Command Nexus - Page 2

GeneralTacticus · September 13, 2002, 21:16

Quote:

Please read my earlier SE speach to see how I explained this switch to Fundy. As you can see, it's not religious fundamentalism I propose here.

Irrelevant. Any kind of fundamentalist government will, by nature, suppress any dissenting opinion in the name of it's own dogma. This is not acceptable under any circumstances.

History Guy · September 13, 2002, 22:06

General Tacticus is entirely correct.

Archaic · September 14, 2002, 07:09

Quote:

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Re-read the effects. The -2 Morale penalty not only reduces Morale by two levels, it also halves any positive effects, e.g. Command Centers.

Meh. The CC benifit in defence makes up for it.

Quote:

Irrelevant. Any kind of fundamentalist government will, by nature, suppress any dissenting opinion in the name of it's own dogma. This is not acceptable under any circumstances.

Obviously you haven't read my speach yet. Read it again. In any case, the survival of our people takes precidence over ideology. A switch for 10 years to a Fundamentalist government is a small price to pay for continuing freedom.

GeneralTacticus · September 14, 2002, 07:30

Quote:

Meh. The CC benifit in defence makes up for it.

I'm not even talking about base defence; if we get into a situation where our bases ar eunder serious threat, we're doing something wrong.

Quote:

Obviously you haven't read my speach yet. Read it again.

I have read it. here is the relevant section:

Quote:

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.

You seem to be claiming that we can have fundamentalism without being fundamentalist, which is simply impossible. By nature, fundamentalist governments are repressive, intolerant of dissent and have no basis in morality or common sense.

Quote:

In any case, the survival of our people takes precidence over ideology. A switch for 10 years to a Fundamentalist government is a small price to pay for continuing freedom.

Just how likely is it that our survival will depend on our implementing a fundamentalist government? If we have no other option, than yes, we will do as we must. However, such a situation is not only unlikely but is also avoidable.

Archaic · September 14, 2002, 08:34

Quote:

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus

I'm not even talking about base defence; if we get into a situation where our bases ar eunder serious threat, we're doing something wrong.

And if we get in a situation where we're undertaking any military action besides defending bases, we're violating our ethos.

Quote:

You seem to be claiming that we can have fundamentalism without being fundamentalist, which is simply impossible. By nature, fundamentalist governments are repressive, intolerant of dissent and have no basis in morality or common sense.

You're basing your opinions on Islamic Fundamentalism and Catholic Fundamentalism (The Vatican anyone? I'd also say the US is trying to lean in this sort of direction.).
Firstly, just because we would be a fundamentalist government doesn't mean we'd violate our basic ethos. Elections would still be democratic, parties would still be allowed. The only real change is that there's be a state philosophy. Not religion, philosophy.

Quote:

Just how likely is it that our survival will depend on our implementing a fundamentalist government? If we have no other option, than yes, we will do as we must. However, such a situation is not only unlikely but is also avoidable.

If it's an avoidable situation then this thread wouldn't exist. War, in one form or another, must occur someday.

DeathByTheSword · September 14, 2002, 13:09

i dont believe that is we do something else then defending we are violating our ethos. I believe we must go all the way to defend this ethos, i to protect them would by definision (?) stated that nothing else then democracy is possible.

Pandemoniak · September 14, 2002, 19:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Archaic

You're basing your opinions on Islamic Fundamentalism and Catholic Fundamentalism (The Vatican anyone? I'd also say the US is trying to lean in this sort of direction.).
Firstly, just because we would be a fundamentalist government doesn't mean we'd violate our basic ethos. Elections would still be democratic, parties would still be allowed. The only real change is that there's be a state philosophy. Not religion, philosophy.

AFAIK, Fundamentalims is a religious state, where religious laws are applied, and where government act in agreement of religious traditions. Therefore, I find a not-religious fundamentalit very unlikely to be applied.
Moreover, the philosophies you quoted are not only philosophies : Sun-Tzu, as Confucius, are not only led by a "way to think", a philosophy, but are also built on many rituals. Even Buddhist, back on old Earth, was quoted as a philosophy and not a religion, in the late 21st Century. But rituals remain, and the structure of time that these rituals make are the very basis of religion : I dont want our Commissionner to swear on the Bible, the Coran, Sun-Tzu or anything but our constitution.

GeneralTacticus · September 14, 2002, 21:53

Quote:

If it's an avoidable situation then this thread wouldn't exist. War, in one form or another, must occur someday.

The necessity to use fundamentlism is an avoidable situation.

Quote:

And if we get in a situation where we're undertaking any military action besides defending bases, we're violating our ethos.

The UN Charter prohibits aggression, not offensive operations carried out in self-defense.

Quote:

You're basing your opinions on Islamic Fundamentalism and Catholic Fundamentalism (The Vatican anyone? I'd also say the US is trying to lean in this sort of direction.).
Firstly, just because we would be a fundamentalist government doesn't mean we'd violate our basic ethos. Elections would still be democratic, parties would still be allowed. The only real change is that there's be a state philosophy. Not religion, philosophy.

Where do you think the effects of fundy come from? The Morale and Probe bonuses come from brainwashing. The Research penalty comes from the intolerance of dissent. Both of these should be anathema to us.

DeathByTheSword · September 15, 2002, 06:42

ok guys we are straying away from the point

Method · September 15, 2002, 10:21

i can feel another "merchant exchange" coming on here...

History Guy · September 15, 2002, 10:55

Vatican Fundamentalism? Someone needs to nerve staple this guy for talking when he doesn't know what he's talking about.

I'm calling Baron von Klem...

Or maybe some Italian hit-man...

Now, back on topic, what General Tacticus says is correct in every way. The way to act is the way that he describes. I suggest that we do as he suggests. It is for the best of our government, and may help us come to take that lofty goal which we have now set ourselves to see...the unity of these splintered factions, and a new utopia, a better world, on Planet, where all men are equal...

DeathByTheSword · September 15, 2002, 13:42

btw i dont think we will change our SE choises that much because of war............and i dnot think we will ever set foot on another continent because of the majority that is against agressive actions. so i think we have to find a way to let a military still be effective and needed. i think that one thing that is going to be importent is the navy. this because we will probably expand in the oceans of planet too. we or if we have control of our continent. I think the way to defend it is by building a defensive ring around this continent with ships.

DBTS

Mellian · September 15, 2002, 16:03

I would like to join in the Command Nexus.

I am not going to bother which government or values is best until we get to a point where we may really need to consider it or not.

I will say thought that, from the nature of our bureaucracy and democracy, where many citizens is helping run this faction (OOC: U.N. Peacekeepers right?), will be chaos to switch from one gov/value and back. So Social Engineering changes should be limited.

As for any military opinions, i will wait until i can review the map and the current situation.

-Mellian

DeathByTheSword · September 16, 2002, 08:48

mellian check the topped thread for links to maps and stuff

Mellian · September 16, 2002, 09:44

I have and it seems to me we have a big arse lake. how do i know? because the water is fresh

so perfect breeding waters for ships and then let them via our future panama base.

I agree with Death that we should build maintain a navy, and ring of sea defence bases a long the coasts. of course, before we can do that, we need to know how to build ships

-Mellian

Diablero · September 16, 2002, 10:00

Quote:

You seem to be claiming that we can have fundamentalism without being fundamentalist, which is simply impossible. By nature, fundamentalist governments are repressive, intolerant of dissent and have no basis in morality or common sense.

Has any one here ever read Isaac Assimov's "Foundation"? It is a fiction novel but the strategies used by the terminus government to maintain it's peaceful control over the other kingdoms are feasible. Fundamentalism for example, is something that we the governing body do not necessarily need to identify with personally, but it could be useful in the bigger picture, if we are to stay ahead of the other factions. I'm not advocating it, as the situation does not recquire it, but consider searching the datalinks for the books, if you are curious to learn more.

Hercules · September 18, 2002, 11:11

Just indicating my ( STEP see Pol. Party) desire to join Command Nexus. Overall aim to follow 'green' path and minimal environmental damage. Obviously in the early game there are some hard choices for us greenies, but wanton distruction of fungus and worms is not something we condone. Of course there are some bad worms and IODs out there and we need proper defenses but goeasy on them.

By the way anyone see the latest 'Brood Pit' movie hologram

DeathByTheSword · October 10, 2002, 06:34

ok just wanted to bring so live back to this thread and have an idea. as you all know we have a mindworm just outside of TBIBTU and we are building a rover [1-2-2] in Antioch
look

no i was thinking as soon as we have the rover we move him to the monolith making him +1 morale after that we can move in and attack the mindwormboil and we can send our CP up with the support of the rover to build a new base what do you think?

Hercules · October 10, 2002, 06:57

Seems sensible suggestion. Poor wee worm. I wonder did witness what happened to Tactical Marine.

Won't it recover to its full strength by the time we reach it

DeathByTheSword · October 10, 2002, 11:33

probably but our rover will be +1 to so it will be 3 against 2 and i think we could win it!

DeathByTheSword · October 10, 2002, 11:55

as Nexuswarden i submit this plan to the DPO so DE what do you think?

Maniac · October 10, 2002, 17:25

I think it'll take too long for that rover to finish. Perhaps we should move the Antioch garrison east in the fungus. If it fails, try again next turn. When the attempt succeeds, also move the TBIBTU garrison NW. Then the worm is surrounded by two units. One of them will probably be destroyed, but the advantage is our units can safely cross that region again and our expansion and terraformation plans aren't disturbed any longer. A scout replacement should be built of course, just as a former replacement in TBIBTU is needed.

DeathByTheSword · October 11, 2002, 06:31

i dont have any number with me but we could try to rush it i know it wil take 7 turns for the rover to be completed but i dont like the idea of sending out troops and knowing that they are not coming back that is why i want to wait for the rover the worm will be healed by then and we can see what is does then but i will not advice on sacrifing units

Maniac · October 11, 2002, 11:15

We don't have the cash to rush it - it isn't prototyped yet. And if we wait we will probably lose a former or garrison anyway when the worm attacks again after it's healed.

Their deaths, which isn't certain anyway, would be for the greater good...

DeathByTheSword · October 11, 2002, 11:17

we will have more defends for our scouts in the bases out there in the open they havent got any bonusses

Maniac · October 11, 2002, 11:28

I could be wrong, but I don't think troops can use the small city streets and bad enemy manoeuvrability to their advantage against mind worms as they can against regular troops. Psi doesn't care about buildings.

DeathByTheSword · October 11, 2002, 11:31

true maybe a command center is in order soon (can we build them already?) we need better trained troops but ok then we send out the two scout patrols

Method · October 11, 2002, 16:31

Quote:

Originally posted by DeathByTheSword
maybe a command center is in order soon (can we build them already?)

yes. we got mobility last turnchat

Hercules · October 11, 2002, 19:05

Interesting chat as it should be.

DeathByTheSword · October 18, 2002, 15:07

had to use the directory from TKG to get here......but anyways.......DE wants to build the 2-2-2 rover....with that we have our first real armored attack unit.........do you all think that as soons as we discovered another faction that a war will come from it.......?