Author Topic: Goals of each side in the Terran-Vasudan War?  (Read 7429 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline CT27

  • 211
Goals of each side in the Terran-Vasudan War?
Forgetting about the Shivans for the purposes of this topic, what were the war aims of the Terrans and Vasudans in their war against each other?

For instance, if the Terrans had 'won', what would that have looked like and what systems would they have taken in the final settlement?

 

Offline headdie

  • i don't use punctuation lol
  • 212
  • Lawful Neutral with a Chaotic outook
    • Minecraft
    • Skype
    • Twitter
    • Headdie on Deviant Art
Re: Goals of each side in the Terran-Vasudan War?
my understanding is that both sides were on a total war footing, while I believe diplomatic exchanges did happen the evidence from my understanding is that these were at most fleeting moments and that both sides in general were closer to xenocide than any kind of war for territory, if the Vasudans won i seriously doubt they would have had an issue with wiping out the terran race and to be blunt I dont think we would have been much better.  Both sides might have accepted a slave labour force but I think that would have been the less severe of the possible outcomes regardless of who won.

Basically too much bad blood so to speak
Minister of Interstellar Affairs Sol Union - Retired
quote General Battuta - "FRED is canon!"
Contact me at [email protected]
My Release Thread, Old Release Thread, Celestial Objects Thread, My rubbish attempts at art

 

Offline 0rph3u5

  • 211
  • Oceans rise. Empires fall.
Re: Goals of each side in the Terran-Vasudan War?
I don't belive an openly xenocidial strategy was more than a fringe option at any point of the T-V war.
The GTA was threatened the most by the PVE's drive to colonize which in turn came from Vasuda Prime being devoid of ressources. Considering the Vasudan culture before the destruction of Vasuda Prime by the Shivans was collectively oriented (e.g. the PVEP Ra-techroom entry states that the Vasudans focus on saving records before people), they might have been able to mount colonisation with a great success as establishing colonies would be a good way to benefit all Vasudans by claiming new ressources and relieveing the strain on the ressources of other planets by moving parts of the population elsewhere. Containing the Vasudan colonisation would also meant to practically incapcitate the PVE as it would not have any access to additional ressources or additional space to accomidate its needs - in the long run maybe even forcing the PVE in dependency of the GTA. In turn the PVE would most likey have been trying to sustain and expand its colonisation effort.

But the particulars of the strategies of either side most certainly changed throughout the war ... so must have the proposed lines of settlement in a Peace Treaty; although due to fact how subspace travel works in FS with fixed inter-system routes, several system will always be on top of the list of "most-valueable territories".


Considering a first generation of Terran commander mostly concerned with containing the Vasudan colonisation, so the early war peroid was most likely a struggle to stake as many claims as possible and to defend them. Key systems would have been Antares, Beta Aquilae, Sirius and Vega, due to their strategic positions to contain Vasudan interests in the system neighbouring Vasuda Prime and to maintain a claim to other systems in between.

Later the focus must have shifted from gaining territory to taking enemy holdings, most likely beging by the most valuable ones for the enemy economy and those strategically close to Vasuda Prime. So Antares became a more pominent target due to it's direct connection to Vasuda, but also its adjacent systems like Ribos and Beta Cygni would have become grade A assets in a function to support war efforts in Antares.


As for the Vasudans, their war aims would be to prevent and break the Terran encirclement and disrupt their efforts to maintain an effective "ring" around Vasudan space; the Vega-system would play a key role here as it would allow control of the travel to Capella and beyond (assuming Alpha Centauri and Deneb are Vasudan holdings, considering they are NTF targets). Another aim would be to deny the GTA access to Vasuda Prime, emphasing on control of Alpha Centauri, Deneb and Antares. On the flip side the control of Beta Aquilae would reduce the pressure the GTA could lay on the PVE by dening them the Beta Aquilae-Vega and Beta Aquilae-Antares jump nodes.


A Terran-dictated peace would most likely have secured Antares as a Terran holding; it has a jump node to Vasuda and with control of Ribos, Beta Cygni and Beta Aquilae (from canon we can assume all three are GTA holdings) would make primer point to threaten Vasuda Prime should need arise. Similarly Vega would fall to the GTA in such a peace treaty, to secure safe passage for Terran ships all the way to Sirius (of which we can assume is a Terran holding considering Terran supplies come from there in FS1's "Exodus"-mission)  without having to move through systems that share a jump node with Vasuda Prime.

