 |
| |
|
|
Kassiopeia
|
 |
Jyväskylä, Finland
Jul 2001
time: 07:21
|
|
quote:
if we first get Democratic, would choose to have only Democratic, even if it slows down our growth? |
I thought Democratic was +2 Growth , +2 Efficiency, -2 Support, and Green was +2 Efficiency, +2 Planet, -2 Growth? Anyways, I'd better check that. Edit: or can -2 Support be considered a hindrance to growth? 
But I'll reply still (maybe you meant Green not Demo) - I'd optimise the situation and use Demo and Green when paired, to keep Growth from going to negative.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lemmy
|
 |
Bubblewrap
Dec 2000
time: 06:21
|
|
quote:
I thought Democratic was +2 Growth , +2 Efficiency, -2 Support, and Green was +2 Efficiency, +2 Planet, -2 Growth? Anyways, I'd better check that. Edit: or can -2 Support be considered a hindrance to growth?
|
oops, thought demo had -2 growth. Because i never choose it at the start for some reason, i assumed it was growth, but it is because of the support, i hate having to pay maintenance for units, and the 10 minerals really help with new bases.
But you answered my intended question anyway 
quote:
Possibly. In some cases the possible benefits from Demo wouldn't yet outweigh the loss of the minerals and of course I'd refrain from choosing it. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Archaic
|
 |
Washed up SMAC/X University Specialist
Nov 2001
time: 15:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Archaic
Greetings fellow citizens of Apolyton. My name is Archaic, and I address you today as the P4 canditate for Director of Social Engineering. By the time I am finished, I hope you have a better understanding of the policies I would push in this position if I were elected.
Unlike my esteemed opponent Kassiopeia, I can sum up my position in but one short word. Adaptability.
I feel our Social Engineering position should best suit our situation, but it should also fit into our ideological perspective. We are not savages, and so we should not act as such. Be us in war or in peace, we should not abandon our ideals.
As such, while I do not support the use of Nerve Stapling, I do however support usage of a single Punishment Sphere in a single Prison Base, where war criminals and other violent, unable to be rehabilitated offenders, would be put to work for the common good in useful tasks. Stationed to watch over them of course would be the bulk of our military power, a power I hope we may never need. Indeed, one would hope that the Punishment Sphere is never needed, and that its mere presence in this single base would deter the prisoners from rash actions. Of course, this is not to say that in extreme circumstances that it would not be used. Certainly dangerous war criminals who violate the UN Charter should be properly incarcerated such that they pay for their crimes.
While I see great benifits both economically and scientifically for our society in a Free Market economy, I also see the value of a Planned economy for brief spurts of growth. Under a Planned economy of course, we must also run under a Democracy, such that the inefficiency caused by this socialist economic model may be overcome. Under a Free Market, I see us as being more flexable. While Democracy is of course preferred, during periods in the first years of our colonies, a Democracy may cost us far too much in support than it gains us in efficiency and population growth. For these periods, a Frontier political model may be more appropriate, and indeed, I see us running under this sort of system for a great length of time.
As for Green Economics, I see a place for these as well in our society. But I do not see them within the next 100 years, within our lifetimes. The issue of Green economics will be debated by later governments, later directors. It is our duty to leave them with a society than can cope with the reduced growth, the reduced production and research through lack of energy, that this economic model will cause. And that is best achieved without putting unnecessary strictures on our economy. Our people will learn to cause less pollution sooner if they cause some pollution first, but if they never cause pollution to begin with, they will be stuck in a technological rut using old and surpassed equipment. In short, we must despoil the environment slightly now such that later we are in a position to be able to restore it to and keep it in pristine condition. If we run a Green economic system before we're ready, we could easily stife our societies development to the point where we're unable to remain its protectors in the future.
On the issue of Fundamentalism, or "Fundy" as it has come to be known, I am wholeheartedly opposed to the idea of any sort of religious theocracy, no matter if it be Catholic, Islamic, or any of the other religions of old earth. However, there are other styles of Fundamentalism that may be appropriate in certain circumstances. Styles based not on religion, but on ideals of philosophy, such as those of Sun-Tzu and Confucious, which I believe would be familiar to many of you. I see a use in these philosophies in our society when it comes time for us to gird ourselves for war. While I would hope such a situation never comes to pass, I am a realist, and I acknowledge that we can never hope to truly bring all the warring factions together united under the ideals of democracy without conflict.
On our societies social values, I must throughly rebut any idea that our society aspire to the ideals of "Power". As I stated earlier, we are not savages, so let us not act like them! However, I see places for both Knowledge & Wealth values in our society at certain points. Indeed, while this strays from the party line, I see a strong economy as being the ultimate driving force behind any research effort, and given the levels of expansion I would hope our society will eventually reach, aspiring to the values of "Wealth" may actually bring us in more research than the values of "Knowledge". In either case, our choice here must be carefully balanced between research and energy. There is no point researching all there is to research if our economy is such that we cannot turn this research into things!
Finally, while my opponent has made assurances to prevent drone riots, I find this an unreasonable demand of this directorship, given that we have no direct control over the work allocations or facilities built in bases. While I am certainly in favour of "doping" our citizens into Golden Ages through Psych allocation, I do not believe this should be a factor in the early years, where we should be focusing on a balance of economy and research. Our economy simply would be unable to sustain the inefficiencies created in the short term, and indeed, it may take just as long for altering Economy/Labs/Psych allocations to become reasonable as it is for Green economics to become workable.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tassadar
|
|
Archaic: You say that unlike Kasseopiea, you are adaptable however you also say you are opposed to nerve stapling. Why, and does this mean you would never allow a nerve staple (even though it is not within your jurisdiction)?
Kasseopiea: Is what Archaic is saying true? Are you not adaptable? Will you simply follow one plan and change only if its absolutely or will you change if it is for the betterment of the empire?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kassiopeia
|
|
Jyväskylä, Finland
Jul 2001
time: 07:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tassadar5000
Kasseopiea: Is what Archaic is saying true? Are you not adaptable? Will you simply follow one plan and change only if its absolutely or will you change if it is for the betterment of the empire? |
I'm going a bit semantic here but flexibility (as mentioned in my earlier posts) and adaptibility are pretty darn close. I'm probably not as adaptible as Archaic since I aim for optimal Efficiency.
As a Director, the best of the 'empire' (read: the people) on the long run is always my primary goal. It would be strange to expect anything else from a government official.
(posted before in Nomination and CDC threads)
My goals as Director of Social Engineering can be squeezed to these words: Flexibility and Efficiency.
Flexibility; in all situations will I endeavour to reach the SE modifiers and energy/tech/psych rates best suiting our situation, be it war or peace. In early game I suggest having a tech rate as high as our economy allows.
Efficiency; as high efficiency as possible (as much as allowed by Flexibility) to ensure economical growth and to hinder drone problems. Also a high efficiency reduces the penalty from having tech or energy rates of over 50 % and the costs from choosing new SE choices is also negated.
In terms of base control, I do not support nerve stapling (an atrocity) in any case (barring immediate lost of the entire base), nor do I support usage of Punishment Spheres (although we probably won't have them by the end of the next term, I wanted to let you know) because of the moral implications and the horrid research penalty.
My preferred policy in SE choices is, Democracy as soon as possible, to balance the efficiency penalty (economy) and to encourage population growth (expansion).
Green as soon as possible, to increase efficiency and to conjure combat bonuses against native life and to have the ability to capture them. FM, though, is considerable in some situations; more energy means more research, though the Planet penalty from it is very disconcerting.
Knowledge as soon as possible, to increase efficiency even more, and to boost scientific progress.
Also, as D of SE I will not support Planned Economics; since our faction is the Peacekeepers, we won't even have the possibility to switch to Police State. Additionally, I will do my best to prevent any drone riots.
