I'm sorry but we have room for non essential actions and we've been having it and that room will grow with our advisors. We've not been and likely wwont be looking down the barrel of this major crunch unless stuff goes mega wrong. Not to mention that half the "essential actions" are less essential and more time sensitive with consequences.
Yes, actions grow with the acquisition of advisors.
Congratulations for acknowledging a very basic mechanic.
"less essential and more time sensitive with consequences" - NEWS FLASH! We are leading a company. Our first and primary goal is to lead the company to higher profits. If there are absolutely necessary things to push and keep Disney at the top of the field, those
are necessary actions. Any less strict of a definition and there isn't any such thing as an
essential action. Business is cutthroat, and almost everything is time-sensitive to stay ahead of the game.
EPCOT will be a timesink that is only tangentially related leading the company, and will more likely also be a cost sink as well. It is something I want done, but we need to do it
right rather than just going Leeroy Jenkins about the thing like you and the others seem to want to do. Once again, I remind you that Slynn initially planned for EPCOT to be a potential victory condition. They wouldn't put something like that as a condition for victory if it were something that could easily be done by just waiting on it.
Oh, and that's not even starting on the fact that the sole reason for us to complete all board goals are so we can spend board approval in other places. If were on an action crunch we can cut down on board goals and cost by being thrifty with approval spending. Like, if something goes wrong and hotels get delayed past the year we're still Gucci because were doing that good.
No, the board goals are to lead the company in ways the board directors think will help the company grow and profit further. They are not to be treated as mere side-quests to be completed only when we need more "money" as the analogy goes. We should turn them down when necessary or when the goals are too short-term (like building a hotel somewhere that is really stupid in the long-run), not when we don't need more approval. Board approval isn't some currency to burn, and we shouldn't make a habit of angering the board even if we think we can bring the number back up. Angering them could have as bad narrative consequences as exciting them too quickly as we have has had.
Sometimes, I feel like I am the only one who came in to this "Saving Disney" quest, read the mechanics 70% focused on the business side of things with 20% on office drama and 10% on "Other" and actually
wanted to read and play a quest about leading Disney to glory and riches, rather than just using it as an excuse to complete some kind of political or ideological goal. Any time I have actually brought up these concerns, you guys seem to simply ignore those posts or treat them as mere venting or something.
