It's 1987 and you've been handed the keys to the EU

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2007-11-04 05:49pm

Alexian Cale wrote:I disagree. I don't believe that the New Republic should be militarized at all on a scale comparable to the Empire; since that fact was one of the very things Mon Mothma and co. criticised about the Emperor. If I controlled the EU, the Empire would always have the better military, since it's pretty much all they do.

So what? That's -part of the EU- not part of the filmic canon. So it can be done away with. There's no reason why Mothma has to be a fucking retard who decrees bullshit like "Executor-like vessels are scary so we don't like them." BULLSHIT. You don't launch a revolution by arms, unflinchingly destroy construction projects probably housing at least billions, advocate implicitly regicide unless you have some iron. And you don't win civil wars by being afraid of arms and fighting. You win by crushing your enemies, then you worry about preference and aesthetics.

Alexian Cale · Post by **Alexian Cale** » 2007-11-04 09:09pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Alexian Cale wrote:I disagree. I don't believe that the New Republic should be militarized at all on a scale comparable to the Empire; since that fact was one of the very things Mon Mothma and co. criticised about the Emperor. If I controlled the EU, the Empire would always have the better military, since it's pretty much all they do.
So what? That's -part of the EU- not part of the filmic canon. So it can be done away with. There's no reason why Mothma has to be a fucking retard who decrees bullshit like "Executor-like vessels are scary so we don't like them." BULLSHIT. You don't launch a revolution by arms, unflinchingly destroy construction projects probably housing at least billions, advocate implicitly regicide unless you have some iron. And you don't win civil wars by being afraid of arms and fighting. You win by crushing your enemies, then you worry about preference and aesthetics.

It'd be a bit of a stretch to call Mothma a "fucking retard"; by all accounts, she's a seemingly brilliant leader and politician. Nothing seems to indicate that she's a skilled tactition or general. She'd obviously look at things through a political perspective and to arm the New Republic on a scale comparable to the Empire would be a collosal risk -- it'd make her look like an utter hypocrite, since it was one of her primary complaints against the Empire in the first place. Cue loss of support and fractures within the Rebellion/New Republic.

In this "revamped EU", it'd still take a long ass time to arm the New Republic on a scale comparable to the Empire. Even after Palpatine's death, they still vastly outstrip and outgun the Rebellion -- an organization that lacks galactic wide resources on par with the Empire. It'd likely be towards the end of the war that the New Republic could establish a parity with the Empire as a whole.

I agree. Logically, Mothma's reasoning was bullshit as such weapons could have saved lives. But she clearly wasn't looking at the big picture, and she put herself in a situation where she'd likely commit political suicide by attempting it.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2007-11-04 09:14pm

"War is politics by other means." Face it, it doesn't make sense except by EU bullshit. Mothma is no fool. Besides, it makes no sense that it'd take decades to arm comparable to the Empire; much of the Empire's lower officers were Republicans and probably defected. The Clone War was all-encompassing and full-scale, but lasted only 3 years.

Alexian Cale · Post by **Alexian Cale** » 2007-11-04 09:20pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:"War is politics by other means." Face it, it doesn't make sense except by EU bullshit. Mothma is no fool.

I'm not disagreeing with you here. But the in-universe explanation is because Mon Mothma established the Rebellion/New Republic on principles that she could not abandon without being losing legitimacy for it. Which is, yes, due to EU bullshit.

Besides, it makes no sense that it'd take decades to arm comparable to the Empire; much of the Empire's lower officers were Republicans and probably defected. The Clone War was all-encompassing and full-scale, but lasted only 3 years.

I'm afraid either I'm missing your point or you're missing mine. I'm saying that the New Republic could not arm itself on a level comparable to the Empire during their war with the Empire. They'd, pretty much, always have the inferior foothold until the Empire whittled away its own resources due to warlordism - which is exactly what happened.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2007-11-05 12:34am

Alexian Cale wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:"War is politics by other means." Face it, it doesn't make sense except by EU bullshit. Mothma is no fool.
I'm not disagreeing with you here. But the in-universe explanation is because Mon Mothma established the Rebellion/New Republic on principles that she could not abandon without being losing legitimacy for it. Which is, yes, due to EU bullshit.

Therefore it doesn't matter for the purposes of this discussion, as we have carte blanche to alter the lower canon.

Besides, it makes no sense that it'd take decades to arm comparable to the Empire; much of the Empire's lower officers were Republicans and probably defected. The Clone War was all-encompassing and full-scale, but lasted only 3 years.
I'm afraid either I'm missing your point or you're missing mine. I'm saying that the New Republic could not arm itself on a level comparable to the Empire during their war with the Empire. They'd, pretty much, always have the inferior foothold until the Empire whittled away its own resources due to warlordism - which is exactly what happened.

There wouldn't be conventional conflict much at all until there had been large scale defection or collapse by the regime.

(name here) · Post by **(name here)** » 2007-11-05 06:40am

I also believe that the NR should not be militarized on a scale with the empire, because the empire was building up for 20 years on shipyards not destroyed by a retreating enemy. plus, the imperial fleet was mostly there to cow the rebellious worlds. They would still have a pretty strong military, but it would be smaller than the empire's.

Alexian Cale · Post by **Alexian Cale** » 2007-11-05 09:22pm

(name here) wrote:I also believe that the NR should not be militarized on a scale with the empire, because the empire was building up for 20 years on shipyards not destroyed by a retreating enemy. plus, the imperial fleet was mostly there to cow the rebellious worlds. They would still have a pretty strong military, but it would be smaller than the empire's.

Yeah. To have the heroes on a level exceeding that of the villain would be stupid. Where's the threat, danger, or challenge? Where's the risk of losing?

Battlehymn Republic · Post by **Battlehymn Republic** » 2007-11-05 09:33pm

I think there are examples out there. Gandalf, for one. Alucard from Hellsing, for another. Superman.

Alexian Cale · Post by **Alexian Cale** » 2007-11-05 09:46pm

Battlehymn Republic wrote:I think there are examples out there. Gandalf, for one. Alucard from Hellsing, for another. Superman.

Sorry, examples of what? I'm not knee-deep in LotR, Hellsing, or Superman. Though Superman is in danger because he does have foes who are more powerful than him; his common enemy, Lex, we know is a genius -- whereas Superman isn't.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2007-11-05 10:12pm

Alexian Cale wrote:Yeah. To have the heroes on a level exceeding that of the villain would be stupid. Where's the threat, danger, or challenge? Where's the risk of losing?

Don't be ridiculous. The NR could be militarised and still be threatened by the Empire, for similar reasons to any other conflict - and not least because of political infighting in the NR. The NR didn't have to be clinically retarded for it to have a decent military and be unable to contemplate a huge war to take down the rest of the galaxy instead of coming to a settlement.

Battlehymn Republic · Post by **Battlehymn Republic** » 2007-11-05 10:15pm

They are all examples of heroes who are massively more powerful than their enemies.

Alexian Cale · Post by **Alexian Cale** » 2007-11-06 12:55pm

Battlehymn Republic wrote:They are all examples of heroes who are massively more powerful than their enemies.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but at first, wasn't Saruman stronger than Gandalf? What about Sauron himself? And if I'm wrong (again, I'm no expert on LotR), why didn't he annihilate Sauron's armies?

Superman does have enemies who are on a parity with him. And as for his primary nemesis, Lex possesses resources and an intellect that Superman can't compete with, which is a decent advantage that makes him a threat.

Don't be ridiculous. The NR could be militarised and still be threatened by the Empire, for similar reasons to any other conflict - and not least because of political infighting in the NR. The NR didn't have to be clinically retarded for it to have a decent military and be unable to contemplate a huge war to take down the rest of the galaxy instead of coming to a settlement.

I believe the suggestion was to make the New Republic militarised on a level "surpassing" the Empire. Which, again, is pointless. If that should ever happen, it couldn't be at first, since the Empire still vastly outstrips the Rebellion.

We saw how the Empire fared in the traditional EU. To make their enemy stronger would naturally mean making the Empire smarter.