> At 23:33 26/11/98 -0000, you wrote:
Reckon this sounds about to me. If you throw John Atkinson's Nea Rhomanoi you
get another third rate power. Say the Hegemony has a dozen
worlds/colonies. Some might be whole planets and some might be contested
planets with 1 or more "extra" owners. You also got to consider that some of
these colonies might be start ups with very small populations and no
infrastructure.
Whilst working on the background for my take on the Romanov Hegemony, I've
been puzzling over how big it should be. That is, how many systems would it
include. Following on from this, how big are the other powers? I've put a
quick brain dump below
Major powers - NAC, ESU, NSL, FSE - around 25-35
Secondary powers - PAU, LLAR, IslamFed - around 15-25
Third rate powers - RH, OU, FCT IndCW - around 5-15
Others - ScandivFed, independents (Netherlands, Japan, etc) - upto 5
If you take the mid range for the above that means that there are around
(say) 250 inhabited/claimed systems out there. Does that sound
reasonable for only 120 years of FTL travel? To me it sounds a bit much. Any
other opinions out there?
BTW, before anybody starts saying that any of the above powers should be in
different categories, I am supremely indifferent. That is how they will be
ranked in my (albeit GZG derived) universe.
> On Thu, 26 Nov 1998, Colin Nash wrote:
> Whilst working on the background for my take on the Romanov Hegemony,
I've put a quick brain dump below
> Major powers - NAC, ESU, NSL, FSE - around 25-35
Don't forget the planets/systems that have more than one power operating
in them. Especially for the minor powers, this would be more the rule than the
exception, I'd think. The major powers would most likely be able to have 'us
only' systems, or else just have their allied lesser powers allowed in.
Certainly having two major powers cohabiting in a system would
be a bit unusual. Allied major powers, maybe - the joint NAC/NSL colony
of
somewhere - but I'd say that after three Solar Wars, the NAC & ESU don't
share any systems, and I can't see the NSL & FSE sharing.
The 'commercial' powers - my take on the Japanese & Dutch especially -
probably have colonies & trade interests everywhere. I can see
Dutch-flagged free traders making a great deal of money around the edges
of war zones, where traders flagged for the combatants are not operating
but neutral-flagged ships are safe. (given the NAC-Japan ties, they'd
probably not be viewed as very neutral by the NAC's enemies. The Dutch, AFAIK,
have no such entanglements)
> BTW, before anybody starts saying that any of the above powers should
:)
> Colin
That Supreme Being thing is always fun, isn't it/
> At 23:33 26/11/98 -0000, you wrote:
Would the secondary powers even be near the 25 system mark? I suspect not.
Especially not the LLAR.
As for the size of the colonised sphere well there may be 120 colonies out
there but not all will be heavily populated. The main example most people use
is that of the NAC capital New Albion which is still only the size of the UK
(60 million or so by todays count).
This is surely one of the biggest of the colonies.
> Colin
So you're the one thats to blame? I've a question. Why do good things happen
to bad people?
(Its late don't you know)..
> Colin Nash wrote:
> Major powers - NAC, ESU, NSL, FSE - around 25-35
The Empire has 10 and pieces of three more, of which we know 2 are IF.
:) And I intend it to be up there--better than the IF, and almost on a
part with the second-raters (NSL, FSE--I add a superpower category
wherein the ESU and NAC reside, the FSE&NSL being second-rate major
powers, and the rest as you've got them) But yes, I do think that's a
bit much. I'd downgrade each of those categories by 5-10. At least for
properly settled planets. There are of course going to be more research
stations, planets being surveyed, tiny colonies (1,000 inhabitants?) etc.
> (Autocratic Supreme Being in his own tiny little mind)
In our Expansion campaign background we've actually taken the tack that a
number of the regions mentioned are actually continents on planets rather than
planets themselves so that many worlds consist of three or four rival
colonies!!
Owen G
[quoted original message omitted]
Months ago there was a list of systems for each power. I started to plot them
in CHView and was wondering if anyone else had done this, or is interested in
this.
Mike Brown
[quoted original message omitted]
Michael spake thusly upon matters weighty:
What is CHView and what would the output be? JPG? GIF? Do you have the current
system list (and is it affected by anything Jon T just contributed?)
> Months ago there was a list of systems for each power. I started to
/************************************************
The List I used was posted to the mailer @6 months ago. I have it as a file fi
anyone is interested. I believe Mr.Chung posted the original.
Mike Brown
[quoted original message omitted]
> Colin Nash wrote:
<SNippage>
> Major powers - NAC, ESU, NSL, FSE - around 25-35Secondary powers -
> From one Emperor in his own mind to another...
Sound ok to me. If each power is eagerly exploring, IMO, you would have a few
"resource races" This would then die off as the various poweres absorbed their
gains.
This gives us mappers some usefull info to consider...
