_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lWhen I found the
Unoffical NAC Fleet Roster...
http://www.bcpl.net/~indy/full-thrust/nac_roster.html
the Full Thrust Empire Map...
http://www.projectrho.com/ft/FTLinkMap.gif
and the GZG star list with planetary data...
http://wam.umd.edu/~ddr/
I had it in my mind to put them all together as part as a "pre-Kra'Vak"
campaign game. I could'nt try it until I got a printer with high enough REZ to
read the fine printing on the Empire Map, and even then I need my reading
glasses & a magnifying glass.
Even though the Fleet Roster is "Unoffical", there is the temptation to use it
for no other reason than it saves time & labour. And I doubt that I could do a
better job than Indy at consorting the Royal Navy together.
I have taken the Fleet Roster and consorted them into 6 anchorages in systems
that cover as much of NAC colonial territory as possible. According to the
Empire Map, the systems chosen lie neighboring NAC systems so that anchorages
can send patrols and support other anchorages with reenforcements. And 5 of
the anchorage systems have a
strategically important facet - remote gas giants, so that refinery
ships can service task forces on patrol without wasting time on system ingress
& egress jumps.
The fleet roster on campaign setup is as follows...
(You might want to tweek this as you see fit, I'm trying to find the right
balance of forces for reasons I will explain further on)
CD-27.14659 - GL 785 (ESU Frontier)
Heavy Battle Squadron - Valley Forge
Carrier Battlegroups - Ark Royal, Endurance/Vinson Massif
Cruiser-DD Groups - 9, 13, 16, 31
Destroyer Squadrons - 2, 8, 15, 22, 31, 35
Delta Pavonis - GL 780 (Santa Maria - I think)
Heavy Battle Squadrons - Normandy/Vistula, Eiger/Denali, Antietam
Carrier Battlegroups - Victorious/Yorktown, Intrepid
Cruiser-DD Groups - 6, 10, 14
Destroyer Squadrons - 3, 7, 11, 14, 26, 36
Fomalhaut - GL 881 (Rimward Frontier)
Heavy Battle Squadron - Annapurna
Carrier Battlegroups - Agamemnon, Forrestal
Cruiser-DD Groups - 2, 12, 22, 26
Destroyer Squadrons - 1, 5, 21, 23, 25, 34, 41
CD-23.17699 - GL 884 (Rimward Reserve)
Heavy Battle Squadron - Shiloh
Carrier Battlegroups - Lexington, Nimitz, Illustrious/King George V
Cruiser-DD Groups - 4, 5, 11, 18, 19, 25
Destroyer Squadrons - 13, 19, 27, 33, 43, 44
CD-26.12026 - GL 663 A (Coreward Frontier)
Heavy Battle Squadron - Agincourt
Carrier Battlegroups - Independence, Connestoga
Cruiser-DD Groups - 7, 8, 15, 20
Destroyer Squadrons - 4, 6, 9, 16, 17, 24, 29
Chi Draconis - GL 713 AB (New Hope, again I think)
Heavy Battle Squadron - Richmond
Carrier Battlegroups - Enterprise, Prometheus, Invincible/Matterhorn
Cruiser-DD Groups - 1, 3, 17, 21, 23, 24
Destroyer Squadons - 10, 12, 18, 20, 37, 38
You may notice that Fomalhaut & the Rimward branch has less naval tonnage than
elsewhere in the NAC. Fomalhaut borders on New Israel territory, which the NAC
has good relations. It is enough, should the ESU try to invade through NI, and
the NAC move up to support NI to repel the invaders if requested.
Heavier tonnage is found Coreward, as it borders on the Islamic
Federation & the Alarishi Empire - Nations described as unstable at
best.
The tonnage at the anchorage in GL 785 may seem a bit light for a force
to contend with the ESU, but it possesses 3 significant strengths - the
Valley Forge, the Ark Royal, and Admiral Shane "Hammer" Valens! The
anchorage's weakness is that it has no remote gas giant, so it must import
fuel from the gas giant at Santa Maria.
The reserve anchorages posses more tonnage than the frontier anchorages
because they not only support the frontier anchorages but the Santa Maria
anchorage when it needs to send reenforcements to the GL 785 anchorage.
I tried to distribute the groups & squadrons so that all the branches have
close to an equal access to specialized ships like battlecruisers, escorts,
light carriers, tin can carriers, & needle beam cruisers.
As always, I invite your comments
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 4/5/06, John
> Brewer <jbrewer@webtv.net> wrote:
http://www.bcpl.net/~indy/full-thrust/nac_roster.html<http://www.bcpl.ne
t/%7Eindy/full-thrust/nac_roster.html>
> [...]
Which was really the *entire* point of putting the rosters together in the
first place. :-)
I'm glad you find them helpful, or at least a good guide for fleet ideas.
:-)
Mk
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
In a message dated 4/5/2006 9:36:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> jbrewer@webtv.net writes:
the Full Thrust Empire Map...
_http://www.projectrho.com/ft/FTLinkMap.gif_
(http://www.projectrho.com/ft/FTLinkMap.gif)
I was looking over this map, maybe I am blind, but does anyone see the
Japanese location?
Vince
> Heavier tonnage is found Coreward, as it borders on the Islamic
As opposed to the NAC's "No telling what our policy will be after the next
election"?
The Islamic Fed's preferred target for raids would be the PAU, or smaller
nations, or the ESU if they're really feeling gutsy. The IF doesn't usually
raid the NAC.
The Alarishi Empire kind of likes the description "unstable at
best"--particularly when compared to the ponderous bureaucracy found in
most other nations. The AE is on friendly terms with the NAC (and NSL, NI, and
OU) and is not a naval threat.
> VinsFullThrust@aol.com wrote:
> Japanese location?
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 4/6/06, Nyrath
> the nearly wise <nyrath@projectrho.com> wrote:
They were removed during The Great K'V Purging of the Hu'Man Systems.
;-)
They have been relocated elsewhere in the galaxy.
I open the floor for discussion on where the Japanese
> empire should be located relative to the other
The Hawai'an Free States - but they are so small, they are hardly a blip
on the map. Don't even have their own system, but share a portion of another
world besides the islands on Earth. Their fleet is....ah, small.
Mk
Dude, I noticed you hadn't any data on location, and just assumed you were
waiting for someone to adopt it.
Quit beating yourself; let us. ;->=
Awesome job so far, and looking forward the continued effort that has made you
nearly famous.
Also, Mark? I REALLY appreciate the rosters, and I've never created a force
from 'em. Nice read just to get a feeling there IS a fleet behind whatever
squadron(s) I'm running. Back when I had opponents I could depend on...
*seeth*
The_Beast
Winchell wrote on 04/06/2006 08:29:25 AM:
> ARRGHHH!!! The Japanese fleet was added by GZG after
> Nyrath the nearly wise wrote:
Two holes in the map seem apparent:
- west of the New Confederate States
- south of the Romanov Hegemony
> Are there any other empires that are missing?
The VRC is still on it, so I am happy:-)
I suspect you gave up filling in all the distance boxes at some point?
> ARRGHHH!!! The Japanese fleet was added by GZG after
They're not missing...they're hiding.
Damo
> Frits Kuijlman wrote:
I got my little part of the map here:
http://www.frits.cistron.nl/tuffleyverse/vrc/cartography.html
I can't remember if these coordinates are in parsecs or in lightyears, but I
could do some distance calculations if you want.
> On 4/6/06, Nyrath the nearly wise wrote:
I'm not convinced that the Bavarians should be on the map. Not saying they
shouldn't *exist*, just that the location should be secret.
I'd though that the IF and PAU shared a border?
> Frits Kuijlman wrote:
The new version of the map will have all the distance values filled it.
If anybody wants to know, the reason some were not filled in was because of
how the map was made. It was computer generated, and linked all stars to their
two closest neighbors. Unfortunately, the original map did not have the links
computer generated. I had to manually add the missing links, and these did not
have distances.
> laserlight@verizon.net wrote:
You should be able to specify the paper size 11x17 or 22x34 etc. Most printers
will scale across a number of pages if the physical printer won't handle the
default paper size.
Michael Brown mwsaber6@msn.com
[quoted original message omitted]
> Nyrath the nearly wise wrote:
> Are there any other empires that are missing?
If you are updating the map, I'd like to put in a claim for the Knights of St.
John. I'll send more info in a bit when I get a chance to write it up.
They need a small, barely inhabitable world, but in a strategically
significant location - rather like Malta in the sixteenth century.
