But if you want a say so in a feature, speak up. If you don't until AFTER a decision gets made, you akin to the person who whines about their government representatives but never votes...
Hooey. In a condition of limited choice such as the US two-party system, often neither choice is acceptable. Choosing the "lesser" of two evils is stupid in a context as important as government. A citizen has
every right to complain about his representative whether he/she voted or not. If
anyone has forgone the right to complain, it is those who voted for the winning candidate. I don't buy that argument either, but it is the only one with any sort of logic behind.
And the concept somewhat applies to this thread as well. We don't know what the acceptable options are. Since 2by3 will define what those are, if any, it is equally pointless for us "irrelevants" to join in and say what others have already said.
To me, it seems the crux of the problem is that we don't know what is being modeled by the fixed-path upgrade system. If it is reflecting actual historical upgrades that occurred, then I would agree that it conflicts with the design teams choice to include the ability for non-historical production choices. If it is reflecting something else, then let us know what it is, so at least we can judge the effectiveness of the model. I could understand fixed-paths more if it applied to entire plane type, but it does not. What were the designers attempting to represent by that, because any reasonable person is going to infer that it is an arbitrary limitation by the designers to somehow handcuff the production system.
"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown