Taking the Mickey: A Save Disney Quest

[X]Plan: Board Games

A hard choice for me, I wanted to drill Exxon even further into the ground, but we can't unfortunatly.

@Slynnwen Would it be possible for us to plan our new parks with sustainability in mind. Good architecture can save costs in adding solar-panels later on for example.
 
Last edited:
@Slynnwen Would it be possible for us to plan our new parks with sustainability in mind. Good architecture can save costs in adding solar-panels later on for example.
You're going to be doing so wherever feasible. Opening up the patents may not have made much direct cash, but it turns out giving away revolutionary tech upgrades to an industry means that they're more than willing to give you some very nice deals on things you might be buying from them.
 
You're going to be doing so wherever feasible. Opening up the patents may not have made much direct cash, but it turns out giving away revolutionary tech upgrades to an industry means that they're more than willing to give you some very nice deals on things you might be buying from them.
Very nice. I'm looking forward to seeing how that's going to impact our planning and bottom line. And how much the board is going to realize that by giving away those patents they've essentially made the pie bigger for everyone, thereby increasing their own slices, as opposed to cutting someone else out of their portion.
 
I really think The Don is a waste of an action. We added two new Bluth movies to our upcoming releases last turn. Let's space it out another quarter before we add more and use that action for something more efficient.
 
I really think The Don is a waste of an action. We added two new Bluth movies to our upcoming releases last turn. Let's space it out another quarter before we add more and use that action for something more efficient.

If we where spending a normal action I would agree with you, we are however using a bonus-action for the Don.

The other two things we can spend the bonus on are live-action with a higher DC and for which we have less bonuses.
 
I really think The Don is a waste of an action. We added two new Bluth movies to our upcoming releases last turn. Let's space it out another quarter before we add more and use that action for something more efficient.
If we where spending a normal action I would agree with you, we are however using a bonus-action for the Don.

The other two things we can spend the bonus on are live-action with a higher DC and for which we have less bonuses.
What wallflower says. We HAVE to spend two actions in that category, and the Don is the lesser evil.

Not that it's really a bad option in and of itself, but it would certainly be the second action I'd change if we had full freedom (first would be the personal attention)
 
How about calling it the greater good, It sounds like we really don't want another Don film.
I like the limited bonuses because they allow us to preform some actions guilt free where we would have otherwise ignored them.
if we hadn't already two of his movies maybe I'd agree. As it's a forced choice, I think "lesser evil" is more apt. Also if i was free to take a guilt free action this turn it would probably be go greener. or the EPCOT city.

or if it was a completely superfluous one, probably the "unlock stat bars" one. The Don movie is below A LOT of options for me.

Also "the greater good" usually has bad connotations :p
 
Too many releases close together risks oversaturating the market. Doing one of the two live action options would be better. Like, you guys emphasized "higher DC with fewer bonuses" but it is literally just 20 DC with a +5 bonus from the board. That's just rolling a 15 minimum, which is hardly high enough to point out the DC and lack of bonuses as an actual negative.

Furthermore, we need the Live Action studio to start showing quality returns more often if they are to stay open and justified to both Eisner and the Board.
 
Last edited:
“Exxon: Gas For Good.”
Open to a scene above the ocean, with an oil rig in the distance.

"Lots of folks have worked hard, out here. Worked hard to make sure the cars we drive and the houses we live in have the power to keep going."

Cut to a falling power meter, connected to a solar panel.

"And recently, some other folks have claimed that all that hard work wasn't worth it, that they had a better way to keep the lights on."

Cut to a suburb, with the lights flicking out in a wave.

"But here at Exxon, we know that they just can't compete with gas. Gas is here for good."

Cut to a house being powered by a portable generator.

"And everyday, our researchers are hard at work making gas go a bit further. Cars that might have made it ten miles before can go fifteen or twenty now. Homes that needed to be fueled back up every three months can go six, now."

Cut to lab techs, with various improvements being displayed in between shots of research happening.

"That's because here at Exxon, while we believe that gas is here for good, we also believe that gas can be here to do good, as well."

Cut to various examples of rescue vehicles filling up, and generators in disaster areas.

"Exxon: Gas for good. Gas, for good."


Impact from campaign: total backfire, as people still remember the gas crisis not even a decade past. The public wants a solution that doesn't leave them dependent on the Middle East remaining stable, and that isn't a continuous drain on expenses. In addition, recent revolutions in solar power have already ruined the narrative that solar power can't meet demand.
 
Impact from campaign: total backfire, as people still remember the gas crisis not even a decade past. The public wants a solution that doesn't leave them dependent on the Middle East remaining stable, and that isn't a continuous drain on expenses. In addition, recent revolutions in solar power have already ruined the narrative that solar power can't meet demand.

Oh wow. Talk about not understanding your audience.
 
Slynnwen did a behind-the-scenes roll. They got a seven on a d100. Before applying penalties, which if that blurb is any indicator were pretty damn bad. @Slynnwen what were the penalties on that roll anyway?
-25 for attempting to discredit solar, which just received a massive boost from revolutionary advances in the field.
-25 for semi-directly attacking Disney, which currently enjoys nearly unanimous public support.
+10 for advanced PR machine.
+10 for throwing excessive amounts of money at the project.

Net: -30, for a total of -23.
 
Open to a scene above the ocean, with an oil rig in the distance.

"Lots of folks have worked hard, out here. Worked hard to make sure the cars we drive and the houses we live in have the power to keep going."

Cut to a falling power meter, connected to a solar panel.

"And recently, some other folks have claimed that all that hard work wasn't worth it, that they had a better way to keep the lights on."

Cut to a suburb, with the lights flicking out in a wave.

"But here at Exxon, we know that they just can't compete with gas. Gas is here for good."

Cut to a house being powered by a portable generator.

"And everyday, our researchers are hard at work making gas go a bit further. Cars that might have made it ten miles before can go fifteen or twenty now. Homes that needed to be fueled back up every three months can go six, now."

Cut to lab techs, with various improvements being displayed in between shots of research happening.

"That's because here at Exxon, while we believe that gas is here for good, we also believe that gas can be here to do good, as well."

Cut to various examples of rescue vehicles filling up, and generators in disaster areas.

"Exxon: Gas for good. Gas, for good."


Impact from campaign: total backfire, as people still remember the gas crisis not even a decade past. The public wants a solution that doesn't leave them dependent on the Middle East remaining stable, and that isn't a continuous drain on expenses. In addition, recent revolutions in solar power have already ruined the narrative that solar power can't meet demand.
What a load of gas.
 
-25 for attempting to discredit solar, which just received a massive boost from revolutionary advances in the field.
-25 for semi-directly attacking Disney, which currently enjoys nearly unanimous public support.
+10 for advanced PR machine.
+10 for throwing excessive amounts of money at the project.

Net: -30, for a total of -23.
Holy shit. Their stock must be in freefall right now...
 
[X]Plan: Board Games
Also;
-25 for attempting to discredit solar, which just received a massive boost from revolutionary advances in the field.
-25 for semi-directly attacking Disney, which currently enjoys nearly unanimous public support.
+10 for advanced PR machine.
+10 for throwing excessive amounts of money at the project.

Net: -30, for a total of -23.
...Sniff. It's incredible! :cry: Seriously though, there are few (I previously said very few before realizing that no, sadly that goes a bit too far.) companies more deserving than Exxon. I just feel bad for the employees that you know they're going to quietly start firing if they don't manage to dig themselves out of the hole they have dug for themselves double quick.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top