Re: [GZG] [SG] Rapid Fire antipersonnel plasma gun?

On 9/28/06, gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
<gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:22:09 -0500 (CDT)
> From: <laserlight@verizon.net>

> But you wouldn't necessarily do that, because everyone's gong to want
to be reasonably
> close to a spaceport. Let's say all you need to land is a body of
water (a la Pournelle's
> Falkenberg series)-- tt's still going to be more economical to have
three settlements at the
> north, east and south side of the bay, instead of three separate bays
on different
> continents.

This depends entirely on the economics (there's that word again) of
the trade routes to the planet.

If the Alarishi or some neutral transport fleet come calling to the
planet, you're right. It's more economic to put all your colonies
fairly near one another.

If the NAC are going to send NAC ships to pick up NAC goods and drop
off NAC supplies at the NAC colony, and the ESU are going to send ESU
ships to pick up ESU goods and drop off ESU supplies at the ESU
colony, it would be best if the colonies were separated so that there
would be as little conflict as possible.

The only exceptions would be for mutual defence (perhaps the local
fauna is particularly nasty), or for mutual support (you need the
farmers from all three colonies for the colony to be self sufficient
in food), or the habitable area is tightly constrained (think Larry
Niven's Plateau).

I think John's point still stands, that you need to have a reason for
the colonies to be close together in order to fight, and then you have
to have an economic reason why they are fighting.

It's not impossible, but you have to come up with a good reason for it
without it seeming "made up".

-- 
Allan Goodall		 http://www.hyperbear.com
agoodall@hyperbear.com
awgoodall@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l