Director of Social Engineering Debate Thread: Term III

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Archaic


But like I and others have been saying, if it's properly co-ordinated that we're planting more than 1 base on the same turn, then it's a very worthwhile option.

If you can plan our production so that we can build several bases in the same turn without letting some pods wait, chapeau!

If you are planning to delay foundation of bases, now that would be a greater waste than the ten free minerals we would get by waiting.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak


Still cant find that in this thread before you posted it as a quote. Your RP issues are kinda confusing, moreover I cant really see whats the RP link with whats above and the boring formulas about B-drones...

I've re-posted my entire original post from where I took my own quote below, with the emphasis on the section added. See it now oh unobservant one?

I never linked it to the B-Drone issue, though if I wanted to, I could've made comment about how both refer to issues dealing with the PK bureaucracy, though in 2 completly seperate and barely related at best ways.

And if how I've stated the RP issue is confusing, then would you like to clarify how it's confusing? No one else but you seems to have a problem understanding it.

Originally posted by Archaic

quote:

Originally posted by AdamTG02
Not to get sidetracked . . .

I don't have hard and fast preferences for society effects, but probably the top three in my mind are Research, Economy, and Efficiency. However, I'm more concerned with factors such as the speed of research (which is helped by all three of these) than our specific Social Engineering rating.




Agreed. This is actually why I didn't list Research as my main priority. Because in my experience, Research is better served by Cash Flow than by actual Research Bonuses.
Of course, if Cybernetic's an option at the time, of course I'm going to leap at that for it's stack of round-the-board bonuses.

quote:

Originally posted by AdamTG02
What I'll consider when making recommendations are the effects of changing to any given social type -- quicker research, quicker expansion, easier Golden Age, Population Boom in CC bases, Paradigm Economy, et cetera.



Agreed. Though a lot of these benifits often come hand in hand one must realise. And I've often found Paradigm Economy to be overrated. Same with GA's, but then, they're much easier to achieve with PK's, so they might be worth something here, depending on how they're brought about.

quote:

Originally posted by AdamTG02
In addition to game effects, I'll consider RP effects -- the social consequences of changing the society. For this reason, I won't consider switching out of Democracy for a turn or three to get 10 free minerals in new bases. It doesn't radically inconvenience us to make garrisons beforehand, but cancelling Democracy for short-term gain isn't something I would want to permit, RP-wise.



Think of it as a temp. suspension of elections while the bureaucracy and government are restructured to give fair and just representation of the citizens in the new colonies.

quote:

Originally posted by AdamTG02
The caveat to that is that Democracy entails following the people's will, even when that will is to cancel the Democracy. So if we had a popular vote to go Frontier or Fundamentalist, I would support and implement that vote, while working to build support to return to Democracy. However, in no situation would I personally support a departure from a Democratic government.




I would in no situation personally support a permanent departure from a Democratic government. Only a temp. switch for a certain necessary goal, with a specific time limit on it.

quote:

Originally posted by AdamTG02
Switching from one social model to another for a brief period is costly (32 credits each way), and it's unlikely that we would be able to fit all of our growth, or SP completion, onto a single term. I'd rather stay Planned, and be able to consistantly plan for Industry and Growth bonuses, or stay Free Market, and get a consistant bonus to cashflow which allows us to rush buy, compensationg for Industry bonuses.

In any case, if a switch is called for by a good number of citizens, I will poll it.



Quick switching requires some micromanagement, and so I'll need to co-ordinate my actions with those who decide worker placement and production so this can be managed, but it can be done. As for the cost......that's what FM helps us with. We'd have more than enough Credits to go around.


quote:

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Unless you have some policies that people don't like, but some that they do. People vote for you because they want you in office more than anyone else, but that doesn't mean they should accept your every decision without question.



I never said they had to. If they don't like the way I've done things, then they vote me out next time. Elections are supposed to be about selecting the person who can do the best possible job. If their job is reduced to just posting polls and they're not allowed to further the policies they promised when they got elected, then the decision of who fulfills the roles may as well be arbitary.

Originally posted by Maniac


If you can plan our production so that we can build several bases in the same turn without letting some pods wait, chapeau!

If you are planning to delay foundation of bases, now that would be a greater waste than the ten free minerals we would get by waiting.

I could plan it, but it'd require some heavy co-ordination between our two directorates, and you'd basically have to take orders from me for a term. Still, it could be done. I don't mind a little micromanagement.

