OOC
- Thread starter Clairvoyance
- Start date
Clairvoyance
I'm a bad bitch, you c'aint kill me.
So, what do y'all think of the plot?
Byatis
The Berkeley Toad
The premise seems like it's based on a string of idealistic events. However, that's only if we are looking to history/science and trying to maintain a sense of attachment to our version of Earth. If this were based in our reality, I feel like there would be a few discrepancies.
Clairvoyance
I'm a bad bitch, you c'aint kill me.
Byatis
The Berkeley Toad
Implied World-Wide Peace:
It wasn't explicitly stated in the overview, but it is heavily implied that there is something along the lines of mutual aid between most (if not all) of Earth. If this isn't the case, then skip over this. Some of the issues with the events to follow the golden era of technological advancement brought upon by the implied peace feels a bit out of place. In order for people to be willing to share information with each other so readily, it would mean that there's no such thing as threat or competition. We as a planet would be socially advanced far enough to not feel a need for war. The story has this lasting for ~150 years.
If we were to be at peace with each other, it would mean that there is an understanding amongst all individuals that power and property is a meaningless man-made construct. This also happens so far into the future that people who have grown up with a competitive, capitalist mindset would have died out. Leaving only the newer generations who have only known mutual aid and trust.
If we're still in a world where capitalism/property/competition exists, it would mean that its harder for us as a race to advance as quickly because others would want to profit from it. So, either way to me, its clashing.
The Literal Breaking of the Peace (2239 AD - )
If we go by our history and what it has taught us, France has never regained the kind of glory and military prowess they had before Napoleon died. In modern times, they've never been as important as they used to be. Although they've tried to maintain their empire as best they can. It's just kind of unrealistic when compared to who they chose to attack. If the implied peace I talked about above didn't exist, that means that money still exists and right now Germany is more of an economic powerhouse than France. If that trend kept up all of those years, Germany would still be ahead of France.
(If we are as socially advanced as I talked about in the first section, Russia wouldn't be poverty ridden. If we aren't, carry on.)
I'm going to post a map of the implied free-for-all war as stated in the overview.
Some of the priorities of the attackers seems wild. Why did they choose those targets? Also, are we to assume that everyone else is just going to let that go without trying to stop it? Are they just collateral damage? The amount of land that they have to pass through to take the lands that they did should have posed a problem or at least would have done something about it.
Social Climate and Economics (Does it Exist?):
If my earlier paragraph of worldwide peace and the impact that it would have on the world is wrong, that would mean that we most likely live in the same social and economic climates that we do now. Capitalism is pretty strong on the world stage in this day and age. For Capitalism to thrive we would need free trade. I think it's safe to say that there would be no free trade during a war, thus being a main reason that we just go all out each other to begin with. There are other reasons too, including but not limited to NATO and the European Union. There's also the United Nations which admittedly doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, but they usually impose on countries acting aggressively towards each other.
The Anti-Matter Bombs:
The overview states anti-matter Bombs. One ounce of anti-matter equates to 1.22 megatons, a modern-day hydrogen bomb. It's going to do some pretty significant damage on its own and you put that there were a series of them to hit Spain. That's a large chunk of the Earth that's just not there anymore. This can potentially lead to catastrophic problems with Earth's ecosystem.
Time is of the Essence:
With everything discussed earlier, I don't believe that the world would be around long enough for 60 years to pass. An anti-matter bomb is a game stopper. There is no war because there's nothing left after anti-matter bomb(s) drop. When did they stop fighting? We are left to conclude that the war and destruction is still going on as we left Earth. But if India can bring in warheads like that, it's pretty much free for anyone to use weapons like that and they probably would in order to try to win.
You can figure that it wouldn't be worth it to go through all of that for nothing and that's exactly what you'd get at the end of something like that. Absolutely nothing. Which would lead us back to the question: Why would they go through with fighting to begin with in a peaceful world of social and technological advancement.
It wasn't explicitly stated in the overview, but it is heavily implied that there is something along the lines of mutual aid between most (if not all) of Earth. If this isn't the case, then skip over this. Some of the issues with the events to follow the golden era of technological advancement brought upon by the implied peace feels a bit out of place. In order for people to be willing to share information with each other so readily, it would mean that there's no such thing as threat or competition. We as a planet would be socially advanced far enough to not feel a need for war. The story has this lasting for ~150 years.
If we were to be at peace with each other, it would mean that there is an understanding amongst all individuals that power and property is a meaningless man-made construct. This also happens so far into the future that people who have grown up with a competitive, capitalist mindset would have died out. Leaving only the newer generations who have only known mutual aid and trust.
If we're still in a world where capitalism/property/competition exists, it would mean that its harder for us as a race to advance as quickly because others would want to profit from it. So, either way to me, its clashing.
The Literal Breaking of the Peace (2239 AD - )
If we go by our history and what it has taught us, France has never regained the kind of glory and military prowess they had before Napoleon died. In modern times, they've never been as important as they used to be. Although they've tried to maintain their empire as best they can. It's just kind of unrealistic when compared to who they chose to attack. If the implied peace I talked about above didn't exist, that means that money still exists and right now Germany is more of an economic powerhouse than France. If that trend kept up all of those years, Germany would still be ahead of France.
(If we are as socially advanced as I talked about in the first section, Russia wouldn't be poverty ridden. If we aren't, carry on.)
I'm going to post a map of the implied free-for-all war as stated in the overview.
Some of the priorities of the attackers seems wild. Why did they choose those targets? Also, are we to assume that everyone else is just going to let that go without trying to stop it? Are they just collateral damage? The amount of land that they have to pass through to take the lands that they did should have posed a problem or at least would have done something about it.
Social Climate and Economics (Does it Exist?):
If my earlier paragraph of worldwide peace and the impact that it would have on the world is wrong, that would mean that we most likely live in the same social and economic climates that we do now. Capitalism is pretty strong on the world stage in this day and age. For Capitalism to thrive we would need free trade. I think it's safe to say that there would be no free trade during a war, thus being a main reason that we just go all out each other to begin with. There are other reasons too, including but not limited to NATO and the European Union. There's also the United Nations which admittedly doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, but they usually impose on countries acting aggressively towards each other.
The Anti-Matter Bombs:
The overview states anti-matter Bombs. One ounce of anti-matter equates to 1.22 megatons, a modern-day hydrogen bomb. It's going to do some pretty significant damage on its own and you put that there were a series of them to hit Spain. That's a large chunk of the Earth that's just not there anymore. This can potentially lead to catastrophic problems with Earth's ecosystem.
Time is of the Essence:
With everything discussed earlier, I don't believe that the world would be around long enough for 60 years to pass. An anti-matter bomb is a game stopper. There is no war because there's nothing left after anti-matter bomb(s) drop. When did they stop fighting? We are left to conclude that the war and destruction is still going on as we left Earth. But if India can bring in warheads like that, it's pretty much free for anyone to use weapons like that and they probably would in order to try to win.
You can figure that it wouldn't be worth it to go through all of that for nothing and that's exactly what you'd get at the end of something like that. Absolutely nothing. Which would lead us back to the question: Why would they go through with fighting to begin with in a peaceful world of social and technological advancement.
Byatis
The Berkeley Toad
You are the GM. So, you can use my input in any way that you see fit. Hope this helps at least clear up a few foggy areas (the ones I saw at least).
Clairvoyance
I'm a bad bitch, you c'aint kill me.
This gives me quite a lot to think about...this is why I wanted you as a GM as well though, because you try to keep things as realistic as possible. I think I can like upgrade your status or something and allow you to made edits to posts, so I'll try and do that. If I can't, I'd like for you to copy the overview and rewrite the areas you think are foggy. I see that almost everything you mentioned was true and reasonable, and I think you could sharpen the rather dull edge of this RP to a fine point. All I ask is that you keep the main points of the RP: golden age, war, QA, ships, and the exodus.
See, I have literally the worst memory, and geography isn't my thing at all. I have vague ideas about modern day Earth's social status and such, but I'm thinking you know a lot more than I ever will! I tried to do some research on various points in this RP, but I obviously didn't do very well. xD
Byatis
The Berkeley Toad
I would like to ask if there is anyone here that has a potential reason for war? I know it will be hard, given the circumstances, but suggestions are welcome.
Clairvoyance
I'm a bad bitch, you c'aint kill me.
It could be tangible, such as blatantly refusing to do something or share something with others, or the entire war could be caused by mere rumors. Betrayal, sabotage, you name it.
Also, you are now a GM! I believe you're able to edit the overview.
Lost Echo
🏳️🌈
If someone refusing to do something/share something, I sort of think that it would keep from being a free-for-all. What about maybe they invent something that they lose control of? It destroys one country accidentally? Some try to defend its survivors, while others just want to make sure they're not next? Maybe even some believe the first country that it was an accident and try to defend it?
@Byatis @Clairvoyance
@Byatis @Clairvoyance
Detective Rascal
Magic is just Science unexplained
Sorry, I know this isn't on the discussion of the plot stuff, but are we putting character sheets in the one thread or individual ones?
Clairvoyance
I'm a bad bitch, you c'aint kill me.
Do whatever you want. It says to make a new thread, but the others are all posting under that single thread. xD Whichever you prefer.
Byatis
The Berkeley Toad
I think it would really clear it up for me if we knew the social and political climate of Earth pre-war. :/
Clairvoyance
I'm a bad bitch, you c'aint kill me.
Whelp....socially, the world would be past many things, but recent wars between America, Russia, China, North Korea and a few middle eastern countries have left deep scars and made things tense. Russia ended up using most of their available resources to fight and defend themselves, so things there are much more unstable and economically worrisome than the other countries. North Korea signed it's own death certificate after a nuclear bomb meant for the US was handled carelessly, causing it to go off in the middle of the country. For the most part though, China, Russia, the US and the middle east have fixed their long-standing issues with each other, and the US is even attempting to help Russia get back on it's feet.
