Jump to content

LionofPerth

Member
  • Content Count

    233
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

LionofPerth last won the day on January 7 2018

LionofPerth had the most liked content!

About LionofPerth

  • Rank
    Mimreg

Contact Methods

  • MSN
    Array

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Array
  • Location
    Array
  • Interests
    Array

Recent Profile Visitors

478 profile views
  1. fracas, You know, you've just gone and proved my exact point. It ain't your game at all. It's everyone's who here, posting, game. It's the designers, writers, modelers and artists, mould makers, everyone at the studio. It's the guys who love the lore and hate the mechanics, it's the opposite, and between. It's the people who play it, paint it, collect it. It's the people who aren't here too. It's just as much their game, their models, their setting as it is in any part 'mine' or 'yours'. So how is it that you can speak for the greater community? Have you polled them? What are the numbers you got? Where's your survey form and questions? Where's your raw data? What's the process you took to arrive at that point? How is that your suggestions so worthy of being spoken and mine get so misrepresented by you? Ignored, even. Eternally conflated with other things, eternally missed the very point I was making? Some days.....
  2. Seems I'm mistaken then, I would have sworn black and blue they used quite different language around their FTL technology. Might be time to read the DFC, Reconquest books again.
  3. In that case, don't worry about it. I've got a few more relaxed days, so I can try to find it myself. The curse of working medical supplies is that it's near a 360 days a year job. I can't argue with any of that. Really, I can't, all pretty sound and all pretty much in line what what I thought. The question from my end is more is this going to be defined, down the line, as military doctrine of movement or an inherent limitation of the technology. Both have pretty good reasons for being the case. In fact both kinda feed into the other, meaning they basically are the same reason, making a few more assumptions. Maybe I have been, considering from this point of view, I have been willfully ignored in my main points. I have tried multiple ways of making said point. I have learned to recognise when I'm being ignored, when I am being pushed aside, out of ego, out of the usual neurotypical bollocks. That is exactly what I have in regards to a certain portion of this conversation. So unless you're on the Autism spectrum yourself, hell, even if you're not, don't tell me what I'm trying to say, why it's wrong. Don't tell me I've been rude because I'm trying to cut to the core of an argument. Trying to cut through so much of the superfluous waffling most people tend to do. To which even I am guilty of. The only line I crossed is taking this from a near academic argument, to a more heated debate. So either make this a formal warning, so I can challenge it, or back off. So you're assuming they have a choice in the matter? You've clearly not been listening to my point made about current human expectation. We've already put people into places where the temperature ranges in the 50 to 60 degrees variance over a single day. We've put people in places where the nearest major medical is measured in hours, days worth of travel. Industry has demanded that distances not just cross ten of kilomeres, hundreds, but thousands. Where the journey itself, in other parts of the world would cross half a dozen countries. There's no difference doing it over kilometres or light years, on a philosophical level. At no point have I been interested in or was talking about planets. At no point have I been talking about where people would choose to live. I'm talking about industry and logistics. Again, something I have some foundation on, professionally and in my education. If I was, I would be making very different points and I would be talking about quite different sciences, such as human tolerances towards other ratios of elements in our atmosphere. I would also be talking about how gravity can be in a larger range and still be quite comfortable. I would suggest, that range is quite large. I would wager, that in terms of comfort, a range of positive G can be in the area of 0.75, even a bit lower, through to 1.5 with no problem. At anything more than three, we're starting to get into uncomfortable and requiring assistance for basic biological functions. G-suits would be the norm. Anything up to about eight, could be possible. It's the negative G that are far more a problem, but we as a people don't really experience that, since we can't fly without mechanical assistance on a whole. I would also point out, again, that each and every day, you're able to beat the gravitational attraction of an entire planet. An entire planet, all roughly, 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg, worth of it. Every single day, the humming bird, bee does exactly that and some of them are truly tiny things. Gravity is not an issue. Mechanical assistance being something either engine powered or a way to expand surface area, wings, to catch thermals. Perhaps I would have also pointed out that it's preferable to live in a place where minimal work is required, it's by no means necessary. As a species, we can live in deserts, relatively few problems. We can live near oceans, seas and rivers no problem. Even travel them in rafts which are little more than trees tied together, skins tied to a frame of wood. We can live in forests, mountains, our bodies can adapt to reduce oxygen no problem. Pilots in the PNG don't wear oxygen masks and live above 2000m above sea level, from memory. Not only do they not need masks, they're breathing just fine. Just like the locals, who have been there a damned long time. Sherpas go even higher, into colder places. The Inuit live in places where daylight basically disappears over winter. We can and have changed the way we live to live in areas that present otherwise lethal challenges. The Australian Aboriginal population has over five hundred distinct nations, countless linguistic groups, a rich and complex oral tradition and they covered this country. Even the deserts. And yet, people can't survive on anything other than another Earth? That's on the side of indefensible and borders on foolish. People can make themselves comfortable, just about everywhere, given the right resources. Which they have an endless supply of, effectively. Now find me a post where I bring up anything close to that? No, really, do. Actually, when it comes to WC, you did. You really did. You said to them, throw it all out. You decided that it's worth was so minimal, so troublesome, so difficult to work with, they should just ignore it entirely. Do what they want, what ever they want because it obviously has to be better than what's out there now. That's quite simply where near all of these claims come from, when you've tried to write out a full system specification sheet, setting bible, if you're honest about it, if you're working really, really hard at it, you put in so many things only to see them ripped out. You learn what the difference is between a core feature, a core want. You learn to see exactly where and why things go together and to do it without getting too emotionally involved with said idea. I've thrown out hundreds, if not thousands of hours worth of writing, concepts, sketches. I've been closer to the side of being the writer, designer than most have. After being there, so many of my complaints about other settings, other ideas, boiled down to how I just didn't like it. I wasn't getting what I wanted, what I expected. That it is more than a feeling I could do better, something I still work towards actually doing each and every day. Every time I start a new project, refine, edit, new round of research. That's the simple and short truth of the matter. So again I will ask, why is it that Firestorm Armada should be made to be your game? Why should it be taken and made into something others will not enjoy? Why do you deserve more care and attention as a fan than others? Why cut the thing that brought people into the game, out of it? If you can't answer them without it being anything more than a feeling, preference, personal desire, simply said, you don't have an answer. You don't write a game where you're the only person who's going to be playing it, if you want it developed, sold. Even as a pen and paper RPG. You might enjoy playing it, down the line, but it's not for you, the individual, the creator. Sacrifices will be made so that others will enjoy, not might, will. Trade offs, will be made for some degree of accessibility, even if it's a hard genre piece, setting, game. Some foundations will built that you, the individual, will not like. That's the simple and honest truth of it. Foundations will be given according to the genre, the research, the reading you put into it. Foundations from which you will build an experience, a setting, a world. All the better that it's internally consistent and it is of such strong internal consistency that people can't find easy fault with it, for its genre. If you go into science fiction and see political science straight out of steampunk, you have every right to call it out. On the other hand, if you have science fiction that relies on a prediction based on current science and it's proven wrong, you have far less right, ability to complain. Wells and Verne, even Shelley are science fiction writers, the science of their time much different than our own. So there is no more confusion, I'm trying to get you to see that working on surface levels alone is no way to do something like this. It's more than an iceberg, so much of the work that does go in is effectively invisible to the vast, vast, vast majority of people. The many documents, guidelines, thoughts, reasons, choices, all of those on the way, even the ones thrown out, are important. Every single mistake, misstep and trip up, matters for the lessons and directions it gives for what comes after. The rounds of playtesting are the final stages, the rounds of back and forth between editors, working out the font, placement of text and image, the choice of art, the amount of and nature of the art. All of that comes at the end. So for you to go through and demand of them, to gut it all, to start again for you, is the height of ego, selfishness. Hobbies like this are shared, must work like a tripod, must support multiple reasons to play and to enjoy. Not just yours.
  4. No chance I could trouble you for some page numbers? I was trying to find it earlier today and I couldn't seem to. I have to ask where you get the assumption of two jumps from, at least I would like to see what's your reasoning behind. I would also like to hear what's your thoughts, beliefs, assumptions on ships carrying more than one drive. It strikes me that if a drive is so limited, how is it that if you want high speed, mobility, you do not have one, you have two, more. One in use, one cooling and one warming up. At least on the military side. Now, to somewhat offer some reasoning for the positioning of the satellites themselves, it's pretty hard to get a signal through a planet. That's what closer in satellites would have to do, especially in the Goldilock's zone, where ever that may be based on the stellar configuration, singular, binary, trinary, etc etc. If you place it on the outside, it has clear and obvious paths out of the system without the need to get that signal through a dense object. Ships could make intrasystem jumps, which is what I would argue Shunt deployment is, the conditions to support it and the fact it does require such precise data, that's what makes it hard. Or it could be that the technology, accuracy required to do so is only in the hands of select, controlled parties, not on the general, civilian market. Is all of that supposition? Sure. Hopefully it has some grounding in being a complete and total assumption on the technology used and the nature of the system itself. draco84oz I think you got the two universes confused, between DropZone and Firestorm. Firestorm has Fold Space Drives and DropZone something quite different. Not sure what they called it exactly, I have the books around here somewhere, just not so easy to get to. Serious question here. Are you reading my posts? No, really, are you? Are you misreading them and only looking for the flaws? By these two sentences, you've basically told me you've not. I've already said, that raw materials are effectively infinite here. They are if you're looking for them hard enough. It's the processing, processes around and management of which is the issue, that's why you have the population centres. If these people can live anywhere, which as said is more than the case due to the models produced, specifically Daedelus Station, Valhalla Station, the planetary defence groups, but you said it doesn't matter what's written or done, you don't think any of it's valid anyway. I'm going to be blunt here, if my expertise is clouding my assessment, great. Awesome, woohoo, it means I have some grasp of what I am talking about. It's far better it's based on something I can call to, see, direct others to than just some feelings, desires for the game. You've still not answered the damned questions around what you're trying to do and what your objectives are. You've basically said that you're here to argue to make it your game. Not what Warcradle wants to do, not what the community wants. Yours and yours alone, that you know better than Warcrade. No more shifting the goal posts, no more dodgy half answers. What the hell do you want? Why do you want it? What does it achieve? In that order. What are your trade offs and project borders? Limitations? Assumptions? Where's your research? Want me to give you an example of what I did to work out what I needed to do for the RPG campaign I wrote? So you know exactly what the standard is?
  5. There I have to argue, the universe is built on the laws of physics. The question is how you understand and what you can do to work around them. Others might have different language, different concepts surrounding certain affects/effects of, but the underlying, core principle remains the side. At least to how I understand things now. That of course is very open to change. Still, different mixes of technology and a bit of luck about either lucky or unlucky when it comes to wormholes, does seem to be a way of making things more interesting. Perhaps some are better at finding them, others at developing them, perhaps one can get away with using short or more internally unstable paths, due to their ship design. All things to consider and all things which would, superficially at least, show a different technology, philosophy, doctrine, of movement. Not so bad, but I would point out that if it's a game of fleet engagements, this does start to preclude fleet movement and take up back to single ships and jumping one at a time. Does it work? Sure, especially in the scope of Star Control 2. Does it work as well here? This I need to think on and my gut reaction is nope. Not so much. Again, if we want fleets moving, either the technology to make a single jump of multiple vessels must exist. An equivalent of the Hyperspace Wake Generator of Homeworld fame. The doctrine of single jumps of single ships, must be explained, so that when a jump is made, it is made a single unit, so it can't be destroyed piecemeal on the other side. As well as that, if it's so difficult to travel close to another mass, what does this mean for ships going to a RV with another ship? Would that ship cause problems? All I know is that it doesn't work so well here and that, for the moment is a problem. Not a major one, but one that does exist. I also seem to remember they were highly controlled as well for some reason. That it wasn't open for everyone to just take a day trip through. Been a while since I read any of that stuff, so I could be completely mistaken. Why nuke when you can drop some dense objects from orbit? Pick up a few rocks on the way through the asteroid belt and just let them down in the gravity well? Why waste the uranium, plutonium? Add in the engineering to build said item and the other rarer materials you need to build said nuke in the first place. This just..... again, not having the background here. What was it that someone pointed out to me? How a kilogram in a particular orbit, pointed towards a planet as a weapon turned that one kilogram mass into a 500KT explosion, in effect. And people blame the Terrans for doing that to Dramos, the entire RSN and Dindrenzi fleet is set up to do it to every single planet in the universe and still have ammunition left over.
  6. Abstraction? Sure. However in this case I think there's good material we don't have instantaneous travel on a whole and where we do have wormholes, it's quite limited. I would point to what's in the Kurak Alliance Fleet Manual when it discusses the history of Terran colonisation. As well, we do have clear models for FSD beacons. That to me says, as someone said below about BattleTech, we have clear jump routes between systems. Not only do we have clear jump routes between systems, but it's also a factor that is something in the scope of navigation. What that is, well, Spartan never answered that question at all since it never really specified anything in the scope of its technology and its FTL technology. On a military side, I would also point out that fighting without any form of cover, stealth, is quite difficult as it would be in deep space. Fighting in system, with planets to hide behind, shifting objects like comets, asteroids, present additional opportunities to get that important one up on your opponent. Not that dissimilar to crossing the T in some old battleship parlance. Which I think both provides the justification you need and more importantly, can keep the battlefield interesting. Abso-freaking-lutely. Until this gets answered, we can't make any more specific suggestions or even establish the basic of doctrine. I think we do have the information, in between the fluff and the models, Daedelus Station and the FSD beacons, the old v1 Refueling station, to make a mostly educated guess that we are looking at a system closer to your third option, more than the others. At least without obvious and specifically named FSD distrupting technology, we must assume once escape is made, it's made. No Star Wars styled Interdictors etc etc. At the point at which I have encountered them and they are the most vulnerable. Yes, the answer really is that easy. If it's more like say, Babylon 5 hyperspace, then I'm going to be doing some different that what I would be if it was Star Wars hyperspace or Stargate hyperspace, than if it was Warp out of Star Trek and everything in between. Again, you seem to be either ignoring or misreading my post. I have been trying to stress that what happens out there is based on to the degree of comfort it can be done in and if that degree of comfort is easily achievable. Antarctic, Arctic research stations, exist. Remote weather stations, exist. Oil rigs and off shore work, exists. All of that is relatively speaking, in the area of comfortable. Some rigs have cinema screens in them, by reputation. If it's possible for us, it should be just as possible for them, assuming a few basic things. Admitably one of those it at least a simulacrum of gravity, but all you need is some real and the rest fake/not gravity and people should do fine. See the Antares from Defying Gravity as an example. At least for the engineering, the overarching plot, world, really has no bearing here. It's an amazing show though. I might be willing to do a stint in one of these places, but so are plenty of other people. Not only are people willing to do it, the economy of doing it can actually pay quite well for those who. Not only on land, but on sea and on ice too. We have truckers that drive over ice and drive deep country, and deep country, check a map of Australia and you're going to see deserts the size of some countries in Europe. If it's true of us, now, on a single planet, then surely it also has to be true of them. Not every system will be inhabited. The very FSA universe map shows us this. So if not every system is colonised, but some places are rich in resources, so rich it's worth developing, there must be people willing to work there. Again, not without cost, but willing to work there. As a side note, I would stress, this is perhaps the very ugly side of that kind of work, that it was established that suicide was a workplace hazard, for those who did work FIFO. Fly In, Fly Out, if you're thinking something else. This seems to be another area you don't really have the background in, if I'm being honest.
  7. Still not listening from my end. In the models, in the very models, given to us by Spartan games we have clear proof they can support life in stations. If they exist and can provide gravity, light, food, water and air, there's no reason they have to live on a planet. I would also offer that even on inhospitable locals, it's possible to produce living space. Even without terraforming. All you need to do is control where the air is and your set. Something these guys well and truly got cracked. I would wager I know a hell of a lot more about Antarctica and the stations down there than most. I've applied to work down there on a few occasions now. I would point out that there's plenty that you're not going to appreciate till you have worked down there. What the difference between darkness and the absense of light is, among others, like a whiteout. I would also point out that the requirements for working down there are on the extreme side and if we can learn anything from them, the equipment there goes well beyond specialised. It's custom engineered in some cases. If you want to accept that we can live, learn, study, research in Antarctica, so to, can the humans of this universe do the same wherever they so choose. All it would take is enough gravity to make it so that most things fall down and you're set. I wouldn't mind doing a full winter rotation down there. Which ranges from twelve, on the short side to fourteen on the long side, depending what the weather is like and the ice is doing. Reading that, I don't think you have the background in history or naval operations to make that claim. Especially if we consider what's already capable. There's been for the last seventy years odd, just the ability to go for days without daylight, now we can do it deeper, longer and more importantly, with lower profile. We can sustain those operations for months. Easily. Is it a comfortable way of life? Hardly, but it's worryingly doable. To the point where I don't know why, the Typhoon managed to get a fricking pool in for the crew to use. Carriers and their battlegroups can remain on station indefinitely, assuming they are properly supported. Crews can be rotated, aircraft, can be rotated, supplies shipped to, no problem. How is that not possible for them? Deep space is the safest place for a fleet, so it can't be attacked in scenarios similar to Pearl Harbour or Taranto. En route is the weakest point of any long distance chain. Road, rail and shipping. Spend any time learning about logistics from an Australian perspective and you learn appreciate a few things. Namely the issues with getting so much shipped to you, the relative speaking weakness of doing so and the costs of failure in planning. When we're talking months to years to reactivate smelters, refineries, that means a lot. When we're talking the influx of so many things that a country's greatest export is boxes of empty air, you've got a real imbalance. Not only do you have an imbalance, but you also have an extremely long chain to get through. So much so that a derailment in Nullarbor Plain caused such massive problems in Perth that it took at least half of January for it to fix, correct. To the degree it wasn't just businesses that suffered, but some relatively speaking vital supplies, including medical were affected. Living space, is infinite, the question is the effort you want to go to make it more comfortable. The same is true of resources, the question there is does the effort of getting it yourself warrant its worth. Which also ties back into the first question, do you want to go through the effort of making the act comfortable. In that you have the answer why you would have trade. Not everything is everywhere. Some sources are going to be easy for you and hard for others. Some sources are going to be near impossible for you, despite the fact a thousand light years in a day is an achievable distance of travel. Hell, if you want really want a hard place to live. I mean really hard, check out Coober Pedy. They live underground on a whole, to get away from the heat. It doesn't just get hot, it gets lethal out that way. Australia is a case study in both adaptability of people to difficult conditions, both in the Aboriginal people who lived in a semi-nomadic life style for somewhere in the area of sixty thousand years, to what is relatively recently white european settlement. We've got so much stuff that can kill you and I don't mean just the wildlife. Bad weather, fires, storms, isolation and the absolute inhospitable. Mining camps are literally the middle of nowhere. To the degree where it's a fact of life the Royal Flying Doctor Service is just what's needed to transport injured and sick people about. These can give you lessons that you simply don't get anywhere else. Canada, Siberia, might be the only two exceptions to that. Nowhere else has quite that distance vector. All of which before I discuss the many difficulties about both defending against attack in an environment like a planetary system, as well as the issues of attacking such a system. That would require a whole book to explain easily, one I actually have in the collection. Fleet Tactics and Coast Combat, Second Edition, Captain Wayne P Hughes Jnr, USN (Retired). The specifics of littoral combat are even more amplified in the case assault a planet, even without a moon, from which you can put even more weapons. It's even better if it's got no atmo as well. You can have lasers and particle beams attached to a hulking, massive and permanent heat sink. All of which is before we talk about actually being able to fight around a planet too. Networks of emplacements in asteroid belts, integrated networks of satellites, all of these make the act of operating in system so much harder than I think most realise. Not only that, I would also offer that we've got historical precedence for some of these elements too. Stand offs leading to battles, encounters, Jutland, Midway, Coral Sea, Guadalcanal, Leyte Gulf and more show you exactly what happens when things don't go as planned, people stick too closely to doctrine, show no flexibility in adapting to your environment. What people do when they can't leave their expectations behind, what happens when they can't leave those expectations behind. Militarily, it is easier to attack the materials en route, it is easier to blockade, deny the ability to move freely, to trap and prevent the free departure of, to create such a need for supplies they can't easily get the only option is to surrender. That is easier to do than it seems, there's only so many points of departure from a system. So many ways in as well.
  8. Not the only one, for its flaws, it's a good place to start. It keeps it being Firestorm Armada and doesn't make it just another fleet game. At the end of the day. I would argue with some of the break up, but then again I have had to dump a lot of time and research into what things could be like for a RPG setting, campaign I want to run. Which means it's pretty incomplete in places and it openly ignores the aliens, at least in my mind for good reason. I would also say that at the end of the day, where and how much of the science you want to put into your science fiction. I'd add the to the point about planetary populations, the knowledge and facilities to do so. It's that knowledge that often matters as much as the end product. Let's take this as an example, if I need a ROV made, I'm looking at precious few places, if there's an option. It might be as bad as a single company in Iceland. That's not a joke, it really could be that bad. If I need that knowledge, that expertise, you have one choice, go to them. You can apply the same for fuel, for armour, munitions, more in the greater Firestorm universe. If there's only so many places, so few, more accurately, they make great targets. Then you've not been reading my posts at all, being blunt. Or you're working on a set of assumptions that have not been communicated clearly. To quote Douglas Adams on the matter and why things aren't that simple, Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's peanuts next to space, is the answer. A few reasons for that and the main is that getting the resources can be difficult, can also be easy, it's the processing of, it's the getting them to the place where it's of use or can be converted to where it can be used. You could haul every single iron/nickel asteroid in the belt out and put in orbit of our planet, that doesn't mean anything if you can't get the iron from up there and down to the smelters, refineries, then get that worked product to the shipyards, factories, construction sites, engineering firms. The distance of space would make those centres of production, centres of knowledge and expertise. This is in fact, a better a set up for a wargame, because it provides a set of objectives, points to the items of strategic value, tactical value, in an engagement. Even more so in a longer term war, where you have to maintain, repair, your ships, build more tanks, more ships. It builds the scenarios around these points and provides obvious terrain pieces for such scenarios. Important targets become shipyards, repair yards, refueling stations, centres that assist or control navigation, processing and storage of important resources. You can't confuse the access to materials and the ability to work, work with such materials. If you want a fleet based, war game and you want to start it from nothing, go write your own. No, really, if that's how you feel about the lore, background, universe of Firestorm Armada, why play it? What's the attraction to the game? Why stay and make the argument that you should get your game? What's the foundation you're trying to create here, for the game? What's the limit to this? If you're throwing out effectively all of the lore, what do you gain for doing so?
  9. Happy to exchange notes, thoughts and offer some sources. Seems I've really crossed that line into academic territory. I have some deeply specific reading on some of this stuff.
  10. This is perhaps the most egregious of all the errors, so I will hit it first. Wrong. Completely wrong. Now the reason this is wrong is that they are effectively a post-scarcity society. Effectively, as the means to take raw materials is effectively infinite, if you can find it, you can mine it. The issue is the production of usable materials from it. This means that you need the ability to refine, control the flow of said resources more than you need said resources. As for living space? Bunkish, barely. Simply said, if you have all of space, you have an infinite, in the truest sense of the word, amount of it. The question is far more does your current technology allow you to make use of? The question is, can you support life outside a planet or moon and if so, how easily can you support it? Given the existence of Daedelus Station and Valhalla station, that answer seems to be, yes they can. Not only do they seem able to, the technology seems to exist in the civilian field as well. Now if we talk about the refuelling station as well, it seems that interplanetary trade is not just the norm, but also viable enough to support secondary industries related to. If the above is not true, you will see primary population centres built around moons, worlds of value or on trade routes. That way you have places for ships to rest, where people go, industry follows. Not only does it follow, it gets developed, created, worked, so that where this is the capability to do something with extremely minimal cost, it is done. Would you rather test your weapons on a dead planet, where there is nothing to damage or destroy or on a major population centre? My choice is dead world, thank you. I would find the place without any atmo to trash, load up with fallout. Debris, leave it, who cares, unexploded munitions, leave them, no-one is going to trigger them by accident. If there's no one to wonder in, secrets are easier to keep too. I would also counter that the very point of trade is to get resources, materials that you need and that some of the time, simply said, you don't have easy access of it, to it. This is true of elements quite, well, the heavier elements by atomic weight. If you're not set up to get say, iron from the asteroid belt, but you're able to get more ice, why not work out a deal for the iron, in ice? I would also offer that trade is not necessarily just in raw materials. Knowledge, technology, access to worked materials, subassemblies, that you need, all are fair game for trade. That's before we talk about luxuries, those themselves equally worthy of trade. The only one I can't argue with is domination, which is primarily the Dindrenzi goal, as stated in the written material as it stands now. Also, wrong, but less so than the first point. In the case of the Dindrenzi, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were able to keep up and produce some highly effective weapon systems. From the StG44, the forerunner of all assault rifles, to the first ballistic missiles, to the core fundamentals of modern submarine construction and use. On the Soviet side, we have countless combinations of technology, specifically in specialised armoured units, I would also point out the RPG series of weapons, even the infamous RPG 7 is a product of Soviet design by committee. The MiG's, at least the early models might be built around basically British designed engines, but the engineering to get them in the air, was Soviet. The Alfa, Akula, Typhoon, all of those are very different technologically to their American counterparts. The idea that a fundamentally statist entity can not develop new ideas nor keep up technologically is frankly bunk. The Cold War is more than proof of it. Largely this was driven by the military and in the case of the Dindrenzi, I would argue is pretty obvious. Mind you, there's also an argument you can make that by the time you've got a railgun and you're playing around in EM spectrum, some form of Maglev tank isn't that complex to do, the question is more can you provide it without obviously tying it to certain grades of worlds, excessive current draw. Theory is no different, application close enough that it doesn't really matter. For those not in the know, Gravity is one of the weakest, if not the weakest force out there. Every step you take is a time when you beat, well and truly, the gravitational pull of an entire planet. If that doesn't blow your mind, I don't know what will. I am going to also point out that the Americans made some very different choices in their technology, leading to the ATF fly offs and quite different naval doctrine, developed a very different set of technologies and those technologies were actively sought by the Soviets, to the degree a core chief directorate of the KGB was created to gain, steal, acquire them by any means. In the case of the Directorate, also, wrong. Not all citizens are equal. Not even those more equal citizens are all equal. Some are most definitely more equal than others. Those at the very bottom of the chain are basically there to work, that's it. They have specific laws that prevent their escape and would basically make it a life sentence, whatever they did. A life not lived in much obvious freedom or comfort. Villeins in the old, medieval terms. Above that was the serf, which actually had some freedom, in comparison. They actually were free to go on pilgrimage, to travel in general. I have to argue that due to the nature of the Directorate, this is easily 80% odd of their population, these classes of people in effect. Various layers of management are above them, leading to the managing directors, to CEO, right at the top. Replace with barons, knights, dukes, princes and more, you have a monarchy. In terms of the economic side, that's more complex. Both due to the idea of horizontal silos, vertical silos and the nature of logistics. If I had to make the argument, the basic Directorate worker, not citizen, has a form of currency at their disposal. This is largely spent in highly vertical systems. The idea that the Directorate has obvious rivalry, in the economic sense, is just one I can't defend. It exists to keep as much money moving about as possibly, to generate traffic, fees, but to do so in such a way where it's to itself. You have the left and right hands, actively working together, with the same true of the fingers on each hand. It never leaves and it remains, mostly, placing it costs on those on the bottom of the chain. They're in a position where they're both the banker and the money maker in chief. They can directly control their own people with a change in marketing and setting the fees. They are at the whim of a dollar they don't control and is in the control of a select few, planetary managers, basically. Said simply, capitalism requires competition, which is what the Directorate does not allow. It has achieved a goal of being a monopoly and provides everything. At its whim it can cut that off, with no-one to stop them, there is no chance of competition rising. While they can work with a number of 'partners' I would sooner call them subsidiaries. Leading back to the point that they're little more than a monarchy, full of courts and intrigue, whoever has the best pitch, wheels and deals the most, has the power. Which if we do look at what's written and where, Omnidyne and Works Raptor definitely fall into that category. One can be used for 'clean' operations, allowing it to work on the other side of the border and the other is part of their black ops, wet work, private military so that there's a degree of separation between them and an operation. I want to stress this, even if it does allow competition, that competition is controlled as it is in the US. Agreements between companies mean that if you want a service, you have one provider. There is no choice about it, due the nature of setting up competition, it is so expensive that only an approved agent, power, company, has the potential to do so. If you thought life was full of rules and regulations in the Terran Alliance, you've not seen what's it like on a Directorate controlled world. The Dindrenzi Federation/Legislature at least pretends it's a government, one that openly serves corporate interests, but is none the less a government, working for its people and their interests. I think a good example of the Terran Alliance would be a place like Iceland, Scandinavian country, that part of Europe. The DIndrenzi represents a more English, American, Australian style of government. The Directorate, the worst parts of America, where the corporations, businesses, are effectively allowed to run monopolies and engage in price fixing, gouging, every single practise they have been legally barred from, at least here in Australia.
  11. Which is why you're going to need to far beyond the depth I have. If you want more than a few lines of government, rights, responsibilities, what the navy actually does, you're not going to have it compressed down to a few paragraphs, where it covers everything. It's not about it being a tabletop game or a RPG game. It's not about the genre of the game, making sure the game setting is solid, that it has the depth that down the line, the factions don't have obvious questions floating around. That when you're developing for them, That when you're next planned box, flashpoint turns up, you don't have to think why they'd be involved, it's already obvious in their nature. I have to agree on the point of FTL, we don't know the exact nature of it and if it's compressing time from months and years, at first, into weeks, that's a big change. If it's instantaneous, as it seems to be with the wormholes, that also changes things. There's enough info on Fold Space drives, but it takes really, really solid looking for. Still, seeing that compressed and form, a short history of and perhaps setting aside a civilian and a military version, could also be a good thing. Especially, as said for any sort of campaign system. Is it one campaign turn before the fleet arrives or can you do something with that fleet in this turn? Both are good options, depending what you're trying to do and what your goals are. Actually less propaganda and more a closer reading of. The Dindrenzi are described as being a corporate run government. They are clearly operating in the area of fascism. I don't use that descriptor, word, lightly. The initial government that lead the first war, break away from the greater Alliance was largely Rense Corp. Yes, a corporation, a legal entity which exists for its own self interest and to generate profit. The same is true for the greater Directorate as a body. Corporate internal structures are basically a pyramid, each level above is smaller than the one below. Politically where that exists most obviously, is a monarch. In their case, I would offer that it would closer to Imperial Rome or China than a more European monarch. At least in the nature of multiple courts, each position having its own status, promotions could be given to get rid of people as much as to reward allies. Promotions to the outer regions, to the smaller outposts are exiles, in effect. At least till someone, somewhere cuts you a deal to get you out of there. I would also offer that they, the Dindrenzi actively run a secret police service. I don't mean that lightly either. Their main counter intelligence service operates openly and has an open ideological requirement to enter. Which on a slight aside, I would point out as far as I've been able to find, only existed in the Soviet Union. They had clearly ideological requirements for admission to certain units. They had clear tiers of ideological stability, belief. Compared to the language and ship design of the Terrans, to maintain and defend the Satellite Charter. There is a very different language, in the ship design and in the ship function. Levels of firepower that, in the fiction at least, designed to endure levels of firepower and damage that would cripple a Dindrenzi vessel. The sheer nature of the different navies, if you can accept that the navy is a tool and measure of the nation-state, tell me of two distinct government, two distinct characters. Two very distinct and different natures, two different goals. Three when you include the Directorate. In terms of the war, attacking the trade between the Aquans, Sorylians and Terran Alliance is going to make it far hotter than what is a war between political ideologies, over a border, where traffic between neutral/unaligned powers, through, even each other. You're going to need this information if you want to develop things out, at least as far as I'm concerned.
  12. Both need to happen on some level. From my perspective, they need to redefine, redraw their foundations, see what the limits are and then build on them. Doing that will give them a better product, a better setting, a better design bible, for the future. It will answer the questions as they come up and as things change, it will show them the expected path, the reasoning of least resistance, to justify things. Mind you, that in itself is based on my design ideas, that you make trade offs and you have limits to your project. That there's clear borders and lines beyond which things can't, don't need to be answered or explained. This process I find is even more important the more technological a setting is. So when you throw in FTL technology? Well, you need it. You need it well and truly worked out.
  13. There's plenty of good material in the fleet manuals, if you have the fleet manuals. That's not to say it's all good or that it's not without flaws. How in particular the Terran Alliance gets presented some of the time, as well as parts of the Dindrenzi or the fact a lot of seemed to be just ripped right out of DW, ignoring the political sciences, ecomonic sciences, more, it does need to be reworked. Mind you I'm the wrong person to ask about this, I have a weird collection of material, including some stuff which has been....... well, hard to verify at best. I have other on the nature of the navy and the doctrine of fighting. I had, when I was going to uni a better collection of Pacific War material than my uni library did. As said above in part, any future work on the universe should acknowledge that is a war of logistics and doctrine. It's a war on the grounds of economic control, of resource control. Despite the relatively speaking vast distances, it still remains about resources. Namely who controls and who profits from. While an ideological element has formed around it, the destruction of Dramos being another important element, it has to be more than Old World Masters aka Victorian England, versus the colonials, early US history leading up to, but not including the Civil War. It needs to be more than a reskinning of the world we know. It can look back, it has some great material to look back on, from how things have been and how people have behaved. It can't just parrot that however. I could make plenty of suggestions about it, perhaps too many and most of them from a military perspective. That I think could be a good thing and scare the **** out of people too. I would make the following suggestions, be in mind these are only gross overviews of, when you see italics, I'm trying to make a point in the fairly frustratingly limited scope that English as a language can provide. First thing we need to do is separate the Dindrenzi, Rense and the Terran Alliance. Specifically I think we need to look at the internal function of their respective navies and what that means as to and for the civilian policy, population. To that end I have to say the Dindrenzi, Rense side of it is a military force. It is a highly militarised police, intelligence service. It does not serve any sort of disaster relief or non-violent intervention. At least that I can see, considering how the Dindrenzi have ships so frontally aligned. Even their frigates are hole punchers. They're there to attack the enemy, to destroy the enemy navy and serve no other function. Compare to the Terran Alliance, it has a number of ship designs, some of them highly militarised. Others do not have the same level of firepower. They are also designed to support shields, a far more defensive focus. They are designed to survive, endure and continue to function despite extremely severe odds against. I would suggest just on this level, what we have on one side is a federated body of states as opposed to commonwealth of mutually supporting states. That is a big difference, where as one can work together and mutually support each other. The other is built that each state in an entity unto itself and in the greater entity, remains a fairly independent body. Neither able to speak loudly or to able to request support without repaying it with interest. Second thought, in the current environment assuming that is true, then the war must be about the control of resource processing, over resources themselves. What is it that makes certain elements, as in on the periodic table, so powerful? So rare that it fundamentally requires empire to control and maintain? Could it be that the materials to produce railguns also are required to produce shield generator panels? Could it be that one side wishes to control the other for the purpose of nothing but self enrichment? Could it be that one side exists and works to promote all people, all beings, at the cost of the individual, the rights and responsibilities on them? I want to stress, this is a political post. It's about the nature of the factions we have in this game. Reading what is there and out about the Dindrenzi, they are not supporting equal rights. They are not working to support their people to ensure they have a reasonable quality of life. Hardly, they encourage fairly open profiteering, almost for the sake of profiteering. That simply is who they are. It's even worse when you consider they produced the RSN, something that would make the Stasi, KGB and Gestapo have wet dreams about power, control, influence, surveillance. The Directorate openly practises what is effectively slavery on millions, billions. They are engaged, locked in a form of control that effectively makes managing directors monarchs in all but name. It is nothing but a monarchy in all but name. It has courts, where favours are exchanged and families, names, rise and fall in prominence. Now for something far less political, we compare to the Terran Alliance, who are working with other powers. Who are trading with other powers, who are technologically advanced. They have integrated multiple different societies, different technological models. Yet, they have so consistently done it and made it work. They serve the role of mediator, broker between the Aquans, Sorylians. They were the first to get out there into space. This means they were out there and they were supporting the colonies from the get go. They had the ability to manage the logistics to support that expansion. Sure, they have wealthy people and the closer you are to the war zone, the more things cost, but you can still count on a decent quality of life. A decent chance to make the most of the time you have. I would suggest we already have the base, core factions we need. An ideological split, combined with some extra thoughts if we go all out, works. We would have the following; Alliance of Kurak Zenian League Directorate Pathogen Pathogen is an obvious, singular entity. It exists, does as it does, with no rhyme, rhythm or logic to it. They're like parastic wasps, building nests and protecting, developing them. They're hunted down, destroyed, to be little more than rumour, screams across the EM spectrum. At best, they're rumours in star ports and freighter crews, bad stories to scare the FNG. Directorate exists for profit and control, alone. They don't need a government to tell them what to do, they're a government in their own right. Dindrenzi, Terran Alliance, who cares as long as the contracts are honoured. Not only that, they get their dues. If this makes you think of the Trade Federation out of Star Wars, you're not far off. You're really not. They want the resources they need and considering their nature, screw the consequences as long as it's not on their worlds. Especially their resort worlds, their major, high status population worlds. Zenian League and Alliance of Kurak are similar to NATO and the Warsaw Pact, the starters and funders of proxy wars and engagements. Not only that, they work in mutual interests, but not solely. They can and will work in their own interests. These can conflict with their admission in the greater group they belong to. Are there disagreements and less than willing parties some of the time? Oh yeah. Are there arguments and politicking? Definitely. Do they openly shoot at each? Not so much. Third thought, if we are looking at a formally declared war, are we looking at the more dense, compact, and total wars of more modern history? Are we talking the proxy wars of the 60's and 70's? Are we talking a more Korea like engagement? Powers on the borders sending in aid to advance their own national interest. Specifically, access to safe harbour, to land supplies, forces. Are we looking at something more akin to the Hundred Years War, where there are clearly obvious periods of peace, negotiation and politicking, before sieges, battles, blockades, return? Are we talking something fundamentally about control of trade lanes, as has been sought many times in history? Those questions are going to be important when we start looking to redefine, rewrite, develop things out. At least if you're like me when it comes to develop out a setting, making sure the foundations are solid. Those in the know, can see what they know, either as the source of predictions or the foundation of the action, conflict, players and agents itself. I would also point out that this is still very much only an overview of what I think needs to happen. We're going to go much, much deeper. Into the politics, economics, into the doctrine, into the idea of the navy as a tool of the nation-state, the navy as an expression of the nation-state and its identity.
  14. I don't think I will be doing that, too destructive for my liking. I want to show the damage but also show that this thing just doesn't work on the same model, principles as their technology, metals do. Kaptyn Krys A few replies there. Yeah, I got lucky on the two stations, I'll check out those paints. They sound like a good place to start. RSN, I'm probably going to work on colours a few steps above black as my darkest, add some white/very light grey to the tips, raised platforms, I think it should be dark enough, but also still have that detail. Add in the red glow and it should be mean. Aquan, less crab and more..... angel fish, tetra on some level. I want them to be vibrant and more organic. Set them apart from the more boring, engineered ships of say, Dindrenzi, Terran, Directorate etc. Overseer gate, sounds like a plan and some pots to check out, thanks. Battle for Valhalla, damn, oh well. I was hoping a particularly fine saw blade would be the key. I should have a few of those about. Here's hoping I get the chance to do all of this some time soon. I really, really, really, want to run that pen and paper campaign.
  15. Reason it's here, so that as people join, rejoin, they can see it and they can hopefully share some success stories.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.