Remove ads

Attempting to Fulfill the Plan: GDI Edition

Reader mode
Vehrec said:
I wouldn't say that the mammoth tank is *creaky* by any stretch of the imagination. The Mammoth is a solid design, especially with it's dual railguns config, and Universal Missiles have already been rolled out to it. Barring a revolution in armor tech, or some kind of new weapons technology (Modern Lasers maybe) we probably won't see a strong need to retire the solid backbone of GDI's superheavy armor formations. Rolling out RWS to them is presumably just abstracted away in the larger scrum of our total tank fleet.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Eh. I'll quote the QM.

The existing mammoth is a powerful but aging asset. While it had its own struggles during the Third Tiberium War, the primary need at this point is to remodel it for expanded capacities, including remote weapons mounts, laser point defense systems, purpose designed railguns, and expanded missile racks, along with updating various pieces of technology that are, by now, painfully old. However, the technology upgrades are primarily iterative, and will be broadly built as a wholescale polishing of the existing platform, rather than fully replacing it.

So "creaky" may be unfair, but the tank is due for an overhaul, since aside from slightly remodeling the missile racks to launch ULRS-compatible munitions, nothing about the design has changed since 2046 or so.
 
If we wanna pursue an extremely defensive posture and defend an incredibly large swathe of land. In my opinion, we're going to need to build Wide at some point. ZOCOM is great if we wanna defend our Red Zone mining operations. But I think we should eventually start focusing on improving our generic ground forces chances at fighting NOD on a strategic level; ORCT would be pretty sick. Just sayin'. But so far most of their major advantages rely on using either Terrain or Technology to keep our Forces off balance.

At some point I think we need to finish Long Range Sensor System Deployment (Phase 2) and Stealth Disruptor Development. We're going to start pumping out more Artillery and Railgun shells out anyway.

Simon_Jester said:
"Both the Mammoth and Predator are old designs but fully upgraded.
We only just finished the last Block upgrade on the Predators a year, a year and half ago, and there's yet to have been sufficient new tech introductions to our techbase since then to be worth working on their successors."

Nitpick: The Mammoth tank is actually an old and rather creaky design, and upgrading to the Block Four is very much on the menu for us.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

If the Abrams Tank latest version of the Abrams Tank can survive 31 years of Continued Service then I think the 19 year old Mammoth Mark Three can tough it out. Remember, the best is the enemy of the good. If it fills it's intended role well enough then it's fine. It just needs to be compatible with our current modern supply chain, which it is, be capable of murdering enemy targets, and be ergonomic in terms of production cost and comfort for the crew. I don't think any of this needs improving right now.

The only thing we fell behind in so far is NOD commiting heavily towards High Performance Aircraft to support it's long distance Operations into our Territory. As well as their Interest in Submersibles - to exploit the fact we had a stretched thin and crusty as hell Surface Fleet.
 
What would the these new factories replacing the old gear cost? Are we just retrofitting or making new industries wholesale? I'd hope they'd just be a one turn retro but more likely 2-3.

Also what exactly is our mark 3-4 Mammoths built to defeat exactly? New Avatar class walkers? NOD doesn't seem to have anything that warrants their use. Even more so with the proposed Paladin upcoming.
 
Image said:
What would the these new factories replacing the old gear cost? Are we just retrofitting or making new industries wholesale? I'd hope they'd just be a one turn retro but more likely 2-3.

Also what exactly is our mark 3-4 Mammoths built to defeat exactly? New Avatar class walkers? NOD doesn't seem to have anything that warrants their use. Even more so with the proposed Paladin upcoming.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Mammoths exist to be driven into the general direction of the enemy and wait for the Nod forces to either run away or be dead. Mammoth spam is a canonical strategy GDI employs for certain engagements.
 
The Mammoth is a breakthrough tank, pure and simple. It's got two jobs. One, being a big fuckoff pile of armor and guns you aim at the enemies most fortified positions and proceed to reduce them to rubble. The second involves it being a big fuckoff pile of armor and guns you park in front of your base when the enemy is pressing you to the wall and dare them to try their luck.