Of course, before tech level allows, I support the choices best suiting the situation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kassiopeia
|
|
Jyväskylä, Finland
Jul 2001
time: 07:21
|
|
I apologize, I didn't notice your earlier post. The poll will be (hopefully) reposted so I hope my tardiness won't be a problem.
quote:
That sounds pretty inflexable to me. Demo/Green might give optimal Efficiency, but efficiency isn't always worth it for Efficiency's sake alone. How do you plan to bootstrap our growth when the Green's growth penalty comes into effect? |
Well hopefully it won't come into play. Of course, this does involve a larger scale of looking at things, but I hope that the Directors of BP and Terraformation can help with possible growth problems (Children's Creches, nutrients), assisted with the credits efficiency nets. This might sound like dodging responsibility, but this is my method.
And I must reiterate that Efficiency and the Planet rating bring nice benefits.
If/when we need to pop boom, we can naturally let go of Green and switch to Simple or maybe Planned (but I must insist that Knowledge be on at this time to keep Effic from hitting rock bottom, we have an intrinsic -1 penalty for that already as it is).
Of course, in early game the absolute need of Effic is debatable, since we might end up with a very closely-knit empire or low energy ratings. A D of SE working on an early colony must have the 'balls' to let go of some of his goals for the benefit of the whole faction.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kassiopeia
|
|
Jyväskylä, Finland
Jul 2001
time: 07:21
|
|
quote:
So in other words, you're flip flopping from your idealistic tree hugging because you know that a Green economy's unworkable until such time as we actually have an economic base in place? |
Sigh. I knew this would go to this. Using such words like 'tree-hugging' is just provocative (and popularist). I guess if your goal is pure adaptibility, then you have no ideals at all. We can go the 'in other words' way till the end of time, but I have more important things to do with my life.
quote:
In the early game, when we're not likely to meet any other factions too soon and therefore don't have to worry about our relations with them, once we have the ability to push Wealth Values, we should do so, and stay like that until such point that its numerous advantages are outweighed by the cons. |
Wealth? Maybe, if we don't get Cyberethics before Industrial Automation (the Wealth tech IIRC).
But nothing can really be laid in concrete until we get a look at where we've ended up. After that, it's time to shape up a strategy. What if we land in the midst of a sea of fungus, filled with mind worms? Capturing them would make us a military force to be reckoned with.
Now I'm falling for the 'what if' game witnessed here before. I apologize.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Archaic
|
|
Washed up SMAC/X University Specialist
Nov 2001
time: 15:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kassiopeia Sigh. I knew this would go to this. Using such words like 'tree-hugging' is just provocative (and popularist). I guess if your goal is pure adaptibility, then you have no ideals at all. We can go the 'in other words' way till the end of time, but I have more important things to do with my life. |
Hey, my campaign slogan is "A realist, not an idealist". That's not to say I don't have ideals, it's just that those ideals are realistically achieveable.
As for calling you a Tree-Hugger, well, you are rather one, aren't you? Calling for Green Economics before we even have a strong industrial base in place. Doesn't seem very flexable to me. Very idealistic, yes, but that doesn't mean it's a wise decision.
quote:
Wealth? Maybe, if we don't get Cyberethics before Industrial Automation (the Wealth tech IIRC).
But nothing can really be laid in concrete until we get a look at where we've ended up. After that, it's time to shape up a strategy. What if we land in the midst of a sea of fungus, filled with mind worms? Capturing them would make us a military force to be reckoned with. |
Than that'll be the fault of our Science minister, and I already plan to yell at them quite a lot. All these excuses about going for SotHB early on are getting irritating. A direct path to Industrial Automation at the beginning is essential (With maybe a stopover for Formers if we land in an area without rainy/rolling tiles.). After that, the next goal should be Tree Farms and the lifting of resource limits. After that, Hybrid Forests.
quote:
Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Nerve Stappling is bad because of economical reason ?????
|
Yes, it is. Unlike you, I don't attempt to make moral decisions for others based on my own (warped or otherwise) view of the world, especially not while trying to go for a political position. I'll leave the ethics and morals up to the people as a whole to decide.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-08-2002 16:11
|