Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 123458 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 180

Thread: Heard of the Border Coalition? Here is why you should help it become a power.

  1. #31
    The Alliance and the Coalition are fairly distinct, lore-wise. Trust me, I'm a lore fanatic.

    The Alliance is effectively a state in its own right, and is dedicated to promotion of democracy though its own assembly is in near-constant political deadlock leaving most power in the hands of the Prime Minister and the Admiralty Council. Joining up with the Alliance means you have to align yourselves with their policies and philosophies on how government should run, you participate in its government and joint navy, and you're forced into cordial relations with other member-states. It has an ideology, regardless of how much autonomy each member-state has, and could be described as a less-autocratic version of the Federation. Their geopolitical objectives are mostly trying to hold off the Federation from encroaching into their space.

    The Coalition, on the other hand, is not a state or even an organization. It's a treaty between states; the states within it have no formal integration with one another, just an agreement to come to each others defense and a tendency to cooperate with one another. Unlike the Alliance, it does not have a parliament, joint military or head of state; Tiberius is the designated Interim Leader on the basis that he's cited in Coalition lore as being the one who's put this diplomatic movement in motion. It's unknown what would happen if relationships between two members of the Coalition were to deteriorate, but there's nothing I can see that prohibits them from fighting one another. The Coalition has no lore that suggests it changes the policies of its members; I mean, the current Big Three members (there's probably at least one more member I don't know about) promote Communist, Feudal and Cooperative factions. Going by the in-game descriptions of these government types, they're basically a bunch of utopians, loose alliances of in-system interests, or autocrats who use their leverage to build both a business and military empire. The only thing they have in common is that they're all devoted to colonization and development, and the opposition of exploitative influence from the core worlds. Slavery is largely prohibited among Coalition members, but it's permitted at least by the Dukes. The geopolitical objectives of Coalition members are basically for each of them to expand to absorb neighboring independents, turn their immediate neighborhoods ideologically friendly (even though they don't have a unifying ideology, although all of them seem fairly anti-corporate) and to keep the major power players from establishing spheres of influence in their space.

    Remember, this is a competition to become a power, not a major faction. The Coalition is just an alliance of minor factions whose shared interests can be leveraged against outsiders within their region, not an aspiring or effective government. They're more similar to the Alliance than they are to the other major factions, but that's because the Alliance developed from a movement similar to this one but possessing more federalist and democratic motives. If the Alliance is the NATO of ED, the Coalition is the de-facto alliance between the Baltic states prior to WW2 of ED.

    Mechanically speaking, the Coalition is also distinct from the Alliance because their fortification triggers won't push you away from communism, feudalism or cooperatives at least. They exist in a spectacularly non-profitable region (which, let's face it, is the primary reason Mahon and Delaine haven't moved in more than they already have rather than respect for BGS players), meaning they basically function as a further disincentive towards powers expanding in that direction while not being able to get the capital to be very aggressive. Other than that, we don't really know what Frontier would want to do with the Coalition.

  2. #32
    Originally Posted by MDFification View Post (Source)
    The Alliance and the Coalition are fairly distinct, lore-wise. Trust me, I'm a lore fanatic.

    The Alliance is effectively a state in its own right, and is dedicated to promotion of democracy though its own assembly is in near-constant political deadlock leaving most power in the hands of the Prime Minister and the Admiralty Council. Joining up with the Alliance means you have to align yourselves with their policies and philosophies on how government should run, you participate in its government and joint navy, and you're forced into cordial relations with other member-states. It has an ideology, regardless of how much autonomy each member-state has, and could be described as a less-autocratic version of the Federation. Their geopolitical objectives are mostly trying to hold off the Federation from encroaching into their space.

    The Coalition, on the other hand, is not a state or even an organization. It's a treaty between states; the states within it have no formal integration with one another, just an agreement to come to each others defense and a tendency to cooperate with one another. Unlike the Alliance, it does not have a parliament, joint military or head of state; Tiberius is the designated Interim Leader on the basis that he's cited in Coalition lore as being the one who's put this diplomatic movement in motion. It's unknown what would happen if relationships between two members of the Coalition were to deteriorate, but there's nothing I can see that prohibits them from fighting one another. The Coalition has no lore that suggests it changes the policies of its members; I mean, the current Big Three members (there's probably at least one more member I don't know about) promote Communist, Feudal and Cooperative factions. Going by the in-game descriptions of these government types, they're basically a bunch of utopians, loose alliances of in-system interests, or autocrats who use their leverage to build both a business and military empire. The only thing they have in common is that they're all devoted to colonization and development, and the opposition of exploitative influence from the core worlds. Slavery is largely prohibited among Coalition members, but it's permitted at least by the Dukes. The geopolitical objectives of Coalition members are basically for each of them to expand to absorb neighboring independents, turn their immediate neighborhoods ideologically friendly (even though they don't have a unifying ideology, although all of them seem fairly anti-corporate) and to keep the major power players from establishing spheres of influence in their space.

    Remember, this is a competition to become a power, not a major faction. The Coalition is just an alliance of minor factions whose shared interests can be leveraged against outsiders within their region, not an aspiring or effective government. They're more similar to the Alliance than they are to the other major factions, but that's because the Alliance developed from a movement similar to this one but possessing more federalist and democratic motives. If the Alliance is the NATO of ED, the Coalition is the de-facto alliance between the Baltic states prior to WW2 of ED.

    Mechanically speaking, the Coalition is also distinct from the Alliance because their fortification triggers won't push you away from communism, feudalism or cooperatives at least. They exist in a spectacularly non-profitable region (which, let's face it, is the primary reason Mahon and Delaine haven't moved in more than they already have rather than respect for BGS players), meaning they basically function as a further disincentive towards powers expanding in that direction while not being able to get the capital to be very aggressive. Other than that, we don't really know what Frontier would want to do with the Coalition.
    That's a very elaborate, objective and thorough explanation, Commander. Very accurate as well!

    Congrats on a very good first post and welcome to the forums.

  3. #33
    Originally Posted by rootsrat View Post (Source)
    That's a very elaborate, objective and thorough explanation, Commander. Very accurate as well!

    Congrats on a very good first post and welcome to the forums.
    Thanks! I've got a lot of time on my hands now that the only computer I can actually play on is busted. I'll just play vicariously though you folks until then

  4. #34
    Heh, not that my vote'll weigh much, but you got/get it nonetheless

  5. #35
    Originally Posted by Sternmann View Post (Source)
    Fleetcomm brought me here

    This fragile alliance does sound interesting. I'm coming back from Distant Worlds, looking for places to sell my data to, namely SEPP. Maybe I could swing by Mikun too?
    Please do! It may be more fun to visit the station we built called "Mercenary's Respite"

  6. #36
    Originally Posted by MDFification View Post (Source)
    Thanks! I've got a lot of time on my hands now that the only computer I can actually play on is busted. I'll just play vicariously though you folks until then
    Hah, no problem, Commander

    Originally Posted by anikaiful View Post (Source)
    Heh, not that my vote'll weigh much, but you got/get it nonetheless
    Thanks, Anika. Your vote is as important as every other one!

  7. #37
    Originally Posted by MDFification View Post (Source)
    The Alliance and the Coalition are fairly distinct, lore-wise. Trust me, I'm a lore fanatic.

    The Alliance is effectively a state in its own right, and is dedicated to promotion of democracy though its own assembly is in near-constant political deadlock leaving most power in the hands of the Prime Minister and the Admiralty Council. Joining up with the Alliance means you have to align yourselves with their policies and philosophies on how government should run, you participate in its government and joint navy, and you're forced into cordial relations with other member-states. It has an ideology, regardless of how much autonomy each member-state has, and could be described as a less-autocratic version of the Federation. Their geopolitical objectives are mostly trying to hold off the Federation from encroaching into their space.
    There was a break down of the politics of each major faction and the Prime Minister does not have most of the power.

    The power when it comes to civil matters rests on the civil servants that are in the assembly. The power when it comes to naval threats indeed rests with the council.

    This is obvious from the nature of the CGs that pop up within Alliance space. It's always the representative of the Alliance Assembly that makes the announcement/request.

    The Prime Minister and the annually changing President are still left untouched on how much power they each posses.

    So, no, the Alliance is not a lesser Federation. Additionally, you are not forced into cordial relations with other states, because membership is not something that is imposed upon your home world. It's something that is taken within account before the systems gets to apply for membership.

  8. #38
    As long as the Coalition stays true to its goals and doesn't expand inwards, and leaves my prof.. I mean sovereign imperial systems alone, this humble Imperial pilot shall lend its vote to the Border Coalition, should the need arise.

  9. #39
    We absolutely guarantee that we won't expand intentionally within boundaries agreed in advance with other powers. Our focus is outwards and our intent defensive. We are unlikely to have a huge CC surplus either, seeing as how were are already in the badlands!

  10. #40
    Its certainly compelling. It will be interesting to see how you balance mandatory expansion with the need for peaceful co-existence while standing up for groups. Not an easy task.

    Some questions:

    Have you set up that list of player groups yet? Its useful for Powers so we can avoid trouble.

    Is there a threshold size for a group that you would defend? Would you offer protection to groups of any size?

    Speaking from a Utopian standpoint, how would we go about getting a treaty of sorts going? Galactic Council or direct?

  11. #41
    Originally Posted by Jane Turner View Post (Source)
    We absolutely guarantee that we won't expand intentionally within boundaries agreed in advance with other powers. Our focus is outwards and our intent defensive. We are unlikely to have a huge CC surplus either, seeing as how were are already in the badlands!
    Very well then comrade, you shall have my aid when the times comes And remember "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance"

  12. #42
    Originally Posted by Rubbernuke View Post (Source)
    Its certainly compelling. It will be interesting to see how you balance mandatory expansion with the need for peaceful co-existence while standing up for groups. Not an easy task.

    Some questions:

    Have you set up that list of player groups yet? Its useful for Powers so we can avoid trouble.

    Is there a threshold size for a group that you would defend? Would you offer protection to groups of any size?

    Speaking from a Utopian standpoint, how would we go about getting a treaty of sorts going? Galactic Council or direct?
    Hello Rubbernuke,

    1. Not yet - our forums are currently under construction and we'll have one there.

    2. I don't think group size is a criteria. We're generally opened towards any group, but there is no rule. Each case would be looked at individually, with probably 99% being a yes.

    3. Please contact Ben Ryder, we're already speaking to him. Via email for now, but we'll be having a Diplomatic section on our forums soon (possibly today).

    Fly safe, Commander.

  13. #43
    Originally Posted by Rubbernuke View Post (Source)
    Its certainly compelling. It will be interesting to see how you balance mandatory expansion with the need for peaceful co-existence while standing up for groups. Not an easy task.

    Some questions:

    Have you set up that list of player groups yet? Its useful for Powers so we can avoid trouble.

    Is there a threshold size for a group that you would defend? Would you offer protection to groups of any size?

    Speaking from a Utopian standpoint, how would we go about getting a treaty of sorts going? Galactic Council or direct?

    We are still getting our act together behind the scenes, but for those player groups who have already had diplomatic links with CI, the set up will be identical. We will create embassies for any interested parties (player groups and powers) to talk to us (all of us) and as many of you as required. All conversations within those Embassies will be treated with complete diplomatic status. ie we will guarantee that any leaks into the public domain will not come from us. For the Federation and Empire powers it may also be appropriate to have a second major power-wide embassy, where access to eg an ALD embassy confers instant rights to Empire room.


    As individual player groups we have already negotiated with Archon Delaine and Edmund Mahon our effective borders in response to expansions into areas we are active in. There are defined as 45LY plus a 15LY buffer around our respective headquarters, Mikunn, Manite and HR 8444 and have special conditions for the systems of Wadir and Partha. I am not as familiar with the boundary region between the Hussars and Empire space, but expect that special conditions will need to be agreed in that region, but in principal we would expect to offer the same agreements to all existing powers.

    We are fully aware of the challenges we face wrt needing to expand whilst being expressly non-expansionist. At this point we have no idea what is possible. Likewise it would be premature to speculate on how we would be able to offer protection to other independent player groups, save that if we could find a way we would wish to. Clearly we can offer an alternative flag of convenience to the existing powers, but unless there is a change in how upkeep/overheads etc are calculated for us, it would be naive to think that we could muster the spare CC to be able to take on control by invitation as a defence for other player groups, unless they were close to us - like the SEPP.

    I hope this helps

    - - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

    Ninja'd more concisely by Rootsrat

  14. #44
    Jane Turner / rootsrat > thanks!

    I shot Ben an email about talks so hopefully I can be of use UNN and Galnet wise.

    I only wondered about group size as its a perennial problem. We had a situation with a proto-group and we did everything to avoid moving over them, but the group itself was only three people. I respect independent player groups but with the pressures of Powerplay the line is a fine one.

  15. #45
    Speaking for myself, I would rather not be a power than be a power that deliberately occupies other player groups home systems without their express wishes. Additionally I would want to turn the onus on us as a potential power to check for existence of player groups rather than go oh sorry we really didn't know you were there - too late/difficult to do anything about it now.

Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 123458 ... LastLast