-
Going forward, links to content from Twitter (now X) will no longer be embedded. Pre-existing links should not be affected.
Terminus Quest: A CKII Mass Effect Quest
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
Well, the thing is, in a (post)modern heavily automated economy, a large fraction of the population is likely to be economically marginally productive anyway. People who can't do anything more difficult or creative than what a VI can do are going to have a hard time really "earning," in a free-market sense, a living.
There are several ways a society can approach this.
It can heavily subsidize and promote various forms of art and interpersonal interaction and things, to find jobs that sapient beings are uniquely good at but which VIs cannot do. Even if those jobs aren't economically necessary.
It can tax the economic products of its heavily automated post-industrial futuristic economy and distribute the proceeds to give veryone a guaranteed income.
Maybe the batarian answer becomes "if you cannot support yourself, you become a slave to someone who controls enough wealth to feed you, and do whatever they feel like making you do." Once that institution becomes established, their habit of enslaving random aliens they can't or don't want to ransom back is a predictable outgrowth.
Ehehh...
I can easily imagine the Citadel spending the next hundred years (or the fifty years immediately after the war) systematically fucking with us to revenge themselves for the imagined "slight" of our "depriving" them of the Sentry Omega cluster they never colonized anyway.
Or, y'know, siccing the krogan on us. Remember that the biggest problem that led to the krogan rebellions was friction caused by krogan trying to muscle in on every colony world they could find? How hard would it be for the Citadel to temporarily alleviate that pressure on themselves by pointing the krogan at Sentry Omega and say "hey, they've got lots of planets they're trying to keep all to themselves, have at it?"
EDIT:
To be clear, I'd much rather have a recognized legal status within the Citadel framework, one that accords us an acknowledged territory and standing like that of the various minor intelligent species with embassies, such as the elcor and hanar. This is much more likely to work out well for us than declaring independence and daring the Citadel to do something about it, because they have literally an entire galaxy worth of things to do about it. Including some very serious and potentially nasty problem children of their own.
Last edited:
I can remember two instances where Shepard interacts with slavery in mass effect.
One was on Illium (Mass Effect 2) where Shepard can free a Quarian indentured servant whose Asari mistress wants to sell her as an expert in AI programming.
The other is where she can prevent a former Batarian slave from killing herself (Mass Effect). I seem to remember something about a control device implanted in the former-slave's head, but I can't find more than an oblique reference to it.
The former situation implies that the Asari know how to motivate slaves to do professional work, whereas the latter implies that the Batarians were not limited to physical force in their enforcement methods. Both of which imply that slavery in-universe (while still likely less economical than a free labor force) may be more economical than we might otherwise expect.
One was on Illium (Mass Effect 2) where Shepard can free a Quarian indentured servant whose Asari mistress wants to sell her as an expert in AI programming.
The other is where she can prevent a former Batarian slave from killing herself (Mass Effect). I seem to remember something about a control device implanted in the former-slave's head, but I can't find more than an oblique reference to it.
The former situation implies that the Asari know how to motivate slaves to do professional work, whereas the latter implies that the Batarians were not limited to physical force in their enforcement methods. Both of which imply that slavery in-universe (while still likely less economical than a free labor force) may be more economical than we might otherwise expect.
Last edited:
Speculation. They could as easily spend those decades trying to improve relations so we will open up and integrate.
The Asari didn't achieve a Diplomacy Victory by holding grudges. And the Salarians don't live long enough to hold grudges.
Once again; Act of War. Their own public would crucify them.
Then you should be voting for Independence. We want to approach this as a Nation looking to join the galactic community. Starting on the outside and working in. Not as a jumped up colony trying to get special treatment.
- Location
- UK
[X][TIMING] Pass. Virmire First.
[X][BUOYS] Update the Maps
[X][BUOYS] Reconnaissance Pulse
[X][BUOYS] Update the Maps
[X][BUOYS] Reconnaissance Pulse
- Location
- Canada
[X][TIMING] Pass. Virmire First.
[X][BUOYS] General Distress Call.
[X][BUOYS] Update the Maps.
[X][BUOYS] General Distress Call.
[X][BUOYS] Update the Maps.
lancelot
Completely worth it
I'm not saying we should ask later because the answer 'yes but only after we take you for everything your worth... again'. As of right now unless the scale of this war is far different then I'm imagining I doubt we've effected the real war effort at all. Until we hit major shipyards, constant raids on their supply lines to the front, or something else that effects the entire war effort. Going independent is going to have the council giving us shit economically, politically, and in the media after the war is over.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
It's speculation, but it's a risk. If the Council decided they want access to Sentry Omega's worlds, either due to the salarians being greedy or the asari just dismissing Virmire independence as a fad, or both... We are not in a good position to stop them.
We have to convince them to honor our right to that space, or in the long run we will not hold that space, any more than the batarians were able to hold the Skyllian Verge. The batarians are an excellent cautionary tale, because they too tried to angrily brush off the Council as not respecting their independence enough, and it does not go well for them.
In my opinion, a big part of the reason the Council lasts for thousands of years is because they make it much easier and smarter to strike a compromise deal with the Citadel than to risk pissing them off. The humans and turians compromised and did great; the krogan and batarians didn't and wound up doing... not so great.
Why? All the Council would be doing is saying "hey, krogan warlords, this cluster is unclaimed by any recognized Citadel government or interest group, and is willing to fight us rather than negotiate a sharing arrangement. Why not go bother them instead of bothering recognized Citadel governments?"
I mean, the asari didn't achieve a diplomacy victory by not knowing how to play two groups of prickly hardasses off against each other, either.
My point is, there are real risks either way; it's not an obvious case where if we don't declare independence Right The Hell Now the Citadel can just effortlessly muscle in on us, whereas if we do declare Right The Hell Now they are forever locked away from harming us in perpetuity.
- Location
- Source of confusion itself.
[X][TIMING] Pass. Virmire First.
[X][BUOYS] Update the Maps
[X][BUOYS] Reconnaissance Pulse
[X][BUOYS] Update the Maps
[X][BUOYS] Reconnaissance Pulse
- Location
- Canada
we've now got clear winners for each
Inserted tally
Inserted tally
We denied the Rachni Sentry Omega. We took Attican Beta and Kepler Verge off them. 3 of the 18 clusters the Rachni would otherwise have. That is quite a lot of territory not contributing to the war as a direct result of us.
We haven't damage their war fighting capability much but we have severely reduced their ability to expand their infrastructure.
For a single colony that the Council wrote off as lost and dead, we've had a noteworthy effect on the war efforts. Enough that we've gained 1 point of Council attention, in spite of not actually having any contact with the Council - they know something is happening behind enemy lines, because the Rachni are somehow notably affected by something that wasn't their own forces.
In Year 3, we killed a dreadnought. That alone would have some effects on the greater war effort, because a dreadnought is no small thing. To put things into perspective, in Mass Effect canon there's some total numbers for dreadnoughts that the various races possess. According to the ME wiki, in 2185 the Turians had 39, the Asari 20 (or perhaps 21, if the Destiny Ascension survives), the Salarians 16, and Humans 8. In 2186 humanity built a ninth dreadnought, and the Volus had built one of their own as well, and we can probably guess the Turians built another one or two of their own. The geth are noted to have around as many as the Turians. The batarians have some unspecified number of dreadnoughts, too, and the quarians refitted their Liveships with dreadnought cannons when trying to retake their homeworld. So, let's be generous and say that perhaps the entire galactic community had something like 150 dreadnoughts when the Reapers arrived. And this is after a couple thousand years have passed since the start and end of the Rachni wars, giving all races time to expand, or actually get into the galactic community.
While many dreadnoughts would be replaced over time as they go obsolete, and many races would opt not to build large numbers of them during peace time, the amount of dreadnoughts the Council races could field during the Rachni Wars was probably less than that, and the same for the Rachni. Even if the Rachni had something like the Turians' 39 dreadnoughts, the loss of a single one would be enough to cause some effect on future battles, since it wouldn't be present at them.
After year 3, instead of being able to move their forces that were dedicated against us to the front against the Council, the Rachni had to continue to devote resources to defending the Attican Beta Relay Hub, as well as building up forces to try to kill us. Then in Year 10 we attacked, after effortlessly crushing their scouting force due to lucky timing. They had three dreadnoughts on station, presumably for their planned offensive, in the hopes of overwhelming our forces. We killed all of them, eliminating what was likely a significant percentage of their dreadnoughts. More importantly, we took control of the Relay Hub, effectively cutting a massive hole in the middle of Rachni territory and wreaking havoc on their logistics planning - the Keppler Verge was cut off from all support, as was the Hades Gamma and the three adjoining clusters. The greater Rachni empire is denied all resources from the Hades Gamma group, nor can they reinforce it against attacks. Hades Gamma is cut off, barring the Rachni having taken the Exodus Cluster from the Batarians since our map of their territory was updated.
Not bad for a colony that by all rights should have died off.
lancelot
Completely worth it
Where did this show up? Frankly I'd like to see some small pieces about the Council POV wondering what the hell is going on, and why. Ending with our 'we're still here bitches' broadcast.
Results section at the end of the Year 10 battle final turn that showed changes in attention:
- Location
- USA
So why do you guys think we didn't get attacked this turn? Do you think we weren't going to be in the first place or do you guys think something changed in the war? I'm leaning towards a change in the war, but I can't decide what the change would be.
I think there are two main options for what happened. Either the Rachni took the Exodus Cluster which probably improves their logistics network to the point of not really needing to control Attican Beta, or the Council took the Head Horse Nebula Cutting the Rachni home cluster off from the rest of it's holdings (as we know them). The former is bad news and reasonably likely, while the latter is very good news but less likely.
I'm hoping it was the Council taking the cluster, since that means the Rachni are probably focusing on linking back up to their home world. But we're probably not lucky enough for that to have happened.
I think there are two main options for what happened. Either the Rachni took the Exodus Cluster which probably improves their logistics network to the point of not really needing to control Attican Beta, or the Council took the Head Horse Nebula Cutting the Rachni home cluster off from the rest of it's holdings (as we know them). The former is bad news and reasonably likely, while the latter is very good news but less likely.
I'm hoping it was the Council taking the cluster, since that means the Rachni are probably focusing on linking back up to their home world. But we're probably not lucky enough for that to have happened.
- Location
- Canada
good questions, with Update the Maps we'll probably find out.
- Location
- the Moon
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Grudges no. Feuds perhaps.
VoidZero
Passing Flan 布丁魔王
- Location
- Anywhere but RL
Maybe the Rachni noticed their overextended supply network and decided to dig in, forcing their enemies to launch counteroffensive now or face space trench war down the line.
Point of order:
The canon ME galaxy builds few dreadnoughts because of a deliberate policy to control the number of dreadnoughts in service.
That policy, notably, is not yet in existence here.
Furthermore, the galaxy is in a state of total war.
The Rachni are fighting a war on at least three fronts, with multiple Tier-1 and Tier-2/3 polities.
And yet they could afford to divert 3 dreadnoughts to stomp on a dinky one-planet system.
I would strongly suggest not assuming that dreadnought numbers are anything like canon; the Rachni alone may well be in the low three digits.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
True- on the other hand, wiping out four dreadnoughts and their screening forces that would otherwise exist is still likely to be a significant contribution to the war effort.
- Location
- the Moon
- Pronouns
- He/Him
iirc, there's a treaty about the number of dreadnoughts allowed in service per polity by the time of ME1. Which oddly has precedent with the pre WW1 treaties limiting the tonnage of battleships and carriers... which rather dramatically weakened the British Empire on a fundamental level. I mean sure, they had colonies all over the place like herpes on a body.. but to actually bring all that to bear requires their old naval doctrine of 2x the 2nd and 3rd sized naves combined.
I seem to have gotten off topic somewhat... anywho! we're in the position of being able to build as many Bismarks as we can without consequence! and so is everyone else.
(woulda said Iowas but frankly those are pinnacle of BB tech, and we're nowhere near that apex
I seem to have gotten off topic somewhat... anywho! we're in the position of being able to build as many Bismarks as we can without consequence! and so is everyone else.
(woulda said Iowas but frankly those are pinnacle of BB tech, and we're nowhere near that apex
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
Yes, I believe that was Mr. Tebbs' point.
The Washington Naval Treaty was post World War One, not prewar. Its main purpose was to prevent a second naval arms race like the one immediately before the war. A race none of the major industrial powers could really afford in the wake of the general economic downturn that immediately followed the war.
For the British, getting a treaty that would halt construction of new battleships, ensure that their best existing WWI-era battleships weren't rendered obsolete by new construction, and ensure that they wouldn't be overall outclassed in terms of raw ship numbers, was actually very beneficial. Given that Britain was on good terms with the US, and at the time was on reasonably good terms with Japan, it also left Britain far outclassing its likely opponents; if you left the US out of the picture and calculated up the ship numbers allowed to other Treaty powers, they still HAD a two-power standard in play, because the ratio was 5 (US/Britain) to 3 (Japan) to 1.75 (Italy/France).
Under the treaty regime of the post-WWI era, the Germans had NO battleships of any meaningful effectiveness, the French and US were British allies, and the Soviets had basically no incentive to build a powerful navy. The worst plausible combination the British were likely to face in, say, 1930 would have been something like "Japan plus Italy," which was still no more battleships than Britain actually had. 3 plus 1.75 isn't more than 5.
It's hard to say that anyone really lost from the Washington Naval Treaty, because all the key players had good reasons to sign it.
Ah, sort of... It's more complicated than that.
The Washington Naval Treaty was post World War One, not prewar. Its main purpose was to prevent a second naval arms race like the one immediately before the war. A race none of the major industrial powers could really afford in the wake of the general economic downturn that immediately followed the war.
For the British, getting a treaty that would halt construction of new battleships, ensure that their best existing WWI-era battleships weren't rendered obsolete by new construction, and ensure that they wouldn't be overall outclassed in terms of raw ship numbers, was actually very beneficial. Given that Britain was on good terms with the US, and at the time was on reasonably good terms with Japan, it also left Britain far outclassing its likely opponents; if you left the US out of the picture and calculated up the ship numbers allowed to other Treaty powers, they still HAD a two-power standard in play, because the ratio was 5 (US/Britain) to 3 (Japan) to 1.75 (Italy/France).
Under the treaty regime of the post-WWI era, the Germans had NO battleships of any meaningful effectiveness, the French and US were British allies, and the Soviets had basically no incentive to build a powerful navy. The worst plausible combination the British were likely to face in, say, 1930 would have been something like "Japan plus Italy," which was still no more battleships than Britain actually had. 3 plus 1.75 isn't more than 5.
It's hard to say that anyone really lost from the Washington Naval Treaty, because all the key players had good reasons to sign it.
Honestly, our ships are probably like piston-engine Tsushima-era predreadnoughts, if that, compared to a dreadnought of the Mass Effect era. Maybe even klutzy Victorian battleships with giant blackpowder cannons firing explosive shells that had like no armor penetration.
Something I'd like to point out regarding dreadnought numbers, this war has been going on for 25 years at this point. 25. Given our current production rate we could have, in that time, built 12 dreadnoughts if we'd had the facilities and cash for it. We don't, obviously, but the Citadel Council and the Rachni do. More then that, they likely have a significantly higher production rate then us, more shipyards, larger shipyards etc. Even taking a conservative estimate of them having 4 times our production, two dreadnoughts rolling off the line per year, that still gives them 50 new dreadnoughts since this war began. Each. And this is lowballing the production rates, I could easily believe they have production rates of 3 or even 4 dreadnaughts per year.
The 4 dreadnaughts we killed is an impressive achievement, but versus what they have? 50 rachni dreadnaughts, maybe even 75 or a hundred? It's painful to their war effort but not a crippling blow of any sort.
The 4 dreadnaughts we killed is an impressive achievement, but versus what they have? 50 rachni dreadnaughts, maybe even 75 or a hundred? It's painful to their war effort but not a crippling blow of any sort.
It should be kept in mind that both the Rachni and the Council will be losing dreadnoughts every year in the fighting, even if they're replacing them. So losing 4 dreadnoughts if they're producing 3 or 4 still knocks them back a year in production. The Council on the other hand wouldn't have lost their year's production, which leaves them with a better ratio of dreadnoughts compared to the enemy's, which can snowball into them faring better.