Join the new world

Several weeks back I was asked by my party to do research to help determine policy for infrastructure. There are as shown below two major arguments. I went into this project of a somewhat different opinion than I the one I came out with. Please take a look at my findings, and the places I looked to come up with them.

Before getting started let me say that there are many organiztions working to provide our government with free or reduced cost hospitals to place. These organizations are always in need of workers and donations here is one of them: http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/mcfarland-constructions-project-outline-943669/1/20 . If you know of other specific organizations working on such a project please place a link to them in the comments. Regardless of your stance on this issue we are all in agreement that more infrastructure is needed.


What are the criteria that should be applied in determining the placement of Q5 hospitals and/or Q5 defense ststems?

I. Option 1: Build systems in 2-3 regions with a combination of at least one high resource, high population and a high number of businesses

A. Pros
1.The high population in dual 5 fortress states make an attack prohibitive . This became obvious by the wall that was built in Florida. The sheer size of this wall and cost in gold an attack on Florida would have cost Peace, saved our nation from being wiped out only a few weeks ago.
2. Q5 hospitals draw population to a region. The Flying Unicorn Squadron has relocated thousands to Florida and New Jersey, and then more from New Jersey to Florida to take advantage of the Q5s.
3. A placement of dual Q5s in California, Washington state (once reclaimed), or Texas would make the most sense we would retain enough high resources to keep our economy functioning at a decent level. At this time many believe that we only have enough ePopulation to put a high wall in two states. Once we grow as an eNation it would be both feasible, and in my opinion intelligent to add a 3rd fortress state.

B. Cons
1. More regions need protection for resource, and strategic reasons. This especially became true with New Jersey and Florida being our two fortress states. Neither region was a high resource state, as a result the economy took a considerable dive when we were reduced to only a few states left.
2. Fortress states need a high population to have a meaningful effect on a the height of a regions wall.
3. The misplacement or loss of a dual Q5 state is a major loss in a war. The perfect example for this is Kansas it did not have the high population to really make use of the dual Q5s in place, and probably should have had its dual q5s in California or Texas as both of those are high pop, high business regions with high resources.


II. Disburse Q5 infrastructure over a wider group of regions
A. Pros
1. There are many more regions of strategic and ecomomic importance
2. The main argument that i can find in digging through forum threads and newspaper articles for the
widespread placement of hospitals is that many people stubbornly refuse to move out the eState they live in RL. The theory is
if more areas had Q5 hospitals we as an eNation would have more damage to give as more people in small population states
would be able to fight 5 times per battle even if they are not in a fortress state. Two clickers would thus have even more impact.

B. Cons
1. disbursing infrastructure beyond 2-3 regions would weaken the defenses of a single region by disbursing our active population and reducing the height of the wall significantly. Without a fortress state to stall an offensive initiative it would not take long for an invader to roll up our territories like a rug. We saw this with the 3 pronged Peace offensive a few months ago.
2.This is not just a drawback but a major obstacle. The cost and time needed to install infrastuctures in more than a few states is astronomical. eUSA could bankrupt themselves and still not have come close to placing infrastructure in half of our states.




References😕inks to all relevant threads I have found.
http://eusforum.com/index.php/topic,9241.0.html touches on the topic but is also laced with criticism rather than focusing on the issue
http://eusforum.com/index.php/topic,9992.0.html
http://eusforum.com/index.php/topic,10418.0.html


http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/party-politics-hospital-building-and-defense-spending-917737/1/20 article

I am still researching the forums for older threads that touch on the decisions made for the placement of infrastructure before the invasions. It is my belief that we have learned a hard lesson about game mechanics and placement of infrastructure with it being so easily and quickly wiped out.

My own opinion on this topic:

After reading through the forum threads on this topic I am of the opinion that the 2 or 3 fortress states is the route to go. It is my belief that abandoning Florida as a fortress state if possible would be a good idea. I think Washington State, Texas, and California would be the 3 ideal states to build infrastructure in. This of course would require us to direct citizens and businesses to set up shop there.


Disclaimer:

The admins have a planned resource reallocation in the works some time in the near future. We can of course determine which policy we are going to go ahead with, but any decisions on infrasturcture placement should wait for this change.