This is my hypothetical list of stars for the Full Thrust empires. This is
highly preliminary, and will no doubt have to be drastically altered.
I used a 3-d starmapping program I'm developing. I somewhat
arbitrarily took the limit of known space to be 10 parsecs in radius, filtered
out all the stars that were double or outside of spectral class F,G, or K, and
went to work with the rest. I put the Romanov empire in a critical spot, and
tried to make the ESU and NAU clash at Chi Draconis.
I have GIF starmaps of this plotted, and will email them to anybody upon
request.
Please pick these apart, they are just something to get the ball rolling.
THE CORE
Sol 0.0000 +0.000 +0.000 +0.000
Barnard's star 1.8339 -0.037 -1.828 +0.146
Alpha Centauri 1.3351 -0.509 -0.412 -1.164
THE INNER COLONIES
Tau Ceti 3.4965 +3.032 +1.442 -0.975 "Albion"
Epsilon Eridani B 3.2723 +1.958 +2.564 -0.547
Omicron (2) Eridani 4.8286 +2.154 +4.272 -0.649
Sirius 2.6288 -0.469 +2.475 -0.753
Procyon 3.4990 -1.426 +3.178 +0.327
LTT 12352 4.4643 -3.069 +3.171 +0.673
BD+50°1725 4.6904 -2.680 +1.420 +3.578
DM+02°3482 5.0251 +0.064 -5.020 +0.220
Altair 4.9751 +2.239 -4.378 +0.756
61 Cygi 3.4638 +1.955 -1.877 +2.156 "Nova Moskva"
Epsilon Indi 3.4614 +1.631 -0.946 -2.903 "New Israel"
EURASIAN SOLAR UNION
Beta Geminorum 9.9701 -3.794 +7.930 +4.703
GJ 1105 8.0972 -2.914 +5.324 +5.360
BD+33°2777 9.6899 -2.653 -7.623 +5.362
AG+38°1528 9.8039 -2.342 -7.336 +6.067
G203-042 9.5057 -1.478 -5.734 +7.436
BD+02°3312 7.7580 -1.237 -7.653 +0.294
Mu Herculis 8.6881 -0.520 -7.671 +4.045
Vega 7.7160 +0.922 -5.948 +4.828
GJ 1230 7.3529 +1.133 -6.581 +3.077
BD+56°2966 6.8306 +3.646 -0.794 +5.722
GJ 1289 8.1301 +6.532 -0.556 +4.809
Eta Cassiopeiae 5.9382 +3.122 +0.636 +5.011
Wolf 46 8.8810 +4.020 +1.067 +7.847
Mu Cassiopeiae 7.4349 +4.128 +1.202 +6.066
FEDERAL STATS EUROPA
BD+19°279 7.9051 +6.734 +3.132 +2.707
BD+06°398 7.7280 +6.021 +4.761 +0.895
BD-13°544 8.3056 +5.965 +5.471 -1.864
Kappa Ceti 9.5694 +6.245 +7.231 +0.532
Delta Eridani 9.6618 +5.430 +7.816 -1.666
BD+04°123 7.3584 +7.185 +1.454 +0.644
GJ 1087 7.9936 +0.216 +7.956 +0.748
LTT 1919 9.4340 +4.094 +8.243 -2.071
INDONESIAN COMMONWEALTH
LTT 1951 8.1301 +2.273 +4.853 -6.114
82 Eridani 6.2657 +2.964 +3.469 -4.294
P Eridani 6.7159 +3.378 +1.538 -5.597
ISLAMIC FEDERATION
CD-32°8179 9.8328 -8.225 +1.008 -5.293
CP-51°4413 8.4034 -5.207 +0.437 -6.582
CD-26°8883 9.8135 -8.709 +0.173 -4.519
BD-17°3813 8.9206 -8.023 -2.754 -2.762
LTT 5455 8.9286 -7.349 -4.093 -2.994
CP-58°5467 9.5329 -4.060 -2.726 -8.183
LEAGUE OF LATIN AMERICAN REPUBLICS
Gamma Pavonis 8.6580 +2.764 -2.272 -7.884
L 049-019 8.3403 +1.969 -0.600 -8.082
CP-73°2299 9.3110 +2.710 -0.277 -8.904
NEW ANGLICAN CONFEDERATION
Alpha Mensae 8.7642 -0.118 +2.304 -8.455
BD-20°4125 5.7405 -3.874 -3.693 -2.075
CD-26°12026 5.3305 -0.986 -4.666 -2.381
CD-26°12036 5.4945 -0.998 -4.816 -2.450
CD-46°11370 7.5815 -1.011 -5.112 -5.507
CD-34°11626 7.1429 -1.129 -5.746 -4.091
Mu Arae 9.7087 -0.519 -5.980 -7.631
LP 44-113 6.1425 -0.097 -2.010 +5.803
Chi Draconis 7.5415 +0.214 -2.231 +7.201
Sigma Draconis 5.6117 +0.769 -1.801 +5.259
Delta Pavonis 5.7078 +1.180 -1.966 -5.227
CD-36°13940 5.6465 +2.412 -3.864 -3.337
CD-27°14659 9.1912 +4.458 -6.854 -4.199
TW Piscis Austrini 7.8064 +6.356 -1.894 -4.117
Fomalhaut 6.5062 +5.415 -1.581 -3.242
CD-23°17699 7.7882 +6.916 -1.930 -3.017
LTT 9857 7.8003 +5.664 -0.011 -5.363
NEW SWABIAN LEAGUE
BD-05°1844 9.1827 -1.974 +8.931 -0.818
1 PI(3)Orionis 7.5131 +2.332 +7.085 +0.899
BD-05°1123 9.0334 +2.389 +8.664 -0.914
Gamma Leporis 8.0064 +0.568 +7.377 -3.059
Chi(1)Orionis 9.6993 +0.341 +9.092 +3.360
OCEANIC UNION
BD+35°2270 8.6207 -7.074 +0.668 +4.881
BD+38°2285 8.6207 -6.780 +0.293 +5.317
FK 2978 6.7797 -6.658 -0.316 +1.240
Beta Canum Venaticorum 8.7184 -6.456 -0.889 +5.792
