User talk:FPA Forever

From Gineipaedia, the Legend of Galactic Heroes wiki

Revision as of 02:33, 17 August 2014

Mutation of Titles

Could you please tell me more how my titles mutated? Thats easy to change. FPA Forever

In earlier chapters, you referred to them as Secretary of Finance etc., while in this latest chapter they are referred to as Minister of Finance. Just noticed that inconsistency. Iracundus 03:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Darn. Didn't see that. I got things mixed up because I had Lichtenlade in the mix. I'll fix it. Thanks! FPA Forever

Hello!

Hey there, just wanted to say welcome, and thanks in advance for your contributions. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a message on my talk page (or any other talk page, for that matter) :)  ♥ kine @ 00:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Ideal to Fight For story

• Previous Posts Cut and Saved

The whole story in the OTL revolves around Reinhard representing the benevolent dictatorship while Yang represented democracy's loyal servants that will hold even a corrupt democracy higher than the best of autocracies. The reason I say this is that the purpose of the story seems to favor Reinhard in so many ways is that, just as the other great historical figures, he has a great number of occurrences that would have either destroyed him or propelled him along his path, and of course, Reinhard being Reinhard, he is mostly successful and always saved from danger, only to succomb to a unusual death as many of the greats do. This only happens once or twice in a century, give or take, and those that succeed on Reinhard's level are even fewer than that. These most successful of successful figures were directly connected with at least one other immensely successful figure. Cyrus the Great put in motion the events to set the stage for Alexander the Great. Genghis Khan did the same for Tamerlane. I know a history lesson isn't all that exciting, but I am thinking the best option for you may be set the stage in the 845 UC era or whenever you want it. If you don't, I may haha. The only way to prolong the FPA is to make it so that Reinhard was not the influential historical figure he was in the OTL, which is a fundamental change to the story. If you want to argue that Yang was the other important figure in the era, I would agree, but not in the way I am meaning. Yang would have never pursued political power, and lacking ambition unfortunately keeps you off history's most influential figures list, regardless of how successful he was. Now if he were to ignore the order to cease hostilities and fire at the 2nd Battle of Vermillion, then it would be another story, but again that would require a fundamental change to a fundamental character's character. I always thought of Yang being like Yi Sun-sin, who I personally believe was the greatest admiral of all time yet he never used his successes to achieve personal advancement, even when it meant he had to endure unjust charges against him, always acting only in the interest of his nation with no care for his own position or rank.

So that being said, here's the ways I can come up with to prolong the Alliance without completely altering the "feel" of LOGH. Perhaps you have Greenhill save the remaining Alliance fleets from engaging at Amritsar and be able to somewhat recover.

And this is about half of what I wrote but it logged me out and I lost it forgetting to copy but yet again I am out of time so I will complete this later. Strayor 21:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm... well, the story is already written up to a certain point, here are the highlights.

-Due to slightly different events, Jessica Edwards and Yang have a somewhat bigger row about Yang pretty much Rolling over whenever he could do something meaningful to better the war situation. Because of that, Yang never goes to Peace Party HQ, never meets Jessica, and as such she dies in the explosion.

-Yang, distraught over her death and still not over it, is relatively more outspoken against Falk's plan, and manages to break the ice enough that the OTHER fleet commanders add their voices to his protests against the plan. Not wanting eight of his key commanders on the edge of handing in their resignation, Sitolet and Lobos allow them to restructure the plan enough that they'd be able to get the Hell out if the Invasion went South.

-The invasion is slower and more cautious, and when Reinhard eventually attacks - because he has pressure of his own, after all - the damage inflicted is much reduced, allowing all of the fleets to break out with varyind amounts of damage and gather at Dionysus Starzone.

-The Battle of Dionysus ends in an Imperial Victory, but its not a crushing victory. In all, the Alliance lost about 40,000-45,000 ships, and the Empire lost about 20,000-25,000 ships. On the Alliance side, Lefebvre and Al-Salem died, and on the Imperial side, Bittenfeld was killed by a joint assault from Yang and Ulanf during Dionysus.