It's not really mobile enough for a running battle but it can be used in them if you get lucky or position them right. Slow moving advances are alright as well but you've usually got better options like artillery or airstrikes for those.
 
I've always wondered if GDI ever had a policy of keeping Mammoth tanks away from Populated Area's - like how the GTA in Freespace kept their Orions away from Civilized Worlds - so Yellow Zoners don't take a look at one and see the 1st World's equivalent of a Star Destroyer, and think; maybe GDI aren't the good guys?
 
Image said:
What would the these new factories replacing the old gear cost? Are we just retrofitting or making new industries wholesale? I'd hope they'd just be a one turn retro but more likely 2-3.

Also what exactly is our mark 3-4 Mammoths built to defeat exactly? New Avatar class walkers? NOD doesn't seem to have anything that warrants their use. Even more so with the proposed Paladin upcoming.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Trying to get rid of the mammoths with out a suitable replacement of some kind will make a lot of people mad since it's so iconic it's one of the big images of gdi?
 
Talking about the next Mammoth Block Development is rather premature considering that we haven't done the Mastodon Development, which is both Part of our Requirements for this Plan, and will almost definitely serve as a test bed for the same technologies that will be eventually included in all GDI superheavy vehicles.
 
The 'tank' style Mammoth is definetely a throwback to a more idealistic GDI. The GDI that ate popcorn, did things left handed and put an Ion-cannon blast through a Dictators Hippy Den. I like to think partially its role in the field is for morale and psycological warfare.

While the Mark Two is definetely a representation of a much more complex and cynical Era that everything after the 1st Tib War became. But certainly still fearsome. I think it's better to have them, not need them. Then to not have and need them.
 
Last edited:
Cerazor said:
At some point I think we need to finish Long Range Sensor System Deployment (Phase 2) and Stealth Disruptor Development. We're going to start pumping out more Artillery and Railgun shells out anyway.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Railgun shells don't seem to be a problem. The other issues, yes.

If the Abrams Tank latest version of the Abrams Tank can survive 31 years of Continued Service then I think the 19 year old Mammoth Mark Three can tough it out. Remember, the best is the enemy of the good. If it fills it's intended role well enough then it's fine.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
1) The real life Abrams enjoys the tremendous advantage of existing during a period when no technologically advanced power is really pushing the boundaries of military technology by fighting active land wars. It's a lot easier for a weapon system to remain serviceable when weapon systems aren't evolving very fast.

2) I don't think you really understand me. My point isn't that the Mammoth Block Three needs an urgent right-now refit; we have at least half a dozen much higher priorities, maybe a full dozen. What I'm saying is that the design isn't "fine." It's lacking a key technology (active anti-missile defenses), and in many other respects its design is suboptimal. We do not now, and will not soon, have the time or resources to spare on rolling out a Block Four refit version.

But the design is slowly falling behind the curve, and an update (or retirement) will be in order one of these days.

The only thing we fell behind in so far is NOD commiting heavily towards High Performance Aircraft to support it's long distance Operations into our Territory. As well as their Interest in Submersibles - to exploit the fact we had a stretched thin and crusty as hell Surface Fleet.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The problem is that this isn't just about having parity with Nod. Our entire style of warfare relies on massed firepower, combined arms mechanized warfare, and being able to bring heavy metal to bear on the enemy.

Thus, for instance, Nod can probably figure out a way to prosecute a war without a cost-effective main battle tank. We can't. Nod manages to fight us under conditions of air inferiority routinely. We would struggle to do the reverse.

So there is a need to keep looking for the next new angle, the next new option, rather than shrugging and going "eh, good enough." That doesn't mean that specifically working on the Mammoth tank is the next new angle at the moment, but it's an issue we need to be willing to think about.

Cerazor said:
I've always wondered if GDI ever had a policy of keeping Mammoth tanks away from Populated Area's - like how the GTA in Freespace kept their Orions away from Civilized Worlds - so Yellow Zoners don't take a look at one and see the 1st World's equivalent of a Star Destroyer, and think; maybe GDI aren't the good guys?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I mean, it's just a big-ass tank. I don't see why it would be that sinister.