Beta Comae Berenices 8.3472 -7.025 -2.199 +3.936
BS 5072 8.9286 -8.059 -3.174 +2.167
Xi Boötis 6.7069 -4.684 -4.258 +2.217
Eta Boötis 9.5511 -7.985 -4.259 +3.054
Nyrath spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> I used a 3-d starmapping program I'm developing. I somewhat
Who are the NAU? (*grin*)
One could say the range from 10-20 parsecs out could be the 'far
colonies' which could be left to player demenses - small areas where
dissident groups wanting to be far from the rest of mankind could go, or
places for research, military, corporate, or religious outposts.
It would be interesting to think about how many of these stars may have
mutliple habitable planets, or multiple resource rich planets, thus making
multiple nations stake claims in those systems. I think the inner colonies
would have an earth like multinational feel by now. It might be interesting to
spec out the major groups represented on each inner colony world.
> I have GIF starmaps of this plotted, and will email them
Nice gif. If you have any control of the star name placement, a couple overlap
rather badly.
Any thought been given to which other planets might have presences on them for
research, military (ie strategic choke point or training base or cache), or
other reasons? Not a formal colony but....
You missed column labels.....
Also, I was thinking someone should plunk these into a spreadsheet and come up
with some travel times from Jon's latest discourse on
stardrives (maybe a military one and a merchant one - normal
cruising). It'd be a huge matrix, or maybe a multi-page file with
travel times to other inhabited worlds from a planet on each page.
Just my 0.02.
BTW, Fab work Winchell!
Tom.
/************************************************
> Thomas Barclay <Thomas.Barclay@sofkin.ca> wrote:
System, Distance, X, Y, Z. Units in parsecs. Just a rough guess!
> Also, I was thinking someone should plunk these into a spreadsheet
I'll give it a go and see what I come up with.
> Andrew & Alex wrote:
Whups, sorry! You are correct. System name, distance from Sol, x, y, z. Units
are Parsecs (1 parsec = 3.26 Light Years)
xyz in equatorial co-ordinates.
( Mr.Barclay is talking about the GIF map I sent him of my proposed Full
Thrust astrography)
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
Ummmm, I'm not sure what you mean. On the map, Alpha Mensae (NAC) *looks* like
it is within the inner colonies, but it is actually more than eight parsecs
*below* the surface of the map. You have to look at the star list to determine
how far each star is above or below the surface of the map.
> 2. Is this based off your excellent word document which lists who
Yep. Sure is.
> 3. This provides interesting rivalries (one I really look forward to
I tried. You will note how I placed the Romanov Hegemony
Nyrath spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> ( Mr. Barclay is talking about the GIF map I sent him
D'oh! Sorry.... very tired...
> Good Idea. Like I said, my map is more to get the
Well, Jon T made some comment to this in a long email.
/************************************************
> On Tue, 1 Dec 1998, Nyrath the nearly wise wrote:
> NEW SWABIAN LEAGUE
erm... the NSL has 5 worlds and the OU has 8? did someone promote the OU
whilst i wasn't looking?
Tom
Thomas spake thusly upon matters weighty:
As an aside, 8 not so hot worlds might not be worth 5 good ones. Quality might
well factor in.
> On Tue, 1 Dec 1998, Nyrath the nearly wise wrote:
/************************************************
> On Wed, 2 Dec 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:
in fact, it's not even a question of worlds but of systems. if there are three
worlds in each of the NSL systems, then they're waay ahead. suits
the feel - densely packed teutonic types and spread-out ozzies.
> > On Tue, 1 Dec 1998, Nyrath the nearly wise wrote:
[snip]
> in fact, it's not even a question of worlds but of systems. if there
[snip]
> > erm... the NSL has 5 worlds and the OU has 8? did someone promote
I'm going to have to side with Tom on this one. The NSL should definitely have
a little more to work with. Their strength as a major power may have allowed
them to grab choice worlds, but it also would have allowed them to grab more
of them.
> Nyrath the nearly wise wrote:
[snip star data]
I have taken this data and converted it to a format that is readable by my 3d
java applet. Unfortunately, I don't have a web site to act as host for the
applet, but if anyone wants to view this data in a form more dynamic than a
GIF, then email me and I'll send you the applet and html file. It may not be
the most sophisticated piece of code, but you'll get the general idea of who
would be fighting who in this section of galaxy...
Oh, one more thing, you'll need a java 1.1 compliant applet viewer or web
browser.
> At 22:19 02/12/98 -0500, you wrote:
For my two bob's worth I'd say that the OU was right and that some of the
other nations, namely NSL and PAU needed more. Further I'd say that the OU was
fairly thin on the ground on it's planets. There is probably not more than 40
million people (this is very rough figure) in the area that would be OU today.
That area though is huge. Even today including territorial waters and Antartic
region Australia is the 3rd largest area under one
government (the big ones are USA and Russia) but has only 18-19 million
people (compared to 250 million and 220 million respectively). The OU would
have a fair number of reasonably useful systems but these are underdeveloped
and underpopulated according to everyone else. I also notice that the OU and
FSE don't seem to border each other. Does this mean the French don't have a
Mua Roura Planet for weapons testing in our backyard?
> You are correct, the NSL should have more worlds.
Give Beta Geminorum and GJ1105 to the NSL, and then give Eta and Xi Bootis to
the ESU. How does that sound?
> On Wed, 2 Dec 1998, Tony Christney wrote:
i do! i'm quite willing to host the applet; it sounds cool. mail me the class
files and html page, and the sources if you like.
Tom
> At 12:49 AM 12/3/98 +0000, you wrote:
Bollocks! Canada is the second largest, China the third, USA is number four,
which I suppose would put Oz at number five...
You're right about Russia. Damn that place is big!
> but has only 18-19 million
I wouldn't jump to conclusions. It's not like you border each other
now...
> At 12:49 AM 12/3/98 +0000, you wrote:
Slow down there hoss... he said "area under one government" not "total
land area." Canada is the second largest country in land area, has the
longest total coastlines, etc etc, but the Australians control vast tracts of
the South Pacific and Indian oceans, and a good portion of Antarctica.
Australia itself is smaller than Canada, but I think they control enough extra
bits that he's right. China doesn't come close. The USA is bigger than China
in terms of landmass, and it certainly controls WAY more area if you take into
account US portions of Antarctica and the Pacific around Hawaii, Alaska, the
Aleutians, etc. China is upthere in land area, but so is Brazil (number 6 I
think). Come to think of it, Indonesia controls a LOT of ocean...
<snip>
> On Thu, 3 Dec 1998, Thomas Anderson wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Dec 1998, Tony Christney wrote:
Just so everyone knows, I've got Tony's Java starviewer, I'll put it on my
website today or tomorrow - there's some stuff I need to get figured
out.
I'll post a proper announcement when I have the starviewer up and running.
> On Thu, 3 Dec 1998, Adrian Johnson wrote:
whoah there!
one, what do you mean 'controls vast tracts of oceans'? international law once
recognised 3 miles as the limit of territorial waters, and i think it is now 5
miles. the soviets used to claim it was 12 miles. the exclusive economic zone
extends 200 miles, but it is not truly territorial waters.
two, antarctica does not really count - treaties and international
opinion prevent any major exploitation of that land, and it is not aussie
territory anyway - it is (iirc) un territory mandated to australia.
nobody owns antartica.
anyway, land area isn't so important. it's population and material resources
that matter, as well as how well you can control your territory
- the indonsians may nominally have huge areas of ocean, but do they
really control them?
Tom
> At 10:11 03/12/98 -0800, you wrote:
In terms of land area you're right. Throw in Antartica and I think we are
still down. But what I was considering was the amount of ocean that the UN
recognises as being under Australian control and subject to Australian law (we
have a LOT of coastline). USA also has a huge area under its nominal control
(Hawaii and the Alutetians give it claim over a large chunk of water). Both
Canada and Australia have major problems defending their fishing grounds and
stopping other people from poaching and over fishing them. There are also
areas that are not fished at all because they are breeding grounds and are
thus potentially very valuable. These then are resources which are
strategically valuable or are potentially valuable. Now if the limitations on
expoitation are imposed by population (nobody there) and finance (no money)
whilst considering the Pacific and you have something akin to a space empire.