Probably in the area to keep an ye on the IF, and patrol commerce shipping
lanes against pirates. Then when the Kra'vak come it be able to
be a fortress astride their invasion route. An M-class star might do,
this doesn't have to be a garden world, just a well placed rock that no one
else is using. Possibly would be named Valette, or New Malta, which is less
asthetic but more easily understood for thse who aren't doing graduate studies
in sixteenth century history.
Design the flag and Decals Express will make decal sheets of 'em.:)
John
--On Thursday, April 06, 2006 11:26 AM -0400 Nyrath the nearly wise
> <nyrath@projectrho.com> wrote:
> David Stokes wrote:
> If you are updating the map, I'd like to put in a claim for the Knights
A couple of years ago, Don M and I put together the Knights
Templar--rather the ground forces thereof. They have the Commandery of
St Michael in the Alarishi Empire, and other bases elsewhere. They would not
have a separate star system anywhere, though.
> An M-class star might do, this doesn't have to be a garden world, just
Or "Valetta". The AE and OU have (each) claimed all the M stars in reach, but
the AE at least wouldn't object to the Knights using an AE rock on the usual
terms.
Banner for the Templars is upper half (or two thirds) black, lower half
(or one third) white. For the Hospitallers/Knights of St John/Knights
of Malta, it would be a red Maltese cross of a white field.
Can attest to the quality and effort in the production based on my own sets of
TFNS art.
By the way, Texaco Free Trade Zone is still 'off the map', even more
obscure than the Bavarian Illuminati. ;->=
As the TNFS raiders haven't been seen for awhile, there are a number of
winners in the bulk supplier battles of the last set of corporate wars that
believe the deep space exploration zone the Texaco remants fled to were on the
Kra'vak axis of invasion. Sounds like wishful thinking to me.
The_Beast
John wrote on 04/06/2006 10:45:44 AM:
> Design the flag and Decals Express will make decal sheets of 'em. :)
Go right ahead, David. Plenty of room in this universe for a couple more
delusional groups. Especially if they use SLIGHTLY different titles.
If I'm not mistaken, there's currently several pretender successors for the
Knights, all claiming Malta.
The_Beast
Chris wrote on 04/06/2006 10:55:20 AM:
> >If you are updating the map, I'd like to put in a claim
OK, I've got rough drafts of both a canonical and
non-canonical campaign maps up at
http://www.projectrho.com/ft/ftmap2.html
These are Adobe Reader PDF files. I do not know if they can be printed out in
segments on 8x10 printer paper or not.
Let me know if there are any missing distances,
mis-spelled empires, or other mistakes.
Those with sharp eyes may note that a couple of stars vanished. This is
because they were actually part of a binary star system (that is, they were
connected to another star with a link of distance zero)
Dotted lines connect direct links between empires, i.e., invasion routes.
> Let me know if there are any missing distances,
The unnamed system claimed by Alarish has been named Cibola.
You can leave the IF as they are, or use Misr Jadeed (New Egypt), Suriyeh
Jadeed, Arabiyah Jadeed, Pakistan Jadeed and Iran Jadeed.
And the PAU are still a long way from the IF / AE.
"Ghuraka World" has the extra A. No planets for the ORC, unless you count the
Alarishi Emire as being part of the ORC.
> Laserlight wrote:
That turns out to be a bit of a problem. When the systems were originally
assigned, the PAU
was placed quite far away from the IF/AE.
the two options I see are:
[a] add lines for the closest connections between
the PAU stars and the IF/AE stars. The lines will
Nyrath, if it's at all possible I'd like to squeeze my empire in as well.
Don't have a flag for them, but on this map they'd be wedged in near the
FSE and the NSL, holding: Name: Common Republic (amalgam of the Republic of
New New Jersey, and the Commonality of Toledo)
Theta Persei (New New Jersey) VY Arietis (Pivot)
BD +34*363 (New New Detroit)
BD +41*328 (Dollarton)
BD +11*386 (Girona)
Quickie overview: I've got a functioning backstory of sorts, but haven't
ironed it out completely yet (But as a relieving twist, it's actually a FSE
client state as opposed to the traditional breakaway NAC colony. The two US
names are the result of a borked colony mission suffered a misjump from
Formalhaut around Solar War 1, and ran across a FSE colony. naturally, they
begin pounding on each other. FSE supported side wins after they loan a pair
of old Garibaldi BBs) The navy functions as a kind of mishmash of NAC and FSE
doctrine, but tends to follow FSE doctrine more often than not, using SM's as
primary designs. Largest unit they do have
is a duct-taped carrier built out of the remains of a Garabaldi
http://members.shaw.ca/victor-daivon/CRships.html
As you get your details worked out, don't forget to put it in our own (Thanks,
Jerry!) Encyclopedia Galactica:
http://www.warpfish.com/gzgpedia/
The_Beast
> Sylvester Wrzesinski wrote:
> That turns out to be a bit of a problem. When
Hm...I seem to recall a spreadsheet with star locations and poltical
assignments, and the PAU were right next to IF. And ISTR a map with the
IF in the way of a KV route--so the IF would be on the south edge of the
map. But I could be wrong.
> [b] Re-locate the PAU stars or Re-locate
I'm not aware of anyone putting in anything on the PAU that required a
specific location, other than me.
Great map, Nyrath!
Interesting fallout from both the canonical and noncanonical maps is that New
Israel and the Islamic Federation are around 24 light years and several major
powers apart at the closest. This implies several things:
1) The history of direct conflict between those two groups does not carry on
into the various interstellar wars, except insomuch as IF and NI forces
support other major players. 2) The backstory of New Jordan was that it was a
breakaway from the IF that got New Israeli support. Either that story should
be changed, or the New Jordan system should in fact be attached to IF space
(and
nominally independent, which would make it non-canon).
3) Tzfat's "interior" location to the cluster of NI systems make the history I
gave it (a colony destroyed by the IF) highly unlikely. I
may revise it to be a harsh-world enclave of religious sects.
4) Midbar's proximity to both the core and the EU make it one of NI's
main waypoints - and possible areas of conflict. It may or may not
be the best place for the Ghostworks. It also implies that one of NI's most
regular opponents (assuming a nominal alliance with the core) is the ESU.
> Interesting fallout from both the canonical and noncanonical maps is
That's another reason for moving the IF & AE
> laserlight@verizon.net wrote:
Noam and Laserlight:
With respect to the interior location of Tzfat, this is a bit of an illusion
due to the map. If I add more links to Tzfat, it will no longer be "interior"
So this problem can be fixed.
If I was to move the Islamic Federation and
> laserlight wrote:
> Nyrath wrote:
That's cool.
> If I was to move the Islamic Federation and
Well, that would put New Israel between IF and most of it's economic trade
potential (aside from the ESU), which could make a great deal of sense.
I have to say that I didn't mind NI _not_ having close borders with IF.
If they are spatially separated it does remove some of the impetus of the
classic enmity.
> Noam, how close do you wan the Islamic Federation?
If I had my druthers, I think I'd keep them still somewhat separated. Enough
to conflict here and there (and create the Tzfat and New Jordan
histories), but not so close that we re-create the 2st Century Middle
East in space.
-N
> If I was to move the Islamic Federation and
Works for me.
Noam, are you the author of The Thousand Nations? If so, are you comfortable
with them being so close to the Islamic Republic? Do you want the Thousand
Nations moved somewhere more remote?
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
From: Nyrath the nearly wise <nyrath@projectrho.com>
> Noam, are you the author of The Thousand Nations?
I am the author. How close is close? The concept of TTN is a refuge for and
confederation of displaced indigenous populations and nearly extinct ethnic
minorities of Earth. Their tech is probably lower than IF, but they're not
going to be anyone's stepping stones. If IF doesn't cast expansionist eyes in
their direction, then they'd make good trading partners...
> Their tech is probably lower than IF, but they're not going to be
Good trading partners for the AE, perhaps. Of course, the AE regards "good
trading partners" as "anyone who has money and isn't very likely to shoot at
us".
> From: Nyrath the nearly wise <nyrath@projectrho.com>
That seems fine. They don't need to be totally isolated. The idea was for them
to be left alone long enough that they could be thoroughly established enough
that no one could ever boot them off their land again.
Back when I was developing their space forces I'd been thinking in
terms of mostly sublight hulls carrying many _many_ low yield MT
missiles (some mass or damage penalty to reflect low tech) as primary
armament. Almost an Honor Harrington approach to FT.
