FTL travel David Shaw (28 Mar 2019 14:14 UTC)
(missing)
(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 James Catchpole (03 Apr 2019 00:27 UTC)
Re: [TML] Transponder question Bruce Johnson (03 Apr 2019 16:10 UTC)
Re: [TML] Transponder question Phil Pugliese (03 Apr 2019 22:30 UTC)
Re: [TML] Transponder question Christopher Sean Hilton (04 Apr 2019 19:11 UTC)
Re: [TML] Transponder question shadow@xxxxxx (05 Apr 2019 06:34 UTC)
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 Catherine Berry (03 Apr 2019 16:19 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 19:49 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)
[TML] Realistic Rebellion? Kenneth Barns (06 Apr 2019 02:01 UTC)
Re: [TML] Transponder question Richard Aiken (13 Apr 2019 05:23 UTC)
(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)
(missing)
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] Transponder question Phil Pugliese (14 Apr 2019 22:08 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] Realistic Rebellion? Rupert Boleyn 08 Apr 2019 06:06 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