A Vasudan-dictated peace would most likely have secured both Antares and Vega as PVE holdings but IMO included passages that regulated a non-GTA status of systems like Sirius, Regulus, Polaris, Epsilon Pegasi and Capella - as these are cut off from the rest of the GTA due to Vasudan control of Vega and Alpha Centauri; something similar might come into play with Beta Cygni & Betelgeuse as well as Ribos & Ikeya, which would be seperated from the rest of GTA space by the PVE-controlled Antares-system. The PVE would also be interested in takeing Beta Aquilae from the GTA by terms of the settlement, or at least ot demilitarize the system, as it has jump nodes to Vega and Antares which are of strategic improtance.

« Last Edit: August 27, 2014, 08:27:32 pm by 0rph3u5 »
"As you sought to steal a kingdom for yourself, so must you do again, a thousand times over. For a theft, a true theft, must be practiced to be earned." - The terms of Nyrissa's curse, Pathfinder: Kingmaker

==================

"I am Curiosity, and I've always wondered what would become of you, here at the end of the world." - The Guide/The Curious Other, Othercide

"When you work with water, you have to know and respect it. When you labour to subdue it, you have to understand that one day it may rise up and turn all your labours into nothing. For what is water, which seeks to make all things level, which has no taste or colour of its own, but a liquid form of Nothing?" - Graham Swift, Waterland

"...because they are not Dragons."

 

Offline Mongoose

  • Rikki-Tikki-Tavi
  • Global Moderator
  • 212
  • This brain for rent.
    • Minecraft
    • Steam
    • Something
Re: Goals of each side in the Terran-Vasudan War?
That's one of the best speculation write-ups I've ever seen on this topic. :yes: I fully agree that, at least by the end, the war wasn't xenocidal in any sense, probably not even in popular sentiment.  The command briefings about the cease-fire in FS1 make it pretty clear that both sides were sick to death of fighting at this point, and honestly welcomed an excuse to cease hostilities.

 

Offline NGTM-1R

  • I reject your reality and substitute my own
  • 213
  • Syndral Active. 0410.
Re: Goals of each side in the Terran-Vasudan War?
Of course, the fact the GTA was developing and had deployment doctrine apparently based on experience ("most effective when used in preemptive defensive strike against non-military installations.") for salted nuclear weapons is...rather awkward to a non-xenocidal reading of the conflict.

EDIT: GTVA=GTA. Shows how much I talk about FS1.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2014, 12:33:20 pm by NGTM-1R »
"Load sabot. Target Zaku, direct front!"

A Feddie Story

 

Offline CT27

  • 211
Re: Goals of each side in the Terran-Vasudan War?
Orpheus,  you said a Terran victory would have secured the Antares system.  However, didn't it become a Terran system after the Great War anyways?


(Sorry for the necro, the recently released BTA campaign made me think about Antares)

 

Offline 0rph3u5

  • 211
  • Oceans rise. Empires fall.
Re: Goals of each side in the Terran-Vasudan War?
Orpheus,  you said a Terran victory would have secured the Antares system.  However, didn't it become a Terran system after the Great War anyways?

The Reconsturction-era status of the system was/is irrelevant for my musings about the wartime goals of each faction. That can be a number of reasons why the Antares Federation was a terran state and not all of them require Antares to be prominent terran colony during the war. However it is likely it was due to its location and because the connected systems apart from Vasuda and Vega* are cannonically Terran; and because of its strategic location it may also have been more aggressively colonized by the GTA and the PVE. The cost of war for the PVE in canon material is much higher so the PVE might not have been that much of power factor in Antares as it was before the war.

*The system that could be Vega is listed as contested, like Antares, in the first two FS1 starmaps, which still treat the PVE as hostile power. However it is also the ralley point for the Vasudan fleet early in the game, so you can assume there is considerable Vasudan infrastructure in that system.


ps. You also have to consider that early in 2014 I had worked on for German Bundestag to help prepare the diplomatic events surrounding 100th anniversary of World War I (part of my History BA). That's why I was somewhat trying to immitate the kind of territorial politics of the early 20th century, still heavy with colonial overtones, when I wrote this.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2016, 08:30:03 pm by 0rph3u5 »
"As you sought to steal a kingdom for yourself, so must you do again, a thousand times over. For a theft, a true theft, must be practiced to be earned." - The terms of Nyrissa's curse, Pathfinder: Kingmaker

==================

"I am Curiosity, and I've always wondered what would become of you, here at the end of the world." - The Guide/The Curious Other, Othercide

"When you work with water, you have to know and respect it. When you labour to subdue it, you have to understand that one day it may rise up and turn all your labours into nothing. For what is water, which seeks to make all things level, which has no taste or colour of its own, but a liquid form of Nothing?" - Graham Swift, Waterland

"...because they are not Dragons."

 

Offline Lorric

  • 212
Re: Goals of each side in the Terran-Vasudan War?
After the coming of the Shivans, the Terrans and Vasudans quickly coalesced into a well oiled machine, as if they'd been fighting alongside each other all along. There was never any tension between them. This would make it seem as though they did not hate each other and probably respected each other and fought a civilised war. If they were trying to wipe each other out or had been committing atrocities on each other, this would simply not have been possible. Oh they'd have recognised the sense in fighting the Shivans instead of each other but the distrust and hate would have made it difficult if not impossible to work together, there'd be incidents here and there of individuals blowing each other out of the sky, it would be a mess.

I think Mongoose is right, they were happy to stop fighting each other, and happy to join hands immediately after the Shivans had been dealt with.

 

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
Re: Goals of each side in the Terran-Vasudan War?
Of course, the fact the GTA was developing and had deployment doctrine apparently based on experience ("most effective when used in preemptive defensive strike against non-military installations.") for salted nuclear weapons is...rather awkward to a non-xenocidal reading of the conflict.

EDIT: GTVA=GTA. Shows how much I talk about FS1.

Yep, this has always seemed like the strongest evidence for the character of the war. Civilian colonies were nuked and irradiated, and it was doctrinally encouraged - weapons were mass produced for the purpose.

Without Shivan intervention the war probably would have escalated to the depopulation of major worlds and the surrender of one side after economic collapse and the threat of invasion.

 

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
Re: Goals of each side in the Terran-Vasudan War?
GTA politics were basically a military junta and the Vasudans had Byzantine internal intrigue. Both sides would need to have their bubbles popped with a really hot needle before they backed down: think late war Japan in WW2.

 

Offline Woolie Wool

  • 211
  • Fire main batteries
Re: Goals of each side in the Terran-Vasudan War?
I don't belive an openly xenocidial strategy was more than a fringe option at any point of the T-V war.
The GTA was threatened the most by the PVE's drive to colonize which in turn came from Vasuda Prime being devoid of ressources. Considering the Vasudan culture before the destruction of Vasuda Prime by the Shivans was collectively oriented (e.g. the PVEP Ra-techroom entry states that the Vasudans focus on saving records before people), they might have been able to mount colonisation with a great success as establishing colonies would be a good way to benefit all Vasudans by claiming new ressources and relieveing the strain on the ressources of other planets by moving parts of the population elsewhere. Containing the Vasudan colonisation would also meant to practically incapcitate the PVE as it would not have any access to additional ressources or additional space to accomidate its needs - in the long run maybe even forcing the PVE in dependency of the GTA. In turn the PVE would most likey have been trying to sustain and expand its colonisation effort.

But the particulars of the strategies of either side most certainly changed throughout the war ... so must have the proposed lines of settlement in a Peace Treaty; although due to fact how subspace travel works in FS with fixed inter-system routes, several system will always be on top of the list of "most-valueable territories".


Considering a first generation of Terran commander mostly concerned with containing the Vasudan colonisation, so the early war peroid was most likely a struggle to stake as many claims as possible and to defend them. Key systems would have been Antares, Beta Aquilae, Sirius and Vega, due to their strategic positions to contain Vasudan interests in the system neighbouring Vasuda Prime and to maintain a claim to other systems in between.

Later the focus must have shifted from gaining territory to taking enemy holdings, most likely beging by the most valuable ones for the enemy economy and those strategically close to Vasuda Prime. So Antares became a more pominent target due to it's direct connection to Vasuda, but also its adjacent systems like Ribos and Beta Cygni would have become grade A assets in a function to support war efforts in Antares.


As for the Vasudans, their war aims would be to prevent and break the Terran encirclement and disrupt their efforts to maintain an effective "ring" around Vasudan space; the Vega-system would play a key role here as it would allow control of the travel to Capella and beyond (assuming Alpha Centauri and Deneb are Vasudan holdings, considering they are NTF targets). Another aim would be to deny the GTA access to Vasuda Prime, emphasing on control of Alpha Centauri, Deneb and Antares. On the flip side the control of Beta Aquilae would reduce the pressure the GTA could lay on the PVE by dening them the Beta Aquilae-Vega and Beta Aquilae-Antares jump nodes.


