Turn Update

[Rokossovky]

Hey all,

Back after a bit! It looks as though this forum is getting rather... sparse. Well anywho, I really have been lacking in time lately, so I won't be having time to go searching through all of the other threads. If you want my expert opinion (which of course you do ), post anything important in here and I will respond. I think kody is taking the turns now, I trust he will keep us all informed with screens and turn update descriptions and any new relevations here on this thread (plz). Um, googlie, since i don't think anyone else is interested at the time, I can play by e-mail with you? give me 24 hours a turn we can do it. I will PM you the e-mail address to use.

Regarding the drones.... they are experienced players and will not hesitate to take us out if it appear in their best interest, we SHOULD NEVER let our defenses down. Also, we should seriously consider trying doing the same to them. But as for now, is say go for full pact, and split up the research so we can keep up with the loony or they will ownz0r us when we encounter them. Watch their troop movements, and INSIST they keep off our continent. If they move onto it we need to interpret that as a prelude to war.

- Rokossovky

[Rokossovky]

Another post, I am resigning from all of my positions in government other than Marshal (I think that just means PAC... but I can't be sure).

More about the drones. Googlie, I was just reading your post regarding the naming, lol, interesting... though I didn't know naming it actually put any type of claim to it in our name (as they could just build a base there regardless of what it is called). I am hopeful they will want to go with some sort of treaty or pact however, in which case we can demand that one of the terms be that they stay off our continent. We would agree to stay off theirs likewise. What does everything think of this?

- Rokossovky

[Snowflake]

Marshal, would you please look at what Kody has drafted in this post?

[Googlie]

Originally posted by Rokossovky
though I didn't know naming it actually put any type of claim to it in our name (as they could just build a base there regardless of what it is called

Very true - it's analagous to the US planting its flag on the Moon

It doesn't alter the game's mechanincs at all - indeed they can put a base there with impunity - but it does give "bragging rights' so to speak.

But you should consider moving that colony pod further - to the 8:20 tile, and backfilling with your next pod(s), just to establish your absolute right to the Mesa

G.

[Kody]

It should be okay as long as we keep an eye on their foil and have a unit ready to remove the city if they decide to break the terms of the pact or treaty. Sovernity of our own land is something I'm going to be putting in.

Kody

[Rokossovky]

But you should consider moving that colony pod further - to the 8:20 tile, and backfilling with your next pod(s), just to establish your absolute right to the Mesa

I agree, that would be the prudent thing to do. Send it to the south of our scout, right behind it. Use the scout as a block against their scout (should the worst happen), and then as it moves to the southwest, pair that scout up with it. Also, you should move our two rovers to the northern shore to patrol, and move that one scout to the west back to the main area , prefferably to guard just north east of the sunny mesa, by the valley (send it on a looping, but short patrol). Also, see keep exploring that choke point with our southern scout, who knows, we may find some land for the drones afterall (or for ourselves). Also, we need to put serious consideration to upgrading our scout patrol to the light laser infantry I created in the design workshop (oh, what a complex design it was, :P~~). They are just laser infantry I guess (no, I am not going to do calculations), maybe 150 ec's to upgrade? Regardless, it'll more than we have now. Need to start saving our money. Also, we NEED to make doctrine flexibility a priority after PN, as well as synthmetal armour. Hopefully we will be in a pact with the drones and we can get them to research the base upgrades/useless stuff. We will need these techs even if we don't go to war with the drones, as if they do accept pact we will have to go war with someone else right away to help them get land. Right, I've gtg, ttyl later.

HongHu, Re: The conditions. They are good... other than I don't quite think we should go with a voting formula for interfaction decisions. It just needs to be each faction agrees to it using their own governmental structure.

- Rokossovky

(googlie you get my message)?

[Snowflake]

I think we agreed that that voting formula needs to be changed to both faction have to agree.

For the territory right of Suny Mesa, I kind of think Kody was right in saying we can destroy their base if they dare to set up one. Isn't that right?

[Kody]

Personally I think they're just whinging about land.

Googlie from his comments has put alot of thought into the map. I doubt that they'll be seriously disadvantaged by territory. That's why I've been rather liberal with promises. However, I've still been careful that we can fulfil the promises if push comes to shove.

We still got three turns to decide where the colony pod goes. In 4 turns voltigrad grows and well have another colony pod to finally claim the rest of the land. Personally I think that we're better off sticking with the original plan. If they decide to break our treaty or pact it's better they do it now when they're ill equipped to conquor our continent. Also we're going to be losing a large turn advantage moving the colony pod so far out.

Remember that the 2nd scout is required back at voltigrad as there's no units defending that city currently. If they move backwards our rover will arrive in time to destory them if they try anything tricky. I think 1 scout should be enough to escort their scout out if they decide to be peaceful. I agree one rover should head north. The other rover I intend to use for tracking that foil.

Which is to the north anyway. Our reasons are different but the only real difference with unit movement is voltigrad gets its defender back as it's currently empty.

Unless we go to war with the drones, I want to see non-linear mathematics first before making prototype units. 2 attack at this time only useful for defending ourselves, not launching an attack. When we prototype 4 attack weapons 2 attack is automatically prototyped too.

Kody

[Kody]

After that issue was first raised you notice that either faction leader can change the issue to both factions had to agree.

Also people failed to notice that voting formula only applied to joint-faction wars and jointly-ending wars. I was hoping that the hive and drones could have a unified front when dealing with enemies.

Kody

[Snowflake]

Marshal I think you said this is the only thread you'll be checking. But if you could please also check the Drones Negotiation thread because lots of important discussions have been included there.

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by Kody
After that issue was first raised you notice that either faction leader can change the issue to both factions had to agree.

Also people failed to notice that voting formula only applied to joint-faction wars and jointly-ending wars. I was hoping that the hive and drones could have a unified front when dealing with enemies.

Kody

Kody, I have noticed this modification but I still think it is not necessary for the first step. We can not tell Drones how they should make their decision. Plus a joint vote where you need to count who's who (drones vs hives) is kind of difficult to manage. And then the result will be override by the second step. Why go through all the trouble to get something that won't count?

[Kody]

I assumed there are cases that aren't that important and joint voting can be used there. While it means very little in decision in making with the amended pact, I left it in there as joint voting might help unity between the two factions. Maybe that's a silly idea trying to blur the line between our factions a little. The problem is without joint voting we will discuss the issues seperately in our private forums and then go up to the other faction expecting them to think the same way as us. Joint voting would help open dialogue between the factions.

Kody

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by Kody
I assumed there are cases that aren't that important and joint voting can be used there. While it means very little in decision in making with the amended pact, I left it in there as joint voting might help unity between the two factions. Maybe that's a silly idea trying to blur the line between our factions a little. The problem is without joint voting we will discuss the issues seperately in our private forums and then go up to the other faction expecting them to think the same way as us. Joint voting would help open dialogue between the factions.

Kody

I would agree that joint discussion in a bi-faction board is very helpful so that people can see each other's point. But joint voting may not be needed.

[Kody]

Joint voting forces people out of their own forum to write arguments and effect the other team's votes. Joint discussion can result in people just performing a flame war as you're not really trying convince the other faction about anything. Joint discussions with opposing teams can just degrade to people trying to prove themselves right by how loud they are.

Kody

[Snowflake]

Well won't a vote make them want to shout louder? Anyway let's just hope it is not joint discussions with opposing teams, instead it will be peaceful exchange of ideas.