Archive through December 13, 2005
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 Timeline: Archive through December 13, 2005
By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 11:24 pm: Edit

And since most of the battles will be low-intensity border skirmishes (say, between that D5K the Klingons gave to one colony and the XDD the Feds send to try to reclaim the colony with), attrition units would be counterproductive.

If a shield goes down and one side withdraws, no real harm done.
If a fighter squadron gets killed, then you have casualties and a flashpoint that would risk a new war.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 12:36 am: Edit

That's assuming they're X2 units. If they're X1R units then there would be a place for them.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 05:49 pm: Edit

I expect most independent planets to be heavily defended with attrition units as they can be produced locally.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 05:59 pm: Edit

Come to think of it many now independent planets probably already had production facilities for drones, fighters, bombers and maybe even the occasional PF production facility depending on when the planet fell into enemy hands.

Things get interesting when some planets can only produce first generation bombers because that's all they have the factory for and other planets can produce heavy bombers. Who knows, there may even be planets still building Interceptors.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 06:49 pm: Edit

Good thing X ships get their Aegis systems to work on SC 5 untis.


Ahhh the Quality Vs Quantity battle as the four or five ground based fighter squadrons a DW can lead to defend your planet quantity tries to overpower the quality of the CCX or XCA I've brought along to defeat them.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 11:32 pm: Edit

Always a good fight.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, December 12, 2005 - 01:10 pm: Edit

Taking Mike's que, my reply is transferred to here.

Mike,

Quote:

The wider neutral zones are not idle speculation...they are fact, at least up until Y205. The ISC invasion deliberately widened the zones to seperate the warring powers, and then the Andros further reduced everyone's territory in their invasion. The Federation, for example, was reduced to half it's former size.



The Andros were kicked out of galaxy. Nobody took custody of andro-captured territory until after OpUnity? Don't think so.

When the General War ended, the Feds had already taken back the territory they lost. Otherwise how could have have been motoring around in Klingon space?

Then this ISC interposes itself between everybody and practical Fed territory shrinks.

Then, yes, the Andros jump in and things get more constricted. But driving the Andros back means retaking the territory lost to the ISC and Andros as much as it means launching an ambitions invasion of the LMC.

Outer colonies aren't ungoverned most of this time, they have revolving doors installed from the constant change in oversight.

Quote:

Why the galactics decide to keep wider neutral zones isn't really that important...what is important is that they do, because it sets the stage for the trade wars and scads of multi-generational ship combat scenarios.



...but they *wouldn't* decide to keep wide neutral zones. Not a chance.

Now the process of liberation from the Andros could well produce slightly different borders than those at the end of the General War. That's quite enough fodder for scenarios, especially if we also have the LMC as a sort of "wild west" territory because it's so remote.

Quote:

We have plausible reasons. Arguing over nitpicky details isn't getting us anywhere. The focus should remain on what creates good game play...not forcing through someone's personal vision of SFB history. Those widened zones are already there, so endless debate over why, or if they should be there at all, is pointless.



The ADB has changed its continuity before. It can again. With the ADB's primary focus still in the General War and the still mostly standard-tech years that follow, there is no reason to assume continuity, especially continuity that doesn't weather the test of time and logic (which is how I see wide neutral zones) will continue unaltered when the ADB gets around to examining later years.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, December 12, 2005 - 01:47 pm: Edit

John, you seem to be of the opinion that national borders snap back to pre-GW borders somewhere around OpUnity. Few others seem to see it this way. Forget the reason, is there a history you would like to see that requires no or minimal neutral zones or is do you simply consider restoration of the old borders logical or natural? If you have a history proposal in mind, please share.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, December 12, 2005 - 01:53 pm: Edit

There seems to be a disconnect between taking back a region of space and subduing the local colonies. We know from Earth wars that it is far easier to conquer land then subjugate a people. Just because the Federation managed to sack some Klingon StarBases at the end of the war does not mean that they could mobilize and transport the ground forces they would need to subdue a Klingon controlled and defended colony, nor would they need to. As long as a fleet supply point exists colonial clean-up can wait.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Monday, December 12, 2005 - 02:43 pm: Edit

No, but the colonies of your own people would need you, and you would need them.
But there would certainly be border clashes to decide were the new borders are.
(And between some races there would even be wars.)

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, December 12, 2005 - 03:03 pm: Edit

There will be family in the core areas looki8ng for Family in the Devestated Zones.

By the way, we could start refering to the wide NZ and Devestated Zones (DZ). I recall SVC using this term before.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, December 12, 2005 - 04:27 pm: Edit

The families can look all they like, but mearly having a starship fly by the colony at warp does not liberation make. If the Klingons are dug in, and have been so for 20 years, its not a simple thing to evict them.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, December 12, 2005 - 05:33 pm: Edit

John,

To address your points.