Model DC.14F said:
Talking about the next Mammoth Block Development is rather premature considering that we haven't done the Mastodon Development, which is both Part of our Requirements for this Plan, and will almost definitely serve as a test bed for the same technologies that will be eventually included in all GDI superheavy vehicles.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, the option already notes that there are some significant upgrades the Mammoth could undergo. That doesn't mean the upgrades would have enough of an effect to justify the refit program yet, but clearly the military at least sees the merits of considering the idea.
 
Simon_Jester said:
Railgun shells don't seem to be a problem. The other issues, yes.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

For now.
Simon_Jester said:
1) The real life Abrams enjoys the tremendous advantage of existing during a period when no technologically advanced power is really pushing the boundaries of military technology by fighting active land wars. It's a lot easier for a weapon system to remain serviceable when weapon systems aren't evolving very fast.

2) I don't think you really understand me. My point isn't that the Mammoth Block Three needs an urgent right-now refit; we have at least half a dozen much higher priorities, maybe a full dozen. What I'm saying is that the design isn't "fine." It's lacking a key technology (active anti-missile defenses), and in many other respects its design is suboptimal. We do not now, and will not soon, have the time or resources to spare on rolling out a Block Four refit version.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

For Context; My prior statement was made before it was clarrifed to me that the Mark Four wasn't a brand new unit.

1) Unless you have a tank that's completely behind the curve, they almost always win with their first shot. Getting there is decided by Strategy, Training and Battlespace control. There's a reason that's despite it being put against Tanks that were designed to be it's equal most of the battles lost by the Tank were by the same Tank accidentally shooting them. The Abrams itself has gotten an upgrade each time it went into a Battlespace that actually poked at a weakness.

2) The Mammoth Mark Three is a niche unit. You aren't going to let a thing this big into a battlespace unsupported by mass anti-aircraft weaponry. A Tank too harsh to use is a Tank too harsh to lose.


Simon_Jester said:
The problem is that this isn't just about having parity with Nod. Our entire style of warfare relies on massed firepower, combined arms mechanized warfare, and being able to bring heavy metal to bear on the enemy.

Thus, for instance, Nod can probably figure out a way to prosecute a war without a cost-effective main battle tank. We can't. Nod manages to fight us under conditions of air inferiority routinely. We would struggle to do the reverse.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
My point is that we don't need to be at Parity with NOD. We're playing Defence. The larger our territory the less we get to play Panzer Ace. We need more - not neccessarily better - highly mobile units that can perform rapid redeployment and defence in depth, in sophisticated fast combined arms tactics on the Operational Level. NOD can support mass wave tactics of Cultists, supported by High-Tech Units that they can recover because they're on Offence. We don't get the same luxury of recovering equipment if NOD finds a way to make us pull back.

And if it's good enough in a very specific roll then we don't need to replace it soon. There's a reason ubiqitious weapons stay in service even with big upgrades they could've have. It is fine, for now.

Simon_Jester said:
So there is a need to keep looking for the next new angle, the next new option, rather than shrugging and going "eh, good enough." That doesn't mean that specifically working on the Mammoth tank is the next new angle at the moment, but it's an issue we need to be willing to think about.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

We have new angles, we are looking for the next best option. We've shrunk their Strategic Level Tiberium harvesting capability. We're deploying Lazors on the Navy. We've cut down their Recruiting Grounds. But it's an Option that doesn't need to be made now, and "it works good enough", ussually actually just works good enough. There's a reason in many Wars weapons and new units aren't immediately fielded if a War decides to be waged or potentially not waged, people called the Sherman a 'death trap' and bare bones for not having latest military features despite it being a unit that's needed to be fighting overseas in area's with little to no infrastructure to actually support said advanced features. We don't know what War were going to face with NOD, even if we're going to fight one soon. We're doing better than we were before, but NOD burnt down everything behind them as they left to get our attention last time. They know that's a very good tactic to field now. Right now we need to actually develop Technologies that can actually help our Generals direct them better, and help us potentially see where NOD might attack us from. So we actually know what War might be coming, what we need for it, and how to wage it. We can refit or change this stuff as we go.

p.s Didn't mean to imply you want it right now. Because I tried not to? I was just putting a counter point out.
 
Last edited:
Simon_Jester said:
We're coming up on urgent need for Capital Goods, enough so that it's actively a bad idea to do Blue Zone Light Industrial Sectors right now, not only because it doesn't yield Capital Goods, but because it actively consumes some.

We don't need to trade -1 Capital Goods and some Labor for +1 Health that badly right now.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

o_O👇

Simon_Jester said:
2) You are really under no obligation to spend Resources on Bergen. It's an expensive project, and the immediate payoff isn't overwhelming. Just turning the Bergen die into a Reykjavik die would be cheaper, freeing up 10 R. Alternatively you could back off the investment into Reykjavik somewhat and go for a cheaper project like Blue Zone Light Industrial Zones (nice for the +1 Health, if requiring -1 Capital Goods), or Fertilizer Plants (we need to do something for Consumer Goods this plan, and the Food surplus gives us some extra options). This could potentially save quite a bit more R for other projects.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

:wtf: In the honor of the high thought turnover in the current debate:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ed74kYCfFv8
 
This quest has been an amazing binge-read for the last couple of days, and I can not wait to see more Tiberium extermination.
It caused me to re-purchase C&C3 on Steam for research to start my own fanfiction.
Seriously, awesome thread.
 
We may want to look into getting "Blue Zone Heavy Industrial Sectors" before starting on Nuuk. While not as cost-effective in the long term comparatively, we'll get sizable payoff sooner and their distributed nature will make them a soft counters to any Masterstrokes targeting key industrial and logistic nodes.
 
Cerazor said:
1) Unless you have a tank that's completely behind the curve, they almost always win with their first shot. Getting there is decided by Strategy, Training and Battlespace control. There's a reason that's despite it being put against Tanks that were designed to be it's equal most of the battles lost by the Tank were by the same Tank accidentally shooting them. The Abrams itself has gotten an upgrade each time it went into a Battlespace that actually poked at a weakness.

2) The Mammoth Mark Three is a niche unit. You aren't going to let a thing this big into a battlespace unsupported by mass anti-aircraft weaponry. A Tank too harsh to use is a Tank too harsh to lose.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
1) is incorrect, in C&C. Most tanks can take multiple shots from equivalent units. (In gameplay, at least, which Ithillid is trying to have correspond to quest reality reasonably well.) NOD stealth tanks are outliers, because they are specced for alpha strikes.

2) is also incorrect. It's a multirole unit, able to take on armor and air (it has missile launchers that can target air units), and endure quite a pounding. Mammoth Tank rushes are likely less used in-quest, because it's a lot easier to coordinate combined arms forces when you're not trying to control a bunch of units through a somewhat clunky user interface - but they are a commonly used tactic in the game, because they work.
 
Simon_Jester said:
Railgun shells don't seem to be a problem. The other issues, yes.

1) The real life Abrams enjoys the tremendous advantage of existing during a period when no technologically advanced power is really pushing the boundaries of military technology by fighting active land wars. It's a lot easier for a weapon system to remain serviceable when weapon systems aren't evolving very fast.

2) I don't think you really understand me. My point isn't that the Mammoth Block Three needs an urgent right-now refit; we have at least half a dozen much higher priorities, maybe a full dozen. What I'm saying is that the design isn't "fine." It's lacking a key technology (active anti-missile defenses), and in many other respects its design is suboptimal. We do not now, and will not soon, have the time or resources to spare on rolling out a Block Four refit version.

But the design is slowly falling behind the curve, and an update (or retirement) will be in order one of these days.

The problem is that this isn't just about having parity with Nod. Our entire style of warfare relies on massed firepower, combined arms mechanized warfare, and being able to bring heavy metal to bear on the enemy.

Thus, for instance, Nod can probably figure out a way to prosecute a war without a cost-effective main battle tank. We can't. Nod manages to fight us under conditions of air inferiority routinely. We would struggle to do the reverse.

So there is a need to keep looking for the next new angle, the next new option, rather than shrugging and going "eh, good enough." That doesn't mean that specifically working on the Mammoth tank is the next new angle at the moment, but it's an issue we need to be willing to think about.

