Mike, ?
The FE map is about the GW, so aren't those NZ just the ordinary pre-GW borders?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 02:28 pm: Edit

I agree that the Empires would be exhausted. I agree that they would all be tired of war. I agree that there would be talk of a treaty.

But we are talking Star Empires here where there was no clear winner of the war. And to end the war there was no need of a treaty.

So we are asking the Klingons to limit ship construction and all races are limited to the same, or relative levels. The Klingons are going to say, "OK, We get 150 ship, the Feds get 150 ships, the Kzinti get 75, the Lyrans get 150, and the Hydrans also get 75. Soooo, what's to ensure that we Klingons don't get over run by half the Feds, and all the Kzinti and Hydrans? We would be out numbered to start. And how will we be sure the Hydrans aren't building another 75 at the old colonies? Do you think the Hydrans will be comfortable with the Klingons having twice their fleet?"

And since when have the Romulans capitulated to anything not in their own self interest? Why are the Romulans interested in signing a document with the Lyrans and Kzinti?

The ISC are totally unthreatened by the western empires. They might draw up accords with the Gorns and enter long drawn out talks of peace with the Romulans. They might even draw a Non-aggression pact with the Feds although it would suffice to simply state that they have no plans on re-invasion. Besides, how are the Gorns and Romulans going to verify ISC adherence to the treaty.

Are the Organians going to spread themselves over the Alpha and Delta quadrants to constantly monitor all these races? They didn't see the Andros coming. Their realm of influence seems limited, albeit very powerful.

What I do see as very possible is a set of treaties between various neighbors that suite each Empires needs. Are the Feds going to not sign an individual peace treaty with the Romulans because they want to hold out to get them to sign the big Alpha Accords? And once an individual treaty is signed why would they go beyond that?

One grand treaty seems entirely untenable to me. We are talking huge Star Empires (each their own race) here, not small countries on one planet.

And no one knows if destroying the Desecrator SB actually ended the Andro advance. Perhaps there is still a huge war on the other side of the galaxy based from the Large Megellanic Cloud. And we should limit our fleets when a huge wave of victorious and battle hardened Andro fleets come sweeping in from the opposite galactic sectors?

If one tires of war so greatly then one can commit suicide. I believe such a treaty would be just that and that the empires would believe the same.

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 03:49 pm: Edit

Loren: But the Hydrans can't afford even half the Klingon fleet. With the treaty limited only offensive ships but not bases or other defenses, the Hydrans can hold off a Klingon advance. Larger neutral zones provide both longer delays on the attack providing the defender more time to concentrate defenses and targets for the counterattack in the form of the newly constructed bases used to carry supplies over the larger neutral zones.

I like the larger neutral zones. Having more minor political elements in between the established empires can provide additional fun. Also, the change in conditions will prevent the insertion of General War scenarios updated for X2 merely with the prefixing of the letter "X." Different times deserve different scenarios.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 04:10 pm: Edit

Richard Wells, I'm talking about an Allied effort. Sure it's unlikely from our PoV but the Klingons will be stressing about it.

Also, we forget that the Vudar have control of some chunks of Klingon and Hydran territory. This weakens the Klingon more than it does the Hydrans. No one will be attacking in the first few years but what is to stop the Hydrans from building all they want at the Old Colonies?

The Klingons can be watched closely. They are surrounded. The Kzinti and Hydrans have off map territories that have been established as powerful supply and build points. Both races retreated there and came back! In Y205 these places still exist and the Klingons can't touch it. The Klingons rely totally on the Lyrans for their off map areas. It's a good strong alliance but still they are relying on another race. There are no guarantees in politics. Who would help the Klingons if the Lyrans turned against them? The Feds? Again, from our PoV perhaps but no Klingons would expect so.

The Klingons are going to be in an arms race based solely on their own fears and they aren't going to abide by anything that will limit a new build up, IMO. Signing a treaty might slow their prospective enemies down but not if they are caught violating the treaty and they absolutely MUST violate the treaty and they will get caught if they do. They won't sign. It would be their own death warrant if they did.

The Romulans haven't changed their minds about being in control of the entire galaxy. It is a divine destiny. They might want time, they can hide a build up easier, and they would conduct all sorts of espionage and political waltzing to further the goals of their houses and Empire (or Republic at this time). There will also be more new infighting.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 04:16 pm: Edit

The Klingons would definitely try bring the Lyran for an attack on the Hydrans. That way they get can more territory, marginalise the Vudar in a bigger empire, occupy the Lyrans(who hate/ate the Hydrans) etc.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 04:17 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

The Klingons are going to be in an arms race based solely on their own fears and they aren't going to abide by anything that will limit a new build up,

---

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 04:20 pm: Edit

Ya know, that got me thinking about a joint Hydran/Klingon offensive against the Vudar. The plan is to retake most of the territory they occupy. Neither can really afford take on the Vudar alone so they join up. The Vudar fight well but are eventually pushed back to holding only the territoy between Vudar home and the Tholians. But then the Hydrans occupy systems beyond the old border. Since the Vudar are Klingon subjects the Klingons lay claim to some of the Hydran territory they occupied. It's not long before talks break down and fighting begins. The war lasts a couple years when both sides weary quickly of yet another war and the boarders return to the original places. The Vudar survive because of the Hydran and Klingon infighting. The Vudar Enclave endures at it's reduced size. The Klingons, having recaptured the majority of income producing space leave the matter to a future time. It's all over by Y209.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 06:24 pm: Edit

Well, I guess I'll throw in my .02 quatloos about "The Treaty".

I firmly agree with Loren's point, expressed in an earlier posting, about the Andros. No one knows whether the Andro invasion has really been defeated or not. They might still have very substantial forces in the local area (Greater Megellanic Cloud or even an unexplored part of this galaxy). They might well be back in force in the near future. Added to this, the Tholians can't possibly know how long it will be until the next wave of Seltorians arrive. The Seltorians may have established themselves in other quadrants of this galaxy and been in communication with the Seltorian contingent that showed up in Alpha. Seltorian reinforcements may (for all the Tholians know) be speeding towards the Holdfast even now, but perhaps this time with a "Super Hive Ship" capable of building dreadnoughts, or even X-ships. So you can't use a treaty to justify limits on X2 ships, solely by reference to Alpha races. Those races absolutely must take into account the possibility of external threats.

George Ebersole makes reference to arms control treaties constraining arms races. But in my opinion he gets a couple of things wrong (no offense intended George).

To see this better, let's look a little more closely at the actual Washington and London treaties, which are typically cited by supporters of a treaty limiting X2 ships. The first point to recall is that these treaties, as George notes, were an attempt to prevent the recurrence of an arms race that was seen as being a major cause of WWI, specifically the "Dreadnougt Fever" that swept Great Britain and Germany. Now I personally think the notion that arms races lead to wars is itself badly flawed. It is, ultimately, to mistake a symptom for a cause. The arms race and the war that follows it are really both caused by the underlying political and strategic realities. But whether you agree with this contention or not, it is clear that the notion that Dreadnought Fever (and other arms races as well) were actually a cause (not the only one) of WWI was common in the immediate post-war years. Hence the belief that that treaties restricting arms would make future wars less likely.

But where George errs, I believe, is in trying to apply this to the post-GW/ISC/Andro situation. In a nutshell, the belief that "arms races lead to wars", so crucial to the political maneuvers of the (real world) inter-war years, would not exist. Or at least, it wouldn't exist as a dominant political/psychological influence the way it did in the real world. The Kzinti and Hydrans are simply not going to see the GW as having been caused by an arms race. They will see it as having been caused by Klingon/Lyran aggression.

A second point about about the Washington and London agreements that George doesn't adequately explore is the aspect of imposition. In WWI you had a winning side that had both the desire and the ability to impose conditions on the losers. That the conditions also restricted the winners wasn't a problem because it cemented into place a status quo that the winners found advantageous. The treaties guaranteed the British and Americans larger fleets than anyone else, without having to build further expensive ships if a "non-staus quo power" (i.e. Japan - on the winning side in WWI but not strong enough yet to directly oppose American and British initiatives in this area) wanted to strengthen its fleet beyond certain limits. But who has the power to impose such restrictions on a non-willing race, post-Andromedan invasion? There was a brief window at the end of the GW when one might have said the ISC. But post-Andro this is no longer true. I don't believe even the Feds (or a Fed/Gorn alliance) could do so. The only plausible answer is the Organians. I'm only speaking from personal opinion here, but invoking the Organians leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. They are way to Deus ex machina. (And by the way, if the Organians have the power to impose these X2 restrictions, why do you need a treaty? The Organians could just say "Don't do it!")

Finally there is the issue of cheating on the treaty. A discussion of the ways in which the Washington and London agreements were (successfully) circumvented would greatly increase the length of an already too long post. But circumvented they were.

Absent invoking the Organians, it just isn't plausible that any inspection regime could be established that would prevent various powers from cheating on an arms control treaty they found overly restrictive. Look at what the Vudar did under the Klingon's noses, or the Selts in the M81 galaxy. In each case there were some "extenuating circumstances" such as the radiation in the Vudar sector that interfered with the Klingons' ability to scan that space. But really, in the post-Andro galactic environment, any power would be able to cheat, if it felt that it had to in order to survive. Space is just too d*mn big.

Let's suppose hypothetically that X2 tech allows me to build a cruiser-sized ship that is about as powerful as an X1 cruiser (250 BPV, let's say) but which can also perform a wide variety of scientific/exploratory/economically useful activities necessary to re-establish my Empire after the devastation. Or I can build a 350 BPV combat monster that isn't particularly useful for any non-combat functions. If I believe the combat monster is necessary for my survival, I will build it. Either I will refuse to sign the treaty, or I will sign a treaty with so many loopholes that I can build it anyway, or I will cheat. And the cheating won't start 10 years down the line. It (or at least the plans for implementing it) will start day one.

If (as I do) you believe that X2 is more interesting with 250 BPV ships than with 350 BPV ones, you need an underlying geopolitical and geostrategic (errr... astropolitical and astrostrategic?) reality that makes those ships more valuable to the respective empires. This reality would make the afore-mentioned scientific/exploratory/economic capabilites of the general purpose X2 ships more valuable at the strategic level than the increased tactical combat power of the combat monsters. With such an underlying reality making the construction of such general purpose ships in the various races' best interests, a treaty might make an interesting filigree in the background material. but absent such an underlying reality, the treaty does nothing to (plausibly) prevent the construction of combat monsters.

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 06:40 pm: Edit

Alan: But the key point for the Washington Treaty was none of the nation's involved could afford to build their planned expansion, except the US which did not wish to. Japan had a very destructive earthquake to soak off excess capital. Can all the states afford to replace large fleets of mothballed ships or will the one's with shattered economies just spend to what is affordable and the wealthier nations cut back as well? Hydrans, Klingons, and Kzinti have all suffered damage to the capital (Klingons thanks to Andros); Romulans had that destructive civil war; Gorns are cheap; Feds want to be cheap too; ISC has their own problems. So unless the Lryans plan on challenging everyone, the justification for a treaty that recognizes the defacto limits caused by economic destruction seems reasonable.

Loren: Hydrans attacking Vudar makes no sense. The last thing the Hydrans want is a Klingon base within 7 hexes of the capital hex. If the Hydrans join in with the Klingons, the Hydrans remove a major buffer that protects Hydran space from a third Klingon invasion. Have the Hydrans learned nothing from the previous century?

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 07:17 pm: Edit

Richard Wells;

The expense of building the planned expansions was an important factor, but I don't think I'ld agree that it was "the key point" of the matter. It was one of a group of interwoven factors that all had to be taken into account.

I basically agree with your statement that "the justification for a treaty that recognizes the defacto limits caused by economic destruction seems reasonable", depending on exactly what you mean by it. Note the phrase "defacto limits caused by economic destruction". I could be misreading this, but it seems to me an aknowledgement that the real reason that the combat monsters would not be built was that other factors made them less useful to the respective empires than the less combat-capable but more general purpose designs. And this is basically what I meant with my comment about a treaty being "an interesting filigree".

To make myself clear; if the political, strategic, and economic realities ca. Y205 make superpowered X2 combat monsters undesirable compared to general purpose designs, then a treaty forbidding them isn't a problem. The various empires have agreed to not build something they didn't want to build anyway. But if the those conditions make such ships desirable, then they will be built regardless of treaties. What I object to isn't a treaty per se, but rather a background history and rationale that says the treaty is the reason the combat monsters weren't built.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 07:41 pm: Edit

The purpose of the treaty would be to mutually agree to limited ship construction so that everybody could go work on their economic issues.

I fully assume that the empires will cheat the first chance they get, but it won't be the day after the ink is dry on the treaty.

The Klinks and Roms will sign the treaty because it will limit the ships that the Feds and Gorns will build and put on their borders, enabling them to take care of internal business before returning to external business. Other conquorer-mentality races would follow suit for the same reasons. The astro-political situation is made predictable, facilitating recovery.

Then the trade disputes start and the first allegations of cheating on the treaty begin. The Feds overbuild their treaty limits to counter reports of excessive Klingon building. The Roms ramp their production up to counter the Feds, forcing eh Gorns to overbuild, alarming the ISC... You get the idea.

I saw a Tom and Jerry cartoon that illustrates the point: Tom, Jerry and the bulldog (whose name I can't remember) all get tired of the constant violence and agree to be pals. They watch out for each other, much to the confusion of the other dogs/cats/etc in the neighborhood.

Then a steak falls of a meat truck and they all want it. The whole agreement unravels and by the end of the cartoon, they are back to bashing each other.

I don't ever expect the Klingons and Feds to buddy-up you understand, but even a Klink can get to liking a stretch of peace and quiet. And if he lays in a spare battlecruiser or two for the future, what's the harm?

The steak falls off the wagon when colonies in the LMC start delivering money and resources to cash-starved empires. The agreement unravels when the Klink uses those spare battlecruisers to tip a trade dispute his way...

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 07:48 pm: Edit

That's why part of the idea for X2 included wide neutral zones. The wars shattered a lot of the logicistical networks, so any ships that are sent to patrol the neutral zone would have to be more self-sufficient.

Y130 ship design instead of Y175.

The empires had the technology to build a 180 point BCH as soon as they built the 120 point D6/CA ships. Why did they not put in that extra 50% increase in combat power? The ships had to go on long patrols and had to make long-term living space a priority.

The same thing applies in Y205. That last 40% increase in combat power (250 vs. 350) comes at the cost of strategic endurance.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 09:40 pm: Edit

I don't think there would be actual neutral zones, wider or otherwise. I think there would be guarded borders, behind which is a lot of war-torn territory in need of "reconstruction." I don't know if any of the nations agreed to the previously-established treaty Neutral Zones so much legally as they had nothing else to fall back on when cease-fires were declared.

Someone correct me if SFU history says otherwise.

There's talk of a "naval treaty" and so forth, but for Pete's sake have the ex-beligerents even agreed to the previous borders? How can you even seriously consider rebuilding your infrastructure if you can't even be sure your erstwhile enemies have given up claims to what you consider to be your territory?

Why would you even consider a "naval treaty" if you still need to secure your borders and rebuild your nation? That's a LOT of space out there, people. So what if the General War ended about 20 years ago, what disputes were settled?

Not only can't you be sure of your recently-previous enemies' schemes regarding your territory, but there's also pirates to deal with who should be in hog-heaven in the "reconstruction" areas. And as I've suggested before, these war-torn areas may be rife with insurrection, corruption, disastisfaction, dissent, "small wars," and maybe even outright terrorism. Who's going to pacify them?

It seems to me the police and national guard forces are going to have their hands full. Where are they going to get the ships?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 10:35 pm: Edit

Alan and RBN: Well said.

RBN: About Orions. Hog heaven is right. So heavenly they went legit and stop pirating in many cases.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 12:42 am: Edit

Brodie, there has to be a neutral zone to have a Trade War. If enemy ships aren't allowed to come-a-calling on your colonies then you would never need to compete for trade.

During the General War no empire was interested in exterminating colonies, they were only interested in looting them. When not under direct occupation the colonies were taxed to death without representation or any reasonable expectation the fleet would come to their defense. Who knows what the Andros wanted, but subduing heavily fortified colonies was apparently not high on their list.

The reason the neutral zone exists isn’t because some empire drew a line on a map, its because all the colony worlds in the neutral zone went independent. Left to their own devices for a generation they each built up what defenses they could. By the end of the Andro War, many of these fortifications were rather formidable.

Thirty-years after the start of the General War these colonies are not lining up to fall back into the taxing arms of Mother Empire. These are independent worlds now, though mostly of the military dictatorship variety. If you think patrolling your borders while bankrupt is difficult wait until you try to militarily annex 300 armed to the teeth former colonies. What’s more, these colonies are actually better off financially then the bankrupt empires.

This left the empires with little choice. In their weakened condition they simply lacked the forces or treasury to militarily annex their former colonies, but they could arrange trade deals. You give us cash, we will supply you with slightly used warships. You give us a trade exclusive, we will protect your convoys. Have a dispute with a neighboring system? Let us supply you with the arms you will need to show those insolent bastards who’s right. Welcome to the wild-west. Welcome to the Trade Wars.

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 01:41 am: Edit

Look at the post-GW economies. Most are exhausted and presumably cutting back to peacetime expenditures. Thus, only about 25% of the original military expenditures are available. Each BTX comes close to costing half the annual exhauseted Klingon peacetime military budget. With the massive border destruction of bases some forms of the General War history present, all the major races could be required to divert the bulk of their military expenditures for decades to building bases to secure outlying regions of minimal productive capability.

Or the races could follow a divestiture model (like that after World War 2). Let the outlying worlds on their own; don't put outsize resources into protecting them; use an improved fleet to keep freedom of commerce within the newly independant regions; and let the development of colonies be based on economics not territorial claims.

For pirates, the news won't be so good. Welcome to the post-Napoleonic Wars Med. All the nations can agree on one constructive use for their navies: destruction of all those hampering free profitable navigation. Our world mostly resolved it by 1821; the SFU pirate suppression campaign will have its own time frame.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 03:07 am: Edit

Tos, I generally agree if the Trade Wars are to be what Sup2 said they were but SVC keeps asserting he that while there will be a thing called the Trade Wars he doesn't know what they will be. I myself have proposed to him that the Trade Wars could be over exploitation of the LMC.

But then we need some sort of conflict because this is SFB and SFB is all about conflict. Players need action on all the borders to have fun. I do think that wider neutral zones are good for a while but RBN is probably right. SVC has also stated that the borders pretty much snapped back to pre-GW lines after the Andro war (IIRC). Of course this could mean they were only close and perhaps the NZ's were three F&E hexes wide at the time. Did the ISC take out ALL the border stations? I don't know.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 10:53 am: Edit

We can have a Alpha Trade War and a LMC Trade War. I am invested in the Alpha races so there must be an Alpha Trade War.

I think people are struggling with the concept of a neutral zone. There is no value in controlling empty space, only value in controlling star systems.

Each star system will fall into one of these categories:
1) Empire controlled
2) Empire aligned
3) Independent
4) Enemy aligned
5) Enemy controlled

Then there will be trade cartels:
1) Empire sponsored
2) Independent corporate sponsored
3) Independent government sponsored
4) Enemy sponsored
5) Pirates and privateers

Multi-system conglomerates, like the Vudar but smaller, may exist in both categories.

The Empires will attempt to expand their sphere of influence to encourage colonies to move down the list. The colonies closest to the core, abandoned for the least amount of time, will be first to sign up. Others colonies will never sign up.

The landscape will look vastly different. The old borders have collapsed.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 11:11 am: Edit

The NZ may for boundary purposes bounce back to the pre GW location but I don't think any race can rebuild their BATS/SB network. The wider NZ would occur and some parts of each races territory may operate in a quazi independent fashion. Perhaps one hex either side of the pr-GW NZ could be considered a trade zone. Police ships and a few CA/FF ships from any race can patrol in these hexes.

The freighter in use would be come faster strategically. The freighter developed for OpU that could move long distances like a warship will now find use in trade to and from the LMC and in the trade zones. This leads to the development of the dangerous small fast X2 ship mentioned in P6. Perhaps something like a X2 version of the LR.

I will suggest that the races can't rebuild their border bases and even some of the second line interior bases. They could develop an X2 tech operational style base. This unit provides the needed logistics point to support to a fleet and patrols. These can be moved as needed to respond to trade war issues and treats. This unit would be a little cheaper than an XBATS, be capable of repairing and resuppling an attached fleet, and with X2 tech be almost as combat capable as an XBATS (in general).

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 12:07 pm: Edit

I asked about the condition of the border bases in Background Q&A. It should be interesting to hear the answer.

Although, I don't see how they could have survived unless any were abandoned and recaptured after the ISC fell back from the Andro invasion.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 12:36 pm: Edit

Loren,

The only Fed border BATs, that may have survived, is Battle Station 10 featured in the story "Hold Until relieved" in CL1O. The CO's doppleganger now runs the place.

The tramp steamer in Module R6 could be configured for trade operations in the wild west NZs. Add a LASH, ducktail, upgrade the PH-3 to a P-1 (see draft XP rules; costs 1 point), and upgrade the drive unit with two 6 box frigate warp engines. The shields would be the same as a military freighter, 6x14 point shields.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 12:53 pm: Edit

I have to wonder if the Fed BATTS on the Kzinti border didn't survive as well. Since there was no fighting going on there the ISC wouldn't have been in a hurry to take those out. The Northern most Gorn border BATTS might have survived as well. The Lyrans probably preserved a great deal of their BATTS since the ISC hadn't fully occupied that region. Hydrans probably got an early start on their rebuilds. The Tholians didn't lose any to the ISC so their rebuilds came after OpNut.

I'll have to review the Vudar data to see what the interaction with the ISC was. I have no clue there.

Wasn't there a point when the various Empires somewhat allowed the ISC to move in? I'll have to refresh my memory but it seems plausable that some Stations were abandoned to the ISC thinking they would retake them later rether than have them scuttled and lost forever. Although I'm probably not thinking that one through.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 01:40 pm: Edit

Take a look at (SH217) in module J2 and 608.B & C in F&E. The Feds BATS in 2103 and 2201 may have survived as has the Kzinti BATS in 1902 (Warhead?). 617.B&C shows what was rebuilt. Don't know what the ISC and Andros destroyed.

I think most of the BATS and SBs along the Fed/Romulan border are gone. The Andros reduced the Romulans to a core area aroung Romulus. The "Wild West" trade zone would be quite large. This could be a very interesting area from which the trade wars developed.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 01:41 pm: Edit

So what we know if that boarders are approximately back where they were before the general war.

That means no wide neutral zones. It was supplement 2 idea that justified the "hold" boxes. I still don't see how wide NZs enhance the game.

Addressing Brodie's points:

Yes there's a lot of space to cover and not much money to cover it with. Any treaty would take that into account.

No disputes need to be settled to sign a treaty. The Washington Naval Treaty came out as it did because the people who could argue were on the wrong end of WWI. All that is required is that reisstance to a treaty be worn down to the point of acceptance. I thing the General War, ISC Pacification AND Andro Invasion, plus the cooperation required to fight Andros (and maybe even the ISC) fills the bill of "earing down" resisitance to unbridled war production.

For a while. Only for a while.

Nobody can *afford* to mount or defend against a campaign of conquoring. A naval treaty stabalizes any potential "rearming race" and lets everybody tend to the home front. Once that's going again, well, we'll see.

Empire may claim territory out ot their old boarders, but saying it don't make it so. Many worlds will come back into the fold simply because its safer and only a well-developed world has the resources to go it alone.

One definition of the "Trade Wars" is that the Boarderlands have become more cosmopolitan. These worlds were briefly occupied by the ISC, who might have faciliated trade and intermingling of peoples from what was "Fed" or "klingon" territory. There might be economic ties that reach across the old neutral zones now that might not want to go back to the old iron curtain approach.

Worse for the empires, it could well be that these economic bonds are what restarts the core-territory economies, forcing instead of hard-line borders with "neutral zones" and instead "blurring zones" which resist the re-creation of the old divides.

This situation gives empires more interest in what happens with their neighbors and more access to information, at once making a treaty more verifiable and making for many fine instances of conflict which could blow up into trade wars.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 02:26 pm: Edit

John,

I think the terms "blurring zones" and "wider NZs" are very similar. The boundary is still there but no one can patrol and enforce it for two main reasons. All the races lack the money and ships. The territories adjacent to the NZs can't or won't provide support to a patroling fleet (a combination of the reasons stated in the above posts).

The trade war represents the fight for economic resorces that all races are starved for. In the vastness of space with porous borders there will be a lot of combat btween ships. Sort of a hot "cold war". The concept of a "Washington Naval Treaty" just limits the arms race to rebuild large battle fleets.

The intial X2 cruisers will fit in well with the treaty idea and cold war/trade war. the CWs, DWS and X1 ships can't operate as well in the remote areas because of the higher logistics and crews needs (This should include SC2 class ships as well). The GW purpose built ships don't have the range and combat power needed for the mission.