Jump to content

LionofPerth

Member
  • Content Count

    233
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    LionofPerth got a reaction from BigBoom87 in Firestorm fluff   
    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. 
  2. Like
    LionofPerth got a reaction from Wolfgang Jannesen in Firestorm fluff   
    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. 
  3. Like
    LionofPerth got a reaction from Skyhawk in Painting Challenge Ideas.   
    I'd be up for it, if a few things go my way. 
    I'd suggest making it a flag ship competition, if you want to really make something special. I don't mean any old ship, should be a flagship. Should be something that has to stand out, has to be at the top of your game. 
  4. Like
    LionofPerth reacted to alextroy in Firestorm fluff   
    Attacking convoys enroute is a question of technology. Feasibility is entirely depended upon how FTL Travel work in the FSA universe.
    How far can a ship, particularly a cargo ship, jump? How frequently can such a jump be made? Do those jumps need to be made along a predictable corridor? How close to defensive positions can jumps be made? Can a jump be disrupted to have a ship end up somewhere other than it's destination? If any ship can make a point to point jump from inside one defensive position to inside another anywhere in the Galaxy with no chance to disrupt, then it is impossible to attack enroute.
    On the other hand, if cargo ships have a limited range and must travel from established beacon to beacon with hours between long range jumps, you have a travel route that can be attacked.
  5. Like
    LionofPerth got a reaction from fracas in Firestorm fluff   
    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. 
  6. Like
    LionofPerth got a reaction from Bessemer in Firestorm fluff   
    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. 
  7. Thanks
    LionofPerth reacted to Toxic_Rat in Painting the Tyrant - A flagship in the making   
    Here is what I did on my Tyrant:


    I did a base coat of the gray, and then hand-painted the orange and black markings.  The gold highlights went on last.  There is a light application of Citadel Nuln Oil wash to help bring out the rest of the details.  My 'inspiration' was the paint scheme found on Narn (Babylon 5) Heavy Cruisers.  I like the overall effect, but man was it a pain.  I've tried applying a mask, but it's hard to get a good seal around the edges.  If I had to do it again, I might try an airbrush, and holding a pre-cut mask over the areas.
    Your idea of a two-tone paint job is intriguing.  My fear is that it wouldn't look right by itself.  If it were on a diorama, it would probably be okay.  For a tabletop game model, I think it would look odd.  Might work for your application though.
  8. Like
    LionofPerth got a reaction from Pathogen in Painting the Tyrant - A flagship in the making   
    Hi guys
     
    I'm looking at painting up a Tyrant class ship and making it my definite flagship, at least for my Terrans. I've got a few questions for you guys so I'm hoping you can help me out, I'm really wanting to make her, the Eternal Beacon aka Astrid stand out. 
    First question, I saw that some people have put battleship decals on ships to give them numbers. Would any of you have any links to where I might be able to get some? 
    Second question, any of you guys tried to get a two tone effect on a ship? Like part of it is in the light of s sun/suns and the rest isn't? Say like it's coming around a planet and has crossed the terminator to the day side? 
    If so, how did you achieve it? Was it an easy process? Any tips to pass on? 
    Third question, has any one tried to paint thermal stripes on ships? If you know your Mass Effect lore, pretty much the same theory, just here. I've also thought about showing some tiger stripes, in effect, from the radiator banks. I was going to have some banks over the main engine..... sections. Likely both sides, because when I go all in, I go all in. 

    Again, if you have, how did you achieve them? Was it an easy or hard process? Do you think masking could help? Model too small? 
    Thanks ahead and here's hoping I can get started on her soon. I want to run a game using the Elite Dangerous RPG, set in the Firestorm Armada universe. 
  9. Like
    LionofPerth got a reaction from Fluffhunter in 3rd Edition Fleet Construction   
    No, actually, you don't. You really don't considering this reply. 

    I did not find 2.0 in any way complex. I was even part of the team which built it. Sure, it took a few times over to get your head around and some of the time the squadron rules just plain got in the way. However, I knew that if it was a Destroyer, I could take so many units of them, cruisers, battle cruisers, more, that exact point. I knew what I had available and how it fit together. 

    This turns it back into math. Unnecessary and overly complex math. Math is not the answer if you want to have something that works like a good tripod. You have the setting, model and system all working together to make your game. That they mutually support each other. This is playing to only part of your fan base and rather openly favouring their play style over everyone else. 
  10. Like
    LionofPerth got a reaction from Edwin in 3rd Edition Short Range Spacecraft (SRS)   
    I'm not going to go through specific quotes and names here. If you feel your post is mentioned, implied or otherwise, just leave a reply. Quote this, whatever. I'm actually pretty relaxed. 
    Firstly specifically, to Spartan Mike. 

    You have Spartan in your name. You're coming to the community with the definite, definitive changes to the game. You've been given half a script to work with and when things get heated, all you can say is 'I'm just trying my best.'
    Well, sorry mate. Bollocks, pull the other one, it has bells on. This isn't about design, this isn't about making this the game I want it to be. If it was and I was in control, you'd have far less factions and far more scientific language in it. Not only that, fairly rigid tiers and a lot more thought into these ideas. You'd have fleets which have pretty clear limits on what you can bring and probably be using Crew scores as a measure of that. I could go on. 
    What this is about, is trying to grok what Spartan is thinking, trying, aiming for. There's nothing you've provided, other than from what I can see is changes for the sake of changes. It's an ego thing, it's about making the game something other than what it was before. This relates to all of the changes made. I want you to prove me wrong. I want you to come with me and say things like 'we're looking at making SRS tokens a larger part and a more useful part, that you can't create PD mountains and that bombers are just as useful.' Or to say that you're looking at trying to improve the prospects of carriers, as they seem to be under represented in some of the factions. That it's possible to play a carrier based force. 
    Still not been provided by anyone, especially yourself, which I don't think is an unfair question or expectation. Now, if I was to ask the importance of signal discipline, RADAR and AWACS, that would be unfair. Finer points of the outcome of the ATF fly offs. Definitely unfair. Debating the issues of the F35 with and without underwing pylons and what that means for the RCS, RADAR Cross Section, nothing to do with thrusters. That one is a real bastard of a question at the end of the day when you start talking what you can mount, how and under what conditions you might do it and what level of spectrum, airspace dominance you have. 
     
    This part is for everyone. 
    Now, here's a thing, I could cut nearly half your SRS types with a single MAR. Read below. 
    Superior (SRS type) - SRS types listed roll an additional die when performing their main attack, action. 
    Yeap, really that simple. Give that to the carriers and you can have the variety Spartan seems to want. At least not apart from the shuttles, which I also, still do not get. Why do you need to have one set use one set of mechanics and the other use a different set? It creates confusion. Again, you could answer this with a MAR just as quickly. See below. 
    Limited/Small Cargo (SRS Shuttle type) - Shuttles from this carrier use the Heavy Mechanic, not the Exploding Mechanic. 
    Between those two MARS I've just halved your list of SRS. Which I have to argue, is a simplification. I would also make an argument for a third MAR or the return of a multirole SRS. Not only could it be used to show the height of carrier based thinking between the factions, but it could also have some interesting implications for carrier load out. What and why makes the best load out. 
    Coming to us, telling us 'this is what you're happening to the game you spent money on' and then expecting us to not have any reaction is pretty foolish, in general. To not expect some of us to have serious issues with such a complete, if necessary rewrite in this case for SRS, then come to use with a fairly blank work sheet and just have us swallow it? Again, foolish. There's a difference between communication and dictation, dictated to. I want to see people here feel they are having a conversation, having a part and that they are being listened to and specifically answered. Right now, this feels a million miles away. 
    Again, I'm not asking for internal documents. Nor am I asking for the design bible of Firestorm. Not asking for tough, doctrinal discussions relative the.... say, splitting your carriers versus focusing your carriers in regards to launching strikes on targets. The big old question of depth of penetration versus width of penetration in regards to armoured warfare, proper screening formations and battlelines in WW1 naval formation and strategy. There's a deeply long list of things I'm not asking for. What I am asking is for clear, concise communications that communicates to us, Spartan to its fans, followers and otherwise interested. 
  11. Like
    LionofPerth got a reaction from Pawprint in 3rd Edition Fleet Construction   
    Exactly. It then just becomes a game about dice and if I'm just betting on dice, why should I buy any models? 

    You need a form of restriction, a guiding hand to build a proper, actual fleet for engagement otherwise, you should just bet on the outcome of who can roll the most sixes in a single hand or something. 
  12. Like
    LionofPerth got a reaction from Pawprint in 3rd Edition Fleet Construction   
    No, actually, you don't. You really don't considering this reply. 

    I did not find 2.0 in any way complex. I was even part of the team which built it. Sure, it took a few times over to get your head around and some of the time the squadron rules just plain got in the way. However, I knew that if it was a Destroyer, I could take so many units of them, cruisers, battle cruisers, more, that exact point. I knew what I had available and how it fit together. 

    This turns it back into math. Unnecessary and overly complex math. Math is not the answer if you want to have something that works like a good tripod. You have the setting, model and system all working together to make your game. That they mutually support each other. This is playing to only part of your fan base and rather openly favouring their play style over everyone else. 
  13. Like
    LionofPerth got a reaction from Commodore Jones in Return to Proteus Prime blog post   
    Pretty much how I remembered it and I thought I had a big chunk of it wrong. 
    I have to wonder what Spartan is thinking here. Rewrites, retcons of lesser scale drove me from other games. Are they trying to rewrite their whole universe? 

    Still not a fan of what's being done here. Not by a long shot. Light year, actually. 
  14. Like
    LionofPerth got a reaction from fracas in What is it you want to see?   
    Well, if they can make the Razorthorn an easier piece to put together and a whole lot less screwing around, that mightn't be so bad. 

    Short list of things that I want - 
    Clarity of communication - we need to know what you guys are doing and what you're trying to do. We need to know how you want to keep your hobby going. 
    More details - We need meat to the universes and not only that, they need proper care, thought and attention. The Terran Alliance can't be the British Empire in Space (Tm) and the Dindrenzi can't be the American Resistance in Space (Tm). They need to be treated honestly, given time, research and development that is organic, planned and meticulous. 

    More background - we need to know more about the universes. We need to know more about who we're fighting for and against. We need to know that the Terrans released a few missiles, dropped a few rods and went WTF? at the explosions that followed. While the Dindrenzi use this as a rallying cry to fight the oppressive Terran Alliance. We need to know what the Charter says and why it works that way. We need to know what the Directorate is up to and why they're busy screwing around with things that are just better fired into the nearest black hole or stellar mass. Give us the meat in the universe and we can take it from there. 
    More consistency - Systems need to be consistent. They can't say one thing, but get played another. We need systems across the universes that feel similar, but different. That the ground scale and the fleet scale can be close enough to see the one faction as being in character. We need to know that when we choose a faction, we can get that in both systems. 
    More people - You want to keep so many games alive? Get. More. People. Give us a Firestorm studio and a Dystopian studio. We need people who spend their full work days working on one thing at a time. That it's just not more models and more models and more models. You want to have people who know this universe so well they could argue about it with people in at least a dozen languages. 

    More focus - You guys need to settle down and work out, focus your core. What is that? Is there even basic thought behind this? What's your core system and what's your core plan to develop it? You want to last the next five years? You need focus to keep people involved. When people drift from system to system, setting to setting, what makes them come back? Right now, I can't see anything for me to come back to. 
  15. Like
    LionofPerth got a reaction from Pawprint in 3rd Edition Short Range Spacecraft (SRS)   
    I'm not going to go through specific quotes and names here. If you feel your post is mentioned, implied or otherwise, just leave a reply. Quote this, whatever. I'm actually pretty relaxed. 
    Firstly specifically, to Spartan Mike. 

    You have Spartan in your name. You're coming to the community with the definite, definitive changes to the game. You've been given half a script to work with and when things get heated, all you can say is 'I'm just trying my best.'
    Well, sorry mate. Bollocks, pull the other one, it has bells on. This isn't about design, this isn't about making this the game I want it to be. If it was and I was in control, you'd have far less factions and far more scientific language in it. Not only that, fairly rigid tiers and a lot more thought into these ideas. You'd have fleets which have pretty clear limits on what you can bring and probably be using Crew scores as a measure of that. I could go on. 
    What this is about, is trying to grok what Spartan is thinking, trying, aiming for. There's nothing you've provided, other than from what I can see is changes for the sake of changes. It's an ego thing, it's about making the game something other than what it was before. This relates to all of the changes made. I want you to prove me wrong. I want you to come with me and say things like 'we're looking at making SRS tokens a larger part and a more useful part, that you can't create PD mountains and that bombers are just as useful.' Or to say that you're looking at trying to improve the prospects of carriers, as they seem to be under represented in some of the factions. That it's possible to play a carrier based force. 
    Still not been provided by anyone, especially yourself, which I don't think is an unfair question or expectation. Now, if I was to ask the importance of signal discipline, RADAR and AWACS, that would be unfair. Finer points of the outcome of the ATF fly offs. Definitely unfair. Debating the issues of the F35 with and without underwing pylons and what that means for the RCS, RADAR Cross Section, nothing to do with thrusters. That one is a real bastard of a question at the end of the day when you start talking what you can mount, how and under what conditions you might do it and what level of spectrum, airspace dominance you have. 
     
    This part is for everyone. 
    Now, here's a thing, I could cut nearly half your SRS types with a single MAR. Read below. 
    Superior (SRS type) - SRS types listed roll an additional die when performing their main attack, action. 
    Yeap, really that simple. Give that to the carriers and you can have the variety Spartan seems to want. At least not apart from the shuttles, which I also, still do not get. Why do you need to have one set use one set of mechanics and the other use a different set? It creates confusion. Again, you could answer this with a MAR just as quickly. See below. 
    Limited/Small Cargo (SRS Shuttle type) - Shuttles from this carrier use the Heavy Mechanic, not the Exploding Mechanic. 
    Between those two MARS I've just halved your list of SRS. Which I have to argue, is a simplification. I would also make an argument for a third MAR or the return of a multirole SRS. Not only could it be used to show the height of carrier based thinking between the factions, but it could also have some interesting implications for carrier load out. What and why makes the best load out. 
    Coming to us, telling us 'this is what you're happening to the game you spent money on' and then expecting us to not have any reaction is pretty foolish, in general. To not expect some of us to have serious issues with such a complete, if necessary rewrite in this case for SRS, then come to use with a fairly blank work sheet and just have us swallow it? Again, foolish. There's a difference between communication and dictation, dictated to. I want to see people here feel they are having a conversation, having a part and that they are being listened to and specifically answered. Right now, this feels a million miles away. 
    Again, I'm not asking for internal documents. Nor am I asking for the design bible of Firestorm. Not asking for tough, doctrinal discussions relative the.... say, splitting your carriers versus focusing your carriers in regards to launching strikes on targets. The big old question of depth of penetration versus width of penetration in regards to armoured warfare, proper screening formations and battlelines in WW1 naval formation and strategy. There's a deeply long list of things I'm not asking for. What I am asking is for clear, concise communications that communicates to us, Spartan to its fans, followers and otherwise interested. 
  16. Like
    LionofPerth reacted to Meatshield in Return to Proteus Prime blog post   
    Never used to be a relation between Saurians and Overseers.
    Saurians were essentially exiled/banished from the Sorylian Collective a long time ago (Schism IIRC?).
    The Terrans made peaceful first contact with them, somewhere along the way the Terrans got Shield tech from them, though the Terrans then started experimenting with shields in their own way.
    When Terrans first encountered Sorylians they noticed similarities between them and the Saurians and attempted first contact using Saurian language/messaging/protocol/something? Because of this it caused a brief conflict that was resolved peacefully.
    Well that was the v2 lore.
  17. Like
    LionofPerth reacted to CoreHunter in Return to Proteus Prime blog post   
    lame ret-con. So V3.0 will launch with zerg and protoss as the flagship fleets?
  18. Like
    LionofPerth got a reaction from Xerkics in 3rd Edition Short Range Spacecraft (SRS)   
    I'm not going to go through specific quotes and names here. If you feel your post is mentioned, implied or otherwise, just leave a reply. Quote this, whatever. I'm actually pretty relaxed. 
    Firstly specifically, to Spartan Mike. 

    You have Spartan in your name. You're coming to the community with the definite, definitive changes to the game. You've been given half a script to work with and when things get heated, all you can say is 'I'm just trying my best.'
    Well, sorry mate. Bollocks, pull the other one, it has bells on. This isn't about design, this isn't about making this the game I want it to be. If it was and I was in control, you'd have far less factions and far more scientific language in it. Not only that, fairly rigid tiers and a lot more thought into these ideas. You'd have fleets which have pretty clear limits on what you can bring and probably be using Crew scores as a measure of that. I could go on. 
    What this is about, is trying to grok what Spartan is thinking, trying, aiming for. There's nothing you've provided, other than from what I can see is changes for the sake of changes. It's an ego thing, it's about making the game something other than what it was before. This relates to all of the changes made. I want you to prove me wrong. I want you to come with me and say things like 'we're looking at making SRS tokens a larger part and a more useful part, that you can't create PD mountains and that bombers are just as useful.' Or to say that you're looking at trying to improve the prospects of carriers, as they seem to be under represented in some of the factions. That it's possible to play a carrier based force. 
    Still not been provided by anyone, especially yourself, which I don't think is an unfair question or expectation. Now, if I was to ask the importance of signal discipline, RADAR and AWACS, that would be unfair. Finer points of the outcome of the ATF fly offs. Definitely unfair. Debating the issues of the F35 with and without underwing pylons and what that means for the RCS, RADAR Cross Section, nothing to do with thrusters. That one is a real bastard of a question at the end of the day when you start talking what you can mount, how and under what conditions you might do it and what level of spectrum, airspace dominance you have. 
     
    This part is for everyone. 
    Now, here's a thing, I could cut nearly half your SRS types with a single MAR. Read below. 
    Superior (SRS type) - SRS types listed roll an additional die when performing their main attack, action. 
    Yeap, really that simple. Give that to the carriers and you can have the variety Spartan seems to want. At least not apart from the shuttles, which I also, still do not get. Why do you need to have one set use one set of mechanics and the other use a different set? It creates confusion. Again, you could answer this with a MAR just as quickly. See below. 
    Limited/Small Cargo (SRS Shuttle type) - Shuttles from this carrier use the Heavy Mechanic, not the Exploding Mechanic. 
    Between those two MARS I've just halved your list of SRS. Which I have to argue, is a simplification. I would also make an argument for a third MAR or the return of a multirole SRS. Not only could it be used to show the height of carrier based thinking between the factions, but it could also have some interesting implications for carrier load out. What and why makes the best load out. 
    Coming to us, telling us 'this is what you're happening to the game you spent money on' and then expecting us to not have any reaction is pretty foolish, in general. To not expect some of us to have serious issues with such a complete, if necessary rewrite in this case for SRS, then come to use with a fairly blank work sheet and just have us swallow it? Again, foolish. There's a difference between communication and dictation, dictated to. I want to see people here feel they are having a conversation, having a part and that they are being listened to and specifically answered. Right now, this feels a million miles away. 
    Again, I'm not asking for internal documents. Nor am I asking for the design bible of Firestorm. Not asking for tough, doctrinal discussions relative the.... say, splitting your carriers versus focusing your carriers in regards to launching strikes on targets. The big old question of depth of penetration versus width of penetration in regards to armoured warfare, proper screening formations and battlelines in WW1 naval formation and strategy. There's a deeply long list of things I'm not asking for. What I am asking is for clear, concise communications that communicates to us, Spartan to its fans, followers and otherwise interested. 
  19. Like
    LionofPerth reacted to reddwarf in Terran/Hawker Re-Stat Discussion   
    The current Templar only needs one change:  Class it as a Gunship, not a heavy cruiser.
    Then design an actual heavy cruiser for the Terrans
  20. Like
    LionofPerth reacted to vtmobius in Twisted and kinky ship sections   
    soak the piece in some hot water be careful, bend slowly back into position and then some cold water to set the resin back.
  21. Like
    LionofPerth got a reaction from Mathhammer in 3rd Edition Weapons Systems   
    True, very true. 
    However, I would stress that you can't start from another angle so easily. You need a foundation and if your foundation is flawed, by its nature, your outcome so is.
    The point still stands that the Terran Alliance, with the access to the technology it has, has a fundamental goal of preventing their hulls from being holed. That is just as valid a foundation as it is for the other to be true. That railguns specifically are designed to break shields. Both foundations are flawed and biased. 
  22. Like
    LionofPerth got a reaction from Commodore Jones in 3rd Edition Short Range Spacecraft (SRS)   
    Happily. 

    Why the absence of any form of multirole craft? Total absence of any form of multirole craft? 

    It either provides PD or it provides AD. That to me feels off, again, I come from a grounding where I've either spoken with, researched or have material relates to the actual thing or the nearest actual thing. Strike aircraft can defend themselves and specialist fighters have been turned into ground attack. So I'm confused as to the deliberate separation of. 

    I'm also concerned about the fact there's a light and heavy variant of each type of craft. Which is both self defeating, interceptors generally aren't heavy and rely on supporting systems such as AWACS, and unnecessary. I don't see the need to go to that level of precision, that it needs that degree of fine detail. Why is it simply not built into the one, singular unit representation? 

    I could talk about duty watches, watch rotations and more, which is clearly implied by the total Crew score. At least from this end. So why be so.... precise here and not so elsewhere? It's an inconsistency at best. At worst, it's an excuse to have more models. At least if I don't listen to the really cynical parts of me about this. There, being blunt, I feel it's failing basic design fundamentals. 
  23. Like
    LionofPerth got a reaction from LBPB in 3rd Edition Fleet Construction   
    Not a fan of it, for a number of reasons. 

    First of all, it's based on false equivalencies. Not each fleet has the same type of vessels, assets, more. Not every fleet has the same options. So unless you want to rip all character from the fleets and give those without shields, shields. Those without railguns, railguns and more you don't want to do this. That's the ultimate end path for where this goes and what it means. 

    Second thought, percentages? Really? How about running a consistent pattern of selections? Not just thinking about point values but in choices of formations, squadrons. How about keep it simple and keep it closer to 2.0? 

    What's in your screening force is not going to be what's in your main battle line or in your reserve formation. What determines an escort is not what determines what's in your perimetre forces and what determines what's in your screening force. What the English call a destroyer is not what the Americans did. 

    So why are you trying to create an equivalency where there is none to start off with? 

    This is a very bad idea. Worse than the power core idea, worse than just about anything I've read and from what I can remember of Planetfall and its issues, even worse than that. 
  24. Like
    LionofPerth reacted to Xystophoroi in 3rd Edition Weapons Systems   
    Thanks for the response.
    Some of these changes are - in the cumulative effect of all of them - fairly major so I hope that a repointing and reassignment of AD, shields, etc. values is planned for after the release then fairly quickly. Don't want to have a load of ships statted and pointed under 2.0 assumptions for the long haul in 3.0. Not a Taskforce rules release schedule please!
    Maybe I missed it but does losing Crew affect your AD calculations?
    Why have the 'Encased Weapon Systems' MAR at all? If you don't want a weapon to degrade why not just declare it Tertiary? Why declare something primary and then add an additional special rule that makes the primary act like a tertiary anyway? Unless, of course, you've got other unrevealed stuff that hangs off the primary/secondary/tertiary tag and are holding back to entice us with ;)
    Why change RB1/2/3/4 to the new named ranges? It just takes up more space to print on a page to impart the same information and if you end up writing ship stat blocks using a short hand like 1/2/3/4 for the columns and not the names then why bother having the distinction at all if 90% of the usage of them will be the short hand form?
    Hmmm, the more I think about the Scatter change the more it seems like a big change in the character of Sorylian fleets. A big difference for them is that their ships tended to fight inverted sizes. I.e.: Tier 1s hunted enemy T3s and T3s hunted T1s which was different to everyone else and so a point of extra character for that faction. Halving the range of the Scatter effect means that a lumbering T1 will probably not be able to consistently get T3s into firing arcs and a range at which their Scatter effect comes into play anymore which kind of kicks that bit of faction personality in the teeth.
  25. Like
    LionofPerth got a reaction from icarius in What is it you want to see?   
    Well, if they can make the Razorthorn an easier piece to put together and a whole lot less screwing around, that mightn't be so bad. 

    Short list of things that I want - 
    Clarity of communication - we need to know what you guys are doing and what you're trying to do. We need to know how you want to keep your hobby going. 
    More details - We need meat to the universes and not only that, they need proper care, thought and attention. The Terran Alliance can't be the British Empire in Space (Tm) and the Dindrenzi can't be the American Resistance in Space (Tm). They need to be treated honestly, given time, research and development that is organic, planned and meticulous. 

    More background - we need to know more about the universes. We need to know more about who we're fighting for and against. We need to know that the Terrans released a few missiles, dropped a few rods and went WTF? at the explosions that followed. While the Dindrenzi use this as a rallying cry to fight the oppressive Terran Alliance. We need to know what the Charter says and why it works that way. We need to know what the Directorate is up to and why they're busy screwing around with things that are just better fired into the nearest black hole or stellar mass. Give us the meat in the universe and we can take it from there. 
    More consistency - Systems need to be consistent. They can't say one thing, but get played another. We need systems across the universes that feel similar, but different. That the ground scale and the fleet scale can be close enough to see the one faction as being in character. We need to know that when we choose a faction, we can get that in both systems. 
    More people - You want to keep so many games alive? Get. More. People. Give us a Firestorm studio and a Dystopian studio. We need people who spend their full work days working on one thing at a time. That it's just not more models and more models and more models. You want to have people who know this universe so well they could argue about it with people in at least a dozen languages. 

    More focus - You guys need to settle down and work out, focus your core. What is that? Is there even basic thought behind this? What's your core system and what's your core plan to develop it? You want to last the next five years? You need focus to keep people involved. When people drift from system to system, setting to setting, what makes them come back? Right now, I can't see anything for me to come back to. 
×
×
  • 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.