Lots and lots of empty space with a few dots that you can use scattered about.
A lot of it you might have to defend because it will be very valuable if and
when you get a chance to exploit it.
> I also notice that the OU and FSE don't seem to border each
Got a point there. Still we can beat them in rugby.
> At 17:19 04/12/98 +0000, you wrote:
nobody
> owns antartica.
But thats just the point! Australia technically has a huge portion of the
globe that it is allowed to exploit (and I cant see restrictions on Antartica
lasting too long) but cant because we lack the resoures to do so. There are
supposed to be problems in the Antartic fisheries in Australian territory
because of overfishing.....by Russians! We dont have a fishing fleet that can
operate in those waters and it will takes us years to build one. Within the
Australian EEZ there are a number of oil fields, decent size ones IIRC, that
we can't use because of the depth of the sea floor. I don't know the exact
status of Antartica but the Argentinians regard their slice as sovereign
territory but they don't have the resources, and after Operation Coperate the
nerve, to do any thing with it. Which brings me back to the point I was
originally trying to make. The OU,
in keeping with the character of the Australia/Pacific region today,
will be very spread out with some planets being potentially very valuable if
they can be exploited at some time in the future. I do not mean to sound
bitter and apologise if I do and for not making myself clearer at the start.
> Tony Christney wrote:
Note the "Including territorial waters and Antarctic region" bit.
Australia & Tasmania is about the same size as the USA plus Alaska. A bit
smaller, in fact, about 2% from memory.
But we have uncontested claims over 2/3 of Antarctica, which pushes us
way over Canada in size. Not that we actually try to enforce them - the
Antarctic Treaty forbids that. But should any idiot try to abrogate this, then
we get the lion's share. Unless anyone objects militarily...
> On Fri, 4 Dec 1998, Tony Wilkinson wrote:
that has quite a good ring to it - the ou colonises all those dusty
little outback worlds which everyone else passes by, and so is scattered
across a great swath of space, with worlds in the cracks between the other
powers; many colonies with small populations and relatively little output, but
there a still a lot of worlds in the ou.
> I do not mean to sound bitter and apologise if I do and for not
bitter? you don't sound at all bitter, and you were as clear as anyone
could ask you to be. your apology is entirely unwarranted - i demand
that you retract it!
Tom
> At 20:39 05/12/98 +1000, you wrote:
Fighting on Antartica does not look like fun. Heavy casulaties just from the
place let alone fighting. Does Beth have anything to say here.
> At 18:17 06/12/98 +0000, you wrote:
Go careful on the dusty hey mate. That only happens for half the year. Not
quite what I was thinking but I do like it. It would explain why the OU is
relatively neutral, they can't afford to be otherwise. My original idea was
that like Antartica, the OU had claimed and nominally had rights to a large
chunk of space but hadn't got out to exploit it all due to costs and so on and
were constantly fearful of others moving in on it. A combination of both would
put the OU in a really dicky situation. It has a large number of as yet
uninhabited claimed planets that it cannot be certain of defending and yet
cannot pull back from for reasons of internal politics and votes from all
those scattered colonies. The OU also cannot form strong alliances because
it's territory borders and is within everyone elses space and could only be
defended sucessfully under the most favourable circumstances. The flip side
might be that the OU is therefore
in a position to play mediator/peacemaker to the other nations. Also OU
planets would then make the perfect places for trade missions as all would
be virtually open/free ports to everyone. The OU might also have strong
links to the UN (the Iraqis believe we do now).
> I do not mean to sound bitter and apologise if I do and for not
Oh, if you insist:)
> At 10:56 09/12/98 +1000, you wrote:
Dare we classify you as "the absent mineded professor type"? (duck) <snip>
> As for the fate of Antarctica within the GZG universe, well I'm
based
> international conservation (as in "our conservation is as good as
That more what I was after. (people tend to get touchy about their own private
worlds for some reason). I just wanted to know how you saw the formation of
the IAS as happening. From the above it would sound like they are pretty good
at spying, inflitration and sabotage.
Tony. twilko@ozemail.com.au
> Cheers
G'day,
> Fighting on Antartica does not look like fun. Heavy casulaties
Beth pulls head out of C++ with that vacant expression only research
student's can ever truly master. "Hey? What? Have I missed something
(again)?". She then huriedly goes and digs through remnants of Monday's mail
(which she dutifuly collects for hubbie, but never quite gets time to
read), finds the thread and tries (vainly) to update herself - probably
getting it ass about as she goes along. She then returns and tries to write
something that won't make her look like a complete moron:)
First off, I'm not sure about Canada's holdings, but I do know that Australias
is one of the biggest in the world due to our Antarctic, island and seafloor
claims (none of which we could really defend beyond our dreams). A few months
ago it recently grew even larger due to the UN law of "you explore it and look
after it for 3 continuous years you get it" and we now have more deep ocean
polar seafloor then we know what to do with! Basically our sea holdings are
about 1.5 that of our land holdings at last count and there's a fair whack of
unexploited (and currently unexploitable)
resources in all that - bar the fish which everyone seems to poach
anyway:)
As for fighting in Antarctica! Count me out!
Seriously, I have a very minimal experience with the SG/DS end
of the GZG universe so I'm probably going to open mouth and change feet here I
fear, but I'd say that fighting in Antarctica would be a very seasonal and
exceedingly dangerous operation at any point in history. Based on the weather
I don't think you could fight effectively there in winter (casualties due to
exposure, no light, loss of orientation due to the effects of gale force
blizzards etc. would make sure your fighting force
got whittled down very fast) - then again I guess someone's going to
point to a war fought in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere at this
junction. May be a well trained unit landed during late autumn could use the
bad weather over winter to aid an attack if their sensor etc. technology was a
lot more advanced then now (have to keep track of yourself, your unit, your
location, sudden changes in the physical surroundings etc.) and if the other
side didn't have a matching force down there or within reach (I'd say the
defender had the advantage off the bat so you'd have to make sure the
attacking force was streets ahead in
everything else). Fighting in summer wouldn't be a picnic either - ice
shelf movements, ozone hole stripping off the skin, snow blindness, still
freezing weather, continued problem of isolation and no cover of darkness to
name just a few blindingly obvious snares. As for the actual equipment
required, I don't pretend to know a lot about grav vechiles etc., but if I had
to invade I'd take at least some huskies as by all reports (based on
present day equipment) they're less apt to breakdown/cause ice bridges
to collapse and they can apparently sense when the ice is about to give way.
And as for actually landing a force, its going to be difficult to do safely
without being spotted. Ships would have to crunch their way in, planes have
to land at least a little way inland as they set-up waves in the ice
which
could splinter the whole area if they're too close to the edge - not to
mention tell anyone with 50 km (I think that's what the minimum distance was)
that you've arrived. As for the fate of Antarctica within the GZG universe,
well I'm still working out the finer points. Basically though, "nationalistic
face" based international conservation (as in "our conservation is as good as
yours") made sure the scientists had free reign for longer than would
otherwise have been the case. Eventually though the major powers turned to
military matters and as their attention shifted the mining companies sent in
mercs.,Half a decade later the IAS had metamorphosed from a scientific
organisation (to do with antarctic studies) into a nation of its own -
they then returned to Antarctica and kicked the miners and their mercs out
(more by getting themselves employed as essential personnel and then locking
the doors). Even then the recognition of the IAS's existence as a nation had a
lot more to do with the fact they'd also made themselves indispensible to the
earlier exploration missions as scientists and engineers (a niche they
continued to exploit from that point forward).
I'm not sure if any of that was what you're after or on thread, but I hope it
helped.
Cheers
Beth
Just a quick comment....
> At 10:56 AM 12/9/98 +1000, Beth wrote:
As I recall, Antarctica doesn't actually get very much precipitation at all
-- it's just that whatever *does* fall, never goes away. That's why
Antarctica gives scientists such a wonderful look at past atmospheric
conditions, all you need is a deep enough core section.
> - then again I guess someone's going to point
...never mind. ^_- Though judging by the winter here in New Jersey so
far, it wouldn't be too bad. Of course, New Jersey isn't exactly high
latitude, but it's high 'nuff for me.
Neat background for the IAS, though. ^_^
Beth spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> As for fighting in Antarctica! Count me out!
Not necessarily seasonal, but very dangerous, for sure.
Based on the
> weather I don't think you could fight effectively there in winter
The Canadian Rangers and Canadian Regular Force train to conduct combat
operations in temperatures as low as (and this is bad
admittedly) -115 C. That's about -200 or something obscene for the
Farenheit scale.
May be a well trained unit landed during late autumn could use
> the bad weather over winter to aid an attack if their sensor etc.
> From what I have seen on the Canadian Rangers (all Inuit), without
Regular units without such training would suffer brutal consequences. And the
advantage would be with the defender for sure. (For example, when the GPS and
such fails, or the snowstorm is too thick, the Innuit Team Leader looks to the
snow.... the prevailing NW wind curls
the snow over in one direction - thus indicating what direction it is
back to town or back to base.... and this is just one of their tricks).
Fighting in summer wouldn't be a picnic either - ice
> shelf movements, ozone hole stripping off the skin, snow blindness,
Besides, summer up there still isn't warm. Anyplace where (at the extreme)
skin takes frostbite damage in 15 seconds is pretty gross.
