RE: [Campaign] Criteria

--- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
> sorry for the long url, you can also find it by
> going to 
> 
> http://www.users.bigpond.com/derekfulton/
> 
> and hitting the "Just whose planet is this anyway?!"
> link.

Not a bad framework for a campaign based around an
assumption of scattered inhabited planets which can be
easily exploited and will produce economic resources
more or less on demand.  

What I prefer is the sort of campaign Don's kicking
off Sunday (hopefully).  Theater is one solar system,
and the attacking force has X resources and no more. 
It's a fairly large advantage for the attackers, but
they have a pretty hard time limit--they have to be in
place and install defensive systems before the IFed
can get in reinforcements and before the UNSC can try
to send a peacekeeping force.

The preliminary FT game is going to be a walkover--a
Mongol battlegroup and an NRE Strike Carrier Group
knocking out the in-system STL defense ships.  Then
there's a series of DSII games and maybe a SGII game
involving Templar PA going up against a bunker
complex.
 
> As to "non-Canon powers have a remarkable tendency
> to inflated the size of
> their fleets" I guess that comes down to personal
> views on the sheer size of
> available resources and how much can be automated as
> we head out into the
> stars ;)

Yeah.  After all, the crew sizes are pretty small on
FT ships.  For all it's nearly 800 hulls, the NRE Navy
actually has less than 100,000 ship crewmen (OO might
still have the total tonnage on hand, and tonnage =
crewman).  The USN has nearly 400K personell on active
duty today (well, as of July 1).  I don't know how
many are on comissioned warships, but it's not an
insignificant percentage considering that there are 12
carriers each with over 5,000 crewmen (3K ship's
company, 2K air wing), and destroyers have over 300.

John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free