Remove ads

Attempting to Fulfill the Plan MNKh Edition

Voted best in category in the Users' Choice awards.
Reader mode
MSH said:
I dream of the day our space program becomes functional enough to force Blackstar to decide if the Oort Cloud is real or not.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Is this some Discord in-joke I need explaining? Oort cloud is noncontroversial no?

CrabMonarchy said:
- Crisis-1 (Congo?): 9
- Crisis-2 (Algeria?): 44
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Oh... How do these "crisis rolls" work? Are they ongoing events with the rolls measuring the USSR's luck, or is there some threshold below which the roll causes the conflict in question to start up?
agumentic said:
*It's been confirmed we've completed additional stage of Kansk-Achinsk.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Very nice. On coal, I suggest doing Kuzbas instead for our next stage, it requires more labor than Kansk so it's a better fit for our struggles to keep non-educated labor from stagflating this plan.
agumentic said:
Electricity: 286+341-516=111 (-46=66)*
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ouch. Atomash is responsible for a lot of that. Good god, we wanted nuclear to solve our power problems, but this could end with a power shortage stopping us from completing stage 3 of Atomash in the first place! Yeah, definitely work on Alternate Reactors as a backup plan.

EDIT: I checked the final turn of the 8th plan. There []Kuzbas Deposit Exploitation(Stage 4/5) needed only 31 electricity, but this turn it needed 48! Over 50% increase. Without any boost to coal price impact. Would increasing mechanization really raise the power demand of coal extraction THAT much, what changed about the mining process?
 
Last edited:
General_Urist said:
EDIT: I checked the final turn of the 8th plan. There []Kuzbas Deposit Exploitation(Stage 4/5) needed only 31 electricity, but this turn it needed 48! Over 50% increase. Without any boost to coal price impact. Would increasing mechanization really raise the power demand of coal extraction THAT much, what changed about the mining process?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I would assume that the mechanization raises the electricity demand, yeah. Also as we make more and more stuff I think the price indicators reduce in amount to show the increased size of the market, so it might actually be making more coal but just affect the price the same (whereas absolute value indicators like electricity keep on scaling).

It's still more efficient than Kansk-Achinsk's wet coal. We microwave it to evaporate the water before shipping it (See stage 2/5). Microwaving literal tons of coal takes a lot of energy.
 
Last edited:
General_Urist said:
Oh... How do these "crisis rolls" work? Are they ongoing events with the rolls measuring the USSR's luck, or is there some threshold below which the roll causes the conflict in question to start up?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Crisis rolls are an ongoing thing for as long as a crisis lasts, previous crises have included Papua, Italy, Indonesia, and South Africa, I'll go back and compile them later. In particular, the Congo has taken up one of the crisis slots for basically as long as the current external politics dice format has existed, dating back to 1964ish when Blackstar first formalized the roll setup (albeit the Congo was already in crisis before then lmao).
 
Last edited:
General_Urist said:
Is this some Discord in-joke I need explaining? Oort cloud is noncontroversial no?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The existence of the Oort Cloud is an inference - it has never been observed, and neither Voyager will be powered by the time they enter that zone of space, so it won't be observed anytime soon.

While these things tend to be predictable, it is within the realm of possibility that there is no Oort Cloud.
 
MSH said:
The existence of the Oort Cloud is an inference - it has never been observed, and neither Voyager will be powered by the time they enter that zone of space, so it won't be observed anytime soon.

While these things tend to be predictable, it is within the realm of possibility that there is no Oort Cloud.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
At least out telescopes have managed to find a fair few objects in the Kuiper belt by now at least. Which is the disk of objects beyond the planets stretching out till the Oort Cloud starts. So theory in holding up fairly well so far out there and the Oort Cloud inference is kind of needed to make sense of the more distant comets that fall in to the Solar System as well. So while I suppose theoretically one could try to create some other kind of explanation, the by far most likely solution and thus I imagine the one that would be taken would be to just presume it there.

Assuming the years and tech ever progress far enough to make that relevant I guess.
 