I mean, it's just a big-ass tank. I don't see why it would be that sinister.

Well, the option already notes that there are some significant upgrades the Mammoth could undergo. That doesn't mean the upgrades would have enough of an effect to justify the refit program yet, but clearly the military at least sees the merits of considering the idea.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Lightwhispers said:
1) is incorrect, in C&C. Most tanks can take multiple shots from equivalent units. (In gameplay, at least, which Ithillid is trying to have correspond to quest reality reasonably well.) NOD stealth tanks are outliers, because they are specced for alpha strikes.

2) is also incorrect. It's a multirole unit, able to take on armor and air (it has missile launchers that can target air units), and endure quite a pounding. Mammoth Tank rushes are likely less used in-quest, because it's a lot easier to coordinate combined arms forces when you're not trying to control a bunch of units through a somewhat clunky user interface - but they are a commonly used tactic in the game, because they work.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

1) Kind of? We're adapting combat mechanics to a narrative game. It's not going to be a perfect 1-1.
2) The argument is that it has insufficent anti-air capabilites, which is a part of the Tanks Kit I think is fine for now which can be offset with our new Missile Tech for our Fighters and Vehicles (You rush with Mammoth Tanks in Multiplayer?? You only do that when you have a huge Refinery Lead as they're considered incredibly Ineffective for how much they cost), and I conceeded to a point made earlier that it was a breakthrough unit, which is a niche. Not that not that it has no AA? I don't understand how you got to this conclusion?
 
Last edited:
Jexx said:
We may want to look into getting "Blue Zone Heavy Industrial Sectors" before starting on Nuuk. While not as cost-effective in the long term comparatively, we'll get sizable payoff sooner and their distributed nature will make them a soft counters to any Masterstrokes targeting key industrial and logistic nodes.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Hmm.

Oh, Derpmind?
Derpmind said:
-[] Nuuk Heavy Robotics Foundry (Phase 1+2+3) 0/1120 14 dice 280R 7%, 15 dice 300R 21%, 16 dice 320R 42%, 17 dice 240R 64%, 18 dice 260R 82%, 19 dice 280R 92%
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This doesn't seem right. These are supposed to be >300, right?

Anywho. I think the plan Simon's been contemplating was another round of fusion, then full Nuuks press to 3.

We assume that CCF Phase 2 and Processing Plants completes this turn: that gives us 16-4 = 12 Energy.

Nuuks PressProgressAverage Cost per DieMedian diceMedian CostEnergyCap Goods:
CFF Phase 2CompleteN/AN/AN/A+12
CCF Phase 330020480+16
Nuuks 1+2+311202017340-12+20
Total14202021420+16+20

Assuming we pour 2 free dice into Heavy Industry as we're planning on this quarter, we can expect to complete Nuuks 3 in 3-4 quarters starting in Q1. During those 3 quarters, we would be spending 6 * 20 = 120RpT in Heavy Industry.

Now, for HIS.

HIS OnlyProgressAverage Cost per DieMedian diceMedian costEnergyCap Goods
CCF Phase 2CompletedN/AN/AN/A+12
Blue Zone HIS500258200-88
TOTAL500258200+48

We can expect to complete HIS in two quarters without free dice, during which we would be spending 4*25 = 100 RpT. This is much cheaper than a Nuuks Press.

Unfortunately, this assumes that we do not invest into CCF 3. The problem is that we run almost immediately into our energy cap again: one Zone Armor Factory takes up 4 energy, as an illustrative example.

HIS and PowerProgressAverage Cost per DieMedian diceMedian costEnergyCap Goods
CCF Phase 2CompletedN/AN/AN/A+12
Blue Zone HIS500258200-88
CFF Phase 330020480+16
TOTAL80022.512280+208

We can still expect to complete this into two quarters, with six dice in Heavy Industry, spending 6*22.5 = 135 RpT.

EDIT: Just to complete the set of major possibilities: Tokyo.


