Discussion in 'Never Ending Stories' started by Chandrasekhar, Dec 16, 2007.
I know very well what it means, and what your aims are. I found it interesting when you created the Solar Federation. I don't find it interesting that you are trying to draft the PRC into it.
The game may be about space, but you know damn well that we're nowhere near the point where space matters yet. The colonies can't sustain themselves, they are all totally dependent on Sol in general and Earth in particular.
If I were to hold all systems in totalitarian clutches, or even "just" Earth, the game wouldn't be interesting either. I never said that, nor did I imply it. Again, diversity, in space and on Earth, is what makes and will make this game fun.
But fine, you want a simple answer? Then it's no.
I have defeated an enemy officer!
That's crap, and you should know it. If you'd bother to get on MSN for once, I'd explain in exacting detail why, but I'll do it here instead.
The sole real function of a world government is colonization and defense of the colonies. It's pretty simple really: the resources are too much for any one country to really handle. America can barely turn out four colony ships in a 5-year period. Russia can't even turn out a full battle squadron.
You think any one country is going to matter one damn iota when the turns go down to one year in a real game? No. They're not. Because they won't produce crap in comparison. Your diversity is meaningless because you can't do anything. Even if you directed all your efforts at colonial expansion, you will run out of resources rather quickly. Europe more or less already has. Within two turns, if not one, we could outpace, surround, and proceed beyond your borders in our colonial effort. Our capacity is easily five to ten times yours.
We couldn't defend everything adequately, and as I said, we have no real reason to hang on to people who don't want to be in the group. They get along just fine as hot-spots for dissidents, see again: Bacchus.
So again, do not throw turds at me and call them arguments. Your continued existence as an independent party does nothing for "diversity" except satisfy your own ego to continue on, because you will be out-competed on every single front: technologically, economically, industrially, militarily, and colonially. This is ultimately all about numbers, and even you just don't have the resource base to possibly compete. You want to see a big, diverse map with wild areas, space pirates on the loose, feuding planets dueling it out over ideologies or maybe some really rare mineral deposits (because, lets face it, basic resource needs are met and are virtually a given in this type of setting)? Great! Because your choice doesn't make the slightest bit of difference in that. It's happening anyway.
The only way it wouldn't happen? If things on Earth had gone differently. It's too late now. As I said, you can say no, but recognize why you're doing it, because it doesn't matter if you declared war on us this turn and fired off every nuke in your arsenal: you are still ultimately irrelevant to the outcome of this session, which is diversity in space. In fact, I could make a rather more solid argument for doing that than either the PRC or EU, since I've secured the resources to actually do it and opened it up to every country on Earth instead of a piddly four. We have also relatively freed it from the death grip of big space militaries that competing superpowers would maintain, which they would then leverage to hold onto their colonies, each of which would be oh-so-precious because they had wasted so much of their industrial capacity on space militaries! Who'dathunkit, a vicious cycle due to scarce production ratios and meager resources! Cycle broken! Here, in fact, here's a nice little summary in a tidy package for the tl;dr crowd:
You can jump on the train and accelerate it or get run over by it, I can't say I particularly care which (and no, that does not mean we're going to invade anybody). I just don't want to hear the clicking of fingers spouting pointless arguments about whether the train even exists, because believe me, it does. It has been rolling for four updates now, and it's way too late for you to stop it by throwing up your arms and decrying this as some kind of monopoly. This is a space game, and it's going into space.
Symphony D, I'm not going to pretend to be some expert NESer because I'm not, but at the end of the day don't you think it's his choice whether he joins your damn organisation or not? Alright, yes, we know it would be an increase in productivity and whatever but if he doesn't want that then that's up to him right? You said you could out-compete him, so out-compete him then. Show him just how stupid he's being. Don't attempt to shout at him or bully him into it because it's clearly not going to work. Jesus.
You may think that diversity your way is the best way - fine, I won't stop you from playing that way, nor have I claimed any disinterest in it. But when you ask for my "surrender", so that you can be the only one dictating what diversity is, forget it. You want a Solar Federation, fine. You want China in it, fine. You want to dictate what China is going to look like and play like, . .. .. .. . off.
If you want to play this game as a one-man simulation, just say so and I'll drop out. I'm not going to get into another stupid argument with you where you try to get your point across with as many words as possible.
OOC: Learn to read. Kthnxby.
I am glad we have come to an understanding. Allow me to finalize my position: I gave you the option, and I said what it would be virtually equivalent to. You don't like it, fine. You want to disagree with my analysis, fine. But you want to come up with . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . as to why it's wrong instead of arguing on its merits, then . .. .. .. . off yourself, because I have yet to hear one single damn good reason as to how colonizing space under four overlords is any different for the people running the colonies than doing it under one. Not one.
The only real difference between 4v1 is that under 4, you will be slightly less insignificant upon breaking free. This is more than compensated for by the fact that under 1, you will not have to fight for independence, and will not fear for your life constantly. You still have to sink decades of work into the planet to get it to be useful either way. You will still be insignificant compared to the colonizing power if you break free. And you will still have to pour in turns of work to get somewhere meaningful.
I don't care that you said no. That is not why I am irritated and throwing words at you. I am throwing words at you because if you disagree but can't bring any tangible evidence to the plate to support your position or attack mine beyond "I don't like it," great, you're entitled to that opinion. But then I am also entitled to dismiss your opinion as precisely that, particularly when you decide to declare it some kind of insulting "HAND ME THE GAME, LULZ" move on my part when it is demonstratably clear the game would in no way end, or be any different on the colonization end. There would be a 50% reduction in people at the top from 4 to 2 with no actual impact on anybody else! OH NOES! I kind of figured maybe, just maybe, you'd like to play a planet instead. You didn't. Fine. That doesn't concern me.
I have made that point readily clear, and you have not countered meaningfully once. If you can't contest it, then don't. Now please by all means, go ahead and exercise your theory in practice. Maybe some tangible evidence for it will appear experimentally since the theoretical side is lacking. I'm interesting in seeing how it turns out.
Symphony, clearly he can read, as he recognized the symbols in your post for language. Don't mock people because of their brevity.
To: Solar Federation
From: European Union
Europe inquires what exactly would happen to it if it were to accept this offer. We have several objections to things we fear may happen.
The most significant of these is our differing idealogies to the population of planets. The EU maintains that the ideal method of colonization is to have mixed populations, from a wide variety of nations and backgrounds, as opposed to specific planets belonging to people from specific groups and ethnicities. In the event of future changes or breakdowns in the order that would be instated, the new nations that arose would be isolated and unique. Different planets would be populated by 'the other'. The long term result of ASTRIS colonial policy, we fear, would be a heterogenous front of squabbling nations, as opposed to a single or small group of united fronts.
We recognize that, for the time being, there are three fronts, and the immediate solution would be unification. However, in the long term, we believe that European policy is the best option for the future of humanity, and thus we will continue as we are unless you would be willing to hold significant discussion and policy changes regarding its current means of colonial expansion.
FROM: Solar Federation
TO: European Union
We believe that the best option would be to choose to allow countries the option of selecting their colonial experience.
Some nations on Earth, such as Japan or Iceland, have continued to possess a large, mostly homogeneous population with no detrimental effect on their neighbors, provided they are not being manipulated by an opportunistic government. Given the difficulties of space travel, let alone space combat, as well as the prevalence of principles of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights in defining the basic commonality of all people, it is the best estimate of modern day sociology that unless placed in an isolationist setting, such a society would not become xenophobic. With frequent space tourism, the local presence of international defense forces and access to interstellar communications and networks, such a concern is remote at best provided the links in interstellar travel and commerce remain functional.
We view such a colony as an effective method of a nation preserving its heritage and identity and expressing it in a unique fashion--memetic inheritance similar to that of genes in biological organisms.
However, many of the nations which desire likely equally desire to mingle with their peers, much as immigration on Earth is an age-old phenomena.
What we propose is that the existing planets, under the ASTRIS colonization scheme, be provided a referendum as to whether they would pursue their current strategy, or select a mixed approach as European colonies do. Their choices would be respected. Future colonization missions would then be started with a specific purpose in mind, as selected and approved based on requests from member nations, if any. With the proper utilization of colonial planning and the intermixing of "direct" and "mixed" colonies amongst each other, the issue of isolation and growing xenophobia is easily resolved, and each type may continue to exist in relative harmony.
We are of course willing to debate the process through which such "direct" colonies might be awarded, as despite the vastness of space the network does have its limits, and such planets would ideally be located in high-traffic zones, but we believe the deprivation of such potential choice is counterproductive. We are open to discussion on the matter.
OOC: I'm mocking him because I made it clear several times I accepted Niklas' answer. I was being verbose because Niklas was insinuating, without any evidence, that my proposal would somehow destroy the game or at the very least be detrimental to it. I disputed this at length, with points, because I considered it an insult, and still do. It had nothing to do with my interpretation of his answer, and anything more than a casual reading would have made that evident. He can read, but the question is does he?
Yeah I'm from forum games so obviously I'm too ignorant to read.
Bro, if you want to mock go to the While We Wait thread. Your bashing of anyone and anything who makes a comment? It's getting slightly irritating. If your objective is to turn the NES community into a Symphony one-man show, then so be it.
But please in the name of all that's holy, I want to play a game for *fun*. Not listen to you wax lyrical about how much smarter you are than everyone else. I've told you before, you come across as an idiot; while you may not be one, it certainly puts you in a bad light.
Go grab yourself a gin and tonic, get laid and chill out for a bit. If I wanted aggravation and flames, I'd go back to the office.
OOC: Fair deal. One thing though:
Yeah, because I totally invoked that and have definitely been bashing forum games constantly. Don't do "I'm a victim, poor little me." You didn't bother to read what I said. I called you on it. Deal. You catch me doing the same, it's open season for you too.
I apologize for my previous harsh words. I'm in a pretty foul mood for completely different reasons, and this has done little to improve that, but I shouldn't take my frustration out as attacks on other players. I still stand by the semantics of my words though, and I will try to refute your points in a civil manner.
I acknowledge what you say about being able to outexpand and outproduce any competition. That's sort of the point. Or to use your own words:
Apart from the "satisfy your own ego" part, I tend to agree. How is that not a reduction in diversity? You may claim that diversity will still exist, but it will exist only on your terms. Or again, to put it in your own words regarding the requirements on entry into the SF:
Right. So a totalitarian state is no longer welcome in this game. How does that not reduce diversity? Just look at the world today and you'll see the feuding between democratic and totalitarian states makes up a fair share of the dynamics of the political arena. You are effectively cutting off a large part of the spectrum for political diversity. Do you deny that?
I most certainly don't want to debate the merits of totalitarianism vs democratic ideals, simply because I strongly support the latter any day. That doesn't mean I don't want to see a totalitarian state in the game. If the game mirrored my own ideas of a golden future for mankind then it would be a very boring game indeed.
Yes, I want to see "feuding planets dueling it out over ideologies". But as I've noted before in previous discussions we've had, not only planets but also larger entities, call them federations or empires or what have you. That's the level at which you are hampering diversity. That's the level at which there's quite a huge difference between four overlords or just one.
This is also most certainly not about my own ego. I don't have any personal ties to the PRC, and I've tried to get others to take it several times. I'm still playing it because I want to help Chand create the best game possible. Once the real game starts, you can be sure that I won't stay on as the PRC, instead picking up something smaller, simply because I don't and won't have the time to put in the effort it would take to play a major power. It would be very easy and convenient for me to just "let it go", and the only reason I don't is because I really don't like the alternative.
I truly, honestly think that what you are doing now is detrimental to the game. Yes, I do, you may call it an insult if you like, I'd call it an opinion. I know I did not argue it very constructively previously, but I hope I've done a better job now. You may disagree with me, as I'm sure you will, but that is highly unlikely to change my feelings in this matter.
The Presidium of the Communist Party of Xu Fu stands in unison with the glorious People's Republic of China in defying the new imperialist menace!
It may not be wise, but it's also not against the rules. It may be in the best interest of the Pre-NES's realism and believability to keep the major world nations signed on as entities under the Solar Federation, representing their individual interests and politics. It's not a very common arrangement in NES'ing, but it may be good to use here.
OOC: In all due honesty, I fail to see what the problem is. This was a logical step, and what the Solar Federal government presented before the rest of us was not a demand, but rather an offer. As to diversity, it's not as though it can't grow within the bounds of a greater (not to mention very loose) confederation; if anything, the economic specialisation that would happen in such a case would lead to greater diversity between different planets. Besides, I seriously doubt that such an organisation will outlive its direct necessity; any major technological advances that will make colonisation easier will make it all the less necessary for the Earth nations to support it, while the planets will gradually grow more developed economically (and culturally autonomous) until a rebellion will become a distinct possibility. At some juncture (probably not too close, mind you), the Solar Federation will end up trying to balance between two groups of members, neither of which will really need it all that much anymore. So to conclude, it's not such a game-breaker.
In-game, ofcourse, all of this was scarcely ever said, and the party organisations of Damen remain in full allegiance to Beijing and its decisions. Besides, I'm not saying that the Solar Federation is the only way to go at all; a cold war might be plenty fun as well.
OOC: A cold war we are all too likely to lose swiftly I have a feeling, Comrade. But still, a barrel of fun while it lasts
Lurkers Comment: I recommend launching every nuke in your arsenal and fighting a suicidal war of annihlation.
The thing about cold wars is that they can be dragged out for quite a long amount of time if we play our cards right. Now, a conventional war of attrition is indeed a guaranteed loss.
That's certainly an option for when it's time to destroy the old human civilisation so that a new one can rise from its ashes (preferably centered on Damen ). But not yet.
OOC: *Prepares kangaroo nuclear cluster-bombs of doom*.
Question: Are you expecting rich nations to disproportionately contribute to the colonization efforts? Should Europe and the PRC and the US contribute more money than other poorer nations such as Argentina? If so, would the colonial populations be determined by ratio of contribution? Or percentage of world population?
Separate names with a comma.