That is not a good spot to be at which means we are using infra dice on logistics instead of power or planned cities.
Though since most plans still can't activate all our Tiberium dice to do anything much more expensive than 5 R/die
Prospecting actions, and since using a Tiberium die on a planned city gets us about +20 more progress than using an Infrastructure die... I'm not sure it's a bad thing if we're using Infrastructure dice on +Logistics actions, though putting them on +Energy actions is good too, since we can't really spare Heavy Industry dice to do the much more dice-efficient nuclear power plant construction action.
Also you discount how long it takes for cruisers to rollout, unlike Apollos, Zone Suits and Hydrofoils we are not pushing them out each quarter, there is a fairly long lead time for them to start rolling out so there is a reason to keep pushing until we have 3+ of the shipyards online given the large number we need to take control of the seas.
I'm not sure it works out that way.
See, the Navy plans to build something like 100-ish cruisers over a period of several years from six yards. That means about 16-ish cruisers per yard, which means something
roughly on the close order of one cruiser per quarter per yard. Not exactly, but this is a rough estimate, an approximation that can be off by 50% either way without being truly misleading.
The key point is that delaying the completion of a single yard is, in effect, equivalent to saying that the Navy will always have
one available cruiser less, for the duration of the buildup until the planned fleet strength is reached. Or that a wave of four cruisers appears one quarter later,
but still appears. The time-average strength of the Navy winds up being "one less cruiser" or "two less cruisers" or "1/2 less cruisers" on average, for each quarter we build a yard slower than we could.
The long rollout cuts both ways. On the one hand, we have to build all six yards in a reasonably timely manner or the buildup becomes nigh-impossible and we just can't build the ships. On the other hand, there isn't even the pretense of us being able to
rapidly build the fleet in question even with all six yards, so the consequence of a delay winds up being a relatively marginal affair on the scale of a giant global war.
The number of dice per turn we put on the shipyards should be a reflection, not of "we have to do this because of the slow rollout," but of
how important the project is. How important it is relative to everything else we're doing.
We have good reason to stop and think "shit, we've been neglecting naval security, it's genuinely worthwhile to invest like 18-20 Military dice and 360-400 Resources on a major shipyard program to build the warships the fleet needs to control global sealanes."
But we shouldn't be sinking 60 R/turn into something rather than 40 R/turn just because it has a slow rollout. The actual consequences of choosing the 40 R/turn path is, realistically, that the Navy gets six shipyards in nine or ten turns rather than six shipyards in seven or eight, and consequently has a single-digit lower number of cruisers at any given point in time for the next several years. We may legitimately decide that that's worth it to free up dice for other projects, or to free up dice for projects that cost lower resources, or because we're hard up for Capital Goods...
and that's okay. We have to make choices like that, we can't prioritize everything all the time no matter how much anyone wants it.
Can we please stop pushing new MARV projects and investing so heavily into them? That's two turn in a row that the military has come in to pick problems with it and are completely getting ignored in thread. It's clear that beyond the (admittedly very nice) mechanical benefits they have that there are huge narrative problems with focusing so heavily on them that a lot of people just seem content to ignore.
The military seems to be telling us that they either want to stand on the defensive and have us spam MARVs, or stand on the offensive at the cost of us cutting MARV production to provide them the tools to do it with.
How we respond to that is up to us.
Are guys will not tolerate being used by aliens after almost killed by them actually they will have problems in general with them because of that won't they?
That's the thing about the asari, the asari are
smart about avoiding destructive conflicts when they can, and balancing power blocs against each other to create a galactic order they like. They were actually doing really well until the Reapers showed up as a giant outside context problem that could only be defeated by a giant wall of guns, something that was, again,
an outside context problem.
In canon Mass Effect, it was probably an asari strategist who thought "we can authorize human claims to a giant Wild West of poorly used and uncolonized space to block the ambitious batarian claims, because the batarians are kind of assholes and estranged from us anyway, but this way we can either curb the batarians' power, or if the humans turn out to be worse we can start backing the batarians again and they'll happily sort the problem out for us."
The thing is, that was
beneficial to the humans of the time, at least as far as they were concerned. They were being 'used' in the sense of a commensal relationship. Humanity got access to a truly ridiculous amount of clay, and in exchange all they had to do was defend it against some assholes nobody liked, and they were being granted considerable concessions (like the right to build a rather outsized navy)
to defend it.
The trick is that when you're a member of a race of long-lived galactic masterminds who've stayed on top of the diplomatic game for over two thousand years by keeping your eye on the main chance, "entering a commensal relationship with a younger power" and "using the younger power for your advantage"
look very similar.
gotta finish atleast the ones we've been working on to keep our military person who gives an extra military dice and a +2 to all mil dice. (plus the -20 needed for marv fleets, but that wouldnt apply if we're not doing marvs).
Basically, We gotta continue pushing marvs till we've finished 5 marv fleets, which we will when we've finished building what we've started. (the fleet for the hub just built, and the fleet that we've been building)
We do have an important commitment to build five MARV fleets in this plan, so yeah. We can slow-walk the last bits of that construction commitment, but we're just now hitting the promise limit we made early in the Plan.
Part of the problem with this is we keep starting new hubs with overflow from one project. So there's quite a few more hubs under construction than the ones we decided to start building, and finishing those may start more hubs. It's a vicious cycle of unfinished projects scratching at people's OCD 'finish projects' part of the brain.
I mean... maybe?
There's a Blue Zone hub we started in 2050 and abandoned after one die of investment, when we decided that Blue Zone MARV fleets were a bad idea. Been lying out in the rain ever since, no one bats an eye.
Aside from that, there are exactly two partly completed hubs, one in South America that only started existing a few turns ago, and one in North America that only started existing this turn. No one has made any moves to start building either of them, and the suboptimally efficient nature of Yellow Zone MARV fleets may discourage people from building the one in South America.
And the overflow itself got added as a mercy mechanic. It was intended to be a reason to invest in the hubs.
I, for one, am not complaining.
A rock done bit my sister Nell
With whitey on the moon...
Humanity has three options in this quest right now:
1) All stay on Earth and be gradually nommed by green crystals.
2) All leave Earth, which requires a space program.
3) Kane can stop being a colossal dickhead.
Anyone who wants to complain about GDI's space program is welcome to write a letter complaining to the nearest Nod outpost about Nod's failure to do anything about (3), which would be SO much simpler than (2) and less painful than (1).
