Sounds reasonable

As far as i know, our game planet is defined only by inference. We infer that there is land because we grow food and have troops and tanks; we infer an atmosphere because we have citizens and jets. But we could imagine a fantastical world without an atmosphere and the jets use stabalized thrusters. Since earth isn't objectively defined anywhere and clearly permits physical impossibilites (like having a million tanks on one acre of land), i see no reason to argue that naval, space or cyber units should be deemed impossible because they are somehow constrained by the real earth's physical laws that obviously do not apply to our game planet.

Extending the game to include different mil units may cause us to infer new properties for our imaginary game planet,, but since the planet as such exerts no influence on the game itself, how can it possibly matter? We could change the labels on mil units to apples, pears, bannanas and pineapples and we could use sea shells for cash - all that matters are the properties attached to the objects, like it takes 2 apples to defend equally against 1 bannana.

In summary, our game planet is imaginary, is defined nowhere, and exerts no impact on game play, neither by constraints or shared effects (my earthquakes never hit another country, nor do plagues cross borders, nor fallout from using missiles.) Therefore, to argue as if our game planet is in any way analogous to a real planet is a total waste of bandwidth.

My 2 cents for my *bonus*

:)