FTL travel
David Shaw
(28 Mar 2019 14:14 UTC)
|
||
(missing)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Catherine Berry
(02 Apr 2019 16:38 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
James Catchpole
(02 Apr 2019 19:00 UTC)
|
||
(missing)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Catherine Berry
(02 Apr 2019 20:32 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Bill Rutherford
(02 Apr 2019 20:12 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Billye Gilbert
(02 Apr 2019 21:33 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Phil Pugliese
(02 Apr 2019 23:39 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Catherine Berry
(02 Apr 2019 23:54 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
James Catchpole
(03 Apr 2019 00:40 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Rupert Boleyn
(03 Apr 2019 11:30 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
shadow@xxxxxx
(05 Apr 2019 06:34 UTC)
|
||
(missing)
|
||
Re: [TML] FTL travel
Catherine Berry
(28 Mar 2019 17:37 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] FTL travel
David Shaw
(29 Mar 2019 17:20 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] FTL travel
Tim
(28 Mar 2019 22:26 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] FTL travel
Richard Aiken
(29 Mar 2019 05:23 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] FTL travel
Tim
(29 Mar 2019 06:34 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] FTL travel
Richard Aiken
(30 Mar 2019 06:29 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] FTL travel
Kurt Feltenberger
(28 Mar 2019 22:30 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] FTL travel
Catherine Berry
(28 Mar 2019 22:38 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] FTL travel
shadow@xxxxxx
(30 Mar 2019 04:26 UTC)
|
||
[TML] Transponder question
Bill Rutherford
(02 Apr 2019 13:14 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
James Catchpole
(03 Apr 2019 00:27 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Christopher Sean Hilton
(04 Apr 2019 19:11 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Bruce Johnson
(03 Apr 2019 16:10 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Catherine Berry
(03 Apr 2019 16:19 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Phil Pugliese
(03 Apr 2019 22:30 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
James Catchpole
(03 Apr 2019 20:40 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Phil Pugliese
(03 Apr 2019 22:42 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Rupert Boleyn
(04 Apr 2019 03:52 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Phil Pugliese
(04 Apr 2019 20:25 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Catherine Berry
(04 Apr 2019 20:39 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Rupert Boleyn
(04 Apr 2019 21:18 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Phil Pugliese
(04 Apr 2019 21:56 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Rupert Boleyn
(04 Apr 2019 22:06 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Phil Pugliese
(04 Apr 2019 23:29 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Kurt Feltenberger
(04 Apr 2019 22:36 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Phil Pugliese
(04 Apr 2019 23:40 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Richard Aiken
(05 Apr 2019 00:19 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Cian Witherspoon
(05 Apr 2019 01:02 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Kurt Feltenberger
(05 Apr 2019 01:10 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Phil Pugliese
(05 Apr 2019 20:37 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Catherine Berry
(05 Apr 2019 21:00 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Phil Pugliese
(05 Apr 2019 21:36 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Kurt Feltenberger
(05 Apr 2019 23:02 UTC)
|
||
(missing)
|
||
Re: [TML] Realistic Rebellion?
Phil Pugliese
(06 Apr 2019 20:38 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Realistic Rebellion?
Kenneth Barns
(06 Apr 2019 22:40 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Realistic Rebellion?
Rupert Boleyn
(07 Apr 2019 01:20 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Realistic Rebellion?
Kenneth Barns
(07 Apr 2019 02:34 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Realistic Rebellion?
Rupert Boleyn
(07 Apr 2019 03:08 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Realistic Rebellion?
Kenneth Barns
(07 Apr 2019 04:17 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Realistic Rebellion?
Rupert Boleyn
(07 Apr 2019 04:46 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Realistic Rebellion?
Kenneth Barns
(07 Apr 2019 05:44 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Realistic Rebellion?
Rupert Boleyn
(07 Apr 2019 06:15 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Realistic Rebellion?
Phil Pugliese
(07 Apr 2019 22:33 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Realistic Rebellion?
Phil Pugliese
(07 Apr 2019 22:05 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Realistic Rebellion?
Rupert Boleyn
(07 Apr 2019 02:27 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Realistic Rebellion?
Kenneth Barns
(07 Apr 2019 02:46 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Realistic Rebellion?
Rupert Boleyn
(07 Apr 2019 03:10 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Realistic Rebellion?
Phil Pugliese
(07 Apr 2019 22:22 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Realistic Rebellion?
Kenneth Barns
(08 Apr 2019 00:22 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Realistic Rebellion?
Phil Pugliese
(08 Apr 2019 04:08 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Realistic Rebellion? Rupert Boleyn (08 Apr 2019 06:06 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Realistic Rebellion?
Phil Pugliese
(08 Apr 2019 19:32 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Realistic Rebellion?
Catherine Berry
(08 Apr 2019 19:56 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Realistic Rebellion?
Kelly St. Clair
(09 Apr 2019 02:29 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Realistic Rebellion?
Catherine Berry
(09 Apr 2019 16:02 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Realistic Rebellion?
Phil Pugliese
(09 Apr 2019 20:29 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Realistic Rebellion?
Catherine Berry
(09 Apr 2019 20:44 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Realistic Rebellion?
Phil Pugliese
(09 Apr 2019 20:59 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Realistic Rebellion?
Kenneth Barns
(09 Apr 2019 21:38 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Realistic Rebellion?
Rupert Boleyn
(10 Apr 2019 06:41 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Realistic Rebellion?
Phil Pugliese
(10 Apr 2019 15:30 UTC)
|
||
[TML] Realistic Solomani Confederation?
Kenneth Barns
(14 Apr 2019 13:09 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Realistic Rebellion?
Phil Pugliese
(10 Apr 2019 15:17 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Realistic Rebellion?
Kenneth Barns
(09 Apr 2019 21:26 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Realistic Rebellion?
Catherine Berry
(09 Apr 2019 21:37 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Realistic Rebellion?
Phil Pugliese
(10 Apr 2019 15:09 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Realistic Rebellion?
Phil Pugliese
(09 Apr 2019 19:49 UTC)
|
||
[TML] Realistic Rebellion?
Kenneth Barns
(06 Apr 2019 02:01 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Richard Aiken
(13 Apr 2019 05:23 UTC)
|
||
(missing)
|
||
(missing)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Richard Aiken
(14 Apr 2019 02:37 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Nicole Susans
(15 Apr 2019 02:50 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Phil Pugliese
(15 Apr 2019 18:51 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Catherine Berry
(15 Apr 2019 20:00 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Phil Pugliese
(17 Apr 2019 02:11 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Catherine Berry
(17 Apr 2019 16:29 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Phil Pugliese
(17 Apr 2019 20:48 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Richard Aiken
(20 Apr 2019 01:55 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Phil Pugliese
(21 Apr 2019 20:02 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Nicole Susans
(15 Apr 2019 22:06 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Phil Pugliese
(16 Apr 2019 22:24 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Bruce Johnson
(15 Apr 2019 22:34 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Phil Pugliese
(16 Apr 2019 22:35 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Kurt Feltenberger
(17 Apr 2019 00:52 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Graham Donald
(13 Apr 2019 08:04 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Phil Pugliese
(13 Apr 2019 13:17 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Nicole Susans
(14 Apr 2019 01:02 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Phil Pugliese
(14 Apr 2019 02:26 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Rupert Boleyn
(14 Apr 2019 02:45 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Phil Pugliese
(14 Apr 2019 21:58 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Nicole Susans
(14 Apr 2019 03:32 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Kenneth Barns
(14 Apr 2019 05:03 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Non Virus ending to the rebellion (was: Transponder question)
Nicole Susans
(14 Apr 2019 05:52 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Non Virus ending to the rebellion (was: Transponder question)
Kenneth Barns
(14 Apr 2019 07:53 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Non Virus ending to the rebellion (was: Transponder question)
Nicole Susans
(14 Apr 2019 10:13 UTC)
|
||
Re: [TML] Transponder question
Phil Pugliese
(14 Apr 2019 22:08 UTC)
|
On 08Apr2019 1221, Kenneth Barns wrote: > I agree that GDW never presented the Fleets as being potentially > unreliable. Then again, they were never presented as being particularly > reliable either. If there was always the possibility of the Fleets been > less-than-perfectly reliable to the Imperial state (and how would that even > be defined, other than with reference to the Emperor?), would the TNS and > official Imperial publications be drawing attention to the issue?? For what it's worth, we know that the Gazelle-class close escorts were designed with concerns about mutinies being taken into consideration (the enlisted crew quarters being easily locked away from critical areas of the ship). If the enlisted crews are so unreliable, why would the officers be so much better? On top of that, there's the Civil War itself, and a tradition of action being taken by local nobles (often themselves naval officers or able to command the IN less directly) to solve local issues without reference to higher authority. Such people are quite likely to give their primary loyalty not to some remote Imperial figure, but to their immediate superior, and to their 'home'. And that, in canon, is why things fell apart - in the centuries since the first civil war, the Imperial nobles, the 'travelling class', had forgotten why the Empire was worth fighting to keep, and so they protected what they had, and they gave their loyalty to their local lords, and looked to local concerns. Why should Duke Craig allow the Aslan and Solomani to invade Daibei and wreck havoc amongst his people just so that Lucan could spank Dulinor? Neither Craig nor his people could see a good reason to, so they kept the fleets home. Likewise the fleets of Antares (and Deneb's for that matter). Instead of massing the might of almost the entire Imperium against Dulinor, Lucan had only a few sectors worth of fleets (he also threw them into the fight as he got them rather than waiting, which didn't help). So, the war lasts longer than it should, more pretenders pop up, the Imperium fractures even further, and down the drain it goes. The thing is, the Third Imperium is *not* a modern state, and this sort of disintegration happening from time to time is normal in pre-modern times. > First of all if wasn't *just* the Core Sector fleet. >> A number of other sectors came too. >> Not to mention the rest of Core Domain. >> As far as Illelish's forces are concerned they were undoubtedly the least >> experienced as there was & had been no threat along that Domains broders >> for centuries. It was a 'back-water'. >> (Actually, the only fleets that had any real experience were the ones that >> participated in the recent 5thFW & Corridor's Sector Fleet incl some of >> those & guess whose side the Corridor Sector Fleet was fighting on?) >> The forces of Illelish, even if by some impossible miracle Dulinor, >> could've got most of the domain to 'drink the kool-aid', would've been >> 'pounded like a drum'! > > The involvement Sector Fleets other than Core's in Lucan's defence was > delayed by at least a year: 6-9 months to give the message of the > assassination, 3 months to gather forces, and 6-9 months to send those > forces. With preparation, Dulinor's Loyal Fleet could well have been at > Capital before the Core fleet had even gathered (especially if the line of > succession was disputed). Don't forget that members of the dissolved Moot > - already upset at Lucan - are returning to their HiPop homeworlds in Core > at the same time as the official Naval orders are arriving to "come defend > Lucan". Fun, games, and confusion should follow. On top of this, Dulinor is fighting a defensive war (initially), and the Imperium has shown over its history that its bad at offensive operations. The Core Fleet is almost certainly awful at them, as nobody would be expecting it to have to attack anything without years of warning. The Corridor Fleet, while strong and experienced, is heavy in light elements suitable for chastising Vargr pirates and 'rogue' Vargr systems, so it's a great asset for scouting and commerce disruption, but not a huge addition to Lucan's raw combat power (which is already being depleted by the time the Corridor Fleet arrives). Now, if Lucan had taken steps to bring everyone onside, hadn't pissed off the lower ranking nobles who make up most of the Moot and run the Imperium day by day away from Capital, he'd have been able to win by sheer mass, but he and/or his advisors screwed up. > Given that, I can understand Archduke Brzk and Duke Craig deciding, "Welp, > the whole shebang has probably played out one way or another by now. No > point me declaring my fleets for the side that might already have lost!" > So send a request for clarification, pledging loyalty to the Imperium. > With the delay in return mail, that buys you another year or so, and at > least you will have an idea which way the wind is blowing by then. Absolutely. What's more, by the time a reply arrives, the local borders have blown up and you have every reason to keep the fleet at home. > So, no, the Moot could not do as it pleased. The Moot had one explicit power, that was that it could dissolve the Imperium. When Lucan dissolved the Moot a year (something he didn't have the legal power to do, most likely), and most members never even considered returning, they had effectively dissolved the Imperium - they collectively decided they no longer owned allegiance to Capital and the Emperor who sat on the Iridium Throne. Whoever was in charge of Lucan's education failed to instil in him any knowledge of how the Imperium to which he was 3rd or 4th in line (I forget which ) to inherit actually worked. Whether the tutors, Lucan's parents, or Lucan were at fault (most likely all of them) I don't know. All in all, I don't have a problem with the Rebellion going down the way it did. Was it the most likely path? Probably not. Was it an unbelievable one? Not to me. As for Virus, etc. - I was on board with the reasoning that no faction deserved to win, and wiping the slate (almost) clean was the best option. Virus itself wasn't implemented as well as it could've been, but desperate factions investing in 'super weapons' is altogether believable, and as a mechanism that wipes out all factions together it works pretty damned well, and leaves a setting where the lack of tech lying round for the taking is well explained, and where the PCs can make a real difference (something that was asked for a lot at the time). -- Rupert Boleyn <xxxxxx@gmail.com> Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief