So, what clinches it for me is that, as mentioned, our torpedoes are not useful for non-aerial use. For the Archer II to be remotely useful, we'd need to spend at least a revision on torpedoes, otherwise it would have basically no practical armament.
If we had a decent torpedo, I could see doing the torp-sub first, although I'd still be unsure. But as it stands, that extra mandatory revision is an action too much for my tastes.
Man, I dunno why you all think the Archer II is going to be 100% useless with just the Dolphin. We don't need long-range torpedoes when the enemy has absolutely zero anti-sub measures, which as I'll remind everyone, is still the case for the critical next turn. If you all think torpedoes are useless, then why not remove them from the Sobriety? I don't believe we even have torpedo tubes yet, since apparently the Dolphin has some kind of mysterious mechanism which only works if it's air-dropped.
But eh, I feel like I'm arguing against the tide here. What I will say is that if we go for the missile sub and Cannala goes for the missile cruiser, we will lose the seas next turn, along with the Forenian jungle. I would say that the Sobriety can only hope to carry 2-3 missiles and be Expensive even on a 6 (because 1960s design), while a likely Cannalan missile cruiser will carry up to 20 and be Cheap on a 3 or 4. At which point we'd be right back into the double-jungle mess again. I'd say I told you so, but this thread is full enough of salt as it is.
And as for making a good torpedo after making the missile-armed Sobriety, when that was the justification for not making a torpedo sub...I don't know what you guys are on, but I want some of it too.