General_Urist said:
Oh... How do these "crisis rolls" work? Are they ongoing events with the rolls measuring the USSR's luck, or is there some threshold below which the roll causes the conflict in question to start up?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
CrabMonarchy said:
Crisis rolls are an ongoing thing for as long as a crisis lasts, previous crises have included Papua, Italy, Indonesia, and South Africa, I'll go back and compile them later. In particular, the Congo has taken up one of the crisis slots for basically as long as the current external politics dice format has existed, dating back to 1964ish when Blackstar first formalized the roll setup (albeit the Congo was already in crisis before then lmao).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Alright, I've compiled all the external politics dice since 1963H2 (when the current external politics dice format was introduced), so you can find the crisis dice for each turn in the image below. As it turns out, the Papua crisis ended before the current format was introduced and as such is not included, while the Italy crisis only had a short period of overlap with the current format and so only has 2 rolls recorded. I'll probably go back and mess around with the data later, but for now I'll leave you with this:
 
Last edited:
Poor Congo our politicans have just kept sending weapons to the region for 10 years and has almost not been mentioned during the Klim years because most politicans don't even see it as that important
 
Hianny said:
Poor Congo our politicans have just kept sending weapons to the region for 10 years and has almost not been mentioned during the Klim years because most politicans don't even see it as that important
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The congo would be a shit show either way to many materials to many minorities that are ignored by the governments and to much corruption and incompetence from the governments as well.
 
notgreat said:
I would assume that the mechanization raises the electricity demand, yeah. Also as we make more and more stuff I think the price indicators reduce in amount to show the increased size of the market, so it might actually be making more coal but just affect the price the same (whereas absolute value indicators like electricity keep on scaling).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Good insight on the growing size of the market causing larger projects to seemingly not have a larger impact! And makes sense when you look at our coal power: We have almost the same coal price rise per dice but over 70% more generation per dice, so we're building a lot more but the economic impact doesn't scale.

Spreaking of electricity, the Krasnoyarsk-Irkutsk Hydroelectric Zone (AKA the Yenisei Cascade) has a note in the plan effects:
Blackstar said:
(-3 Infra Dice -300 RpY Modified by Steel Prices) (+45 Electricity -1 Non-Ferrous per Year 1974-1979) (Three -10 Steel Steel mills available 1974) 300 TWh, do math
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Might it be left there by accident? If that's 300 TWh per year, it's equivalent to 900 electricity units. We'll see 270 directly, and the steel mills working with energy-intensive ore could be 60 each. That leaves 450 units, implying a full half of the generation potential goes directly into smelting aluminum from crap ore. And it's only enough to more the price one point per year. Wow.

Also on the topic of electricity, Oof ow someone help me budget this my power grid is dying. If each stage is 100+ power I fear we need to accept only completing stage 2 of Atomash at the end of this plan, and doing stage 3 next plan (assuming it will stay available next plan). Why finish it in 74 instead of 73 next turn? The Capital Goods target. Heavy vehicle plants take years to spool up (It's why we couldn't hit last plan's target), so we want to complete many of the high profitability stuff one year before the plan ends rather then just before the deadline.

I believe we should accept running over the 40 steel price threshold in pursuit of that rather than waiting for the Yenisei mills to come in the subsequent turn. Having one turn of very elevated infra costs is not as bad as failing the plan target.
 
The way to get Atommash stage 3 next plan is to take HI focus again, which isn't happening. Once we do that we can get Atommash 4 without the HI focus afaik but up to 3 is gated ( we probably won't be doing 4 anyway next plan as it will be a cooldown plan so we will have 0 budget but it's the thought that counts)
 
Nevis said:
The way to get Atommash stage 3 next plan is to take HI focus again, which isn't happening. Once we do that we can get Atommash 4 without the HI focus afaik but up to 3 is gated ( we probably won't be doing 4 anyway next plan as it will be a cooldown plan so we will have 0 budget but it's the thought that counts)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Is that confirmed from the discord? I was worried that would be how it is. Well, it follow up the "someone help me budget this" meme:
"Spend less on nuclear reactors"
"no".

But seriously, to get stage 3 Atomash we'll need to ration electricity very carefully. We've burnt through all but 50 of our surplus and we get around net 300 a turn... less if the civilian sector keeps climbing. So after 200 from Atomash we have 400, 450 max, to spend elsewhere over the next two years. We'll need to be very selective with HI and CI actions.
 