As for the actual equipment
> required, I don't pretend to know a lot about grav vechiles etc., but
The Canadian Rangers operate with dogsleighs sometimes, but with skiddoos more
often. But they have a large maintenance component to keep them running. Also,
they have to operate in teams to climb ice ridges with their skiddoos and
sleighs. They have to stop every 15 minutes to check each other for frostbite.
The operational day is short, as you MUST start making camp early (igloos and
combat tents) and get water boiled, etc. etc. Storms in the far north (and
presumably far south) are just foul.
> And as for actually landing a force, its going to be difficult to do
Or hover on contra-grav to debark a fighting force.
planes have
> to land at least a little way inland as they set-up waves in the ice
I think GEVs would be of use - closed cockpit, heated, good manoevre
over snow, although ridges and such present some issues but so does less that
billiard ball planes in non arctic conditions. They'd offer speed and low
ground pressure. Might have problems with fans icing when stopped, but I think
the friction vs the air of spinning fans would keep them from icing in motion
(and you could do some other tricks like putting heating elements in the fan
blades).
> As for the fate of Antarctica within the GZG universe, well I'm
based
> international conservation (as in "our conservation is as good as
I'd be interested in hearing detail of how you propose this change occured.
This does not seem to be a totally trivial effort.
- they
> then returned to Antarctica and kicked the miners and their mercs out
They must have support from either the UN or some major nations or someone
would take them out for their resources eventually. Probably
the UN - and that in exchange for some resource access. This might
help the UN out in the economic sector - since they are now somewhat
independent of member countries.
> I'm not sure if any of that was what you're after or on thread, but I
> Beth Fulton wrote:
> As for fighting in Antarctica! Count me out!
Funny you should mention it. In L. Neil Smith's "The Probability Broach" a war
is fought over Antarctica in an alternative history. In 1957, the Russian Czar
(Marxism never developed in this universe)
attempted to claim the continent of Antarctica--which was a mining
colony at the time--for the Rodina. A volunteer force from the North
American Confederacy headed off to face the Russians. Smith briefly describes
how the Ruskies fared:
"One the ice, attrition had its way with the first Siberian waves. Now troops
from the warmer Motherland, lacking the preparation and technology for an
environment that the Steppes seem tropical. North Americans in heated space
suits simply led them where they could die most efficiently."
Later,
G'day Aaron,
> As I recall, Antarctica doesn't actually get very much precipitation at
Yep it just keeps going around and around in one very COLD windstorm! Its a
major contributor to what the guys here call the A-factor
(Antarctic-factor) - i.e. anything you could get done inside a month
here could easily stretch out for a year down there. Basically Murphy's law
rules supreme.
> Neat background for the IAS, though. ^_^
Thanks. I've still got to work a few more nuances out before I present it for
general inspection though.
Cheers
Beth
> On Wed, 9 Dec 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:
cryogurkhas!
Tom
> On Thu, 10 Dec 1998, Anderson D B wrote:
erm... sorry! the perils of telecomputing, i'm afraid. my initials are
G'day Tony,
> Dare we classify you as "the absent mineded professor type"?
That's me to a tee:)
> That more what I was after. (people tend to get touchy about
Thanks for the consideration, but I can assure you touchy isn't in my
vocabulary - grumpy, irritable, affronted etc. may be, but never touchy
:)
> I just wanted to know how you saw the
When I finally get around to polishing up the end product (which will probably
be around the same time as FT etc. are set), there will be a good
measure of that - especially with regard to services they perform for
the UNSC.
Cheers
Beth
G'day Tom,
> The Canadian Rangers and Canadian Regular Force train to conduct
-115 C ! I've been in -35 C and that was bad enough (left a
couple of layers of the skin off the palm of my hand on a door handle just to
prove it).
> I think GEVs would be of use - closed cockpit, heated, good manoevre
I honestly don't know anything about these things, so a couple of curiosity
based questions for you. How would they take to shelf collapses (i.e. if
crevasse suddenly forms do they go down with it?)? How do they cope with wind?
Just collecting a few ideas for the first time my dastardly NSL husband tries
to invade one of my stongholds:)
> I'd be interested in hearing detail of how you propose this change
Involves a lot of diplomacy and deals. As I said before, I'm still working out
the exact details (especially dates), but to give a quick summary:
- Other nations wanted the commercial mining companies out too (only so
they could put there own miners in and get the proceeds for themselves)
- IAS (science body) convinces national bodies involved and UN to "sell"
them the polar islands (Macquarie, Crozies etc.) in return for the scientists
(guaranteed) continued "service" at those locations as well as additional
scientific and engineering aid in other areas. And the move wasn't
unprecedented as China had sold off Hong Kong (or something) to a large
commercial company x years before etc.
- UN (eventually) formally recognises the IAS as a nation in (once again
mostly in return for services).
