The Alliance-Coalition War

[Lobster]

I believe the point that they're trying to make is that the history of the SCRA begins with Sirius while the history of the Coalition and the Alliance belongs to everyone and is larger than any one faction.

Sorry, but this. ^

---

Wraga, the sex machine.

[Cond0r]

thats what this thread comes down to.

---

[17:23:05] Mini Me: pls
[17:23:06] Mini Me: gtfo

[Dusty Lens]

That's not exactly correct.

I can see their point, however, it directly affects my faction's history and Roleplay, and I have already been assured I am within my rights to say no to this.

So this thread is pointless. The matter is closed. The results of this thread will be ignored by the Coalition faction as being useless conjecture.

I'm not sure I understand what you just said... But it sounded a lot like "I was told by an unknown party that the history of the Coalition is mine to do with as I like and if you don't like it then NYEEEAAAAAH". Is that correct?

[Agmen of Eladesor]

I'm not sure I understand what you just said... But it sounded a lot like "I was told by an unknown party that the history of the Coalition is mine to do with as I like and if you don't like it then NYEEEAAAAAH". Is that correct?

Yeah, that's pretty much what he said in the thread here http://discoverygc.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=94505, with the map of Earth.

---

Oh god... The end of days... Agmen agreed with me.

[arvg]

yep

Now get off my lawn ya whipper snappers.

---

[Capt. Henry Morgan]

What I think Alvin's trying to say is that he's afraid that with all the non-canon discussion, somebody will later quote it as canon, and beat us over the head with it and tell us we're wrong.

We're not going to go off the deep end with coalition history, you can trust us there. What we're trying to avoid is confusion over what's canon and what isn't. Igiss and the Devs gave us free reign over this segment of the history.

We're not dictating Liberty's history, or Bretonia's, on anyone elses. Please, show us the same consideration.

---

Natio Octavarium
Faction Information and Status • Recruitment
Faction Feedback • Internal Affairs

[arvg]

This is essentially my fear.

I don't want something Liberally defined by personal opinions due to the following:

"Nuh-uh my country's too cool to be Coalition"

the problem is, it affects naming conventions of ships/facilities/people, ethnicities inside the coalition, as well as our government structure, which we have always maintained, mirrors that of the Sol Coalition composition.

For example, and this one has been broached in the past:

Lithuania.

It is in our faction lore that Lithuania was a proud member of the Coalition, we have named a ship after it, we have characters from there.

Now outside parties, from Lithuania, complained that Lithuania would never go Communist, pitched a fit.

We were able to ride over that one... however, if we open up for debate the composition of the Coalition, even in conjecture, it gives material for people to dictate what is and isn't Coalition for the faction.

This is what I am seeking to avoid.

Leaving the Coalition vague allows us some debate, using the established Star Lancer and FL intro clues we can make guesses, cover our bases, and not offend anyone's country directly.

Also, it is squarely stated that Coalition history is the Coalition's domain, and we are trying to establish that history, not to win favour or advantage, but ultimately to shape our faction lore in our way.

We would never try to force say, the USA into the Coalition, nor would we state that North Korea is a member... but as Morgan pointed out there are some Generic territory names that fit much better and give us room to meaneuver.

If the Coalition were a little Bisexual guy, it would be screaming "Don't label me till I figure it out for myself!"

---

[Agmen of Eladesor]

I don't think we have a problem with that, simply that you're (or Alvin is, anyway) being rather overbearing and almost rude in his comments to people about this.

Actually what it boils down to, from a societal perspective, is that whoever holds the orbitals wins the war. I don't think it was fully understood when StarLancer came out that all of this wonderful fighting is great from a game perspective. But from a reality check perspective, go read 'The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress' by Robert Heinlein. Then read 'Footfall' by Jerry Pournelle. You get to orbit, you have control of some asteroids, then it becomes GAME OVER for your enemies.

Kinetic Energy Weapons for the win.

The ONLY time you have to worry about ground combat is if you actually want the territory. Otherwise ... ker-splat.

---

Oh god... The end of days... Agmen agreed with me.

[arvg]

My chief concern is that "once bitten, twice shy"

The SCRA went through this before, concerning a member state. I want to avoid the bitter anti-Soviet sentiment, especially in the Eastern European countries.

And I can see this thread barreling straight towards a big cliff, and I am frantically trying to toss out an anchor to avoid all of us plunging over into a very dark argument that no side will be wanting to concede on.

If I am rude, it was a knee-jerk reaction to what I know is coming if this thread is permitted to develop.

---

[Capt. Henry Morgan]

Actually, in Starlancer, the Coalition had full control over all the inner planets, including Earth. The Alliance nations on earth were under Coalition occupation. The Alliance nations were essentially fighting in exile. Imagine if, say, the US were conquered by someone today, and the military were trying to retake it from overseas bases. That's the situation the Alliance faced in Starlancer.

Now, even if all of Earth were under occupation, that doesn't mean that all of earth was willingly in the Coalition. We still need to figure out which nations were originally Alliance and which ones were originally Coalition before the war broke out.

---

Natio Octavarium
Faction Information and Status • Recruitment
Faction Feedback • Internal Affairs