.)
[X] Internal Development (-2 Weight, 1 Budget. 2 Hazard.)

CMIC continues to be a very solid choice for chasing the Quebec contract while also being viable for the civilian market and generating no hazard. Its major downside is the fact that we're down to 1 Budget.

Internal Development is a very solid choice for the civilian market while still being at least potentially viable for the quebecois, and still has some cash going forward. It has a hazard, but the fallout from that is pretty tolerable.

Either would be better than KC.
 
[X] KC (+2 Payload, +1 Weight. 2 Budget.)
[X] CMIC (+1 Payload, +3 Utility, +1 Weight. 3 Budget.)
[X] Internal Development (-2 Weight, 1 Budget. 2 Hazard.)
 
Last edited:
[X] RTI (+3 Payload, +1 Utility, -1 Weight. 1 Budget. 3 Hazard. Unpopular

What are the odds that they'd just lie wildly twice?
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top