A Terran-dictated peace would most likely have secured Antares as a Terran holding; it has a jump node to Vasuda and with control of Ribos, Beta Cygni and Beta Aquilae (from canon we can assume all three are GTA holdings) would make primer point to threaten Vasuda Prime should need arise. Similarly Vega would fall to the GTA in such a peace treaty, to secure safe passage for Terran ships all the way to Sirius (of which we can assume is a Terran holding considering Terran supplies come from there in FS1's "Exodus"-mission)  without having to move through systems that share a jump node with Vasuda Prime.

A Vasudan-dictated peace would most likely have secured both Antares and Vega as PVE holdings but IMO included passages that regulated a non-GTA status of systems like Sirius, Regulus, Polaris, Epsilon Pegasi and Capella - as these are cut off from the rest of the GTA due to Vasudan control of Vega and Alpha Centauri; something similar might come into play with Beta Cygni & Betelgeuse as well as Ribos & Ikeya, which would be seperated from the rest of GTA space by the PVE-controlled Antares-system. The PVE would also be interested in takeing Beta Aquilae from the GTA by terms of the settlement, or at least ot demilitarize the system, as it has jump nodes to Vega and Antares which are of strategic improtance.

FS1 portrayed Beta Aquilae as having a node leading to Sol, that presumably collapsed along with the Delta Serpentis node. The GTA would never consider any treaty that allowed a single Vasudan ship into Beta Aquilae.
16:46   Quanto   ****, a mosquito somehow managed to bite the side of my palm
16:46   Quanto   it itches like hell
16:46   Woolie   !8ball does Quanto have malaria
16:46   BotenAnna   Woolie: The outlook is good.
16:47   Quanto   D:

"did they use anesthetic when they removed your sense of humor or did you have to weep and struggle like a tiny baby"
--General Battuta

 

Offline 0rph3u5

  • 211
  • Oceans rise. Empires fall.
Re: Goals of each side in the Terran-Vasudan War?
FS1 portrayed Beta Aquilae as having a node leading to Sol, that presumably collapsed along with the Delta Serpentis node. The GTA would never consider any treaty that allowed a single Vasudan ship into Beta Aquilae.

Think of it in terms of the French goals for the peace treaties with Germany in 1918+ and 1945+, esspecially in regards to the german industrial regions at Rhine, Ruhr and Saar. After both world wars it was french policy to either annex these regions or have them be in a seperate entity from the a post-war german state, keeping the then economic powerhouses of the region from Germany becoming a new credible threat to french security. In both cases there were a multitude of reasons why this was not realized (e.g. British concerns for a balance of power post 1918 or the preception of an immidiate Sovjet threat in late 1940s).

GTA politics were basically a military junta and the Vasudans had Byzantine internal intrigue. Both sides would need to have their bubbles popped with a really hot needle before they backed down: think late war Japan in WW2.

I am rather thinking WWI Western Front ... while WWII in the Pacific might yield good analogues too (esspecialy on the techincal side)

Civilian colonies were nuked and irradiated, and it was doctrinally encouraged - weapons were mass produced for the purpose.

Both the Sovjet Union and the USA mass-produced nuclear weapons during the Cold War, but the existence of these weapons doesn't imply their use (officially and sanctioned). Actually the increasingly realistic threat of Nuclear weapons deployment following the so-called Sputnik Shock was lead to policy of disarmament - from the SALT-talks (1969-1979) to New START-treaty (2009).

It is not unrealistic for both sides to build an arsenal deterence weapons to pre-empt an escalation but that doesn't imply their use. The Harbinger tech and the command briefing of "Reaching Zenith" only ever say this:

Quote from: Reaching Zenith, emphasis mine
Until recently, Harbingers were reserved for planetary attacks only.
"Being reserved" doesn't indicate use, it only means the weapons were stockpiled for that purpose. At this point it doesn't even mention the deployment of the Harbinger at anytime.

Quote from: Harbinger Tech, emphasis mine
most effective when used in preemptive defensive strike against non-military installations.
This is the strongest evidence that the Harbinger was used on prior to the development of the Ursa as it's carrier. The "most effective when used" part doesn't need to mean that it was deployed on a civilian target, you can make that assumption from testing the weapon on simulated target and got to same conclusion - early nuclear weapon tests in 1940s did just that: Put up a dummy building (later even an entire dummy town) and see how far from the detonation point you would still destroy said building.

And then there is "preemptive defensive strike against non-military installations", which is really hard to unpack because what exactly consitutes a target for a preemptive defensive strike (i.e. an attack to preempt an attack which is currently being prepared - NOT an attack to deter a future, possible attack) if the target is also a "non-military installation", per definitionem a target that cannot execute a military attack that can be preempted?

The existence of the distinction between a military and a non-military target however re-cludes a regime to designate them. Since all current regimes to designate invalid targets are made by mutual agreement (e.g. the red cross desigating a medical facility) it stand to reason for me that the GTA and PVE at some point made an agreement on rules of engagement which contain such a provision. (In Of Shivans and Men those are the Antares Accords)

For me this reads as a handbook entry for a deterence weapon as part of a policy of Mutually Assured Destruction. Multually Assured Destruction however is in essence build upon the premise that with both sides having the ability to destroy each other, either side will seek another way to resolve the conflict.

(Quick side note: In Blue Planet, the deployment of WoMDs against civilian targets by the GTVA is another matter because from the state of the war you can assume that the UEF doesn't have tha capacity to retaliate in kind, as such ideas such as Mutually Assured Destruction do not apply)
"As you sought to steal a kingdom for yourself, so must you do again, a thousand times over. For a theft, a true theft, must be practiced to be earned." - The terms of Nyrissa's curse, Pathfinder: Kingmaker

==================

"I am Curiosity, and I've always wondered what would become of you, here at the end of the world." - The Guide/The Curious Other, Othercide

"When you work with water, you have to know and respect it. When you labour to subdue it, you have to understand that one day it may rise up and turn all your labours into nothing. For what is water, which seeks to make all things level, which has no taste or colour of its own, but a liquid form of Nothing?" - Graham Swift, Waterland

"...because they are not Dragons."

 
Re: Goals of each side in the Terran-Vasudan War?
Almost every bomb in Freespace is a WMD. The yields are absolutely massive, at least if you take the techroom values without question.
A cyclops is around 3 GT, that's ludicrous considering most powerful US nuke in service is only 1.2 MT. A cyclops is equal to about 2500 of the most powerful US nukes currently in service.

This makes sense if you assume bombs in FS were used for planetary bombardment. You need a lot more power than modern nukes have if you want to completely wreck a planet's surface rather than just target some key cities.

In Blue Planet, the deployment of WoMDs against civilian targets by the GTVA is another matter because from the state of the war you can assume that the UEF doesn't have tha capacity to retaliate in kind, as such ideas such as Mutually Assured Destruction do not apply
Though the GTVA in BP are simply targetting the UEF logistical backbone rather than "~wahaha genocide is fun" or some kind of fear tactics like nukes in the cold war.

And I don't think MAD would really apply in Freespace because there's no guaranteed retalliation strike. MAD works because we can't really stop swarms of ICBMs or SLBMs, but there's no such system in Freespace. To nuke a planet you have to secure its orbit first which means that the stronger space navy can nuke away without fear of retaliation. Not to mention that even if you had SSMs that could nuke a planet from elsewhere in the system you'd have to get to that system first, which again means that whoever controls the jump nodes doesn't need to worry about a second strike.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2016, 02:48:21 pm by FrikgFeek »
[19:31] <MatthTheGeek> you all high up on your mointain looking down at everyone who doesn't beam everything on insane blindfolded

 

Offline CT27

  • 211
Re: Goals of each side in the Terran-Vasudan War?
If the GTA won the war, would they have annexed Vega?

 

Offline Snarks

  • 27
Re: Goals of each side in the Terran-Vasudan War?
The presence of the Harbinger does not necessarily imply a xenocidal doctrine. Rather, I think the war goal of each side was to capture a prized system and threaten to nuke it from orbit in order to force a peace. You would need actual WMD to make that a credible threat.

In the event that the war is not decisive, I'd imagine the side that's winning would include provisions for preferred control of the node lanes if the control of systems themselves was not an acceptable war demand.

I think a second TV war would follow some years later if either side suffers an economic downturn, likely as a result of node lane control. Then I'd imagine one of two things could occur. 1) the previous loser would successfully win the war and return conditions closer to before the first TV War. 2) the previous winner would win a second war and force disarmament and possibly splinter the government of the loser.

 
Re: Goals of each side in the Terran-Vasudan War?
Except for one thing. If you hold the high orbitals, the only WMD you need is large rocks. Kinetic strikes are just as good as nukes if you hold the orbital high ground, and a lot less messy afterward.
There are only 10 kinds of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.

 

Offline DefCynodont119

  • 210
  • Ascended GTSC-Faustus Artist
    • Steam
Re: Goals of each side in the Terran-Vasudan War?
Almost every bomb in Freespace is a WMD. The yields are absolutely massive, at least if you take the techroom values without question.
A cyclops is around 3 GT, that's ludicrous considering most powerful US nuke in service is only 1.2 MT. A cyclops is equal to about 2500 of the most powerful US nukes currently in service.

What I am going to type here is probably not-impotent, but another thing to remember is that the Tsunami and Harbinger did not show up until the midpoint of the Great war, (after the Shivans arrive) and the Cyclops until the events of FS2, all presumably using research from Shivan technology.[Citation Needed]


We do not know the yields of any T-V war era bombs, they could have been far lower. [Citation Needed]
However; that may not matter much in the case of planetary bombardment. (As stated above)
« Last Edit: November 05, 2016, 10:17:02 pm by DefCynodont119 »
My gift from Freespace to Cities Skylines:  http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=639891299

 

Offline Snarks

  • 27
Re: Goals of each side in the Terran-Vasudan War?
What I am going to type here is probably not-impotent, but another thing to remember is that the Tsunami and Harbinger did not show up until the midpoint of the Great war, (after the Shivans arrive) and the Cyclops until the events of FS2, all presumably using research from Shivan technology.[Citation Needed]


We do not know the yields of any T-V war era bombs, they could have been far lower. [Citation Needed]
However; that may not matter much in the case of planetary bombardment. (As stated above)

I don't think the Tsunami, Harbinger, or their associated bombers, the Medusa or Ursa, were necessarily developed during the Great War. It seems more likely to me that these hardware were already in service and that the player simply hadn't been granted access to them yet. The particular note of the Medusa's FS1 techroom description which described it as being "the first bomber to carry the Tsunami bomb, the Medusa is considered the staple of any bomber pilot's career" seems to suggest that it's a workhorse design that has seen service for a while. Presumably, most bomber pilots have flown a Medusa during their career. There's also nothing that suggests the bombs were built from Shivan tech afaik.

 

Offline Colonol Dekker

  • HLP is my mistress
  • 213
  • Aken Tigh Dekker- you've probably heard me
    • My old squad sub-domain
Re: Goals of each side in the Terran-Vasudan War?
Goals.

Deny enemy infrastructure.
Maintain momentum.
Promote civil unrest in enemy population.
Hold strategic access points.
Promote ease of allied movement.
Prohibit ease of enemy movement.
Kittens.
Campaigns I've added my distinctiveness to-
- Blue Planet: Battle Captains
-Battle of Neptune
-Between the Ashes 2
-Blue planet: Age of Aquarius
-FOTG?
-Inferno R1
-Ribos: The aftermath / -Retreat from Deneb
-Sol: A History
-TBP EACW teaser
-Earth Brakiri war
-TBP Fortune Hunters (I think?)
-TBP Relic
-Trancsend (Possibly?)
-Uncharted Territory
-Vassagos Dirge
-War Machine
(Others lost to the mists of time and no discernible audit trail)

Your friendly Orestes tactical controller.

Secret bomb God.
That one time I got permabanned and got to read who was being bitxhy about me :p....
GO GO DEKKER RANGERSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
President of the Scooby Doo Model Appreciation Society
The only good Zod is a dead Zod
NEWGROUNDS COMEDY GOLD, UPDATED DAILY
http://badges.steamprofile.com/profile/default/steam/76561198011784807.png

 

Offline Woolie Wool

  • 211
  • Fire main batteries
Re: Goals of each side in the Terran-Vasudan War?
Those are not strategic goals, those are tactical ones. How you fight the war is not the same as why you fight the war and what you ultimately intend to get out of it.
16:46   Quanto   ****, a mosquito somehow managed to bite the side of my palm
16:46   Quanto   it itches like hell
16:46   Woolie   !8ball does Quanto have malaria
16:46   BotenAnna   Woolie: The outlook is good.
16:47   Quanto   D:

"did they use anesthetic when they removed your sense of humor or did you have to weep and struggle like a tiny baby"
--General Battuta