[CHAIN ISSUE CONCEPT] Mars Mission Proposed

[Trotterdam]

What about Brasilistan? I mean, you do terrible stuff to the nation in the first chain. I think that that leads to rivalry.

And very probably end up conquering or otherwise overthrowing them very shortly after they start being a problem.

Nor did they ever pose a real threat to you. Even when they were kidnapping some of your expatriated citizens, they never threatened your way of life in your homeland.

It lacks the same sense of tension in that, if you lose the race, you will lose face to a rival superpower. As soon as the issue chain is over, whoever you were racing won't matter anymore and you're back to normal issues.

Fun fact: the Soviet Union was actually ahead for most of the space race. They got to most major milestones (first satellite in space, first probe to visit the moon, first probe to photograph the far side of the moon, first astronaut in space, first probe to fly by another planet (Venus) - though while it reached its destination it malfunctioned and failed to return any data, so the US sort of won that one, first extra-vehicular activity / space walk, first probe to land on the moon, first probe to orbit the moon) before the United States did. But then their poor economic policies caught up to them, and they decided to cut funding to the space program to focus on more immediately useful projects. The United States only put boots on the moon first because the Soviet Union quit. And even after that the Soviet Union still beat them to a bunch of stuff (first mobile moon rover, first landing of a probe on Venus, first landing of a probe on Mars).

But then the Soviet Union collapsed and history is written by the winners, so now everyone treats walking on the moon as the one milestone that really matters.

This wasn't actually relevant to the chain, I just thought it's interesting.

(Source.)

Bigtopia seems more like a Cold War sort of enemy, though, since IIRC they've pulled shit like spying and attempting assassinations instead of all-out war.

According to my notes, Bigtopia and Blackacre are involved in that kind of thing.

My point remains, however, that defeating a standby nation that only rarely appears in issues is fundamentally less exciting than going to Mars! and doing Science!.

Sure some players may prefer to pick fights like that, but I don't think it's a good idea as the main focus / only possible way to go on this chain.

however having the reactor have problems and what not midway would make for some fun mcgivering to command.

Of course.

Apollo 13 was pretty cool, with things going wrong and still turning out more or less okay (though they did have to abandon actually going to the moon). That also goes for the fictional stranded astronaut scenario from The Martian. There should definitely be a possibility for things turning out like that in the chain.

now obviously the orion would be powered by a nuclear reactor,

While it would still need electricity onboard for various systems, it would actually need much less than the nuclear-electric ship, since the power plants isn't what's actually providing thrust (it has self-contained nukes for that). It actually could quite probably get by on solar power, though all the same once you're already nuking stuff anyway there's little reason to worry about the downsides of a nuclear reactor on your ship It does mean that a reactor failure would be less of an issue since, since you don't need it for propulsion, you have a pretty good chance of being able to survive on your backup power source (hope you packed one). If the reactor fails on a nuclear-electric or nuclear-thermal ship, unless you can get it started again in time, you fly off into deep space and everyone dies.

The advantages to a chemical rocket would be a lack of research needed, plain and simple. Chemical rockets are good off the shelf, but otherwise they are pretty lame.

Correct.

The reason I mentioned food is because if you did not include some un-irradiated food your stranded guy would not be able to make it back,

Something to consider: NationStates chains don't have the full capability of a dedicated Choose Your Own Adventure system. This isn't necessarily a bad thing (too much complexity would just confuse things), but it's something that needs to be taken into account.

In particular, picking a particular option on an issue will always have the same result, regardless of past choices. I.e., if there's a "let's try this" option on an issue, it'll either always succeed or always fail, rather than depending on your nation's stats or your decision on a previous issue in the chain, unless the entire story path has diverged from that previous decision so you don't run into the same scenarios. (Hence why you actually can't lose when invading Brasilistan, regardless of the size of your military.) Any reasonable chain is going to need to make use of storylines that merge back together to combat combinatorial explosion.

One workaround is to use option validities on issues, to make an option not show up at all unless you have the stats to make it work. Combined with a bunch of flags kept from earlier issue decisions (in principle, possible, though it's probably best to keep them to a minimum since flags are usually about long-term policies in your nation rather than something that matters for a single storyline), this could allow for quite a bit of versatility.

There is the consideration that it would be very annoying for players to receive the chain and find that they can't do the option they want because (say) their scientific advancement isn't high enough. (On which note, An International Incident will keep daring you to nuke Brasilistan, even if you never had a nuclear program, as can be done using #151 option 1 and #312 option 3 and kind of #349 option 3 too, and I think recorded by the "ubiquitous missile silos" flag.) At the very least, if you fail to reach Mars or dismiss the chain (and maybe even if you succeed but don't establish a permanent settlement), you should have the opportunity to retry the chain later after your stats have hopefully improved, so you won't be permanently locked out of some possibilities just because of what your stats happened to be when you lucked into getting the chain the first time.

I think your idea of hab design would be better, how do you think the issue for that could be laid out?

Err, hmm. I know there's some discussion about inflatable habs (rather than the more intuitive rigid hulls). And... general how-much-life-support-do-you-have-stuff. Can't think of anything crucial right now.

EDIT: Oh right, now I remember what I meant. In Andy Weir's story, the evacuation of the other astronauts (and consequent stranding of the one who got injured while attempting to evacuate) was because of a stronger-than-expected sandstorm that threatened the integrity of the hab - and as I now remember, perhaps more importantly, the rocket that was their only way to return to orbit, which risked toppling in the winds. Had the setup been more robust against heavy winds, there would never have been a crisis and the mission would have proceeded as normal.

I was thinking what would happen first would be a series of decisions on what probes to send there and what to look for, thus affecting future issues (if you did not search for water ISRU would be impossible, no search for life cuts out the life finding issue, etc.).

ISRU?

EDIT: Oh, in-situ resource utilization. You don't actually need liquid water for that, mind, ice will do just as well. Which probably still takes some effort to find but is still much easier. There are also things you can make from rock/regolith rather than water.

This would create a more realistic feel than just a land and plant with no foreknowledge of what you are dealing with. It also allows for story development.

It would probably be reasonable to have the first issue in the chain open with "robotic probes found something interesting on Mars, and that's why we want to send humans to get a closer look!" to get you motivated.

Robotic probes are valuable but comparatively boring, so don't spend too much time on them.

Now, about the branching vs converging issues. I think that we could do both. From what I understand, options can have validities, and thus the options in our issues could have validities to themselves,

Ah, you already thought about this. Well, take my comments above into consideration, anyway.

This would also mean that all kinds of fun things could be done, not choosing a lander with an RTG could remove the RTG heating option for the stranded guy,

I think we want to avoid too much stuff depending on seemingly-irrelevant details from before. It's getting too bogged down in technicalities rather than politics, and anyway it'll be easy to solve for anyone with a spoiler chart, which you'll recall I produced for Brasilistan fairly quickly when I wasn't part of the chain design team beforehand.

Now, for that idea about a space race? Why not have an insane general say that they need to either endure the red planet is an ally against the "capitalist pig dogs", or to fight the "commie menace" and thereby prevent more planets from "going red" dependant upon if you are a capitalist or socialist nation. It would be funny and allow for a few battles or tense standoffs dependant upon the options taken. I could be otherthinking this though.

I repeat my previous opinion: I'm fine with there being an option for this kind of thing, but it shouldn't be the only way to go, or the "best" one. (Though I'd have it as a generic prestige/pride/arrogance option, rather than a specific emphasis on being either capitalist or socialist - even if the pun of a "red" Mars is amusing.)

It could also be handled as an after-the-fact choice. Now that you have all this Cool Stuff, do you want to share it? ("We came in peace for all mankind.")

[Wisconsin9]

I can't say I think taking The Martian route is a very good idea. It seems cheap and a touch plagiaristic, and I think it would be less fun than actually coming up with our own thing.

Bigtopia seems more like a Cold War sort of enemy, though, since IIRC they've pulled shit like spying and attempting assassinations instead of all-out war.

According to my notes, Bigtopia and Blackacre are involved in that kind of thing.

My point remains, however, that defeating a standby nation that only rarely appears in issues is fundamentally less exciting than going to Mars! and doing Science!.

Sure some players may prefer to pick fights like that, but I don't think it's a good idea as the main focus / only possible way to go on this chain.

No, definitely not. We could probably split it off into two paths, one focusing on military/propaganda purposes with a thin facade of SCIENCE!, and the other focusing on SCIENCE! with the happy bonus of nationalistic dick-waving.

---

On another note, I've got an idea for a possible first issue in the chain. I could put together a rough draft and post it tomorrow, if anybody's interested.

[Trotterdam]

I can't say I think taking The Martian route is a very good idea. It seems cheap and a touch plagiaristic, and I think it would be less fun than actually coming up with our own thing.

We can take some inspiration of themes, but not just a straight copy, and not as the main thing that's going on. Many nations wouldn't reach the stranded-astronaut story path at all, and if they do, the problems faced and solutions faced shouldn't be a simple mirror of the ones Andy Weird came up with.

I listed Apollo 13 as another example for that reason. It's broadly a similar story, scraping by to bring astronauts safely home when the mission has failed and a whole bunch of equipment is broken, but the details are very different.

[Wisconsin9]

I can't say I think taking The Martian route is a very good idea. It seems cheap and a touch plagiaristic, and I think it would be less fun than actually coming up with our own thing.

We can take some inspiration of themes, but not just a straight copy, and not as the main thing that's going on. Many nations wouldn't reach the stranded-astronaut story path at all, and if they do, the problems faced and solutions faced shouldn't be a simple mirror of the ones Andy Weird came up with.

I listed Apollo 13 as another example for that reason. It's broadly a similar story, scraping by to bring astronauts safely home when the mission has failed and a whole bunch of equipment is broken, but the details are very different.

I'm not saying we shouldn't do a bit where something goes horribly wrong, just that we might want to avoid doing the stranded guy thing like the OP suggested. And if we do have shit hit the fan, I think it would be a good idea to do it in a way that doesn't eliminate continuing the mission as a workable choice.

[Atomic Utopia]

We can take some inspiration of themes, but not just a straight copy, and not as the main thing that's going on. Many nations wouldn't reach the stranded-astronaut story path at all, and if they do, the problems faced and solutions faced shouldn't be a simple mirror of the ones Andy Weird came up with.

I listed Apollo 13 as another example for that reason. It's broadly a similar story, scraping by to bring astronauts safely home when the mission has failed and a whole bunch of equipment is broken, but the details are very different.

I'm not saying we shouldn't do a bit where something goes horribly wrong, just that we might want to avoid doing the stranded guy thing like the OP suggested. And if we do have shit hit the fan, I think it would be a good idea to do it in a way that doesn't eliminate continuing the mission as a workable choice.

Yeah, no stranded guy would be needed, just something going horribly wrong that severely compromises the mission and causes them to need to repair stuff, could be Apollo 13 style, could be stranded people on mars style, or alternatively the computer malfunctioning thus sending it somewhere they did not want to go, like having the AI send them to the asteroid belt and thus have them need to improvise there.

[Trotterdam]

And if we do have shit hit the fan, I think it would be a good idea to do it in a way that doesn't eliminate continuing the mission as a workable choice.

I agree, that would be more interesting than playing in a story path where you've already been told you've failed at your main objective.

If something goes wrong, there could be a choice of whether to bail and bring everyone back home as fast as possible (your astronauts are safe, but your mission failed), or try to work around the problem and keep going (possibility of still succeeding at the mission if you play your cards right, but also increased risk of the astronauts dying if you do something wrong).

or alternatively the computer malfunctioning thus sending it somewhere they did not want to go, like having the AI send them to the asteroid belt and thus have them need to improvise there.

Space is mostly empty. If you don't stay exactly on course, you end up in the middle of nowhere and die.

Slightly more plausible would be the craft successfully arriving at Mars but landing in the wrong place on Mars. Still, that doesn't seem like the most interesting failure mode.

Unless you mean a truly intelligent AI a la HAL that's capable of deliberately rebelling against its creators, rather than just an autopilot miscalculating due to a programming bug. But even if NationStates does have a couple of issues alluding to intelligent AI, I'd rather not make use of that. (Also, science fiction needs more robots that don't rebel against their creators.)

[Wisconsin9]

And if we do have shit hit the fan, I think it would be a good idea to do it in a way that doesn't eliminate continuing the mission as a workable choice.

I agree, that would be more interesting than playing in a story path where you've already been told you've failed at your main objective.

If something goes wrong, there could be a choice of whether to bail and bring everyone back home as fast as possible (your astronauts are safe, but your mission failed), or try to work around the problem and keep going (possibility of still succeeding at the mission if you play your cards right, but also increased risk of the astronauts dying if you do something wrong).

or alternatively the computer malfunctioning thus sending it somewhere they did not want to go, like having the AI send them to the asteroid belt and thus have them need to improvise there.

Space is mostly empty. If you don't stay exactly on course, you end up in the middle of nowhere and die.

Slightly more plausible would be the craft successfully arriving at Mars but landing in the wrong place on Mars. Still, that doesn't seem like the most interesting failure mode.

Unless you mean a truly intelligent AI a la HAL that's capable of deliberately rebelling against its creators, rather than just an autopilot miscalculating due to a programming bug. But even if NationStates does have a couple of issues alluding to intelligent AI, I'd rather not make use of that. (Also, science fiction needs more robots that don't rebel against their creators.)

Personally, I like the idea of sticking to things that we're already capable of doing.

[Sanctaria]

Considering that it took the mods several years to put the only chain issue together, I don't think this will happen for some time. But great idea though!

Not the mods, me and the other editors.

The chain took ages because I had to write, edit, write, edit, write, edit etc and then I had to implement a brand new stat and so on.

I wouldn't have to write this chain, only edit and stat, so I would be able to get it in-game relatively quicker if you guys wrote it.

[Trotterdam]

Considering that it took the mods several years to put the only chain issue together, I don't think this will happen for some time. But great idea though!

Not the mods, me and the other editors.

The chain took ages because I had to write, edit, write, edit, write, edit etc and then I had to implement a brand new stat and so on.

I wouldn't have to write this chain, only edit and stat, so I would be able to get it in-game relatively quicker if you guys wrote it.

Yeah, that's the clincher.

This would take less work from you and more work from us, but either way the work's still gotta be done, and that'll take a while.

[Atomic Utopia]

So I was thinking of what kind of disaster could befall our great astronauts, and I found it. If you are using an NTR there might be two options, one would suggest a graphite moderated one with a positive void coefficient, whereas another would suggest a 30% enrichment fuel one with an extremely negative void coefficient. In the case of NTRs you want a positive void coefficient as it ensures that when you add the propellent it does not suddenly experience a positive reactivity insertion from the thermalization and thus more efficient absorption of neutrons. In the case of the NTR one you would have the core experience a massive criticality excursion requiring that it be ejected from the spacecraft midway into the burn. This would mean that they would be without an engine and would thus have to do some mcgivering with the other, smaller nuclear reactor used to power the lander ISRU unit.

ISRU stands for In Situ Resource Utilization.

[Trotterdam]

If you are using an NTR there might be two options, one would suggest a graphite moderated one with a positive void coefficient, whereas another would suggest a 30% enrichment fuel one with an extremely negative void coefficient.

...Okay, I like technical details, but that's going too far. 99% of NationStates players won't have a clue what those are.

We only have so many issues to work with. I mean, there's no hard limit, but it would be silly to have one chain be half of the issues in the game. The whole Brasilistan chain was only 19 issues, including alternate story paths.

Each issue should represent a significant interesting decision, not a technical minutia.

You're playing as a politician, not a scientist. Whether to use nuclear power or not is a decision with significant political relevance, but if you decide you want one, it should be assumed your scientists know the right type of nuclear reactor for the job without needing you to micromanage the design.

[Gnejs]

...Okay, I like technical details, but that's going too far. 99% of NationStates players won't have a clue what those are.

We only have so many issues to work with. I mean, there's no hard limit, but it would be silly to have one chain be half of the issues in the game. The whole Brasilistan chain was only 19 issues, including alternate story paths.

Each issue should represent a significant interesting decision, not a technical minutia.

You're playing as a politician, not a scientist. Whether to use nuclear power or not is a decision with significant political relevance, but if you decide you want one, it should be assumed your scientists know the right type of nuclear reactor for the job without needing you to micromanage the design.

In my opinion this is the most sensible advice in this thread yet. Please have this in mind if you're going to continue with this project.

[Reploid Productions]

Here's some of my advice, for this and really for anybody looking to attempt writing an issues chain:

• As already mentioned, don't get bogged down in the minutiae of the storyline/technical details, at least not at the start. Remember that you are a national leader, so your role in the story is to issue general directives, knowing that your nameless subordinates will know the best way to carry out those general instructions.
• Map out the chain before you even think about writing any of the actual issues. This was what the International Incident chain started out as, a messy-as-fuck handwritten flow-chart mapping out the progression, with only minimal bullet-points about the contents of the eventual issues. Starting out handwritten like that is a good way to rough out the idea. That rough version was later cleaned up and given to the Issues Editors as this flowchart (it's been months since the Chain launched, I think it's safe to share the original progression chart, especially as it's not entirely accurate to the finished Chain anymore! ) Having that visual is probably the best way to manage your story branches/convergences, since a major hurdle with writing a branching story is having your number of branches balloon into a completely unmanageable mess.
• Once you have that roadmap, a good next step is to write summaries of what each issue should be about and what the options are, rather than jumping straight into writing the issue drafts. As an example, this was the summary I wrote up for the first issue in the International Incident chain, which you might notice is somewhat different from the finished issue:
  
  Issue #1 (Chain Starts) - An International Incident - Rise of Neo-Maxtopia
  Description: An aggressive new government comes to power in what was Maxtopia, now known as Neo-Maxtopia. Acts of aggression have been made toward its neighboring countries including an invasion/hostile takeover of Bigtopia. Player must decide what, if anything, they should do about it.
  Options:
  1) Neo-Maxtopia is nowhere near us, we don’t need to worry, they wouldn’t dare to attack us/we’ll let them take Bigtopia, surely that will appease their needs.
  2) Neo-Maxtopia is a threat to our sovereignty! We must rally the military and come to Bigtopia’s aid!
  This makes it a lot easier to keep everyone on the same page and organized over the course of the writing/editing, especially if you wind up having multiple authors writing up the issues for different sections of your chain. (And really, for larger chains, you're probably going to want the help!)
• Not all chains NEED to be massive honking beasts. Short chains can be done, and you should look carefully at your scenario to figure out how expansive a project it needs to be. Something like the war in the International Incident chain is a pretty expansive subject with a wide range of possible actions, leading to it having upwards of a dozen issues. Something like a Mars mission could probably work well as a much shorter chain, maybe as little as three issues. Perhaps the first issue is deciding between sending a manned mission meant to bring the crew back versus a one-way colony effort; with each option leading to a distinct follow-up issue with its own set of endings. For instance, something goes awry with the "there and back again" flavor mission, stranding your crew and leaving you with the difficult decision of letting them die in space or to launch an expensive rescue mission (that might not even work!) Maybe the colony mission starts to run into budget issues before it even gets off the launchpad, and its your call to throw more money at it or force the program to try to operate on a shoestring (and unsafe!) budget.

Really, the main hurdle that separates regular issues from issue chains is that the chain requires a great deal more organization, prep work, time and effort from a more technical game-design perspective. They are immensely satisfying to complete though, as I'm sure any of the editors involved in the Chain will tell you.

[Sanctaria]

I see we all went and saw The Martian over the past week

[Bears Armed]

Maybeso also consider whether you're (1) going for a single direct launch from Earth to Mars or (2) using multiple launches from Earth to send up material into orbit for assembling a larger ship than you could launch directly?
If you take option 2 from that choice then using a 'pulsed laser launch system' (which has its power-plant, and thus most of the mass, left on Earth... where it can supplement domestic electricity supplies in between launches) might be feasible for sending at least the unmanned loads up to your construction site.

[Fin Dovah Junaar]

Only if we allow chain issues to be popping up again, or otherwise its yet another condescending and pointless issue for my main account that limits the enjoyment of what I can participate in.

[Trotterdam]

How's this for a rough draft of the storyline?

The story is divided into phases to keep things organized. Generally, a successful completion on one phase leads to the same starting position at the next phase, merging story path regardless of how you got there (like how when you conquer Brasilistan, regardless of which military strategy you used, you're given the same options for how to treat its subjugated populace), although particularly extreme variations can lead to multiple distinct versions of the same phase existing, covering roughly the same span of time with different issues and options (like the war vs peace paths on An International Incident).

Suggested opening: Robotic probes have found something Interesting(TM) on Mars. We need the flexibility of human astronauts to fully investigate it.

Phase 1: This is where you decide whether you want to go to Mars at all, and if so, how much you're willing to cooperate with other nations. Optionally, stuff like corporate sponsorship could also be included as an alternative to working with other nations or going it alone. This should probably be handled in one issue. Two at most.

Phase 2: Mission preparation. Perhaps one issue for deciding the basic mission parameters (send supplies in advance or at the same time as the astronauts, one-way mission or return trip, possibly some other stuff) and one for the technical specifications of the spaceship going there (which should probably remain present due to the high politicalization of nuclear power). If you decided on a one-way trip, there could be another issue about how to pitch a one-way mission so people actually sign up for it?

(Phase 3: En route. This is the most boring part of the trip. Unless there's some kind of disaster that you have to respond to, this could be handled in zero issues.)

Phase 4: Arrival and science. Just how ambitious are you? Not sure what goes from here on out.

(Phase 5: Second possibility for something going wrong. Again, this isn't necessary. This and phase 3 probably shouldn't both happen.)

Phase 6: Aftermath. Coming back home, making a speech about the whole thing, establishing a permanent colony, that kind of thing. Still vague on what exactly goes here, and it probably requires working out previous phases in more detail first.

Something like a Mars mission could probably work well as a much shorter chain, maybe as little as three issues.

Eh, I dunno. Going to Mars is something that has never been done in real life, quite unlike fighting a war (sadly). It might be tricky to come up with enough good politically-formulated choices, but I think it deserves to be written as somewhat epic.

Also, when you say "three issues", does that mean three issues total or three issues per path? Because many paths on An International Incident are only four issues, but it's the extensive branching (and occasional longer-than-average branch, which could correspond to Mars mission storylines that include a mishap and recovery effort?) that increases the total issue count.

I see we all went and saw The Martian over the past week

Bah, hasn't anybody read the book?

[Annihilators of Chan Island]

My problem with that plan Trotterdam is that there is nothing for nations that choose not to go to Mars. Maybe they could provide support for others who want to go, maybe they could declare Mars a national park or they could focus on observation from the Earth. I feel this aspect isn't being covered very well in this discussion.

[Trotterdam]

My problem with that plan Trotterdam is that there is nothing for nations that choose not to go to Mars.

Well, not going to Mars is kind of the default state of all nations. What kind of interesting exploits could you get up to while refusing the one immediately presented?

There should always be some possibility to just decide to not do anything special now, and at best get another opportunity later, if only by dismissing the issue.

[Annihilators of Chan Island]

My problem with that plan Trotterdam is that there is nothing for nations that choose not to go to Mars.

Well, not going to Mars is kind of the default state of all nations. What kind of interesting exploits could you get up to while refusing the one immediately presented?

Explore the oceans? Build a large telescope to look at Mars from afar? Lending logistical/expertise/financial/catering/religious/facilities and other kinds of support to someone else wishes to go to Mars? Sabotage other nation's space program? Try to have the WA decide that nobody is legally allowed on Mars? Declare that there are giant monsters on it? Try to destroy/nuke it?

The fundamental thing that is the centre of my concern is that the consensus here is the first issue should be the decision wether or not to go there. I agree it is a very sensible place to start. However, everyone has been focussing on the "we should go" option, and I'm pointing out there should be something for the "let's not go" option.

There should always be some possibility to just decide to not do anything special now, and at best get another opportunity later, if only by dismissing the issue.

Shouldn't big chains be a once a nation event?

EDIT/AFTERTHOUGHT: If you guys want, I'll happily write those issues for this chain while everyone else is focussed on wether the rocket should be nuclear or chemical.

[Trotterdam]

Explore the oceans?

Well, that would basically be an entirely different chain. It has so little in common with this one that there'd be zero story overlap, and a nation might very well want to do both.

Also, we already have a non-chain one-off for that (#373) (and if counting easter eggs, #266 option 3, too).

Build a large telescope to look at Mars from afar?

I think it's best to assume that limited-scale robotic exploration of Mars is already taking place before this chain begins.

Something like a super-huge telescope capable of imaging Mars in high resolution all the way from Earth, without travelling there, would still be an advance on what we can currently do, but both technologically difficult and not that rewarding, compared to Mars-orbitting probes.

Lending logistical/expertise/financial/catering/religious/facilities and other kinds of support to someone else wishes to go to Mars?

I already suggested an option for a cooperative venture, so I don't think it matters much who's the "leader" and who's the "supporter" in such a venture. It's more interesting to let the player make the most interesting decisions if he's going to participate at all.

Sabotage other nations' space program?[/b]

That's a better suggestion. I can definitely see reasons to do that.

Try to have the WA decide that nobody is legally allowed on Mars?

That's less plausible. It's best to keep letting WA stuff get decided by the WA, not by issues.

Declare that there are giant monsters on it?

Having crackpot ideas about what's on Mars could be a reason to not want to go to Mars (either because you're worried about the local environment being dangerous to humans, or because you're worried about humans being dangerous or sacrilegious to the local environment), and possibly to sabotage other nations' attempts, but isn't an action in itself.

Try to destroy/nuke it?

Destroying Mars is just... absurd. A little easier than destroying Earth, but still.

The fundamental thing that is the centre of my concern is that the consensus here is the first issue should be the decision wether or not to go there. I agree it is a very sensible place to start. However, everyone has been focussing on the "we should go" option, and I'm pointing out there should be something for the "let's not go" option.

Out of your suggestions, I like the sabotage one best. Let's use that one.

Shouldn't big chains be a once a nation event?

Quoting Sedgistan:

The Chain "An International Incident" is not recurring. Other chains may or may not be.

So, we can declare that this is one of the chains that does have the ability to recur, if we decide that is most appropiate for this topic (and the editors agree).

[Sanctaria]

So, we can declare that this is one of the chains that does have the ability to recur, if we decide that is most appropiate for this topic (and the editors agree).

We tend to go "smaller chains can repeat, larger chains can't" simply because the cumulative stats in a large chain issue can be quite significant, and allowing a nation to receive that more than once seems like gaming the system a bit.

[Trotterdam]

We tend to go "smaller chains can repeat, larger chains can't" simply because the cumulative stats in a large chain issue can be quite significant, and allowing a nation to receive that more than once seems like gaming the system a bit.

My cumulative (visible) stat changes from the Brasilistan chain didn't look like more than I could have gotten from one or two issues, and in any case effect still scales with the number of issues you've answered. If instead of a long chain, you just answered an equally large number of random issues, it'd also have significant cumulative stat effects, though they're less likely to all be on the same stats.

I figure invading Brasilistan twice doesn't make sense because they're not going to exist anymore after you beat them once, but Mars will still be there.

[Sanctaria]

We tend to go "smaller chains can repeat, larger chains can't" simply because the cumulative stats in a large chain issue can be quite significant, and allowing a nation to receive that more than once seems like gaming the system a bit.

My cumulative (visible) stat changes from the Brasilistan chain didn't look like more than I could have gotten from one or two issues, and in any case effect still scales with the number of issues you've answered. If instead of a long chain, you just answered an equally large number of random issues, it'd also have significant cumulative stat effects, though they're less likely to all be on the same stats.

I figure invading Brasilistan twice doesn't make sense because they're not going to exist anymore after you beat them once, but Mars will still be there.

The International Incident series had significant stat changes depending on where your nation was at the start of the chain, and what routes you took.

Looking at the outline of this Mars chain, and where you may or may not be coming from, there would be significant stat changes also. And so I wouldn't want this repeated, but I would be open to convincing.

[Trotterdam]

And so I wouldn't want this repeated, but I would be open to convincing.

I suppose that's good enough at this stage

Practically, whether the chain is repeatable or not seems like one of the last things we'd decide. Let's write the thing first.