- At this moment, the fleets have just returned to Iserlohn, and the Fleet Commanders are about to be debriefed by Lobos and Greenhill, with Negroponty representing Trunicht and the Department of Defense.

Thoughts? FPA Forever

By the way, the reason why the Alliance Fleets were able to return to Iserlohn? This invasion was a few weeks later than in the OTL, so as the Battle of Dionysus was ending, Friedrich IV died. Reinhard made the choice of letting the Alliance go so he'd have the military strength to take advantage of the coming political maelstrom. FPA Forever

Ok, that helps a lot. I won't bother filling in the rest of my piece then.

Well, if this is your starting point I feel like two things of the already written storyline should be addressed real quick. First, if you kill Bittenfeld, you lose a very easy way to get the Imperials in trouble in your future story. He falls into trap after trap and only at the very end of the OTL did he finally start to show true tact with fleet command. Because of this, he is of great use to you as a plot device for getting the Empire to stumble. Might I suggest Kempf instead as with your new timeline I doubt the 8th battle of Iserlohn would have ever occurred. Also, you should be careful with the use of civil disobedience in the military. While it could have worked in this instance the commanders may have just preferred to bend and selectively hear orders in the field, as real life commanders do, in order to prevent anything too catastrophic. There are a lot of ways that commanders can do this in order to carve their own path under vague and far reaching orders, such as Falk's. Keep in mind the military resignations can be rejected by their commanding officer, and refusing command after that could easily result in court martial. Since it's already written, I doubt this means anything to you but I felt you should be made aware at least, so that nothing is thought of too late. I hope I don't come across as saying "this is the way you should do it" or anything like that. I just want you to have all your bases covered.

Make sure to have Greenhill avoid entering the coup somehow. He joined to keep it from getting out of control so he needs to be removed from Heinessen for a while. Give him some post or command that accomplishes that. Rebelo and his new party will eventually take power, but Trunicht would likely be with them somehow. He may be a horrible leader but he is a very savvy politician and is able to ride any sort of movement to power in some form. He would not stick with the pro-war if they became isolated. Have Reinhard save Westerland, and therefore prolong the civil war but even without it his popularity would still be as great as it was. Here's where it gets a little more tricky. Have Reinhard seize Fezzan and be stalled at the Alliance side by Bucock while Yang holds Reuenthal off at Iserlohn. After a year or so of hostilities and giving and gaining ground, a peace is signed where the Alliance recognizes Fezzan's annexation and cedes Iserlohn Fortress back to the Empire in return for the abolishment of the Alliance's debt held by Fezzan and peace. However, that would cause upheavals to Fezzan's economy but I think they'd overcome it. I personally think you should not prolong the civil war too long to give Reinhard time to interact with Yang on peaceful terms before he dies. But then you have Terraism playing in, which it would be awesome to see a joint Alliance/Imperial Terraist hunt, and Rubinsky and Boltik, where do they play in and where are they now? Obviously Boltik is needed for the capture of Fezzan, so Rubinsky's plan needs to backfire like it did in the OTL. Enough on that for now since the story is Alliance centric.

