Well... depends on your definition of truth. There is what I call social truth, which is the "normal", publicly held view of the world. Which is often quite far removed from any functional reality, because its point is to create a communicative consensus. ... Er, in other words, social truth is to unite the people and create commonly held beliefs, and whether they can be called true by any other measure than opinion is irrelevant. Arguing against social truth is commonly considered offensive, because it is paramount to questioning the integrity of society, and which makes it very hard to inject facts into a discussion that is most often only tangentially related to the lives of most people that make up this society.
One example (which I deem unlikely to be offensive to argue against) would be the notion that, in Great Britain, the largest share of the welfare budget is used for immigrants, and that immigrants are generally a drain on the resources of the country. This is a good example of discussions about political matters that don't directly concern many people, because it is about the use of tax money (that was already collected) and "immigrants" which are only spoken about as stereotypes and not as people with diverse interests and backgrounds.
However, in a BBC article I read a while back (I regrettably didn't bookmark it, and failed to find it after searching just now, but the gist will suffice for this example) a poll on the percieved use of welfare funds was compared to the actual numbers, showing immigrant use of welfare to be one of the smaller posts, while support for students was by far the largest, larger than what the polled people thought went to migrants. The article continued on to give statistics and actual research data, concluding that a single migrant is actually a yearly asset of 2000 pounds on average, while the actual draw on the welfare is poor native Britons, which are the intended recipients of welfare money. This article was one of the strongest arguments against the "welfare tourism" scare I have seen on the media. Welfare tourism is by all data-founded accounts a fairly neglible problem. Regrettably, I have yet to see any similarly conclusive arguments in Germany, hence why I didn't give an example from my own country, which has similar issues despite our definite need for immigration.
Hence, social truth ("Our Navy is strong, woe is you!") doesn't interest me much, at least not the content - the atmosphere, the expectations and the eventual disillusionment it sets up are, on the contrary, immensely interesting. What does interest me is the "proven truth", as one could call it. If you just ask somebody they will tell you something they feel is true (hopefully), if you look at something you might get a notion that you feel is true, but if you check the details, the history, the interdependence with other things, you will often arrive at a different conclusion. And that conclusion, while not the "functional truth" humans can probably never arrive at, is much less likely to lead to disillusionment or mistaken action.
Naturally, I didn't do that in this case (or rather can't without the game) but the writing on the wall (or board) doesn't scream "hugely efficient and disciplined military juggernaut" to me. In fact, if the TCN was such a powerhouse, I'd be more surprised than if the opposite was the case, and quite sceptical about how that is supposed to work. Or why, in the first place, if there's no symmetrical challenger. Please answer those two questions in the game, if they apply. Not here.
And that's a good attitude. I personally don't even assume a universally shared morality or any sort of "scale" in my writing, because I find this quite at odds with my experience in life. And at odds with what I want out of fiction, for that matter.