I was designing a ship for the FSE, started to give it a Greek name. But then
I realized that the Official History did not specifically state that Greece
stayed with the FSE. Thus, my question:
What European (20th c.) states are in the FSE? Obviously, France. I assume
Spain, Italy, & Portugal also.
In NSL: Germany, Austria, Luxembourg.
Romonov Hegemony: Rumania, Hungary.
NAC: England, Scotland, N. Ireland (still exist?).
ESU: Russia, Byelorussia, Ukraine.
Independents: Netherlands, Switzerland
Where would the following fit? Balkan states (Croatia, Slovakia, Serbia, etc.)
Belgium (FSE?) Denmark Estonia Finland Ireland Latvia Lithuania Moldavia
Norway Poland Sweden Turkey (FSE, IF, Independent?)
Please excuse any omissions.
Quick correction of stupid mistakes on my part:
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/
-----
> -----Original Message-----
But
> then I realized that the Official History did not specifically state
Bulgaria
> Denmark Finland
> > I was designing a ship for the FSE, started to give it a Greek name.
But
> > then I realized that the Official History did not specifically state
Yep, Belgium, Luxembourg and Greece seem very likely as well.
> > In NSL: Germany, Austria, Luxembourg.
Poland, Czech and Slovak republics and Hungary as well. Though FT did mention
some of these petitioning to join the ESU after getting narked off with the
Germans but this seems to have been dropped from the more detailed SG time
line.
> > Romonov Hegemony: Byelorussia, Ukraine, Estonia, Lithuaina, Latvia
Just say the UK ('cos you forgot Wales otherwise and that's unforgivable).
> > ESU: Russia.
There's also the Scandinavian Federation which takes care of Norway, Sweden,
Denmark, and probably Iceland and Finland.
> > Where would the following fit?
Quite a few people split it up like this: Croatia and Slovakia could be in the
NSL; Albania and Bosnia could be in the FSE; Serbia, RH maybe?
> Bulgaria
A lot of people put these in the RH. They could be NSL I suppose.
> > Ireland
NAC? FSE? Independent?
> > Turkey (FSE, IF, Independent?)
I'd say IF.
> On Fri, 6 Aug 1999, Steve Pugh wrote:
> > > Independents: Netherlands, Switzerland
correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't this the ScandFed a non-canonical
user addition? i was never entirely convinced myself, and put it more like
this:
Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland - independent, but allied through
economic and possibly security organisations, not unlike the old EC
Finland - independent, isolationist, aligned with RH
but then i'm not exactly an expert on northern european history or politics. i
know some people on this list are better informed (after all, some of them
live in these places), and i'd love to see this matter looked into properly
(if it has been, but before my time, please ignore everything i have said...).
> > > Ireland
i'd say independent; a strict reading of the canon history would put them
in the FSE - they are, after all, members of the EU and are not
mentioned as leaving (unlike the Netherlands and the Swabian bloc). however,
given the cultural and geographical position of Eire, and given that the FSE
seems to be a romance-speaking, predominantly southern european entity,
this doesn't seem quite right to me.
that said, Ireland is mostly catholic, like the mainland FSE, and is
currently (i think - please correct me if i'm wrong) one of the 'poor
four' in europe - the other three being Spain, Portugal and Greece, all
of which are FSE members; whilst i'm not saying that the FSE is poor, it might
well be the case that it would have an economic infrastructure well
suited to handling less well-off regional economies.
> > > Turkey (FSE, IF, Independent?)
i'd say independent. Turkey is a member of the EU free market, and at
present has strong pro-western elements, which would have to be subdued
before it would go willingly into the IF. of course, if it were taken by
force, that's different.
also, Turkey is in quite a pivotal position geographically, and thus as an
independent state would be an interesting component in the near-middle
eastern geopolitical dynamic (mmm, jargon).
i should declare (although it should by now be obvious!) that i feel that
more little states is better than few big states - the cold war was not
interesting, from a gaming point of view, because of the shortage of sides.
two is only just enough.
tom
ps does this thread belong on the 'pedia list?
Probably, but I lost the 'pedia E-mail when I switched computers. And
have not received any messages from that list since the switch either. Has it
had activity? If so, could someone please post the signup instructions.
Thanks.
---
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net <mailto:bkb@beol.net>
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/
---
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Sat, 7 Aug 1999, Brian Bell wrote:
> Probably, but I lost the 'pedia E-mail when I switched computers. And
none at all, sadly.
tom
> > There's also the Scandinavian Federation which takes care of Norway,
It's a post-SGII addition by Jon Tuffley... GZG wanted to produce
some arctic infantry miniatures and so the ScanFed was born.
> What European (20th c.) states are in the FSE?
France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Greece
> On Mon, 9 Aug 1999, Ground Zero Games wrote:
> Though we've not stated it anywhere, I could imagine Belgium being
France)
> and the Dutch....
