If there are other proposals/demands that people want, I will add them as write ins.
Might be an unpopular opinion, but I oppose the air strike support. Not because of the PS loss or anything, but because it reduces our ability to secure more red zone territory for glacier mining. If you think a 40-60 RpT loss is worth taking it anyways, by all means, but that's what I see as the price of stretching our military more thin than it already is.
Absolutely nothing we have access to says we'll lose any RpT for doing this. It's because the military is strong enough now that they can do in the first place so you're being needlessly paranoid.
No I don't.Do you disagree with any of these basic statements of fact?
- Glacier mining produces 40-60 RpT per phase completed depending on quality roll.
- Glacier mining requires expanded red zone tib harvesting operations.
- It's because the military is strong enough now that we can hold new YZ fortress towns and red zone tib harvesting operations.
- The air support option ties up some of that spare military capacity to support the fallen.
To make a statement as strong as "absolutely nothing we have access to says we'll lose any RpT for doing this", you don't just have to say "I disagree on how much military capacity will be tied up", you have to prove it, because the above pretty conclusively says that we're putting 40-60 RpT of near-future income at risk. The only question is "how much risk", and you have given absolutely zero evidence to answer it one way or the other.
Oh, and maybe lay off the condescending name-calling, too. That would be nice.
I fail to see how taking the Forgotten (the only beings on the planet that can reliably operate as infantry in a Red Zone without wearing a space suit and live to tell the tale) and giving them the ability to call in airstrikes (the only form of fire support that can be easily delivered in a Red Zone because half the time there's no way to get anything into position that doesn't fly)...Might be an unpopular opinion, but I oppose the air strike support. Not because of the PS loss or anything, but because it reduces our ability to secure more red zone territory for glacier mining.
No, you do if you want to claim that absolutely nothing indicates we might be risking a delay to a glacier mining rollout, because that's a statement of how much impact the diversion of military assets will or won't have on securing red zone mining. If you want to say "you're just speculating" - yes, you don't need proof for that, me not having answered the question of the degree of impact is sufficient. But you said there was absolutely nothing instead, so.However I don't have to prove anything either because you can't prove anything on your point.
A justified worry if you're arming sharks around the world with material you otherwise would have concentrated solely in the mediterranean sea you intended to secure. The actual overlap this would have with red zone operations is more along the lines of the Red Zone Containment Lines, really.It's like being worried that we'll be less capable of securing territory in the ocean because of all the resources we wasted arming our good friends, the sharks.