A response to a "Military" Plan

Day 1,258, 19:55 • Published in Canada Canada • by Muglack

One of my opponents just released an article about his plans for the "Military".

I read it. I looked for the "Military" plan. I couldn't find it. I think what he meant to title it was "Rebuil😛 Canada's Foreign Policy" but got his headers confused, but that's neither here nor there.

With that in mind I'd like to explain why the things he outlined won't work or are simple misinformation.

His first "Plank" is increased relations with the US.

Personally I don't think that's required. As it stands right now our relations with the US are incredibly strong. We're hosting a multitude of eAmerican forces (which is how we're winning these battles with the eUS) in an attempt to do everything we can to keep things interesting in the lull before the storm.

If our relations with the US were any stronger we would be talking about making a "Super Nation" with them, and not worrying about getting an active MPP. But more on that later.

The second thing he mentioned in his US Relations was an exchange with US military groups for all of eCanada's military groups.

First, eCanada only has 2 recognized national Military groups. People keep mentioning "HOPE" as one of our armies. They aren't. They're independent, and they want to stay that way. Anytime one of the people running for CP mentions how they want to increase HOPE's funding and get them on the fast track to Army-hood they're just showing their ignorance.

Another way candidates show their ignorance is when they say they plan on encouraging the TCO to take part in an exchange with other military units from another country. *NEWS FLASH* The TCO already does this. The "Ignorance Monster" strikes again.

As for the land swaps, can't really be against something that helps both sides. Nail on the head on that one. (See? I tear down AND build up!)

MPPs and TERRA

Oh lord, where to begin.

See that battle with Saskatchewan that started the same time I started writing this article? That's why we can't have MPPs with Terra.

We're trying to fill the gap here. The reason we don't build up our MPPs with TERRA is because if we did the eUS's would get cancelled every time they attacked, or vice versa. That's just money down the drain. The best solution? Keep a finger hovering over the "Ally" button, and push it when we need to. Bear in mind that the lack of MPPs came as a result of us having to our maneuver ONE to keep them out of North America, and helping the eUS move their capital back to California out of Florida.

More wars to fight in would be good. And I'd love to make it happen. But I'm not going to do it without understanding the risks involved with random MPPs and the negative effects it can have down the road. Having the wrong MPPs at the wrong time can result in us staring down the barrel at a "1 vs. ONE" invasion scenario. And that's bad news for everyone.

As a side note, this is pretty simple game mechanics based strategy. The fact that a long term member of the CAF HC isn't able to understand this is a little scary.

Lastly he talked about "communication". How this applies to military is beyond me. I guess he mentioned getting information to commanders of the militaries, but that doesn't really apply.

I'm more concerned with getting information to EVERYONE, not just the high commanders of the two military groups. That way everyone will be able to fight effectively and know what is going on. But then again, that's just me.

Oh yah, he also included plans for possible wars in "Communication" (/boggle). I think he must have lost his place again, like he did with the titling of his article.

As far as I'm concerned you have got to ask yourself two very important questions at this point before voting:

What other "basic knowledge" does he lack?

And

Will the deficiencies show at the worst possible time for our country?