OFFICIAL : A switch to Green

[Kirov]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
I don't really think that 100% economy means a total social focus on making money, and 100% research a total focus on science - they're just govenrment spending priorities.

And you're right that automation does help solve the 'dirty work' problem, but somebody still has to maintain the robots. You can't really automate the whole process, because it becomes an endless loop.

1) It was bad example with Econ, but take labs in consideration. In society with 0% Labs no research is made (apart from Biology Labs), right? But there are plenty of talents and no drones. So such society can't generate any scientists - they would be idle drones there. Thus SE sliders have also social aspect, apart from budget spending. Of course you can make specialists... but they aren't talents then.

2) About that automation, yo're of course right. I wanted only to say there are no dickensian workers in our faction - poor, dumb and humiliated at every step. Instead, our workers have a full right to be talents.

[Cedayon]

I guess I should have done the talent/cit/drone numbers this time around after all... looks like FM'll still win though... *crosses fingers*

[Drogue]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Not to mention the fact that according to you (and you're going to be the one who puts it into practice), it'll get rid of the bureaucracy by turning it's duties over to Planet. Now remind me why, exactly, we should trust Planet to manage our economy for us, given that we could never hope to manage Planet's ecosystem for it?

No, but then, we don't manage our own economy at the moment. It is at the mercy of market forces. Green may, or may not mean government housing, depending on what we want. If it does, I'll wager they won't be cramped, falling apart, and generally unsafe, unlike the cheap housing that the poor and unemployed live in at the moment. Yes our economy suffers under Green, but remember the purpose of the economy is to serve our needs, not us to serve it. We should not be slaves to the economy, our only concern profit and wealth, we should remember that the economy is only their to benefit us. People are more important than economic growth and money. Since we have (mostly) done growing, we do not need the pop-boom of Planned. We should now become efficient, and use our resources wisely. Under FM the amount of wasted resources is great. We may produce more, but we do not need this. If we cut back slightly, we can use our resources efficiently, and not waste so much.

Sorry if there are any typo's, I broke a finger this afternoon, and my typings gone a bit off

[Maniac]

I broke a finger this afternoon

Auch!

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Maniac
Auch!

My thoughts exactly

Dammit, why do I try to impress girls playing rugby? Can't I find a safer sport!

[Cedayon]

Drogue: I hope your finger gets better, that sounds like no fun at all.

Originally posted by Drogue
Dammit, why do I try to impress girls playing rugby? Can't I find a safer sport!

Tried "conversation"?

[Kirov]

Originally posted by Drogue

Dammit, why do I try to impress girls playing rugby? Can't I find a safer sport!

Tell her you're playing SMAC DG. She's yours then, man.

[Hercules]

Tell her you're a green rugby playing Smac DG player. After each game you replace and smooth out the cut up turf. Scrums are simply human tractors.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Do we for some reason badly need research at the expense of ECs and GA bases? If not, then no to Green.

[Cedayon]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
Do we for some reason badly need research at the expense of ECs and GA bases? If not, then no to Green.

The numbers aren't on their side, no, it's an RP thing mostly. If we really wanted more lab points we could get more (while sacrificing less in terms of ECs and psych) under FM.

I'm surprised it's this close... I guess RP really does have sway here... that and the whole problem with military deployment... but we can fix that with a specialist base(s) supporting all our military (Egregion or whatever it's name is)

our psi combat will still suck... but we can own the worms if we have to in any event.

And ED... what ED?

[GeneralTacticus]

No, but then, we don't manage our own economy at the moment. It is at the mercy of market forces.

We, as a faction, control our own economy. the fact that it is decentralized doesn't mean that isn't true.

Green may, or may not mean government housing, depending on what we want. If it does, I'll wager they won't be cramped, falling apart, and generally unsafe, unlike the cheap housing that the poor and unemployed live in at the moment.

And why do you think this, hmmm? We'd have fa rmore poor and unemployed people, and far less resources to spend on them.

Yes our economy suffers under Green, but remember the purpose of the economy is to serve our needs, not us to serve it. We should not be slaves to the economy, our only concern profit and wealth, we should remember that the economy is only their to benefit us.

Which is precisely why we shoudl reject this proposal. FM benefits us - all of us - far more than this proposal would. We gain a marginal increase in labs output that is unlikely to make much difference, in return for a msive economic downturn and a vast increase in poverty.

People are more important than economic growth and money.

Of course they are, but economic growth is important to people. Without it, they are much worse off.

Since we have (mostly) done growing, we do not need the pop-boom of Planned.

Well, of course we don't.

We should now become efficient, and use our resources wisely. Under FM the amount of wasted resources is great.

As Archaic (quite rightly) said: What use is efficiency if the price is that we wind up with less than we did before? Is it better to produce 3 of something and waste nothing, or 5 of something and waste 1 of them, if nothing else changes?

We may produce more, but we do not need this.

Yes we do. High energy production is essential to the continuing development of our poorer bases, as well as being necessary to providing a high living standard for our citizens.

If we cut back slightly, we can use our resources efficiently, and not waste so much.

'Slightly'? The cutback would be enormous, to the extent that we would be producing far less than we would otherwise. Efficiency is pointless if the product you're being efficient with (energy) doesn't require the use of anything else to create, and if more would be produced with higher production and higher wastage than lower production and lower wastage.

[Voltaire]

When exactly did the left loose its majority???

I recall back in the good old days when we outnumbered the right enough as to prevent capitalism form being implemented in the first place, now we have to resort to desperate attempts to switch back to green. *sigh*

[Cedayon]

Well, there are some new people that are FMers (like me), and some of the former planned/greens voted FM this time (like Aaron, no?) for various reasons.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
We, as a faction, control our own economy. the fact that it is decentralized doesn't mean that isn't true.

You're right, decentralisation doesn't. Especially since Green is decentralised. However the fact that we are at FM means that our economy is at the mercy of market forces, not our control. We do not control our economy.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
And why do you think this, hmmm? We'd have fa rmore poor and unemployed people, and far less resources to spend on them.

In an FM economy, we have little provision for the poor and unemployed. There housing will be awful. If the Government provides good, clean housing to the unemployed. And there are generally fewer unemployed under Green or FM, since they can get Government employment if they need it. Because of a smaller rich/poor divide, I believe there will be fewer poor people. There will be less wealth, but the wealth will be more evenly distributed.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Which is precisely why we shoudl reject this proposal. FM benefits us - all of us - far more than this proposal would. We gain a marginal increase in labs output that is unlikely to make much difference, in return for a msive economic downturn and a vast increase in poverty.

Who is to say what the people value. You ay value wealth and economic growth, I may value a beautiful, clean environment. Some people will choose either. FM does not benefit all of us, it depends what you want. It looks like it benefits most however, by the results of the poll.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
As Archaic (quite rightly) said: What use is efficiency if the price is that we wind up with less than we did before? Is it better to produce 3 of something and waste nothing, or 5 of something and waste 1 of them, if nothing else changes?

The 3 without waste. Do you know how hard, and how many resources it takes to try to clean up waste. Yes we end up with less overall, but we get more research (much more important than Ec IMHO) and less waste.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Yes we do. High energy production is essential to the continuing development of our poorer bases, as well as being necessary to providing a high living standard for our citizens.

Well, most of our outlying bases will not be producing much under FM, because of the inefficiency. If we revert to Green, we can spread the wealth better over the nation. We need Green to help outlying colonies develop, not just Centralis.

[Cedayon]

Originally posted by Drogue
We need Green to help outlying colonies develop, not just Centralis.

That isn't quite fair, you know... all the regions (with the possible exception of Solaris) contribute significant amounts of energy to the faction. Our efficiency isn't what Green would make it, but it's still +2, which is pretty good, especially for the peacekeepers. (-1 base, +2 demo, +1 knowledge, right?)

Toss in the children's creches that are in place or being constructed almost everywhere, and efficiency is even less of a problem.

[GeneralTacticus]

You're right, decentralisation doesn't. Especially since Green is decentralised. However the fact that we are at FM means that our economy is at the mercy of market forces, not our control. We do not control our economy.

1) Well, according to Pan (and, again, he'll eb the one putting it into practice), a Green economy is very centralized, being administered by Planet.

2) 'Market forces' aren't some kind of malignant, outside entity. The fact that no individual controls our economy does not mean that our people, collectively, do not. If they want something to happen enough, it will happen.

In an FM economy, we have little provision for the poor and unemployed. There housing will be awful.

*SIGH* You're forgetting about all that Psych spending again, aren't you? If somewhere to live isn't a basic luxury, then, again, I don't know what is...

And there are generally fewer unemployed under Green or FM, since they can get Government employment if they need it.

Take a look at the save and then see if you can say that again with a straight face. The number of Drones will increase hugely if we do this.

Because of a smaller rich/poor divide, I believe there will be fewer poor people.

More rich people =/= More poor people.
Less rich people =/= Less poor people.

There will be less wealth, but the wealth will be more evenly distributed

Ah, yes, the old 'equality of poverty'.

Who is to say what the people value. You ay value wealth and economic growth, I may value a beautiful, clean environment. Some people will choose either. FM does not benefit all of us, it depends what you want. It looks like it benefits most however, by the results of the poll.

Once again, look at the save. If you do, youw ill note that FM is currently causing no environmental damage whatsoever. As there's no pollution at all, there's none to exacerbate.

The 3 without waste. Do you know how hard, and how many resources it takes to try to clean up waste.

In the case of energy, zero.

Yes we end up with less overall, but we get more research (much more important than Ec IMHO) and less waste.

Research doesn't mean squat when it won't get us the next tech any faster.

Well, most of our outlying bases will not be producing much under FM, because of the inefficiency. If we revert to Green, we can spread the wealth better over the nation. We need Green to help outlying colonies develop, not just Centralis.

Energy isn't like mineral production. It doesn't matter where it happens, only that it does. FM is basically irrelevant to the developemnt of the bigger bases; they have the minerals to build what they need without rushing. What it's needed for is developing the smaller bases that have very little industry.

[Cedayon]

*opens mouth to spout long argument against the "advantages" of Green... but then reconsiders*

We won, nyah nyah!

[GeneralTacticus]

[Hercules]

Drogue :

Well, most of our outlying bases will not be producing much under FM, because of the inefficiency. If we revert
to Green, we can spread the wealth better over the nation. We need Green to help outlying colonies develop,
not just Centralis.

Have you noticed the rush by some regions to build SPs recently? Of course the newly founded bases can't compete with their resources because they were founded earlier but is that a reason to centralise SPs in so few bases. I don't think so. The Sps are not that important that they need to be centralised. I know centralisation is not the argument but it is the end result of 'must do now ' philosphy.

The way we are going now is for all our SPs to be built in 3 or 4 bases (established bases) with the other bases building trees farms ( worthy) and Hybrid forests (worthy) but with non of the status and recognition of contribution.

Our Governors (now probably me included) are in danger of being so competitive within the faction as to miss the bigger picture.

[GeneralTacticus]

Why, exactly, are you objecting to the SPs being built in tyhe bigger bases? They can:

1) Build them faster.

2) In the case of single-base SPs, make better use of them.

So what's the problem with centralization?

[Cedayon]

indeed, centralization is an extremely good idea in the case of SPs like the supercollider and theory of everything...

And with the XD going up in New Tass, the Marine Control thingy going up in New Suez, the LV going up in New Apolyton (right?), the Supercollider going up in Concordia... 4 different SPs, 4 different regions... sure, the really developed bases are the ones doing the project, but is that not both logical and practical? It's not like we can realistically expect someone to pick Transcendance Academy over New Suez to build the Marine thingy, or Espirito del Aqua over New Tassagrad to build the XD... or Solaris to build *anything* ( )

I'm not sure I see the problem

[GeneralTacticus]

Yes, NA is going to build the LV. It passed by a single vote.

[Aaron Blackwell]

Well, there are some new people that are FMers (like me), and some of the former planned/greens voted FM this time (like Aaron, no?) for various reasons.

That's correct.

I supported Planned Economics in the past because, At the time, the extra population growth and the industry bonus was helping us more into growing our cities and building facilities.

Now that facilities are being in places in most of our cities, the switch to FM had bigger effect than it would have in the past.

Considering that we are in relatively safe position from the hive, military operations are not an issue right now, as well as eco damage, which are the two BIG drawback of FM ... drawbacks that can only really by solved by use CHEESY tactics ( I am sorry but the military focused base is a cheesy tactic as far as I am concerned, though it is allowed by game mechanic ).

