============ OGRE/GEV list, May 15th (Last: May 12th) ============= ===== World War From: John Kovalic From: Eric Jome From: Eric Jome ===== GEV Carrier From: SFsupply@aol.com ------------------------------ From: John Kovalic Subject: World War Ah, but here's a question: as OGRE's future history *is* overtaken by events, should it be continuously re-written, ala "Twilight 2000," or can we take it to be more Alternate History rather than Future History? I use Suspension of Disbelief in all SF games I play, as well as much Science Fiction I read. With good books and games, I tend not to ask myself "is this future history likely" but take it as given, and judge the story/game by its ability to work within that given framework. Of course, I enjoy realistic SF - but don't discount things like Steam Punk simply because they're impossible. Perhaps Ogre should best be regarded as Science Fantasy. But I'm rambling off-topic now... :-) John Kovalic ************************************************** "This must be Thursday. I never COULD get the hang of Thursdays" - Arthur Dent ************************************************** "Wild Life": a Web comic - at MUSKRAT CENTRAL: http://www.msn.fullfeed.com/muskrat/ ************************************************** ----- [It never could have happened, as Mores law predated Microgame #1. -HJC] ----- From: Eric Jome Subject: World War > From: "Devir Livraria Ltda." > Hmmmm. Didn't the European left say something remarably similar to this > right before WWI? yes, but the situation they faced then is not the situation we face now... indeed, it hinted at the situation now, even helped to cause it, but we are in a very unique era today... > I agree, MAYBE world war has gone the way of the dinosaurs. But to make > that wide-ranging a statement merely based on things as they now stand > is a bit short-sighted. I don't think we're going to see a real > humdinger, nuke-tossin' blow-out sometime soon, but I also don't think > it's impossible for something to happen 50 years down the road. it is true that interesting and chaotic events will likely derail any serious or detail projection of the future, however i feel safe in making some simple predictions. the current trend in political fracturing will continue; the number of countries in the world will rise for some years to come as fiercely independent groups exert sovereignity against arbitrary boundaries externally imposed on them. you see this happen today in the old Warsaw Pact countries, South America, and South East Asia. at the same time, economic organizations are growing in unity and strength. with the spread of citizen govenrments, economic interests stand to dominate the socio-political arena. it happens here, China, France, Russia... you name it. small political or social entities are willingly or not co-opted into larger economic organizations; NAFTA, EU, and Asian organizations arethe wave of the future. this presents a unique situation; small and/or dependent states with linked economies. also, the increasing exchange of information, movement toward service based economies, and global condemnation of aggressive interests all serve to put down large scale war. small scale war; local civil unrest or messy dissolution of ex-countires is on the rise. > Ask yourself this simple question: 10 years ago would you have predicted > the fall of the Soviet empire and its client states? I remember arguing > with a bunch of ROTC cadets in a university history course in 1985. They > were firmly convinced that the USSR was here to stay. I sustained that > the Soviet system was on its last legs. The ROTC guys thought I was a > deluded liberal dupe... and they were brainwashed into believing it because it was their job to believe it. an army without a threat is itself threatened. could i predict the fall of the soviets 10 years ago? easily, in fact you probably could have done it in the 60's... just guessing the length of time is the only difficult part. i suppose you will laugh and think it is easy to say this with hindsight, but a very compelling case can be made to support the idea that high level western powers believed the Soviets were more of a threat because they were breaking down, not in spite of it. > History rolls on. The one thing we know for sure is that whatever empire > is on top today won't probably be running things a century from now. War > will probably always be seen by states as a tool to remedy unacceptable > political situations. exactly. i am not saying that the US or even the West will run the show for the rest of my lifetime, just that it becomes more and more difficult to wage global war the more and more economies specialize and diversify and export. the trend to globalized economy has been on the rise since the invention of airpower. > Most wars of the last 100 years occured because the states involved were > firmly convinced that they had no choice BUT to go to war. Clausewitz > and Machiavelli (SP?) aside, most governments don't rationally decide to > start wars. Rightly or wrongly, they almost always feel that they've > been pushed to the limits of their tolerance before they call out the > troops. Rarely is the decision to go to war based on cold, rational > thought and planning beforehand. that was a motivation of the past; i agree some states still are open to the possibility. N. Korea, Iraq, some nations in South and Central Africa... the nations the US propaganda machine calls "rogue nations". but look at all the hotspots; small, desparate economies on the edge run by dictators or oligarchies... they are the poor. they are the few. and they are a dying breed. active interests among the wealthy nations are intent on modifiying the political and social climate to induce favorable trade environments; they seek global trade and the result is global interdependency. so, will it be a good idea to build a free will, cybernetic tank with enough fire power to level cities? you tell me. eric ----- [Would you put the power to level population centers in the "hands" of a creature without free will? -HJC] ------------------------------ From: Eric Jome Subject: World War > From: SFsupply@aol.com > What does this have to do with Ogre? Nothing, practically speaking. But for > those who insist on having a "believable" rationale for the world of Ogre > need look no further than are own last century of history... > > Circa 1913 or so: "It'll never work. And what use is a flying machine on > the battlefield anyway?" > > Just a few years later: "It'll never work. And what use is this thing you've > code-named a "tank" on the battlefield anyway?" > > Circa 1930's: "landing planes on a ship? It'll never work. And what use is > a "carrier" in a real naval battle anyway?" > > Overheard in early '40's: "Nice fellow that Einstien, but completely loony. > "Theory of Relativity" my arse! The guy can't even make change for a > dollar." well, Mr. Jackson was smart enough to predicate his change on a technology breakthrough, too... :) still, what advance could you really see totally revising warfare in the future? assuming biphase carbide remains fiction, i put my money on a style of socio-information war. propaganda, lies, terrorism, and economic sanctions will play more of a role in determining the worlds future in the next 50 years ... more than tanks and air craft carriers. the new revolution is here, and its name is CNN. i pick as also rans stealth tech (which will outpace detection, btw) and computer assitance; so, at least Ogre brains have a chance (Kasparov lost! Kasparov lost! ... ahem. sorry... :) > From: garth.getgen@genie.com > I have to agree with Thad ... the idea of another World War is not out of > the realm of possibility. In fact, with all the nationalistic attitude of > SOME of the ethnic groups in east Europe, I suspect that WW-III would start > more like WW-I than WW-II: a small regional (or civil) war that is fueled > and expanded by outside interests until it engulfs the whole world. a good bet and wise decision. this is my second pick, but in truth the globalization of economies makes ties very expensive to risk or break. the problem is, does a corporation or set of them push their home government into war over trade issues? do corporations even have that much loyalty? nationalism makes small political entities, not economic ones; the arabs still sell oil to the Great Satans. > [Q: Will NATO expansion advance or delay the start of the last war? > (Don't feel bad if you don't know the answer, you're not alone...) delay. i put the chance that it spurs a Nationalist party in Russia as low, but the risk exists. NATO is more about the EU than about security and the West is desparate to convince Russia of that... look for Russia joining NATO if not literaly, than at least in spirit, in the nest 25 years. eric ----- [Jackson is quite correct, Japan is a major flash point, as their resource base is sufficently narrow that any sizable disruption will panic them. (Q: Which countries did the USA EXPORT Oill to during the 1973 crisis?) -HJC] ------------------------------ From: SFsupply@aol.com Subject: GEV Carrier >>On GEV related subjects, anybody for a LPHish "GEV carrier" group against a wolf pack? (I still want torpedoes or nuclear depth charges on a "heavy" "naval" GEV) -HJC]<< Sure! Sorry I don't have time to help think up rules, but if anyone does, I'll be happy to help playtest. I've always considered GEVs to be "PT boats with an attitude" when playing a "coastal landing" scenario. flunky ------------------------------ Henry J. Cobb hcobb@io.com http://www.io.com/~hcobb All OGRE-related items Copyright (c) 1997, by Steve Jackson Games.