Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through September 17, 2004	25		09/17 05:59am
	Archive through November 08, 2004	25		11/08 12:07am

Base Station, Good idea Chuck.

By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 01:48 pm: Edit

I had always though that the neutrals should have BS's rather then BATS (I think I had posted that in the original proposals section)

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 05:33 pm: Edit

I can see several advantages to Chucks suggestion. Good job Chuck!

By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 09:34 pm: Edit

I am thinking along the lines of a Base Station *and* a local shipyard. The shipyard would build and convert police frigates.

All the 4 point local frigates taken over by the annexing empire would be under police frigate deployment rules, AKA no entering enemy territory save as convoy escorts and would count against that races total of activated police ships.

The monitor would be stuck to the home planet and the 6-point cruiser should only operate by drawing supplies directly from the annexed local planet unless converted to the annexing empires technology like any other foreign technology "captured" ship.

By Steve Cain (Stevecain) on Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 01:49 am: Edit

So are you all suggesting a 'minior shipyard' out of Strategic Ops which would be a size 4 slip? Aside- If so one would naturally be saying that the CL and MON were purchaced from ajacent major powers.
So under the diplomatic aproach would such a yard become property of the major power? Can you say 'frontline frig factory' five times fast?

I do think that the ships are certanly justified. I do have questions about static defenses and how much, how fast, etc. It seems that G factors and resistance movements would be an interesting area to explore.

By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 02:21 pm: Edit

>So are you all suggesting a 'minior shipyard'
>out of Strategic Ops which would be a size 4
>slip?

A police frigate shipyard is not a 'minior shipyard.' The former is part of general back ground outside the game system save when you want more Pols over the free deployment limits.

The latter is specified under P.O.


>Aside- If so one would naturally be saying that
>the CL and MON were purchaced from ajacent
>major powers.

The "CL" is more like a National Guard old cruiser than a modern CL. The politics would be of one adjacent race giving the MON and the other the old CA to "maintain balance" diplomatically.


>So under the diplomatic aproach would such a
>yard become property of the major power? Can
>you say 'frontline frig factory' five times
>fast?


If players want to build police frigates rather than normal frigates against their FF production schedule, they can knock themselves out.

This is allowed already under the current rules.

I just don't see the utility of a 4-point one sided frigate counter that cannot enter the hex of an enemy fleet being that worth while compared to a normal fleet FF.

By Steve Cain (Stevecain) on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 12:28 am: Edit

Good; I just couldn't see the practicality of giving people a 'free' sc4 (true frig) slip on the front lines.

By Steve Cain (Stevecain) on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 12:51 am: Edit

10/01/04 SVC states that NG ships may withdraw after ground defenses are destroyed. Whether by diplomacy or default when attacked, say neutral planet 'x' joins power D and is involved in a battle for that hex (and planet); now supposing the defending ground units are destroyed are the mobile units then eligible to withdraw?
There are cases where military units went into exile and later participated in the liberation of their lands. It only goes to reason that even if your homeland is captured that there is still hope that, while fighting with a greater power, the occupying force will be overthrown.
I could also see an ala Hydran 'fatalism' mindset as being set in the rules.
I thought it might be an interesting overlap to bring to light.

By Brian D Mikolon (Bdm) on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 12:38 pm: Edit

I still wonder how they would pay for it all. As a peaceful neutral on a peace time economy you only produce 1 ep a turn. Independence is more determined by neutral zone treaties than military might. The LDR may be Switzerland, shermans planet is more like Luxemburg or Monte Carlo.
2 pdus with 12 fighter factors should be able to handle the lone pirate, anything bigger would, I would guess, call for intervention by neutral zone treaty signatories.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 02:08 pm: Edit

Real World economics has studied the GDP (gross Domestic Product) patterns of various countries for decades, and (where availble)the reported military budgets spent on defense.

The ranking of GDP military expenditures is a fascinataing subject in itself, but what is IMO very relevant is the order of ranking of various countries (expressed on a per capita basis).

Historically, Israel and Switzerland have very high levels of spending on defense, and other countries comparatively very low levels (the island of Malta, IIRC was in the later catagory.)

The point is, if defense is a priority, the nation will find a way to fund it. either thru lower spending on other needs (like social welfare etc) higher taxes or sales of some resource (such as oil, in the case of certain middle east nations with comparatively low populations).

To give one example of a nation that sacrificed for defense spending was Sweden. Historically Sweden (as did the other scandinavian countries) invested in coast defenses, ships (including, IIRC battleships back during the pre WW1 years) and after WW2, aircraft. they maintained a domestic capacity to produce the tools of war for defending a modern state from any possible agressors.

If the population is willing to pay for defense, then defenses can be built.

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 06:26 pm: Edit

Another factor is that during Peace Time the NZ planets are very likely trading hubs between neighboring races creating a fairly high income flow that helps fund the NZ world's defenses. When hostilities break out the money dries up, but the pre-built defenses are still there.

Also, neighboring major powers would probably help fund the defenses of NZ planets in peace time to try to influence the political situation on those worlds and to discourage undue influence by their internal and external enemies.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 11:27 pm: Edit

Exactly, look at the way the LDR and the WYN systems accumulated some of their defenses (ships, monitors etc) the LDR got a monitor from both the Lyrans and the klingons.

In the Real world smaller countries very often received 2nd hand warships for their fleets...and some of those ships had very long lives indeed.

Look at Turkey, they didnt retire their German Battlecruiser that predated World War 1 until the late 1970's IIRC.

One of the south american countries (Chile, I think) still has a pre WW1 predreadnought in commission.

Argentina didnt retire the General Belgrano...the British sank her during the Falkland Islands war in 1982... sad end for a US light cruiser, that IIRC was at Pearl Harbor on Dec 7 1941... a sad end for a veteran ship.

By Brian D Mikolon (Bdm) on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 11:47 am: Edit

All good points, however each of the NZ planets are unique and should not be dealt with uniformly.
1506 Zursk is the first neutral planet likely to
"see action". Located between Kzinti and Klingon space it is refered to as "disputed". Who owned it before the 4 powers war? is it a formerly Kzinti colony, Klingon colony, or subject race of either power? What it was will strongly influence what it is and how the two Empires will react to its arming itself. Will the Kzin and the Kling both try to arm them hoping to take them over diplomatically or will they raise objections to either side militerizing the "Neutral Zone"

1910 Shermans planet is a special case coverd by the treaty of Organia as a site of peaceful development.(re Trouble with Tribbles) and would not likely have more then the minimum to deter pirates.

2214 Bezwell Index is listed as a neutral planet between the Feds and Klings. With the Federation counsel the way it is they would more likely keep it undefended to not provoke the Klings who would probably agree, just in case diplomacy doesn't work and they want to protectivly occupy the place when invading Fed space.

Its interesting to note that there are no neutral planets between the Lyrans, Kzin, Hydrans, and Klings. With so much battle traffic no one wants to try neutrality.

3415 Denebolan is listed as neutral (SL89.0) but with an Orion Base Station willing to support whoever is occupying them at the time.

3912 Helvetia between the Roms and Feds doese seem like a likely candidate for a Switzarland type enclave considering the name and all but since its the only target within range of the Rom Home fleet it probably really doesn't matter.

4309 Midketh between the Gorns and Rom is also a fair candidate, I'm sure the Gorn Senate would be more than happy to sell an older ship or two but
are they willing to risk having them turned over to the Roms via diplomacy?

Anyway, just a few thoughts on the subject

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 02:14 pm: Edit

Brian, why would the Klingons (or the Romulans,for that matter) fight a battle they don't need to win?

If they could "win the hearts and minds of the inhabitants" of varous neutral worlds with the cost of a couple old obsolete and worn out ships and a few quatloos worth of glass beads and what not, the gain the ability to use the planet as a point of supply and staging base for the lext leg of the invasion.

being able to trace supply to a neutral zone planet gains them 500 more parsecs (1 F&E strategic hex) more range in the supply grid...500 parsecs closer to earth.

not having "purchased" the loyalty of the locals means having to capture the planet and pacify it using ships and troops that could have been tasked with attacking targets inside the Federation proper.

The potential "Payoff" is far greater than the initial cost of the few ships & a base or PDU would cost.

By Reid Hupach (Gwbison) on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 02:56 pm: Edit

Hmmmmm you may want to look at the history of Cold War Egypt.

During that period Nasser wooed both the Soviets and the US.

During that period he was able to get both sides to GIVE him several "gifts" both military and Civilian.

He had many economic boosts due too "projects both sides gave him.

When it finally came down to having to choose sides he did a Thanks but no thanks I got what I needed already.

Smart man.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 12:56 pm: Edit

Didnt Nasser get deposed by Sadat?

IIRC it was a "cabal"of disaffected Army officers that installed Sadat by replacing Nasser.

Nasser might have been smart enough to deal with the US/USSR issues... just not smart enough to maintain his power base.

could be a case of "he 'almost' made it."

By Reid Hupach (Gwbison) on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 01:20 pm: Edit

Sure but he ensured the future of Egypt economcally and militarily for a couple of decades by smart dealing with the "Powers that be" and since this discussion was about neutral planets economy during peace or war this could be an example of how to do it.

I wasn't talking internal problems, hell there's always someone ready to tip over the outhouse so they can get at whats inside. But as a foreign policy example I feel it shows how a little guy in the right place can take the big guys for suckers.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 02:08 pm: Edit

Which takes us back to the proposition of Neutral Planet Defenses.

Brian makes a good point about arming a nuetral planet, only to risk having it join the other side.

I guess the lesson here, is if you start a bidding war with another major race over a neutral planet, you cant "drop out" of the bidding without losing the benefit of what your previous "Bribes" bought you.

If your not prepared to back up your bids, then dont start at all...you're better off losing the ships and troops in an assault than to give it to a potential enemy so he can shoot you with the equipment you sold him.

By Ahmad Abdel-Hameed (Madarab) on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 02:35 pm: Edit

The Egyptian experience with the Cold War is somewhat more complex than that. Yugoslavia or Iraq may be better examples of countries who were able to get goodies from both sides while maintaining their neutrality. Part of the problem with using the Cold War as an example for F&E is that the major F&E powers control over 90% of the territory in the game. While the game is nominally multipolar, at any border it pretty much comes down to two powers. Though you don't find any examples of contiguous minor powers with their own sets of disputes. The neutral power's dynamic is always one of having to deal with two very large neighbors instead of being part of a community of sorts where proxies and the like would make sense for the "Great Powers" to engage in.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, November 05, 2005 - 12:20 pm: Edit

Madarab:

The Neutral Powers dynamic might historically be having to deal with two "Great Powers" but not in F&E or the historic situation in SFB (See the "R" rules section of SFB's.

For example, the WYN have to deal with the Lyrans, Zzinti, Klingon and Orion factions.

Also see the LDR, who have relations with the Lyrans, Klingons and Hydrans, not to mention the Orion Factions.

The Tholians are the Joker in the Deck as they really dont have the resources of the Great Powers, but are forced to deal with the Klingons, Romulans and the Federation... and will shoot on sight any Orions that try to penetrate the Holdfast.

Trying to contrast Egypt's situation in view of F&E is not a perfect example or illustration of "the Great Powers Game", but it is the one we have.

By Andrew Bruno (Andybruno) on Thursday, March 25, 2010 - 12:07 pm: Edit

Interesting. Neutral planets w/ varying degrees of defensive preparedness/infrastructure and political leanings seems like a fun option and could be used as a micro balance tool, especially after more playing time w/ the 2010 rules. I need to back order a copy of CL27 to form a better opinion. Obviously, ISC War in print and on the table is forefront on the minds of the designers (from what I've seen) and many players, but DO w/ "suped-up" neutral planet OOBs and their individual variable activation/commitment possibilities just sounds kinda cool. Speaking of balance tools, many F&E vets have said that some of the 653.xx balance options need to be revisited. DO could be a good place/time to do this as well possibly adding more. I mean *hey, we all love "what ifs"*, otherwise we'd just read the histories and not play the games.

By Thanasis Kinias (Tkinias) on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 04:07 pm: Edit

I suggest that the `neutral planet defences' ships be considered NG ships for all purposes if the diplomats rule gets them to join a side. Sherman's Planet might ally with the Klingons, but they're probably not going to send their navy off to die over Earth.