But that won't last forever, I still remain a supporter of Green Economics, which , though it has less advantages than FM, has also MUCH LESS drawbacks IMO.

The more our faction will grow, the more the ineffiency will weight on it ... and we'll still have the problems of FM to deal with.

Now the reasons that I voted FM right now is because , unlike many other in this Dem Smac game, I am not stubborn to the point of refusing any options simply because it is against my personal beliefs. I just try to look with the most objectivity possible.

If only some FM supporters could be like this ....

[GeneralTacticus]

I used to be a supporter of Planned/Green, until I realized that FM would be far more beneficial to us than either of those choices.

[Aaron Blackwell]

FM is just an appropriate choice ......... for now.

[Hercules]

There are two issues: Size and centralisation.

Because of our evolution longer established bases will have built up (with everyones co-operation and assent) excellent access to minerals, nutrients, energy and enhancements.

As our faction expanded, we agreed on the need for regional Governors. Again no objection. But as regional governors began to relish their power, there developed an element of mild regional rivalry.

However that regional rivalry is approaching argumentative levels. for examaple Polls for where a SP should be built?

with the result that a base on the outskirts has little prospect of serious advancement

Compare orders: base 14+ citizens build Sp whatever, while
base 4 citizens are building research hospitals ( if lucky).

So what incentives are there for a regional governor to take over new
regions with (relatively) low production.

The DIA ( in consultation with others) may need to introduce a nation wide development plan that spreads faction development more evenly.

As a DPO I felt I had an overview of the bases's various stages of development and many regional directors directed their bases to produce DPO requests, but there is definitely a rivalry.
The question is, has that good natured rivalry, as we move forward, created two or more different classes of regions.

I know there is difficulty in attracting Governors to regions because of the micro management involved: (would you choose a region still at the Rec. Comms stage as opposed to a region on the verge of the Space Elevator). Sps and perhaps other facs have to be better managed and situated so that there is a balanced development throughout our society..

[GeneralTacticus]

Again, what does it matter if the SPs aren't spread out very much? As long as they get built either as fast as possible, or in the best spot, I still don't see the problem.

[Hercules]

Well I see a problem, and it already exists, in encouraging regions to contribute to the overall peacekeeper progress. Only lately have some Governors recognised their obligation to the wider faction.

But say there was a race for The Telepathic Matrix; if it was extremely important that we build it, then yes all men to the pumps, but if we are so far ahead then where it is built is less crucial ( provided we still can build it). The base would have to be defended of couse.

But think of the pride and honour a strong but smaller base would have in being the home of an SP.

[GeneralTacticus]

If the base can build it in a reasonable amount of time, I don't see how it would matter which base it was built in, but I see no reason why we sould delay building a SP just so that a smaller base could feel proud of itself.

[Cedayon]

Originally posted by Aaron Blackwell
Now the reasons that I voted FM right now is because , unlike many other in this Dem Smac game, I am not stubborn to the point of refusing any options simply because it is against my personal beliefs. I just try to look with the most objectivity possible.

If only some FM supporters could be like this ....

I support FM because it's far and away the best for our faction at this time... in other cases I would probably support Planned because of the growth... in some cases I might even consider Green the best choice, although I can't come up with an example situation right now.

There are some pretty die-hard FMers here (Archaic, please raise your hand... thank you) ... but I'd say that the vast majority of the opposition to FM is also based on "personal beliefs" about class warfare, the environment, etc... they have certain RP/RL problems with capitalism and having a free market that, in their view, overrule the clear game-wise advantages. I can't blame them for sticking to their beliefs, though, even if it's "just a game".

As for:

The more our faction will grow, the more the ineffiency will weight on it

How much growth, in terms of new bases, are we really planning? We're short on governors as is (and this upcoming term will likely be my last for anything but justice), and we've certainly got enough bases to do whatever we want given a reasonable time.

... and we'll still have the problems of FM to deal with.

Yep, just as we'd have the problems of planned (efficiency? what's that?) or green (growth? huh?) to deal with... FM has some onerous ones, but we're dealing pretty well with all but one (can't do much offensively with the military) right now.