General_Urist said:
Also on the topic of electricity, Oof ow someone help me budget this my power grid is dying. If each stage is 100+ power I fear we need to accept only completing stage 2 of Atomash at the end of this plan, and doing stage 3 next plan (assuming it will stay available next plan). Why finish it in 74 instead of 73 next turn? The Capital Goods target.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Atomash is hardly going to help us with our capital goods target, its not exactly going to help with profitability. Its a money sink with little to none economic return, we are not exactly selling those PWR cores, which is why investing a ton of dice in it is very inefficient. But I am not too worried, we finished Saratov which should help a lot, and Gorky which helps us with both the capgoods and consumer goods goal. I think the Black Sea shipyards (which we should do, American and European demand for tankers and container ships is immense during this time period, it should be a profitable project) plus Tupolev will be enough to meet our goal.
General_Urist said:
But seriously, to get stage 3 Atomash we'll need to ration electricity very carefully. We've burnt through all but 50 of our surplus and we get around net 300 a turn... less if the civilian sector keeps climbing. So after 200 from Atomash we have 400, 450 max, to spend elsewhere over the next two years. We'll need to be very selective with HI and CI actions.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We will almost certainly get the option for manual coal and gas power plants this turn, we can plan around it. I really don't think "we don't have enough electricity" is a good reason to skimp on Atomash, especially when we are spending like 50 electricity a stage of Kansk-Achinsk.

EDIT: Just to have an ideia on how bad the tanker situation is, the cost of transporting oil was higher than the price of the barrel on the midst of the oil crisis. We really should do the shipyards.
 
Last edited:
Vi'Talzin said:
Atomash is hardly going to help us with our capital goods target, its not exactly going to help with profitability. Its a money sink with little to none economic return, we are not exactly selling those PWR cores, which is why investing a ton of dice in it is very inefficient. But I am not too worried, we finished Saratov which should help a lot, and Gorky which helps us with both the capgoods and consumer goods goal. I think the Black Sea shipyards (which we should do, American and European demand for tankers and container ships is immense during this time period, it should be a profitable project) plus Tupolev will be enough to meet our goal.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Oh I FULLY understand Atomash helps little with the target- that's why I suggested prioritizing other things over it, before i learnt we need to to all 3 stages this plan. I agree the shipyards and Tupolev should be done next turn. The shipyards in particular also consume General Labor, which we're stuggling to keep up. Saratov I don't expect will be huge given it lacked a "high profitability" indicator. But it's still important equipment. I'd like to squeeze in Kiev Machine Building Plant to finalize the recovery from GreatGork's collapse, but not sure if its possible next turn.

The other car factories would be good for the CONSOOM target, but hopefully we can meet that elsewhere. Speaking of which, []Color Television Modernization will be important. But if we struggle with power budget in 1973, that can be postponed to 1974 since light industry is much faster to spool up.

Vi'Talzin said:
We will almost certainly get the option for manual coal and gas power plants this turn, we can plan around it. I really don't think "we don't have enough electricity" is a good reason to skimp on Atomash, especially when we are spending like 50 electricity a stage of Kansk-Achinsk.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Will we get the option for manual builds? I thought not thanks to our turbine industry being maxed out. If we DO get the option it would be very helpful indeed! If not... well, at least we might avoid another stage of Kansk/Kuzbas- thanks to doing two stages this turn, we've got a buffer and just might survive the rest of the plan on only the Donets modernization, which is cheap in power.
 
