FCT, Small is Relative.

10 posts ยท Sep 18 1998 to Sep 19 1998

From: John Leary <john_t_leary@y...>

Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 21:19:05 -0700

Subject: FCT, Small is Relative.

> Thomas Barclay wrote:
...snip...JTL
It would surely be elite
> and rarer for PAU, IF, RH, FCT (size reasons), various independents.
...Snip...JTL

Tom, The FCT is constantly put down as being small, one must remember that the
economy of the state of California is the seventh to ninth
(I cannot remember exactly) in the world.   IF the precident continues
the FEW planets occupied by the FCT would be quite rich and VERY independent.
(It's the Texas influence, combined with the California wealth.)

It is also the the only real opportunity to create a reasonable power base
within the game background that has not been defined. (It is also possible
that the FCT may be a confederation (like Canada) rather the massive central
government of the USA.

Bye for now,

From: Steve Pugh <steve@p...>

Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 09:43:44 +0100

Subject: Re: FCT, Small is Relative.

> The FCT is constantly put down as being small, one must remember

Now.

Don't forget there's another american civil war and then the earlier
the NAC/LLAR conflicts will be right on the future FCT's doorstep.

> IF the precident continues the FEW planets occupied by the FCT

Tat's one huge if. The chances are that the colonies that the FCT started with
are rather crummy, after all the NAC would hardly let prime territory go
without a fight.

And don't forget: it's quiet possible that the FCT may combine all the worst
qualities of California and Texas....

From: Tony Christney <tchristney@t...>

Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 09:25:08 -0700

Subject: Re: FCT, Small is Relative.

> At 09:43 AM 9/18/98 +0100, you wrote:
[snip]
> And don't forget: it's quiet possible that the FCT may combine all

Which is perfect for a wargame: a bunch of gun-toting loonies.
;-)

> Steve

From: Niall Gilsenan <ngilsena@i...>

Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 17:51:00 +0100

Subject: Re: FCT, Small is Relative.

> At 09:25 18/09/98 -0700, you wrote:

Espousing peace and love while they "hang em high!".

Wouldn't free Caltech be a rather powerful entity for its size as it seems to
have good natural resources and large populations?

From: Thomas Barclay <Thomas.Barclay@s...>

Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 12:03:47 -0500

Subject: Re: FCT, Small is Relative.

John spake thusly upon matters weighty:

> Thomas Barclay wrote:

Today. Is it in 2183, after wars and internal collapse of the US which surely
took an awesome toll on silicon valley and all the associated things?

IF the precident continues
> the FEW planets occupied by the FCT would be quite rich and VERY

Plus, you're ignoring the relative potential of asia, the pacific rim, and the
south americas and africa (much less so the last). I doubt that (given the
percentage of world pop and resources controlled by the NAC and the ESU that
even California and Texas together would constitute a hugely rich power. AND
Neither Californians nor Texans are especially fond of big government with
lots of power (such as a big army). That means I'd suspect any PA units would
be small and elite. They've got better things to spend their money on.

> It is also the the only real opportunity to create a reasonable

This would also tend to limit the availability of PA as we all know how well
confederations (such as Canada) manage to cooperate...

(I knew someone would object when I said I didn't think FCT was big enough to
play in the "lots of PA" game).
/************************************************

From: Thomas Barclay <Thomas.Barclay@s...>

Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:20:34 -0500

Subject: Re: FCT, Small is Relative.

Niall spake thusly upon matters weighty:

> Wouldn't free Caltech be a rather powerful entity for its size as it

If dependence on petroleum as a source of energy has been overcome and
alternate types of plastics invented, then Texas oil might not matter. The
internecine US wars that led to and followed the NAC takeover probably hurt
silicon valley. Plus, by separating, they have a need to fund a bunch of
things they never had to before (embassies, etc.). So it is debatable whether
FCT would actually be an economy out of scale to its population or not. I
think this is a 'what's your preference' situation. I'm not saying they are
poor, but I don't think relatively speaking, that they'd be as powerful as
they would in today's world if they were separate and united. But they'll
always be colorful....

/************************************************

From: Niall Gilsenan <ngilsena@i...>

Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 19:53:07 +0100

Subject: Re: FCT, Small is Relative.

> At 13:20 18/09/98 -0500, you wrote:

While I know petrol may not be as important by this point in time (cold fusion
anyone?) it seems likely that it would have accumulated both good
infrastructure and various other resources as they become available. Presuming
of course any bothered to continually invest various tax money and the like
back into the economy. I agree that they may not be powerful relative to great
powers but also they would have to be strong enough to stop themselves being
absorbed by other larger power blocs. Its almost back to the UN argument that
yes they could be beaten but the cost to the aggressor would be so high as to
weaken them badly.

They remind me a little of the smaller European powers (Portugal, Holland) in
previous centuries.

Anyway you're right, they basically add something fun to the game.

From: John Leary <john_t_leary@y...>

Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 16:06:12 -0700

Subject: Re: FCT, Small is Relative.

> Thomas Barclay wrote:
...Snip... JTL
> (I knew someone would object when I said I didn't think FCT was big

I was just trying to prove your correct, once again!

(I was really thinking more along the fleet line, as my FCT does not build BB
class ships, only Battle dreadnoughts as first line ships.)

Bye for now,

From: John Leary <john_t_leary@y...>

Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 16:22:43 -0700

Subject: Re: FCT, Small is Relative.

> Tony Christney wrote:

> >Steve Pugh <steve.pugh@dial.pipex.com>

Hmmm, Let me see now. Ahh, yes!

The top five FCT mercenary/warrior/fanatic orginizations are:

1)   TTL :  Terrorist Temperance league.
(A creation of David W. Butt)
2)   THLA:  Tree Huggers Liberation Army.
3)   DFLE:  Democratic Front for the Liberation of ...Everything.
4)   EPA :  Enviromental Protection Army.
5)   SPCA:  Species Protection and Confinement Assembly. (Human)
(It is suspected that alien infuence is strong here!)

Bye for now,

From: Noah Doyle <nvdoyle@m...>

Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 21:31:54 -0500

Subject: RE: FCT, Small is Relative.

The rest of us, barring a few *sterling* examples, could be accurately
described as gun-toting calm people.  Nothing quite so polite & orderly
as a Midwestern gun show...

On the FCT topic (on topic, really!), I like having the FCT around for color,
and it gives my ESU troops somebody to shoot at besides the NAC, the IF & the
NSL. Something about the 'commie gook' taunts...

Noah

[quoted original message omitted]