Economically, the world is quite rich. Africa has risen from the third-world continent it once was and joined the modern age, and equal rights for men and women are at an all-time high. Prostitution and kidnapping of young women in Asia has largely ceased, and outsourcing jobs to cheaper countries no longer happens as much, so each country has it's fair share of jobs available. At this point, small mining facilities have been established on most of the planets in the solar system besides Mercury and Pluto, bringing in an even larger profit and seemingly endless resources to make more advanced technology. The facilities are run by robots -- most often remotely-controlled androids -- and are rarely visited by humans. A few small colonies have also been established on this moon, but space colonization is surprisingly little compared to the tech that's available.
Politically, the world is surprisingly stable as well. The most stable it's been in a long time. Current world leaders are doing their best to keep things safe and in control, doing everything in their power to quell old rivalries and open the door to a new age of peace and prosperity. There'll always be political differences, but they're very minimal at this given moment.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Glass Ninja
The High Tower's Guard
Thank you for the spot, and might I suggest that a short but brutal resource war (perhaps limited deployment of nuclear weaponry?) sparked the 'peace' of a protracted cold war situation between various alliances of countries throughout the world. This would give a good excuse for technological advancement as the various alliances begin a mass arms race - from which various secondary and tertiary techs could have been discovered; including combat AI and space tech (perhaps corporate warfare became a big thing? Extra-nationality of corporations a-la Shadowrun? This could allow for proxy warfare between nations).
Byatis
The Berkeley Toad
Unfortunately, there's really no such thing as a limited deployment of nuclear weaponry. The devastation brought by nuclear weapons means that if two countries had them, they would most likely retaliate in kind.
Also, getting nuked is a pretty hard blow to your infrastructure and economy, so why not just fire back? You don't have much left to lose.
Also, getting nuked is a pretty hard blow to your infrastructure and economy, so why not just fire back? You don't have much left to lose.
The Glass Ninja
The High Tower's Guard
Tactical deployment of nuclear weapons is a very viable tactic - hell, many modern forces have access to tactical level weaponry. The Us's Iowa Class battleship was capable of firing a nuclear broadside up until 2003 IIRC. Tactical nuclear weapons could very well cause a decent amount of ecological and environmental damage and prompt a rapid driving home amongst both governments and public bodies that MAD protocol is extremely likely without the capacity to utterly decimate your enemy before the same is done to you. Thus, anti-matter bombs in high enough yields to utterly devastate strike-back capacity would likely tip the balance.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Glass Ninja
The High Tower's Guard
No idea why this double posted. Apologies.
Last edited by a moderator:
Lost Echo
🏳️🌈
@The Glass NinjaAs for the double posting; it's a known bug. This is a nice list of them.
((If anyone knows how to add links without them turning into big boxes, I'd appreciate knowing it too.))
Anyway. I think your idea removes the "golden age" scenario. At least if I'm understanding right. At least it seemed like you meant the peace was only because no one wanted to blow up the world, not because they were all cooperating. I get the impression @Clairvoyance really wants the peace to be true? Maybe he'll correct me.
((If anyone knows how to add links without them turning into big boxes, I'd appreciate knowing it too.))
Anyway. I think your idea removes the "golden age" scenario. At least if I'm understanding right. At least it seemed like you meant the peace was only because no one wanted to blow up the world, not because they were all cooperating. I get the impression @Clairvoyance really wants the peace to be true? Maybe he'll correct me.
The Glass Ninja
The High Tower's Guard
Generally peace between nations is for good reason on an international policy standpoint. To just have peace because there's no need for competition would degrade the notion of nation states - the fall of borders and the like and formation of a one world government far more likely than warfare out of the blue. But that's just my opinion - its clairvoyance's final decision and I'm interested in what's created.
Clairvoyance
I'm a bad bitch, you c'aint kill me.
Hrm...I do like your idea, @The Glass Ninja, but @Fading Echo is right. I'd prefer it if there was a long-lasting era of rather surprising peace unless @Byatis specifically says it won't fit with the story.
The Glass Ninja
The High Tower's Guard
I don't see how it could work in a real world scenario - unless of course the one world government thing did happen and then say, terrorism saw the fall of the united nations of earth into their individual parts? However, I'll be quiet - I don't want to feel like I'm taking control.
Byatis
The Berkeley Toad
World Peace is a touchy subject. The slow build into peace would be nice. However, with the way Earth is at this very moment, I don't see it happening for a very, very long time.
IMHO: We would have to either further the timeline of the story far into the future. Or there would have to be a problem that needed everyone to get along to survive. A common goal.
IMHO: We would have to either further the timeline of the story far into the future. Or there would have to be a problem that needed everyone to get along to survive. A common goal.
Clairvoyance
I'm a bad bitch, you c'aint kill me.
Furthering the timeline is fine.
You don't, no worries! I like getting feedback.
The Glass Ninja
The High Tower's Guard
So, are we any closer to getting things hammered out? I'm sorta eager to see what this show does once its on the road.