The EDP Manifesto - Page 3

AdamTG02 · August 30, 2002, 11:46

I think it was someone from the LSD (although my memory is hazy) who said that to maintain an army on Free Market, all you would have to do is support a lot of troops from a size one Empath base, and either use clean reactors or a lot of Mineral crawlers. I support that idea, because it avoids the thorny PS issue while still keeping our options open.

Of course, my hope is that we wouldn't need such a large army... but if we do, all the hope in the world isn't going to change that.

Planet Busters? It's been discussed to use them as a deterrent, but Orbital Defense Pods are only a little later in the tech tree and make a deterrent PB force unnecessary. An enemy is unlikely to launch PBs before we can get a few Defense Pods up and running. I'd rely on the E&I Director to keep an eye on PB production, in any case. (And this is one reason I see Empath Guild, or if that fails, HSA, as a must. We must be able to spy on any of our enemies, to react to their movements as soon as possible.)

Method · August 30, 2002, 11:53

Quote:

Originally posted by AdamTG02
I think it was someone from the LSD (although my memory is hazy) who said that to maintain an army on Free Market, all you would have to do is support a lot of troops from a size one Empath base, and either use clean reactors or a lot of Mineral crawlers. I support that idea, because it avoids the thorny PS issue while still keeping our options open.

that was my idea. no wait, i lie. it was kass (now i remember). i brought it up in the chat one day, and kass thought of it. this was a modified version of maniac/DBTS's idea minus the sphere.

Quote:

Originally posted by AdamTG02
Planet Busters? It's been discussed to use them as a deterrent, but Orbital Defense Pods are only a little later in the tech tree and make a deterrent PB force unnecessary. An enemy is unlikely to launch PBs before we can get a few Defense Pods up and running. I'd rely on the E&I Director to keep an eye on PB production, in any case.

PB's for deterrence don't work. the AI won't launch them unless the charter's repealed, whether we have a PB or not. they'll build several of them for themselves, but won't launch them with the charter. ODP's do come a LOT later (self aware machines D11 IIRC) compared to PB's at orbital spaceflight D6.

DeathByTheSword · August 30, 2002, 11:58

the carter can be removed even if we dont want too so i still say lets have some pb`s

Method · August 30, 2002, 12:00

us having a PB wont prevent the AI from launching. its not that smart, you know.

FlameFlash · August 30, 2002, 12:36

Going with Adam and TKG here as far as the lack of need for us to have planet busters...

Also, it's about time somebody pointed out that we're not solely just members of CDC without a voice of our own... we just joined CDC because our voice could get louder by doing so.

DeathByTheSword · August 30, 2002, 12:39

yes but if the carter is releaved (maybe in early game already) and we havent got any but the enemy has and uses them we are sitting ducks with some lost bases and we cant retaliatte.

an eye for an eye. a tooth for a tooth. a base for a base

Archaic · August 30, 2002, 12:40

Perhaps it's time to distance yourself from them then. P4 is the loudest of all the political groups, and it isn't allied with anyone. But EDP seems to have been eaten whole by the CDC, and to many outside the party at least, doesn't seem to have its own personal identity.

Saying you're adaptable given different situations is fine and all, but if you're attached to the CDC, then there's strong pressure for you to not stay from the line they've set.

Method · August 30, 2002, 12:45

well, adam, our office is always open if you make a decision. as you can see, we don't all agree on everything. there is disagreement on PBs within our party.

Are there any specific policies you would like to discuss?

FlameFlash · August 30, 2002, 12:49

DBTS... mutual destruction is not a good thing.

Not really, Archaic... I'm content with EDP's current position, especially since you never know who we actually voted for... Our voice, unfortunately will be small no matter what unless we collect some more citizens, and with P4 I can see us as actually having less of a voice than we do now. Working together at moments of agreement is one thing (which is basically all the CDC and we do together) and it's something we're willing to do with any party at any point when we want something done that other parties (that are possibly not in CDC) also can do.

Archaic · August 30, 2002, 12:54

I'm not saying you should join up with P4 at all. Work with us together on occasion yes, but not join up as a coalition with us. If your party went alone, I could see it getting as vocal and as heard as the P4. While you're with CDC though, you'll always be seen as just a small part of the whole. If you're only working together in moments of agreement anyway, you don't belong in a coalition.

DeathByTheSword · August 30, 2002, 14:57

Flameflash what do you prefer: we getting our ass kicked (sorry for the language) or we getting our ass kicked and we kicking some ass back so there will be come a peace.........i hope the later

Method · August 30, 2002, 15:12

DBTS, we won't have to worry about the AI launching a PB. not one little bit. and if they do, we don't want to launch one back because:
A)Its an atrocity->sanctions
B)All other factions declare war on us
C)It causes eco-damage

DeathByTheSword · August 30, 2002, 15:17

i am resting my case then

we will talk about it when the time is right for me to say: i told you so.

GeneralTacticus · August 30, 2002, 19:53

If we do want to prevent ourselves being PBed, all we need to do is secure the Planetary Governorship and veto any attempt to repeal the Charter.

