The Coldest War: You Play Aurora!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Let's Play! > The Coldest War: You Play Aurora!

Ceebees: Nov 2, 2011; I'm intentionally being as verbose as possible in negotiations for my own amusement.

I've looked at Aurora several times, and always just gone "eeeh, Nah" every time on seeing how insane it looks. I'd love to see mechanics and explanation posts for people that've never played it before.

# ¿ Mar 24, 2012 19:17

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 18, 2024 21:54

Ceebees: Nov 2, 2011; I'm intentionally being as verbose as possible in negotiations for my own amusement.

bgreman posted:

A few notes:

Mass drivers can ONLY launch and capture mineral packets, so they're only useful for moving around mining output.

You can't target someone else's population with your mass drivers.

You're telling me that you can honestly build a colossal space railgun that whings around 10-ton ingots of stuff, but we can't ever weaponize it or even aim it threateningly.

How literally Tantalizing.

# ¿ Mar 29, 2012 22:16

Ceebees: Nov 2, 2011; I'm intentionally being as verbose as possible in negotiations for my own amusement.

This line of interdepartmental email simulation has me curious.

does Aurora go with the hard science 'no fun allowed' mode and make fighters useless outside of atmosphere, follow the 'space is an ocean' sci-fi where carriers are powerful but vulnerable and godawful expensive, or go 'OH GOD BEEEEES' where fighters are the answer to everything forever?

Secondly, is Jaramr the King of UN Spacy reporting names, or will we all get to vote, argue, and simulate emails when the :ussr:

Federation starts building things more interesting that concrete-lined holes in the ground?

# ¿ Apr 1, 2012 22:39

Ceebees: Nov 2, 2011; I'm intentionally being as verbose as possible in negotiations for my own amusement.

Firstly, i'd like to say thank you, bgreman, for taking the time to explain this sprawling... thing.

Secondly, the game's obsession with putting TNE's into absolutely everything amuses me in the same way that Space Pirates phazon obsession does, even if Aurora's magic space rocks usually do improve things.

:science:

"Yeah, when we put duranium into the railgun rounds, it really brought down performance."
:v:

"So, why not just make the bullets without any TNEs?"
:science:

"I don't understand the question."

# ¿ Apr 3, 2012 18:57

Ceebees: Nov 2, 2011; I'm intentionally being as verbose as possible in negotiations for my own amusement.

bgreman posted:

Haha, the game doesn't give any explanation for any of this stuff. All of the italic flavor text in the tech descriptions is my interpretation of why, all of a sudden, having TNEs allows people to build weaponized lasers and railguns when they couldn't before, and why certain techs work the (counterintuitive) way they do.

I'm proud of the ICEF concept though.

Oh, well, then consider it a compliment that i assumed your tech fluff was official?
As long as i'm occupying space in the thread, i might as well apply for a naval position so i can occupy space in the game. (ha ha, space puns)

Jaramr posted:

Woah, hold on, im in charge of naming things? Its like X3 all over again!

If i remember how Reporting Names work, i'm pretty sure that you're in charge of naming classes of enemy machines, not individual vehicles?

# ¿ Apr 3, 2012 20:11

Ceebees: Nov 2, 2011; I'm intentionally being as verbose as possible in negotiations for my own amusement.

Bgreman posted:

Commander SA Ceebees, Chief of Diplomatic Operations

Oh lord, we're all doomed.

Lord Windy posted:

Part 3
Creation of a more formal embassy to the Federation to discuss things like 'harmony' and 'a greater peace.' Lets hope we can avoid embarrassing ourselves by using the right spoon.

Once I ~~know what on earth i'm doing thanks to the foreign relations update~~ finish assembling a diplomatic mission, i'll bend my efforts towards ~~lying to the drat reds to keep them quiet until we can nuke 'em real good~~ International Peace.

# ¿ Apr 6, 2012 00:01

Ceebees: Nov 2, 2011; I'm intentionally being as verbose as possible in negotiations for my own amusement.

PokeWarVeteran posted:

I'll say it again, I volunteer for the position of Minister of Foreign Relations, if such a position is needed.
If that doesn't work, I can be some kind of Chief Diplomat.

I seem to have ended up with your desired position on the military front. There might be a matching civilian agency, but as far as i'm aware, this chart lists all the diplomats currently available

(i.e., me and one unclaimed dude.)

# ¿ Apr 6, 2012 03:26

Ceebees: Nov 2, 2011; I'm intentionally being as verbose as possible in negotiations for my own amusement.

They hit the moon, and they're headed for mars.

Gentlemen, we must launch ships as soon as possible to lay claim to the outer system!
(which, as anyone who plays Eclipse Phase will tell you, is the Best System)

# ¿ Apr 6, 2012 21:35

Ceebees: Nov 2, 2011; I'm intentionally being as verbose as possible in negotiations for my own amusement.

Can we improve the scan time by deploying multiple survey drones?

# ¿ Apr 11, 2012 08:30

Ceebees: Nov 2, 2011; I'm intentionally being as verbose as possible in negotiations for my own amusement.

Another vote for Tranquility Base.

# ¿ Apr 14, 2012 14:00

Ceebees: Nov 2, 2011; I'm intentionally being as verbose as possible in negotiations for my own amusement.

bgreman posted:

Give me one more diplomat, and i'll give you ~~a pile of communist skulls~~ some sort of peace treaty or other boring paper thing that involves no skulls whatsoever.

# ¿ Apr 18, 2012 02:59

Ceebees: Nov 2, 2011; I'm intentionally being as verbose as possible in negotiations for my own amusement.

I like the light survey ship design. Why don't we have Versailles make one and devote any excess capacity to expanding?

# ¿ Apr 25, 2012 20:27

Ceebees: Nov 2, 2011; I'm intentionally being as verbose as possible in negotiations for my own amusement.

If for no more reason than how much fun it would be, i vote for missiles that shoot smaller missiles.

If the smaller missiles could shoot even littler missiles (and all this still remain somewhat combat-effective), i would just be overjoyed.

# ¿ Apr 26, 2012 02:53

Ceebees: Nov 2, 2011; I'm intentionally being as verbose as possible in negotiations for my own amusement.

bgreman posted:

Raw_Beef, what is UNSPACY intended to represent? It sounds neat (better than UNIN, for sure).

It's the abbreviation for the UN Space Navy in the Macross anime.

# ¿ Apr 27, 2012 03:10

Ceebees: Nov 2, 2011; I'm intentionally being as verbose as possible in negotiations for my own amusement.

To wit, American diplomacy is showing up with a gun in one hand and a sandwich in the other, and asking which you'd prefer. So, i need you guys to get a big space gun rolled out soon so i can diplomatize properly.

If i need a councilor's seal of approval to send a diplomatic mission to the Federation, i'd like that as soon as possible. If i don't, then... Launch the Diplomatic mission to the Federation.

# ¿ Apr 29, 2012 08:11

Ceebees: Nov 2, 2011; I'm intentionally being as verbose as possible in negotiations for my own amusement.

I vote that we name the York-II the Eboracum, because i think i'm funny.

Next, the issue of the Reka-class ship sent to geosurvey the Jupiter system. I'm assuming the the Federation started with a roughly equal tech base, research potential, and industrial potential as us. Therefore, given that they've beaten us handily in the space race thus far indicates that they must have left some portion of their curriculum behind. Hopefully, as indicated by the apparent failure of their probes, missile technologies are that field, and we should exploit it by doing our utmost to stay ahead.

Lastly, it seems to me like we should try to pre-build the most laborious component of our planned construction, which looks to me to be the Panner's Geosurvey module. I'm in favor of queuing a pair of them for now.

Thoughts?

# ¿ Apr 30, 2012 07:39

Ceebees: Nov 2, 2011; I'm intentionally being as verbose as possible in negotiations for my own amusement.

Are other corporations going to spawn, or will the UN and Federation both be bought out by McKiernan Omnitech Ltd. in 20 years?

# ¿ May 3, 2012 02:13

Ceebees: Nov 2, 2011; I'm intentionally being as verbose as possible in negotiations for my own amusement.

1 - Now that i'm the UNSA attache to the Federation, is there anything i should be... doing?

2 - Does this model of the solar system have Ceres in it? If yes, can/did we geologize it for laughs?

# ¿ May 3, 2012 23:48

Ceebees: Nov 2, 2011; I'm intentionally being as verbose as possible in negotiations for my own amusement.

Welp, i sure was useful in preventing a potential war over something stupid.

FROM: Enemy Territory, Courtesy of Ambassador Cmdr. Ceebees
TO: UNEC Council
re: Diplomatic Threats

Before i fire back an official statement, i'd like to know if we even stop our civilians from planting colonies in the Saturn system?

If the answer to this is 'yes', then my opinion is that we should concede future expansion in the Saturn system, but insist that our peaceful civilian outposts remain in place and under current ownership, subject to possible demilitarization, etc etc.

If they refuse these Entirely Reasonable Demands, then we should probably rush a warship through so we can actually do something about it.

Also we should imply that if they didn't want to get left behind, then maybe their first generation of ships should actually have been useful for something more than photo-ops, jerks.
Message Ends

As a series of asides-
Why aren't their civvies planting colonies all over the place like McKiernan Omnitech?
My job here is to draft a message conveying the council's opinion to the reds, yeah?
How long would designing and building a warship take?
Windy, what do we have to apologize for? Being too good at space?
Who's FHQ Intel, and why aren't they making up reporting names for these enemy rustbuckets?

# ¿ May 8, 2012 11:17

Ceebees: Nov 2, 2011; I'm intentionally being as verbose as possible in negotiations for my own amusement.

To: Federation Ambassador Aloyoshenka Kulikov
From: UN Ambassador Cmdr. Ceebees
Re: Outer Space Treaty
I regret to inform you that the UN Council does not at this time intend to force legitimately established civilian operations in Saturn space to shut down in light of your government's unilateral demands.

However, the UN Council remains committed to peaceful co-existence with the Eurasian Federation. The previously mentioned civilian mining outposts will not be used to station troops (excepting the small, pre-existing policing garrisons) or warships, and your own civil and federal enterprises are entirely free to establish sister colonies alongside them.

In light of current tensions, the Council also expresses interest in negotiating a new treaty to normalize relations and establish the rights of both our nations to colonize our solar system, chart territorial boundaries resulting therefrom, and define processes for establishing legal claim of new extraterrestrial holdings.

Message ends

Edited for final draft, let's see how this goes.

Ceebees fucked around with this message at 03:13 on May 9, 2012

# ¿ May 9, 2012 00:26

Ceebees: Nov 2, 2011; I'm intentionally being as verbose as possible in negotiations for my own amusement.

To: Whom it may concern.
From: Ambassador CMDR Ceebees
Re: We can probably avoid that whole 'shooting war' thing we were worried about.
Well, with the exception of BP being politically insensitive tossers (what else is new :downsrim:

), that's pretty much what we were asking for on the Saturn issue. They're willing to concede Jupiter, but they had time to methodically scan it and decide how much it is- or isn't- worth.

Personally, i'd prefer to negotiate in favor of keeping the colonies there in perpetuity, perhaps offering to pay an increased 'lease' for the land in return. On the other hand, then they could claim similar rights on every tin-can they can establish in the Jupiter system between now and signing...

Secondly, i'd suggest moving the issue of the Martian ruins to it's own treaty instead of trying to staple it on to the end of this issue.

# ¿ May 9, 2012 06:54

Ceebees: Nov 2, 2011; I'm intentionally being as verbose as possible in negotiations for my own amusement.

To: Federation Ambassador Aloyoshenka Kulikov
From: UN Ambassador Cmdr. Ceebees
Re: New Treaty Negotiations

I am pleased to report that the UN Council finds your proposed treaty broadly acceptable, and concordant with their own hopes for peaceful co-existence in space. However, there are a small number of points upon which we would prefer to negotiate further before signing the treaty.

First, the sub-clause requiring the civilian colonies already existing to be withdrawn within five years. The council would prefer that the colonies, having been established independent of UN control, be permitted to exist so long as their civilian founders find them viable to maintain. In return, they are willing to consider a significantly larger 'lease' on the territory than initially requested.
As the officer who will ultimately be charged with negotiating the detail of this point, i would like to personally inquire whether, to be blunt, this matter of the colonies' removal is one of principle or one of price, that i might advise the council accordingly.

Second, the clause establishing a precedent for shared access to the alien ruins on Mars. The United Nations Council would prefer that the shared custody of any extraterrestrial ruins, artifacts, etcetera, be established in a treaty independent of this one, with talks to begin as soon as possible after the Saturn issue is settled. Members of the council have suggested that, as a sign of goodwill, we would be willing to forgo excavation of the Martian ruins until these proposed talks on the matter have been resolved.

Lastly, i would like to assure you that the UN was not consulted by BP prior to their founding a colony on Iapetus in the middle of negotiations on the very subject, and deeply regrets any implications of impropriety that these perhaps overzealous civilian prospectors may have caused.

Respectfully, CMDR Ceebees, UN Attache to the Federation

Message ends

I'm intentionally being as :words:

as possible in negotiations for my own amusement. I can stop if it's annoying or hard to read.

Ceebees fucked around with this message at 20:18 on May 9, 2012

# ¿ May 9, 2012 20:06

Ceebees: Nov 2, 2011; I'm intentionally being as verbose as possible in negotiations for my own amusement.

Jimmy4400nav posted:

Could our civilian colonies possible use their rail-guns to defend themselves if the Red's try anything aggressive. I know they're designed purely to lob packets of material from one place to another, but still I can't think of anything more powerful than a rock hurled t near light speed right at a commie craft.

Alternatively, can we stall them long enough for us to churn out our Moscow Class Corvettes?

Pretty sure that part one was answered with a 'no' earlier. The only way to use mass drivers offensively is quite roundabout and only works on planets.

As for two, what's a better stall than a peace treaty? :black101:

# ¿ May 10, 2012 00:45

Ceebees: Nov 2, 2011; I'm intentionally being as verbose as possible in negotiations for my own amusement.

bgreman, if i can get a quick confirmation on something?
Does that request mean that the price increases by 1% per year after 5 years, or that the price is (1% * total lease agreement time) for every year of the lease agreement?

Also: ooh, the Federation Triumvirate. Spooky.

To: The Council
Either one of those option is still more generous that some of the options that were being considered, so we should probably decide how long we want to let the Saturn issue lie quietly (with our ~~listening posts~~ absolutely peaceful civilian mining colonies in place) and seal the deal on that treaty.

Once the Outer System Treaty (ha ha, i are make internal lore reference) is signed, then we can really start bickering about the martian ruins treaty.

Also, as ambassador, i recommend that we push for a treaty establishing a process for claiming offworld territory as quickly as possible. They have a 'rightful' claim to saturn because they had a picture from a photo-op, and a new ship design that might have had guns launched to spook us.

We should establish a process to ensure that in the future, the process of legitimately claiming land is ~~biased towards us~~ Fair.
Or, you know, seethe quietly and eventually first-strike nuke them. Just so long as we have a plan.

# ¿ May 12, 2012 06:09

Ceebees: Nov 2, 2011; I'm intentionally being as verbose as possible in negotiations for my own amusement.

Iunnrais posted:

For quick reference, I believe these were the changes that we discussed so far.

Personally, if I may make comments as a future colonial governor, I'm not really happy with a fixed term lease. Can we negotiate terms of renewal? Or a non-fixed term lease of some sort?

If more negotiations are required, stall graciously. Who knows... perhaps more civilians will add more colonies before we sign!

Thank you for the list again.

As to your question, i directly asked if a more open lease arrangement were possible, and the response was a pretty clear 'no'. Given that they have what may be a warship and we do not, i recommend that we not push the issue until we can be better assured of parity.

I don't see any strong opinions about this treaty in the last few days, so i'm assuming that it's basically acceptable. All i need now is a term of lease decided by some portion of the Council and i can send it back to the Reds (i.e, post a final version).

I would like to also renew my recommendation that we propose a third treaty establishing a system for claiming extraterrestrial territory. With the Council's permission, i would like to raise the topic in my next diplomatizing.

# ¿ May 13, 2012 22:35

Ceebees: Nov 2, 2011; I'm intentionally being as verbose as possible in negotiations for my own amusement.

I'd kinda prefer to not unilaterally decide the treaty terms, so...

From: Ambassador CMDR Ceebees
To: UNEC
The Outer Systems Treaty is effectively complete except for a term of lease. In the interests of not potentially having our colony invaded by the Federation mystery ship, can the council vote on that? I think Ynkling suggested a 15-year (20% payment) term.

By the by, who's on the council now, anyway?

# ¿ May 14, 2012 20:36

Ceebees: Nov 2, 2011; I'm intentionally being as verbose as possible in negotiations for my own amusement.

Sorry.

Anyway, for the sake of clarification, these additional points:

That Sovereignty over a world is by who first established a colony on it, with a minimum stable population of no less than 10,000, and not by first discovery or landing;
We can share the Mars ruins' information, in return if they share any wormhole locations they might discover in the solar system;
Control of a gas giant system is determined by which faction controls the most moons;
Control of a Star System is determined by who controls most of the systems and planets in a star system (Except the Sol system). If this occurs, then I feel we'll have to come to some agreements about military presences in a system that both governments have a presences in.
Governments should share important information with each other. Particularly things like new ruins being discovered or other important information. But the finding nation has first right to explore and while all cultural discoveries are to be shared, scientific discoveries don't have to be
I do agree with the eventual goal of demilitarizing Earth, we should definitely be talking with the Federation about this.
Lets open up more trade with the Federation, trade is the best positive diplomacy, and the best deterrent of war;
Lets see if we can jointly develop a missile shield, neither one of us want to be nuked.
An extremely ambitious negotiation point Once we discover ways to go beyond the solar system, lets see if we can jointly explore new solar systems, that way we don't get too ambitious and cutthroat with exploration and information about exploration.

Are they intended as an addition to the Saturnian treaty, or as a foundation for the Martian/Rules of Colonization treaty(s)?
Because if they're a new treaty, then the Saturnian one has 2 council votes for a 15-year term, and i'm tempted to call that good enough so we can move on to arguing about new issues.

(also, i was calling it the Outer Systems Treaty as a joke on the Outer Space Treaty.)

Ceebees fucked around with this message at 21:46 on May 15, 2012

# ¿ May 15, 2012 21:31

Ceebees: Nov 2, 2011; I'm intentionally being as verbose as possible in negotiations for my own amusement.

Iunnrais posted:

I believe we only have mines on Mimas and Titan, please correct me if I'm mistaken.

A megacorp smacked down a colony on Iapetus whilst we were negotiating.

# ¿ May 16, 2012 03:12

Ceebees: Nov 2, 2011; I'm intentionally being as verbose as possible in negotiations for my own amusement.

Veloxyll posted:

Why, exactly, should we be carving up space into little national pockets?

So that when we decide to blow them up, our targets will be labelled and color-coded?

Iunnrais posted:

In which case, we could offer to drop Mimas immediately, keep Iapetus for 5 or 10 years, and Titan for as long as we can possibly stand.

Last communication implied that we could keep bases on all three for a single, unified term. I'm tired of thinking about this, and there's a sort of tepid consensus for 15 years, so i'm going to formally accept a 15-year term tomorrow evening unless yelled at a lot between now and then.

Here's what i have, for yelling-at-me purposes:

The (provisional) Saturnian Treaty posted:

The FEAN reaffirms their claim on Saturn and its moons, out to 200m km.

The FEAN, in turn, willingly revokes their rights to Jupiter and its moons, of which exactly one is worth anything at all, out to 200m km.

A separate Martian ruins treaty will be discussed in the near future. The UN shall not excavate the Martian Ruins until these talks have concluded

The civilian mining colonies in the Saturn system shall be permitted to remain without undue harassment. This has the following strictures:

Someone shall explain to me exactly what constitues 'due' harrassment.

No United Nations civilians beyond those required to operate the mining complexes will be permitted to establish residence within the 200m km cordon.

No United Nations-flagged ship, military or commercial may approach within the 200m km cordon without activating its transponder and announcing its intentions. Any ship not obeying this directive shall be fired into after due warning has been given.

The United Nations shall lease the territory occupied by the civilian mining colonies on Titan, Mimas, and Iapetus from the Federation of European and Asian Nations for a period of 15 years. The UN shall remit 20% of the taxes collected from these operations to the Federation of European and Asian Nations as payment for said lease.

The mining colonies must not make any attempt to subvert our sovereignty over the Saturnian system.

The mining colonies must be dismantled or relocated by or before the end of the term of lease.

The mining colonies may not be used to station troops or warships. The existing garrison battalions may remain to provide order to the mining colonies. Any hostile act by these battalions toward Federation of European and Asian Nations citizens will be considered an act of war.

No new colonies may be established after the date of ratification of this agreement.

Both polities agree that further treaties shall be necessary to ensure the safety of the human population on Earth.

# ¿ May 16, 2012 09:24

Ceebees: Nov 2, 2011; I'm intentionally being as verbose as possible in negotiations for my own amusement.

Here's a treaty-

From: UN Ambassador CMDR Ceebees
To: Federation Ambassador Aloyoshenka Kulikov
Re: Saturnian Treaty
Discussions between the UN Council and civilian business interests have worked out the following modifications to the suggested treaty. I submit it in the hopes that your government will also find it acceptable.

The Saturnian Treaty posted:

The FEAN reaffirms their claim on Saturn and its moons, out to 200m km.

The FEAN, in turn, willingly revokes their rights to Jupiter and its moons, out to 200m km.

The civilian mining colonies in the Saturn system shall be permitted to remain without undue harassment. This has the following strictures:

No United Nations civilians beyond those required to operate the mining complexes will be permitted to establish residence within the 200m km cordon.

No United Nations-flagged ship, military or commercial may approach within the 200m km cordon without activating its transponder and announcing its intentions. Any ship not obeying this directive shall be fired into after due warning has been given.

The United Nations shall lease the territory occupied by the civilian mining colonies on Titan, Mimas, and Iapetus from the Federation of European and Asian Nations for a period of 15 years. The UN shall remit 20% of the taxes collected from these operations to the Federation of European and Asian Nations as payment for said lease.

The mining colonies must not make any attempt to subvert Federation sovereignty over the Saturnian system.

The mining colonies must be dismantled or relocated at the end of the term of lease.

The mining colonies may not be used to station troops or warships. The existing garrison battalions may remain to provide order to the mining colonies. Any hostile act by these battalions toward Federation of European and Asian Nations citizens will be considered an act of war.

No new UN colonies will be established in the Saturn system after the date of ratification of this agreement.

Both polities agree that further treaties shall be necessary to ensure the safety of the human population on Earth.

A separate Martian ruins treaty will be discussed in the near future.

End message

And i totally vote for naming our Meson PDC the Ghostbuster-class.

# ¿ May 17, 2012 08:50

Ceebees: Nov 2, 2011; I'm intentionally being as verbose as possible in negotiations for my own amusement.

Whoops, i forgot to 'send' our ideas for the Martian treaty. Teach me to post at 2am.

Anyhow, this treaty is, shall we say, not particularly acceptable. Time to get cracking on it :eng101:

# ¿ May 17, 2012 23:18

Ceebees: Nov 2, 2011; I'm intentionally being as verbose as possible in negotiations for my own amusement.

From: Ambassador CMDR Ceebees
To: Everyone
Re: Chill your roll, dudes.

I don't even know if that's an actual saying.

Anyhow. The Federation's claim to a fifth portion of the civilian mines' production is perhaps not precisely rules-as-written, but it is the logical interpretation of the treaty in the event that the mines are producing minerals instead of money.
If they wanted to be doubly clear, the line probably should have been changed to 'production' instead of 'taxes', yes, but this isn't something out of left field. And really, how would they have reacted when we went "Ah-hah, but we don't have to pay you anymore, because only money can be taxes!" if not poorly.

So, in conclusion, if you really want me to i'll complain on our behalf, but i'd prefer that we had meson PDCs and a warship first. And i'd like a personal shield. And a jetpack.

That said, we have a much better grip on Mars, so our treaty here will be significantly less conciliatory.

# ¿ May 18, 2012 01:49

Ceebees: Nov 2, 2011; I'm intentionally being as verbose as possible in negotiations for my own amusement.

Iunnrais posted:

From: Grad-Student Iunnrais, UN Academy
To: Ambassador CMDR Ceebees
Re: Treaty terminology

Stop trying to be reasonable.

In the meantime before we have sufficiently armed ourselves, perhaps you could get them to accept 20% of the monetary value of the minerals instead. Part of the POINT of accepting this treaty was to keep the actual minerals out of their hands while simultaneously arming ourselves better.

Just because i'm reasonable doesn't mean i don't plan to blow them up. It just means they'll be less likely to see it coming. :moreevil:

We went into these negotiations with a mystery ship implicitly threatening to destroy two civilian colonies in order to try to re-establish resource parity. We came out of it with three established colonies covering all the moons that actually have value, a treaty that gives us a 4-to-1 share on what they dig up, and a consolation prize of the entirety of Jupiter. What's more, the Federation hasn't shown any particular ability to establish colonies - even if this new ship is actually a colony ship, they'll just be starting when we're already at six bases, including their natural expansion.

And all this is before we even try any dirty tricks, like quietly subsidizing the colony owners so they build more mines and leave scoured husks behind for the Reds when we leave since there's no clause against the expansion of existing mines.

Considering that their stated reason for claiming Saturn was "We feel like we're falling behind in resources", and the treaty effectively gives us the lion's share of the Saturnian TNE's, i don't see why we should be do anything to upset this situation. In the words of a famous mathematician, 'when you're ahead, get more ahead.'

Ceebees fucked around with this message at 02:43 on May 18, 2012

# ¿ May 18, 2012 02:40

Ceebees: Nov 2, 2011; I'm intentionally being as verbose as possible in negotiations for my own amusement.

I suggest the Berlin-Class for the MOSCOW Project, with a theme of "cities that the communists don't own anymore." My second choice would be the Sardine Tin-class, because :stare:

. Regardless of name, we should probably start Versailles on one.

Also, how's the meson PDC project going? If the answer is 'not done yet', i cast my vote for focusing on that line of development.

How much game-time has passed since we started, anyway?

I intend to send a request for negotiations on Articles of Colonization in the next update. If you have ideas, please share them, but for now i'm mostly working on Jimmy4400nav's suggestions.

Lastly in the unfocused tangle of thoughts that comprises this post, opinions on this, please -

Martian treaty work in progress posted:

The ruins on Mars and any other similar discoveries in the future represent a shared gift to mankind, and no one nation may restrict knowledge of them or access to them.

In the interests of sharing this gift with all of humanity, the United Nations and the Federation of European and Asian Nations, and any other theoretical signatories, will cooperate to exploit these ruins, sharing any recovered installations and/or technology evenly.

Recovery efforts of any ruins will begin as soon as practicable. In the interests of insuring equitable division of assets and technology, independent monitors as well as representatives of signatory nations will observe recovery operations.

The area around the Martian ruins itself is declared to be free from any territorial claims. Any and all signatories may establish peaceful colonies within this zone. Weaponized military bases are prohibited from being established in this area.

The Martian Demilitarized Zone and any outposts within it shall be excluded as viable targets in any armed conflict, and attacks of any nature on them shall be considered Crimes against Humanity.

Strictures similar to these shall be in place for any other ruins that may be discovered in the future.

Should any human-usable technologies be derived resulting from research upon extraterrestrial ruins within a signing nation, it is acknowledged to be their property, with the following restrictions:

The knowledge of the technology must be offered at fair value to all other signatories of the treaty.

If a nation chooses not to purchase the technology, they retain the right to purchase devices made using it at fair market value so long as a state of peace exists between discoverer and purchaser.

Basically, we agree to a science-sharing of the martian ruins in exchange for access to anything they find later, while retaining our current control of mars. Though, we should probably establish another colony outside of the DMZ if this works.

my main question is how the idea of a demilitarized zone affects the fact that we apparently need to use extremely strong engineering brigades to exploit the ruins.

Ceebees fucked around with this message at 10:23 on May 19, 2012

# ¿ May 19, 2012 09:51

Ceebees: Nov 2, 2011; I'm intentionally being as verbose as possible in negotiations for my own amusement.

From: Ambassador CMDR Ceebees
To: UNEC, UN general staff
Re: Diplomatic activities

EVUL SPACE SOCIALISTS posted:

We are also interested in discussing nuclear arsenal limitations, if not for all of Sol, then at least for 50m km cordons around Earth and Mars. We would be willing to engage in nuclear drawdowns regarding our missile complexes on Earth if these drawdowns are matched by the UN.

Whoops, missed that the first time.

In light of past approval for disarmament, i would like to propose an initial drawdown of 5% of the (largely obsolete) nuclear arsenal as a first step, with more to follow if that goes as planned.

Actually, since i keep saying i mean to do things and this already has pretty broad support...
Message ends

From: UN Ambassador CMDR Ceebees
To: Federation Ambassador Kapitan Aloyoshenka Kulikov
Re: Treaty negotiations

Please find attached the latest draft of the Martian treaty as approved by the UN council.

Additionally, I believe that an initial drawdown of 5% of both our nation's ICBM arsenals would be a good first step, with further reductions to be negotiated in the future.

Finally, the United Nations would like to propose Articles of Colonization, to avoid tensions similar to those precipitating the Treaty of Saturn again in the future. In the interests of workload management, these would be discussed after the martian treaty is settled, but i thought i'd take the opportunity to informally inquire as to the political feasibility and potential shape of such an agreement.

Respectfully, CMDR Ceebees.
Message ends

Ceebees fucked around with this message at 08:02 on May 21, 2012

# ¿ May 20, 2012 22:01

Ceebees: Nov 2, 2011; I'm intentionally being as verbose as possible in negotiations for my own amusement.

I believe we resource-scanned Mars a while ago? Might we see the resource panel so people who actually know what resources are worth can consider the value of Martian dominion.

Anyway, i somewhat agree with this innocent bystander who seems to have wandered into the council chamber. The only real change from the first draft is they're offering ownership of reactivated installations, and asking for a cordon DMZ and unconditional equal split of tech.

The cordon DMZ is... Well, i personally am not fond of the idea, but Windy liked it, and it does have the advantage of making the ruins a lot harder for anyone to accidentally blow up.

As for the other one, the underlying reason why it's unacceptable to me isn't that the idea of splitting tech with them is completely verboten, but that there's no redress mechanism if a party only signs on in order to leech progression from the other. I'm presently drawing a blank of the game and metagame mechanics we could use to try to balance that, but if there was a way of giving use of the tech or repaying the development costs proportionally to the amount of work that actually went into developing them from each side, would this point approach tolerability?

Pakled posted:

We've already given up our mines on the Saturnian moons

People keep saying things about this treaty that aren't accurate.

Saturn Treaty:
-They claim Saturn.
-We get Jupiter.
-Our mines on Saturn's moons stay there for the next 15 years.
-They get 20% of those mines' production.

# ¿ May 23, 2012 09:20

Ceebees: Nov 2, 2011; I'm intentionally being as verbose as possible in negotiations for my own amusement.

DagPenge posted:

So the only body in the solar system that's better than the Moon to colonize is Mars?
This pretty much means that we gotta get some people there ASAP, Ceebees any chance we could start shipping them there now, or do we need to finish the treaty first?

The nonbinding agreement was to not excavate the ruins prior to the conclusion (successful or otherwise) of the treaty negotiation, so there's nothing except the looming threat of their mystery ships to stop us from colonizing away.

# ¿ May 23, 2012 21:19

Ceebees: Nov 2, 2011; I'm intentionally being as verbose as possible in negotiations for my own amusement.

bgreman posted:

From: Federation Ambassador to the UN Kulikov
To: UN Ambassador to the Federation Ceebees
Re: Mars Treaty & Nuclear Ordnance Drawdown

We await your response regarding our latest draft of a Mars treaty. Additionally, we note that instead of beginning a nuclear drawdown, you appear to have established two new bases over the last several weeks. What is the nature of these bases?

<- Me, for future reference.
So hey, how about we go ahead and decommission those 5-10% of the pre-TNE nuclear bases like i said we would, because i promise things like that to people we spend half our time plotting to vaporize with meson beams. That'd be cool.

Anyway. Points.
Mars treaty:
Free Mars-
This is unacceptable because A- we have boots on the ground and B- that ground is goddamn made of delicious TNE's. Abandoning even our tentative ownership would, in my understanding, be a poor tactical move.

Even tech split-
Not the most pleasant idea because right now, because the fact that we have possession of the ruins increases the probability of us handing things we learn over to them for free. Future ruins may tip this in our advantage however, if we take the long view. We could also ask for some sort of dollar-per-research point amount on techs handed over, but that's unlike to sail with Kapitan Communism over there.

Our New PDCs-
drat. Uh... Should i say they're testbeds, better-sited replacements, say there's no missiles in them, or just keep silent until we fire up the sensors and yell "GOTCHA" at a Moskva? Maybe we could even just glide over them by drawing-down the arsenal and ignoring them.

Ceebees fucked around with this message at 00:52 on May 26, 2012

# ¿ May 26, 2012 00:34

Ceebees: Nov 2, 2011; I'm intentionally being as verbose as possible in negotiations for my own amusement.

So, here's where i intend to go with things. If you're going to update in the next day or two please use this. If it's further out, then i'll be rewriting them with suggestions after a day or two.

quote:

All the appropriate titles
Mars Treaty:
Tech sharing - The UN has no fundamental objection to sharing technology recovered from the Martian ruins, and reaffirms it's convicting that the best interests of all humanity are served by analysis of them at the earliest possible date. However, it would prefer to have some guarantee that it will not be punishing itself by being the first to invest in them. As they say, the second mouse gets the cheese.

Martian DMZ - The UN regrets that conceding yet more extraterrestrial territory currently inhabited by duly established colonies through treaties would be politically untenable.
Additionally, there are sufficient tensions in the solar system with two nations in play - what purpose would it serve to balkanize mankind before we have even left this cradle?

In the interests of disclosure, we intend to dispatch additional personnel and infrastructure to Mars in the near future. The injunction against further excavations remains in place.

Other:
Articles of colonization - We did, of course, mean the latter sort of negotiations. We will be forwarding our thoughts on the matter once these current talks conclude.

-Only to be sent after we scan something with them-
~~Ghostbusters~~New PDCs - Our apologies for concerning your government, we assumed that your intel would know what they were. The two new installations you mention are sensor test platforms, entirely devoid of missiles. The drawdown will proceed as planned, if you have no other queries.

And seriously, dismantle, disable, or recycle some PDCs or, if i don't have the authority to do that, find me someone who does.
(Or tell me we shan't so i can send that across.)

Edit:

DagPenge posted:

Ceebees stop being all and read your inbox.

Yes boss, on it boss.
However, if i might opine, i'm not sure what good this will do from a diplomatic standpoint. I've tried to phrase it as neutrally as possible, in either case.

Ceebees fucked around with this message at 05:54 on May 30, 2012

# ¿ May 28, 2012 09:26

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 18, 2024 21:54

Ceebees: Nov 2, 2011; I'm intentionally being as verbose as possible in negotiations for my own amusement.

Ynkling posted:

Also, am I the only one feeling that our rendition of the UN bears more resemblance to North Korea in its behaviour towards the Eurasian Federation than, say, the UN?

Outmatched in a variety of ways, suspicious of pretty much everything, tolerated because wiping us out would be uncouth (and end the game), and constitutionally incapable of publicly admitting any of the above? Yes.

Eviller than Lucifer's goatee? Less so.

DagPenge & Innocent_Bystander posted:

Stuff

I will readily admit that i have no particular idea what i'm doing, and that my prior experience in diplomacy is, well, playing Diplomacy. (i.e, treachery 101)

# ¿ Jun 1, 2012 00:16

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Let's Play! > The Coldest War: You Play Aurora!

«‹›9 »