While I do like the idea of a Rebellion, I'm not certain it will do much good. As Vodo stated in his first post (a point I was attempting to make but he did it much better) a lot of TNO simply won't allow themselves to lose and the only way they 'lose' anything is through a pre-agreanged agreement. Sure we could wreck havoc on the NPC side of things, but when it comes to getting to the real 'meat' of TNO I just don't see it happening unless TNO as a whole willingly allows themselves to be knocked down a few pegs. Everyone naturally wants to win and when you are constantly beaten down it gets to you after awhile.
With all that in mind...I would think a faction reset would be more useful: even the playing field again. The big down side to that of course is that would screw up a lot of storylines in the works now.
I've been relucant to broach this idea, since it would mean quite a bit of hard work going down the drain here, but there is also the idea of a power grab within the Empire having unforseen consequences. I've toyed with this idea quite a bit, and this seemed like a good time to bring it up.
First though, let me ask, has anyone ever done a character/planet defection from one faction to another?
Anyways, on the topic, maybe if the coalition broke down into soviergn partitions? Say regional governments, tired of the constant fighting and their own percieved inept leadership, take control and break away. From their leaving you in control of a bunch of smaller groups of your own creation to re-develop from ruins to possibly back to the vision you had for them and maybe one day reform an alliance amongst themselves....
Though I just woke up and not at all thinking right....
I tend to agree with Wes on the reshaping of the Coalition's government. I was actually going to talk Dolash about that. I think a similar example in history would be the United States transferring from the fairly ineffective Articles of Confederation to the government we have now.
I've seen the OOC debates that go on for pages and pages and not out of logic. It's out of people trying to argue OOC a win. The GC argues back which makes us just as bad but the general concept is that 'TNO has thousands of planets and is OMFG1337LOL!' So TNO always gets the benefit and GC looses.
The same would come from a 'small rebellion group'. We'd attack and we'd find every planet with Golan XXX platforms and every supply convoy will have 80 star destroyers.
Its easier to surprise a military installation with a few insurgent civilians reining chaos, ala Union tactics, than it is to go fleet to fleet. Think Vietnam or Iraq, we were/are the obvious superior power, they just don't assualt our strength head on....
Point: A small rebellion group wouldn't have the same assets a Military Coalition would, and would be a lot tougher to wipe out.
Irtar, either stop talking out of your ass, or shut up.
The fact that TNO rarely looses a battle is not synonymous with "TNO refuses to lose". The fact that whenever the GC suffers a defeat they immediately jump to "TNO refuses to lose" is, I think, part of the reason that the GC has not been able to advance beyond its current position.
You might say that TNO refuses to lose, but I think the GC refuses to accept a loss. Every time they're defeated, I see cries of "foul". Never an acceptance that they got bested.
Case in point: Bilbringi. See the above in this thread for proof. See the IC thread for further proof.
Saying that TNO refuses to lose is a major misnomer: the GC is every bit as unwilling to lose. The thing is, TNO has won a lot of its battles, and gets painted with "you never lose because you don't want to" brush.
Give me a break. In a competitive thread, there will be a winner and there will be a loser (generally). The fact that TNO wins many of its thread is a testament to the skill of its writers, not because of some OOC conspiracy to win.
Hell, look at the number of supporters the GC has OOC. If this were the case, TNO could never get away with "refusing to lose". The simple fact of the matter is that those victories are earned.
Given that all of TNO's members of reasonable, veterans of TRF, I think you could ask any of them this question and get a yes:
Would you be willing to see TNO fall as part of a good, well executed storyline?
The GC has not as of yet offered a compelling storyline. Why do you keep expecting TNO to simply roll over and die? Because the GC are the "good guys" and you're operating under some Hollywood ideal that the good guys always win?
I'll accept that they usually do - but usually at the end of the story. We have not yet reached that end.
For my part, I would welcome a reversal of roles. There's lots of opportunities for personal growth, one character clawing their way to the top, etc. But the story that gets us there has to be awesome. It will take more than a halfhearted effort to get us to that point. I would argue that it would require one of the best threads in TRF's history.
And this talk of a fleet restart? I go back to Hollywood - what will a restart accomplish except to give the "good guys" a leg up? Nowhere in TRF's mandate does it say "let the good guys win" - if they want to win, it has to be earned, not handed out because we feel sorry for them.
Let the Coalition be overrun. The Empire, having finally conquered its rival, will stand alone and overconfident. The possibilities for storylines involved an Alliance and an Empire are endless.
And let's stop insulting the integrity of TNO members while we're at it, Irtar. TNO's RPers are among the best and most reasonable on TRF. We'll play any storyline as reasonably and fair as the GC will.
This would be one of the things I mentioned earlier as one of TNO's strengths that could be used against them. Heck, the GC could use that now with TNO's current size.
The GC's biggest problem, as I see it, is the threat to its citizens. By owning planets, they invite reprisal against their civilians by attacking TNO.
A Rebellion does not have that problem to the same extent.
