|
Foxfire_ posted:Are people interested enough in fighters for it to be worth writing up a proposal for research headed in that direction? Seems like there is at least a little pro-fighter lobby. The engine boost techs would also cross-over with missiles or FACs. I'd definitely like to see what building up a fighter centered navy looks like. In the other LP we went for big laser armed battleships and blazing speed.
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2020 22:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 00:52 |
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Huh. So is there a downside to using a bunch of hard to hit and disposable scout fighters for most target locking needs to keep the big guns safe? I'd guess that you can't really fit a very good active sensor in a fighter or FAC frame. No comrade's life is disposable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2020 23:26
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Huh. So is there a downside to using a bunch of hard to hit and disposable scout fighters for most target locking needs to keep the big guns safe? I'd guess that you can't really fit a very good active sensor in a fighter or FAC frame. Correct. Good sensors are big, and fighters are not. As an example, a relatively low-tech active sensor that can spot a 2,500-ton ship at 36m km (which is inside missile range for low-tech missiles, depending on how you build them) takes around 250 tons. A reasonable fighter engine is going to be about another 100-150 tons. That doesn't leave room for basically anything else. It's certainly possible to do, but scout fighters are going to die in one good hit, and they're the ones who take 0 effort to see because they're blaring huge amounts of EM radiation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2020 00:25
|
|
|
Speleothing posted:No comrade's life is disposable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2020 01:02
|
|
|
Scout fighters are easy to locate, but not necessarily easy to target. At that same tech level, a sensor perfectly calibrated to target a 400ton fighter at 36mkm is 850 tons, and a general anti-ship sensor would need to be enormous. It's a lot easier for a little ship to target a big one than the reverse. Fighters should never really be deployed where anything can shoot back at them, but knowing for sure what range is safe depends on unknown enemy sensors. Keeping them small keeps them safer, but that competes with having them be capable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2020 01:18
|
|
|
If you're going for cheap, disposable active sensors, you can also stick them on drones (missiles with no warhead) or buoys (missiles with no engine or warhead), but they're dramatically less effective than even small ship-mounted sensors.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2020 01:32
|
|
|
Small Craft Investigation Committee This is contemplating research to support a missile-armed strike craft similar in role to the Roswell object Propulsion Techs: These have big RP numbers, but Dr. Matveyev researches them at 2.4X speed. At a full complement of 25 labs, that's 7200 RP/year Improved Pressurized Water Reactor + Improved Nuclear Thermal Engine (3200RP) - Can research in about 5 months, offers a 25% improvement in engine power. Useful in civilian engines, fighter engines, and missile engines. The next generation after this is ~11 months for another 25% improvement, which is also worth considering Maximum Engine Power 1.5X (1000RP) - 2 months of research for +25% engine boost / +100% missile boost. More speed will improve strikecraft survivability if they do stray into enemy weapon ranges. Faster missiles improve hit chance and let the bombers disengage more rapidly after firing. Fuel Consumption 0.8 Liters/EPH (2000RP) - The main application for strike craft is letting missiles use fuel space for other things. There are also obvious civilian applications. Missile Techs: Dr. Garner researches these at 2.2X speed, but can only manage 5 labs max. 1320 RP/year Implosion Fission Warhead: Strength 3 x MSP (2000RP) - A 50% improvement in warhead yield is both good militarily and risky from a proliferation/political point of view. Missile Agility 32/MSP (2000RP) - This is much, much less useful than warhead improvements but may be safer politically Magazine Feed System Efficiency 80% (2000RP) / Magazine Neutralization System 80% (1000RP) - These will matter if we construct space carriers, but not if we're basing a squadron off of Ascension. Logistics Techs: Dr. Vasilyev researches these at 2X speed, but can only manage 5 labs. 1200 RP/year Boat Bay (890RP left) / Hanger Deck (4000RP) - Needed for carriers, expensive so we ought to start sooner rather than later. Sensor Techs: Dr. Indrendur researches these at 1.16X speed and 12 labs max. Others could research faster, but it'd be out-of-specialty and they wouldn't improve. Active Grav Sensor Strength 10 (804 RP left) - This is currently in development and a necessary component to any kind of targeting sensor. Further active sensor & EM sensor technology would be desirable, but the research speed is relatively low (this is also an argument against beams right now, their fire controls are two additional sensor tech lines). Rough Plan Thoughts: - Finish out the cross-field terraforming project, then put those 25 labs on next gen engine -> fuel consumption -> either max power or another engine gen - Put 5 labs on hangers, start thinking about carriers in 5 years - Put 5 labs on warheads if we're willing to do it, otherwise 1 lab on magazines - Staff active sensors at 10 labs since it gates everything, then drop back to 1 sensor lab until research efficiency improves - Keep the 1 lab for preeminent researchers who are otherwise unassigned - Retrain our excess two scientists (Valles and Hapke) into biology and defensive systems (they become the de-facto preeminent researchers in those fields) - Remaining labs to production improvements (think this is 2 labs while sensors is going, then 11 after) - If that exceeds C&P max labs, spillover to improved armor tech
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2020 04:07
|
|
|
Is there an easy way to set up my copy of Aurora so I can play with designs using what we've got? Keeping in mind I have very little idea what the hell I'm doing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2020 04:53
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:Is there an easy way to set up my copy of Aurora so I can play with designs using what we've got? Keeping in mind I have very little idea what the hell I'm doing. Yes. Start a new game and give yourself a boatload of free research points, then find out what techs we have and instantly research them all using the points. I think you can SM yourself extra research points, too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2020 05:07
|
|
|
Lightbulb icon on the system map screen to turn on spacemaster mode then the research screen will have an 'Instant' button (you might have to close and reopen that window)  MisterBates posted the techs we currently have researched in one of the last updates
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2020 05:25
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:Is there an easy way to set up my copy of Aurora so I can play with designs using what we've got? Keeping in mind I have very little idea what the hell I'm doing. starting next year I'm going to start posting a database file at the end of every year with every tech we've got researched for people to play around with, the only reason I haven't yet is because there weren't really enough techs researched to justify it. If you want to do it yourself you'd activate SM mode and then instantly research every tech we have researched (very slightly outdated but still has everything relevant for ship design):  You currently have no ability to make active sensors or missile fire control systems, so you're extremely limited in what you can make right now, but you can make simple thermal and EM sensors.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2020 05:27
|
|
|
How fast do colonies usually grow, and how large can they generally get? I get the impression Lunagrad ballooned quickly and unexpectedly, will other colonies grow like that (and to that size), subject to travel time of the transports?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2020 11:05
|
|
|
After looking over Foxfire's list of technological research to create fighters I would like to withdraw Friendly Eyes in the Sky To Extinguish Reactionaries (FESTER). It is clear to me now that without research in some foundational technologies responding to a hijacking situation is as yet beyond us, and we would be better served focusing on aid, industrial conversion, and basic research. I plan to resubmit this legislation at a later date, but the time is not right. Edit: And the legislation ended up in anyway, fortunately in a form that won't break our resources. Servetus fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Nov 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2020 13:23
|
|
|
My previous question is basically an attempt to figure out the appropriate numbers for X and Y for this policy proposal: 1. Any outpost or colony where 50% or more of the population are MOSA personnel or working in MOSA-run facilities/infrastructure falls directly under the jurisdiction of MOSA, with the civilian population ultimately subject to the senior MOSA officer but having local self-governance under a civilian administration for day-to-day issues. 2. Any outpost or colony without significant MOSA presence but with a population of less than X, or Y + at least 1 facility will have significant autonomy and local self-governance but still ultimately subject to comintern administration. 3. Any colony with a population of more than X, or Y + at least 1 facility, will be considered fully independent and is encouraged to take their seat in the comintern council. 4. This policy shall be revisited after 20 years, or if members feel there has been significant societal or scientific progress before hand a motion to revisit this policy can be made at any time. From watching Lunagrad's colonization I'm tempted to peg X and Y at 2 and 1 million population, but I dunno if that'd be way too high for future colonies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2020 14:56
|
|
|
Antilles posted:How fast do colonies usually grow, and how large can they generally get? I get the impression Lunagrad ballooned quickly and unexpectedly, will other colonies grow like that (and to that size), subject to travel time of the transports? I don't know the actual numbers behind it but colonies will grow to the size their infrastructure permits, and they'll produce some of their own infrastructure (also, spoiler for later but once we have more civilian shipping the companies will automatically move privately created infrastructure around if we don't give them something else to do). So we can affect the rate at which the colony grows. As for "how large" that depends on the body. Checking it on my game right now Luna's maximum population is 890 million.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2020 18:14
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:I think trying to do big sweeping plans doesn't end up working that well since doctrine voting and implementation voting don't mesh up and we don't have the pieces needed for the doctrine. What would this mean in terms of research focus or shipbuilding right now? My idea ran mostly along building specialized hulls geared towards a specific role, unlike the Star-Destroyer doctrine. But from the top of my head I would propose the following bullet-points: Plan our shipyards-expansion to have slipways ready for a 10 -15 kton Hull, this yard will alternate between successive frontline and support-vessels. Have a 5 kton hull with multiple slipways for escorts and specialist craft and possibly a FAC-yard, unless we go the fighter-route. Make a decision regarding our primary beam-weapon as well as weather we should build our missile/fighter-defence around coilguns or anti-missiles. Will we equip our small combatants with short-ranged missiles or beam-weapons? Do we use swarm of coilgun-armed fighters? Do we use civilian support-vessels for our small craft or military carriers, which would in turn eat into our capital-ship construction capacity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2020 18:40
|
|
|
Pirate Radar posted:I don't know the actual numbers behind it but colonies will grow to the size their infrastructure permits, and they'll produce some of their own infrastructure (also, spoiler for later but once we have more civilian shipping the companies will automatically move privately created infrastructure around if we don't give them something else to do). So we can affect the rate at which the colony grows. As for "how large" that depends on the body. Checking it on my game right now Luna's maximum population is 890 million. Ah gently caress it then, I'll go with the numbers my gut-feeling gave me, since there's a baked in 'review after 15 years' clause. Comrades, as the recent discussions about Lunagrad’s status and autonomy have shown, we must create guidelines and set expectations for future colonies. After all, we will likely see in our lifetimes a world where an enterprising family may acquire the necessary infrastructure and charter a transport to set up a homestead on an asteroid, and while all of humanity should have that freedom, declaring themselves a polity should not automatically follow. We propose the following terms: 1. Any outpost or colony where 50% or more of the population are MOSA personnel or working in MOSA-run facilities/infrastructure falls directly under the jurisdiction of MOSA, with the civilian population ultimately subject to the senior MOSA officer but having local self-governance under a civilian administration for day-to-day issues. 2. Any outpost or colony without significant MOSA presence but with a population of less than 2 million, or 1 million + at least 1 facility will have significant autonomy and local self-governance but still ultimately subject to comintern administration. 3. Any colony with a population of more than 2 million, or 1 million + at least 1 facility, will be considered fully independent and is encouraged to take their seat in the comintern council. 4. This policy shall be revisited after 15 years, or immediately if a simple majority of members feel a significant technological or societal advance has occured. We would also like to suggest an amendment to Y-23 as we share the concerns many comrades brought up during last year's deliberations, but we do see the need for a common tongue on MOSA ships and facilities so and propose the following: The scope of the project is limited to creating an operational language for all MOSA personell to facilitate communication and cohesion. Only MOSA personell are required to learn this language, though we will strongly encourage other spacefaring polities to adopt the language as a lingua franca of space, and make educational materiel available throughout ComIntern territory for civilians interested in learning it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2020 19:59
|
|
|
Deliberations are closed! I had something unexpected come up most of the way through typing the voting post, but it will be up by later this evening.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2020 23:26
|
|
|
VOTING Again, many things up for vote this year! There are a couple things proposed that I'm not putting up to a vote and will explain why on each individual one - if you object to this and think it should be voted on, say so, and I'll put it back on. To make this whole thing easier to read, proposal numbers will be bolded and followed by a short description, while explanations for why I'm not putting something to a vote will be underlined. First off, ship name prefixes! This will be the standard, default prefix we use, unless you vote for ships of a certain role or under a certain command to use a different one. Simple, short, requires no explanation, vote by ranked list: A - None, just ship names. B - PS, 'People's Ship' C - CIS, 'Comintern Interplanetary Ship' D - CSS, 'Comintern Space Ship' E - CSV, 'Comintern Space Vessel' F - SSV, 'Socialist Space Vessel' G - RSV, 'Revolutionary Space Vessel' Next, research! For reference, our current research lab setup looks like this:  Whenever not given specific instructions I am currently focusing on Construction/Production research. Foxfire_ posted:Small Craft Investigation Committee Pacho posted:The NOMAD Collective presents The Venera Initiative. The Martian dream is a bourgeoise dream, our sights should be set on Venus: We already have information on the planet from the Venera Space Probes, we can find earth-like conditions in its upper atmosphere and it'd be much cheaper and quicker for habitation, exploration, research and mining purposes. Thus, we propose prioritizing Venus for surveys and lining up the research needed to set up orbital habitats in its upper atmosphere The Venera Initiative proposes that we focus on developing necessary technology for the deployment of upper-atmosphere aerostat colonies and orbital habitats. This will involve researching, at minimum, Orbital Habitat (5000RP, Logistics) and Ship to Ship Tractor Beam (5000RP, Logistics), then building habitat stations (which can be done with our industry) and tugs to carry them (will have to be built in shipyards). The aerostat habitats will be 20% cheaper than normal orbital habs (in game terms I'll refund 20% of the TNE expenditures back to Earth), but will only be usable on Venus. Excess labs will go to Construction/Production as currently. Venus will already be surveyed under the existing plan, which is why that part isn't being put up for a vote. I ride bikes all day posted:August members of the legislature, we have once again been reminded of the importance of securing our position on the ground before stretching for the stars. Considering both our current bottleneck and our plans for off-world mining, I submit that we prioritize both mining technology and infrastructure. Servetus posted:Comrades, the recent violence shows clearly that we cannot fix our gaze solely on the Cosmos; the suffering here on Earth will hold our attention whether we will it or not for the time being. While our current aid efforts have done incredible work finding homes and new lives for the refugees, many of those we helped will suffer for years and decades from the effects of radiation poisoning. We are uniquely positioned to help in this regard; space is more radioactive than all but the most inhospitable fallout zones, and research in managing and alleviating the consequences of radiation exposure has been a part of space exploration since the first cosmonauts. Asterite34 posted:I second the motion, requestiong that some free labs be allocated to the study of biology/genetics with an emphasis on treatments and mitigation for radiation-based diseases both to improve terrestrial health and improve colonization of naturally highly irradiated space, in what I shall call the Radiological Attenuation and Defense, or RAD Initiative As one of these plans allocates all available labs, they are mutually exclusive. For Research, vote by ranked list for: A - The Small Craft Investigation Committee B - The Venera Initiative C - The Mining Plan D - The RAD Initiative Next, the Socialist Aid Program. Vote by ranked list: A - Continue the program. B - Gradually step the program down over the next year. C - End the program. Now, on to individual resolutions! I ride bikes all day posted:Instead of trying to find loopholes in this foolish legislation, let's just repeal JR-20. Antilles posted:Nah, was a bit surprised but as mentioned as long as we maintain some kind of fighting force it's sufficiently close to my intentions that it's fine. In any case, here, have some medal suggestions (open to revisions on the text, I'm no author): A-25 will formalize a series of medals to be awarded automatically to individuals who serve the Comintern for extended periods of time, as well as a medal to be awarded by vote at the legislature's discretion. Kodos666 posted:Did anybody noticed, how we are still using bourgeois ranks? K-26, Adoption of a Revolutionary Rank Structure, will update our rank structure. It will not add any additional ranks but will change the existing ones. Foxfire_ posted:I thought you were doing this on purpose; it's the most efficient way to do the conversions. F-27, Drunken Industrial Bear, proposes that we reallocate some of our industrial capacity to converting industry to TN mines, and bounce back and forth between heavy industry construction and mine construction as necessary. F-28, Research Optimization Cleanup, reshuffles our scientists to take better advantages of their bonuses. F-29 proposes another medal to be awarded after ten years of service to the Comintern. Because there's nothing at all stopping you from awarding multiple medals for the same thing, this is not mutually exclusive with the other medal proposal. LostCosmonaut posted:Also, do we have low-gravity infrastructure researched yet? If we do, I'd like to formally propose that we set aside a bit of industry to produce ~1,000 units at a low rate (maybe 5% of our production capacity) in case we find an asteroid worth colonizing (or if we want to colonies Ceres or one of the larger rocks for RP purposes). L-30 proposes that we dedicate 5% of our available production capacity to producing a run of 1000 Low-Gravity Infrastructure, which is life-support infrastructure to be used on bodies with very low (sub-Lunar) surface gravity, such as asteroids. 1000 will be enough to support several million inhabitants on most asteroids, exact number depending on local conditions. idhrendur posted:The People's Republic of California proposes the Computer Science Network (CSNET). Computer Science departments throughout the Comintern will receive funding or authorization as needed to connect to the existing ARPANET. All existing ARPANET nodes will be simultaneously upgraded to use the TCP/IP protocol to ease the expansion of the network. I ride bikes all day posted:I fear our piecemeal approach to legislature in general will continue to generate these unexpected hurdles. I submit that we should return to the practice of long term plans to guide our annual sessions. The 5 and 10 year plans have served many member states well in the past, I see no reason they shouldn't continue to do so. HereticMIND posted:The Delmarva Commonality suggests the following: H-32 proposes that efforts to establish a permanent human presence on Mars be fast-tracked if TNEs are discovered there; this will mean a small amount of Infrastructure will be produced immediately and an outpost will be established as soon as possible if the surveys come up positive. Your proposal for Socialist Aid Program downscaling is being put to a vote, it's just on a list instead of as a separate resolution. Mars and Venus will be the second and third bodies surveyed after the Moon, so there is no reason to vote on surveying them. There are no known existing sources of neutronium or any other TNEs except Earth itself. North America is already a prioritized region for industrial development per previous legislation. NewMars posted:In dealing with the current shortage of neutronium, the UAWR proposes two new initiatives: N-34, the Public Broadcasting Service, will create a global network of public-access, low-barrier-to-entry television stations. The only immediate gameplay effect is that we'll allocate some of our resources to build a Deep Space Tracking Station and relocate it to Luna in order to supply the necessary equipment for near-realtime high-bandwidth communication between Earth and the Moon, to facilitate TV broadcasts. Any other effects this has will take time. Asterite34 posted:The Democratic Republic of Minnesota puts forward that the Socialist Aid Program, while enormously successful, has not yet reached its full potential or accomplished its stated goals of offering support to those hardest hit by humanitarian crises. The Trans-Newtonian Revolution has opened up new avenues for infrastructure relief and we've yet to test its full potential. The dwindling of Neutronium is worrying, however. Rhjamiz posted:I agree with those who have suggested the Moon, Mars, and Asteroidal Bodies be the top priorities for surveys, with an eye on Neutronium deposits. I also propose we begin upgrading Mining facilities with TNE technology, prioritizing those with access to Neutronium. It's time our ability to mine such materials match our ability to process it. Servetus posted:The capacities of our new sensor systems astound, and offer the opportunity for us to quicken the end of the continuing conflicts. While some of the Fascist groups causing this terror hide amongst the populace others hide in the wilderness. Sensors that can resolve an oar powered that sunk two thousand years ago could easily resolve a fascist base or convoys. We could then pass information to friendly governments and autonomous zones. Or, if the situation truly demanded it, we could do a weapons test. I therefore call for the Friendly Eyes in Space To Extinguish Reactionaries: We should find a way to provide sensor coverage of known fascist redoubts outside of urban areas, and maintain surveilance on them. This could involve satellites, the Small Fry design, or any other method of maintaining surveillance using our new tech. Antilles posted:Ah gently caress it then, I'll go with the numbers my gut-feeling gave me, since there's a baked in 'review after 15 years' clause. A-37 is an amendment to Y-23, the Constructed Language Exploratory Committee, which clarifies the project's goal to be specifically developing a common language for space operations rather than for the Comintern as a whole. ----------------------------------------- Finally we've got military doctrine discussion! I'm not putting any of these to a vote because you don't actually have the capability to build armed ships of any kind right now (technically you could build missile-armed ships but no active sensors with which to spot targets, nor any fire control system to actually launch the missiles), so it's a bit premature. I'm still posting it here because it's important and you should be thinking about it, it's just not something that can be practically implemented now. Be thinking about how you want to build a future fleet and feel free to ask about what sort of technology and construction we'd need to plan to get there. Sanev.Khan posted:We definitely shouldn't stop helping people because it's inconvenient or not in the news cycle anymore, we're not capitalists. Rhjamiz posted:I agree with those who have suggested the Moon, Mars, and Asteroidal Bodies be the top priorities for surveys, with an eye on Neutronium deposits. I also propose we begin upgrading Mining facilities with TNE technology, prioritizing those with access to Neutronium. It's time our ability to mine such materials match our ability to process it. Kodos666 posted:I propose the Naval Deep Battle doctrine ---------------------------- IN SUMMARY Alright, we've got three ranked list votes and a whopping 14 individual resolutions to vote on. I think 15 in one session is the threshold for when I'm going to start requiring proposals to be seconded, just to keep the number of votes per session reasonable. Prefixes: Vote A, B, C, D, E, F, G by ranked list Research: Vote A, B, C, D by ranked list Socialist Aid Program: Vote A, B, C by ranked list I-24, Repeal the No First Strike Doctrine: Vote Yes or No A-25, Service Medals: Vote Yes or No K-26, Adoption of a Revolutionary Rank Structure: Vote Yes or No F-27, Drunken Industrial Bear: Vote Yes or No F-28, Research Optimization Cleanup: Vote Yes or No. F-29, A Ten-Year Service Medal: Vote Yes or No L-30, Low-Gravity Infrastructure: Vote Yes or No I-31, Five-Year Plans: Vote Yes or No H-32, The Mars Program: Vote Yes or No N-33, the TNE Reuse, Reduce, and Recycling Act: Vote Yes or No N-34, the Public Broadcasting Service: Vote Yes or No S-35, FESTER: Vote Yes or No A-36, Space Autonomy Model: Vote Yes or No A-37, A Common Language for Space: Vote Yes or No Voting will remain open for approximately 48 hours!
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2020 07:09
|
|
|
Prefixes: E, D, C, F, G, A, B Research: C, D, B, A Socialist Aid Program: A, B, C I-24, Repeal the No First Strike Doctrine: No A-25, Service Medals: Yes K-26, Adoption of a Revolutionary Rank Structure: Yes F-27, Drunken Industrial Bear: No F-28, Research Optimization Cleanup: Yes F-29, A Ten-Year Service Medal: No L-30, Low-Gravity Infrastructure: No I-31, Five-Year Plans: Yes H-32, The Mars Program: Yes N-33, the TNE Reuse, Reduce, and Recycling Act: Yes N-34, the Public Broadcasting Service: Yes S-35, FESTER: No A-36, Space Autonomy Model: Yes A-37, A Common Language for Space: Yes
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2020 07:21
|
|
|
Ship Names: DEACBGF Research: CADB Socialist Aid Program: BCA I-24, Repeal the No First Strike Doctrine: Yes A-25, Service Medals: Yes K-26, Adoption of a Revolutionary Rank Structure: Yes F-27, Drunken Industrial Bear: Yes F-28, Research Optimization Cleanup: Yes F-29, A Ten-Year Service Medal: Yes L-30, Low-Gravity Infrastructure: No I-31, Five-Year Plans: Yes H-32, The Mars Program: Yes N-33, the TNE Reuse, Reduce, and Recycling Act: No N-34, the Public Broadcasting Service: Yes S-35, FESTER: Yes A-36, Space Autonomy Model: Yes A-37, A Common Language for Space: Yes
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2020 07:24
|
|
|
Prefixes: E D F G C B A Research: C D B A Socialist Aid Program: A B C I-24, Repeal the No First Strike Doctrine: NO A-25, Service Medals: YES K-26, Adoption of a Revolutionary Rank Structure: YES F-27, Drunken Industrial Bear: YES F-28, Research Optimization Cleanup: YES F-29, A Ten-Year Service Medal: NO L-30, Low-Gravity Infrastructure: NO I-31, Five-Year Plans: YES H-32, The Mars Program: YES N-33, the TNE Reuse, Reduce, and Recycling Act: YES N-34, the Public Broadcasting Service: YES S-35, FESTER: NO A-36, Space Autonomy Model: NO A-37, A Common Language for Space: YES
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2020 07:24
|
|
|
Prefixes: D, A, B, E, F, G, C Research: C, D, A, B SAP: A, B, C I-24: Yes A-25, Service Medals: Yes K-26, Adoption of a Revolutionary Rank Structure: Yes F-27, Drunken Industrial Bear: Yes F-28, Research Optimization Cleanup: Yes F-29, A Ten-Year Service Medal: Yes L-30, Low-Gravity Infrastructure: No I-31, Five-Year Plans: Yes H-32, The Mars Program: No N-33, the TNE Reuse, Reduce, and Recycling Act: Yes N-34, the Public Broadcasting Service: Yes S-35, FESTER: Yes A-36, Space Autonomy Model: Yes A-37, A Common Language for Space: Yes With the amount of participation we already have, I would also vote that it’s safe to require proposals to be seconded. We can revisit this if no one seconds my proposals, of course.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2020 07:35
|
|
|
Prefixes: E, D, C, G, F, B, A Research: C, A, D, B Socialist Aid Program: A, B, C I-24, Repeal the No First Strike Doctrine: No A-25, Service Medals: Yes K-26, Adoption of a Revolutionary Rank Structure: Yes F-27, Drunken Industrial Bear: Yes F-28, Research Optimization Cleanup: Yes F-29, A Ten-Year Service Medal: No L-30, Low-Gravity Infrastructure: Yes I-31, Five-Year Plans: Yes H-32, The Mars Program: Yes N-33, the TNE Reuse, Reduce, and Recycling Act: Yes N-34, the Public Broadcasting Service: Yes S-35, FESTER: Yes A-36, Space Autonomy Model: Yes A-37, A Common Language for Space: Yes
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2020 07:37
|
|
|
Prefixes: E G F D B C A Research: C D B A Socialist Aid Program: A B C I-24, Repeal the No First Strike Doctrine: NO A-25, Service Medals: YES K-26, Adoption of a Revolutionary Rank Structure: YES F-27, Drunken Industrial Bear: YES F-28, Research Optimization Cleanup: YES F-29, A Ten-Year Service Medal: YES L-30, Low-Gravity Infrastructure: YES I-31, Five-Year Plans: YES H-32, The Mars Program: NO N-33, the TNE Reuse, Reduce, and Recycling Act: YES N-34, the Public Broadcasting Service: YES S-35, FESTER: YES A-36, Space Autonomy Model: YES A-37, A Common Language for Space: YES
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2020 08:26
|
|
|
Prefixes: D, E, F, G, A B, C Research: C, D, A, B Socialist Aid Program: A, B, C I-24, Repeal the No First Strike Doctrine: Abstain A-25, Service Medals: Yes K-26, Adoption of a Revolutionary Rank Structure: Yes F-27, Drunken Industrial Bear: Yes F-28, Research Optimization Cleanup: Yes F-29, A Ten-Year Service Medal: Yes L-30, Low-Gravity Infrastructure: No, let's postpone this I-31, Five-Year Plans: No H-32, The Mars Program: Yes N-33, the TNE Reuse, Reduce, and Recycling Act: No N-34, the Public Broadcasting Service: Yes S-35, FESTER: No A-36, Space Autonomy Model: Yes A-37, A Common Language for Space: Yes
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2020 08:38
|
|
|
the UAWR votes as following: Prefixes: C, D, E, F, B, A, G Research: DCBA Socialist Aid Program: ABC I-24, Repeal the No First Strike Doctrine: No. A-25, Service Medals: Yes K-26, Adoption of a Revolutionary Rank Structure: Abstain. F-27, Drunken Industrial Bear: Abstain F-28, Research Optimization Cleanup: Yes F-29, A Ten-Year Service Medal: No. L-30, Low-Gravity Infrastructure: No. I-31, Five-Year Plans: No. H-32, The Mars Program: Yes N-33, the TNE Reuse, Reduce, and Recycling Act: Yes N-34, the Public Broadcasting Service: Yes S-35, FESTER: No A-36, Space Autonomy Model: Yes A-37, A Common Language for Space: Yes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2020 08:57
|
|
|
The Kalmar Union votes as follows: Prefixes: E, D, F, C, A, B, G Research: D, B, C, A Socialist Aid Program: A, B, C I-24, Repeal the No First Strike Doctrine: No, since the objection seems to be primarily against the limit on warships (which we can't even build yet...) but this would also take away the civilian focus just a year after adopting it, which we feel is a bad look. Would recommend 1st waiting for the tech to mature, then 2nd to push through specific allowances/loopholes for the kinds of ships you feel are needed. A-25, Service Medals: Yes K-26, Adoption of a Revolutionary Rank Structure: Yes F-27, Drunken Industrial Bear: Yes F-28, Research Optimization Cleanup: Yes F-29, A Ten-Year Service Medal: No L-30, Low-Gravity Infrastructure: Yes I-31, Five-Year Plans: No, the situation is currently too volatile, we need to be able to respond to shifting priorities as soon as they crop up H-32, The Mars Program: Yes, securing adequate TNE stocks is of vital importance N-33, the TNE Reuse, Reduce, and Recycling Act: Yes N-34, the Public Broadcasting Service: Yes S-35, FESTER: Yes A-36, Space Autonomy Model: Yes A-37, A Common Language for Space: Yes
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2020 09:24
|
|
|
Prefixes: F, G, B C D E Research: B, C, D A Socialist Aid Program: A, B, C I-24, Repeal the No First Strike Doctrine: No A-25, Service Medals: Yes K-26, Adoption of a Revolutionary Rank Structure: Yes F-27, Drunken Industrial Bear: Yes F-28, Research Optimization Cleanup: Yes F-29, A Ten-Year Service Medal: Yes L-30, Low-Gravity Infrastructure: Yes I-31, Five-Year Plans: No, the situation is currently too volatile, we need to be able to respond to shifting priorities as soon as they crop up H-32, The Mars Program: Yes, securing adequate TNE stocks is of vital importance N-33, the TNE Reuse, Reduce, and Recycling Act: Yes N-34, the Public Broadcasting Service: Yes S-35, FESTER: Yes A-36, Space Autonomy Model: Yes A-37, A Common Language for Space: Yes
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2020 10:06
|
|
|
Prefixes: Vote G, the revolution never ends, not even in space! Research: Vote B, D, C Socialist Aid Program: Vote A I-24, Repeal the No First Strike Doctrine: Yes, if we discover capitalism in space, we must be ever ready to destroy it! A-25, Service Medals: Vote Yes K-26, Adoption of a Revolutionary Rank Structure: Vote Yes F-27, Drunken Industrial Bear: Vote Yes F-28, Research Optimization Cleanup: Vote Yes F-29, A Ten-Year Service Medal: Vote Yes L-30, Low-Gravity Infrastructure: Vote No, I see little reason to settle tiny rocks in space. Anything not small enough to be categorized as, at least, a moon, should be ignored in terms of space settlement. I-31, Five-Year Plans: Vote Yes H-32, The Mars Program: Vote Yes N-33, the TNE Reuse, Reduce, and Recycling Act: Vote Yes, when you waste resources, you're producing alongside Senator "The Devil Himself" McCarthy, or, uh, something. Waste bad, also capitalist excess. N-34, the Public Broadcasting Service: Vote Yes, information wants to be free! S-35, FESTER: Vote Yes A-36, Space Autonomy Model: Vote Yes A-37, A Common Language for Space: Vote Yes
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2020 10:31
|
|
|
The Meanjin Commune votes as follows: Prefixes: E, D, G, F, B, A, C Research: No Preference Socialist Aid Program: A, B, C I-24, Repeal the No First Strike Doctrine: No A-25, Service Medals: Yes K-26, Adoption of a Revolutionary Rank Structure: Yes F-27, Drunken Industrial Bear: Yes F-28, Research Optimization Cleanup: Yes F-29, A Ten-Year Service Medal: Yes L-30, Low-Gravity Infrastructure: Yes I-31, Five-Year Plans: No H-32, The Mars Program: No N-33, the TNE Reuse, Reduce, and Recycling Act: No N-34, the Public Broadcasting Service: Yes S-35, FESTER: No A-36, Space Autonomy Model: Yes A-37, A Common Language for Space: No
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2020 11:22
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:Prefixes: E D F G C B A good enough for me
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2020 14:28
|
|
|
Prefixes: A, E, F, D, G, C, B Research: C, D Socialist Aid Program: A I-24, Repeal the No First Strike Doctrine: Yes A-25, Service Medals: Yes K-26, Adoption of a Revolutionary Rank Structure: No, it looks more 'Russian' than 'Revolutionnary'. For a truly revolutionnary rank structures, maybe we should do away with ranks entirely, make everyone an equal Rank 1 of captain and have military issues settled by either votes or discussions, or by the civilian government itself. Unfortunately, that'd break the game, which makes me sad. F-27, Drunken Industrial Bear: Yes F-28, Research Optimization Cleanup: Yes F-29, A Ten-Year Service Medal: Yes L-30, Low-Gravity Infrastructure: No, we shouldn't rush off to colonize everything in sight, hell maybe we should've put off colonizing the Moon for now. There's not much benefit and we'll have to deal with all sort of legalese and colonialism/imperialism arguments, that's not fun. Even if they have minerals, we're not even close to having exploited Earth's or having 'real' shortages, we definitely can and should turtle for a while more. I-31, Five-Year Plans: No H-32, The Mars Program: No, essentially the same reasoning as the LG infrastructure line. N-33, the TNE Reuse, Reduce, and Recycling Act: Yes N-34, the Public Broadcasting Service: Yes S-35, FESTER: Yes A-36, Space Autonomy Model: No A-37, A Common Language for Space: No, it should be for the Comintern as a whole, not an opposition to developing the language itself. Mister Bates posted:Finally we've got military doctrine discussion! I'm not putting any of these to a vote because you don't actually have the capability to build armed ships of any kind right now (technically you could build missile-armed ships but no active sensors with which to spot targets, nor any fire control system to actually launch the missiles), so it's a bit premature. I'm still posting it here because it's important and you should be thinking about it, it's just not something that can be practically implemented now. Be thinking about how you want to build a future fleet and feel free to ask about what sort of technology and construction we'd need to plan to get there. As I mentioned I usually go for big missile ships, and yeah, this is definitely not a "soon" thing, especially with a conventional start. We'd need to develop good active AND passive sensors because missiles have a long range and not exploiting that would be stupid, the various missile techs (agility, launchers, magazines, etc), fuel efficiency for the engines to give the missiles themselves more range, the maximum power engine modifier again so the missiles themselves have a higher speed and hit chance rather than researching it for ships, armour, decide on a point-defense system (gauss? railguns? missiles again?), if we want shields or not... And of course, we'll need ordnance factories to build all these missiles. Missiles are just fantastic, I think. Especially when launched from thick, solid ships. You don't have to get too close to the enemy, retreating is easier, missile volleys can do a buttload of damage, the fancier ones can carry sensors to retarget on their own, since you don't have to dictate range too much you can afford smaller engines and even more missiles, and I can't be the only one who thinks tossing hundreds of bus-sized ten tons metal rods tipped with nuclear warheads at relativistic speeds is cool as hell, right? You do however need to produce and disseminate them to your ships, but that's not much worse than regular maintenance stuff. Even if we're on 100% research speed, that's still much more of a five year plan than a yearly thing. It'd be fine to put that off for a few "turns", especially if in the meantime we work in the basics that apply to all things and ships, like fuel efficiency or armour (which I'll remind you, is mandatory on all ships including civilians, so researching better armour means leaving more tonnage to other things as the armour itself offers the same protection but masses less). Now with our tech level if we really want to get into fighty spaceships right now (which I think is as good an idea as banning proper warships when we know there's already been at least one space war), I'd suggest railgun-armed patrol crafts as a temporary thing and to figure out in-character how would trans-newtonian space combat play out and appease the warmongers. Those I propose below are YR-20 compliant I believe? I also think for now our technology isn't up to making fighters worth it due to the 500 tons maximum size. Where we're at right now, railguns would be very good for us. They'd shoot four times per attack, to compensate for our terrible fire control tech, and though each round would only do one point of damage, well if we miss with 3/4th, that's still more damage than the one laser that misses, right? Plus the multiple shots per volley would help in case some of those aliens with missiles are still around, we'd get four chances to shoot down a missile per combat action rather than one! That would get us advanced in point defence no matter what fleet doctrine we decide on. We're already researching the 10cm railgun, and that's good. We should thus research the second tech of it, Railgun Launch Velocity afterwards. (1000RP) We're also already researching the Active Grav Sensor Strength 10, which we need to design a search sensor, once again very good. The last thing we'd need would be Capacitor Recharge Rate 3 (4000 RP cost), that would allow our ships to shoot every 5 seconds rater than every 10. After that, we'd have everything needed for a basic railgun combatant. Then I think we have to decide if we want 3000 tons ships, or smaller 1000 tons ships. Obviously, the 3000 tons one could carry more railguns, maybe bigger sensors, more efficient engines, and everything so that one of them could potentially out-do three 1000 tons ship despite massing the same. That would take a shipyard away from building survey ships, but if we go for 1000 tons ships, we could instead build a new shipyard entirely and have a new 1000 tons slipway. Plus, fighters and FACs (1-500 tons and 501-1000 tons ships) do not require a bridge, which saves 50 tons. That said, have ship designs proposals from the Centre d'Analyses Techniques Spatiales (CATS), one of 1000 tons and one of 3000 because I had the time to faff around. code:code:Now here in the important differences between the two (beside sizing and B1 having thrice the guns), A1 doesn't have enough maintenance supplies (MSP) to repair an engine lost to random maintenance problems, that could be solved by taking away some fuel tanks or improving our beam fire control technology a bit. B1 has an armour thickness of 2, passive sensors and slightly longer ranged active sensors that can target smaller ships, plus the shipyard issue I mentioned above. Both would still rely on the Earth's tracking station to find targets. The purpose of these ships would ensuring we're not suckerpunched should another nation or alliance join the Trans-Newtonian club like Hawaii did since we elected to leave the capitalist countries alone, policing space that will soon get crowded especially with those Gladio terrorists about (we really don't need them hijacking and crashing civilian/Hawaiian ships), and in case one of the alien polities stills exist and is still in Sol, show them they can't just drop by and land troops immediately. Too many socialist and communist countries fell because they couldn't defend themselves, and even in the USSR it was a near thing in 1918-1920 when the Allies intervened on the side of the Whites. Oh and depending on story, those ships might be able to shoot down in-atmosphere nukes or bombers, preventing a catastrophic bad end? We might not need them right now, but having the technology and capacity to build them will eventually help us anyway. It's after all a 4X, we can't just focus on the first three and hope nobody brings the fourth to Earth. Mechanically, colonies demand space protection. You can see Luna already request 1 PPV (the unit of protection, provided by individual weapons on ships). It seems in the new Aurora capital worlds don't ask for it anymore? Weird. I think Earth would request 800 by the old 0.4 PPV requested/million pop rule.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2020 16:03
|
|
|
1) Ship Naming G, F, A, B, E, D, C 2) Research Priority B, D, C, A 3) Socialist Aid A, B, C I-24 No - international socialism does not strike first A-25 Yes K-26 Yes F-27 No - I am opposed to the 'flip-flipping', not to responsible expansion of mining under environmentally safe conditions F-28 Yes F-29 Yes L-30 Yes I-31 Yes H-32 Yes N-33 No - this initiative should be under local control N-34 No -this initiative should be under local control S-35 No - reactionary elements will by nature fade away as material conditions improve. A-36 Yes A-37 Yes
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2020 17:02
|
|
|
Voting Prefixes: B, D, E, F, G, C, A Research: C, A, D, B (Although I also like the Railgun plan for ships - it should be faster to get and could allow "unarmed" ships with just CIWS for defence since we know there's aliens with missiles out there) Socialist Aid Program: A, B, C I-24, Repeal the No First Strike Doctrine: Yes A-25, Service Medals: Yes K-26, Adoption of a Revolutionary Rank Structure: Yes F-27, Drunken Industrial Bear: Yes F-28, Research Optimization Cleanup: Yes F-29, A Ten-Year Service Medal: YES L-30, Low-Gravity Infrastructure: Yes I-31, Five-Year Plans: Yes H-32, The Mars Program: Yes N-33, the TNE Reuse, Reduce, and Recycling Act: Yes N-34, the Public Broadcasting Service: Yes S-35, FESTER: Yes A-36, Space Autonomy Model: No A-37, A Common Language for Space: No (but for the Comintern as a whole, yes) Could we rename Financial planning centres to Central planning committees?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2020 20:11
|
|
|
Prefixes: D > E > G > A > B > F > C Research: A > C > B > D Don't care that much about the fighter-specific parts of A (the hangers), as much as just generally getting away from brute forcing things our scientists are bad at researching. Our total research output and long-term development are being crippled by that. Will probably make a proposal specific for that though since A seems unlikely to win. Socialist Aid Program: B > A > C I-24, Repeal the No First Strike Doctrine: No Flip-flopping looks bad, and the letter of it doesn't stop us from actually building anything we'd want to build in the next 5-10 years anyway. A-25, Service Medals: Yes K-26, Adoption of a Revolutionary Rank Structure: No The spacey ranks are fine, but the ground ones are very idiosyncratically Russian specifically. Like 'Polkovnik' is essentially just a Slavic area translation of colonel. All the 'Komander, Unit Size' ranks are fallout from how the Red Army regrew ranks after their initial no-ranks attempt was unworkable ("Everyone in our brigade is technically a Red Army Man, but Dmitri is actually our commander"). The USSR is already a dominant power in the Comintern, we shouldn't emphasize them more F-27, Drunken Industrial Bear: Yes F-28, Research Optimization Cleanup: Yes F-29, A Ten-Year Service Medal: Yes L-30, Low-Gravity Infrastructure: No (especially if mining research programs wins and we're spending the next 5-10 years developing orbital asteroid mining) I-31, Five-Year Plans: No. None of our past ones have had explicit timelines, they've all been for however long the proposed projects last. If we want longer, just propose longer projects. H-32, The Mars Program: Yes N-33, the TNE Reuse, Reduce, and Recycling Act: No N-34, the Public Broadcasting Service: No. Building a DSTS is a 15-factory conversion sized project, it's not small. S-35, FESTER: Yes A-36, Space Autonomy Model: Yes. If we've got a single-purpose MOSA base with people rotating through, fine for that to be directly administered even if there's a big population A-37, A Common Language for Space: Yes Sanev.Khan posted:Railguns e: Forgot that base-level BFC is free. So we could do that, but improving them will be hard till a scientist gets better Foxfire_ fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Nov 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2020 20:30
|
|
|
Prefixes: E - G - D - A - B - C - F Research: C - B - D - A Socialist aid: A - B - C I -24: No A-25: Yes K-26: Yes F-27: Yes F-28: Yes F-29: Yes L-30: No I-31: Yes H-32: No N-33: Yes N-34: Yes S-35: Yes A-36: No A-37: No
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2020 20:36
|
|
|
Prefixes: D, E, F, G, A, B, C Research: A, C, D, B Socialist Aid Program: A, B, C I-24, Repeal the No First Strike Doctrine: No A-25, Service Medals: Yes K-26, Adoption of a Revolutionary Rank Structure: Yes F-27, Drunken Industrial Bear: Yes F-28, Research Optimization Cleanup: Yes F-29, A Ten-Year Service Medal: No L-30, Low-Gravity Infrastructure: Yes I-31, Five-Year Plans: Yes H-32, The Mars Program: Yes N-33, the TNE Reuse, Reduce, and Recycling Act: Yes N-34, the Public Broadcasting Service: Yes S-35, FESTER: No A-36, Space Autonomy Model: Abstain A-37, A Common Language for Space: Abstain I ride bikes all day posted:With the amount of participation we already have, I would also vote that it’s safe to require proposals to be seconded. I'd also like to second this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2020 20:45
|
|
|
I kinda blew through this and am glad to have caught up on the voting. As the very late reprehensive for the reclusive coalition of reclusive recluses, I'll submit the following votes. Prefixes: DEBACFG Research: AEDB Aid Program:ABC I-24: No A-25: Yes K-26: Yes F-27: Yes F-27: Yes F-29: No L-30: Yes I-31: No H-32: No N-33: Yes N-34: Yes S-35: No A-36: Yes A-37: Yes While the reclusive coalition of reclusive recluses does have reasonings behind all of these votes, it feels as though the publishing of these reasons is best reserved for less monumental voting years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2020 22:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 00:52 |
|
|
Prefixes: AFEBCDG Research: ACBD Aid Program: ABC I-24: No A-25: Yes K-26: Abstain F-27: Yes F-28: Yes F-29: No L-30: No I-31: Yes H-32: Yes N-33: Yes N-34: Yes S-35: Yes A-36: Yes A-37: No
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2020 22:56
|
|