Mike it is cheaper for the USA to build cars and computers in Taiwan or Korea and would also be cheaper for us to build ships there also. Including warships. However, national security concerns means that we keep the military shipyards here at home. The Alphas were totally resistant to giving up their fleet for over 100+ years. They would not trust another nation with their national security capability without being forced to do so in some way.The Cheaper answer does not hold enough water.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 01:30 pm: Edit

Hugh: The other worlds had the right resources to contribute in a way that the game acknowleges and uses a portion of those.

There are two types of Ecconomic Points in the SFU: Subsumed and Played. Together they reflect the total ecconomy. The subsumed is likely many times (if not hundreds of time) greater than the played EPs.

AC produces EP's of the Subsumed type.

Regarding Shipbuilding: In the begining AC had to bear the undue cost because it was the only way to get ships in space. Later their process was seen as in efficient. Other worlds kept building because they had the right stuff for doing so. Their costs and effort was as reasonable as is average.

It boils down to this. There are some places more suitable than others to do ship building. Early one AC only had one place, which turned out not to be so good. So, when their universe expanded and new places could produce more efficiently and they no longer had a driving need, their efforts halted. They then focused on producing that what they are best at (producing subsumed EP); having their Naval needs satisfied by the Federation.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 01:33 pm: Edit

I was typing while SVC was posting.

By Hugh Bishop (Wildman) on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 01:40 pm: Edit

That works. The Alphas maintain there political prominence by becoming the greatest producers of Food in the Federation which needs lots of it as the Feds are spreading like Kudzu in Georgia. The other core nations focus on various industries such as Sciences for the Vulcans and shipping for the Rigelians. The Alpha shipyards now build agro ships and refit colony freighters with food replicators or genetically designed crops that will grow in a prospective colony. Due to their specialization AC drops of the F&E war-map as it does not produce war-material. It should however be listed on any capital assualt card and defended by significant bases. Any of the more militant Alphas join the Starfleet or the police forces. Problem solved, can of worms closed. I didn't mean to cause such a ruckus but it was sure fun disscusing it.

By Hugh Bishop (Wildman) on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 01:48 pm: Edit

Btw the Alpha centauri system would be perfect as the dominate food producer. It's two stars could support multiple Earth type planets and several terra formable ones as well. With two bioshperes they could really grow some crops.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 03:46 pm: Edit

Getting back to my low population idea, I think that keeping their population low works out pretty well. (And by low I mean no more than 1+ billion; well under 2 billion.)

With a population at that level, they can easily afford the EY fleet when it was deemed important, but also fade into the background when compared to the other races with 10+ billion running around out there.

Also, without artifical reproduction methods (e.g. creches), their societal model directly lends itself to keeping their population from growing. And, with their hi-tech agricultural economy, they have no external pressures to increase their population.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 07:20 pm: Edit

AC isn't going to be added to the capitol chart and be given significant defenses, that would require a change to the map.

By David Kass (Dkass) on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 08:27 pm: Edit

Too bad we're not looking for a disaster any more. I was thinking that a "human" disaster might be appropriate.

For example, the original shipyard was in a very low orbit and required excessive efforts for orbit correction/maitenance. It was decided to raise the shipyard's orbit, but the engineering firm hired to oversee the task made a series analysis, testing and management mistakes. The system used for the task excited a resonance in the structure, resulting in the entire shipyard shaking apart and the pieces plummeting all over on the planet (a couple cases of significant casualties ~1000 each in two cities, but otherwise not really a major disaster).

The resulting mass hysteria and paranoia delayed the reconstruction of any shipyard as well as the renovation of all other orbital facilities over the next two or three decades. Lacking an adequate space infrastructure, many industries that had supported it withered (thus the lack of militarily relevant infrastructure/production). The incident also led to many families moving to rural locations (the major groups of casulaties were in cities so people irrationally fled). The result was a transition to a more pastoral/agricultural type of economy.

Note that there is no general character design impact from the incident (although a character could take an irrational fear of the "sky falling" type of quirk [or stronger during the next decade] based on it). Much in the same way that only a few people refuse to fly 3 years after 9/11.

By Hugh Bishop (Wildman) on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 08:42 pm: Edit

David why would it require a change to the map? All that would be required is a updated rule saying that AC is in the Sol environs and is defended by x type of base and has x type of facilities and planetary defenses. At most a box on the capital card could be added and that could be included in a future F&E product.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 09:26 pm: Edit

Hugh, becouse all the planets are named. if you want one of them to be named AC you have to replace an existing name.

this was discussed and rejected as an option becouse it would invalidate an expensive map that's not even back from the printers yet.

By Hugh Bishop (Wildman) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 12:40 am: Edit

David only the planets that produce war material are named. Not every populated world in the Federation is named. Since Alpha Centauri does not produce war material it does not have to be named on the map. Furthermore not every base station, Sams base etc. is listed on the Map, only Starbases and battlestations and possibly sector bases. AC should and would have facilities of some kind as well as significant defenses being a core world, but they would be of the lesser variety. So they would not have to be on the map and could be noted in the rules in case of a capital assault that got that far.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 01:00 am: Edit

Hugh, so you leave AC with fixed defenses less then 1 PDU or a BATS, and producing no militarily significant resources.

that doesn't jive with what I thought you just said

---

Quote:

It should however be listed on any capital assualt card and defended by significant bases.

---

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 02:18 am: Edit

David: Other planets in SFB have been defined as having heavy defenses but not on the F&E map. No real reason to attack a planet that is not a major economic center. Island hopping works.

From an RPG perspective, having a localised map detailing the capital sector in more detail for merchant campaigns or other uses could be beneficial. Some may want to know how large the defenses of these lesser systems are and what will happen when an attacker enters the surrounding region. (One of the more common Megatraveller tropes was the looting of a planet just before an attacker arrived; some groups may want to adapt the idea for a G:PD campaign.)

By David Lang (Dlang) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 02:37 am: Edit

I'm not sure what planets you are refering to that have been established as having heavy defenses, but don't show up on the map so I can't comment on that

as for more detailed maps, I don't think there are any definant plans for them, but they were noted as being a potential future product in GPD3e

By F. Douglas Wall (Knarf) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 03:47 am: Edit

Maybe AC doesn't have much by way of heavy metals. All of the ships that they did build could have drained most of their resources. But in the early days of the Federation, they felt they had to contribute something or they were unsure of the fledgling Federation and made sure they could take care of themselves if things didn't work out.

If you want to work a low population angle, that's possible too. Just look at women in modern America. Many of them are putting off starting families and whatnot to focus on their careers. Now imagine a whole planet in which women are in charge. That trend could easily go to an extreme. They might even have to have campaigns every so often to encourage child-bearing so that they can have a stable population.

By Hugh Bishop (Wildman) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 08:41 am: Edit

David take a look at GPd and you will see their are many planets that have bases that are not listed on the Map. To name some Tysons Star,Morkedia III, and Ponderosa IV. AC could have a plethora of BAse stations, commercial platforms A Sams or two, Fighter bases and PDU's etc. and still not be listed on the F&E map. They could be easily covered in a special rule.

By Hugh Bishop (Wildman) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 08:45 am: Edit

You could also say that they are a major or minor planet in every way, except in war production. So they would rate defenses at the Major or minor rate without the military style bases. They could be the headquarters for the Police for instance. They are critical to Federation civilian end but not to StarFleet.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 10:19 am: Edit

AC isn't going to be added to F&E. But lots of planets (even in the Sol system) aren't in F&E.

By Steven E. Ehrbar (See) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 10:23 am: Edit

For a contrasting perspective on my AC timeline, my approach to the Andorians or Vulcans would be along the lines of:

1) Larger working fleet than AC in NTW times.
2) Did own warp-refitting work on sublight ships.
3) Converted sublight shipyards to facilites able to make tac-warp civilian ships (free traders, APTs, freighters), later POLs and Q-ships.
4) Supplier in GW of components (logically, esp. drones for Andorians, phasers for Vulcans) to Starfleet.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 11:16 am: Edit

Hugh, there are thousands of planets that have a base, but these are bases like commercial platforms, etc not heavy defenses

commercial platforms and Sams are small enough to to show up in F&E (at least so far, and I hope they stay that way), however base stations, fighter bases, and PDU's are all significant enough to show up (they block supply through the hex, even if the enemy fleet shooses to not attack the planet) so you can't just say that there are more of them around

remember that a PDU has been defined as 3 ground bases, a marine base, a power station, an early warning station (or two) and a fighter base (one medium or two small) see my PDU SSD generator at http://web.lang.hm/SFB/pdugenerator2.html to see SSD's of various PDU's. PDB's are the same thing without the fighter bases

By Hugh Bishop (Wildman) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 11:31 am: Edit

Perhaps they have new and bigger civilian style bases that may appear in Gurps Civilians. Like a Civilian version of a Starbase or Sector base. possible names "Regional Commerce Center" or "Central Commerce Hub".

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 12:02 pm: Edit

David Lang. I can't help but imagine that most colony planets, especially those on the borders have at least one PDU, as you defined it (perhaps shy the GWS and GPS in some cases). If nothing else, it would be the bare minimum to prevent pirates from looting the planet at will. We're only talking about 500 men here. In a colony of 50,000, having 1% of the population as members of the National Guard would not be unreasonable.

F&E doesn't have these represented for the simple fact that it is a Strategic level game.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 03:04 pm: Edit

Andy, why would a PDU on an on-map planet block supply but a PDU on a planet that's not shown on the map not block supply?

why do the fighters from a PDU on the map pin a ship but fighters from a PDU not on the map don't pin a ship?

there are a bunch of things like this that you have to answer id you are going to say that there are a bunch of additional bases on the other planets.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 03:32 pm: Edit

I'd also look at the colony rules. You might argue that AC should have the status of a colony, but colonies are producing EPs and AC isn't producing EPs. Maybe that "forward base" thing would work for AC, but it would NOT be part of the sol system, and it's arguable it would be part of the capital combat system.

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 03:34 pm: Edit

David. Its a fudge of the game...like when 1000 ships per side face off in an area light years across that they pick their best 12 to fight it out. By having planet based PDUs block supply, it adds to the strategic importance of the planet.