Okay, so to be clear, your strategy is "keep the quest in a poverty cycle for a while so that we're incentivized to pick the cheapest possible projects."

I mean, that's internally consistent... but I'm not going to support it and I think it's very good-important that you were open about it. A lot of other people won't want to do things that way, and it wouldn't be honest to trick them into this.

No my strategy is do the thing I think needs doing now. I'm not for or against keeping the quest in the poverty cycle and I have multiple plans for Q2 in case we get more than the minimum of 45 Resources to ramp up resource production. I'm just not willing to sacrifice projects that I consider important to get done now and I'm honest enough to state that the poverty cycle will benefit my plans right now. Disclosure matters.

Actually no.

The lesson of Superiority is that the side with the ability to mass-produce effective weapons beats the side that keeps pulling its forces off the front lines to refit them in the middle of combat operations.

Part of the lesson IS to keep your productive infrastructure strong and make sure you have the tools to do what you need, because you never know when the enemy's going to pull a superweapon out of your ass and you'll need a comfortable advantage in numbers and strategic positioning gained by constant, aggressive use of your industrial and numerical advantages.

...

For that matter, the single biggest weak points we have that "need hardening" are industrial megaprojects like the Johannesburg macrospinner. The only way to reduce our vulnerability to masterstrokes there is to build more redundancy. How do you propose to harden those if you're not willing to let us have a 500-600 R budget to play with because you want us spending no more than 10 R/die for a while?

Then we disagree on what the lesson of Superiority is. I'm planning on hardening the industrial megaprojects in the latter half of of the year.
 
And I am sincerely grateful for that.
Well, my plan draft sacrificed finishing the pharmaceutical plants in Q1, and the alternative would be sacrificing finishing the fusion plants which I'm not sure we can afford at all... So even I am questioning whether what i did to get that result was worth it.

Though the information that Glacier Mines Stage 9 will cost -2 Logistics does change the game quite a bit, since it means we don't need to reel in a minimum of +6 Logistics this turn to be safe-ish.

Then we disagree on what the lesson of Superiority is.
Honestly, I don't think a good-faith reading of the story supports the "lessons" you claim it's trying to teach, so I wish you'd stop using it as a bludgeon.

Clarke had a very specific situation in mind when he made the subversive idea of "technologically advanced side loses because of the superiority of its own weapons." He made very specific choices to ensure that this outcome would be justified within the context of the story.

Trying to generalize from this to "it's a good idea for us all to just stop building shit when subjectively I feel like we're rich and strong enough, because surely I can't be mis-estimating the threat and surely there are no significant advantages to being much stronger and richer than the minimum required." Well, it's not a great generalization.
 
Honestly, I don't think a good-faith reading of the story supports the "lessons" you claim it's trying to teach, so I wish you'd stop using it as a bludgeon.

Clarke had a very specific situation in mind when he made the subversive idea of "technologically advanced side loses because of the superiority of its own weapons." He made very specific choices to ensure that this outcome would be justified within the context of the story.

Trying to generalize from this to "it's a good idea for us all to just stop building shit when subjectively I feel like we're rich and strong enough, because surely I can't be mis-estimating the threat and surely there are no significant advantages to being much stronger and richer than the minimum required." Well, it's not a great generalization.

But I'm not generalizing. I'm talking about perfect being the enemy of good enough precisely as a case of "we could be much stronger and richer than the minimum required" because I don't see our situation and my plans as the minimum required. I see them as what we have and what we will have to work with.

From my point of view Superiority is about a military that constantly chases a superior technology of war without securing their infrastructure to support that new technology and your arguments these last few turns I have been in this thread are similar. If the military in Superiority had just secured the infrastructure for the first improvement to their torpedoes they would have won. Similarly if we just secure our current scientific advancements instead of chasing a better tech like Shimmer Shields we can win too.

We are about to enter war and before we do we should deploy all our already developed tech and Develop:

- Tube Artillery for better shell efficiency
- Havoc so we have some Space Armor in case Kane decides to go to war on the Moon and spread Tiberium there
- Escort Carriers to get our sea fleet fully in order
- Improved Tiberium Containment Facilities so we can have proper Tiberium Silos when the war hits and our Refineries become Nod targets
 
But I'm not generalizing. I'm talking about perfect being the enemy of good enough precisely as a case of "we could be much stronger and richer than the minimum required" because I don't see our situation and my plans as the minimum required. I see them as what we have and what we will have to work with.

From my point of view Superiority is about a military that constantly chases a superior technology of war without securing their infrastructure to support that new technology and your arguments these last few turns I have been in this thread are similar. If the military in Superiority had just secured the infrastructure for the first improvement to their torpedoes they would have won.

Similarly if we just secure our current scientific advancements instead of chasing a better tech like Shimmer Shields we can win too.

We are about to enter war and before we do we should deploy all our already developed tech and Develop:

- Tube Artillery for better shell efficiency
- Havoc so we have some Space Armor in case Kane decides to go to war on the Moon and spread Tiberium there
- Escort Carriers to get our sea fleet fully in order
- Improved Tiberium Containment Facilities so we can have proper Tiberium Silos when the war hits and our Refineries become Nod targets
Bluntly, it seems to me like you're selective enough about what things you want to deploy and what things you don't want to deploy, and about what things represent useful improvements and what things don't, that as far as I can determine your real principle here is "these projects are a good idea because I'm the one who wants them, and I want them because they're a good idea."

The actions you think of as "just securing our current scientific advancements and hardening our infrastructure" don't consistently line up with what we'd need to do to be 'hardened' against Nod attack starting from we are now. Here are some examples.

Infrastructure

You've gone on about how it's important to have lots of tidal power to... I dunno, act like a tripwire to attract Nod attention on the oceans or something. Now, I'm not going to say it's not worth finishing the current phase of tidal power; at this point sunk costs mean it's basically +4 Energy for 2-3 Infrastructure dice and ~25 R, which isn't too bad of a deal. but that fourth stage is a complete and utter waste. More generally this is probably the area with the least weird shit going on, so I'm moving on.

Heavy Industry

You tend to push microgeneration to harden the electrical grid. Microgeneration isn't bad, but you know what's really good? Having more power plants in the first place. Trouble is, building more power plants is expensive, and takes Resource investment. But the thing is, factories to mass produce existing military technology can be Energy-intensive. You want to have plenty of weapons? Best generate plenty of Energy. Which means power plants, not just arbitrarily deciding we have 'enough' and that we should just, I don't know, 'try to make things work' within those limits.

Or... you know what would really 'harden' our infrastructure? The Tokyo chip fabricator so we're not entirely dependent on a single location in North Boston. And Nuuk so we have plenty of Capital Goods. Because then our economy wouldn't be so vulnerable to disruption in general. Remember that Capital Goods crisis we had in the First Four Year Plan? Sure would stink to try to fight the Fourth Tiberium War under such conditions.

But those are expensive, and would take Resources.

Light Industry

You favor the Blue Zone light industrial zones, which do not 'fortify' any essential area significantly compared to alternatives. But you know what we'd really need to have 'hardened' production in this area? A second macrospinner so Nod can't cause so much economic damage just by destroying a single major facility.

But those are expensive, and would take Resources.

Tiberium

We've got something close to half our tiberium production for the whole world centralized in two exposed planned city areas, both close to Nod territory. And you think silos are our main priority for hardening? We need more refineries, distributed widely and with surplus capacity! Because in a war with Nod, just storing the tiberium wouldn't be good enough; we would need to refine it to fight the enemy.

But those are expensive, and would take Resources.
 
You tend to push microgeneration to harden the electrical grid. Microgeneration isn't bad, but you know what's really good? Having more power plants in the first place.

Small point: microgeneration is good for when something cuts the connection between the power plant and the buildings (like a tank knocks over a power pole or something). More power plants can't address that problem.

Otherwise I agree with everything you just said here.
 
Bluntly, it seems to me like you're selective enough about what things you want to deploy and what things you don't want to deploy, and about what things represent useful improvements and what things don't, that as far as I can determine your real principle here is "these projects are a good idea because I'm the one who wants them, and I want them because they're a good idea."

The actions you think of as "just securing our current scientific advancements and hardening our infrastructure" don't consistently line up with what we'd need to do to be 'hardened' against Nod attack starting from we are now. Here are some examples.

Infrastructure

You've gone on about how it's important to have lots of tidal power to... I dunno, act like a tripwire to attract Nod attention on the oceans or something. Now, I'm not going to say it's not worth finishing the current phase of tidal power; at this point sunk costs mean it's basically +4 Energy for 2-3 Infrastructure dice and ~25 R, which isn't too bad of a deal. but that fourth stage is a complete and utter waste. More generally this is probably the area with the least weird shit going on, so I'm moving on.

Heavy Industry

You tend to push microgeneration to harden the electrical grid. Microgeneration isn't bad, but you know what's really good? Having more power plants in the first place. Trouble is, building more power plants is expensive, and takes Resource investment. But the thing is, factories to mass produce existing military technology can be Energy-intensive. You want to have plenty of weapons? Best generate plenty of Energy. Which means power plants, not just arbitrarily deciding we have 'enough' and that we should just, I don't know, 'try to make things work' within those limits.

Or... you know what would really 'harden' our infrastructure? The Tokyo chip fabricator so we're not entirely dependent on a single location in North Boston. And Nuuk so we have plenty of Capital Goods. Because then our economy wouldn't be so vulnerable to disruption in general. Remember that Capital Goods crisis we had in the First Four Year Plan? Sure would stink to try to fight the Fourth Tiberium War under such conditions.

But those are expensive, and would take Resources.

Light Industry

You favor the Blue Zone light industrial zones, which do not 'fortify' any essential area significantly compared to alternatives. But you know what we'd really need to have 'hardened' production in this area? A second macrospinner so Nod can't cause so much economic damage just by destroying a single major facility.

But those are expensive, and would take Resources.

Tiberium

We've got something close to half our tiberium production for the whole world centralized in two exposed planned city areas, both close to Nod territory. And you think silos are our main priority for hardening? We need more refineries, distributed widely and with surplus capacity! Because in a war with Nod, just storing the tiberium wouldn't be good enough; we would need to refine it to fight the enemy.

But those are expensive, and would take Resources.

I've explained why I want the projects multiple times at this point. Let's go over this one more time:

The Tidal Power Plants at this point are a cost saving measure. I'm not going to build them as a tripwire right now when we need to maximize our Dice utility. I'm building up this round of them to make sure I have enough Energy to work with until Fusion Power Plants are again available to be done alongside other actions. This will take a few turns so having 20 Energy gained in the meanwhile will be a good buffer for that.

Microgeneration gets us a different type of Energy resource that does in fact numerically represent the hardening of our energy grid. It even says so in the action's text.

Hey @Ithillid I'm under the impression that the Improved Tiberium Containment Facilities are to the Tiberium Processing Plants Action what the Blue Zone Microgeneration Actions are to any sort of an Energy generation Action. A hardening of infrastructure. Is this actually true?

Edit: Fusion Power Plants not Fusion Power Plant and also punctuation error fixed.
 
Last edited:
Hey @Ithillid I'm under the impression that the Improved Tiberium Containment Facilities are to the Tiberium Processing Plants Action what the Blue Zone Microgeneration Actions are to any sort of an Energy generation Action. A hardening of infrastructure. Is this actually true?
It is not quite a hardening of infrastructure, so much as it is establishing a reserve. If you have the ITCFs, you can lose Jeddah or Chicago and be able to store some amount of Tiberium until you build up some new processing capacity. It does one form of hardening. Tiberium Processing plants do another form of hardening by laying in distributed processing capacity instead of relying heavily on two keystone sites.
 
It is not quite a hardening of infrastructure, so much as it is establishing a reserve. If you have the ITCFs, you can lose Jeddah or Chicago and be able to store some amount of Tiberium until you build up some new processing capacity. It does one form of hardening. Tiberium Processing plants do another form of hardening by laying in distributed processing capacity instead of relying heavily on two keystone sites.

Ah. So it is as I thought: Both are best. I just got it wrong that there needs to be an order to building them up. OK thank you for the information.

And we all know how NOD likes to strike at keystone sites and any kinks in GDI's armor.

Yeah. That is why I'm arguing for starting the hardening of infrastructure now and not later.
 
It is not quite a hardening of infrastructure, so much as it is establishing a reserve. If you have the ITCFs, you can lose Jeddah or Chicago and be able to store some amount of Tiberium until you build up some new processing capacity. It does one form of hardening. Tiberium Processing plants do another form of hardening by laying in distributed processing capacity instead of relying heavily on two keystone sites.
Would doing either (or both) hypothetically allow us to upgrade the processing facilities we currently have so that they use the updated process that allows for creation of Transuranic elements?

Would it also somewhat upgrade their processing capacity as well? Because IIRC new facilities have ~20% or so greater capacity.
 
They also cost more, so it evens out. At least according to the text briefing we got when the new process was brought online.
 
IIRC the new process is different enough that "upgrading" old refineries would take a total gutting and rebuild of all the machinery. We probably just have to build new Hewlett-Gardner plants until there's enough slack in the system to offline, tear down, and rebuild legacy refineries. Possibly literally - if it's a big enough change it might be worthwhile to knock down the entire thing and start from scratch, just reusing the site because it's close to logistical links etc.
 
Last edited:
Would doing either (or both) hypothetically allow us to upgrade the processing facilities we currently have so that they use the updated process that allows for creation of Transuranic elements?

Would it also somewhat upgrade their processing capacity as well? Because IIRC new facilities have ~20% or so greater capacity.
Not really. You could, if you built up a big enough surplus of some combination of processing capacity and storage capacity, get projects to rebuild to H-G methods, but you are in a position where you can't really offline a bunch of existing processing capacity for any length of time.
 
In other words: We're in real trouble if one of our processing hubs is attacked and the equipment damaged.

Getting improved containment and/or extra refineries is something we should probably work on soon given we've had narrative hints that Nod is getting ready to try something big again.
 
We are likely to do the new processing plants sometime in 2059-2060, depending on how our harvesting goes, since after Medina finishes we'll have ~400 processing capacity spare.
 
Small point: microgeneration is good for when something cuts the connection between the power plant and the buildings (like a tank knocks over a power pole or something). More power plants can't address that problem.

Otherwise I agree with everything you just said here.
1) It depends on the microgeneration. A lot of what looks like microgeneration on our scale (we mostly build giant gigawatt nuclear reactors and stuff) probably still relies significantly on substations and power poles and so on. You're not fundamentally wrong here but it's complicated.

2) That kind of problem has only small-scale consequences. It's not nothing, and it's better to have protection there than to not have it, but... Well, the problem is that no matter how much microgeneration you have, you're still fucked if Nod manages to sabotage several major fusion reactors and knocks you down by -8 Energy in a turn when you only had a +4 Energy surplus to begin with. The microgeneration can only do so much to stave off problems in the long run. Having surplus/reserve generating capacity on a large scale matters too.

I've explained why I want the projects multiple times at this point. Let's go over this one more time:

The Tidal Power Plants at this point are a cost saving measure. I'm not going to build them as a tripwire right now when we need to maximize our Dice utility.
Your stated justification for the project has changed, then, since when you were advocating it in 2057.

Further complicating this is that in terms of energy per unit Resources invested... Well, to have an 82% chance of finishing the next phase of tidal power would take three dice, or 30 R, for +4 Energy. The equivalent investment in fusion power is about five dice or 100 R for +16 Energy.

As long as we can't afford to activate all our Heavy Industry dice, the tidal plants aren't actually cost-effective compared to just not using those Infrastructure dice and spending the money on the next wave of fusion reactors.

It only really makes sense to build tidal power if:

1) We don't urgently need Infrastructure dice on other projects, which is not true right now, or...

2) We do urgently need +4 Energy, but can't afford to spend enough to get a whole +16 Energy quickly. Also not true right now, though perhaps true in Q2-Q3.

It's just not worth it until the demand on Infrastructure relaxes a bit. Fusion power has a better return on investment even given that we have a tidal phase half-finished that (hopefully) hasn't lost much progress yet.

I'm building up this round of them to make sure I have enough Energy to work with until Fusion Power Plants are again available to be done alongside other actions. This will take a few turns so having 20 Energy gained in the meanwhile will be a good buffer for that.
The Energy from the fusion plants has far more to do with the buffer than the Energy from the tidal power. It might very well be more productive to simply spend 20-40 R on partially completing a fusion phase than to even bother with the tidal phase.

Hey @Ithillid I'm under the impression that the Improved Tiberium Containment Facilities are to the Tiberium Processing Plants Action what the Blue Zone Microgeneration Actions are to any sort of an Energy generation Action. A hardening of infrastructure. Is this actually true?
I'm pretty sure the containment facilities just let us build tiberium silos capable of storing tiberium from quarter to quarter, so that if we ever have a turn where we mine more tiberium than we can refine (say, because a refinery was destroyed) we can store the surplus tiberium until later.

In a way, this hardens our infrastructure... but it's not as good a form of hardening as just building a lot more refineries, so that we have plenty of surplus capacity and any reasonable Nod attack will not require us to stockpile tiberium until the refineries can be put back online. Furthermore, surplus capacity means we can contemplate upgrading existing facilities, and that we'll have more diversified options for producing things like transuranics and rare metals efficiently, and that the burden on our Logistics network won't include time and resources wasted moving tiberium over intercontinental distances because the glacier mine is in, say, the Congo River valley but the nearest available refinery is thousands of miles away by ship and rail in Mecca or Chicago.

In other words: We're in real trouble if one of our processing hubs is attacked and the equipment damaged.

Getting improved containment and/or extra refineries is something we should probably work on soon given we've had narrative hints that Nod is getting ready to try something big again.
Since extra refineries is actually a fairly simple project (roughly 3 Tiberium dice, 90 R, -4 Energy, -2 Logistics), I think we had better go for it quite soon. It's one of the reasons I'm yelling so much about income increases- because no way in hell can we afford a 30 R/die refinery project in 2058 without it.

We are likely to do the new processing plants sometime in 2059-2060, depending on how our harvesting goes, since after Medina finishes we'll have ~400 processing capacity spare.
I'd hate to wait that long, because Nod may be ready to start launching hard-hitting attacks including "masterstrokes' as early as mid-2059. I don't want our refining capacity to still be "all eggs in two baskets" then.

Refining capacity is NOT an area where we want to be close to capacity. The sheer amount of our refining capacity that's tied up in two relatively exposed sites makes that dangerous. It means that with one well-placed hit by a nuclear munition, Nod could easily knock our refining capacity down by a lot in a single successful mission.

GDI could very abruptly lose 50-100 RpT of total national income from a single raid that merely damaged the refining complexes. And a successful Nod offensive that destroyed either Planned City complex, or even just besieged it and made it unsafe to transport huge amounts of tiberium in and raw materials out, would cut GDI off from several hundred RpT of income.

Even if Treasury doesn't lose all of that out of its own budget (hard to say how that played out), it'd be a disastrous blow to GDI's overall war economy. And make no mistake, if Kane really wants to cut us off from Chicago, he could, given time to prepare. If Kane really wants to cut us off from the refineries at Jeddah and Medina, he could. We cannot afford to leave that window of vulnerability open any longer.

Honestly I'd like to attempt the project starting in 2058Q3 or 2058Q4 at the latest, preferably with two dice up-front and one die per turn of "slow-walk" as necessary afterwards.

I strongly suspect Kane is specifically planning that as an element of any potential Tib War Four, as a way of immediately neutering GDI's economic advantages in a protracted war. Capturing those refinery complexes would be even better for his purposes (especially since those facilities use a refinery technique that is less limited compared to the ones Kane prefers), but destroying them or just cutting them off from our logistics pipelines would be crippling to our overall war economy.

Indeed, I imagine we might make him a very unhappy man by abruptly removing this weakness in our posture, shortly before the time at which he is prepared to push the "GO" button on his masterstroke. 😈
 
In regards to the centralized nature of our refining, there was some speculation on Kane using catalyst missiles on our tib refining complexes in Chicago. The combination of very juicy refinery and tib makes for one of the most ideal targets with catalyst missiles. At the same time, we don't really have a way to counter the attack(HINT: DO PD REFITS AND THEN AT MINIUNUM EXTEND THEM TO CHICAGO AND SIMILAR) at the moment and the damage can be calibrated as needed. Just 1 tactical(eg on the scale that we see in game) catalyst warhead is more than enough to do the needed amount of damage to Chicago and both tank our industrial capacity and tie up even more capacity in the repairs.
 
We should definitely do the PD refits for the navy finally, but I don't think "put more guns around around the basket" is the best solution to all our eggs being in one basket, the solution to that one is a few runs of smaller processing plants. Defending Chicago and Jeddah harder isn't bad but ultimately no amount of defenses will stop a motivated enough Brotherhood from hitting one or two high value targets. Our best bet is relying on two dozen medium value targets instead and just banking on the fact that we'll win most of the dice rolls Kane isn't paying personal attention to.

And again, I think we should definitely do the PD refits. But because they're something that's been backlogged for way too long in favor of getting the Governor yards spun up ASAP and we need to return to now (plus being something cheap for the first year doesn't hurt). Not as a solution to the concentrated processing issue.
 
Huh PD is 10R... I was thinking they were 15R for some reason. So yeah having those be some of the mil projects we hit Q1 and Q2 would make sense (mixing in medvacs and the last cruiser yard and some of the other 10R projects). But yeah year 1 my mil priorities is pushing deployments out (including at least 1 phase of factory refits). For tiberium- Income increases Q1 to Q3 with additional processing facilities added Q4 (maybe started Q3 depending on income recover).

Longer Term I want to push Philly stages 4 and 5 (+7 to dice rolls and 1 to each dice category and 1 free die) and Enterprise 4 and 5- this would also draw in some free dice down the line to try and accelerate them.
 
I'm pretty sure the containment facilities just let us build tiberium silos capable of storing tiberium from quarter to quarter, so that if we ever have a turn where we mine more tiberium than we can refine (say, because a refinery was destroyed) we can store the surplus tiberium until later.

In a way, this hardens our infrastructure... but it's not as good a form of hardening as just building a lot more refineries, so that we have plenty of surplus capacity and any reasonable Nod attack will not require us to stockpile tiberium until the refineries can be put back online. Furthermore, surplus capacity means we can contemplate upgrading existing facilities, and that we'll have more diversified options for producing things like transuranics and rare metals efficiently, and that the burden on our Logistics network won't include time and resources wasted moving tiberium over intercontinental distances because the glacier mine is in, say, the Congo River valley but the nearest available refinery is thousands of miles away by ship and rail in Mecca or Chicago.

o_O :wtf: 👇

Not really. You could, if you built up a big enough surplus of some combination of processing capacity and storage capacity, get projects to rebuild to H-G methods, but you are in a position where you can't really offline a bunch of existing processing capacity for any length of time.

Storage capacity counts towards our general Tiberium capacity for the purposes of rebuilding our old facilities to the H-G methods.
 
o_O :wtf: 👇

Storage capacity counts towards our general Tiberium capacity for the purposes of rebuilding our old facilities to the H-G methods.
Unless silos turn out to be extremely cheap, it will be far more cost-effective to just build the new refineries than to rely on "build silos, shut down and replace old refineries, process the stockpiled tiberium in the new refineries along with the newly mined tiberium."

I'm sorry, but nothing you're saying makes it a good idea to prioritize silos specifically as a form of "hardening" while ignoring that by far the best way to 'harden' a system against an enemy who favors masterstrokes against vital strategic targets is redundancy.

Which means building surplus capacity into the system, rather than trying to finely and brilliantly calculate just exactly how much is 'enough' and then deciding you don't need more of the key things you were just constructing.

This is the same point I made regarding the myomer macrospinner, by the way.
 
So, lets do a bit of math. You want to convert 1250 resources per turn worth of old type processing capacity, into 1500 RPT of Hewlett Gardener proccessing capacity. Now, I am not going to give you all the variables here, but generally I am likely to treat this as a phased project in five phases with each providing a boost of +50 RPT. So, to do that you will need to offline 250 resources per turn for at least one and likely 2-3 turns. So, just to keep the tib in, you need a minimum of 500-750 storage capacity.
 
Not really. You could, if you built up a big enough surplus of some combination of processing capacity and storage capacity, get projects to rebuild to H-G methods, but you are in a position where you can't really offline a bunch of existing processing capacity for any length of time.
Duly noted and agreed.

I mean, theoretically you can even after a single stage of building new processing facilities, do several stages of renovation by rerouting the Tiberium flow from the old facilities to new ones, then renovating the old ones... But that requires micromanagement and I, personally, would make both Logistics and Processing Capacity take a not-insignificant hit until the renovation is complete.

Also it's a bit more micromanager-y than I think the planquest should support.

Edit: Nod'd by author
Edit 2: now that I think of it, we WILL need to reroute Tiberium, because, well...
Assume the processing facility was working at capacity, as in 50 PC per turn. It's actually basically true.

For every turn we spend renovating the facility without rerouting Tiberium elsewhere, we accumulate 50 points of Tiberium in storage for this particular facility.

After an upgrade, the facility will be processing 60 units of Tiberium in a quarter, a net +10 per facility.

With the renovation done in 1 turn, the storage of Tiberium needs to hold for 6 quarters (1 quarter of renovation, 5 quarters of emptying while also dealing with the normal influx). With every turn of renovation, the storage needs to hold out for another 6 quarters unless we reroute the influx to other facilities.

Planning for 2 turns of renovation will force us to hold the Tiberium for 3 years. 3 turns will force us no hold it for longer than the 4YP lasts.

That is, unless we reroute the Tiberium elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top