As for co-operation with the P4 vs CDC: it's so early on as yet that we don't seem to have any disagreement (yet) on how we proceed.

Archaic · August 31, 2002, 05:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Haon
I can already tell that P4 and the CCCP will not go, but to be honest I question the logetivity of all the othe myriad CDC parties which are all nearly indetical.

That was posted to the Rec. Commons. See what I meant about people not seeing where the parties end and the CDC starts?

Method · August 31, 2002, 22:24

adam? have you been discussing anything with your party? if you have made a decision on anything, drop by my office. normally i'd say visit maniac's office in the P4 building since he is party leader, but my Director of Research office is nicer, because it was paid for by the government

.

GeneralTacticus · September 1, 2002, 01:02

He certainly hasn't discussed anything with me.

FlameFlash · September 1, 2002, 11:51

TKG, GT... It's not just Adam's choice if we make any kind of change, however I'm for just waiting and watching... the P4 is also persuing this point undoubtably since it would hurt CDC and more importantly CCCP (from a P4 veiw) if we were to drop out of the caolition.

Method · September 1, 2002, 12:21

Quote:

Originally posted by FlameFlash
TKG, GT... It's not just Adam's choice if we make any kind of change, however I'm for just waiting and watching... the P4 is also persuing this point undoubtably since it would hurt CDC and more importantly CCCP (from a P4 veiw) if we were to drop out of the caolition.

no, i asked because adam is party leader and i was wondering if he had been in contact with you through PMs or otherwise. my goal is not specifically to hurt the CCCP or CDC, its just that right now P4 has no friends (

).

FlameFlash · September 1, 2002, 13:01

Oh, I know you're goal isn't to hurt the CCCP, TKG... but there is a member of the P4 that stands out in my mind that does...

At any rate, Adam said repeatedly that the EDP doesn't have a party leader, all three members make up the governing body of the party, so if a majority wants a certain thing we'll generally go with it... heck, if one member wants a certain thing, we'll generally go with it (such as GT's more militaristic stance.)

We don't mind being freinds with the P4... but don't understand why that would require us to actually drop out of the CDC coalition... when there are common things the EDP and P4 agree on, why can't we just merge then?

Method · September 1, 2002, 13:07

Quote:

Originally posted by FlameFlash
Oh, I know you're goal isn't to hurt the CCCP, TKG... but there is a member of the P4 that stands out in my mind that does...

well, i've had just about enough of that certain party member myself...

Quote:

Originally posted by FlameFlash
We don't mind being freinds with the P4... but don't understand why that would require us to actually drop out of the CDC coalition... when there are common things the EDP and P4 agree on, why can't we just merge then?

this isn't my decision to make...discussion is necessary.

FlameFlash · September 1, 2002, 13:17

when I say merge I mean simply vote together... as it stands who knows who is voting just party or coalition views?

I know I'm not. If there's a point when I agree with a P4 candidate more than CDC or EDP I'll vote P4... I don't yellow-dog vote... ever.

Method · September 1, 2002, 13:26

Quote:

Originally posted by FlameFlash
when I say merge I mean simply vote together... as it stands who knows who is voting just party or coalition views?

I know I'm not. If there's a point when I agree with a P4 candidate more than CDC or EDP I'll vote P4... I don't yellow-dog vote... ever.

why don't we merge entirely? (but out of CDC) then we could combat DBTS's idea for PBs

FlameFlash · September 1, 2002, 13:41

heh... well, TKG, Ind being some kind of EDP/P4 laison, if that's what you're talking about. The whole official merge thing would have to be taken to an internal vote on both sides.

Method · September 1, 2002, 13:56

i agree.

AdamTG02 · September 1, 2002, 14:11

What's been discussed so far sounds good.

I haven't initiated any votes becuase an earlier party vote endorsed the concept of working together on issues of agreement without necessarily supporting every position of the other party. So, those are the terms on which I think we can work together with the P4.

As FlameFlash and GT say, a decision of the majority of the members is a decision of the party. I'm not intrinsic to that process, although I do hope that my opinion carries some weight.

Your offer of a merging is interesting, TKG, but I think in the long run we can accomplish more by retaining our seperate identitites. That way we can work together with ACE on colony pods, with CDC on social engineering, and with P4 on supporting research, without distancing ourselves from either party. We are a part of the CDC now, but that coalition is a lot looser than a merge would be. In the main, I think the EDP has several ideas of its own that I think we can most effectively advocate as our own party.

I'm certainly open to discussion on the matter, though.

FlameFlash · September 1, 2002, 14:17

*applauds Adam*

Edit: how does one emote here? I've seen it done before..

Method · September 1, 2002, 14:17

well, maybe things will change once the game begins. which specific P4 policies do you disagree with?

FlameFlash · September 1, 2002, 14:24

Well, I know I agree with you TKG, with the disagreement of PBs... has there been any change in P4 policy? I didn't read any, and I went through all 14 pages of your party's thread now...

Method · September 1, 2002, 14:28

no, the rest of P4, so far as i know, still supports building a PB. i don't agree with it, but i don't quit the party because of it. when it comes time to vote on it, just vote "no" along with everyone else, and it'll fail