As far as Alliance internal structure, I think your earlier analogy of it being like D.C and New York is on the right track but I would include L.A. and Chicago in that as well. Heinessen is the heart of everything Alliance, and as such has a disproportionate amount of influence over the FPA. Even if Heinessen didn't want to wield such influence, eventually the good natured politicians all too aware of Earth's treatment of her colonies would be replaced by those only seeking votes. But even still, it seems as though the other planets are not rebellious or wishing to cede in way, El Facil being a special occurrence. The FPA seems to be just beginning to show signs rampant corruption that can no longer be covered up so you may be able to delay the collapse with a sane Rebelo free to maneuver. Out of time again. Strayor 17:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not see the Alliance agreeing to both Imperial annexation of Fezzan and also returning Iserlohn to the Empire as that creates an unstable equilibrium and therefore also an unstable peace. The Empire then would have the majority of the resources and also the decisive strategic positioning for a future invasion of the Alliance. The Alliance would be ripe for the taking at any point then, and the temptation would be high for Reinhard or any other Imperial person in power to seek any casus belli to complete the conquest against an exhausted Alliance. Control or at least the denial of exit from the 2 Corridors is a core Alliance security interest. Iserlohn and Fezzan would both serve as supply bases in the event of any future conflict which is why Iserlohn's construction was such a setback for the Alliance. Previously the long distance and difficulty of supplying Imperial expeditions kept the Alliance somewhat secure. Abolishment of Alliance sovereign debt to Fezzan would no more than give a brief breather as the Alliance would remain vulnerable to renewed Imperial attack in the future, and this external threat would likely be exploited by the pro-war politicians to drive the population towards renewed ruinous re-militarization. There is nothing like a looming external enemy and an "us vs. them" mentality to whip people into a renewed bout of war hysteria. The old war propaganda started to fail IMO precisely because the war appeared to be going nowhere previously, with the Alliance in no imminent danger after so many generations. That might change if the circumstances changed to put the Alliance heartland exposed to the Empire. Iracundus 13:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll answer a few things. First, the Fleet Commanders objecting to the Falk Plan. The plan was fatally flawed from the get-go, possessing no strategy and zero back-up plan, it was an operation based on pure faith and what can only be wishful thinking. As for attitude, Falk was extremely rude and arrogant towards the Fleet Commanders, arrogantly answering Ulanf with empty words, all but scoffing at Bucock, and going as far as to accuse Yang of aiding the enemy, only because these men questioned his plan. Yet, at no point was Falk censured by Sitolet, Lobos or Greenhill, the three officers who could have done so if they wanted.

Yang was more distaught over Frederica's death because it came in differently. He was still mourning, so Falk rubbed him worse than in the OTL. Still, all he did was hang on to his position more than in the OTL, and then the other commanders, who really didn't like the plan, jumped in. All they got was the right to change some elements to the operation, to make it feasible. And have a workable plan if things went South (which the commanders knew it would). I, myself, think Sitolet was quite happy with this, Greenhill as well, and Lobos was just glad the commanders would go forward with the plan with minor adjustments to it.

Second, the peace plan: I don't think the Alliance would ever willingly give up Iserlohn, especially not if Fezzan was annexed. The Star Fleet in my story took a heavy blow, but remains an effective battle force. Fezzan is aware of that, and would more than likely offer the Alliance a extremely advantageous Financial deal to prevent their loss of independance. In fact, the best scenario for the Alliance is an independant Fezzan on one hand, the Alliance-held Iserlohn on the other. It would be the sort of thing which would protect the Alliance just enough to even the odds. FPA Forever

What effect would Dwight Greenhill ultimately refusing to rebel against the government have on a potential Alliance Civil War? How critical do you guys think he was in making it the big thing it became? And in the Imperial Civil War, would the prevention of Westerland have changed that war much? FPA Forever

Dwight Greenhill was critical for enabling the NSMC to gain control of the government and also possibly swaying some of the undecided junior officers since he was senior and respected. Without him, I do not see the NSMC being much more than the rebellion of one fleet and maybe some isolated garrisons. As for Westerland, without it, the civil war would have dragged on longer. Even an intercepted attack could still be dismissed by the Lippstadt PR as enemy propaganda. Until Westerland, I see most of the general public as having little personal investment in a civil war involving the nobles and the government, and just sticking to their jobs and duties. Lot of the Lippstadt support was from these status quo types and these were the ones that deserted following Westerland. A prolonged Imperial civil war would leave the Empire weaker than OTL if more Lippstadt ships ended up destroyed instead of surrendered to be absorbed into Reinhard's fleets, and also would mean Reinhard would be further along in his disease if the war took longer. Iracundus 23:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Which is exactly why you can't prolong to Civil War all that much, otherwise Reinhard would not have had the time to play politics with the Alliance to create the stalemate you are seeking. If he dies before peace is achieved, or just after, surely the war would only escalate/resume after a brief Imperial recess, no matter what Reinhard's dying wishes were or how powerful the Kaiserin is. The Imperials would find a way to force the conflict on. I do believe Fezzan being taken may be a little too much, but I still don't see an Imperial breakthrough at either corridor if the Alliance could field at least three fleets at each exit, as I thought you were planning on since most of the force would have been saved from Amritsar, even if it does fall to the Imperials. That brief financial respite would be enough to allow the Alliance to at least repair and field some of the more battered fleets and salvage the perception of the government's handling of the war with the populace, even if only a few years.

As far as Iserlohn, I don't see any peace coming to any fruition unless it is in Imperial hands. Reuenthal was almost able to seize it from Yang, of all people, as part of a mere diversion. I'm sorry, but if all Imperial resources were focussed on retaking Iserlohn not even miracle Yang would be able to hold it in my opinion, no matter how heavy or unacceptable the Imperial casualties were, they would eventually overwhelm its defenses, so there's always that option. Again there would be a great opportunity to weaken the Imperials to the point where peace and a stalemate would be preferable to war. I just can't see any of the Imperials as they were presented in the OTL accepting peace terms that allow Iserlohn to remain with the Alliance.

As far as Greenhill, Iracundus mirrors my thoughts exactly. The NSMC would have been a brief and ineffective rebellion, possibly taking a few systems but nothing more, especially not Heinessen. Greenhill gave the NSMC the legitimacy it needed to attract as many officers and soldiers as it did. Without him, I don't see it becoming anything more than a nuisance that would have been quickly put down. Strayor 05:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

As per my earlier post, my opinion is that any peace where the Empire has both Iserlohn and Fezzan is unstable because the military and economic advantage would then be so overwhelming that it would only be a matter of time til whoever was ruling the Empire would be tempted to finish the job and conquer the Alliance. The very threat of this would be like the Sword of Damocles hanging over the Alliance. Even if the Alliance were to be freed from its debt to Fezzan, the Alliance as a society is exhausted in both material and personnel, and the financial situation is just reflective of that. The Alliance needs a stable military situation in order to be able to spend its resources on civilian society, and to have a generation of people that are not just sucked into the military industrial complex. Any situation where the external enemy of the Empire is poised for another attack would just lead to a continuation of the same ruinous cycle of war hysteria and military spending. So any financial windfall would be short-lived and likely squandered in more military rebuilding.

A situation where the Alliance holds Iserlohn but the Empire annexes Fezzan might be stable in the short term, but I still think it unstable in the long term due to the economic leverage of Fezzan. The reverse, of the Alliance holding Fezzan with the Empire retaking Iserlohn might be marginally more stable in the long run, but has the problem of the Alliance having to defend Fezzan, and the threat of renewed Imperial expeditions from Iserlohn.

From the Empire's POV, an Alliance Iserlohn is equally unacceptable due to the potential of a future Alliance invasion (a fear that would be justified given the actual Alliance invasion). However it is a more tolerable situation for the Empire given the Alliance's exhaustion, whereas the Empire was able to afford sending expeditions through Iserlohn to attack the Alliance, sometimes for flimsy motives. While Imperial expeditions might be defeated, the actual polity of the Empire was not threatened. The Alliance would not be able to afford such frivolous expeditions after its recent setbacks, and the Empire likely knows this, which might make the situation of an Alliance held Iserlohn grating but tolerable for the short term. Iracundus 07:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, Westerland will be stopped and the endgame of the Imperial Civil War will be slightly longer, cost more ships on both sides, and otherwise not be as neatly ended as in the OTL. Which makes me Wonder if I could start showing snippets from Merkatz' POV. Its an Alliance-driven story, but HE will be in the Alliance eventually, and will participate to the main story.

I've always found the population and material drain irrealistic, since the Empire is never shown having any of that. Yes, it has larger population, but it also has a larger fleet. So what do you think? Minimize the Alliance drain, or show that there IS an Imperial drain?

As for Iserlohn's fate, its too soon to say. I've got several options I'm considering.

Thoughts? FPA Forever

Merkatz's POV is about the only way you could really examine the Imperial civil war unless you take the form of dry intelligence reports to the Alliance. If the ending of the civil war is less clean, and the Lippstadt nobles' cause not as entirely discredited among the general population, then there may be lingering Goldenbaum sympathizers. Merkatz's internal motivations were always one of those things that was never as explicitly explored in the OTL series, with a lot of it implicit, based on the idea of the old loyal retainer, faithful to the very end to his oath of loyalty even though he knows his cause is hopeless.

I think the main material and personnel exhaustion from the Alliance really got rolling from all the wasteful failed attacks on Iserlohn. We see the Alliance fleets get mauled multiple times in just 3 years and that is just the 5th and 6th attacks (plus 3rd and 4th Tiamat), yet they are built back up to full strength by the start of the main OVA series. This means a lot of material resources and personnel being drawn from the rest of society to accomplish this rapid rebuilding. Overall if you look at the timeline of the war, the size and tempo of operations increases over time, not helped by the fact the Empire was on the strategic offensive and could effectively dictate the pace of operations. The Alliance was always in a reactive defensive role strategically to play on its knowledge of the terrain and also shorter supply lines. Dagon and Kornelias I's expedition took place 28 years apart, and 2nd Tiamat was the big battle of Ashbey's generation. Yet by 792 UC, the Iserlohn battles are routinely happening with 30,000+ ships on the Alliance side. The Alliance was hurling itself in a frenzy against this forward base and expended strength it could not afford. If Iserlohn had never been built, the old back and forth fighting might have continued and while still draining would not have been as terrible for the Alliance.

The Goldenbaum Empire I would argue was no longer trying to win and its expeditions were serving as just another political move to strengthen one's political position (noble and emperor/kaiser alike), so they were never committing irreplaceable forces. If an expedition were defeated, there might be a relatively longer lull til the next attack. The Empire never seemed to have that war hysteria and existential fear of invasion and conquest that hung over the Alliance, probably because the Empire's territory was never violated before the Alliance took Iserlohn. Also a lot of the Imperial forces were effectively tied up by the high nobles as their effective private armies and the Imperial military was riddled with courtly intrigues and noble patronage, as well as rampant corruption. The Empire was also involved in a lot of space castle building as evidenced by all the fortresses in the Empire. So I would say the drain on the Empire took the form of corruption, pointless expenditure of resources on bloated projects like fortresses, forces being tied down garrisoning these fortresses or other noble territory. Battlefield losses and drain seemed to be on the order of Dagon and 2nd Tiamat once in a generation, with the rest of the time in between being many minor strategically pointless battles and skirmishes like Arlesheim rather than big defeats like the Alliance's failed Iserlohn offensives. Iracundus 10:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's a thought about Westerland. In the OTL, Kircheis was too far to really know what happened until he heard rumours. In this timeline, just slightly different, Kircheis (or another higher-ranked officer, Mittermyer or Reuentahl) had forces marshalling in the area, which detected the enemy and, seeing what was about to happen, attacked them and stopped the assault, with the few nukes that were launched being intercepted by blanket fire. This is not disobeying orders, its a perfectly natural reaction Now, any of the three would notice the recording devices sent, and would learn of their origins. At this point, making the logical connection, eventually the three would talk about this, troubled by the possibilities. Would the verbal row between Kircheis and Reinhard be changed by this? FPA Forever

Oberstein would be more likely to be in trouble as he had sent those recon ships after telling Reinhard the wrong time. Reinhard only went along because it had already occurred, and assumed de facto responsibility since he could not be seen to be having a subordinate mislead him. Iracundus 01:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

By the way, what do you guys think would be the ramifications, if Rebello's new party, being the 'middle ground' between the War Party and Peace Party, managed, in part because Yang would firmly endorse it (Yang does it because he doesn't think the Peace Party can sway a majority, and anyway still doesn't quite realize the extent of his public appeal), to win the 797 Elections, putting his party in control, at least for a few years? Does is help the Alliance to have political moderates at the helm? FPA Forever

Depends on what this moderate party's position is on various issues. The Alliance's problem is it has been turning into a fascist military and police state in everything except name, due to the Empire existing as a constant bogeyman with which to whip up nationalism and war hysteria, and to demand yet more sacrifices from the population in the name of national security. The Alliance needs to secure its borders but not at the cost of further ruinous military spending and prioritization, which risks turning the Alliance into a version of North Korea. For most of the war, the Alliance was caught in this bind of having an enemy that was ideologically incapable of negotiating or accepting peace with what it saw as "rebels". Reinhard's government, in the OTL, appears more practical than the old Goldenbaum dynasty and dealt with the Alliance as a de facto independent state, even though formal recognition only came right before dissolving the Alliance. For the moderates to be successful, they would have to be able to overcome the war propaganda image of the Empire as evil incarnate, the whole idea of the Alliance somehow crusading and liberating the people of the Empire, and to secure the borders at an acceptable price. They would also have to overcome the entrenched vested interests that benefit from the situation such as military contractors or politicians. Politicians don't even have to be overtly corrupt and embezzling to be opposed to these moderates. They may be opposed to reduction in military spending because military spending generates jobs and income for their districts (so they may genuinely care for their constituents just in a short sighted way), or because they genuinely believe the only way to hold off the Empire is a military first policy.

That was where Dwight Greenhill and the NSMC had failed in the OTL. Their idea of solving the problems in the Alliance was to further turn it into a fascist state, run by the military, and to divert even more manpower and resources into rebuilding the military so that it could stand militarily against the Empire. In doing so, even if they had been successful, they would have destroyed the very Alliance they were trying to protect. Iracundus 00:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Eventually, in this story, Yang will take Bucock's place as Space Fleet Commander (Yang not being stuck on Iserlohn will be necessary for later narrative points, anyway). What kind of commander would he be? FPA Forever

To be honest I don't think Yang would be very great at it, since by that level you start running into significant administrative responsibilities, which is something Yang struggles with personally. He himself said he used up all of his lifetime's supply of diligence at El Facil. Yang's personal talents lie more towards tactics and strategy (though in OTL he was more confined to tactics) rather than administration. All his subordinates in the Yang Fleet helped deal with most of the day to day menial work and logistics for him, but would they follow him into the administrative command structure or remain with the Iserlohn/13th Fleet? Space Fleet Commander also entails involvement with the political end of things, and Yang is not known for being particularly tactful or politically adept. Remember as Iserlohn fortress commander he is in effect dictator of Iserlohn, so what he says goes. That would not be the case if he has to negotiate and wheel and deal with the Alliance government. Finally there is the matter of age. Yang is still young, and his reputation while growing, doesn't start to acquire that aura of invincibility til about the Forress vs. Fortress battle in OTL. Bewcock/Bucock himself only gets respect after years of long service and veteran status, while originally he was looked down upon for working his way up from the ranks instead of graduating from the Academy. This means Yang may still get resistance from older members of the administration and military hierarchy that resent somebody shooting to the top like that so easily, just like Bruce Ashbey was resented. Falk and others like him would also see it as confirmation of their suspicions that Yang is just in it for the rank and glory. So Yang might excel at the strategy and tactics aspect but be mediocre at the politics or reliant upon subordinates for the administrative half. Being good at only half the job does not count as great IMO. Iracundus 13:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Still, I guess thats one more aspect of the show that is one-sided. Reinhard was masterful at pretty much everything, got nearly all the breaks, almost everything worked out perfectly, while Yang had greater personal limitations, was faced with situations that continually slammed right in his face.

Yang won't have everything go his way, but in the final analysis, in the last battle between Yang's forces and Reinhard's forces, Yang will beat Reinhard. A beating sound enough that it forces the proud Emperor into peace talks. Does anybody have any ideas on how to do that? FPA Forever

Reinhard had the advantage of the autocratic system that once he was on top, allowed him to do whatever he wanted. This was aided by the elimination of the Lippstadt nobles and the confiscation of their wealth, as historically these nobles were the major check on the power of the Goldenbaum emperors. If the Lippstadt cause isn't as immediately and utterly discredited as in OTL and if more of their wealth is exhausted rather than confiscated, then these remaining holdouts might break out in rebellion again if Reinhard is fought to a stalemate or worse, and Reinhard might not be able to fund as massive or as long an expedition. This would be similar to Kornelias I, where his long absence from court along with a huge chunk of the Imperial military allowed others to try and launch a coup. Reinhard's popularity among the commoners also stemmed from the fact that he abolished the institutionalized privileges the nobles had enjoyed previously. It is easy to gain popularity if one has a demonized rich class of people that had historically oppressed the people, and any material gifts in the form of wealth or tax relief offered would only add to that. By comparison the Alliance doesn't have this kind of locked away wealth to liquidate to revitalize its society.

Remember however that the Empire is based on Imperial China and implicit in that is the "Mandate of Heaven". That is why the Chinese emperors rarely directly fought battles. Aside from the personal risk, a defeat would be a major ideological blow to their right to rule since obviously they would not personally have been defeated if they were destined to rule. Kornelias I avoided this trap because arguably he had been winning against the Alliance when he withdrew, allowing for some propaganda spin that he had not really lost. If Reinhard lost directly in battle, it would tarnish his image (if he is Emperor at that stage), though arguable his regime would still survive if he can extract some sort of face saving treaty. Iracundus 05:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's one that I think would reaally help me, especially as its one of Yang's most annoying quirks: the admirative way Yang saw Reinhard von Lohengramm and indeed many of his admirals. How come this guy, whose talents as a fleet commander have been shown at least twice, arguably three times to surpass Reinhard in strategy and certainly in tactics, felt the need to fairly gush with praise for his opposite. Although I know that Yang was seen in much the same way by Reinhard (although Reinhard didn't gush quite so annoyingly), it sometimes grated even on other Alliance characters, including Murai and Attenborough. Why did Yang gush so much, even though he always ended up saying that, in the final analysis, he stood in opposition? FPA Forever

Professional respect for a skilled opponent. Much like how Mueller lectured his subordinate after the first half of the fortress vs fortress battle. It is like the old gentlemanly conduct between officers at war. Like how Admiral Togo visited his Russian counterpart in hospital and gave a cheer up statement about being defeated. These kinds of views are sort of like "This is business and not personal." Iracundus 02:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

So then, just for the fun of it: how do you beat the Empire? It seems that all the scenarios point to the Empire winning whatever the Alliance does. How does the Alliance win? If its necessary, I'll have Ansbach hit his target. Its a last resort, but the story isn't about Reinhard. He's not important here, except as a threat. This is about the Alliance turning things around. My next story will be Imperial-minded and will extensively feature Reinhard, Kircheis and many others of the Reichflotte. This one is focused on Yang. And I'm not having his side lose in the end. The OTL took care of that. FPA Forever

To recap my earlier post: "The Alliance had higher per capita productivity due to the inefficiencies of the Goldenbaum Empire with the nobles locking up or embezzling a lot of the wealth and resources of the Empire for their own private gain or expended in power struggles. If there are lingering Lippstadt or noble power bases or support then the Empire has more resources tied up, or if more Lippstadt forces were destroyed as opposed to surrendering then the Empire would have less to work with. The other key player would be Fezzan switching back to preserving the balance of power. That was why the Terraists wanted to eliminate Yang as he stood the best chance of blocking Reinhard's unification of all known space. If Fezzan wanted to preserve the balance I see them targeting Reinhard (since Yang lacks the will to take over as a dictator) or supporting the Lippstadt nobles. Even if Reinhard is not killed, Fezzan could still cause trouble by leaking intelligence data or technology (such as the directional Seffle particle generator. Ultimately all the Alliance really has to do is outlast Reinhard who is on a limited lifespan due to his disease, and conduct sufficient domestic reform, enabling a period of peace for it to recover militarily and economically. Reinhard's ability and concentration of both political and military power is why the Empire poses such a threat to the Alliance. An Empire without Reinhard is much less of a threat. I think the situation of Fezzan and Rubinsky also needs to be dealt with, as it is Rubinsky that is consciously trying to now upset the balance of power. If his Terraist backers change their minds and go back to the old balancing act, then the Empire's edge also gets reduced.

What this means for the Empire is more unclear, since it depends on the situation of the Goldenbaum reactionaries (Lippstadt or otherwise), and whether Reinhard has any successors. If he does not become emperor and have an heir, then there may not be a clear succession. None of his fighting admirals are truly political leaders. Oberstein may have the political skill but lacks the charisma to lead. Hilda may have the skills but she may not have the support of Reinhard's admirals. What may follow then could be a whole new round of civil war or political intrigue. If Reinhard's reforms get rolled back or even scaled back in scope or time, then the Empire falls back into its inefficient state, preventing it from using its greater size and resources against the Alliance. That is why in Episode 49, Yang muses that while defeating Reinhard may be good for the Alliance, it may arguably be worse for the majority of humanity (i.e. all those in the Empire) since it would mean another period of chaos and possibly return of the old Goldenbaum establishment. If one looks at the older history of the Goldenbaum emperors, one can see how reform minded emperors were either assassinated (likely with Fezzan and Terraist involvement) or ended up with some minor watered down reforms that were better than nothing but still not substantial. Iracundus 11:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Anyone has any idea how to explain the population explosion of the original Alliance? From 160,000 settlers to a population capable of Fielding 2,500,000 soldiers, with the capability to fully support it at least for one major campaign? Realistically, it was probably because the author had no idea what to do with his numbers at times, or didn't get how a normal population grew. I came up with the Population Fortification Act, which ran from 528 UC to 578 UC, then was repealed when the Heinessen-born fully took control from the Exodus Fleet-Born. But what could it have been? Cloning? Assisted Reproductive Technology creating many multiple births? The original Alliance population was scared enough of the Empire to do such things willingly, while remaining quite democratic. And then, 50 years later, their descendants repealed the entire thing due to them not feeling this type of pressing dread, which means that 579-640 was an era of vigorous but relatively normal growth. Thoughts? FPA Forever

It could also have been simply government induced incentives (both carrot and stick) approach. The Alliance was mostly empty land then so the carrot could have been anybody bringing land into use could own it. Families having children above a certain number could be rewarded with additional financial incentives. The stick approach could have been even mandating that all people must produce a certain minimum number of children. IVF might be used as well to help families with fertility or multiple births. Iracundus 20:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Still, in your opinion, or anyone's opinion really, how large do you see the Alliance population being by 640 UC so that its able to field and support the Dagon Combined Fleet? FPA Forever

The rear supply area and security operations might have been augmented by use of civilian shipping and drawn up reservists, volunteers, and other security forces like police which would have freed up more personnel for the main battle. We see the use of civilian ships in the Grand Canal incident. I think the Dagon fleet was everything the Alliance could scrape together, as the politicians pretty much admitted that if they lost Dagon it was all over for the Alliance. So the level of militarization as proportion of the population may have been extremely high at that point in time, but those could have been emergency measures and not truly sustainable in the long run given what we know about population growth rates. Ultimately it is not just about producing babies in test tubes but also having the societal infrastructure for their upbringing and education. Iracundus 00:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I still say that the author didn't think the numbers through. 113 years for 160,000 to grow a civilization strong enough to fight back against a determined invasion is far-fetched. FPA Forever