Fixed.  Thanks.

That's actually it for the report, other than the summary.  I'll try to get that up before too late tomorrow.  Kind of a big report, but like the commander said, it may be one of the last reports where you get the whole story.  We'll have to work toward a happy medium where it's not too much but you have enough to work with.  I'm sure it'll work itself out.

Sounds good to me Tolmekian 

It's done.  Discuss.

I agree with the ethical choice for the population growth on Sauron, and I agree with the ethical choice on Gimble, however I completely disagree with the ethical decision on Nestor 1, I think you should have chosen the neutral decision since there was not that big of a bonus difference between the evil choice.

I think we should stay mostly neutral with our ethical choices and only choose evil if there is at least a 8% bonus difference between neutral and evil.  Also only choose good if it has no penalty and we have nothing really to gain from the other choices.

I like the neutral path for it has better trade techs later on, plus the neutral path has instant terraforming, just in case we don't get the orbital terraformer galactic achievement in time.

For research I have a few paths I would like to suggest:

1. Research Xeno Industrial Theory then start researching Soil Enhancement;  This path is for faster social production and more room for social projects

2. Research Xeno Industrial Theory then research Diplomatic Relations;  This path is for faster social production and for more leverage in future trades

3. Research Soil Enhancement and then research any other tech we can finish in the quarter;  This path is for more room on planets and to prepare for any change in the research production.

Other than the text above I have no more opinions on current matters.

A few notes on my post on the main thread:

When discussing diplomatic possibilities, what I meant by "minor" civilizations was civilizations that are weaker then ours - not necessarily minor races. In my own games of GalCiv, when creating treaties and trade routes I usually have to choose between focusing on strong races that might later attack me and waste those treaties/trade routes, or weak races that are reliable partners but don't have much to contribute.

I suggest, incidentally, that the quarterly reports start adding information on our diplomatic relations.

Finally, a quick note on the planet name: The "qrtxians" I draw my username from are aliens in a sci-fi comic I draw, whose homeworld was named, unsurprisingly, Qrtx. I picked the name solely because I could be sure no one else would use it, but within the context of the thread, I view the qrtxians as being one of the other component species of the Tolmekian Federation. Hence, Qrtx would be one of the planets in the Federation's home sector, with "New" Qrtx being a colony of the Expedition.

Good points all around.  Now I almost feel bad about the ethical choice.  It's really not in Dr. Malar's character to "imprison" a scientist, though having him loose would create a threat.  I just got jumped by the ethical choices.  Looks like they start popping up in year 2.  I can't change the in-game effect, but the scientist's story isn't over.

As for balancing ethical choices, you're right to say it really doesn't work.  It turns out  that we are currently pretty well balanced - just slightly to the evil side of neutral - but we'll have to be careful in the future.  I'll do my best to keep neutral and balance it out, but there are some things I just can't pass up, short of council mandate.  For example, if that 52% starship bonus were on that PQ22 barren world there's no way I'd let it go.  Can you say manufacturing capital?

Good times.

Agreed. I noticed you ran into this problem with the Gaian Expedition AAR as well and thought it should be headed off now.

Yes I must admit re ethical choices that I tend to go neutral as well (so my Councillor character is rather out of character if you get me lol  )

It's unfortunate that often the evil choices are the most rewarding ones.

However in the long run it's just as often worth to sacrifice a few of these short term gains to end up being neutral or good, and as a result of that having better relations with specific races. Or getting access to certain technologies, though there as well evil typically seems to be getting the best deal with their unique weapons...

Looks like most councilors have weighed in on current issues.  I'm talking with qrtxian about getting the ballot put together.  In the mean time, are there any issues other than research that should be on the ballot?  I've read through a few times and it seems the consensus is to carry on and stick to neutral.

A quick note:

I feel it is important to note that the Korx do behave differently then the Drengin, Yor, etc. They use AI personality 11, not 7 as do the other evil races, so they are less aggressive. Also, on the subject of hostile races, ignore my previous remarks about the Korath - I just remembered it was actually the Krynn.

Second note: I don't want to clutter up the voting with more commentary, but I felt I should note that in Twilight, trade routes do not increase in value over time - a change from the earlier games. Hence, contrary to what LordCarlos says a trade route isn't as much of a long-term investment as, say, a treaty.

Just one quick question, how in the world do I vote?

I didn't know that.  Thanks.

How to vote on research, as proposed by G'Norlisk.

Basically, you rank the techs in the order you want them to be researched then sign the ballot so we know you voted.  Lowest total gets researched first, then the next lowest, etc.

There ended up being a lot of techs on this ballot, since we took every one that was mentioned without enforcing "seconding".  Maybe in the future we'll keep it down to proposed techs that have been seconded, so that every single one doesn't end up on the ballot.

Little question for y'all:  Does it matter what worlds I give the unique names to?  I mean, is it going to hurt your feelings if your name goes to some small world?

I ask because I imagine some might like their worlds to be large, powerful, and/or important.  Otherwise I'll just distribute the names to our core worlds as we claim them.

PS - two more councilors to go! 

Jus shows how long it's been since  i played, i would write an apoligy in the main channel but it's not worth it if you dont state anything in there so it would be wired. I'll find a way to retract my statement.

I don't mind, but you should try to give the unique names to important planet. Like planets you think will see a lot of action, or manufacturing, research and economic centrals.

For me, any planet will be physically a lot bigger than the country I'm living in, so just about any planet will do

Oh man, I messed my voting up.  Can I be allowed to fix it?

Agreed! Now, I can't remember if I submitted a name or not so here is the name I submit:

Tabb

Thanks!

TMS2224

While I don't have an objection, will it make a big difference if you do?  Right now Sub-Space Drive is winning by a landslide (16).  Interstellar Republic is next (22), followed by Xeno Engineering (29).  If you really wanted to, I think you could change the order between those two, but it won't matter much because SSD will take all or most of the quarter to finish.

Remember, the results are only binding for this quarter, so you'll have a chance to vote for research again in the next session.  With that in mind, I'd suggest just letting it ride.

I thought I was supposed to rate the techs I wanted to be researched with the higher numbers.  So the way I voted was the reverse of what I wanted.  TMS2224 can you please update your ballot so it shows my changed votes.