For those who don't like my long-winded ramblings, I'll try to boil this
down to a few sentences.
- Inter-whatever trade can exist profitably even without covering the
whole spectrum of tradeable goods. This already is the current state of
affairs (and has always been), we're just not paying much attention to it.
- For a real life example, look at the early colonial trade. The ships
carried spices, ivory, silk, tea -- stuff you just couldn't get in
Europe. No sane investor would have funded a risky voyage across half the
globe to bring back something you could just as well grow in West Sussex.
For the military side of things, I've seen "what-if" calculations about
possible european involvement in ACW. Essentially it boils down to that
European powers might have sent infantry, but probably not much cavalry
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> - Inter-whatever trade can exist profitably even without covering the
There's no real need to be specific. The actual goods involved can be
abstracted.
On Mon, 8 May 2000 19:56:14 +1200, "Andrew Martin" <Al.Bri@xtra.co.nz>
wrote:
> For the military side of things, I've seen "what-if" calculations
Or
> maybe blockaded ports? Or intercepted shipping? Or assaulted/looted
For the record, Britain had plans for putting pressure on the Union north by
way of Canada. This would have involved infantry, artillery, and probably some
cavalry. However, some of this would have been from units already in Canada at
the time, initially, so there may not have been a lot of need to import
horses. Rifles Britain could have supplied. Multi-barrel mechanisms were
still very much a curiosity during the American Civil War. Experienced
generals? I'm not sure you'd WANT the South run by British generals. *S* They
didn't know the terrain, or the people, and most of them came up via peerages,
with the Crimean War being their main source of experience.
Port blockading would, however, have been Britain's biggest asset. Or rather,
they could have broken the Union blockade on Southern ports. The same for
shipping interception and town/city looting. The Royal Navy would have
given the Union a hard time (although it wouldn't have been a once sided
battle).
Other powers were likely to intervene. Prussians were observing the Union.
Russia was also pro-Union at this time. France was pro-Confederacy.
Does this sound feasible in the Tuffleyverse? You bet. I'm not sure what power
you would have representing the Union and the Confederacy (as they are part of
the NAC) but you could use the ACW for an analogous campaign, with the NAC and
FSE aiding one side, and the NSL and ESU aiding the other.
Another good analogous war is the Seven Years War (everyone except Americans
are taught that the "French and Indian War" was just the North American phase
of the Seven Years War). You could base a good FSE (and possibly ESU?) vs. NAC
and NSL campaign there. You even have analogs for Old World combat (perhaps
core worlds) and New World conflicts (outer worlds).
19th century wars make for good sources of inspiration. Individual battles
(naval more than ground) can make for good FT scenario inspirations.
Allan Goodall:
> Does this sound feasible in the Tuffleyverse? You bet. I'm not
Individual battles
> (naval more than ground) can make for good FT scenario
Later actions as well. I imagine the French Indochina campaign, or the Malaya
insurgency, or others where a relatively small
number of well-equipped professionals at the end of a long
supply line face large numbers of locals armed with whatever they can make or
have smuggled in, fighting the occasional battalion or brigade level action
interspersed with lots of small unit raids. For the FTers, add the smugglers
and the
blockade squadrons and you have a mini-campaign ready to go.
> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
> >- Inter-whatever trade can exist profitably even without covering the
You sound like an economist. <grin>
If you assume (I am an economist) that the interstellar community is so big
and diverse that any resourse can be had if you are willing to pay for it then
trade can completely abstracted to $s worth of Goods. That would simulate
modern day Earth (no one would really worry about whether they could get there
hands on some titanium, for example).
If, however, you are playing with a campaign that has less diversity (or
you're one of the pesky kind of people who *like* juggling this sort of stuff
around). You should make a distinction between valuable and bulk resources.
This would simulate the availability of, say, plutonium for modern day Earth.
In addition to raw materials, there are manufactured goods. The value of
manufactured goods should probably vary by the average tech level of the
society that produced it.