Asking voters to please reconsider the Tellarites. Consider the structure of this organization. They're going to be stretched across the borders, designed for fast deployment to trouble spots. A tiny amount of superheavy Tellarite tanks is not going to get the job done. Not enough of them and too difficult to move. Meanwhile, the MACO strike a nice balance between loads of deployable infantry, but they actually use guns instead of stabbing people like the Amarki favor.
I'm gonna refer to this quote, as it's the most info we have:
"quoting GM chat:
```[10:02 AM] Oneiros: this is the defence component - there's a static part and a mobile part to them. The static ones will be protecting sites like colonies.```
so you have fewer units to deploy, but your static defenses are of higher quality"
The organization isn't just deployable assets. It's also static ones. In this respect, the Amarki option is for very cookie-cutter defensive troops but many deployable units that can cover a lot of ground. The Tellar would be the opposite, with very strong static garrisons but relatively fewer deployable units. The thing is, in any of the four choices there's no impact on the number of troops that can be part of a static defense, only mobile. We'll have enough Peacekeepers to protect our colonies, starbases, shipyards, etc. (Even if that might be with fewer but better equipped forces.)
The Human and Amarki options focus on having large numbers of deployable units, but in exchange those units are not as well equipped. What I think puts the Honiani and Tellar as the better choices is that they'll be both higher quality in both static garrison
and in mobile response units. We'll have less locations vulnerable to attack,
and our mobile units will be better equipped. I'd much rather have smaller but higher quality elite responders than large numbers of not-so-elite troops, especially since the Peacekeepers are meant to be the
first ones to show up, not the only ones. (Like we have smaller numbers of Explorer class ships for difficult events instead of going with swarm doctrine.) We don't need a general military to replace all Federation ground forces. We need an expert force that can respond asap to the biggest and most challenging problems, then call in the member forces if we need numbers to follow up.
Though of course, this is just the starting point. We'll in the future probably have chances to cover for any weaknesses the Peacekeepers end up having, but for now I want any option that boosts Peacekeeper quality as much as reasonably possible. (The 5 year training option lets our Peacekeepers double as Enlisted ship crew, which isn't really what we're aiming for.)
Feel free to disagree with all that. After all, we don't really have much beyond speculation to go on unless Oneiros wants to give us more:
There actually are fewer deployable teams. Whether there is a difference in capabilities is a question only Shark can answer, no one else knows.