Unofficial: Military specialist base?

GeneralTacticus · February 14, 2003, 04:51

Given that we're currently running under FM, which means we can't send troops out of our territory or build offensive air units at all without creating civil unrest, I think it would be a good idea to find somewhere safe where we can build a base to which we can home all our units while turning all citizens into specialists. We coudlc rawl in enough food to avoid starvation, and once we get clean reactors we can home our entire offensive military here. RP-wise, this can be justified by saying that the base is a huge communications centre to allow troops to speak witht ehir families and thus reduce discontent over people being sent away to fight. I don't have any specific suggestions as to where we shoudl build it, but somewhere where our troops can get to it easily from their main production centres would be nice.

Any comments on this idea?

EDIT: You have three days to vote on this.

Aaron Blackwell · February 14, 2003, 06:24

Yes, I concur, this is a very good idea. In fact, It is completly necessary at this stage of the game when running Free Market.

On the other hand, let me just point out a few things on this :

- This bas will NOT need to have nutrient harvested. It will be better to build crawlers to harvest minerals. Minerals are the only necessary ressources for this kind of base. Food should be harvested just to maintain 3 pop and instead to use these pop as specialist why not use them to exploit Borehole/Rocky mined squares ? That in the case we allow punishment spheres to be built in these bases of course ( in the other case, specialists is the way to go).

This will also have the benefit to avoid riots before punishment sphere are built.

- The only things that needs to be built in such bases are military ehancements for obvious reasons. Command centers, Maritime centers, perimeter defences ....

- Roleplay Wise, my guess is that these kind of bases should be more viewed as 'Military Barracks', as this is what these bases will really be. As for having soldiers speaking with their families, isn't that what Virtual world, network nodes, rec commons and all these kind of facilities designed for ?

As for justifying the use of punishment sphere in these bases, I would say that Military Barracks are high security zones and, in the army, people are supposed to follow a drastic discipline. Both these effects are mirrored in punishment sphere, as it does not only eliminate drone but also increase resistances to mind control effects.

Aaron Blackwell · February 14, 2003, 06:25

By the way, I voted " Needed some more work".

It is just that we need to clearly know how such a base should be built before starting to work on it.

But , still, I am in favor of this solution.

GeneralTacticus · February 14, 2003, 06:27

I'm not suggesting a punishment sphere base, I'm suggesting an all specialists one, which is why it will need clean reactors and crawled ntrients, although you do have a good case for the use of punishment spheres there, assuming it can actually be approved (somehow I doubt the CCCP will like that).

EDIT: But what on earth would we need military facilities for? It's meant to be for rehoming units, not for building them.

Aaron Blackwell · February 14, 2003, 07:03

If you don't intend to build any troops at the base, you clearly need no minerals.

On the other hand, why no do so ? It would just require 3-4 minerals harvesting crawlers to have a nice starting mineral production. Then, later on, build additional harverster or terraform one or two boreholes and the base will have a nice min production.

As for building military units, this can be done by first creating "shell" units ( units with only a chassis, gun weapons, no armors) and then upgrading them which would solve the problem caused by high support costs by this base, as well as creating the necessary units faster.

As for why this base should build any military units at all, I propose that the controls of these bases be given to the director of peacekeeping operations.

Reasons : This would give him the means to directly act on the creation and maintenance of military units. Because of that, this will remove some of the strain on governors and allow them to concentrate more on infratructure to improve quality of life.

And the Director of peacekeeping operation still have the opportunity to ask governors help in building military units in certain exceptional cases ( Big War, expansive prototyping etc ...).

What do you say ?

GeneralTacticus · February 14, 2003, 07:07

Soem good ideas there. I don't disagree with them, I was merely clarifying what my original suggestion was.

Maniac · February 14, 2003, 08:32

I would suggest the new base on the peninsula N of Centralis as our military base.

GeneralTacticus · February 14, 2003, 08:38

Egregion, you mean?

Maniac · February 14, 2003, 08:52

I have no idea. In any case, it's close to the industrial core bases of our faction.

GeneralTacticus · February 14, 2003, 08:57

Well, that's the base that was built as the fifth one for Centralis. It's got nothing built yet, so we can take it in whatever direction we like, but we don't have Clean Reactors yet, so it will take a while before we can properly uitilize it.

Main_Brain · February 14, 2003, 10:19

No. Feel the Wrath of your Free Market strangling our very survival.

Jamski · February 14, 2003, 10:51

Is this a "fair poll" ? There are two options for "no". Is this an attempt to split the "No"vote? Ha ! Suffer for choosing FM !

-Jam

Hercules · February 14, 2003, 10:59

Punishment sphere no but specialist base with all specialists I can see the sense of this. When we change from FM ! it will still be a useful centre. It will have to be renamed East Point

Cedayon · February 14, 2003, 13:55

Interesting idea, but I'm not voting until it's re-posted with all the clarifications so I know what I'm voting for

Game-wise, a punished base along these lines is an excellent idea... RP-wise I normally find the idea of a punishment sphere utterly revolting... but if it's to "simulate" the less-than-tolerant-of-dissent atmosphere of a completely military facility...

Method · February 14, 2003, 15:55

good plan, i guess.

GeneralTacticus · February 14, 2003, 21:32

Quote:

Is this a "fair poll" ? There are two options for "no". Is this an attempt to split the "No"vote? Ha ! Suffer for choosing FM !

There aren't two votes for no. There's actually two votes for 'yes': just plain 'Yes', and 'yes, with some things revised'.

Pandemoniak · February 15, 2003, 06:07

Definetly not. You wanted to go for a decayed economy of free market, now, assume, and dont transform some of our bases into militaristic colonies.

AND DONT EVEN MENTION PUNISHMENT SPHERE

GeneralTacticus · February 15, 2003, 06:11

So, because you can't find any other downsides to FM than this one, and you need to find one if you want to get rid of it, you won't let us solve it?

We might as well ahve argued agaisnt building Children's Creches to make the inefficiency problems under Planned worse.

Pandemoniak · February 15, 2003, 06:27

Quote:

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
So, because you can't find any other downsides to FM than this one, and you need to find one if you want to get rid of it, you won't let us solve it?

We might as well ahve argued agaisnt building Children's Creches to make the inefficiency problems under Planned worse.

Except that people want children's creches, but they dont want thousands of armed soldiers roaming in their bases. And if not with PS, how do you intend to prevent this powerful army to cause unrest ? Now, everyone can see that you wished only FM not for the wealth that it brings to the people -- a very contestable wealth, actally, but for the wealth it brings to the government, in order to build up a strong military.

GeneralTacticus · February 15, 2003, 06:36

Quote:

Except that people want children's creches, but they dont want thousands of armed soldiers roaming in their bases.

Nobody's suggested that we have thousands of troops roaming our bases.

Quote:

And if not with PS, how do you intend to prevent this powerful army to cause unrest ?

By the method outliend in my first post, which has zero connection to a police state.

Quote:

Now, everyone can see that you wished only FM not for the wealth that it brings to the people -- a very contestable wealth, actally,

'Contestable'? Denying that our faction is wealthier under FM than under other systems is like denying that one is warmer in the sun than in the shade.

Quote:

but for the wealth it brings to the government, in order to build up a strong military.

What, exactly, does the money that comes in from FM have to do with the military? If anything, FM is detrimental to the military, as it restricts it's freedom of movement by subjecting ti to popular opinion.

Pandemoniak · February 15, 2003, 06:57

Quote:

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus

Nobody's suggested that we have thousands of troops roaming our bases.

No, only in a couple of bases.

Quote:

By the method outliend in my first post, which has zero connection to a police state.

It was PS for punishment sphere. And you suggest specialists, so you suggest to turn, by force or by choice, the whole population of citizens into servants of the military force, while they choose by free will to stay in the civilian corps ?

Quote:

'Contestable'? Denying that our faction is wealthier under FM than under other systems is like denying that one is warmer in the sun than in the shade.

Ethicallycontestable. You perfectly know this wealth is stolen to the hands of the labourers.

Quote:

What, exactly, does the money that comes in from FM have to do with the military? If anything, FM is detrimental to the military, as it restricts it's freedom of movement by subjecting ti to popular opinion.

*YOU* want to spend it for military. And I simply wish to remind you that thogh you promise all this wealth ti the citizens, only the government, corporations and the State-Faction benefits of the Free Market. Who gets all these credits ? The government, not the Citizens.

GeneralTacticus · February 15, 2003, 07:09

Quote:

No, only in a couple of bases

This si abotu supporting them from there, not keeping them there. Do you have vision problems?

Quote:

It was PS for punishment sphere. And you suggest specialists, so you suggest to turn, by force or by choice, the whole population of citizens into servants of the military force, while they choose by free will to stay in the civilian corps ?

Given that this is all meant to be planned in advance, everybody who goes on the CP to build the abse knows exactly what they're going to be doing at the end. No-one who doesn't want to work for the military is obliged to go.

Quote:

Ethicallycontestable. You perfectly know this wealth is stolen to the hands of the labourers.

'Stolen from the hands of the labourers'? My, my, but you do have quite the imagination. How, exactly, is the wealth stolen from the hands of the labourers when they never owned it in the first place?

Quote:

*YOU* want to spend it for military.

I want us to have a military to properly defend ourselves, and we would have had it no matter what system we employed. It's entirely independant of the economy.

Quote:

And I simply wish to remind you that thogh you promise all this wealth ti the citizens, only the government, corporations and the State-Faction benefits of the Free Market. Who gets all these credits ? The government, not the Citizens.

And all the people who benefit from the facilities built with the extra revenue, and the ones who get paid a better wage because their skills are in demand, and those who make money bbecause they were able to invest in the industries we privatised. So who actually lost out, hmmm?

Quote:

Who gets all these credits ? The government, not the Citizens.

And what do you think we do with the extra credits? We spend them, thus benefitting our citizens.

btw, I don't really see what the problem is abotu the credits going through the government first, considering that without FM the extra credits wouldn't exist in the first place.

GeneralTacticus · February 15, 2003, 07:53

Anyway, what's really ridiculous about your position is that we have here a clear problem with FM, and here we are proposing a solution, but instead of agreeing to it in order to benefit our faction, you say that we should accept all fo FM's problems because that's what we wanted to use - might as well say that we shouldn't try to get more nutrients than we need to keep everyone alive if we go Green, because Green has growth problems and we should just accept them...

Cedayon · February 15, 2003, 13:00

To be fair, this proposed solution to this particular problem is somewhat less... palatable... than "grow more nutrients to combat a growth penalty" or "build children's creche's to combat an inefficiency penalty". This solution (concentrated military base) is necessary if we want to solve the problem (can't move anything outside of territory), but it's not a no-brainer in the RP-sense. Particularly with PS's being mentioned.

Of course, Pan is making this argument (perhaps solely) because of his RP/RL hatred of free-market and he hopes to use this problem as a point against FM come next decision time. If this problem is solved, all he could argue against would be that we have a military base with all sorts of (partially fabricated) atrocities going on.

Anyway, about the actual proposal: Use of a PS could be avoided if *all* citizens of the base were made into specialists, and you just crawl in the right amount of nutrients to feed them (preferably avoiding growth as that complicates the situation). Then you could have 1000 "drone faces" from whatever and you'd never notice. The RP justification has already been mentioned in an earlier post: it will be a military base, its residents will be almost exclusively military folks (the exceptions being support people, including empaths). Soldiers don't tend to riot over deployments, unless they're really off-the-wall.

GeneralTacticus · February 15, 2003, 17:55

And that was exactly what I originally suggested.

Cedayon · February 15, 2003, 19:05

*looks back at the original proposal* oh

*votes yes*