Tokyo OnlyProgressAverage Cost per DieMedian diceMedian costEnergyCap Goods
CCF Phase 2CompletedN/AN/AN/A+12
Tokyo 1+2+38751513195-48
TOTAL8751513195+88

We can expect to complete this in two and bit quarters, with six dice, spending 6*15 = 90RpT.

The interesting thing is that Tokyo 3 only spends 4 power, so CCF 3 is not quite as urgent as it would be with HIS and Nuuks.

It also hardens our chip production against the loss of North Boston.

Comparing the three four:

ComparisonMedian CostMedian QuartersRpTEnergyCap GoodsR per EE per QuarterR per CGCG per Quarter
Nuuks Press4203 - 41201620264-5215-6
HIS Only200210048N/AN/A254
HIS and Power2802135208184354
Tokyo Only1952 - 39088N/AN/A242 - 4

Edit: Recalculated R per E to account for the fact that, in those plans where it's relevant, we get +12 from CCF 2 for essentially free--so we should only count for the +16 we get from CFF 3 when calculating resource-efficiency.
 
Last edited:
EDIT: Double post.

Derpmind said:
E: BZ Heavy Industrial Sectors are worth doing if we want to get the Wartime Factory Refits done soon, since that'll get us the 8 Cap-Goods we need.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If we want to get it done in...two three quarters instead of four...hmm...

The problem being that we have many more things needing cap goods than just the Wartime Factory Refits--Vein Mines and Zone Armor come to mind--and also, more crucially, much more things that need energy. So we'd probably have to hit CFF 3 + Nuuks anyway, and HIS would set both back.

Still, it'd be worth it for immediate war preparedness.

A couple of combined plans:

HIS and NuuksProgressAverage Cost per DieMedian diceMedian costEnergyCap Goods
CCF Phase 2CompletedN/AN/AN/A+12
Blue Zone HIS500258200-88
CFF Phase 330020480+16
Nuuks 1+2+311202017340-12+20
TOTAL192021.6629620828

We can expect to complete this in five quarters, with six dice, spending on average 6 * 21.66 = 130RpT.

Tokyo and HISProgressAverage Cost per DieMedian diceMedian costEnergyCap Goods
CCF Phase 2CompletedN/AN/AN/A+12
Blue Zone HIS500258200-88
Tokyo 1+2+38751513195-48
TOTAL13752021395016

3-4 quarters, with six dice, spending 6*20 = 120 RpT

In practice, this plan requires CFF 3 immediately thereafter:

Nuuk Left OutProgressAverage Cost per DieMedian diceMedian costEnergyCap Goods
CCF Phase 2CompletedN/AN/AN/A+12
CCF Phase 330020480+16
Blue Zone HIS500258200-88
Tokyo 1+2+38751513195-48
TOTAL167520253951616

4 and a bit quarters, with six dice, spending 6*20 = 120 RpT.

Comparing:

ComparisonMedian CostMedian QuartersRpTEnergyCap GoodsR per EE per QuarterR per CGCG per Quarter
Nuuks Press4203 - 41201620264-5215-6
HIS and Nuuks620513082877.51.6225-6
Tokyo and HIS13753-4120016N/AN/A864-5
Nuuk left Out16754-512016161043-41043-4

EDIT: I know this is a double post, but I'm having trouble copy-pasting these tables. Wait one.

EDIT: Fixed.
 
Last edited:
Hmm. If we do Nuuk, the first two phases cost almost the same as HIS, 480 vs 500. It only gives 4 Capital Goods, but if we want to split those 4 between non-Wartime Factory projects, then we could go straight for Nuuk, then do the Wartime Factory after Phase 3 finishes.

I guess it depends on how long we thing we have before the next war breaks out. If we think we have over 4 quarters, we could do Nuuk first. If we think we might need those refits ASAP, we should do HIS first. And meanwhile Tokyo gives less CG, but costs less per die and less progress.

Also, @TripleTango there's no rule on SV against double-posting. You're allowed to do it as long as the second post is something substantial and not spam.
 
Last edited:
I would still say Nuuk because we would want more cap goods during the war for stuff like the ground armor factories and whatever else we rollout so doing HIS first means we have to start from the slow part of Nuuk still
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top