Re: [fh ot] Re: [GZG][FH] Planet types (was Re: Locations of Sta

Alan spake thusly upon matters weighty: 

> Concur. And a much smaller fleet than might be expected, consisting of
a
> small number of almost unarmed patrol vessels, and a few major ships
> with far more firepower and technological sophistication (and cost...)
> than any ship of that size has the right to have.

I doubt that. 

> In FT-II terms, only a pair of cruisers where an opponent might have a
> BC and a pair of cruisers. But the OU ones have Wave Motion Guns,
class
> III shields etc...
> Taking a look at today's Oz navy, we have old, obsolete US Destroyers,
> Charles F Adams Class. But our ones have similar electronics suites to
> US Guided Missile Cruisers, plus NULKA and other home-grown cutting
edge
> anti missile defences (which the USN are just starting to fit on their
> ships, one of several pieces of Australian-developed military hi-tech
in
> US service).

Precisely for the reason mentioned here, it is quite likely that the 
OU and the NAC probably share a lot of cutting edge technologies with 
each other, and a lot of Military Industrial Complexes probably sell 
to all sides. It seems likely that most of the major combatants would 
at most have superiority in a limited area (eg a single technology) 
and it seems likely that would not last long (the others would steal 
it, reverse engineer it, or buy it).  If you look at NATO member 
ships today, they have technologies from many member countries but 
from many other countries like Japan and the SEATO countries. This 
isn't likely to be any different in 2183. More prevalent, I'd guess. 

Would the OU have a few ships? Yes. Like the Canadians would if they 
were independent. Would they have good ships? I'm sure some would be 
fabulous and well equipped. But only to first line standards in most 
areas. It's not like your Navy is the terror of the sees, nor if it 
was would it remain so for long. We in Canada also have some spiffy 
home grown systems for EW that I'd put up against any in the world 
(if only in friendly competition!), but I don't think that means our 
ships are 'a cut above'. Above ships made 20 years ago, sure! Above 
modern ships made in Oz or in France, probably not. Everyone has 
there own tech tricks, but by en large, ships of a class, of an era, 
and of a cost level, share a parity in general performance envelope, 
with each ship having strengths and weaknesses. 

If you want flavour, has anyone thought of giving each nation some 
type of enhancements to one area or another to reflect national 
character?

ie Oz has great PDS (more effective, cheaper, or less massive)
NAC has great EW/Fire Control/Sensors
ESU has great Hull Integrity
etc. 

We've explored these kind of 'differences' for the Kra-Vak, but has 
anyone thought of trying these for standard Human fleets?

> >	    At the risk of offeneding someone out there, it is my
understanding from
> > Cambodian, Vietnamese and ABC (Australian Born Chinese) friends that
no
> > native peoples of SE Asia likes the Chinese.
> 
> Mainly due to economic domination. Sorta similar situation to the Jews
> in Europe. You "keep them furriners in their place" so they are forced
> into a narrow group of despised occupations. They monopolise these
> occupations, become successful, and so they go from "filthy worthless
> tramps" to "bloated plutocratic exploiters". In Australia we call this
> the "Tall Poppy Syndrome". Thus everyone hates Bill Gates. 

Hmm. That seems a worldwide thought.... but he has (in a strange way) 
done a lot for the world (between bouts of outright nastiness). 
 
> The only group that everyone in East Asia seems to hate with a passion
> are the Japanese. Which is why the poor average Japanese sarariman on
a
> trip to SE Asia never seems to get served on time, or his shoes
shined,
> or his laundry returned at all, and blames it on "non-Japanese
> inneficiency" rather than the real reason (which he never learnt about
> at school).

Of course, take a trip to Japan and I'm told this operates in 
reverse.  

> Hmmm. I seem to have drifted WAY off topic.

Perilously.  
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay		     
Voice: (613) 831-2018 x 4009
Fax: (613) 831-8255

 "C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot.  C++ makes
 it harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg."
 -Bjarne Stroustrup
**************************************************/