On 4/13/06, gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> <gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 13:43:52 -0500 (CDT)
> Good trading partners for the AE, perhaps. Of course, the AE regards
The AE remind me an _awful_ lot of Neemis Enterprises from Leading
Edge Games' _Living Steel_ universe. I particularly liked the Neemis
Enterprises power armour, which was very, very thin in the back (the troops
weren't supposed to get shot in the back; to guarantee that they would shoot
up the troops with a very powerful and deadly combat drug).
> The AE remind me an _awful_ lot of Neemis Enterprises from Leading
back (the troops weren't supposed to get shot in the back; to
> guarantee that they would shoot up the troops with a very
The AE generally trains their PA troops well, explain the modifications
possible to the armor, then lets the troops do as they please. Most AE troops
don't use much in the way of combat drugs, except those from GeneSys (which
may not qualify as human) and those from New Los Angeles (which definitely
qualify as drugs but probably not "combat" drugs, and besides, New LA's troops
don't have powered armor. Some of them don't have clothes, in fact).
One thing that bugs me slightly - and this is a personal opinion, and
what we have is probably far too good to change to correct it.
The relative numbers of colonies for major vs minor powers.
I think that the "Big 2", the ANC and ESU, should have 16, the "Second
2", the FSE and NSL 8, the other canonical minors 4 each, non-canonical
minors 2, and break-aways and fledgling powers 1.
Those are ratios, not actual numbers, and YMMV.
For example, I think the OU is too big compared to the ESU, though probably
about right compared to the other minors, the IC etc. Though given the large
numbers of "M"s it has, maybe it should have an uncharacteristically small
number of quality systems compared to others.
One thing that bugs me slightly - and this is a personal opinion, and
what we have is probably far too good to change to correct it.
The relative numbers of colonies for major vs minor powers.
I think that the "Big 2", the NAC and ESU, should have 16, the "Second
2", the FSE and NSL 8, the other canonical minors 4 each, non-canonical
minors 2, and break-aways and fledgling powers 1.
Those are ratios, not actual numbers, and YMMV.
For example, I think the OU is too big compared to the ESU, though probably
about right compared to the other minors, the IC etc. Though given the large
numbers of "M"s it has, maybe it should have an uncharacteristically small
number of quality systems compared to others.
> From: Zoe and Carmen Brain <aebrain@webone.com.au>
> The relative numbers of colonies for major vs minor powers.
One thing to consider is just how those systems are occupied. If the
average ESU world has 2-3 billion people on it, and the average OU
world has a couple domes with a couple tens of thousand residents each, then
the size of the power and the size of the territory aren't really comparable.
Noam wrote on 04/14/2006 10:49:44 AM:
***snip***
> One thing to consider is just how those systems are
***snip***
*ahem* I've been working on that note since early this morning!
Ok, started it, then put-to-draft until I cleared some work out of the
way.
;->=
The_Beast
> Zoe and Carmen Brain wrote:
> One thing that bugs me slightly - and this is a personal opinion, and
what we have is probably far too good to change to correct it.
> The relative numbers of colonies for major vs minor powers.
3 vs the usual 4 perhaps (and an effective 5-6 when M class systems are
taken into consideration)
> Anyway, just an opinion, and I certainly don't want the change the
This is true, and is an unfortunate artifact of the "herding cats" nature of
the GZG group.
For deciding the size and location of non-canon empires.
there was not official authority. And I was not about to set myself up as one.
So when somebody new pops up and wants some stars for their empire, I
generally gave them what they asked for. I only tried to limit them to a
"reasonable" number of stars (generally about four) since unclaimed stars was
a finite resource.
Now if you were both insane and had a burning desire to do things the right
way, one could take on the monumental task of creating the canonical Full
Thrust universe map by running a GDW style "Great Game".
One would have to create or select a set of campaign rules, draft reliable and
committed players to play the various empires (preferably the ones who create
the
back stories), shake me down for a state-of-the-art
campaign map of local space, then run the game while taking copious notes.
Ken Burnside did this to generate the background history for his Attack
Vector: Tactical game, except they did not actually gameplay battles. Instead
it
was more like role playing/collaborative storytelling,
where they tried to select outcomes that would make for a compelling
narrative. Ken also had a player who was the four horsemen of the apocalypse,
who would occasionally throw a monkey wrench into the work to stir the pot
(plagues, famines, and other disasters)
But again this is such an overwhelming undertaking that you'd have to be crazy
to try it.