ACE-Apolyton Coaliton for Expansion

[Lemmy]

so, should i run for Minister of Science?

[jdd2007]

i would support you. ACE backs all of its members who run for office.

[Lemmy]

ok, i nominated myself in the nomination thread.

We should start making some plans on what to research and build in the first couple of turns, so it at least seems like we have plan
We're focussing on expansion right?
Then i suggest the first goal to be of build nature, recycling tanks for example, and then focus on getting the Particle Impacter and Rover, actually, the Rover could also be our first goal.
I'll dig in the tech tree some more, search for more usefull techs.

[gopher]

Talk about sucess. Our candidate won Alpha Talent. Congrats Crisler.

[Leland]

Okay, now I think it's time to seriously consider ACE election policy for the second term. At the moment, the nominations of our coalition are:

* * *

Commissioner: Crisler (FF)

Director of Science: Lemmy (SSK)

Director of Peacekeeping Operations: Emvepe (Hawk)

Director of Social Engineering: Vlad Antlerkov (independent)

Director of Foreign Affairs: Mr. President (Capital)

Director of Terraformation and Colonization: -

Director of Base Production: -

Director of Exploration and Intelligence: -

* * *

Now, do you think we should try to have a full roster of candidates ourselves, should we give unanimous support to non-ACE candidate, or perhaps not take any official ACE stand on some directorships? Considering that ACE aims for quick expansion, it would seem that natural seat for us to aim for would be the seat of Director of Base Production (so we could start cranking out colony pods). What do you think?

Our coalition seems to have the least power, so joining our forces and having a clear campaign in favour of our candidates would be very welcome, in my opinion. However, we should remember that ACE is a coalition of parties and not a party in and of itself, so I'm wondering where Vlad Antlerkov stands here? Isn't he technically an independent...?

Anyway, as the acting leader of the Fundamentalist Faction I am hoping to open dialogue between ACE members, so that we may strive against the democracy wussies. Peace through power!

[Crisler]

Gentlemen,

While we where campaigning for the position of Commissioner I was approached by some elements that are more none aligned than they seem. In return for the support of those elements I pledge my support for a couple of candidates outside our coalition.

The election was actually won because of this agreement. As such I must be a man of my word and publically back the positions I promised.

I would aks that ACE consider work these positions with me and then in return we can ask for backing in some other positions.

For Director of Science I have agreed to endorse TKG. He has proven most honorable and his stance against atrocities is very solid, even in the face of his party trying to change his mind.

Director of Terriforming/Colonization, I will be endorsing Maniac. Again while he and I have disagreed, I do like some of the ideas he has put forth.

For the Director of Peacekeeping, I will support Emvepe, this is a pro choice item for us so there should be no dispute on this one :-)

Director of Social Engineering, I am leaning toward Vlad on this hard but want to hear the plans of all three. Unless we suddenly change our plans mid stream Vlad will be the candidate I will be backing.

Directory of Foriegn Affairs I will be supporting Mr. President. He was the first to come forward and openly support the Fundamentalist Faction, so I can do no less for him.

Minister of Base Production, I say we go with Mr. Whatsit. An Independent will bring more variety to our council.

Minister of Exploration/Intelligence is still open for another candidate, I propose that we put one of our own up. Failing that I suggest that we support a member of the CDC. This provides members of the major factions, all holding a position on the cabinet.

Please understand that these choices are mine personally and I do not expect any coalition loyalty to back them. These where done based on making alliances to ensure the victory of the Commissioner position. In no way have I compromised my principles on this since the candidates I did promise to back are people of good character.

E.L. Crisler
First Commissioner

[jdd2007]

who gave you election again? the mob? haha

no seriously, i will take these people into account when i go to the polls.

(that was pretty sneaky though)

[Crisler]

I apologise for the sneaky feel of it. As you can see there was not a huge amount given up :-) Basically it was down to the wire and I saw a clear way to win. It was a judgement call with no time to confer.

E.L. Crisler
First Commissioner

[gopher]

Remember that a strict Party vote or line will hurt us in the long run. A good example of this is the Civ3 Demo game. Negotiating the votes of others in this coalition is NOT a good idea, since I, as one, will vote for the best person in the situation, with some weight given to party status or other things.

However, I understand that negotiating the act of suggesting supporting others is a necessary tool of politics, and thus am not too peeved. Remember that just because a party exists, those members are not automatically obligated to vote in favor of their Party, and such an attitude can lead to disaster. Just ask the GOP about Jeffords.

Gopher, just getting a rant off, and no hard feelings. Again, congrats Crisler.

EDIT: A bit OT, but I love it how much the SE roles are spicing up the politics in this game.

[Sprayber]

Crisler: you mean i voted for someone that supports my opponent. And to think I was considering abandoning my idependent stance for the fundi party. I am glad i found this out now.

[Leland]

Originally posted by gopher
Remember that a strict Party vote or line will hurt us in the long run. A good example of this is the Civ3 Demo game. Negotiating the votes of others in this coalition is NOT a good idea, since I, as one, will vote for the best person in the situation, with some weight given to party status or other things.

Okay, one question: what's the point of having a "coalition" of parties, if the parties themselves don't really have any opinions apart from the individual whims of their participants? Parties have the role-playing dimension at least to justify their existence, but if nobody ever votes in "party line" then I think coalitions like ACE of CDC serve no purpose whatsoever.

The way I see it, the situation is this: each individual joins a party that best matches his ideology. Then Each party may decide certain policies/candidates that are common to the whole party, to which all the members can agree. Then, parties themselves join forces in coalitions and decide upon policies/candidates that represent the whole coalition. At every point of the way there should be an individual choice: whether to vote in party line, or not.

A party does not have to have "official" opinions on every matter or every candidate.

A coalition does not have to have an "official" roster of candidates either.

What I would like to see, however, is some sort of discussion both inside the parties and inside coalitions as to what we agree upon. I already posted questions about in the the Fundamentalist thread (regarding Fundamentalists of course), and now I am asking the member parties of ACE as to what exactly are their "official" party votes. If there are none, that's fine by me, I just prefer to know it in advance.

In the polls, anyone can vote whatever they want of course. But if you're not going to have anything to do with party politics, why join parties in the first place? They're not mandatory the last time I checked.

[Leland]

Oh yes, one more thing... this is the Coalition for Expansion after all, so tell me one reason why the members of the coalition would not want to have someone in the Directorate who can steer the decisions towards expansion, namely the Director of Base Production?

[gopher]

Originally posted by Leland

Okay, one question: what's the point of having a "coalition" of parties, if the parties themselves don't really have any opinions apart from the individual whims of their participants? Parties have the role-playing dimension at least to justify their existence, but if nobody ever votes in "party line" then I think coalitions like ACE of CDC serve no purpose whatsoever.

The situation I am talking about is when the party demands strict adherance to the Party line, which is usually dictated by the leaders or the starters of the party. For instance, a major strength of ACE is the fact that Crisler is Alpha Talent, and that the Fundy party has momentum at this moment.

However, for myself, I would not like Fundy to be our SE choice early on, for the -2 research and the lack of probe tech to steal would really hurt us. However, since we are lead by a Fundy leader and a large strength is the Fundy party, the party line would in most probability be a vote for Fundimentalism for SE.

Would I be obligated to vote for Fundy becuase I am associated with ACE? Would my vote be assumed beforehand by the leadership? The Party line for ACE stems from the fact of Expansion. For other topics, the situation should be internally debated within the party. Coalitions are usually very flexible organizations.

What I would like to see, however, is some sort of discussion both inside the parties and inside coalitions as to what we agree upon. I already posted questions about in the the Fundamentalist thread (regarding Fundamentalists of course), and now I am asking the member parties of ACE as to what exactly are their "official" party votes. If there are none, that's fine by me, I just prefer to know it in advance.

Well, I will start first. I agree that expansion should be our number one priority. Get the rovers out there early, followed by colony pods and formers.
Since this game's power struggles will happen early on, we need to create a very viable early-game strategy. Talk of punishment spheres is entertaining, but it will be months in real time before we reach that stage. Instead, let us concentrate on our first SE choices, base construction, etc.If we falter or look confused, we then loose those crucial early votes and polls, and suddenly the game's style swings differently. and our partys momentum and influence are in shambles.

[Leland]

Apologies if I was a bit untactful... I agree with what you just said. Coalitions (or parties) are not about mindless adherence to single mindset, but rather about finding the common ground and working from there. Whatever we decide should be in consensus between the parties and not dictated by anyone in particular. But it would be good to discuss what exactly are the official policies of our parties, and how our parties may cooperate (this should probably happen in the respective party threads instead of here). If we disagree about something (for example SE choices or atrocities), then those simply are not issues in the coalition and the members may vote what they want.

Well, I will start first. I agree that expansion should be our number one priority. Get the rovers out there early, followed by colony pods and formers.
Since this game's power struggles will happen early on, we need to create a very viable early-game strategy. Talk of punishment spheres is entertaining, but it will be months in real time before we reach that stage. Instead, let us concentrate on our first SE choices, base construction, etc.If we falter or look confused, we then loose those crucial early votes and polls, and suddenly the game's style swings differently. and our partys momentum and influence are in shambles.

I agree with the strategy... I think that this is why it's crucial that we heavily promote an expansionist candidate to be the Director of Base Production, because he'll be the one to ultimately decide whether we can build units we need or not. Any volunteers?

[Lemmy]

Well, I will start first. I agree that expansion should be our number one priority. Get the rovers out there early, followed by colony pods and formers.
Since this game's power struggles will happen early on, we need to create a very viable early-game strategy.

that's what i've been concentrating on the last few days.

Here's what i propose as a research strat
First we go for "Secrets of the Human Brain", that requires two technologies to be discovered, Information Networks, and SeEcrets itself, it also requires Biogenetics, but we get that one for free. But SotHB should only be done if we can be first to reach it.
After SotHB, or if we wont make it first, the next two techs should be Mobility (E1) and Flexibility (E2).
Next in line is Industrial base (B1) to get Synthmetal Armor (D2).
When that's done, we should do a mix between Build and Conquer, depending on our situation in the game.
A possible course of action would be researching Applied Physics (C1) to open up Non-linear Mathemathics (C2) for the Particle Impactor (A4) and High Energy Chemistry (C2) for the Plasma Steel Armor (D3). We don't research them yet, not untill there is a chance we could go to war, or untill someone else got it.

Hmm...maybe i should 've read all of Chrisler's post...

For Director of Science I have agreed to endorse TKG. He has proven most honorable and his stance against atrocities is very solid, even in the face of his party trying to change his mind.

Minister of Exploration/Intelligence is still open for another candidate, I propose that we put one of our own up. Failing that I suggest that we support a member of the CDC. This provides members of the major factions, all holding a position on the cabinet.

Science and Intelligence are two very important factors for the SSK, if we would all support TKG as Director of Science, and me as Director of Explore/Intelligence, we would be more sure to have someone "we" want in those positions.
I don't think i would stand a high chance for Dir. of Science now, with a small coalition, and the Commisioners support already going to TKG.
So, Chrisler, would you support me as Dir. of Explore/Intelligence?