Quote:

The Andros were kicked out of galaxy. Nobody took custody of andro-captured territory until after OpUnity? Don't think so.



Why? Re-read just how devestating the Andro invasion was. To quote from C2:

"At the height of their power (Y197), the Andromedans had reduced the Romulans, Gorn, ISC, Lyran, and Hydran Empires to small areas around their home systems (perhaps a dozen 500-parsec hexes on the Federation and Empire map). The other races were also under considerable pressure and had suffered less only because the Andromedans had not attacked them yet (and due to the shaky Federation-Klingon alliance)."

Now consider that. Over half the galactic powers are reduced to a dozen hexes. You know they didn't just give up with fighting. How much can they have left? Not much, sez I, because it only makes sense that they would fight against the Andros with all they had...and they lost, badly. Heck, the LDR was completely wiped out. So with few exceptions, no one is in the position to go out and start claiming territory. They have neither the ships nor the personell to do it...not and also try to hunt down the RTN system, which they did for three years. Not much time there for nation-building or re-capturing lost territory.

Quote:

...but they *wouldn't* decide to keep wide neutral zones. Not a chance.



Why? What is the objection to putting more space between you and your hostile neighbors? If it's because unclaimed territory is too attractive to leave alone, why have neutral zones at all? Why not just draw a line and say "this is my side, this is yours?" Why any neutral zones of any size? Because...they are just part of the universe the game takes place in. Wider ones, which means less territory to guard and a bigger buffer between you and your enemies is an appealing thing when you've all just had your collective asses kicked around for twenty plus years. There is no sound reason not to have them, and every reason to have them, because it promotes plenty of opportunties for the trade war scenario. Having to trade for what you used to own outright makes for fun games. You don't see wide zones as logical. But any sort of neutral zone is illogical. They serve no realistic purpose.

Quote:

The ADB has changed its continuity before. It can again.



True, but not on this scale. The post-war borders (with some neutral zones as wide as 5 hexes across) have been printed on the F&E map for a long time. Don't see them changing that. So even if you don't accept the idea that the ISC and Andros force wider borders with reduced territories, we know for a fact that after the war, much of that has already been done.

But, all of this discussion is meaningless. Our task, folks, is to come up with a playable X2...not worry over what is called a neutral zone, and what isn't, or how wide they are, or if they exist. We have more than enough to do in just creating playable ships.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, December 12, 2005 - 06:49 pm: Edit

One reason why the Empire might be slow to close the gap to the original NZ's is that to do so might thin the fleets too much and invite destruction.

One thing you do not see in SFB that F&E reveals is that to win fleet battles you need the highest consentration of power possible. They call it "density". The side with the highest density will likely with baring radical random events. If the Feds were to spread out their fleet to protect and contact all of their DZ areas they would be unable to put together any sort of density in the event of a conserted attack. SInce I don't know the true state of affairs I can't say how they would go about rebuilding but they would probably make a strong presense as far as as they can the fill in from behind in a spoke like fashon.

Look at the F&E map, consider what sort of EP is being generated and figure you have (lets just say) half or one third your GW fleet in your core areas. What would you do?

Hmmm, ya know that gives me an idea.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 11:21 am: Edit

This is also one of the primary reasons to build X2 ships.

Conversely you need lots of ships spread out over large areas to keep pirate opperations restricted.

If you have a requirment that 10% of your ships are within 6 minutes of rescue from pirates or that 50% of your commercial ships are within 2 hours rescue from storms (and other natural disasters) then ships with higher strategic speeds can be spread more thinly. Allowing fewer crew to do more sets your empire up for returning from the grave. Meanwhile having morepowerful ships allows reintergration battles to be won (and with fewer losses of men and materials) furthering the value of getting X2 ships into your fleet.

By Jim Cummins (Jimcummins) on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 12:32 pm: Edit

I think the uniformity of the neutral zones might be an issue, some areas would recover faster, and others might never return to the pre-GW state...
Take the Klingon/Lyran zone, during the GW the zone was probably well developed since they were no longer hiding their alliance. I think that they would have drawn a line and said this is your side and my side, after all the Lyrans let the Klingons go prospecting in their off map area. This region would have few reasons to re-create a neutral zone and give up those resources.

Similarity the Fed/Gorn border would probably lose the neural zone, to allow both races to develop the territory without antagonism. This expansion would help fund the Fed in their desire to devote their attention to the Klingon border, who is their rival.
So the Klingon/Fed neutral zone would revert to pre-war status the quickest of the Federation borders.

