RE: Questions regarding NAC ground units, was SG IF morale

Hey folks,

Ok, this is a bit long.  I had plenty to say... :)

>Seriously, you guys need to develop a sense of humour. You may be smart

>enough to understand reality and the media, though these days I think
you 
>will find a lot of people can't see any difference between the two :) 

Hear, hear, Derek.

Look, this is getting a wee bit out of hand.

As (I think) Iain said, it's only a game, and what the heck is wrong
with a
Brit-centered universe/history for once, anyway...

Jon T. has, IIRC, mentioned *on this list* that the history he provided
in
the game is meant for fun, partially tongue-in-cheek, as a means of
providing an excuse to have battles.  He's British, so *why not* write a
Brit-centered history?

It isn't "realistic" enough?

This is science fiction.  I could think of several ways to justify
having
the US fall completely to pieces and dissappear all together as a world
power in the next 50 years, let alone the next 200.  I could think of
ways
the US could form a fascist-ish world government subjugating everyone
else,
in the next 50 years, too.  Either is just as "realistic".  The Roman
Empire covered much of the "known" world, then disappeared.  The British
Empire ruled more of the world than any other, ever, in recorded
history.
And ended up in the dustbin inside of 50 years.  And so on.  Things
change.
 But in the end, that stuff really doesn't matter.

If you don't like the canon history, then don't play using it.	

>Any history that does not take the US Constitution and 
>culture and the will of Americans into consideration in the formation
of the 
>NAC isn't REALLY an NAC, it's a reborn British Empire inspired merely
to 
>say, "Screw you, Yanks."

Oh crap.  That's just silly.

That's verging on paranoid, and reading a lot more into what is and
isn't
said in the Canon than is really there.

What you mean is that any history that doesn't let the US be the
US-in-space isn't satisfying to you.

I don't know what Jon T's motivations were while writing the Canon
history,
but I'm sure it wasn't a big conspiracy designed specifically to stick
it
to the US...

Why do you assume that the US must be the
US-as-you-know-it-now-mostly-and-maybe-changed-a-bit in any future
history,
or the history is just out to "Screw you, Yanks."?

Good grief.

>Sadly, it's so popular to lampoon Americans these 
>days, no one really takes time to pay attention to what we're really
like.

Balls.

Up here in the Great White North, we get AmericaAmericaAmerica as much
as
we can take.  Don't get me wrong, Candians (including me - very much so)
generally love our Southern Brethran - there were over 20,000 Canadians
that turned out at the Canada-Loves-New York rally, *in New York city*,
this past weekend, including our Prime Minister -  for example.  But
don't
give me the "no one really knows us" line...  I took a year of American
history in *highschool* for pete's sakes.  America is lampooned because
it's the big boy on the block, and because too many Americans take
themselves way too seriously sometimes.  That's how it goes.  Canada is
lampooned for being backwards and too nice and wishy-washy.  The Brits
are
lampooned for being a bunch of toffee-nosed-prigs.  The French are
lampooned for being.... er... French.  The Australians are lampooned for
being just like Crock Dundee.  And so on.  It's all in fun.

Ever looked at Revolution-era US political cartoons?  English political
cartoons of the same era, for that matter?  Lampooning the Crown like
crazy...

Why?

Big boy on the block...

> I 
>wonder if anyone who holds to the American NAC nobility line actually 
>understands just how deeply ingrained in the American psyche is the 
>resistance to any sort of imposed perrage/nobility/monarchy.  Good God,
we 
>almost rejected our first and arguably most beloved president because
some 
>people thought he acted too much like a king.	That's why the official 
>address of a US Pres is "Mr. President," not, His Honorness or His 
>worshipfulness or some other folderol.

I wonder if you read the GZG history in the GZG rule books?  The
formation
of the AC (later NAC) comes 50 years from now, after the US economy and
government collapse, after a big civil war, and after years of putting
things back together.  Look at US during the period from, say 1775 to
1830.
 British Colony to powerful republic, with a completely different ethos,
different politics, different social structure, etc.  Remember that the
American heroes who started the revolution considered themselves to be,
in
a large part, loyal Englishmen.  They tried and tried to get the Crown
to
recognize their issues and grievences, and make changes within the
context
of the existing system, before they took the big leap into rebellion. 
It
took a LOT for their politics and loyalties to change - but change they
did, and a nation changed with them.  Look at the British Empire from
say
1895 to 1945, or maybe 1918 to 1968.  Largest Empire the world has ever
seen, to a few remaining colonial holdings - an island here and there.
Ever study history?  50 years is a long time, and lots and lots can
happen.

Who knows what the US of 2057 (when the AC is founded) is like?  Could
be a
*completely* different place than the place you know now.  Given what
the
Canon says happens around the world, I'm sure it would be.

>>As for the NAC controversy, I'm not disputing the NAC.   But the Canon

>>only says we were rejoined, it doesn't say we were dragged in in 
>>chains.  Tomb asked us to find ways to make the NAC work, and as Mr. 
>>Atkinson pointed out, it would most likely include a good deal of 
>>concessions to the Americans.
>
>Back to the interesting stuff. I tend to think the assumption that the
USA 
>will be in any state to negotiate concessions to be part of the NAC a
bit 
>of wishful thinking.

The canon doesn't say much about how the US joined the NAC.  Rather than
taking it all personally, lets look at what the canon actually says.

In the intro to the timeline in the SG rulebook, the NAC is introduced
as
"...a primarily British-controlled alliance encompassing Canada and the
former USA which grew out of the rubble of the Second American Civil
War..."

And from the various timelines, we see:

"2049 The US economy collapses, followed by the Federal Government as
the
President is assassinated in the bombing of the White House.  General
Parham declares the creation of a military government.	Many states
ignore
the military proclamation, violently opposing the armed forces atttempts
to
assume control."

"2050 Parham requests UN military involvement to restore order in the
US.
The request is denied.	The military government turns toward Britain and
Canada for help.  The 'Pacification' of the former USA begins."

"2057 Britain, Canada and the United States unite under the Crown and
create the Anglian Confederation.  Admiral Dewsbury appointed Lord
Governor
of the territory previously known as the United States of America."

and then we skip through the War of the Americas, into space, and right
on
up to

"2098 Conflict again between the Anglian Confederation and the LLAR as
border clashes escalate into all out war.  Within two years, the LLAR
loses
all possessions on Earth..."

and then 

"2135 The Anglian Confederation moves its Parliament to Albion, which
now
has a population almost as large as England thanks to massive
immigration
and engineered population growth programmes.  The reigning monarch, King
Charles V, divides his time between palaces in England, Vermont, Ottawa
and
Albion."

"2136 The Anglian Confederation renames itself the New Anglian
Confederation and revises its Constitution to include all related
colonies
as independent members."

And then that's pretty much it, other than when California and Texas
break
off in 2159 and form the FCT.  There are more mentions of NAC battles,
led
by Ennobled senior officers (ie "Sir Andrew Le Throux" and "Rear Admiral
Dame Jayne Oppenburger").  

Not a lot else.

So, what does that tell us.

In the Canon, the US dissolves.  The AC (and later NAC) if formed from
the
three countries joining, and goes on to take over all of Central and
South
America, not to mention a bunch of off-world colonies.

All the colonies are recognized as independent members.  Depending on
how
you read this, and knowing that the *capital* of the NAC is on one of
the
colony worlds (an "independent member"), I think it is reasonable to
suggest that maybe the former UK, the former Canada and the former USA
are
all also independent members...  Probably not exactly the same as they
were
in 2001, though.  

We know that the US was led by a "Lord Governor" after Parnham.  No more
President, ie no more US Constitution.	It doesn't say the US got all
kinds
of negotiated concessions.  It doesn't say that it *didn't* get
negotiated
concessions.  It did say that the US doesn't get a President...  And it
says that the US was wrecked (ie "out of the rubble of the Second ...")

But it says almost NOTHING about the current political state of the NAC,
how it is composed, etc etc.  We know there is a Parliament.  We know
there
is a King as the head of state.  We know there is a nobility.  What
*kind*
of nobility, whether landed gentry or created as rewards of some kind,
we
don't know.  Maybe the nobility is a meritocracy...?

We know that the Texans and Californians didn't like it enough to get
out.
That and the bit about "primarily British-controlled" sorta suggests a
British-ish dominance in the way it was put together.

I have a good idea how those who get miffed about the
"British-controlled"
leanings of the Canon feel.  Canada would have almost as strong,
probably
just as strong, a reaction to British dominance as the US would.  The US
fought for its independence against the British Crown in the late 18th
century.  Canada fought for its independence during the Boer War, in the
fields of France and Belgium in World War I, and in Italy, Holland,
France
and Germany during WWII.  We just didn't fight *against* the British. 
But
*many* Canadians died as *Canadians* - not as Englishmen...  We have
just
as strong a claim to our independence as the Americans do - it's just
younger.  And we didn't dissolve in a civil war in the Canon history
(though, given the heavy dependence of the Canadian economy on trade
with
the US, a civil war in the US would probably muck things up here pretty
well, also).  The British were almost certainly the strongest of the
three
countries and were able to influence things heavily during the formation
of
the AC.  But the sense of nation that the Canadians and the Americans
would
bring to the AC (later NAC) would I'm *sure* be reflected in it's
composition.  At least it does in *my* version...  And that's really the
point.

To conclude this vast ramble, there is LOTS of space and "wriggle room"
in
what is said in the Canon for you to interpret things how you like.  It
doesn't say that the US was dragged in to the AC in chains.

The *greatest* thing, in my opinion, of these games is that Jon wrote
them
to be setting-independent.  You can play with the setting how you like.
You can throw it out the window or bend it wildly, as John Atkinson has
done.  And you're encouraged to do so.

But *please* can we stop with the "The US should be more dominant", "The
US
would never subject itself to a new Monarchy", "We would kill anyone who
tried to be a noble here", "It isn't *realistic*".

It is as realistic as you want it to be.

And if it isn't realistic to you, and least it sure is flexible.

Well, that's a bit more than my $0.02.	I'll get off the soapbox now.

:)

Adrian

********************************************

Adrian Johnson