Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[VoidSlayer]

Hello fellow employees who are not deep cover consortium agents!

I think in terms of mining, rather then going automated we should go with planetary landing, the current one we have can not land on planets.  If we get one that transports people and equipment down then generates fuel on site to launch payloads back we can increase what we can mine.  Maybe several smaller ships that link up into a mine/refinery on the planet and can be used for asteroids and such as well. 

A damage control system to limit damage, bulkheads sealing, fire retardant foam, damage control, teams and such might also be a good investment.

Also we need a second main reactor of some kind for sure, so it can power the giant laser.

[Draignean]

Holding my vote for a bit, though I would certainly argue in favor of a layered defense- with a focus on being able to direct key attacks away from the armor rather than face-tanking. I don't think gravitic shielding will be particularly feasible in the early game, given the near future setting with computers and robotics being about par with modern tech.

Filename: Dreamweaver
What is a dream but a hyper-realistic simulation of life? There are, naturally, abnormalities- the brain's way of working through events, recording memories, and filing data. Yet, in general, the world of a dream will feel normal to the dreamer. If they fly, they feel wind on their face, if they run from a monster, they feel concrete beneath their feet. Many individuals are cheated of these unique details upon waking. Quite the pity, considering that a deep and vivid experience of one's own dreams allows the individual to gain a few hours of their life back from that damned abyss we call sleep.

A damned abyss that we may yet be able to exploit. The brain's ability to simulate is, as mentioned, phenomenal- and I wish to put this to use. With mainframe access, a few psychosomniatic drugs, access to sleeping quarters and the cryo-bay, as well as the license to implant neuro-cannulytic shunts into the skulls of our crew, I believe that we can use the sleeping minds of our crew as the basis for a potent system of predictive analytics. The mainframe guides the group dream, starting it from the current time in the real world using all available information and augmented by contributions from crew minds that display low ECF conversion (High ECF conversion indicating the creation of a fictive dream element, rather than the integration of an existing memory into the dream). Perceived time accelerates when dreaming, and the mainframe will attempt to speed the simulation forward as quickly as can be handled by the patient's brains. In this manner, we can create a simulated reality in which time is passing faster than in our reality. Using this, we can attempt something in the collective Dream and gauge its effects. If the effects are unfavorable we can simply roll back simulated time and attempt a different solution. If they are favorable then we can attempt to procedure in the real world.

In a combat environment, we can attempt hundreds of micro-simulations, each comprising only a few minutes of perceived time, in order to predict maximally effective patterns for real world deployment. It's not a perfect reflection of reality, but the accelerated timescale allows the Dream environment to act as a warped mirror that reveals hints of the future.

[Happerry]

I think in terms of mining, rather then going automated we should go with planetary landing, the current one we have can not land on planets.  If we get one that transports people and equipment down then generates fuel on site to launch payloads back we can increase what we can mine.  Maybe several smaller ships that link up into a mine/refinery on the planet and can be used for asteroids and such as well. 

...Can we please, please, pretty please not get in a fight with gravity for our mining loot? Space rock mining is better and easier in almost every way, and given the lack of random livable planets to harvest organics off of they are better and easier in every way I can think of, and going up and down (mostly the up part but not lithobraking on the down part is also an issue) in a gravity well for our mining is gonna majorly cut into the mass budget for the actual mining and harvesting and transporting cargo back to the mother ship. I would really quite prefer to stay in space where we don't need to make 90%-ish of the mining thing's mass budget be fuel to get it back out of the gravity well again. The only form of planetary mining I'd be willing to support would be running a giant scoop through the outside edges of a gas giant's atmosphere for useful chemicals.

We can't even depend on most of the resource stops to have planets, it sounded like it was mostly going to be Oort Cloud clusters and trojan bodies and such, which means we wouldn't even be able to depend on having a planet, and someone purpose built for asteroid mining is always going to be better for looting space rocks then something designed to mine on a planet.

Really, let's stick with the resources with don't need giant expensive rockets to harvest nor giant amounts of on site infrastructure we'd have to leave behind on the other side of a gravity well instead of reclaiming it and taking said items with us for the next stop.

[10ebbor10]

I think focusing on defense is a mistake.

Combat is done differently than in other ARs. Every weapon on board the Ark that can fire, will fire. The order of weapons fired depends on the weapons themselves and how they were designed. Your crew will choose the best targets according to their training. Defensive countermeasures can eliminate or at least partially nullify incoming projectiles and other forms of things-that-want-to-destroy-your-ship, but damage is just as inevitable as combat.

Per the GM's statement, damage is inevitable. This means that it'll be rare for a defensive system to completely eliminate an attack, with mostly there only being partial blocking. This is logical, if defenses could easily block everything you'd end up with two turtles doing nothing to one another.

However, it also means that building defense is not as useful as building a weapon. To illustrate.

Imagine the enemy builds a weapon. We could build either a defensive system that will stop between 0-100% of the attack, or we could build a weapon that does the exact same damage back. In the case of the weapon, it's a draw, they do as much damage to us as we do to them. In the case of the defense, it's most likely a loss, with a draw only occurring in the unlikely circumstance where 100% of the attack is intercepted.

Defenses are maybe useful if we can counter more than 1 weapon with the same defense. To do that, we need to know what weapons they have, so we need to wait until after they fire it at us. Or, if we had some essential infrastructure that should never be damaged. Neither is currently the case.

[Powder Miner]

I am in decided agreement that we ought not be focusing on defense here. Along with just liking the idea of having an economic focus due to being a corporation and all, the fact of the matter right now is that we’ve got an early opportunity here to build up our infrastructure (something the game was very visibly designed around!), and we have no idea what the enemy is doing.

This is not ENTIRELY an action economy game, but there’s no changing the fact that what we do with our actions, and the way we are to capitalize upon them, is deeply important. It doesn’t matter how many fancy defenses we have if we don’t have the ability to deploy and operate them, and actually having multiple things is rather critical to making a defensive strategy based in synergizing designs together. If we place ourselves at a resource, energy, and infrastructure disadvantage from the start, we may have more difficulty catching up (as resources will allow those with them not only to deploy combat designs but also further infrastructural ones) than we really need to be having. Additionally, what we buy with our resources sticks around (this isn’t ICAR) and by setting ourselves up a resource base we’re putting ourselves in a better position for all following turns not only with those resource gathering methods but what we buy with those resources.

It’s also especially unwise to focus on our defenses both when the threat is likely to be the least (they’re in the same situation we are, remember, so even if they do build weaponry it’s not going to be very concentrated) and when we have the least idea of what they’re actually going to be doing. If we come in here with heavily advanced defenses and they happen to have built something that does very well against them, we’ve wasted our action resources we could have spent on infrastructure. If they haven’t built much weaponry yet, they can just start their offensive doctrine based on what will best deal with what we’ve created. I don’t inherently dislike the idea of layered defenses, but this is about the worst time we could choose focus on them on the expense of other things.

It’s my suggestion that we focus at least 2 of our designs with these dice on economy — probably the mining drones and the reactor.

[10ebbor10]

Depends.

My immediate strategy suggestion would be to build 2 extra mining bays, given that those bays pay for themselves in 2 turns. By doing that, we will be limited by Life Support more than by power.

[Rockeater]

Depends.

My immediate strategy suggestion would be to build 2 extra mining bays, given that those bays pay for themselves in 2 turns. By doing that, we will be limited by Life Support more than by power.

How?

[10ebbor10]

We have :

500 Advanced Plastics
500 Noble Gases
500 Uranics
1,000 Hydrogen
1,000 Metals
1,500 Non-Metals

A new mining bay costs :
50 Uranics, 50 Noble Gases, 400 Metal, 400 Non-Metal
And also consumes -1 Power;   -1 LS Capacity;   -1 Skeleton Space

We can thus afford to build 2 mining bays. That leaves us with:

7/12 Power available
4/5 Life Support Capacity available
6/10 Skeleton Space available (500 Metals & 500 Non-Metals required for next +2 expansion)

Life Support is then clearly the limiting factor.

[NUKE9.13]

You got those power, life, and skeleton numbers backwards.

Anyway, defenses are viable, because even if a defense module absorbs less damage than an offensive module deals, a defense module can be a lot cheaper to repair. Yes, damage is inevitable, so we want that damage to be concentrated on the cheapest systems possible.

That being said, infrastructure is also very important. I think one defense design and two infrastructure designs would be best this turn.

[10ebbor10]

You got those power, life, and skeleton numbers backwards.

Oh right, that makes life support even more important.

Anyway, defenses are viable, because even if a defense module absorbs less damage than an offensive module deals, a defense module can be a lot cheaper to repair. Yes, damage is inevitable, so we want that damage to be concentrated on the cheapest systems possible.

It may be cheaper, but it will not be free. So, the argument isn't changed, it is still a loss. We pay between 0-100% of the costs of the damage the enemy inflicts upon us, but the enemy is guaranteed to pay 0 because we build a defensive system instead of a weapon. Thus, building defenses is a net loss. 

That argument only changes when 1 defensive system can counter multiple weapons at once, because then the avoided damage can be greater than 1 weapon-equivalent.

[10ebbor10]

Atmospherics System Conversion

An upgrade/full conversion of the Ark's emergency life support system, to a full stable system. It utilizes an argon based atmosphere for easier resupply during the voyage, allowing our limited supply of nitrogen gas to be utilized only to sustain our hydroponics based systems. A zeolite based molecular sieve separates any Co2 or other contaminants, which are then funneled through a sabatier reaction to be turned back into normal air. Heat recovery system, as well as nuclear heat sources, cut down the energy consumption of the system.

Designs:
-Infrastructure :
--- "Itinerant" RC Mining Drones: (1) SC
--- Seraph Stellarator Fusion Reactor: (2) SC, 10ebbor10
--- "Harvester" Automatic Mining Probes: (2) Happerry, 10ebbor10
--- Atmospherics System Conversion (1) 10ebbor10

-Defenses :
---"Sanctuary" Layered Defense Armor: (2) SC, Happerry
---Cherubim Interceptor Laser Array: (1) Happerry

Dice spent :
- 9 dice : (1) 10ebbor10

Company Title
Void Conglomerate: (1) SC
"The Company" is perfectly fine: (1) Happerry

[Rockeater]

Chiefwaffles: will you calculate projectile cost or energy costs of firing a weapon?

[TricMagic]

We got alot of people very quickly...

---"Sanctuary" Layered Defense Armor: (2) SC, Happerry
My vote's on this for 1 of the 3 starter projects.

It's quick to build, and can be repaired easily, while reducing the damage our systems take.


Also, since weapons don't seem to be there yet.


"Thor" Railgun--

Making use of the energy produced by the fusion reactor, this builds up four charges.

2 Negative Charges and 2 Positive Charges.

Circle array, the weapon spins as it's powered up. This spin creates a stable field, as the separated charges pull on each other.

Ammo- Neutron {Fission} Array packed into a Metal Oval. Since Sp-ace is empty, we can get alot of speed. More speed = more force.

We could also go with straight metal as the ammo. It's guaranteed to rip a hole through their ship if the don't have any defense.


Fire Sequence. The Neutral Charge protecting the central barrel is released, starting from the base. All the energy slings the Ammo Forward. Basic Physics do the rest.

Note that we already have a mining plan. Just building another during construction will increase our gain. But building 2 of them will limit us.

We can decide after the projects, but it's a definite option.

[NUKE9.13]

It may be cheaper, but it will not be free. So, the argument isn't changed, it is still a loss. We pay between 0-100% of the costs of the damage the enemy inflicts upon us, but the enemy is guaranteed to pay 0 because we build a defensive system instead of a weapon. Thus, building defenses is a net loss. 

That argument only changes when 1 defensive system can counter multiple weapons at once, because then the avoided damage can be greater than 1 weapon-equivalent.

...well, obviously we need to design weapons as well. My point is that it's better to spend 10 resources repairing armour than 100 resources repairing a more vulnerable module.
And armour ought to counter multiple kinds of weapon.

Speaking of armour, Chief, would armour be a separate module, or an 'add on' for existing modules?

[Doomblade187]

I am a member of this team. Also, I support the Dreamweaver.