The Klingon/Hydran zone would be in complete flux with the Vudar issue, on top of everything else. I can see the Klingon/Kzinti border being slow to reform as neither party would have the resources to devote to restoring it, as the Klingon focus on the Feds and the Kzinti focus on the Lyran’s border

I would expect the Romulan border to be in complete chaos, as the Romulans would need to re-build from scratch, and their neighbors would have internal rebuilding or other more pressing issues.

In the former neutral zones, I can see many political entities forming to fill the political void created by the devastation, ranging from colonies wanting to return to the fold, some anarchy, to lost colonies trading alliances, maybe centralizing like the Athenian league to new empires.

I could see the ISC, Gorn and Federation creating a free trade zone to help rebuild the economies.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 01:40 pm: Edit

First and answer from the "X2 Systems" threat:

Quote:

Alan, understood, and I won't try to disuade you of the logic of your arguments, but what fun is that? Maybe you play different scenarios then I play, but wouldn't it be more fun if these planets had ships?



There is precedence in this with the Bargaintine Campaign. The bargantines used freighters converted along wyn lines and three fighter designs of varying quality.

What I dispute is Tos assertion that border worlds have been on their own for any long amount of time.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 01:51 pm: Edit

Replies to stuff on this thread...

Tos,

Quote:

John, you seem to be of the opinion that national borders snap back to pre-GW borders somewhere around OpUnity. Few others seem to see it this way. Forget the reason, is there a history you would like to see that requires no or minimal neutral zones or is do you simply consider restoration of the old borders logical or natural? If you have a history proposal in mind, please share.



No vision more than common sense to start with. When you fight a common enemy, you try to avoid getting bogged down in your own petty disputes. (time enough for that later when you *don't* need them at your side) Once the Galactics have the andros on the run but not yet beaten, there would be a natural tendency to adopt a "you take control of your space, I'll take back mine" and sweep any territorial disputes under the rug.

Add to that your own thoughts on hwo hard it is to subjugate a population. (the Feds have an advantage here as they don't "subjugate" the way most of the others do). Taking control of a planet colonized by another empire is problematic short of genocide, which creates its own set of problems if/when word leaks out.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 02:17 pm: Edit

Quote:

Once the Galactics have the andros on the run but not yet beaten, there would be a natural tendency to adopt a "you take control of your space, I'll take back mine" and sweep any territorial disputes under the rug.



Yes, but that's the point in a way. What happens when they can't, because these worlds decide they want to be independent? Consider this scenario.

Feds march into Klingon territory at the end of the GW, liberating various worlds as they go. These worlds get a taste of life without Klingon occupation. The ISC comes along, then the Andros, leaving these planets more or less free and independent. They like it. They start trading goods instead of simply handing them over. Now, years later, the Andros are gone and the Feds (or Klingons, take your pick) come along and say "you're back under my control". The new planet looks and says "I don't think so". They hire pirates to help them, or buy surplus ships or fighters, or appeal to a neighbor for aid...any of a dozen different possiblities. The Klingons, meanwhile, are in a bind and have to decide...is this planet worth fighting over? Is it worth risking war with the Federation again? Or, would it be more prudent to simply trade with them for the time being, until things get back to normal? They may very well opt for that last option, and they won't be the only ones.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 02:24 pm: Edit

Now to Mike

Quote:

Now consider that. Over half the galactic powers are reduced to a dozen hexes. You know they didn't just give up with fighting. How much can they have left? Not much, sez I, because it only makes sense that they would fight against the Andros with all they had...and they lost, badly. Heck, the LDR was completely wiped out. So with few exceptions, no one is in the position to go out and start claiming territory. They have neither the ships nor the personell to do it...not and also try to hunt down the RTN system, which they did for three years. Not much time there for nation-building or re-capturing lost territory.



The hunt for the RTN is itself where it begins. Simply by choosing to work with each other implies that there most be agreements-in-principle in place. The easist such agreement to build is an agreement to respect each other's post-General-War boundaries, which pretty much line up with their pre-General-War boundaries.

Now consider this question: How much time did OpUnity take? What were the empires doing in the Alpha Sector during this time? A lot of resources were going into the invasion and hunting down the last shards of the RTN. There's also room for limited patrols of the outer reaches of each empire to see who's alive and what shape they're in.

Careful what you argue for. Utter destruction in the outer reaches also destroys any chance of strong independent worlds with independent fleets and defenses. (I know this is Tos' big thing and I'm talking to you but he's going to read this too) Less than utter destruction means there's an economy to tie back together and therefore a reason to make an effort to bring the outer worlds back into the fold.

I can envision cheap and easy ways of providing some figleaf of a presence, such as having cheap units like PFs or fighters "puddle-jump" a circuit of star systems. PFs are especially good for this. Cargo PF could use the same circuit to deliver critical supplies.

Quote:

Why? What is the objection to putting more space between you and your hostile neighbors? If it's because unclaimed territory is too attractive to leave alone, why have neutral zones at all? Why not just draw a line and say "this is my side, this is yours?" Why any neutral zones of any size? Because...they are just part of the universe the game takes place in. Wider ones, which means less territory to guard and a bigger buffer between you and your enemies is an appealing thing when you've all just had your collective asses kicked around for twenty plus years. There is no sound reason not to have them, and every reason to have them, because it promotes plenty of opportunties for the trade war scenario. Having to trade for what you used to own outright makes for fun games. You don't see wide zones as logical. But any sort of neutral zone is illogical. They serve no realistic purpose.



Neutral Zones existed because the Organins said they existed. They were imposed. Notice how they fell apart violenetly once the Organins left.

Other than that, you are right. Neutral zones do serve no logical purpose. Lacking the organians, they should be done away with, setting the stage for the Trade Wars as empires regain more direct contact with each other again.

Depsite the illogic, the old thin neutral zones might exist in the post OpU world simply because nobody can agree what to do with them or who they belong to.

Accepting a wide neutral zone means consciously choosing to let go of the people, territory and resources that were ones yours. Name me one instance of Earth history where giving up territory led to a better situation. Most historical buffer zones are made up of territory external to what I consider "mine".

Wide neutral zones would have to be imposed (they were imposed by the ISC Pacification Program, for example, and you see how well THAT worked). Invoke deus ex organia and you can have your wide zones, no argument.

Quote:

True, but not on this scale. The post-war borders (with some neutral zones as wide as 5 hexes across) have been printed on the F&E map for a long time.



I don't play or own F&E. Nor do I care to automatically cede it soverinity over the post-andro war situation considering the limied amount of consideration that time period has gotten to date.

Goes back to the whole "who's top dog?" argument.

The Steves will probably be more sympathetic to your point of view than me, but you're talking to me. If events fall right, I'll be able to make my case (or they'll read it here) and they'll decide if it's worth a change.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 02:28 pm: Edit

Quote:

Careful what you argue for. Utter destruction in the outer reaches also destroys any chance of strong independent worlds with independent fleets and defenses. (I know this is Tos' big thing and I'm talking to you but he's going to read this too) Less than utter destruction means there's an economy to tie back together and therefore a reason to make an effort to bring the outer worlds back into the fold.



Ah, but we're not talking total destruction of planets...the Andros don't do that. What we are talking about is the utter destruction of functional militaries. Getting hammered back to tiny core areas means you lost a lot of ships and men. The planets left behind are probably just dandy, because the Andros can't police them all...too few ships.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 02:36 pm: Edit

Quote:

Yes, but that's the point in a way. What happens when they can't, because these worlds decide they want to be independent? Consider this scenario.



See a comment I was preparing while you were writing that question: If the outer reaches are devestated, nobody has their thing together enough to make any desire for indpendence stick. The Andros would make a point of squishing any independent strongholds out there.

Less devestation and sure you have independent worlds. But you also have and economy to tie together into a resurgent empire and definite motivation to NOT let those worlds slip away into wider neutral zones where a rival might snare them at a future date.

No, you tolerate the few strong independent worlds for now and bring as many back into the empire as is practical. MOST worlds would not have the resources to make independance a preferable way of life.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 02:37 pm: Edit

Quote:

Ah, but we're not talking total destruction of planets...the Andros don't do that. What we are talking about is the utter destruction of functional militaries. Getting hammered back to tiny core areas means you lost a lot of ships and men. The planets left behind are probably just dandy, because the Andros can't police them all...too few ships.



What DID the andros do with those worlds anyway?

The term "devestated zone" conjures up images of more than just destroyed military ships.

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 02:38 pm: Edit

Mike: From the background in C3, it appears that the Andros pretty much stripped every world they found. They didn't need to police the worlds they invaded, because either they were present in strength or the planet was a pile of rubble and dust with no value to anyone.

As for the ISC Pacifation, that seemed to work okay until the Andros invaded.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 02:42 pm: Edit

Mike Powers,

It worked OK for the worlds under ISC control because the ISC were nice guys.

The other alpha sector empires chafed something fierce and were building ships as fast as they could manage.

IIRC this fleet buildup was the reason why the galaxy had enough of a navy to resist the andros.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation