I'm going to counter this point by point so I can keep my own argument straight and make sure I make the points I want. I know this format of response is usually seen as someone being a prick, but that's not my intent, it's for organizing my own thoughts.
Robots wont save the mole people sure build a underground city and have the enemy defeat it by just making a bunch of chlorine gas above a vent.
If we're unable to either build air scrubbers/recyclers, countermeasures for gas, or construct a method of emergency lockdown then we've failed as a people. If they get to something as vital as ventilation then we lost the war well beforehand. Notably, there's early arms race evidence of the fact that chemical weapons are an easy single-action counter which makes them, like radio encryption,
almost a waste of time in most player's eyes because it devolves into each team throwing counters at one another and ultimately resulting in a stalemate for that branch of research.
Even if we can do it doesn't mean its a good idea the logistics of that frankly even if we have the potential i doubt we have the ability.
We have trains capable of transporting enough men and material to start a colony while also building their own tracks as they go. Making underground outposts was trivial. Expanding on that will not be impossible, and we certainly do have the means for doing so.
Also from a design philosophy standpoint I would prefer many simplistic designs that can be multi-functional then these big somewhat ludicrous projects.
I agree with the spirit of this statement - that we shouldn't do a bunch of ridiculous stuff. We also have yet to do anything ridiculous. This game is heavily based on the Arms Race system I penned myself (a fact that is very flattering, Dolosus), and while every GM has their own scale for how things work, we haven't hit the level of ridiculous that should be cause for concern. Once we see those -3s and -4s
on a regular basis then we're being dumb. We're also defining our entire peoples during these turns, so we almost definitely have a little bit of leeway in regard to difficulty - I doubt the Outposts would have been trivial once we're in the main game.
Let the other side waste there time on wunderweapons let us win through practicality and simplicity.
The problem with this philosophy is that we're playing a game on a forum in a setting that's wholly science fiction. And even then, unlike the real world we're restricted in how many things we can develop throughout a given span of time. We need to cram as much potential into our designs as possible thanks to action economy, and deciding when to take risks vs. when to be safe is a big part of arms races in general. Of important note the GM will be balancing our starting armories, so without a doubt, if anything, this is the time to go big.
Also why i specifically went with the dogs for my design is because in the revision phase we can go straight to dog based transportation to provide a alternate to the trains especially closer to the front.
Dogs are not a small-arms weapon, and while I'm not opposed to dogs, we probably should stick somewhere close to the prompt and ensure we actually start with a gun. Guns that also shouldn't be too hard to produce in bulk enough to arm our forces because a) no gm wants to write about how an army is 70% dudes using their bare hands, b) we're in a world where armies are going to be much smaller and therefore easier to fully arm, and c) we're able to produce entire working railways. We have the material.