Last edited:
General_Urist said:
Is that confirmed from the discord? I was worried that would be how it is. Well, it follow up the "someone help me budget this" meme:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
As long as we completely finish Stage 2 and get started on Stage 3 this plan we'll be able to finish Stage 3 next plan. However, if we're not done with Stage 3 by the end of this plan, we can't put 3 autodice on nuclear reactors next plan which is something we really really want to do (unless we decide to do 2 stages of here and 1 stage of the CI variant, but IMO focusing on economy of scale makes more sense here)
 
notgreat said:
As long as we completely finish Stage 2 and get started on Stage 3 this plan we'll be able to finish Stage 3 next plan. However, if we're not done with Stage 3 by the end of this plan, we can't put 3 autodice on nuclear reactors next plan which is something we really really want to do (unless we decide to do 2 stages of here and 1 stage of the CI variant, but IMO focusing on economy of scale makes more sense here)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Aye. I suspect we'll need to get at least 1/3rd, perhaps more, done of stage 3 for it to properly count is "started" rather than just be a bureaucratic rounding error from stage 2 overflow, so at that point might as well finish it. If we can cram one stage of the CI variant into the electricity budget I'd like to do it to expand our engineering base if nothing else but I can live without it.
 
Vi'Talzin said:
Atomash is hardly going to help us with our capital goods target
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Why wouldn't it? Both Atommash itself and reactors it makes should be earmarked in capital goods at least at price we paid for labor and materials, which is pretty high. It's not going to help with profitability, true, but capital goods will be moved significantly IMO.
 
vsh said:
Why wouldn't it? Both Atommash itself and reactors it makes should be earmarked in capital goods at least at price we paid for labor and materials, which is pretty high. It's not going to help with profitability, true, but capital goods will be moved significantly IMO.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We've moved away from material balance a while ago. Capital goods target is measured in profitability of said capital goods production, not in tons of metal spent or some such natural units.
 
agumentic said:
We've moved away from material balance a while ago. Capital goods target is measured in profitability of said capital goods production, not in tons of metal spent or some such natural units.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think we shifted to pricing in revenue, not in profitability. You can't measure production (and that's what the plan is for, x% increase in production) in profitability. And Atommash produces capital goods, as far as I understand what capital goods are, and sells them to the state, and gets revenue.

Profitability matters a lot for the plan, but I think it matters more like "regular profitability enterprise like Atommash gets you 1% increase for 500 resources put in, high profitability enterprise gets you 2% for the same buck", rather than "regular enterprise gets you nothing".
 
Last edited:
vsh said:
You can't measure production (and that's what the plan is for, x% increase in production) in profitability.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No, the plan goal is for the increase in production value. It doesn't matter how many products your enterprise put out if they can't be realized. And I'm fairly sure we are measuring said increase through profit. Now, Atomash is not literally unprofitable - the resources go in and the reactors come out with increased value - but its profitability is quite low, since the goal is to output the reactors as cheaply as possible.
 
Last edited:
agumentic said:
No, the plan goal is for the increase in production value. It doesn't matter how many products your enterprise put out if they can't be realized. And I'm fairly sure we are measuring said increase through profit. Now, Atomash is not literally unprofitable - the resources go in and the reactors come out with increased value - but its profitability is quite low, since the goal is to output the reactors as cheaply as possible.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Sure, that's literally what I'm saying tho? Atommash will move the capital goods needle because a) it'll consume a lot of capital goods b) spin out a lot of capital goods with value at least as high as time and materials costs. Low profitability doesn't mean low impact; it just means impact per buck spent is lower and we spend a lot of bucks on Atommash.
 
vsh said:
Sure, that's literally what I'm saying tho? Atommash will move the capital goods needle because a) it'll consume a lot of capital goods b) spin out a lot of capital goods with value at least as high as time and materials costs. Low profitability doesn't mean low impact; it just means impact per buck spent is lower and we spend a lot of bucks on Atommash.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No, there isn't a direct correlation like this. That we are spending a lot on Atomash doesn't mean we are going to get a lot multiplied by some low ratio equals still a lot. We'll get what we get, and we won't get a lot, because, I think, we aren't measuring consumption of materials and straight revenue of goods, we are measuring the profit. And Atomash, though profitable, is not significantly profitable.
 
Its the same thing with our childcare expansions, its a project that cost a lot of money, employed a lot of people and even charged a nominal fee, but despite that we are pretty behind the Service goal since its not exactly a very profitable enterprise. Atomash's purpose is not profit making, and barring a few exports here and there, it will never make much money since it will be used for our own domestic power production. Don't get me wrong, its very useful, but well, if we are purely chasing after our quotas it is very suboptimal.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top