Why not? They could have done the same as the Dutch did in the early age
of sail. Finance the creation of the Merchant navy, then pay for a military
arm to protect it. Albiet not a battle line, but gobs of fast escorts.
> What European (20th c.) states are in the FSE?
Though we've not stated it anywhere, I could imagine Belgium being either
absorbed into the FSE or even partitioned between the FSE (read: France) and
the Dutch....
Luxembourg could also be either an FSE state or a Dutch ally - not that
they'd have much of a star fleet..... <grin>
> On Mon, 9 Aug 1999, Steve Pugh wrote:
> > > There's also the Scandinavian Federation which takes care of
ooh, i didn't know that. any official line on its contents, or do we have the
GZG geopolitical fuzziness we know and love:)?
tom
> On Mon, 9 Aug 1999, Ground Zero Games wrote:
> Though we've not stated it anywhere, I could imagine Belgium being
France)
> and the Dutch....
how about leaving Belgium nominally independent, but in truth an FSE vassal
state, much as the eastern european countries were to the USSR. you could then
exploit the ethnic links of part of the population with the Netherlands to
allow all sorts of shady goings on, with banned and
quasi-legal political organisations, terrorists, territorial disputes,
embargoes and the other colourful elements of realpolitik.
> Luxembourg could also be either an FSE state or a Dutch ally - not
well, power springs from money, not land, so if the Luxembourgeois have
somehow hit on a way of getting utterly rich (radio luxembourg reinvented as
galactic media empire?), they might have quite a decent punch. it is, however,
a big if.
tom
> > > correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't this the ScandFed a
What do you think? ;-)
In a message dated 99-08-09 11:53:42 EDT, you write:
<<
> What European (20th c.) states are in the FSE?
France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Greece
Schoon
> [quoted text omitted]
What about the Balkans-FSE or NSU? I read an interesting account several
years ago about all of the diverse political, economic and military factors
that pushed Europe into war in 1939. One factor was competing French, Italian,
German and British attempts to lock up the economic trade in Yugoslavia and
Romania. How do you think this may play out in the GZG universe? The book BTW,
was called How War Came, but for the life of me I can't remember the author's
name.
> What about the Balkans-FSE or NSU?
NSU? Has the NSL merged with the ESU?
It seems likely that the balkans are split between the neighbouring powers.
FSE, NSL, RH and (possibly) IF. There may also be some independent states or
UN protectorates.
> What about the Balkans-FSE or NSU?
I have one word to say about NSU: "Wankels".
NB: US list members may not find this funny.......
> On Wed, Aug 18, 1999 at 06:30:03PM +0100, Ground Zero Games wrote:
I wondered why, until I read that last bit.
***
I have one word to say about NSU: "Wankels".
***
Those marvelous rotary engines? ;->=
***
NB: US list members may not find this funny.......
***
My girlfriend, who is quite mature and even looks a bit matronly, worked with
a bunch of young Brit contract programmers for the State of Nebraska. She
would regularly refer to someone as a 'wanker', shocking them, and causing
them to say, 'no, no, you don't want to say that...' She knew perfectly well
what it meant; her ability to curse could put plenty of sailors to shame. As
with
all true ladies, though, you just can't imagine it from her. ;->=
Now, the part I'm having trouble with is: what is 'NSU'? Sounds like a
football team.
The_Beast
> On Wed, Aug 18, 1999 at 06:30:03PM +0100, Ground Zero Games wrote:
> devans@uneb.edu wrote:
> Now, the part I'm having trouble with is: what is 'NSU'? Sounds
Ordinarily, it means "non-specific urethritis", sexually tranmitted.
Maybe the NSU developed "Wanker" engines... As long as they don't betray
humanity to the Phalons.
Ordinarily, it means "non-specific urethritis", sexually
tranmitted.
Maybe the NSU developed "Wanker" engines... As long as they don't betray
humanity to the Phalons.
I'm not sure what Jon is driving at (or in) but the reference I think is to
the NSU R080 which was, I believe, powered by a wankel rotary engine... My
father owned on a long time ago
If anyone really cares
http://freeusers.digibel.be/~baertd/
Dan
[quoted original message omitted]
> Phillip Pournelle wrote:
...Snip...
> Obviously the Balkans and a number of other trouble areas will be
This fits in very well with my theroy that the UN is cutthroats, drug and
weapon smugglers, and able to be bought by anyone with the cash.
Bye for now,
> John Leary wrote:
Talk about differing viewpoints. My view of UN in GZGverse is that they're the
only honourable bunch of the lot of them. Holding the factions apart at great
cost to themselves. Betrayed on all sides by the different factions. One nice
one I saw was that originally UN drew staff from the various factions but due
to a NAC captain stealing the plans for pulse torpedoes they decided to
recruit an organice force instead.
> On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, John Leary wrote:
> Phillip Pournelle wrote:
Man, someone doesn't like the UN. Do you believe in the black helicopters as
well?
Realworld, the UN generally seems to mean well, but can't get it together
some of the time - often due to nation-state interference, sometimes due
simply to the nature of the UN's organiztion and/or the nature of the
problem...
Tuffleyverse-wise, the UN seems to be the only ones who are really
focussing on the Kra'vak... plus keeping everyone from dropping big rocks or
similar on Terra...
Don't want to start a massive debate, though...
> Don't want to start a massive debate, though...
I wouldn't worry about it. We've had this discussion before quite a few times.
One of the areas that particularly interest me in FT. As usual everyone just
falls back on their own particular views of the UN. Of course one I haven't
heard before is that the UN is just a cypher of one of the major factions.
Pretty much reflecting the UN as it stands today
being essentially another tool of US/Nato policy makers.
Might be interesting to see whose agenda has overtaken the UN of the future.
Although I'm still of the view that in GZGverse it would be the force actively
pursuing a policy od halting Kra'vak incursions while trying to defuse some of
the intrigues between the major factions.
> Niall Gilsenan wrote:
> Talk about differing viewpoints. My view of UN in GZGverse is that
You are quite right, very different, I am just extending the current
UN into the future. Making the orginization even more corrupt than it
currently is. To quote Jon "in the FT universe there are no good guys".
As far as the PT episode: 1) The momey for the development of the new weapon
had to come from somewhere, how about skimming it from the humanitarian and
disaster funds. 2) Why was a new weapon being developed for starship combat by
an organization that has no starships? 3) Why does the UN have a weapons
program at all?
Just some things to think about!
Bye for now,
> Brian Burger wrote:
...Snip...
> Man, someone doesn't like the UN. Do you believe in the black
XXX
Yes, I also believe in white, red, green and blue ones. JTL
XXX
> Realworld, the UN generally seems to mean well, but can't get it
XXX Meaning well is nice, saying nice things is nice, nice is nice. Ethenic
clensing is evil if done by Serbs, and not worth mention if done by croats or
muslims. Ruwanda was not nice and that is why the UN forces were withdrawn
just prior to the really big round of killing at the end. JTL XXX
> Tuffleyverse-wise, the UN seems to be the only ones who are really
XXX It is also possible that the UN is also doing something somewhere else,
and the distraction of the KraVak will allow its completion. The UN may have
made it clear how sorry it would be if its control of
the core was contested. The UN would not have the resorces to fight a
battle and keep all the asteroids from hitting selected locations on earth.
Or, maybe they just do not want thier tax base damaged. JTL
XXX
> Don't want to start a massive debate, though...
XXX
OK. JTL
XXX
In a message dated 08/21/1999 3:14:37 PM Central Daylight Time,
> niall@gonegold.com writes:
> Of
In my distorted Tuffleyverse this somewhat the case. In my version of the
timeline [www.members.xoom.com/bstraycat/ft/timeline.htm], the United
States held together, but returned for a time to her isolationist roots. The
FSE stepped up to take on more of the leadership roles in the UN. At the
present, my timeline has the UNSC relying on primarily FSE- and US-built
and manned warships for its patrol duties.
In the REAL Tuffleyverse, it is my opinion that the UN and its Space Command
are still the scenes for in-house struggles among the major powers, as
the UN seems to have been in it's birth century. However, I do think that
there
would be a leader-nation who would provide a great deal of the personnel
and materiel for the organization. If I have to choose, I'd say the ESU has
the best shot of dominating the UN.
John L e-writes:
> You are quite right, very different, I am just extending the
While Jon's quote is applicable, I do not think you can extend the current UN
as it is into the future. If you recall the timeline, the current UN fails. A
new one is created later to keep peace in the Core and Inner Worlds, leaving
the Solar Wars to take place in the Outer (colony) Worlds.
> As far as the PT episode:
Who said the UN has no starships??
> 3) Why does the UN have a weapons program at all?
See earlier mention about 'keeping the peace' ;-)
Mk
__......................................................................
...__
McCoy: "Angry, Mr Spock? Or frustrated, perhaps?"
Spock: "Such emotions are foreign to me. I am merely testing the strength of
the door."
McCoy: "For the 15th time?"
- ST:TOS, 'Bread & Circuses'
> On Sat, 21 Aug 1999 BStrayCat@aol.com wrote:
> [www.members.xoom.com/bstraycat/ft/timeline.htm],
i would guess this refers to:
http://members.xoom.com/bstraycat/ft/timeline.htm
tom
ACK! I stand corrected!
Bill
In a message dated 08/23/1999 12:41:19 PM Central Daylight Time,
> thomas.anderson@university-college.oxford.ac.uk writes:
> i would guess this refers to: