|
To: UNEC From: UNCAO Long Term Oversight Subject: Lars Proen Esteemed representatives, I represent the Long Term Oversight department of UNCAO. For those who are not aware, our organization is tasked with tracking issues of high importance that have received neither satisfactory resolution, nor concrete plans, and which are not being currently discussed. When these issues are identified, we seek to represent them to the UNEC as a polite reminder that unfinished business remains, with an eye towards preventing these events from "slipping through the cracks." Think of our organization as your nagging mother-in-law who will never, ever forget a mistake you've made. As the last discussion of Lars Proen was over a year ago, we are submitting the matter of his situation for your review. Mr. Proen's continued upkeep brings costs, in the form of conventional requirements as well as in the risk that his discovery by Federation agents could cause a disastrous diplomatic incident. We ask that the UNEC to resolve the issue of Mr. Proen by providing a concrete plan for future actions with regard to him, even if this is by declaring that his current situation is acceptable for the indeterminate future until events make him relevant again. Remember, we only want what is best for our children.
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2012 05:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 18:00 |
|
|
I'm not sure if it was mentioned, but with missile designs, what does the warhead value measure? How much damage does a 1 warhead missile do? If it's 1 damage, that's somewhat concerning.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2012 16:59
|
|
|
Bremen posted:This is the case; and yes, it's very easy to run out of missiles before destroying your opponent. So, e.g. code:What kind of missile designs are we looking at for reasonable missiles with size * 9 * 16 * 25 Our AMM seem reasonable enough but given that we know the Federation has at least partially chosen to invest into beam weapons, I think that we should be strongly considering having at least a couple ships that deliver one-shot knockout punches to at least the Moskvas.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2012 19:10
|
|
|
OK, now I understand, thanks.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2012 20:32
|
|
|
bgreman, could you please add me to the list of Civilian Administrators?DagPenge posted:Looking at all the Belnar stuff one thing does come to mind, how did they get into our system!? I doubt this. I suspect that the Federation was too busy researching other things to have had time to research this by the time of the Treaty of Saturn. I think that the more mundane explanation of a resource monopoly attempt is more likely. Besides, the fact that the jump gates are "stationary" relative to our sun, rather than orbiting as the planets do, means that the Federation would only be able to control a jump point for a relatively short amount of time. It makes sense as a logistics hub that will occasionally be nearby to help with fueling and operations, but that's a bit of a stretch. On to other business: I recall that, based on the known capabilities of the Moskva and our projections of its loadouts, we have a rough idea of the component makeup of the Moskva. Does anyone know on what page that is? I'd actually like someone to model the effect of several scenarios regarding a fight between Moskvas vs Berlins or Surigao/Samar pair. In particular, what is the likelyhood of our ships killing the Moskva before it gets into beam range? How many Moskvas must be in a patrol to be statistically likely to overwhelm a lone Berlin? A Surigao/Samar pair? What about mixed groups such as two Berlins vs multiple Moskvas? I don't think that anyone has done an analysis of this, which means that our effective combat capabilities are still somewhat unknown. We also don't even have guesses for the loadouts for the Skory class, which greatly concerns me. We NEED to know this information to know how to handle our fleets in the event of a confrontation, if we want to do anything more complicated than sticking all of our boats into one task force and hoping for the best.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2012 16:38
|
|
|
Unfortunately, it's also possible that they've crashed a shipyard on a moon of Saturn, and are producing their newer designs in secret. We can see that Project ZEUS is non-trivial, but we've been getting sidetracked. If they were able to focus on getting their shipyard there, and ship minerals/resources there, it's possible. I'm concerned about the idea that a single Moskva could take out a Surigo/Samar; they're designed to work in tandem, and if the Samar is destroyed, the Surigo won't be able to actually see the Moskva to fire upon it, correct? Frankly, with the amount of damage beam weapons can do once in range, I'd say that it's most likely that either both ships survive, or neither will. As a stopgap, I recommend that naval doctrine is that while we have pairs of Surigo/Samar ships, we also have a minimum of two Samars in each pack; in this way, if one is destroyed, the rest of the pack isn't blinded.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2012 19:43
|
|
|
SPERMCUBE.ORG posted:The Samar/Surigao were designed to work in tandem to escort a Berlin. And the Surigao is capable of targeting an enemy ship on its own it just has very limited range. It still probably has much more range than a beam-armed ship though. I guess I understand, but we created a pair of ships where - One has an incoming missile tracker - The other has long range sensors The Berlin has both of these, so if the idea is that the Berlin is going to be the mothership while these are the escorts, why didn't we just make a ship class that didn't have either of these?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2012 21:29
|
|
|
Triggerhappypilot posted:I think we're betting on the strength of our fleet doctrine to compensate for our lack of numbers. So far as we can tell, the Moskva class was primarily designed as a solo patrol boat - that is, after all, how we've seen it used in combat. I do agree that our fleet doctrine is lacking a mid-range Destroyer type to one up the solo patrolling ability of the Moskva, but in a true fleet fight I would imagine that we have the upper hand. I hope you're right 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2012 02:31
|
|
|
From: Administrator trainee Volmarias To: Counselor Added Space Cc: Administrator Arujel, UN Council Subject: Belnar Terraformer Counselor Added Space, While I understand your reasoning behind wanting to move the newly discovered and reactivated Belnar Terraformer, I cannot share the decision you have made nor can I in good conscious support it. Let us determine the advantages and disadvantages of this decision: Advantages:
Disadvantages:
With this list, I feel that the decision is clear. While we certainly DO want to provide Tranquility with a Terraformer, its position directly above Earth means that it may be simplest to simply build it and transport it. Volmarias fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Dec 25, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2012 00:17
|
|
|
TO: UNCAO Administrator Added Space CC: UNRA Administrator General Antares FROM: Administrator Volmarias SUBJECT: Mining assignment Administrator, Thank you for your endorsement of my abilities, and the opportunity you have granted me on overseeing 702 Alauda. I believe that I can refine and improve my abilities here, before I have the opportunity to take a larger commission such as our Venus mines. TO: UNEC Council FROM: Adminstrator Volmarias SUBJECT: Naval treaty Dearest councilors, As both our and the Federation navies continue to grow, I am concerned about the effect that an arms race would have on our societies. As we are all painfully aware, there are a limited number of TNEs in our solar system, and we have yet to even put JPT to the test by sending a ship to explore the universe. I am concerned that should the resources in other systems be relatively limited as they are here, we will spend all of our resources on a naval conflict that we doom ourselves to initiating with the Federation, leading to an Armageddon that will no longer be confined to the region of the Middle East. To this effect, I would recommend an arms limitation treaty, such as the Washington Naval Treaty from a century ago. The aims are similar now as they were 100 years ago; prevent a naval arms race from spiraling out of control and consuming our budgets, and more importantly our limited TNEs. As we have a good idea of the current tonnage of the Federation, and we don't realistically expect that shipyards will be present on other bodies for at least a decade, I believe that we have a good starting point for both ship sizes and for verification of the treaty. Distinctions could be made between armed military craft and other craft such as cargo ships, colony vessels, surveyors, miners, etc, where the later could be unbounded in size. Even if this isn't a realistic method, or if arms controls are not believed to be needed, I do think that we need to be very careful about our plans for future spending of our very limited resources. Volmarias fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Dec 27, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2012 21:25
|
|
|
Innocent_Bystander posted:From: Innocent Bystander, Director of Defense To: Director Innocent_Bystander Cc: UNEC, Trusted Parties From: Administrator Volmarias Re: Titan, strategic musings Transporting the engineering brigades for the Federation has several benefits. First, if they're asking us to do it, they don't have the capability, and when we make this way for them we know that in the event of hostilities we hold all the ground force capabilities, at least in the near term. Second, there's the show of goodwill. Our two groups are on good terms. Look at how well we get along! The federation is letting us take one of their precious engineering battalions hostage and paying us for the privilege! Our forces share tea! Thirdly, it's a matter of real politik. We know that we're not alone in the universe, and we are frankly at a disadvantage when it comes to extra solar species. Better working relationships now with the Federation give us the groundwork for goods relationships in the future. I transport your engineers today, you swing by a colony under siege by alien marauders and help out tomorrow. This is part of what Ceebees was talking about with regard to "doing us a solid." Either we assume that total war is inevitable, in which case I'll be stocking up on survival gear now thank you, or we expect and prepare for a cooperative framework. Now, there's the question of how much to charge. We can definitely let this factor into the Saturn negotiation, as one possibility. Alternately, we can just charge fuel as before, and let payment be down the line. A third choice, which I don't think anyone has thought of, is for us to use this in conjunction with Titan in return for demanding fair access to purchasing from their Corinundum stocks. Given the impending crunch, we could leverage ourselves an escape, or at least force the Federation to prove out our suspicions here.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2012 23:53
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:
Oh boy, you mean we could start world war 4 and kill all of ourselves instead of exploring the universe, because ??? I'm not confident that the outcome would be at all favourable for us. Let us put this idea down to gin soaked ramblings and move on.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2012 01:37
|
|
|
I don't think that the Federation is going to pout if we turn them down in the future. They'll only complain if we promise them transport and then reneg on that promise.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2012 03:40
|
|
|
Iunnrais posted:Maybe not STEADILY rising, but there's no reason not to gain some profit while we're making them dependent on us. We're making profit, but it's political, not financial.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2012 04:21
|
|
|
Frankly, I'm surprised you didn't do this months ago.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2013 02:34
|
|
|
TO: Councilor Jimmy4400nav, UNIC; UNEC members FROM: Administrator Volmarias SUBJECT: Re: Jump tech Timing will be critical with whatever we do in regards to Jump Tech. We must consider the following scenarios: - The Federation has already researched JPT before us, and is actively investigating Jump Points Frankly, this is the simplest to verify; because the gravitational points relevant to JPT weren't clear until after critical breakthroughs, and because they are of limited number, and because they are not near any celestial bodies, finding a Federation ship near a gravitational point would be near absolute proof that the Federation is actively investigating other systems. In the event that the Federation has reached JPT before us, there's little to gain in not announcing JPT. - The Federation has not yet researched JPT, but is actively researching it and will finish soon Announcing JPT will encourage the Federation to put all of its resources into finishing JPT, and our advantage will only be several months worth. Best to not tip our hand; the Federation may think that we haven't investigated JPT, and may be willing to take their time. - The Federation has not yet begun research into JPT If this is the case, then the UN has a truly unique opportunity to take an insurmountable lead. We will have the opportunity to research all systems from Sol at our own leisure. We may even be able to quietly begin colonization by shipping colonists and infrastructure towards Callisto, but then diverting to the relevant gravitational point once out of sensor range. (bgreman, do we know what the Federation sensor nets are? Do we have a feasible guess as to how far out we'd have to go to do this?). The very moment that we announce JPT, the Federation will immediately scramble to catch up, and may commit dramatic levels of pressure on us to try to prevent us from gaining any further lead on them. If the Federation has the opportunities to spend its resources on an improved military while we are in a critical time colonizing the outer reaches, they may well be able to succeed in this. I would recommend the following: - Send our current ships to reconnoiter the known gravitational points, while obscuring their destination to the Federation, so that we can determine whether they know of these points. -- If we encounter their ships, announce JPT. -- Otherwise, do not announce JPT until we are already well established outside of the solar system, or the Federation announces JPT. Regarding close range weaponry craft, my opinion is that we ought to stick to a particular style of weaponry, and focus on that. If we split our focus on beam weapons vs missiles, we'll be good at neither while the Federation will be good at beam weaponry, and we will be at a definite disadvantage. Don't forget that every new piece of equipment has a price in terms of research and development.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2013 03:31
|
|
|
Added Space posted:From: Councillor Added Space FROM: Administrator Volmarias TO: Councillor Added Space SUBJECT: Re: Re: Reassignment Councillor, Thank you for having the chance to rectify this. I have been trying to handle this on my own, but have been unable to get a hold of form 27B-6, without which I appear to be unable to do anything. I look forward to seeing you later.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2013 16:00
|
|
|
FROM: Administrator Volmarias TO: Councillor General Antares, UNRA; Councillor Added Space, UNCAO CC: UNEC SUBJECT: IAU Kuiper Belt Object #342 Councillors, I've heard that there's been a request for names for our new, scientifically named holdings. May I suggest that we rename "IAU Kuiper Belt Object #342" to perhaps "Waste of time #1"? The object contains a deposit of Uridium, a resource that is already plentiful for us. While admittedly, there is a relatively large reserve, and it is easy to access, I would say that it is not worth our time to extract. I would recommend that we remove one of the two mines leaving the remaining mine in place as a token, and place it on another body which will provide us with more value such as IAU Asteroid #140. #140 has 5 resources available for extraction, including Corundium, which due to the "Corundium Crunch" is desperately required on short notice. We may even wish to remove the mass driver for use in another project; a freighter can stop by every few years to pick up the Uridium if we even want it. FROM: Administrator Volmarias TO: Councillor jimmy4400nav, UNIEB; Councillor General Antares, UNRA CC: UNEC SUBJECT: Duranium usage on our colonies ATTACHMENTS: Tranquility Resources January 2033.xls Councillors, Looking at our resource projections, I am concerned about whether we have enough Duranium to support both our infrastructure projects, and our resourcing efforts. At the same time, I understand that we do require Duranium on earth. Will our industrial resources on Mars, Tranquility, and Callisto be given first priority over the Duranium required for their infrastructure projects? If so, will Earth have enough Duranium for its own projects? quote:Tranquility FROM: Administrator Volmarias TO: Councillor Innocent_Bystander, UNIN CC: UNEC SUBJECT: Victoria and Vancouver naval yards ATTACHMENTS: Shipyards January 2033.xls Councillor, I understand that this isn't my area, but it looks like both the Victoria and Vancouver naval yards are neither expanding their capacity nor adding slipways. I'd just like to draw attention to this fact, and ensure that this is not an oversight. quote:Shipyards FROM: Administrator Volmarias TO: Councillor DagPenge, UNDOT SUBJECT: Re: Public announcement of UNDOT goals Councillor, With all due respect, hire a speechwriter.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2013 13:52
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:OOC: Since I'm sort of going for the powermad, insane sycophant, I wonder if there's any way I could leverage knowing whatever the results are before everyone else. Probably too much hassle for the thread, though, but if bgremen thinks of anything interesting, feel free to implement it. I'm assuming that one of five things will happen: 1. BP's immobile oppression palace explodes 2. Federation bases in Jupiter space explode 3. The Federation triumverate explodes 4. A cache of information is released 4a. to the sending address, or 4b. to the media So, if 4a happens, congrats on winning the jackpot! 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2013 16:00
|
|
|
Magrov posted:Just for reference, the "Projected Usage" column in the mineral report screen is the total mineral cost of every queued project until completion. The orange color denotes that the "Projected Usage" value for this mineral is higher than the "Stockpile plus Production" value, but this comparison is apple to oranges, because the latter only takes in consideration 1 year of production. Ah, ok. I misunderstood what the columns were. Thanks!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2013 22:12
|
|
|
General Antares posted:I name Volmarias as my deputy. I approve ceasing the sale of minerals from the cmc. FROM: TO: Councillor General Antares, UNRA SUBJECT: Deputy Councillor, I have to state that it is an honor and a privilege to be named deputy administrator of the UNRA! I would never have imagined to have come so far in such a short amount of time! I shall endeavor to live up to your expectations.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2013 02:01
|
|
|
TO: Councillor Added Space, UNCAO; Councillor Jimmy4400nav, UNIC FROM: Deputy Volmarias SUBJECT: Re: Re: El Dorado construction Councillors, While it looks like we desire to cancel construction pending industrial construction of ship components, I don't think that anyone has actually given the order to do that. Can whoever is most appropriate please issue the order for this?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2013 15:08
|
|
|
Whoops, misread that.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2013 23:26
|
|
|
Added Space posted:Did we/are we going to get a response to the "sickle" message? I can't say much until that resolves.  says that if a reply was given, it was given to TildeATH via a PM or on irc or something.On the plus side, at least no Federation holdings exploded 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
We could simply ship the whole thing up to Calisto as part of the continuing criminal probe into BP's activities. Then they get no mines, and they get bad press.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2013 01:10
|
|
|
Given the draw down in nuclear weapons, I believe that Federation policy no longer believes MAD to be sufficient deterrent, as I suspect that they believed at the time that they could in fact overwhelm our defences with a first strike. If they could knock out our PDCs and our void fleet, then we would effectively be at their mercy and subject to whatever terms they dictated. It is possible that KRONOS was an implementation of their plans for this; in fact, having an excuse to bring both of our fleets into very near proximity, such as an event on Titan, would very well have been devastating in the event of a first strike by Federation strike craft. That said, I'm hesitant to believe anything that Proen provides us, directly or indirectly, which we cannot independently verify. The obsolescence and deprecation of our Nuclear arsenals is something which cannot help but prove itself, but Federation plans to capture Titan are nothing but murky and insubstantial at this point, and I urge that we hesitate to take any action on this or any future communications.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
LLSix posted:Fedderat spy detected. Baseless accusations of espionage benefit only the Federation. Funny how quick you are to cast aspersions. Tell me, are you now or have you ever been a member of the Federation?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2013 23:53
|
|
|
Arujei posted:FROM: Admin Arujei Rumors of discontent aren't open revolution or a military crackdown, and with the fiasco of Tranquility still somewhat fresh it seems like a speech like this could come across as hollow, or even backfire. Frankly, the timing just isn't right.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2013 00:06
