Actually, she brings up a very valid point. You can dodge it all you want with your witty retorts, Demos, but her post isn't this monstrous assault on your personal integrity. Eventually TNO will fall, whether people finally get sick of having it as the powerhouse and band together to overthrow it or (hopefully) TNO members themselves realize being the long standing powerhouse is boring as hell and endeavor to end its reign themselves.
I don't think you can provide any real justification of why TNO has ships of massive meterage that is disproportionate to the amount of planets they hold when compared to the Galactic Coalition. While planets no longer denote meterage as per the new rules, if anything they do a very good job of showing a rough guideline of how much one group may be abusing the rules of acceptable estimation of their own fleet size. You can talk about the Galactic Coalition's economy all you want, its not really going to get you anywhere as almost everyone else in this entire thread has agreed that arguing over the economy is kind of a moot point.
So I raise the argument: I believe that The New Order is abusing the rules of common sense with regard to their fleet makeup. I believe they do not have the required manpower to crew as many vessels as they have. Or, if they do have enough manpower, that the Galactic Coalition is entitled to have more vessels of similar meterage. What say ye?
The problem is that when it comes to TNO's manpower and economy, you have thousands of planets under your "sphere of imaginary influence", but when the GC needs to build an X-Wing, you're all "WTFUX! Save the whales!"
Zark is right. If we get anal, then everyone gets anal. And you don't want that.
Hah. And for the record, I am about fairness. I have no problem conceding that GC is powerful - I have done so in my threads. I do not complain when they build.
The following are, from this point foreward, considered to be literary devices utilized In Story to move the plot of a story ahead (without Out Of Character extrapolation or compartive analysis), hopefully through introduction to climax to conclusion:
OS' post is nothing more than an attack on my integrity. The fact that TNO is larger than GC does not entitle the GC to abuse the rules. The fact that the rest of the galaxy might well band together to topple TNO does not excuse a baseless attack on my person.
This is nothing short of another example of people cutting the GC slack because they are smaller. Need I point out that the only reason the GC exists in its current form is because of a relaxation of the rules allowing them to merge into the Coalition? Nothing wrong with that, but my point is only that to attack TNO's members for raising a valid point is silly, at best. Yes, the galaxy might/can/should "band together" and take on TNO...
That does not mean anyone who labels themselves an enemy of TNO is entitled to do whatever the hell they want.
This point has been refuted time and time again. I am not going to go into the details again - do a search, and you will find a very long list of reasons why TNO has, per capita, a larger military machine than the GC. If you want to argue these points, feel free. But, as Corise was, you're comparing the GC and TNO based on the old rules. X planets does not equal Y ships. If Vinda-Corp held 130 worlds, would you expect them to have a military machine on par with the Empire?
