pbluekan
Somethin's Fucky ...
- Location
- Trumpistan
- Pronouns
- He/Him
She's our secretary of Public Relations, I imagine she might be in the public eye as much as Mira. If only as a "voice box."
Edit: Ninja'd
-
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
Edit: Ninja'd
- Location
- Germiston, South Africa
Not entirely true.
A short victorious war - aka a colonial war can be quite good for the economy.
Decent example is the American action in Iraq.
Economic stimulus from mobilizing, install a puppet government, then the puppet provides your oligarchs with cheap resources.
The influx of resources covers your war costs and usually more.
Same principle as the Roman looting of the cultures around it to support the City.
You don't have to agree with the politics to note that the economics work.
- Location
- Austria
Oookay. Ssso how about not intruding in other countries' infospace with explicitly hostile propaganda?
> Iraq
> profitable for USA
Uh.
Soo.
> Iraq
> profitable for USA
Uh.
Article: In March 2013, the total cost of the Iraq War to date was estimated at $1.7 trillion by the Watson Institute of International Studies at Brown University.[337] Some argue that the total cost of the war to the U.S. economy will range from $3 trillion[338] to $6 trillion,[339] including interest rates, by 2053, as described in the Watson Institute's report. The upper ranges of these estimates include long-term veterans costs and economic impacts. For example, Harvard's public finance expert Linda J. Bilmes has estimated that the long-term cost of providing disability compensation and medical care to U.S. troops injured in the Iraq conflict will reach nearly $1 trillion over the next 40 years,[340] and that the war in Iraq diverted resources from the war in Afghanistan, led to rising oil prices, increased the federal debt, and contributed to a global financial crisis.[341]
Soo.
VoidZero
Passing Flan 布丁魔王
- Location
- Anywhere but RL
Just call colonialism, colonialism. There are "easier" ways of gaining wealth quickly for a nation, selling mining rights for example. Much less risk and doesn't give other states convenient excuse to embargo. Remember we are a low tier 2 state with tiny capacity and fallback room, low risk is all that is affordable.
pbluekan
Somethin's Fucky ...
- Location
- Trumpistan
- Pronouns
- He/Him
The Romans staved off economic collapse by continually pushing outward. Their economy was driven by war. Notice how they collapsed when they could no longer support this.
As for Iraq, the war itself was proportionally minor in scope and costs compared to the sort of actions we are discussing here. On our side of things, for any war with any other major polity in the game, we are looking at heavy mobilization of the society to support the war effort.
I didn't even mention politics at all and my personal views don't matter. The economics don't work, just look at any chart of GDP growth or output over time. There is literally always a major retraction post war.
- Location
- Germiston, South Africa
Okay politics. Bleeding American two-parties-as-religion system.Oookay. Ssso how about not intruding in other countries' infospace with explicitly hostile propaganda?
> Iraq
> profitable for USA
Uh.
Article: In March 2013, the total cost of the Iraq War to date was estimated at $1.7 trillion by the Watson Institute of International Studies at Brown University.[337] Some argue that the total cost of the war to the U.S. economy will range from $3 trillion[338] to $6 trillion,[339] including interest rates, by 2053, as described in the Watson Institute's report. The upper ranges of these estimates include long-term veterans costs and economic impacts. For example, Harvard's public finance expert Linda J. Bilmes has estimated that the long-term cost of providing disability compensation and medical care to U.S. troops injured in the Iraq conflict will reach nearly $1 trillion over the next 40 years,[340] and that the war in Iraq diverted resources from the war in Afghanistan, led to rising oil prices, increased the federal debt, and contributed to a global financial crisis.[341]
Soo.
Do you have data that is not propaganda from a politics-as-religion site that America did NOT get 100 trillion barrels of cheap oil not at market price?
It would not surprise me that Bush fucked up the profit from war, but I was talking general principles, do not need your politics-as-religion reflex response.
Should have stuck to the Roman example.
- Location
- Austria
Wut
You made a claim; burden of proof is on you, full stop.
If you have evidence of USA profiting more than it invested, please present it.
- Location
- Ural, Russia, Earth
Firstly we should found Radio Free Rachni.
Think about it.
Poor oppressed Rachni are not just denied the right to elect their Queens, they are denied every basic right, they are not even considered fully sapient!
This is the worst totalitarian regime possible! And poor Rachni don't even know how horrible their life is, because Queens strangled freedom of communication and constantly brainwash their subjects with their abhorrent propagandist telepathy.
But with the help of our Radio Free Rachni, the oppressed Rachni will see the light of the One True Freedom, overthrow their warmongering Queens and join our free and peaceful democratic society!
- Location
- Austria
On Rome, I agree, but it was a completely different time with completely different approach to how trade, war and politics work. Nowadays, war is more expensive because ~logistics~, and economics are interconnected enough that instability in Middle East fucks up everyone's economy to a degree where destabilizing a country for the sake of profit is...well, it may be worth it, but it's unlikely.
In the ancient age, war was cheaper (via allowing soldiers to loot) and trade was way less profitable and the world less connected, meaning that setting Carthage on fire did not tank Roman economy; meanwhile, if nowadays USA sets on fire a capital of any big trade power, rival or not, financial and political instability will make 2008 look like a small fluctuation. You cannot simply compare those two.
I am not sure which one, modern or ancient, approach is more applicable to this quest, but it's...uh, an open question whether war of conquest is going to be profitable enough to be worthwhile. Especially since if we declare independence, Citadel (and Terminus! why would they not backstab the competition? at least some of them at least) will look for any opportunity to impose sanctions on us; we'll be on a politically thin enough ice we are unlikely to afford the political fallout from explicit colonization/war of conquest.
Plus in the ME-game time period trade was fairly interconnected between the worlds, to the point Volus could hold Citadel by the balls via finances without any fleet and nobody in their right mind would challenge them. Not to a degreee of the modern world, but I'd say that nuking Earth would be unprofitable for any Citadel race purely due to economic instability it would induce. This is more of a speculation though, seeing as Bioware, IIRC, did not really dig into economics of the setting.
Without FTL communications the degree of interconnectedness is probably not that great, but it's still very much a question whether any war of aggression is worth the trouble. I'd say, barring something gamechanging like untouched Prothean Archive like on Mars or option of ressurecting Javik, it is not going to be particularly worthwhile.
Granted, with Rachni and then Krogan wars, there will be enough bloodshed and chaos for the next centuries anyway; we can snatch something in all the shitshow going on easier than it would be in a more peaceful period.
In the ancient age, war was cheaper (via allowing soldiers to loot) and trade was way less profitable and the world less connected, meaning that setting Carthage on fire did not tank Roman economy; meanwhile, if nowadays USA sets on fire a capital of any big trade power, rival or not, financial and political instability will make 2008 look like a small fluctuation. You cannot simply compare those two.
I am not sure which one, modern or ancient, approach is more applicable to this quest, but it's...uh, an open question whether war of conquest is going to be profitable enough to be worthwhile. Especially since if we declare independence, Citadel (and Terminus! why would they not backstab the competition? at least some of them at least) will look for any opportunity to impose sanctions on us; we'll be on a politically thin enough ice we are unlikely to afford the political fallout from explicit colonization/war of conquest.
Plus in the ME-game time period trade was fairly interconnected between the worlds, to the point Volus could hold Citadel by the balls via finances without any fleet and nobody in their right mind would challenge them. Not to a degreee of the modern world, but I'd say that nuking Earth would be unprofitable for any Citadel race purely due to economic instability it would induce. This is more of a speculation though, seeing as Bioware, IIRC, did not really dig into economics of the setting.
Without FTL communications the degree of interconnectedness is probably not that great, but it's still very much a question whether any war of aggression is worth the trouble. I'd say, barring something gamechanging like untouched Prothean Archive like on Mars or option of ressurecting Javik, it is not going to be particularly worthwhile.
Granted, with Rachni and then Krogan wars, there will be enough bloodshed and chaos for the next centuries anyway; we can snatch something in all the shitshow going on easier than it would be in a more peaceful period.
Last edited:
- Location
- Germiston, South Africa
Politics as religion refused. Sticking to the Roman example.
The British Empire is also religion-neutral, so I will use that to point out that looting wars can do and have succeeded.
Okey, this is a more measured response. I apologize for my over-reaction.
From the outsiders perspective, any and all subject vaguely referring to america quickly become preaching by one or both of the One True Faiths of American politics.
It is incredibly irritating. My point was not 'This particular American war', it was 'looting wars in general'
Back on track, the Rachni (admittedly probably Indoctrinated), are having a good go at making a war of conquest work.
At least in this universe the question of 'Is interstellar war even possible', is a resounding yes.
Last edited by a moderator:
VoidZero
Passing Flan 布丁魔王
- Location
- Anywhere but RL
We should without hesitation invite the Rachni people into our politic system and grant voting same rights as our citizens. Then convince the Citadel council to adept democracy and finally assume control.
Rachni outnumbers every other race 2 to 1 right?
- Location
- Austria
Well, again, it really depends on the economical and political context.
Given that, unlike Rachni, we will likely bother with caring for conquered population and, unlike Rachni we do not want to piss off several tier-1 powers, it's going to be problematic. Plus Rachni, IIRC, were 'sponsored' somewhat by Reapers, so there is that advantage too.
Better example would be Krogans tbh. Krogans had a decent go at it since they were breeding extremely fast and, too, did not care about opinions of other factions.
Point is, Rachni and Krogans are somewhat unique in that they had unique predisposition for the type of war of aggressive conquest: poor diplomacy, cultural lack of empathy, extremely fast breeding allowing them to exploit resources and replenish losses fast.
We, on the other hand, are not breeding all that fast (I've touched upon it already when I talked about how I am sceptical about us keeping the trend of exponential growth - IMO we are going to run into limits of what our population can do soonish), are going to be reliant on diplomacy (Asari and Volus parts due to old connections; plus, well, trade). And we don't really have a cultural disregard for the exploited natives to the degree Rachni, Krogans or British had, as far as I can think, although it is too early to tell.
If we try to rely on war too much, we are less likely to be next British Empire and more likely to be next North Korea. We can try and pull a Krogan: be big bad war heroes and use political capital to get some serious concessions. Krogans kinda got way out of line there in the end, but in theory, contributing enough to war to make sanctioning us in response for some of more mild acts of assholery is possible. But that's never going to be as blatant as Rachni or Krogans.
As an aside about Krogans.
IMO Bioware fucked up when they basically transplanted Orks into ME without regard for "in space, guns should be more important than tough biology".
With Rachni it made more sense; I have no idea how on earth Krogans manages the "logistics" part of interstellar warfare against Citadel space; Rachni had an excuse in "hivemind", "time to prepare" and "Reapers did it". The only thing going for Krogans is post-Rachni-War decline in militaries and Krogans getting some time to expand before anybody thought (or had political capital) to reign them in.
Like, when they were at war against Rachni, they had Citadel handling the industry part; but Krogans were not that great at industry or whatever, so how come they were succeeding enough to warrant genophage? IMO, it's kind of silly grimderp-inducing move by the Bioware more than anything.
- Location
- Aotearoa
Whatever the level of real-world economic connectedness we parallel in-game, you've still got to win your war to count your winnings. And if you don't win fast enough, winning might look a lot like losing.
Back to our current war, as opposed to hypothetical wars to impose some Virmirian ideology, I'd be quite interested in a tactical appraisal of where we stand right now. How do our system defences compare to what we've seen of the Rachni? How long do we estimate we've got before we get assaulted? This probably hinges on the Terminus offensive in (great?) part.
Virmirian space has incredible potential if we can survive more or less intact, and gain rights even to the SO cluster. Inside or outside the Citadel, they both have difficulties.
Last edited:
NHO
Dumb is a state of existence
- Location
- ᓚᘏᗢ
Meanwhile, I want our next public post to be God-Empress of Quarian Respublic.
Despite all the walls on the way there, it'll be fun.
Alternatively, be Matron to whom any young ambitions Asari Maiden would flock to, because Mira lets succeed when they are good and does not push them up when they are less capable.
Despite all the walls on the way there, it'll be fun.
Alternatively, be Matron to whom any young ambitions Asari Maiden would flock to, because Mira lets succeed when they are good and does not push them up when they are less capable.
- Location
- Austria
Yeah, this too...sort of. It's an exceedingly complicated topic, but "economy literally relies on looting and plundering and carrying it all into Rome and thus fucks up when there is no more stuff to loot for cheap" has played a part as far as I know. They managed to screw up ecology too via reckless lumber harvesting.
Loss of precious metals due to literal millions of quality coins yearly flowing into China, which eventually crashed their monetary policy when they ran out of coin metal and were forced to enter debasement spiral, was another big one.
Point is, we are unlikely to go full Roman in a galaxy with fastish communications and interconnectedish economies.
Uh.
We had this year free of pressure, which means Rachni were concentrated on pounding others.
I think we want to get into continuous raiding soon enough. Them going to us at their own leisure would be less than ideal, especially with our doctrine.
Otherwise...well, if that 10-dreadnought fleet decides to pay us a beating, we will have trouble. Seeing as it was a garrison fleet...I'd rather keep raiding instead of hoping we can turtle this all out.
So, I' d say that state of our defenses is less important than state of our raiding fleets and doctrine. So I would much prefer to get started on that last project (and Marines one too) this turn and start stabbing Rachni in the underbelly whenever possible.
- Location
- Aotearoa
Just hold and wait? I mean, SO has enormous economic potential, staggering potential, but I don't know that it changes the game premise, that we must make contact or die. Can we turtle?
Terminus and/or Quarians appears to be the best bet for contact, and Raiding doesn't get us there. I agree we need to jab the Rachni whenever and wherever, but we need a contact-strategy too. Ideally, they spend the blood and machinery to come to us... so our Quarian fleet lure is a thing, if we can get the word out. (FTL broadcasts? IDK how long they'd take).
Last edited:
- Location
- Austria
No, we cannot turtle: our naval doctrine is basically "raid their industry into oblivion". And, well. Letting the enemy have the strategic initiative is almost never a good idea, because eventually they will come up with a good can opener for your defenses.
Our best bet would be to damage the Rachni infrastructure enough that they lack resources to support either clamping down on us or effectively defeating other factions.
- Location
- Aotearoa
Ah, I misread, thought you were expressing a hope to turtle.
Again, that hammering on the industrial heartland helps, but the premise is 'link up or die'. Our logistics don't allow us to project power, and our doctrine doesn't really support it. Unless we change one or both it seems we're kind of relying on motivating someone else to come towards us.
Last edited:
- Location
- Austria
Well, link is supposed to be defensible enough to transfer supplies or at the very least messages reliably. That'll be tricky and, in all honesty, rely on raiding them enough to get an opening for it.
- Location
- Narnia
There was an entire section in ME3 dedicated to showing that when they aren't stuck on a radioactive hellhole and have hope for the future they can in fact build just as well as the rest of the galaxy.
- Location
- Germiston, South Africa
Well, at the risk of being optimistic, 3RWF , even wrecked as it is, is two dread we did not have before and supporting fleet.
Simply having dreads does expand our tactical options beyond the cruiser swarm we were forced into before.
So that is some help at least.
Simply having dreads does expand our tactical options beyond the cruiser swarm we were forced into before.
So that is some help at least.
- Location
- Aotearoa
The metal is nice, but they don't fit our doctrine. They be very motivated to support a link up op, but we're not currently able to project power far enough. If we even have enough power.
Given our attention level, do we agree the Rachni will be coming hard, in force, when they can spare the fleet? If we make ourselves enough of a nuisance raiding, they will have to come. Then, somehow, we have them right where we want them, crushed on our relay defenses and fleet.
Or, we've hit failure state In the game as 100 attention means a frontline fleet crushes us.
Last edited:
- Location
- Austria
That's....not enough?
Like. I don't say that Krogans are particularly bad, I am saying they are not particularly good.
And one would think that in space future ability to churn out warships and combat suits and guns matter slightly more than big biceps.
- Location
- Aotearoa
Maybe they were just better at taking that infrastructure intact from others and somehow steamrollered that way. Endless Krogan boarding parties.
Last edited: