loyalty

[chakobsa]

Recently, I played a funny game : at the beginning, I had realised that an imperial system had a rather high rebel loyalty. I was playing rebel, and I had a three ship doing nothing. So I sent them, and as I expected the empire had like 4 troops and no shield. So I bombed them, and sursprise ! The whole system rallied me. Rather nice, isn't it ? Later in the game (about day 110) I sent four guys on a diplomatic mission, which succeded adminrably, and the result was that an imperial planet became neutral while two planet joined me. The bad thing is that the game crashed about 50 days later

[SWARMER]

if you destroy troops at a planet the loyalty in that system will go towards you. Also if you win a battle you will also have some loyalty bonus. I sux that the game crashed tho. I have had entire sectors joining me just for bombing them and killing the Rebels...Easy break.

[SWARMER]

if you destroy troops at a planet the loyalty in that system will go towards you. Also if you win a battle you will also have some loyalty bonus. I sux that the game crashed tho. I have had entire sectors joining me just for bombing them and killing the Rebels...Easy break.

[ADarkJedi44]

Also one Imperial system always has high Rebel loyalty at the begining of the game.

[SWARMER]

not always, only when you'r the empire tho...

[ADarkJedi44]

I'm pretty sure it always is.

[Paul]

I find that if you are playing in a huge galaxy as the Empire you start out with a couple of planets under military control. If you don't put more troops and send a diplomat to these systems ASAP the rebel scum try to start revolts on them. As long as you deal with them quickly the A1 doesn't take advantage of the situation. I don't know what the setup is when you start as a rebel as I refuse to play as a vermin. -Grand Moff Conway

[ADarkJedi44]

Like I said i'm pretty sure that as a Rebel one, or two planets are under milatary control.

[SWARMER]

makes sense, you have to get moving to make sure that you get to keep you planets under your control

[UntimelyDemise]

At the beginning of either game the Empire starts with at least one system that is military subjugated. It seems that those systems always start with at least one character on them, though, so if they do go into uprising, something can be done.

 

Of course, I always let the Rebels have those systems, by moving all my troops, fighters, etc away. This usually turns a couple of other systems in the sector to the Rebellion, which only serves my purpose of making the game more difficult (therefore, more satisfying when I pummel the Rebels into dust! )

[SWARMER]

the rebels will never be "Squashed". go into hiding, mabye. but NEVER "Squashed"

[ADarkJedi44]

There are always more agents.

[UntimelyDemise]

Yes, it's true the Rebels aren't smart enough to know when they've been defeated...I suppose that's the definition of a rebel, in fact!

 

Still, every great Empire has had it's opposition. As long as its just annoying and not destructive, it's okay. That's what Imperial Stormtroopers and AT-ATs are for!

[SWARMER]

You have a point there...

[ElvisMiggell]

Until we win, and then you will be thoroughly and morally humiliated!

[UntimelyDemise]

Ya know, I've been thinking a lot about the history of Star Wars and how it's actually a little twisted.

 

The Old Republic had it's chance to be successful, but it became cluttered with beaurocracy and debates (kind of like the UN). Finally, someone stepped up and brought order to the mess. The people who screwed it up in the first place decided that they needed to stop all that, so they started a Galactic Civil War! After a few lucky fights, they take it back. Thus begins the New Republic. Now here's the tricky part. In all the novels, the Senate becomes exactly like the old days, corrupt and full of Senators only interested in their own success (like Fey'lya). So what good did it do to oust the Emperor and bring chaos back to the galaxy?

 

Hmmmm....

[ElvisMiggell]

Sounds dangerously familiar doesn't it. It's all about free choice. Personally, i think that democracy is flawed, due to the nature of people, we always put number one first. In which case i am most inclined to say that in a perfect world we would be Communists. Due to it's very nature Democracy doesn't quite work.

 

I read a interesting Guardian piece that explains how essentially Bush is a democrat at home, but is in danger of becoming a real dictator on the international scene.

[Evaders99]

The problem is, while good in theory, COMMUNISM DOESN'T WORK! The world is full of dictators and as you said, people care for only number 1. Yes, in communism you have a global account where you add what you can, and take what you need... but whoever controls the account has the power.

 

Communism is flawed because people are human.

 

I certainly don't believe in pure democracy either. Democracy is the will of the majority.. the mob. Only the mob of the people rules, and whoever controls the people wins.

 

For me, I believe that a democractic republic works. The United States is a democratic republic... we have elected officials that make decisions, and who are elected by the people they represent. Not a perfect system, but with so many people and concerns, we don't have the majority overpowering the minority nor the minority overpowering the majority.

 

If Bush were a dictator, wouldn't we rule the world already?

Is it our fault if American culture spreads throughout the world? Do you like your technology, your electricity, your music? We don't have to be a dictator because America influences the world. And the world influences us.

 

Either we become an active part of the global community, or we don't. We tried isolationism.. that didn't work, and nearly had Hitler controlling Europe and committing mass genocide. So now we are world affairs... whether you like it or not. To say Bush is a dictator would be removing any responsibility from other countries. They want our culture, our technology, our help... but they don't want our control.

[UntimelyDemise]

Friends, I wasn't trying to compare any country to the Empire...I was merely stating that the Galactic Empire has gotten bad press. I think the Rebels are actually the bad guys.

 

Long live the Galactic Empire! All bow to the Emperor!

 

[Trejiuvanat]

The Rebellion gained on support after the atrocities Palpatine committed, Bail Organa took his chunk of Alderaanians in the Alliance after the Ghorman Massacre, Bel Iblis put his Corellia group teogther after he was almost killed for denouncing Palpy's anti-alien agenda.

Order is the basis for all governments, an anarchic government could only work under the stresses of survival. The Rebels attacked that order, they were a rebellion not a revolution, they attacked just to disturb the order, not to create a new governemnt out of it. Tehy did, yes, but it collapsed in less than twenty years. The way the New Order was applied isn't right either, it existed only with the suppression of the many just to keep very few above the level.

Humans are susceptible to corruption, very much so. A democracy, is as Evaders said, the rule of the demagogue, the one that has the mob behind him. The Roman Republic worked better, it had its senate but iin times of crisis a dictator( the original term not the totalitarian connotation) ruled. He was to be kept in chack by a fellow dictator) The Weimarer republic had also the Aticle 48 that allowed the President to gain emergency powers in times of crisis, he could also dissolve the senate( Where have I heard this?).

Bad thing is that most of the people that wind up in politics are the ones with ambitions to rule, the ones that have a moral knowledge of the power they could wield simply escape from the responsibility of that choices away from politics. So the ones that wind up ruling are the ones that are corrupted and power-hungry.

 

Evaders, you said that the countries want culture, technology and help from the U.S, but most third-world countries do only because they didn't have another choice. Since the discovert of America and the start of european colonialism the countries of Asia, Latinamerica, and Africa have known little independence, first under the control of their europeans masters, and after the independence under the control of the strongest economy, in teh 20th century the U.S. Specially, after WWII there was no order emanating from Europe, Germany wrecked, England liccking its wounds, the French had been scared to hell after the Blitzkriege. The U.S. had a isolationist phase, then it turned outwards and now it was at the peak of its economic expansionism, the Free-Trada Areas and such other alliances only serve to strengthen the powerful countries. I doubt anyone in the u.S will buy latinamerican goods, which exist in relatively small amounts, while U.S. good fill the latinamerican markets. The culture comes hand in hand with the dollar, Costa Rican TV has started to transmit lots and lots of U.S series, our national feeling is getting lost. Technology isn't produced here locally so that we have to buy it, and it leads us again to the economic invasion. Even if Costa Rica has an INTEL chip fabric they are sent to the u.s and then sent back at a very high price. Some countries take the help of the u.s because its the only way they have to survive, the ALianza por el Progreso, was an initiative to send food to the small children of third-world countries, mother-milk alternatives included. It was gladly accepted, although it was later proved that the food didn't have enough proteins for the brains of small children to grow well. A way to keep kids dumb and prevent an eventual new strength in the area? Or just an inexpensive way to gain a high moral ground?

Europeans didn't do anything, but the u.S did do something, whether it was for our good, is redoubtable. The Sojwet did a few ideologic incursions, but the CIA sabotaged their efforts, by provding arms to anti-worker-movemnt guerrillas or paramilitaries.

I'm sorry if it sounds like I stand agaisnt the U.S., it isn't meant to. I just describe the situation as it is lived here and Latinamerica in general. I've nothing against the u.s, nor the Europeans, but I'd rather have Latinamerica isolate itself for a while, while it works to repair itself after being robbed by so many different countries (Part of the english treasure (gold) comes from stolen spanish gold that costed the lives of so many native americans (aztecs, maya, incas, etc.)). Latinamerican countries hail different hereos as liberators, my ho`pe is that eventually they will find someone to hail as the Unifier...

[Jahled]

Viva Simon Bolivar!

[Evaders99]

hey, I'm just saying the US does what it has to do. You're wrong that countries don't have a choice... they do. Yes we're involved in the world more than we should be, but if its not us, who's it going to be? China? Iraq? FRANCE??

 

Latin America has grown more and more.. but it still needs a stability, just as Africa needs stability. Until there is some civilization, some functioning government, there will be no change. We have a lot a business in Latin America, which helps all the countries.

 

I hope people can take America as an example of freedom and liberty, not this mob "America is evil" mentality that these protesters seem to have. Anyway, my ranting is done.

 

Back on topic!

[ElvisMiggell]

Evaders i'm not sure i agree with you. Fair enough, the American politicians are fairly elected with no pressure to vote for certain people, no qualms there, but it seems to be the American way (please note the use of the word SEEMS) to automatically assume that whatever you leader, whoever they may be, is right. I believe you guys call it patriotism.

 

I've seen people go into a catatonic fit when another american suggests that for example, Mr Bush might be wrong about something. To me this whole concept of it being your civic duty to back up your leader doesn't make sense. Where does free will come into it? You are not forbidden from speaking out per se, but it does seem like people get an extremely strong reaction just for having a different opinion. I would like to think that in the UK we encourage diversity. We don't call anti-war protesters unpatriotic. We might think and say that they are wrong, but there is no suggestion that they are not patriotic.

 

To me patriotism is an ideal, like independance. It is not linked to any leader or individual, it is linked to a country. In the current example, war and anti war protesters are both equally likely to be either patriotic or not, you can not want to go to war because you believe it's in your country's best interests, and you can want to go to war because it's in your best interests.

 

Because the maority elect an individual, the minority shouldn't have to suddenly change their perspective and agree with that person, otherwise you loose the minority that makes society diverse and therefore free.

 

---------------------------

Disclaimer:

I realise i've probably offended some people by saying that. I'm not saying that it is the case, and am prepared to admit that with the flawed media, and the several thousand mile distance, my perspective may well be skiewed. What i have described is how America APPEARS to me, and is in no way meant to cause offense. I willingly admit that the UK is little better, maybe worse.

 

All that i have said is my opinion and in no way consciously represents any group society or body and is solely my humble opinion.

[Evaders99]

I'm not questioning American patriotism. I'm questioning people's opinions on this issue. They are free to express their opinion... whether it is right or wrong. But get the facts before denouncing Bush as this "warmonger"

 

Most of these protests seem to be more "anti-American" than actually for peace. When have you heard a protester actually calling for the removal of Saddam. Just because Bush may do something in foreign affairs (unlike the former-President Clinton), suddenly American patriotism is bad because we support the president. Where were the protesters when Clinton bombed Iraq? Where were the protesters when we removing Milosevic from Yugoslavia?

 

I supported former-President Clinton when he did both acts. As I support the current American President, because frankly: he has more information on his side than we know. He actually listens to his cabinet and department heads... CIA, FBI, NSA, all telling him that Iraq is a threat. I believe that to ignore these warnings would put us in a situation that would make us all vulnerable.

 

Again, I like criticism.. it is good for any leader to be scrutinized. But don't start protesting under the veil of "peace" unless you get the facts.

 

- qui desideret pacem praeseret bellum -

He who would desire peace should be prepared for war.

 

If you want to debate me on any of these topics, just email me.

 

Thanxs for your opinion. I don't agree to everything he does... nor does everyone in the US agree with what he does. In this situation, I believe he is right to remove Saddam.

 

Topic closed.[/b]