> Interesting as it's been (or not), time to end this thread.
Thankfully. Now the Americans can get back to normal things like posting B5
spoilers to the list. (Apparently its very good so far, or so I heard).
> And to get back to the original post,
This is what started it??!!
BTW why doesn't somone just run a future American civil war in space campaign
using FT? At least it would be on topic and get rid of all that frustration
out there...
> On Fri, 8 Nov 1996, Niall Gilsenan wrote:
> BTW why doesn't somone just run a future American civil war in space
I was thinking of doing something like that a while back. I was
thinking of splitting America four ways (Radical, liberal, Conservative,
Reactionary) with a lot of little "kook" groups thrown
in (Liberatrians, Radical Environmentalists, the Conspiracy-nuts,
etc.). Basically the whole thing would be a free for all, every power hates
the other powers and accuses them of collaberating together. The Radicals and
Reactionaries would be totalitarian societies (repectively controling the West
Coast and the South) while the libs and cons would still be democratic but
each hating the others from of democracy. I was going to come up with cool
politcal names for ship classes (e.g. the Radicals would have the "Angela
Davis" class heavy cruiser, while the Conservatives would have the "Reagan"
Class Superdreadaught. The idea is still floating about in my head but it has
since mutated in another from. Now, I am thinking along the lines of a free
market/democratic allience (Made up from Russia and the Western half of
the "former United States.") against the socialist/statist United
Nations (Made up from everyone else.) for control of the inner solar system.
The Alliance wants to leave earth to create a "free society" on a
terra-formmed Mars while the UN pushes it's claim that outer space is
"the communal property of mankind." (BTW, an excellent book with a similar
theme is "Pallas" by L. Neil Smith.)
Later, Mark A. Siefert
"Aye, fight and you may die. Run, and you'll live...at least awhile. And dying
in your beds, many years from now, would you be willing to trade
all the days from this day to that for one chance--just one chance--to
come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives but they'll
never take our FREEDOM!"
--Mel Gibson (as Sir William
Wallace) "Braveheart"
> At 02:45 PM 11/8/96 +0000, you wrote:
I am working on that very soon. The Union of Stars (US) will compete against
the Confederation of Star Systems (CS). The ships are the USS Grant, the CSS
Lee, the CSS Petersburg, the USS VIckburg, etc. Great fun with a historical
flair. I am creating some ships that use stats like Mr Line's awhile ago (only
40% mass can be weapon systems because of the primitive nature of the
combatants lower technology.)
> Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 11:23:43 -0600 (CST)
> On Fri, 8 Nov 1996, Niall Gilsenan wrote:
> The idea is still floating about in my head but it has since
The
> Alliance wants to leave earth to create a "free society" on a
> theme is "Pallas" by L. Neil Smith.)
I thought I'd seen the idea somewhere before.
The UN a socialist alliance? Hmm.. We obviously have a different view of them
on this side of the world (although not necessarily a better one. Paranoia
methinks.
Sounds like an interesting book though.
> At 11:23 AM 11/8/96 -0600, Mark wrote:
> I was thinking of doing something like that a while back. I was
> thinking of splitting America four ways (Radical, liberal,
> Radicals and Reactionaries would be totalitarian societies (repectively
> controling the West Coast and the South) while the libs
Assuming that this happened, it wouldn't take long for your political
"divisions" to blur, especially with the "liberals" and "conservatives" (maybe
less likely with the extremists). A conservative nation would soon invent
liberals, and vice versa. How do you divide social liberalism from the
political left, or social conservatism from the political right, in your
world?
For instance, American conservatives seem to want less government interference
in their lives and the freedom to do whatever they want (such as freely
purchase firearms, or less government restriction on companies). However, many
want MORE government interference in certain areas by, for instance, outlawing
abortion. Liberals want more government control in the form of social "safety
nets" and control on corporate pollution. At the same time, their programmes
usually require more spending, which increases taxes, and irks people who
already think their taxes are too high.
I think what would happen is that the various left/right distinctions
will even out as both factions realize that the PEOPLE are a mix of
conservative and liberal. For instance, it's a generalization (but a fairly
accurate one) that the majority of Canadians are socially liberal but fiscally
conservative (i.e. we want a government run health care system with universal
access, but we don't want any more taxes as we consider ourselves already
overtaxed). Eventually, the liberals and the conservatives will start to look
similar as they try to balance social liberalism and conservatism with fiscal
liberalism and conservatism. You're already seeing this in the US (why else
did Clinton steal from part of the Republican "play
book?").
Okay, after the above bumpf, here is the on-topic, GZG discussion part.
I don't think your world will work for an FT universe, unless instead of SF
you call it Space Fantasy. I think the political systems in the world's
democracies will have evolved (and HAVE to have evolved) before humans go into
space in any big way. As it stands right now, there is no way that any of the
big democracies could fund interstellar colonization that would place colonies
on the moon or Mars within a century. It would simply cost too much money. A
conservative government would call for tax cuts before a liberal government
could put a colony on Mars. A liberal government would demand a universal
health care system (or more spending on health care, welfare, etc.) before a
mining colony could be put on the moon. Since 8 to 10 years is one HELL of a
long time for any political party in any of the big democracies, the project
would barely get off the ground before the other party got back into power and
gutted it. In other words, before humans can make the switch from Earthbound
to Interstellar, we'll have to get our own Earthbound house in order.
Having said that, I think that your background could make for an excellent
Stargrunt II campaign. Your background is essentially a dynamic equilibrium,
where conflict is almost inevitable. It's at least theoretically possible that
your background could happen within the next 100 years. Run with it. The
Liberal army could be a bit worse equiped than the conservative army, but
perhaps more numerous. You could have poorly armed religious nuts in mountain
retreats defending against a "posse" of survivalists in the neighbourhood. You
could have raids by White Supremacists against Lib or Conserv weapon depots.
How about an old fashioned civilian riot scenario? Throw in a war between one
faction or another (or multi faction ala the former Yugoslavia) and you've got
any number of military scenarios. You'd probably want to leave out Grav
vehicles and some of the more gonzo SF weapons, and keep it conventional, or
near future.
Figure availability might be a bit of a problem, though. Most SF figures are
in 25mm, but most modern figs are in 20mm (i.e. Dixon, Peter Pig). The SF
figures are easy. Simply use non-power armoured figures from the
Stargrunt II, Kryomek, Aliens, or (dare I say it) GW's Imperial Guard lines.
The civilians might be difficult, as most civilian lines are done in 20mm. You
may have to shop around, though there are enough Cyberpunk and Shadowrun
figures out there that civilians or the less well armed factions may not be a
problem. A mix and match approach might be best.
This could be an interesting SG2 universe. I just wish I had the time to
develop it myself.