- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
I mean, you wouldn't think that burning some oil and coal deposits would be enough to fuck up the Gulf Stream or open the Northwest Passage or acidify the oceans, and yet here we are.
"Which really does not leave me optimistic. I acknowledge that Harvesters are certainly not a net negative, but consider them to be a very low priority."
Yeah, but again, all the expensive high-cost high-reward Tiberium options have issues. It doesn't matter if the factories aren't ideal, if the ideal options are all on ice anyway.
Would you rather do Tiberium Prospecting Expeditions? Because the RpT return on investment there is even less, to the tune of about 2 RpT per Tiberium die rolled. Granted there's no strings attached in the form of Labor or Energy costs, but also no military reward in the form of badass harvesters with railguns murderizing Nod raiders.
It's a planquest, we're never going to be able to do what's ideal in all categories. We have to bear in mind the limits of what is feasible.
...
"Btw why don't you just use quotes? As in, SVs quote function."
Because I keep getting kicked in the nuts for spaghetti posting, and I'm trying to figure out a way to engage meaningfully and informatively and constructively with posts like yours, without falling foul of spaghetti posting rules. Since you post on like 12 different subjects at once, my options are to artificially enumerate your points that I want to respond to and reply to them in one big wall (#1, #2, #3...) or to do what I'm now doing.
All I want is to stay out of trouble and yet be able to respond to you meaningfully, without having to make like five separate posts responding to each one of your posts. This is a good faith attempt to do that without forcing you to constantly scroll up and down to figure out what I'm even talking about.
...
"Said scraping by includes a decent buffer so grid collapse is very unlikely, even if Nod rolled well on sabotage they are more likely to target Boston or something as losing CapGs would hurt us more.
If running on like +4 Energy (and +3 reserve) makes you that nervous than fair enough, but that's not gonna change my plan or vote."
The problem is that we're looking at both the sabotage risk and the problem of having to deliberately eschew Energy-hungry options to conserve resources. Historically, the latter is something the thread's been kind of bad at, anyway. Better to just not skimp on the fusion reactors and avoid having to worry about this problem, and also to reliably have the Energy budget to take advantage of attractive options that pop up.
The catch is that there are a finite number of mitigation actions we can actually take.
Eventually tiberium starts mutating more and more, rendering more and more of our existing abatement methods useless, requiring greater and greater dice investment for steadily diminishing returns. Eventually, tiberium overruns the Earth... because of mutation. We have no way of averting this without building the TCN. Thus, a machine that slows mutation may not make much obvious difference now, but having it will extend the viability of Earth as a semi-habitable planet by something like 10-20 years.
Which makes it a bigger deal than any other single project we have, at least when taken in isolation.