> They must have support from either the UN or some major nations or
The IAS does depend on the UN for a great deal of support - which it
repays by supplying military and other personnel and services. It also
sells/leases its services in exploration and deep space travel to
allcomers, but especially the UN. They do have a couple/few planets of
their own (note NOT systems only planets) and they often negiotiate
long-term leases for inhospitable continents/regions (hot or cold) on
other peoples worlds.
I will eventually post a more thorough description of the IAS when I get them
polished up a bit, but hopefully that will suffice for now.
Thanks for the interest,
Beth
Beth spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> G'day Tom,
Hi Beth! (and of course, the assembled masses!)
> >I think GEVs would be of use - closed cockpit, heated, good manoevre
> >speed and low ground pressure. Might have problems with fans icing
Well, GEVs have lower ground pressure and so would offer less odds of a shelf
collapse. If it collapsed, and the driver was quick, he could gun the fans and
probably hop over or away from the collapse. Otherwise, he'd probably spill
over and lose the hover cushion as the plenum inclined and be as dead as any
other vehicle.
> How do they cope with wind?
Therein lies the problem. Think of an air puck and and a high powered fan. It
would make manouvring fun. In real bad weather, you'd probably ground to wait
out the windstorm. Or have really ridiculously overpowered fans.
> >I'd be interested in hearing detail of how you propose this change
Sensible.
> - IAS (science body) convinces national bodies involved and UN to
Depending on timings, they could come to an arrangement with the Dutch, the
New Israelis, or some such to provide "security" for these islands and cadre
to train their security forces.
> - UN (eventually) formally recognises the IAS as a nation in (once
Hmm. I'd suggest that it might have to do with the UN needing every ally it
can get. DId anyone oppose this? (Like all the major powers?) Does IAS have
any traditional enemies? (I'd guess NSL and ESU to one extent or another as
prime offenders, and maybe the IF and the Japanese). Scandinavian Federation
and maybe the NAC would support them, as might the RH (just to oppose the
ESU), and the OU (to get in the face of the IF and the ESU). I suspect the
LLAR would support it (to be a pain to the Terran powers) and that the FSE
would remain neutral. PAU would probably not like it as they no doubt feel
they are owed a chunk of the global resource pie, having had Africa raped by
the major powers over the centuries.
Thoughts?
> The IAS does depend on the UN for a great deal of support - which it
Perhaps unparalleled exploitation capability for hostile environments and for
ice worlds. And perhaps some pretty funky undersea exploration capabilities
too. And for some reason I imagine the idea of advanced electromagnetic
research facilities seems appropriate.
It also
> sells/leases its services in exploration and deep space travel to
Maybe the UN has the right to ask it to refuse contracts from people involved
in conflict with the UN.
They do have a couple/few planets of
> their own (note NOT systems only planets) and they often negiotiate
So they could well be co-existing with other nationalities on many
rim or rougher colonial worlds. (Although less so with any traditional
enemies).
/************************************************
> On Fri, 11 Dec 1998, Beth Fulton wrote:
> -115 C ! I've been in -35 C and that was bad enough (left a
-35 C? That's small potatoes. It regularly gets to that temperature in
the winter here in Alberta. It gets to <-40 C at the coldest. But I
think Manitoba can get -50 C in the winter. I'm not sure about -115 C
though. I thought even the Arctic and Antarctica get to only about -90
max?
G'day once again fine gentlemen (or folk if you're the politically correct
type),
Thanks for the GEV info Tom.
> Depending on timings, they could come to an arrangement with the
Nice idea. I'll have to sort out my dates and get back to you on this one.
> Hmm. I'd suggest that it might have to do with the UN needing every
> (to be a pain to the Terran powers) and that the FSE would remain
I hadn't sorted out enemy-ally status yet, but I can say that the
initial nation status did not occur unopposed and that the FSE and OU will
both be friendly whereas the NSL (at least) will be much cooler (probably
business only kind of setting).
> Perhaps unparalleled exploitation capability for hostile environments
I was thinking along these lines too pretty much. That and being able to crew
ships that are going to be a long way out for a very long time.
> It also
Considering the amount of support (at least in the early years) I could see
this happening (at least at some stage).
> So they could well be co-existing with other nationalities on many
Yep. I've never really thought it completely feasible that nation y owns
all of system, or even planet, x - especially if nation y is a little
guy. I think there'd probably be a few places that were at least shared by a
couple of nations if not more. Well at least there's the potential for this
kind of "share" or "lease" arrangement - after all I can't imagine the
IAS (for example) being able to hold on to something if one of the big boys
REALLY wanted it, but getting in from the other end, well that's a different
matter;)
Like I said lots of polishing to go yet.
Cheers
Beth
> At 21:36 12/10/98 -0700, Chen-Song Qin wrote:
> -35 C? That's small potatoes. It regularly gets to that temperature in
Add in wind chill, and even "mild" -40 C temperatures can drop well
below
-75 C.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote: