Prev: [OFFICIAL] Colony lists and Planet Types Next: Re: GZGL DSII - Hostile Environment Suited Infantry

Re: [GZG][FH] Planet types (was Re: Locations of Stars)

From: Adrian Johnson <ajohnson@i...>
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 15:22:18 -0500
Subject: Re: [GZG][FH] Planet types (was Re: Locations of Stars)

Places can have plenty of strategic importance and little/no
If we agree with the idea that FTL travel has limited range, requiring
layovers and lots of short-distance jumps to get anywhere distance, then
there will be places that are valuable simply by virtue of being...
in the right place...

If you have three productive colony worlds off thataway, and the
route to get there happens to require a stopover in/near a system with
little productive potential, it aquires value/importance simply by
of it's status as a portal.  This theme has been used lots by SF authors
over the years.  Actually, if you think about it, this was a constant
during the whole "Europeans exploring and exploiting the world" part of
history here on good ole' Earth.  That's why places like St. Helena
"valuable" in their time - not because of inherent resource value, but
because of good location.    "...There's three things you need for a
successful *war*:  location, location, location..."   :-)

In the end, the fight will be about resources (whether that be food,
minerals, diamonds, big furry monsters with valuable pelts, or even
space or things more esoteric like privacy/peace and quiet/unfettered
freedom from persecution/etc), but you gotta get there.  Of course, if
have FTL travel that lets you get anywhere you want quickly, then
NO value in these kinds of places, and it does come back to "resources,
resources, resources".	I much prefer the "limited travel range" view of
things though.	Makes it all much more interesting.


>> > Resources, resources, resources. There are many instances of places
>> > worth living in that are often fought over.
>> > 
>> > Schoon
>  None spring to mind other than, say, North Sea oil rigs, which is
>analogous to habitat domes.  I personally wouldn't want to live in,
>Siberia or the Amazon, but they are habitable.  And even so, they are
>as developed as, say, France, simply because you have to invest
>to exploit them, and the investment is a lot larger in a place that has
>be terraformed even to the moderate extent that Siberia or the Amazon
>  Of course, you may not have a choice--the only balonium deposit in
>territory is in a particularly unpleasant environment.  Okay, do you
>a dome and exploit the mines right now; or do you spend the credits to
>terraform the place and wait for however many years it takes to develop
>breathable atmosphere, etc., before you start digging for balonium?
>>	Schoon has hit the nail on the head.   nothing else matters,
>> the availability of resources and the desire to acquire them is 
>> what drives all the action.
>You are talking about strategic importance; I am talking about climate
>terrain, to give it flavor.  You could have a "large Indonesia" planet
>which is wealthy or broke, but for either you're going to use more
>and fewer track-laying vehicles than you would in some other
>you're just a lot less likely to fight over the place with no

Prev: [OFFICIAL] Colony lists and Planet Types Next: Re: GZGL DSII - Hostile Environment Suited Infantry