I think the lesson to learn from Kris' post is not that we need a new great leader, but that this region just doesn't care about military gameplay in the first place. A lot of what is being discussed here is so, so much in the abstract, it's hard to see how people are even talking about TSP.

Most of us only care about the military in terms of how it can serve foreign policy I think. That's certainly my approach.

As long as someone is willing to try, I say let them. It's obviously not a drain on our resources since the SPSF actually has so few members. It's possible that someday someone will turn it around, and that's enough for me to keep it running. There's not really a downside.

Except for all the downsides that have already been brought up. We can't simply let a whole ministry exist if it doesn't produce resources, specially if reforms can be made to make it more effective. We've already been trying for years. At some point, enough is enough.

(01-25-2015, 10:41 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Except for all the downsides that have already been brought up. We can't simply let a whole ministry exist if it doesn't produce resources, specially if reforms can be made to make it more effective. We've already been trying for years. At some point, enough is enough.

The downsides of... people being upset when the SPSF actually shows some kind of activity? I don't think these "reforms" make it more effective; they effectively neuter the SPSF.

So? Not having a conventional military is not the end of the world. And if the region does better with a Civil Guard, all the better for us.

(01-25-2015, 10:32 PM)Belschaft Wrote: Most of us only care about the military in terms of how it can serve foreign policy I think. That's certainly my approach.

And this is where that approach is flawed: the military is a terrible foreign policy instrument. 

I don't understand why the idea of having a less trained, more militia style military force (which I support) is tied to removing its ability to be deployed (which I don't support).

(01-26-2015, 12:26 AM)southern bellz Wrote: I don't understand why the idea of having a less trained, more militia style military force (which I support) is tied to removing its ability to be deployed (which I don't support).

My position entirely.

(01-25-2015, 11:13 PM)Unibot Wrote:

(01-25-2015, 10:32 PM)Belschaft Wrote: Most of us only care about the military in terms of how it can serve foreign policy I think. That's certainly my approach.

And this is where that approach is flawed: the military is a terrible foreign policy instrument. 

The SPSF specifically, or all militaries?