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:For a real Coldest War, we need a couple new NPC sides generated to represent the Pawn States of the Federation and the UN, through which we can fight our proxy wars. Wouldn't you love to pour men and treasure into your own Vietnam or Afghanistan, except Vietnam is a swamp planet filled with vampire dinosaurs and Afghanistan is a set of desert moons in a distant binary star system? You're just agitating for a new planet to govern, aren't you 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2013 05:43
|
|
|
Coolguye posted:If you could build CI with few/no TNEs for later conversion, that would be a very compelling reason. There's no representation of ecological problems that a TNE industry nearly sidesteps. If the warts of CI still showed up, it would be different. It would be interesting to see earth start out with too much carbon in the atmosphere, radioactive fallout, etc, which you could fix with terraformers.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2013 00:39
|
|
|
TO: Dr. Thanatz, UNGS FROM: Deputy Volmarias, UNRA SUBJECT: Next object to survey Dr. Thanatz, Thank you for your great work in surveying 16 Psyche. Unless General Antares has any objections, I would ask that your next destination be Earth for 1 month's R&R, and afterwards the asteroid Wodan.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2013 23:57
|
|
|
Jimmy4400nav posted:(ooc. While we could in theory have Bgremen SM a new company, it won't grow at all, so it will just kind of do nothing). Seriously? That's pretty unfortunate. Is that a bug or a design limitation or what? Of course, McK seems to not grow unless we give them a constant injection of subsidies... Speaking of which, I'm surprised that, given our dire transportation needs, we haven't been giving them even fatter subsidies than we are already. We could always space-narrative this away by saying that the UN is purchasing partial ownership of McK with a $100B capital injection.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2013 14:19
|
|
|
bgremen, if we voted to start a state sponsored shipping company as a competitor to McK, would you be able/willing to do that? You mention not doing it for narrative reasons, but if we're able to dump $100B into a new company, I think it's worth considering.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2013 23:51
|
|
|
Dr. Snark posted:If you do this, make sure that his removal is as public as possible. There's "punish the responsible"and then there's "methinks the lady doth protest too much." There's a long history of near Armageddon incidents, and he won't be the last.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2013 05:14
|
|
|
To play devil's advocate, I find it inconceivable that the Federation don't have it's own missile defense stations. Can we please consider that the Federation is posturing here to some extent?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
Creating dedicated training command bases is actually a good idea. The only real downside to decommissioning our ICBM bases is a lack of training for our officers, so providing them with replacements that are actually functional works out well. The big problem here, however, is that even if we don't build Ghostbusters, the Federation will notice us building active facilities, and won't have much reason to consider them anything but weapons installations. We'll need to provide them with assurance somehow that they're not, or we face another arms race. Before anyone accuses me of cowardice, let me remind them that industry and money are limited resources, which can be better spent bringing ourselves to the distant corners of the galaxy once we begin jumping to other systems.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2013 02:29
|
|
|
Ceebees posted:The status on that is "someone launched a nuke into the stratosphere". I haven't forgotten, though. While we did see installations of theirs go online, we have no guarantee that they're anti missile bases. They could, in fact, just be TN missile bases meant to replace the old ICBM bases, and the Federation could be relying on MAD to keep the balance, or on recalling their fleet to earth to serve as missile defense. Unlikely, but worth considering.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2013 15:09
|
|
|
Innocent_Bystander posted:An across the board Meson upgrade push is something that needs doing eventually, but right now we should be focussing on the backbone of our fleet, namely missiles. A beam fire control tracking speed upgrade would allow us to great improve the capabilities of our ghostbusters, though. The current projected intercept rate for a missile going at 20.000 km/s is 20%. If we upped the tracking speed that would go up significantly. A concern of mine is that the Ghostbusters have a very limited range. We could upgrade some of our icbm bases into missile bases as proposed previously, while making most of them Ghostbusters.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2013 21:54
|
|
|
LLSix posted:There's no real need to dismantle the ICBM bases, just get rid of all the missiles. That way they can still be used as There's no way to upgrade the facilities in place, is there? In any event, I think that we should decommission our entire nuclear armament stock. They're completely obsolete, and even if we want to keep the launchers around we'd want to put TN missiles into them anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 18:00 |
|
|
Innocent_Bystander posted:Exactly! Go for it! Oh god our poor nascent survey teams  bgreman, is there a Panner available to transport them that isn't likely to have a catastrophic maintenance failure on the way? If so, then please use one. Otherwise, I'm ordering that the survey team wait in place until a transport which is unlikely to fail mid-transit is available to take them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2013 12:33
|
|