Traveller Store CotI Features New Posts Mark Forums Read Register


Go Back TravellerRPG.com > Citizens of the Imperium > General Traveller Discussions > In My Traveller Universe

In My Traveller Universe Detail what parts of Traveller you do (or don't) use in your campaign.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 26th, 2005, 12:59 PM
jatay3's Avatar
jatay3 jatay3 is offline
Citizen: SOC-13
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Portland
Posts: 972
Gallery : 0
jatay3 Citizen
Post

Much as I like the Swordies I can hardly blame the Imperium for setting up the BWA from the moral point of view as the Swordies chose the war in the first place and would likly do so next round.
However it does seem to be bad policy. It seems to be taking all of the disadvantages of ruthlessness(resentment) and magnanimity(leaving a foe alive for next time) with none of the advantages of either(eliminating a foe vs. possibly making a foe an ally).
The SWC is still reasonably strong and could conceivably recover. While the Imperium may be hoping they disintegrate, it may actually have the reverse affect by concentrating attention on a struggle for survival.
The BWA is obviously a client state and even it's name sparks resentment("BORDER worlds" can't help but remind them that they are meant as a buffer zone not a viable state of their own). It is a product of the old "now that we won what do we do"
dilema, but it doesn't seem to be the best soulution.
Is there any way to solve the problem as it stands? Are there any policies that may have worked better?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old April 19th, 2006, 05:48 PM
jatay3's Avatar
jatay3 jatay3 is offline
Citizen: SOC-13
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Portland
Posts: 972
Gallery : 0
jatay3 Citizen
Post

On the other hand it has one big advantage from the Imperial point of view-it separates Gram and Sacnoth from one another.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old April 20th, 2006, 04:46 AM
Pickles
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Gallery :
Post

I'm not really up on the GURPS background. Who actually set up the BWA? Was it the Imperium proper, or was it a local decision by the Spinward Marches nobility? If it came from the core, I fully understand such a ham-fisted approach, as the Sword Worlds probably do not merit much thinking-time in central government circles.

However, from the Spinward Marches perspective, I agree that the BWA is a bad idea in every way. A much more effective method would have been to 'divide and conquer' the already loose Confederation. Not through military force, but economic and political means, creating a mass of bilateral trade agreements between individual Imperial and Confederation border worlds.

Before long, they would be so economically intertwined that warfare would become unthinkable. What is now the BWA would still be nominally Confederation, but in reality they would be closely tied to both the Confederation and the Imperium. Thus you have a de-facto buffer zone, without the stigma of actually imposing and naming it as such.

And yes, I got the idea from the European Union ...
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old April 22nd, 2006, 06:47 PM
jatay3's Avatar
jatay3 jatay3 is offline
Citizen: SOC-13
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Portland
Posts: 972
Gallery : 0
jatay3 Citizen
Post

I'm not really up on the GURPS background. Who actually set up the BWA? Was it the Imperium proper, or was it a local decision by the Spinward Marches nobility? If it came from the core, I fully understand such a ham-fisted approach, as the Sword Worlds probably do not merit much thinking-time in central government circles.

However, from the Spinward Marches perspective, I agree that the BWA is a bad idea in every way. A much more effective method would have been to 'divide and conquer' the already loose Confederation. Not through military force, but economic and political means, creating a mass of bilateral trade agreements between individual Imperial and Confederation border worlds.

Before long, they would be so economically intertwined that warfare would become unthinkable. What is now the BWA would still be nominally Confederation, but in reality they would be closely tied to both the Confederation and the Imperium. Thus you have a de-facto buffer zone, without the stigma of actually imposing and naming it as such.

And yes, I got the idea from the European Union .
-------------------------------------
That actually would be a good idea. Kill through kindness-the normal strategy of the Imperium. Though economic interdependance doesn't make war unthinkable it can make it less likly.
It is possible though that the SWC is so fammiliar with that strategy that it has sharp trade barriers to prevent it. Or that one of the main reasons for joining the Frontier wars in the first place was to disrupt "kill through kindness".
So the strategy has merit-but it may be to fammiliar.
It may be better then the BDA-at the very least the Imperial's should be tactful enough not to give the
vassal a name that reminds him that he is a vassal.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

This website and its contents are copyright ©2010- Far Future Enterprises. All rights reserved. Traveller is a registered trademark of Far Future Enterprises .
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright (c) 2010-2013, Far Future Enterprises. All Rights Reserved.