The way I figure it, Haven makes most sense if you look at it as the combination of a status quo that was deliberately created and enforced, PLUS the unintended side effects of that status quo.

It's like, you have to begin by assuming the first generation of Legislaturalist politicians meant to create a permanent oligarchy with themselves and their cronies at the top, and intentionally distorted the political process in order to do so. They may have honestly thought they were making Haven great and all, but they did it in a way that they had to know would lead to self-aggrandizement, and that created massive long-term problems.

To make matters worse, all the major decisions that turned the PRH into what it "is" as of the start of the series were made by pre-prolong politicans; I suspect that none of the key responsible parties lived long enough to perceive and remedy their own fuckups. The system got worse over a period of something like 150 years, and each new layer of fuckup was added on, incrementally, by a generation of leaders who thought of the pre-existing level of fuckuppery as "the new normal."

There is also the fact that we are constantly learning about economic theory as time passes. Hoover took the actions that the economic theory at the time thought would deal with the Depression, only afterwards did we realize that did not work. So I could see some of that, a combination of a desire for control amongst a small number of families, a ruling elite, combined with incorrect economic theories and models causing long term problems. Even more so if at first it looks like the economic theories are working so that the social programs and spending has time to get entrenched. And then over time problems start occurring, just small ones, so they tweak, not realizing the structure they based themselves on is flawed until it is too late.

Prolong is one of the interesting parts of the series, here is a disruptive influence on social patterns thanks to the extended life span (and extended teenage years!) and it is causing changes and upheavals in the social fabric since humanity had based themselves around their previous lifespan and now has to adjust. One of the things that stuck out to me was how the head Admiral had to rotate out for another one due to the extended careers and the desire to keep people in the office fresh, no matter how good the current one is.
 
Respectfully, Manticore's average citizens do have some voice; they can vote for the House of Commons. Said House had/has several powers that the House of Lords lacks, and by the time of the later books (I did have to look this up to remind myself), much of the financial power/rights ("the power of the purse") of the House of Lords was actually being transferred to the House of Commons.
So....I mean, I'm not sure how that's a "failed democracy, where very few people have votes"? :???:
In Manticore, you don't get to vote unless you pay more in taxes than you receive from the state in subsidies.

Given that:
1) Manticore in peacetime normally has low flat taxes, and has an unexamined ideological commitment to doing so to the point where a progressive income tax is viewed as a desperate wartime mobilization measure, AN...
2) Manticore can so very easily afford to subsidize citizens with low tax rates because of the magic money machine that is the Junction, AND...
3) Manticore has a heavily automated economy in which large numbers of people are likely to be unable to participate at high enough salaries to live on, especially since the cost of living in a society with a market economy will tend to track per capita GDP, SO...
4) There are a lot of people who realistically need some kind of government aid just to live in such a society, who are unemployed, underemployed, or not paid enough to pay meaningful taxes, SO...

Suffice to say that it isn't much of a stretch to predict that a large minority, or even a majority, of the Manticoran population doesn't actually get to vote.

Imagine it being like, say, the Bay Area in California, only with a rule where people with incomes below the regional average don't get to vote. Not unless they refuse to accept government living assistance- which a lot of people below the regional average can ill afford to do.

It's actually not a bad place to live. It's even a good place to live in most ways. Outstanding, even, in some ways. There's lots of nice people there and everything... But you probably don't get to vote unless you're part of the "tech bubble" crowd or one of the elite professionals who serve them in ways they value highly.

The remaining citizens have a thriving democracy, where election results matter. But then, so did Athens, another democracy with a very limited franchise. Compare and contrast to Haven, which has a universal franchise, but where all the elections are a carefully managed exercise in kabuki theater dominated by influential Legislaturalist clans and the Dolist Managers who serve as their ward bosses and PR team.

I'm not saying this is how Weber means for Honorverse Manticore to look, but it is a logical projection of his own stated positions on the laws and economy of that society.

Prolong is one of the interesting parts of the series, here is a disruptive influence on social patterns thanks to the extended life span (and extended teenage years!) and it is causing changes and upheavals in the social fabric since humanity had based themselves around their previous lifespan and now has to adjust. One of the things that stuck out to me was how the head Admiral had to rotate out for another one due to the extended careers and the desire to keep people in the office fresh, no matter how good the current one is.
Right. Interestingly, Weber's mainline Honorverse novels begin almost immediately after that transition has firmly kicked in... because in a fully developed society like Manticore, 1900 PD is just about the time at which the last surviving individuals without prolong are dying of old age, while virtually everyone below the age of eighty or ninety is in fact nigh-immortal and blessed with nearly perpetual youth and vitality.

[Or vitality, at least, for first-gen prolong recipients]
 
Last edited:
*snip*
I'm not saying this is how Weber means for Honorverse Manticore to look, but it is a logical projection of his own stated positions on the laws and economy of that society.
*snip*
Okay, but if we don't have actual in-book statements that lay out how few people get to vote, and things like the House of Commons are treated as situations where the bulk of citizens get to vote....Is it fair to Weber to say "no, actually your star nation isn't a democracy, because my theorycrafting is better".

I get it, people think his politics are stupid and his economics are stupid and it's all straw-men and straw-houses etc etc WEBERSUCKSFOREVS but this just feels mean-spirited, to essentially say "no, he's not actually portraying a democracy", when there's plenty of discussion about democracy and votes and non-nobles having an impact, etc. It just doesn't set well with me, I guess. Everything in the books I recall reading that talked about non-nobility voting, House of Commons, etc., suggests that a notable majority of citizens get to vote. It also never suggests huge swaths of people sitting around doing nothing. Even with increased automation, there's no lack of work. I mean, Oster Bay killed literally millions of people in the orbital yards over Manticore. But that wasn't the entirety of their industry, and there's loads of other places to employ people. I'd wager low/un-employment's not as bad as you think.

But I think rather than even further derailing things maybe we should leave it be for now? I'm not sure it's possible to reach much agreement on these particulars at this point.
 
Okay, but if we don't have actual in-book statements that lay out how few people get to vote, and things like the House of Commons are treated as situations where the bulk of citizens get to vote....Is it fair to Weber to say "no, actually your star nation isn't a democracy, because my theorycrafting is better".

I get it, people think his politics are stupid and his economics are stupid and it's all straw-men and straw-houses etc etc WEBERSUCKSFOREVS but this just feels mean-spirited, to essentially say "no, he's not actually portraying a democracy", when there's plenty of discussion about democracy and votes and non-nobles having an impact, etc. It just doesn't set well with me, I guess. Everything in the books I recall reading that talked about non-nobility voting, House of Commons, etc., suggests that a notable majority of citizens get to vote. It also never suggests huge swaths of people sitting around doing nothing. Even with increased automation, there's no lack of work. I mean, Oster Bay killed literally millions of people in the orbital yards over Manticore. But that wasn't the entirety of their industry, and there's loads of other places to employ people. I'd wager low/un-employment's not as bad as you think.

But I think rather than even further derailing things maybe we should leave it be for now? I'm not sure it's possible to reach much agreement on these particulars at this point.

I haven't read the Honor Harrington books and can't comment on this particular case, but an author can indeed be wrong about the contents of their own work.
 
But I think rather than even further derailing things maybe we should leave it be for now? I'm not sure it's possible to reach much agreement on these particulars at this point.
I am going to restrict myself to responding on a specific point where I think I have been gravely misunderstood.

Okay, but if we don't have actual in-book statements that lay out how few people get to vote, and things like the House of Commons are treated as situations where the bulk of citizens get to vote....Is it fair to Weber to say "no, actually your star nation isn't a democracy, because my theorycrafting is better".
Well no. It's just that we know Manticore is a democracy with a limited franchise. The only question is how limited, and how far-reaching the consequences are. Is the percentage of the population which has no vote only 5%? 10%? 20%? 40%?

Which part of the population can't vote? People on government disability pensions? College students whose educations are being funded through 'generous' subsidized loans? People who just plain can't get a job doing anything a robot can't do better? Any of those are conceivable answers to that question, and they have significantly different implications.

Now, that being the question I was trying to ask, I would like clarify a few points.
_______________________

And as I very strongly implied, I'd frankly much rather live in a society with a limited franchise, but where the government is not corrupt and the rule of law is respected (e.g. Manticore), than in a society with a universal franchise, but where the vote is rendered irrelevant by the corrupt and unconstitutional behavior of its own government (e.g. Haven). Manticore remains a better place to live, a place where the citizens enjoy much more meaningful freedom and happiness, et cetera.

At the same time, though, we really should not assume that Manticore is "just like us" or shares the full suite of customary Western sociopolitical values. Not when it's a society with legalized dueling, a legislature dominated by aristocrats whose distant ancestors literally bought their titles, and a rule that people on welfare can't vote.

I get it, people think his politics are stupid and his economics are stupid and it's all straw-men and straw-houses etc etc WEBERSUCKSFOREVS but this just feels mean-spirited, to essentially say "no, he's not actually portraying a democracy", when there's plenty of discussion about democracy and votes and non-nobles having an impact, etc.
I literally just compared Manticore to ancient Athens, a democratic society with a limited franchise. I explicitly said of Manticore: "the remaining citizens have a thriving democracy" Those were my exact words.

Did you miss that somehow?
 
Last edited:
I haven't read the Honor Harrington books and can't comment on this particular case, but an author can indeed be wrong about the contents of their own work.
*Scratches head*
That's genuinely confusing to me; I can understand saying that an author's intended impact is different from its actual impact, or something like that. But straight-up saying "despite the author saying X, Y is what's actually true/factual".
I can understand saying that a stated fact or figure makes little sense (Weber apparently altered things like ship mass after folks pointed oddities out in early numbers), but just saying "that's not how it is" just doesn't jive for me.
 
Often, authors will try to retcon out certain points in their own world-building after they're no longer comfortable with the implications. Or they will consistently portray a character or society one way, while intending to portray it in a different way.

For example, Kathryn Janeway was clearly supposed to come across as a competent, resourceful leader. But the general consensus of the fanbase is that she's an fool, and possibly outright insane. Why? Because while the intent of the authors was to make Janeway a good captain, the effect of their scripts was to portray Janeway as inconsistent. As being obsessed with following rules and principles at terrible cost in the worst possible moments, but willing to violate them for convenience the next week. As being erratic, unstable, incompetent- the list goes on.

Likewise, one can argue that Weber consistently portrayed Manticore in one way, while somehow harboring the notion that the 'real' Manticore was inconsistent with this.

This should create cognitive dissonance. For example, how can a society have a social elite dominated by nobles and corporate leaders whose reputation does not depend on their martial courage... AND contain a dueling custom strong enough that hiring a paid duelist is a viable way to assassinate someone as long as you don't get caught? There's a contradiction there. Someone like Klaus Hauptmann- more to the point, someone from a society that could produce Klaus Hauptmann- should find the idea of a challenge to a duel laughable. And yet... nobody really discusses that.

At some point, you have two choices. One, you can throw up your hands and give up on the work. The other is that you can recognize that the consistent unintended worldbuilding created by the author logically must be self-consistent in some way.
 
That's genuinely confusing to me

Authors are only gods when they are writing. They do not retain such powers when the work is complete, and are in fact uniquely unprivileged in saying what it actually says because their perspective on the work is probably invested with both knowledge of what was considered but never written and emotional meaning as creator that no one else will ever share.
 
*Scratches head*
That's genuinely confusing to me; I can understand saying that an author's intended impact is different from its actual impact, or something like that. But straight-up saying "despite the author saying X, Y is what's actually true/factual".
I can understand saying that a stated fact or figure makes little sense (Weber apparently altered things like ship mass after folks pointed oddities out in early numbers), but just saying "that's not how it is" just doesn't jive for me.

We never really actually get much of a look at anyone not in the upper rungs of Manticorian society or not in the Military. This is fine because of the focus of the story. But there's nothing really to say which way things are "In Universe" all we can do is look at the stated facts and draw... rational conclusions from them. So what's going on is that we're getting "Things are like A, B, and C" and we don't hear about X, Y, or Z so we do the math from A,B,C to figure out what X is.

Weber actually has a line somewhere about how the original founders of Manitcorian society got pettier and more selfish the longer he wrote them. I think he actually went back and shifted powers from the commons to the lords as retcons.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps this discussion should be moved to a different thread, with a link dropped here for interested people to continue with it?

@AKuz
Maybe you could start up a discussion thread for planning an Honorverse quest? I know I'd be very interested in it.
 
Perhaps this discussion should be moved to a different thread, with a link dropped here for interested people to continue with it?

@AKuz
Maybe you could start up a discussion thread for planning an Honorverse quest? I know I'd be very interested in it.

Um, maybe we should get a mod to split off my initial post and the follow on discussion into a new thread?

@OneirosTheWriter , would you be able to please do that or should I report my own post to get the whole tangent moved?
 
Perhaps this discussion should be moved to a different thread, with a link dropped here for interested people to continue with it?

@AKuz
Maybe you could start up a discussion thread for planning an Honorverse quest? I know I'd be very interested in it.
I kind of said as much, and kept my more recent post focused on a general principle rather than particular points. I think what's happening here is just some differences in things like how some of us read stories, treat the word of the author on and off page, how/when "Death Of The Author" comes into play, etc.

I also tend to unironically enjoy the Honorverse, and not sit down to dissect socio-political implications very much (this is true of a lot of works, not just Weber). Some people enjoy doing that more, which is fair enough. I think I just let myself shoot from the hip when I should have stayed my hand (metaphorically speaking).

EDIT: None of the above differences in reading or the like are bad, they're just differences. I'm not sure I made that clear enough before making this edit/add-on.
 
Last edited:
*Scratches head*
That's genuinely confusing to me; I can understand saying that an author's intended impact is different from its actual impact, or something like that. But straight-up saying "despite the author saying X, Y is what's actually true/factual".
I can understand saying that a stated fact or figure makes little sense (Weber apparently altered things like ship mass after folks pointed oddities out in early numbers), but just saying "that's not how it is" just doesn't jive for me.
Authors are only gods when they are writing. They do not retain such powers when the work is complete, and are in fact uniquely unprivileged in saying what it actually says because their perspective on the work is probably invested with both knowledge of what was considered but never written and emotional meaning as creator that no one else will ever share.

Even that is overly generous.

I know this example is sort of a dead horse because people have already complained about it so much, but its one of the best examples that readily comes to mind. In the "Fifty Shades of Gray" series, the characters all tell us over and over again that Christian Gray is a charming, debonair seductor, even though we SEE him consistently behave like a whiny short-tempered manchild. The author of the books has insisted, in person, that Christian Gray is, in fact, a charming, debonair seductor.

I don't care how many times she says it, or how earnestly she believes it, or what it says ABOUT him in the books themselves. She's wrong.

Another example would be that fucking white supremacist *utopia* that someone read on Spacebattles. "Victoria." The book says that Victoria became a prosperous world power by giving up all advanced technology and selling itself out to be militarily colonized by Russia and economically colonized by China and Japan. He's wrong. The end result of the process we saw throughout the book is incompatible with the timeskipped end result in the final chapter. The ending says they have superpowered war airships now, but we SAW them give up their whole techbase. The ending says they're economically independent, but we SAW them give themselves over economically to foreign powers as a client. The author is wrong.
 
Last edited:
So I'm thinking that we assign the Gaeni ships to TF1 and TF2, with maybe a couple of ships to TF4 to boost it a little. TF3 seems strong enough right now.
 
The Gaeni should go in their own TF or be placed in a single one of ours even if that means some shuffling. They have their own combat doctrine and design philosophy. We've tried to keep the Rigellian main elements together on basis of design and doctrine. Same for how we operate with the Apiata in the GBZ.
 
The Apiata in the GBZ are a separate command, not integrated like the Gaeni will be. There's nothing politically fraught about integrating them into our task forces. That was the whole purpose of the diplomatic effort. I see no reason that they can't can't be split up between two task forces.

I think it's rather disruptive to the task forces to be shuffling ships back and forth between them. Thuir and ka'Sharren are no doubt trying to get a handle on their forces and learn each individual ship and commander. Adding a few ships is fine. "Shuffling" ships out of their already assigned task forces sounds to me like recipe for confusion.
 
I could see pulling a ship or two out of assigned task forces to "make weight" on a task force that we believe is understrength. But I wouldn't want to introduce new ships to a task force at this time, unless I were confident of the new ships having time to work up with the old ships, or if I thought the old ships wouldn't be any better coordinated into the fleet than the new ones.
 
I can see some pros and cons of having another task force. I'm not sure what a 5th task force would be responsible for that the other 4 task forces aren't, as they all have explicit roles. OTOH, another task force does mean another possible commodore to vote on (and thus receive some narrative attention) and task forces growing too large may strain command ability, however Oneiros is willing to interpret that (forcing another task force anyway, some penalty, etc.)

However....

The Gaeni should go in their own TF or be placed in a single one of ours even if that means some shuffling. They have their own combat doctrine and design philosophy. We've tried to keep the Rigellian main elements together on basis of design and doctrine. Same for how we operate with the Apiata in the GBZ.

That does raise the question: how do fleet doctrines work in our mixed task forces? If we mixed Gaeni ships into a Starfleet-dominated task force, do they not get any of their "tech ship" doctrine bonuses? If each task force can only follow a single doctrine (of each of types: fleet doctrine, fleet offensive tactics, fleet defensive tactics), then what determines which doctrine is used - majority of ships in number or some stat sum, or more likely, the commander in charge of the task force? Although if the latter, I'd imagine it would be awkward to have a Starfleet commander on a task force that's heavily dominated by Gaeni task forces - total mismatch of doctrines there.

The Battle at Lora showed that the Amarki ships didn't follow their presumed "Combined Fleet" doctrine, since they didn't get a 5% damage bonus from "Combined Strike" (although maybe it somehow influenced hitpower itself directly? can't tell) and instead had the same flat 2% damage bonus that the Starfleet vessels had. Nor did their Riala-class Abhriec get the "Ablative" +1 L bonus. It is conceivable that they haven't researched such T2 doctrine techs or that they're not using the exact Starfleet version of "Combined Fleet" doctrine.

Of course, this combat engine is still undergoing revisions, so this "each fleet has single doctrine in battle" is hardly guaranteed to stay. Indeed, maybe that's one of the reasons why Oneiros is considering divying up ships into flanks or whatnot in battles - so they can take advantage of doctrines.

Ah, I took u10 as being a 1 to 10 with a random + or - in front of it.

Pretty sure it should include 0 as a possible outcome. Oneiros did explicitly say 2u10 earlier, and although anydice.com doesn't support that syntax, rolz.org does, and u<x> definitely can result in 0.
 
Last edited:
My concern with keeping the Gaeni in their own TF is that if it suffers a major defeat it could result in a massive blow to their war support. With mixed fleets the loss of war support would be spread to 3-4 different members.

That said, of all the groups involved in this war the Gaeni have the most war support right now and they don't really have anything on offer that we can't get from another member so we can take that risk.
 
Given the Gaeni know the Licori better than we do, I could see trying to attach one of their ships to each task force, specifically tasked to hold back, and try to stop Mentat shenanigans.
 
So the gist of the changes are:

Role of Science:
Science now impacts on evasion and countering evasion.
Having at least one high-science vessel in your fleet now has much greater importance.
Science is important when the fleet is trying to transit static defences like minefields.

Increase in lethality:
Damage is now roll twice, take the higher. Ships with higher combat benefit by getting more reliable use of their stat.
Now a chance for Critical Hits.
Sticky targeting heavily buffed
Most recent ships to fire have a weighting boost to fire again
Subsystem damage - chance for torpedo magazine or warp core hits

Structure imposed on the fight:
There are now distinct phases to a fight - Scouting, Skirmishing, Vanguard, Main Battle, Pursuit
Not every fleet will be large enough for each phase (Vanguard in particular).
Success in the lead-up phases results in "positioning" advantages; i.e., you are weighted higher for getting a chance to fire.
Skirmishing is mainly the domain of frigates, the main phase is the domain of the capital ships.
This keeps smaller sets of ships in action at any one time, which will make results less subject to law of averages.
 
Role of Science:
Science now impacts on evasion and countering evasion.
Having at least one high-science vessel in your fleet now has much greater importance.
Science is important when the fleet is trying to transit static defences like minefields.

Increase in lethality:
Damage is now roll twice, take the higher. Ships with higher combat benefit by getting more reliable use of their stat.
Now a chance for Critical Hits.
Sticky targeting heavily buffed
Most recent ships to fire have a weighting boost to fire again
Subsystem damage - chance for torpedo magazine or warp core hits

On the one hand, behold the power of Science unleash mongrels! people who make war and not friendship!

Then, on the other hand, our previous rolls when it comes to combat. :o
 
Back
Top