I agree with the broader point. That's why I didn't mention it. (Sorry if I'm being too pedantic.)
No, it's all good, I was the wrong who got it wrong after all, it's a big difference!
I agree with the broader point. That's why I didn't mention it. (Sorry if I'm being too pedantic.)
Options appear to have been edited at some point in time, people voting for the dual engines are doing it three different ways.
Seems to be omitting the industry count in the square brackets.
Maneuverability is good for the ship to just be able to move around at sublight, especially with environmental hazards that something like a survey ship might deal with.I don't see the point of paying for the dual engines if we're not also paying for the torpedoes that would benefit from that mobility. I think that's a weakness of this not being plan voting because I do want the engines but because I think they'd enable the torpedoes and those have additional utility I like. But since torpedoes are losing I really don't want to waste industry in manoeuvrability without anything to aim.
The only thing left I care about is ensuring we prototype the new guns.
But since torpedoes are losing I really don't want to waste industry in manoeuvrability without anything to aim.
The vote-counter has some latitude ability to grab close-enough votes and group them together. I'd guess enough people just initially voted for the option that didn't have brackets, so that's what the counter is defaulting to.Seems to be omitting the industry count in the square brackets.