Jump to content
fracas

Firestorm fluff

Recommended Posts

I hope to see consolidation of the factions (unlike in DW!) into 4 major factions (based on currently available planetfall infantry models):

~ humans

~ “spiders”

~ “Saurians” (Sorylians)

~ “tritons” (Aquans)

Each located on a 3D map such that they can fight each other ( think 4 points/sides of a tetrahedron)

Add granularity to each faction by having sub factions.  For instance have three human major sub factions (based on the current 3 planetfall human factions) and link their fluff to current earth cultures with space program : American (Dindrenzi), European (Terran), East Asia/China (Directorates) to represent worlds colonized by them.  These worlds are mixed and distributed through the human space so that any can fight any.  Each of the three aliens races should have similar internal divisions (though given the unique appearance of their model the Aquans could be monolithic but have alien allies/minions)

as there are more firestorm model factions than there are planetfall ones, use some firestorm faction models as alternative ship manufacturers or minor sub factions. For instance, a Japanese based world would use RSN firestorm models for their space ships while directorates (?) planetfall models for their land forces.  There could also be Russian/Eurasian minor sub faction using hawker/Terrans. Repeat for the aliens.   

Subfactions ship classes should have similar profiles but slightly different hard points and upgrade options. This will make it easier to play test and maintain balance.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, fracas said:

I hope to see consolidation of the factions (unlike in DW!) into 4 major factions (based on currently available planetfall infantry models):

~ humans

~ “spiders”

~ “Saurians” (Sorylians)

~ “tritons” (Aquans)

Each located on a 3D map such that they can fight each other ( think 4 points/sides of a tetrahedron)

Add granularity to each faction by having sub factions.  For instance have three human major sub factions (based on the current 3 planetfall human factions) and link their fluff to current earth cultures with space program : American (Dindrenzi), European (Terran), East Asia/China (Directorates) to represent worlds colonized by them.  These worlds are mixed and distributed through the human space so that any can fight any.  Each of the three aliens races should have similar internal divisions (though given the unique appearance of their model the Aquans could be monolithic but have alien allies/minions)

as there are more firestorm model factions than there are planetfall ones, use some firestorm faction models as alternative ship manufacturers or minor sub factions. For instance, a Japanese based world would use RSN firestorm models for their space ships while directorates (?) planetfall models for their land forces.  There could also be Russian/Eurasian minor sub faction using hawker/Terrans. Repeat for the aliens.   

Subfactions ship classes should have similar profiles but slightly different hard points and upgrade options. This will make it easier to play test and maintain balance.

 

Umm I know there's not a great deal of established cannon in fsa but doesn't condensing the factions down in that manner disregard pretty much all of it?

I mean dindrenzi and terran in the same faction?

besides don't the alliance and league quasi super factions already do this?

A galaxy map would be a great idea but with the advent of ftl transportation you don't really need touching front lines just sectors or planets of strategic importance with territory marked by how effectively you can deploy forces. A galactic war in theory is more a battle of logistics than lines.

 

That said I think the best thing would be world building establishing how fast and reliable certain methods' of fold space are what countermeasures there are. Establishing ground rules for a universe makes it far easier to paint within the lines to create a cohesive narrative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Edited by LionofPerth
Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, fracas said:

Lion of Perth makes good suggestions for revising the existing fluff.

mine was to redo and make a completely new background 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It really is a huge undertaking.  I wonder how much do you need to have in order to make the tabletop miniatures game to work.  Probably less than you would need for an RPG game to work.  Definitely more than what we have now.   Setting some limits or definitions to the technology definitely helps.  Does the FTL allow for instantaneous transport anywhere?  Or is it a 30 light year jump requiring a recharge time between hops?   Again, how much do we need to define up front?   Frankly, my interest is in the game, not the background...it's not important to me why the Sorylian and Relthoza are fighting each other in this battle.  But when we expand out to trying to have a workable universe with multiple factions, yeah that level of detail becomes important to know up front.  Especially if we want to have any kind of campaign system.

I agree that the battle over resources is what would drive a lot of the conflict, but it's not the only thing, especially when we get into non-human points of view.   Alien species X may simply see themselves as the rightful rulers of creation.  Perhaps it's their divine right to rule.  I think those questions are important as far as giving each faction/race a reason why they fight.  I'd like to see more detail than the Star Trek method of Klingons=bloodthirsty fighters, Federation=Altruistic Utopia, Romulan=Devious Schemers, etc.  It's just to broad a brush for my liking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Toxic_Rat said:

I agree that the battle over resources is what would drive a lot of the conflict, but it's not the only thing, especially when we get into non-human points of view.   Alien species X may simply see themselves as the rightful rulers of creation.  Perhaps it's their divine right to rule.  I think those questions are important as far as giving each faction/race a reason why they fight.  I'd like to see more detail than the Star Trek method of Klingons=bloodthirsty fighters, Federation=Altruistic Utopia, Romulan=Devious Schemers, etc.  It's just to broad a brush for my liking.

 

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. 

 

11 hours ago, fracas said:

For a Kurak propagandist that is :)

 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@LionofPerth

 

Dindrenzi: no statist entity can foster innovation required for a technological society to keep up and compete.

Directorate: a society that does not embrace some free market capitalism can provide wealth to it’s citizens to sustain economic growth.

the SG fluff for FsA was at best two dimensional. For DW this was less of a problem because it was based on historical factions, thus comes with intrinsic complexity, depth and preconceived notions.  FsA does not have these things going for it.  One option is for WC to abandon the existing FsA fluff and start anew.  One way would be to make the human factions based on Dystopian Age: DA10k if you will.  Another would be to start from the current state of human space exploration driven by America, China, Europe, Russia, Japan, and India.  When FTL drive is discovered, it will be by one of these entities: would they share the science? sell it? Nationalize it?

One answer is that humanity colonization of space will remain Balkanized at the onset, then commercialized.  Thus instead of developing new game models for these factions, I would just repurpose/rebrand existing models. Dindrenzi have grab tanks while Terrans and Directorates have tracked tanks.  With this as a starting point I would rebrand the Dindrenzi model line as Americans.  The Terran tanks look solid but slow, which I think match well with Europe.  The rounded Directorate tank turrets reminds me of Asian tanks, hence rebranding them as Chinese.  I based the rebranding purely by model appearance rather SG fluff background, which is abandoned in total. RSN reminds me of Star Blazer models, hence Japan, which I think along with Russia would be closely behind America, Europe and China: both lacks the population base of the big 3. I am not sure which current FsA model line should represent the Russians: omnidyne with its foundry ship, light cruisers and light carriers without a dominant carrier might work; or hawkers?  Also not sure whether there should be an India based sub faction but definitely think there should be a corporate based faction ( using Hawker models? Omnidyne work as well) Japan should use Dindrenzi Pf models and Russia use Terrans; India with Directorates Pf models while the corporates can use any of the main three Pf human models. All these 6-7 sub factions would represent a human political confederation.  Their ships should have similar profiles but different hard points and upgrade options.

i would strive to develope similar breadth and depth for the other three alien races to have their own sub factions and rebranding current FsA model line to represent them.  For instance Works Raptors could represent a Retholza (or whatever WC chooses to call this FsA/Pf alien model line) subfaction.  From a model aesthetic perspective the “aquans “ would be the hardest to appropriate another FsA model line to use for a subfaction. Thus either they are the sole monolithic faction of WC  can take this opportunity to generate new complementary models. ( would you use syndicate ships with aquan tanks?)

 

If WC desire, in addition to these four major interstellar political entities (3 aliens and one human), all with direct borders and able to war against each other, there could be a fifth (minor) faction  of wanderers ( something SG seems fond of, but not very viable realistically imho), marauders and pirates.

 

In regard to why they fight, the two most common reason to fight remains the same as now: suitable living space ( worlds in the habitable orbit zone) and raw mineral resources. Space is so vast that I question until overcrowding occurs there would be much reason for aliens to trade. Thus the third reason to fight is for domination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, fracas said:

In regard to why they fight, the two most common reason to fight remains the same as now: suitable living space ( worlds in the habitable orbit zone) and raw mineral resources. Space is so vast that I question until overcrowding occurs there would be much reason for aliens to trade. Thus the third reason to fight is for domination.

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. 

 

2 hours ago, fracas said:

Dindrenzi: no statist entity can foster innovation required for a technological society to keep up and compete.

Directorate: a society that does not embrace some free market capitalism can provide wealth to it’s citizens to sustain economic growth.

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great reading, however I'd prefer if when voicing an opinion, contributors were not told they are "Wrong". There isn't really a right or wrong here. Especially as we haven't revealed our narrative changes.  

Also, probably the greatest cause of conflicts is distrust. Inability to communicate to step back from abyss,  Ego, inability for leaders to allow themselves to lose face. Distrust of those different. Even if occupying Space next to a non expansionist culture, no matter the economics, the culture next door will be distrusted for all sorts of reasons and at all sorts of levels. Out there, in the Firestorm Universe, if energy is almost unlimited, economic drivers distort and change.  We are going to explore this in the narrative. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Warcradle Richard said:

Great reading, however I'd prefer if when voicing an opinion, contributors were not told they are "Wrong". There isn't really a right or wrong here. Especially as we haven't revealed our narrative changes.  

Also, probably the greatest cause of conflicts is distrust. Inability to communicate to step back from abyss,  Ego, inability for leaders to allow themselves to lose face. Distrust of those different. Even if occupying Space next to a non expansionist culture, no matter the economics, the culture next door will be distrusted for all sorts of reasons and at all sorts of levels. Out there, in the Firestorm Universe, if energy is almost unlimited, economic drivers distort and change.  We are going to explore this in the narrative. 

 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Soviet Union lasted 70 years, a blip historically.

prolonged life without gravity is problematic.  Unless artificial gravity exists planet based populations will be required. Even with artificial gravity the costs associated and maintaining space stations may make it cheaper to colonize planets. And while a planet can be terraformed to suit, colonizing suitable worlds will be easier.

some rare minerals, whether sturginium or dilithium crystals , required for a space travel population will make star systems more valuable than others. Even fusion technology to make rare elements will be cost prohibitive for a long time.

 

thus there will remain interstellar value for some star systems more than other.

 

and some worlds bordering aliens space will be claimed for future generations even before overcrowding and resource depletion occur.

 

Trade only occurs to get cheaper what you need, so why would there be a need for inter-alien trade in a post scarcity world as you suggests?  A post scarcity universe would mean no need to conflict; everyone has enough.  Neither realistic nor a good basis for a war game.

 

fluff wise I advocate abandoning all fluffs created by SG and starting from zero; humanity colonization of space.  What SG says about Dindrenzi is irrelevant in my proposal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a post scarcity scene resources can also simply be stations and planetary populations themselves. An example could be the huge foundry system hawker lost at the beginning of the dindrenzi offensives. When resources are unlimited the ability to harvest and manufacture those resources become the limiting factor. Wars are about taking and controlling major population centers rather than resources themselves.

 

This does mean wars would still need a reason to start, either desire for control in the original terran vs dramos offensive or a system where wealth makes right like directorate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't understand the notion of throwing things out like that- Partially because I enjoy the idea of the continuity of the rivalries across editions. 

 

So, okay, what I think will happen, and I could be wrong, is that we'll see the Core 6 absorb any of their Natural Allies, as well as other members of their respective major alliance that make sense. I think the two major faction names will be used to rebrand two of the Core 6's new conglomerate factions.

 

If I had to guess-

 

Terran Alliance

-Hawker

-Traders

-Syndicate

 

Sorylian Collective 

-Veydreth

-This would be contentious, but- Xelocians

-Even more contentious- Oroshan

I feel like while there is no existing fluff that would bind them together, the context of the Xelocians and Oroshan being very focused and stubborn would give the new Collective under this paradigm a cold, focused, and arrogant sort of feel. Thematically could be amazing.

 

Aquans- This is the group I'd think would take the Kurak Alliance name

-Terquai

-Tarakians

-Ryushi

 

Dindrenzi

-RSN

-Corsairs- I think this makes sense thematically- With the idea that the Dindrenzi are the secessionists and have a certain degree of popular support, the idea of privateers supporting the Dindrenzi cause seems to work. It would also mirror the Terran setup, with Hawker being Terran elite support mirroring RSN and Traders mirroring Corsairs. 

 

Directorate- ANd here's who would take the Zenian League name

-Works Raptor

-Omnidyne

-Kedorians 

 

Relthoza

-Ba'Kash

-Pathogen- In the context of the Hub Systems podcast, I believe that the Relth will be made to be more technology-integrated. I think Pathogen will become a Relth weapon or somesuch. Maybe something that isn't in their control, but their nano-expertise allows them to hijack to an extent.

 

 

THis leaves two factions down one subfaction, Dindrenzi and Relthoza, but that's as evenly distributed as it can be, bearing in mind that the League had less factions to begin with.  In addition, this leaves all of the major rivalries intact. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hive said:

I really don't understand the notion of throwing things out like that- Partially because I enjoy the idea of the continuity of the rivalries across editions. 

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. 

 

3 hours ago, cas said:

In a post scarcity scene resources can also simply be stations and planetary populations themselves. An example could be the huge foundry system hawker lost at the beginning of the dindrenzi offensives. When resources are unlimited the ability to harvest and manufacture those resources become the limiting factor. Wars are about taking and controlling major population centers rather than resources themselves.

 

This does mean wars would still need a reason to start, either desire for control in the original terran vs dramos offensive or a system where wealth makes right like directorate.

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. 

 

14 hours ago, fracas said:

Trade only occurs to get cheaper what you need, so why would there be a need for inter-alien trade in a post scarcity world as you suggests?  A post scarcity universe would mean no need to conflict; everyone has enough.  Neither realistic nor a good basis for a war game.

 

 

 

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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

&lionofperth

 

i understand how vast space is. In fact I said so in an earlier post.  I think our use of the term trade differs.  I use it to mean exchange of goods between political entities. Terran shipping Y to Aquans in exchange for Z.  Given the vastness of space and the readily available resources, I just don’t see it prudent for Terran to need Z from aquans rather than getting it internally.  Thus systems rich in Z becomes valuable to Terrans.

i am not using it to describe the process of one economic entity harvesting/mining X, another processing it, another shipping it from A to B, another assembling it, another distributing it, and another selling it. Attacking such pathways imo do not means attacking trade lanes, rather it is distrupting the strategic supply lines. I doubt that it will be cheaper to collect, process, and assemble X on site for immediate use, especially near hostile political entities. And since space is vast, it won’t be practical to park a battlecruiser in low power mode waiting to ambush a convoy lane; you either attack the collection centers, the processing centers, the manufacturing centers, or the distribution centers. The more advanced and invested the Center is, the more difficult the target it becomes either for passive reasons ( distance from the front) or active reasons (better defended or resistant to attacks). Thus harvesting centers will remain the easier targets.

As I asserted earlier, interstellar wars will continue to be over resources and living space . Aquans may not need a system rich in X, but a system rich in X may still be worth more than a system with no X, and taking it will deny some X, near the frontline, from the Dindrenzi frontline manufacturing facilities, thus delaying and hindering the ability for Dindrenzi to continue the war. As we both agree, space is vast and waiting to be resupplied from distant core factories maybe too little too late.

and biological entities will need gravity, air, as well as biological resources that while can be artificially created, will simply not be as cost effective, rich, or desirable as a lush habitable world.  We can be kept alive by tube feedings, but have people shunned restaurants and a plate of food for dinner? We can live entirely underground, but walks outside underneath a sky and sun remains desirable, hence of value. We can already create habitats on Antarctica; where are they? Habitable world without the need for complete artificial environments will be desirable to any biological species. And thus will be fought over if mutually life sustainable for both species. (IMO, nuking such worlds will be anathema and only a last resort desperate scorch world act; thus leaving a reason to drop troops to take control rather than simply “nuking it from orbit”).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, fracas said:

As I asserted earlier, interstellar wars will continue to be over resources and living space . Aquans may not need a system rich in X, but a system rich in X may still be worth more than a system with no X, and taking it will deny some X, near the frontline, from the Dindrenzi frontline manufacturing facilities, thus delaying and hindering the ability for Dindrenzi to continue the war. As we both agree, space is vast and waiting to be resupplied from distant core factories maybe too little too late.

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are confounding what can be done with what is the most economical to do.

As well as what you are willing to do with what most people are willing to do.

Your expertise is clouding your analysis.

 

for instance, how are you going to attack a convoy enroute in jump space, in a worm hole, of when space is folded?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Attacking convoys enroute is a question of technology. Feasibility is entirely depended upon how FTL Travel work in the FSA universe.

  1. How far can a ship, particularly a cargo ship, jump?
  2. How frequently can such a jump be made?
  3. Do those jumps need to be made along a predictable corridor?
  4. How close to defensive positions can jumps be made?
  5. 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instantaneous travel should only take place between secure and insanely expensive both in materials and time/energy wormholes. Those might only deep in the builders territory.  Starships should be capable of FTL travel. But there should be counters to them.

There is an abstraction required, as we can theorise how interstellar civilisations interact and wage war. But to create a game we have to bend some of those expectations else there would be no conflict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • 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.