RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
Larsen,
Thanks for the update.
Thanks for the update.
Aspects of the Rebellion Era that snap people's disbelief suspenders
- Thread starter rancke
- Start date
RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
Larsen,
Thanks for the update.
Thanks for the update.
jchurchill
SOC-12
Originally posted by TheDS:
All this talk of invasions reminds me of that awful British Invasion back in the 60's. How many people died in that one again?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Which invasion would that be?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm guessing the one that had something to do with four guys from Liverpool and the like...(link)
=================================================
One well known casualty was Elvis. At least for several years he music was squeezed off the charts.
Then of course there were the British casualties in the second wave of the Invasion. Some of their careers were killed before they knew what hit them. I remember the last words of one such casualty and they will stay with me forever:
"Mrs. Brown, you've got a lovely daughter..."
Poor bastard.
All this talk of invasions reminds me of that awful British Invasion back in the 60's. How many people died in that one again?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Which invasion would that be?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm guessing the one that had something to do with four guys from Liverpool and the like...(link)
=================================================
One well known casualty was Elvis. At least for several years he music was squeezed off the charts.
Then of course there were the British casualties in the second wave of the Invasion. Some of their careers were killed before they knew what hit them. I remember the last words of one such casualty and they will stay with me forever:
"Mrs. Brown, you've got a lovely daughter..."
Poor bastard.
jchurchill
SOC-12
Originally posted by TheDS:
All this talk of invasions reminds me of that awful British Invasion back in the 60's. How many people died in that one again?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Which invasion would that be?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm guessing the one that had something to do with four guys from Liverpool and the like...(link)
=================================================
One well known casualty was Elvis. At least for several years he music was squeezed off the charts.
Then of course there were the British casualties in the second wave of the Invasion. Some of their careers were killed before they knew what hit them. I remember the last words of one such casualty and they will stay with me forever:
"Mrs. Brown, you've got a lovely daughter..."
Poor bastard.
All this talk of invasions reminds me of that awful British Invasion back in the 60's. How many people died in that one again?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Which invasion would that be?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm guessing the one that had something to do with four guys from Liverpool and the like...(link)
=================================================
One well known casualty was Elvis. At least for several years he music was squeezed off the charts.
Then of course there were the British casualties in the second wave of the Invasion. Some of their careers were killed before they knew what hit them. I remember the last words of one such casualty and they will stay with me forever:
"Mrs. Brown, you've got a lovely daughter..."
Poor bastard.
jchurchill
SOC-12
Originally posted by TheDS:
All this talk of invasions reminds me of that awful British Invasion back in the 60's. How many people died in that one again?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Which invasion would that be?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm guessing the one that had something to do with four guys from Liverpool and the like...(link)
=================================================
One well known casualty was Elvis. At least for several years he music was squeezed off the charts.
Then of course there were the British casualties in the second wave of the Invasion. Some of their careers were killed before they knew what hit them. I remember the last words of one such casualty and they will stay with me forever:
"Mrs. Brown, you've got a lovely daughter..."
Poor bastard.
All this talk of invasions reminds me of that awful British Invasion back in the 60's. How many people died in that one again?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Which invasion would that be?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm guessing the one that had something to do with four guys from Liverpool and the like...(link)
=================================================
One well known casualty was Elvis. At least for several years he music was squeezed off the charts.
Then of course there were the British casualties in the second wave of the Invasion. Some of their careers were killed before they knew what hit them. I remember the last words of one such casualty and they will stay with me forever:
"Mrs. Brown, you've got a lovely daughter..."
Poor bastard.
And don't forget Brian Jones. Are we far enough off-topic yet?
And don't forget Brian Jones. Are we far enough off-topic yet?
And don't forget Brian Jones. Are we far enough off-topic yet?
RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
I think subsectors as weak as Lanth would be counties under adjacent duchies and be patrolled by the appropriate Duchy navy.
Hans
</font>[/QUOTE]Well, here I think we diverge a bit. IMTU, each full subsector (and Lanth is a full subsector) gets its Ruling Count (Subsector Duke in the OTU). Partial subsectors (like Regina), usually get one, too. Only a few cases assign control of worlds in one sector to the management of another subsector.
In my view, if such a thing were possible in any but the most extreme circumstances (like the tiny clusters of worlds hanging on at the borders of the Imperium), then it would be far too tempting for the Counts all around the Imperium to engage in carving up each other's subsectors.
It also begs the question of, "How do we decide which subsectors across the Imperium are treated so?" It would be very difficult, I think, to raise a consensus on that issue.
RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
I think subsectors as weak as Lanth would be counties under adjacent duchies and be patrolled by the appropriate Duchy navy.
Hans
</font>[/QUOTE]Well, here I think we diverge a bit. IMTU, each full subsector (and Lanth is a full subsector) gets its Ruling Count (Subsector Duke in the OTU). Partial subsectors (like Regina), usually get one, too. Only a few cases assign control of worlds in one sector to the management of another subsector.
In my view, if such a thing were possible in any but the most extreme circumstances (like the tiny clusters of worlds hanging on at the borders of the Imperium), then it would be far too tempting for the Counts all around the Imperium to engage in carving up each other's subsectors.
It also begs the question of, "How do we decide which subsectors across the Imperium are treated so?" It would be very difficult, I think, to raise a consensus on that issue.
RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
I think subsectors as weak as Lanth would be counties under adjacent duchies and be patrolled by the appropriate Duchy navy.
Hans
</font>[/QUOTE]Well, here I think we diverge a bit. IMTU, each full subsector (and Lanth is a full subsector) gets its Ruling Count (Subsector Duke in the OTU). Partial subsectors (like Regina), usually get one, too. Only a few cases assign control of worlds in one sector to the management of another subsector.
In my view, if such a thing were possible in any but the most extreme circumstances (like the tiny clusters of worlds hanging on at the borders of the Imperium), then it would be far too tempting for the Counts all around the Imperium to engage in carving up each other's subsectors.
It also begs the question of, "How do we decide which subsectors across the Imperium are treated so?" It would be very difficult, I think, to raise a consensus on that issue.
RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
It does if you accept GT material as evidence.
</font>[/QUOTE]Wow! I guess it s**ks to be me and not have Behind the Claw.
But in any event, it hardly seems to be reasonable. When we open the can of worms that allows the subsectors to be carved up, as I noted in my previous post, where does it end? And worse, how are those divisions represented in published information? The answer: They're not represented. A massive amount of decision making would be necessary to go over the whole Imperium making such decisions, new formats of data-publication in order to successfully communicate the data (I don't really object to new formats that do a better job that the old . . . as long as the issue they're supporting isn't one of adding a complexity level that isn't required).
And therein lies, I state, the crux of it. The added layer of complexity of assigning clusters of worlds that cross subsector borders to one "subsector" noble, when it isn't 100% crystal clear there is a reason for doing so (and Lanth doesn't seems like an obvious choice for such a reason), seems to create a new dimension of difficulty in determining the organization of the Imperial Nobility and the areas assigned to them.
Sort of like CT:Library Supplement 11's mythical "counties" which aren't detailed anywhere in any product (which are mentioned again in GT:Nobles, but yet again, aren't dilineated).
RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
It does if you accept GT material as evidence.
</font>[/QUOTE]Wow! I guess it s**ks to be me and not have Behind the Claw.
But in any event, it hardly seems to be reasonable. When we open the can of worms that allows the subsectors to be carved up, as I noted in my previous post, where does it end? And worse, how are those divisions represented in published information? The answer: They're not represented. A massive amount of decision making would be necessary to go over the whole Imperium making such decisions, new formats of data-publication in order to successfully communicate the data (I don't really object to new formats that do a better job that the old . . . as long as the issue they're supporting isn't one of adding a complexity level that isn't required).
And therein lies, I state, the crux of it. The added layer of complexity of assigning clusters of worlds that cross subsector borders to one "subsector" noble, when it isn't 100% crystal clear there is a reason for doing so (and Lanth doesn't seems like an obvious choice for such a reason), seems to create a new dimension of difficulty in determining the organization of the Imperial Nobility and the areas assigned to them.
Sort of like CT:Library Supplement 11's mythical "counties" which aren't detailed anywhere in any product (which are mentioned again in GT:Nobles, but yet again, aren't dilineated).
RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
It does if you accept GT material as evidence.
</font>[/QUOTE]Wow! I guess it s**ks to be me and not have Behind the Claw.
But in any event, it hardly seems to be reasonable. When we open the can of worms that allows the subsectors to be carved up, as I noted in my previous post, where does it end? And worse, how are those divisions represented in published information? The answer: They're not represented. A massive amount of decision making would be necessary to go over the whole Imperium making such decisions, new formats of data-publication in order to successfully communicate the data (I don't really object to new formats that do a better job that the old . . . as long as the issue they're supporting isn't one of adding a complexity level that isn't required).
And therein lies, I state, the crux of it. The added layer of complexity of assigning clusters of worlds that cross subsector borders to one "subsector" noble, when it isn't 100% crystal clear there is a reason for doing so (and Lanth doesn't seems like an obvious choice for such a reason), seems to create a new dimension of difficulty in determining the organization of the Imperial Nobility and the areas assigned to them.
Sort of like CT:Library Supplement 11's mythical "counties" which aren't detailed anywhere in any product (which are mentioned again in GT:Nobles, but yet again, aren't dilineated).
Well, here I think we diverge a bit. IMTU, each full subsector (and Lanth is a full subsector) gets its Ruling Count (Subsector Duke in the OTU). Partial subsectors (like Regina), usually get one, too. Only a few cases assign control of worlds in one sector to the management of another subsector.</font>[/QUOTE]Well, I'm not entirely without canonical support. The Imperial part of the Jewell subsector is specifically said to be a county answering to the Duke of Regina (IIRC it is in The Spinward Marches Campaign) and the Marquis of Aramis answers to the Count of Celepina who in turn answers to the Duke of Rhylanor (The Traveller Adventure).
Your Imperium is a lot weaker than my impression of the OTU Imperium. Imperial dukes don't get to carve up each other's duchies. The Emperor frowns on that sort of antics.
Besides, Lanth is arguably an extreme case. It's combined GWP is pitiful compared to that of Regina, Rhylanor, Mora, Lunion, Trin, and Glisten (something like 2% of that of Regina). Lanth simply can't afford to maintain any sort of credible forces on its own.
My take is that the Imperium very much prefer that each of its subsectors is a duchy is a subsector, but that here and there reality intervenes to upset the neat theories, as it so often does with neat theories.
Well, a consensus is not needed. Whoever writes up a duchy first gets to decide if it's one of the odd ones (Always subject to veto by Marc Miller or one of his designated stand-ins, of course). That's how shared universes grow.
Hans
It does if you accept GT material as evidence.
</font>[/QUOTE]Wow! I guess it s**ks to be me and not have Behind the Claw.</font>[/QUOTE]It's in Nobles, actually.
Why should anyone need to go over the entire Imperium and settle each case right now? Traveller authors can just make it up as the need arise.
(Mind you, I'm not saying that it wouldn't be a good thing to have these odd subsectors listed somewhere, in order to prevent discrepancies in future Traveller material, but there are so many other things it would be nice to have nailed down, only it would be too much work.)
I don't really see the problem. And I certainly see one very valid reason for not making Lanth a full duchy. It's weaker than most marquisates. Making it a county (as I think it would be) is already a huge sop to the Imperium's preference for making every subsector a duchy.
Good point. The counties are mentioned but not shown on any maps, so the fact that carved-up subsectors are not shown on the map either is not evidence that they don't exist (especially since we have at least one canonical example (Aramis subsector).
Hans
RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
I didn't mean by warfare, I meant by politics. They'd go through their superiors for "decisions" of area-assignment. Long-term pressure would work wonders over the centuries.
In any event, that portion was clearly prefixed IMTU.
Well, a consensus is not needed. Whoever writes up a duchy first gets to decide if it's one of the odd ones (Always subject to veto by Marc Miller or one of his designated stand-ins, of course). That's how shared universes grow.
</font>[/QUOTE]That's one way to do it, certainly. I just think that "reality" intervenes in few cases indeed (external borders only, possibly when 4-5 worlds or less are involved; with Jewell, being toe to toe with a major enemy of the Imperium, being the one exception to the rule).
As for regions as small as subsectors being called something as large as a duchy . . . we already had that one out in another thread, to no effect.
RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
I didn't mean by warfare, I meant by politics. They'd go through their superiors for "decisions" of area-assignment. Long-term pressure would work wonders over the centuries.
In any event, that portion was clearly prefixed IMTU.
Well, a consensus is not needed. Whoever writes up a duchy first gets to decide if it's one of the odd ones (Always subject to veto by Marc Miller or one of his designated stand-ins, of course). That's how shared universes grow.
</font>[/QUOTE]That's one way to do it, certainly. I just think that "reality" intervenes in few cases indeed (external borders only, possibly when 4-5 worlds or less are involved; with Jewell, being toe to toe with a major enemy of the Imperium, being the one exception to the rule).
As for regions as small as subsectors being called something as large as a duchy . . . we already had that one out in another thread, to no effect.
RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
I didn't mean by warfare, I meant by politics. They'd go through their superiors for "decisions" of area-assignment. Long-term pressure would work wonders over the centuries.
In any event, that portion was clearly prefixed IMTU.
Well, a consensus is not needed. Whoever writes up a duchy first gets to decide if it's one of the odd ones (Always subject to veto by Marc Miller or one of his designated stand-ins, of course). That's how shared universes grow.
</font>[/QUOTE]That's one way to do it, certainly. I just think that "reality" intervenes in few cases indeed (external borders only, possibly when 4-5 worlds or less are involved; with Jewell, being toe to toe with a major enemy of the Imperium, being the one exception to the rule).
As for regions as small as subsectors being called something as large as a duchy . . . we already had that one out in another thread, to no effect.
So it was. Whereas my comments was about the OTU. So I made a comparison between the two.
Come to that, the objections you bring up aren't problems in your TU, are they? In YTU Lanth is a county, and if you decided to 'open that can of worms', you'd be the one who gets to decide which counties are odd and which aren't. So why bring it up unless you thought your objections are valid in connection with the OTU?
Hans
