It's not a "natural conclusion," but a narrative you've created. Please stick to discussing facts.
Since we're very much speculating on the plausible impact of numerous less strait forward actions that have rewards tables which can shift meaningfully based on who's assigned to the action in question, pure facts are a bit hard to establish and only get us so far.
I'll still switch to saying it's a common sense follow up regardless. One that draws further attention to the team and encourages interest by heroes abroad.
The claim about Mina's "different magic" being advantageous feels arbitrary. Can you specify any unique benefits for tackling Trigon?
No, I am not an expert on dc magic lore, but her magic is fundamentally different from rebecca's demonology based type, and she's a far more learned and versatile occultist than Rebecca overall. Different magic is essentially an entirely different mindset. It's not an arbitrary difference. It would be downright odd for Mina not to have some notable application of magic when it comes to preparing for trigon in comparison to the undeniably inferior to her Rebecca.
It is about wavelength manipulation. Kryptonite is simply one variation of this ability. If she can control other forms, why wouldn't she be able to maintain kryptonite?
Your ignoring the aspect of fighting with something. Over simplifying Carol's ability to use her powers in combat to knowing something allowing her to automatically leverage it in a fight without difficulty, despite never putting it into practice. That isn't how fighting works.
You do a lot of simplifying things into numbers and and coops and largely ignore the narrative and specialization aspects.
We haven't upgraded exosuits, so assuming they'll improve with laser advancements is speculative. Not all will have exosuits, either. Clarify your reasoning.
The action says specifically it's customizing equipment. All of our Security is trained to the same rigerous standards by Katherine, which means there all qualified for exo-suit use. We have several thousand more exosuits than security members. If there customizing tech, it doesn't make sense to not do so with the latest advancements in various fields of science we have advanced recently, including lasers. We've taken the action before and it doesn't ignore relevant tech advances within the company. That would require base incompetence on the parts of our engineers.
The main benefit of exploring blue kryptonite lies in understanding kryptonite overall and reducing DCs—not just, not even primarily, in Carol learning something from it. Focusing solely on Carol's perspective overlooks the broader value of this action.
I'm taking learn about kryptonite for the express purpose of making Carol someone who can target Kryptonean leadership that may prove competent enough to survive a deployment of ODIN. If not for that, the action would be far, far down my list of priorities, even with blue kryptonite. It's not a meaningful factor.
Her effects on an action that she gives more than three times the bonus to is more invaluable.
Not everything is numbers, and that doesn't particularly matter if I'm not planning to vote for the action this turn and intend to encourage others to not do so as well.
I have a strategy. To lean heavily on fight crime actions to deny superman glory, get leslie her own show narratively influenced by her personal hatred of superman rather than Sam's mirror trait and manner of handling media outlets.
By the way, where do we stand on the push propaganda action through our news outlets being worthwhile? Asking the thread in general. I don't think we'll be able to get a good team on it, but the DC is low, and it might synergize well with the combination of fighting crime, leslie's show no matter who we put on it.
Eve's timeline and resource needs are vague, and it's unclear if she'll be ready for the invasion. Your plan lacks data to support its feasibility.
It's a vague investigation mission. I can't provide data until we take it or eve succeeds on her own enough to come up in a results 3 update. But we have a good team and if eve isn't wildly incorrect about her odds we're likely to make worthwhile progress. If it doesn't pass we can always put the heroes elsewhere.
You're not contradicting what I said or offering an improvement trajectory. If she's not worth improving, fire her.
I originally had her on a learn about action with a high likelihood to improve her abilities. She's worth improving but not everything is a we can give this hero immediate priority. Mari is also worth improving, as are a dozen other hero units with potential traits and such in the works, but the complex approval and plan mechanics don't always allow that.
been focusing disinctly more on these kinds of actions since brainiac but it's never going to be an every hero worth our time can get the attention they need this turn situation. Chill out.
But whatever. If rene therapy passes instead of rations we can use it on Catherine.
Building more towers seems premature without addressing zeta beam logistics with Eiling. Is this expansion critical now?
What loggistics? We aren't planning to be a source of major traffic between the nations so much as a convenient way for the occasional covert agents to lose tales by hopping from one tower to the next or transport small packages without needing to rely on conventional travel methods.
Getting the towers up in the appropriate G7 member nations ahead of whatever turn we we have another swing at building more transit stations is pretty critical to our intentions to become a hub of cooperative espionage in a new cold war, yes. We have 3 towers left to build I think? England, france, and, hmm germany?
The split between socialization and propaganda undermines planning. Insisting on it is counterproductive. Particularly when other options exist. Have her be a side kick and tie her that way, if you want.
When we see the new actions and finalize a lot of the planning I'll gauge interest in the raven special actions and adjust my approval vote in response to feedback.
This is the price for your plan. To me, this is absurd.
Your focused on numbers, and I'm focused on a strategy and character narrative impact, which has been working well for us these past 4 turns. The latter most is not something to dismiss, especially in terms of big actions. Just look at Cassandra's success last turn. She was nudged towards space combat because her teacher was an alien princess.
There is more to things than just math, which is why I've spent several turns having Caitlyn take actions related to learning about technology used in Odin. Her being in the team is the most important factor, more than any total bonus. I can afford to lose lex as long as I keep her and provide her with a good team, especially if I bring him in on the actual engineering part, which he's irreplaceable for as our undeniable best engineer.
If you're not focused on rewards for Cassandra, that's a separate matter. If you have other plans for Enoch, that's understandable, but assigning him to an action that can be rolled higher later makes me dislike the choice.
Not every action is a major hero team priority. We are planning to patch up some minor issues in a fully functional growth serum, unlike bone serum, where we were trying to make up for years of effort poisoned by moon to create a medical miracle. Honestly it's a pretty good bonus given what we are aiming for.
That said, I'm open to alternatives. This was me responding to interest expressed in working on Enoch's research. We could put him on learn about Genetics instead, or possibly another learn about action relative to his skills.
It's another example for why your idea is problematic.
Yes, balancing the voters varried clashing interests in a way that nudges the turns approval vote phase into something manageable in the hero phase is frequently a problem when it comes to planning.
Also, someone else came up with this idea, and several regular active posters expressed interest, and I was eventually convinced of it's value. It was never actually my idea. The thread throws me curve balls on occassion and I work them into my playbook as best I can. The results through turns 30-32 speak for themselves.
We changed her position, and she adjusted well.
I don't see any issues with the changes I made, but if you have specific concerns, I'm happy to address them.
My issue is the amount being changed, without explanation or justication, with a high chance of something going wrong, leaving us with possible multiple job vote fixes to try and thread the needle on if they don't pan out. I'm actually being fairly indulgent by only saying you should cut down on there overall number rather than just saying let's do this after we have expanded Lexcorp and taken more time to see how things shift with our planned out firings and structural adjustments.
The main issue with your plan is its lack of synergy. Many teams feel suboptimal or mismatched, with units often left to take weak actions alone. It seems you start with desired actions and build teams to fit them. I prioritize critical actions first, create the strongest teams for those, and then find suitable tasks for the strongest teams made from the remaining units. It's a difference in approach.
Additionally, we focused on crushing crime last turn, so the DC increase could make it a problem.
Umm. No. I focus on a balancing of critical actions, long term plans and ongoing strategy, and voter interest, and then put together the teams from there based on a mix of coops, talents applicable to rewards tables, and what makes for a good passing spread.
Lana on the auto kitchen for instance isn't the ideal move but it's a stick it to wayne board of directors action so I need a hero and Lana will suffice even if her primary contribution will be managing the teams and organizing the kitchens to be aesthetically pleasing, and better heroes are needed on higher difficulty actions.
Some of the teams do run into the issue of needing a certain hero on them as part of the strategy. The strategy for Odin for instance really needs lex leading the engineer team for the stewardship action turn 34, but I need him to lead a team with Carol for the learn about kryptonite action as the only way to get an strong team with her with current heroes.
I also can't just put together only the strongest teams without the overall turn suffering. I put together a lot of strong teams, but not only the strongest possible. I tend to leave a few heroes entirely free just incase an unually popular clash of actions forces unexpected adjustment.
It's complex but it's accomplished several meaningful results. Like, Krank toys got through and Lana was put on as a balance option, and that spiralled out of control a little, but you can't argue the results haven't been worthwhile.
Who's on the action structures the outcome, and the location. One of our previous actions had Carol and Roxy focusing on crime in the mid west rather than Metropolis. While theee could be some issues, I feel like it's worth the effort to keep the pressure on superman.
So Since we have Moon for one last turn what do people want to do with him? I say we put him on some sort of Venom testing because it'd probably get his trait to kick in.
I'd prefer the Sharp Venom testing because it can't be failed.
Unfortunately, moon's psychosis makes him have very regrettable narrative effect on Learning actions. It's the reason why we stopped putting him with Karl, and the reason why our medical Bone serum needs an entirely separate list of dcs for using it on someone. It's part of the reason we want him gone. Given his interest in cooking, I might put him on the auto kitchens and put lana elsewhere.
Or, you know, Gingko Fruit.
I'm pretty sure that Gingko is both less well-exploited by others and more overall powerful than splicing. In particular, I believe it combos pretty solidly with Bone Growth, as long as you do it after rather than before. Splicing... probably not so much.
Hmm. It'll receive less of a bonus than his growth serum but I am open to swapping Enoch and Arthur to this, or learn about genetics, which will receive the same bonus.