A small particle of Tiberium can grow to eat your entire planet. That makes it more dangerous by far.
[shrugs]
The theoretical worst-case scenario from going anywhere near tiberium is infinitely worse than the theoretical worst-case scenario from working with any plausible amount of a mere volatile chemical.
On the other hand,
in practice the safety requirements that must be observed to keep tiberium on good behavior, or at least easily managed bad behavior, are substantially less severe than those required to manage volatile chemicals.
I'm not sure which is "more dangerous" and I think it depends on the definition of the word. Also, I suppose my concept of how dangerous it is to work with tiberium is predicated on the assumption that it's already on your planet anyway and you're just trying to make the best of it.
[ ] Plan RZ Mit, Enterprise and Shells
Infra 5/5 50R +15
-[] Tidal Power Plants (Phase 2) 278/450 5 dice 50 R 99%
HI 5/5 55R +20
-[] Yellow Zone Power Grid Extension (Phase 3) 71/350 2 dice 10 R 0%
-[] Kure Machine Works 78/280 3 dice 45 R 68% (High Priority)
I still consider settling for
Yellow Zone Power Grid Extension to be very unpleasant as a choice.
Agri 3/3 30R +15
-[] Yellow Zone Purification Facilities 0/320 3 dice 0%
I don't mind delaying
Entari Deployment to save resources, though I don't think many people will like it.
Tiberium 5/5 85R +35
-[] Tiberium Prospecting Expeditions (Repeating Phase) 2/200 2 dice 10R 39%
-[] Red Zone Containment Lines (Phase 3) 8/180 3 dice 50R 98% (6% Phase 4)
I do respect that this is one of the reasons you're trying to save Resources, but I can't help but reflexively flinch.
Orbital 3/3 +1 dice 70R +15 (5 Fusion dice)
-[] GDSS Enteprise (Phase 3) 183/385 3 dice 60 R 57%
-[] Orbital Cleanup (Phase 3) 43/90 1 dice 10 R 85%
...and that this is another.
@Chimeraguard , given that the odds of finishing a phase of orbital cleanup with one die next turn are 85%, I for one would be willing to sacrifice the free die you put on it and move that die to somewhere else, if you are so inclined.
Services 4/4 35R +30
-[] Fashion Development Houses 91/225 2 dice 20 R 82%
-[] Game Development Studios 236/300 1 dice 5 82%
-[] Domestic Animal Programs 0/200 1 dice 10 R 0%
Domestic Animal Programs are undesirable until we have a stronger and more reliable Food surplus, is my understanding- but we can roll a single die into it with no fear of the project actually finishing.
Military 5/5 +5 dice 160R +15
-[] Reclamator Fleet YZ-5a (Super MARV) 174/210 1 dice 20 R 95%
-[] Reclamator Fleet RZ-7N (Super MARV) 0/210 2 dice 40 R 7%
I understand that you're intentionally going for a MARV-heavy plan here in hopes of being able to sprint and complete the Chicago MARV fleet next turn. I don't like it, but I understand that this is your goal. Personally I'd dial back the RZ-7N fleet to 1 die or 0 dice, but that's me and I know you are reasoning differently.
-[] Shell Plants (Phase 4) 3/300 3 dice 30 R 5% (High Priority)
-[] Governor Class Cruiser Shipyards (Hampton Roads) 3 dice 60 R 59% (Very High Priority)
-[] Mastodon Heavy Assault Walker Development 0/30 1 die 10R 100%
I do hope Energy isn't a problem- I'm not sure yet. With that said, I respect and accept the idea of working on the Mastodon prototype instead of Titan Mk III deployment, though I think there are reasons to favor Titan Mk III deployment over the alternatives.
Also up for debate- Shell Phase 4 (3 dice 30 R 5%) vs RWS Deployment (3 dice 30 R 30%). Both are high priority, right now I have shell phase 4 but I can shift to RWS deployment if that is what people prefer- it does have the edge of not costing energy meaning shell phase 4 likely finishes Q4 when we have more energy production coming online. I am either or. Also I have Mastodon Heavy Assault Dev but can swap to Havoc Scout if people want that option instead for Steel Talons, cost and progress needed is the same for both so not too tied to either one.
RWS deployment is a prerequisite for next generation main battle tank development; Shell Plants Phase 4 is a prerequisite for building more fortress towns. In your shoes I'd make the choice based on whichever is more important, assuming we can find the Energy.
...
Edit: Can you an American please explain what the hell a "cup" is for measuring? Is it a small mug, a large mug, my massive double sized mug, is it a 300ml glass, a pint glass? It is the most bizarrely named measurement to exist but then metric is French in origin so that explains a lot.
A "cup" is a formally defined, standardized unit of volume measurement, and has been for many centuries. However, it predates efforts to create a globally systematized system of precision measurement, and in fact the kind of Industrial Age tooling that makes true precision measurement even possible.
The United States, the sole nation of note that uses any form of 'cup' unit of measurement as such, has been using it since its founding. The American 'cup' is equal to 236.6 mL, though that is not the original origin of its definition.
The United Kingdom and other Commonwealth nations, which have formally metricized but have not consistently tried to fully abolish the
names of their old units of measure, define a "metric cup" of precisely 250 mL or one quarter of a liter.
The history of the 'cup,' and of the English-derived units of fluid measure in general, goes back to medieval times, and is based on a standard "gallon" unit. All the other English units of fluid volume (aside from extremely small units used for apothecary measure) are some binary fraction of the gallon, which makes them
relatively easy to standardize when using crude 1600s-era tools. Thus, the 'quart' is 1/4 gallon, the 'pint' is 1/8 gallon, and the 'cup' is 1/16 gallon. Other, more obscure units using other binary fractions existed.
This is actually logical, within the context of a system of measurement that is designed to play well with Roman numerals and in which decimal numbers are considered strange, newfangled, advanced and suspicious mathematics. That is to say, it is a logical system of measure within the constraints of the time, when realistically, the best feasible way to be sure whether two standard cups held an equal volume of fluid was to make them as identical as possible, then pour identical weights of liquid into them on a beam balance.
It,
subject to the limits of the day, made sense!
Of course, that was too good to last.
...
Extremely irritatingly, the English of the day defined different reference gallons for different liquids such as beer, ale, and wine (all of which were carefully measured for tax and regulatory purposes, and also because these were commodities where a merchant had a strong financial incentive to cheat). Ultimately, the English
wine gallon was standardized as 231 cubic inches, and it was this specific gallon that the United States adopted in 1826.
The US adopted its own weights and measures in 1826 because the British had just in 1824 done their own (non-metric) standardization and
changed several of their units in the process. The Americans had previously been using the customary English system, making minor clarifications and changes as the kings of England did. But with the restandardization of 1824 the Americans decided "they changed it, now it sucks," and created their own system, and ever since then the American and British definitions of, for example, the 'pint' have diverged.
However, the Americans, as noted, adopted the 231-cubic-inch gallon, so that is the basis on which the cup is defined.
Thus, the American 'cup' is a rigorously defined unit of fluid measure equal to 231/16 = 14.4375 cubic inches, or (as noted) approximately 236.6 mL.
...
While we're at it, the milliliter and by extension the liter have a similar basis,
conceptually speaking, to the gallon, in that they are defined based on the unit of linear distance. The French revolutionaries defined a liter to equal one cubic
decimeter, that is to say a cube 10 cm on a side. The meter was, in turn, defined based on a somewhat inaccurate measure of the circumference of the Earth, with the intent that the distance along the Earth's surface from the North Pole to the equator be precisely 10000 kilometers. Unfortunately the reference measurement was, as noted, somewhat distorted due to a shipwreck and the scientists' instruments getting an impromptu salt-water bath, as I understand it...