Now, delaying the founding of bases, now that would be a waste, yes. But a greater waste? That remains to be seen. Remember the standard sort of arguement I use for FM Vs. Paradigm Economy. While you might have no wastage in the Paradigm, in the FM you have so much production that even with wastage, you're still earning more credits (And therefore researching more, and able to produce more through rushing) than in the Paradigm Economy.
It's the same sort of situation here. The benifits of having the bonus minerals preclude the minuses of not having a few size 1 bases for a couple of turns.

Of course.....there's always the option of staying out of Demo for longer if we can set things in motion to build a series of bases in succession over a number of turns. Still fits in with my earlier RP justification, and takes less co-ordination on our parts. That more acceptable?

[AdamTG02]

However...10 minerals won't cost 20 credits if you're doing it straight away. I'll pull my tables out when I get back home, but if we rushed at 10 minerals, it'd be pretty significant depending on what exactly we were building.

10 minerals costs 20 energy credits when you only have the 10 minerals left. I don't know the exact formula, but that's been my experience. Why calculate from the amount it would take you to rush buy ten minarals straight off -- which is, I admit, astronomically larger -- when the effect is the same as if you had waited until all but 10 minerals were spent, and rush bought those ten?

You might be right and it might be around 20, however.......if it's a choice of paying 64 now, or waiting and wasting production time to pay 20 later, I know which I'd choose.

I'm not following you here, I'm afraid . . . why would you rather pay 64 credits now than 20 later? You end up producing the same turn anyway, and you end up 44 energy credits richer which can go toward other rush buys or facilities maintenance.

If you mean that you would want to rush buy a Scout Patrol, why not produce the scout first just before the colony pod? All you lose is ten, maybe fifteen minerals, depending on how many turns it takes to get the scout to the base site. I'd rather have 64 energy credits -- that's almost half of the principal on a 300-credit loan to Morgan which would pay New Apoylton's Tree Farm costs for a century, allowing us to up the research rate securely.

Now, it's arguable that if we micromanaged enough and timed things just right, we could use this trick to our advantage . . . but I don't think voter decisions in a Democracy Game will conform to such rigid formulas. How are you going to get Base Production and Terraforming and Colonization polls, as well as Social Engineering polls, to ratify the kind of interdepartmental micromanaging you're proposing to do? It kills spontaneity.

[Edited for clarity]

[Archaic]

Originally posted by AdamTG02
10 minerals costs 20 energy credits when you only have the 10 minerals left. I don't know the exact formula, but that's been my experience. Why calculate from the amount it would take you to rush buy ten minarals straight off -- which is, I admit, astronomically larger -- when the effect is the same as if you had waited until all but 10 minerals were spent, and rush bought those ten?

Hmmmmm.....I thought I'd cut that bit out before I posted. Oh well. Anyway, you're correct here, wait until all but 10 minerals are spent.

Originally posted by AdamTG02
I'm not following you here, I'm afraid . . . why would you rather pay 64 credits now than 20 later? You end up producing the same turn anyway, and you end up 44 energy credits richer which can go toward other rush buys or facilities maintenance.

The 64 credits for the 2 SE changes. That gives us 10 free minerals at all the bases we plant during that period. It's a saving on the scale on which it would be done. I wouldn't want to do it for just a single base.

Originally posted by AdamTG02
If you mean that you would want to rush buy a Scout Patrol, why not produce the scout first just before the colony pod? All you lose is ten, maybe fifteen minerals, depending on how many turns it takes to get the scout to the base site. I'd choose that over 64 energy credits any day.

Sorry, should've explained myself better, but you can see now that's not what I meant.

Originally posted by AdamTG02
Now, it's arguable that if we micromanaged enough and timed things just right, we could use this trick to our advantage . . . but I don't think voter decisions in a Democracy Game will conform to such rigid formulas. How are you going to get Base Production and Terraforming and Colonization polls, as well as Social Engineering polls, to ratify the kind of interdepartmental micromanaging you're proposing to do? It kills spontaneity.

Simple. You don't get them to vote for each time we pull the trick, or for setting production up to allow it. You just get them to vote for a joint BP, TC, SE poll on the plan, then fix the production for those bases within that plan, unable to be changed by poll unless something out of the ordinary (Invasion?) happens.

[AdamTG02]

Thanks for the clarification.

Simple. You don't get them to vote for each time we pull the trick, or for setting production up to allow it. You just get them to vote for a joint BP, TC, SE poll on the plan, then fix the production for those bases within that plan, unable to be changed by poll unless something out of the ordinary (Invasion?) happens.

I guess this is just a difference of styles . . . I prefer to see every step of a plan polled, so we can be sure of the democratic support for it. I recognize where you're going with the desire to micromanage, but . . . I don't see the gains as worth what would be lost, both in the energy credits for switching and the energy spent among DG members organizing the plan. How much of that creative energy goes into designing a pattern, which then must be protected by supportive directors from amemndment by later poll, simply because they don't know why anyone else would have a better idea?

That's what I'm getting at under the rubric of spontaneity.

[Archaic]

It'd just be voting on the same thing over and over. There's no real point to it.

To that I say........we're the PK's. We're supposed to have an inefficient bureaucracy. We'll manage. We'll form some special project committee or something.
As for energy spent organising the plan.....I'll gladly do it all myself.

And I'll be the first to admit.......if we're not building more than 1 base at a time, for whatever reason (eg. Can't co-ordinate it enough, etc), then there's not much point in the Demo plan. Hell, to be honest, I'd want 3 or more being built on the same turn.

But anyway.....one thing we haven't touched on much here that we really should.......the FM Vs. Planned issue. Your position is?

[AdamTG02]

My consistent position has been to do what the polls decide. As for my personal preferences, I confess that I am thinking about requesting the DEI to pull all explorers back, then going Free Market as soon as we had no Pacifism drones to deal with. This would allow us to reap the benefits of both a vibrant economy and Morgan's friendship.

I don't like the idea of FM long-term . . . when we're hitting the eco-damage caps, I'll likely want to switch to Green. But it fits our situation at this stage of the game, in my opinion.

Anyway, assuming that we're in Democracy and Planned at the start of the next administration, the first poll I will post will be on whether to request a pullback of explorers, and when they are pulled back to go Free Market. I would personally prefer to disband the explorers (aside from a Hardened scout rover which might form the nucleus of a later attack force) in one of our SP cities, but I'd leave that choice up to the DEI and DPKO.

It's my hope that we'd continue exploring in some fashion, but this may be the stage of our society when rather than exploring outward, we need to explore the ways we can turn inward to build our infrastructure and develop our society. With new naval technologies allowing us to trawl the seas for Unity pods, the outward exploration might reestablish itself soon enough.

[Archaic]

Well, you see, that's the thing. We *want* to go over those Eco-damage caps, for the immunizing effects it'll have on Planet. And Green's Growth Penalty isn't something we can deal with at this point. It fails to meet any of our current needs at all.

The scouts should probably be made the escorts for the next batch of new CP's, and become the garrisons of those new bases. No point wasting our earlier production efforts.

[GeneralTacticus]

Adam, Archaic is right. There's nothing wrong with deliberately causing a couple of fungal pops to help Planet adjust to us, and us to it; It will help lessen damage done in the future, when it will be unavoidable, and the only question will be 'how much?'.

[Lemmy]

Anyway, assuming that we're in Democracy and Planned at the start of the next administration, the first poll I will post will be on whether to request a pullback of explorers, and when they are pulled back to go Free Market.

no need for a poll about the explorers (if i'm elected again). I already said that if it is certain that we will switch to FM, i'll pull them back.

[moomin]

According to researchers I heard down the hallway, we can expect two "free" eco damage booms that are expected to do nothing more than "overfungus" squares. After that, each boom will also possibly release mindworms in our midst. Anyway, unless we get those booms, any measure we take to employ eco damage reduction measure will be uneffective, so we should set out to start them immediately.

[GeneralTacticus]

Quite.

[Archaic]

And by the time we get to that stage, we'll have enough formers and trance garrisons they it becomes only a minor annoyance.

[AdamTG02]

no need for a poll about the explorers (if i'm elected again). I already said that if it is certain that we will switch to FM, i'll pull them back.

That's what I meant, and I apologize for the unclearness. First poll will be on whether to switch to FM. We would pull back explorers before any switch. That's why I mentioned the explorers before the switch to FM in my earlier post, but you're right that it was confusing.

There's nothing wrong with deliberately causing a couple of fungal pops to help Planet adjust to us, and us to it;

I still maintain that I'd like to see the first fungal pops done in an atmosphere of necessity. If we're in a heated race with the University for that crucial secret Project, or we're fighting a war against the Spartans or Hive -- then sure. But for normal, run-of-the-mill production, I think we can sacrifice a couple minerals in the name of ecological harmony.

That's an Industry and Energy matter, though. As Director of Social Engineering, my only role would be to switch to Green if the people desire it.

[GeneralTacticus]

Adam: Put it this way: we've got very little experience in how Planet will react to ecodamage, and the situation will remain so until we learn by experience. There's no reason why we shouldn't do so sooner rather than later.