661 réponses à ce sujet

[jamesp81]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I'm not great at math, so this calculation is very crude. It implies that the average human will have 4 kids, live 'til 50, and die, so this growth rate may well be a lowball estimate. The only limitation is food resources, and on a garden world with future tech, I have no doubt we can feed a population of 2-3 billion, easy.

Edit: Addendum - human population in 1350 was 300 million. It was only 600 million in 1700. We've got this.

At that level of technology there would be artificial wombs so your estimates have been quite conservative.

That's right. Put Cerberus in charge and get on clonin'.

I do find it intriguing that the biggest pro-human Cerberus people in this thread also want to nuke Earth.

[Zulu_DFA]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

This whole story "Earth gets attacked by the Reapers!!!" is a repetition of that "Batarian missile strike"  mission on a larger scale. Either you save the residential district, and lose the colony due to the destruction of its industrial base, or you  save the industrial district and save the colony. Simple as  that.

If you save the industrial district who repopulates the colony?

Hint: it's Earth.

The Alliance colonies are populated. They only need to not get destroyed over somebody's sentimenality.

[kaotician]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Actually I think the universe would be more interesting if humanity was a tiny fish in an ocean full of sharks. It'd be a hell of a lot more realistic.

Seems strange to agree with you, but I do. I always prefer in RPG's the 'build' section, where you're small and weak in a world full of dangers and have to improve yourself etc to survive. Becoming a God analogue, as is so often the case with RPG's and their character arc, I find pretty boring, and it makes gameplay thereafter a lot duller. Where for you the attraction is that it's more realistic, for me it's more exciting - which may yet be two distant aspects of the same sensation. 

[jamesp81]

kaotician wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Switzerland survives because everybody stores their money there. Ever hear of a Swiss bank?

Well, they may have done, sort of, but Switzerland's been Switzerland for ages, a tiny country, still intact. Plus, if all the money's there, that's all the more reason to invade and robb it, at the time, isn't it? And no one seriously actually stores their money there like bags of gold or stuff. It's all digital wealth these days.

Actually, Switzerland has survived because they DO have a strong military combined with terrain that greatly favors the defender.  No one questions that a strong country could conquer Switzerland, it's just been judged to not be worth the trouble.

A humanity post ME3 with very little population or military is likely to end up conquered or enslaved.  Because unlike Switzerland, planets like Eden Prime and Terra Nova very much ARE worth the trouble of conquering.  Hell, almost all of Terra Nova's population resides in one city.  A couple of well placed nukes would basically clear the whole planet for whatever Terminus systems thugs wanted it.

[jamesp81]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

This whole story "Earth gets attacked by the Reapers!!!" is a repetition of that "Batarian missile strike"  mission on a larger scale. Either you save the residential district, and lose the colony due to the destruction of its industrial base, or you  save the industrial district and save the colony. Simple as  that.

If you save the industrial district who repopulates the colony?

Hint: it's Earth.

The Alliance colonies are populated. They only need to not get destroyed over somebody's sentimenality.

The Alliance's three largest colonies are considerably less than 1% of the total human population.  A 99% kill off of humanity has no ending other than enslavement or becoming a client race of someone like the Turians or Asari.

[kaotician]

And if you're not worth the trouble, aren't you safer by definition than any country that does appear to be worth the trouble, though?

[jamesp81]

kaotician wrote...

And if you're not worth the trouble, aren't you safer by definition than any country that does appear to be worth the trouble, though?

That works as long as other countries maintain a rational "they're not worth the trouble" stance.  This goes out the window if you start dealing with countries with unstable leaders that don't think rationally.

As this relates to ME3, however, poorly defended human colonies near Terminus space are ripe for the picking; easy targets worth taking.  Switzerland is not an easy target worth taking; anyone near them with the military power to do it judges it not worth the trouble and the crazies don't have the military power to attempt it.  At least for now.

Modifié par jamesp81, 06 avril 2011 - 09:07 .

[Whatever42]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

@ Almostfaceman and also @Whatever666343431431654324 I'm consolidating my replies to both of you.

No no, it's fine. I am willing to concede that giving us a "symbolic" seat on the council is a best-case scenario. I still think it's possible, but I agree that it is by no means guaranteed, so I'll abandon that idea for now.

But I can't imagine the council not letting us keep at least one or two garden worlds in Citadel space, and helping us evacuate surviving colonists from endangered colonies back there, if they want to be evacuated. Even if all we get to keep is Eden Prime, we may still be OK, as long as we can get back a decent percentage of the surviving colonists.

While letting us still have power may be a pipe dream, letting us go extinct without protecting a single one of our colonies just seems... insane, and would strip them of all credibility, at least for the next few asari lifespans. The best example of this would be relations with species like the Hanar - they seem to lack copious colonies, and to be fairly easy to kill. If the council doens't defend a single human colony in its own space, what benefit do the Hanar get from being an associate race?

I can imagine humanity being a "pet" race for a few centuries, but not forever. We more than doubled our population between 1950 and 1985. That's 35 years, and we don't have humans with a lifespan of 130 and crazy-ass medical tech. If we're reduced to 10 million, rather than 100 million? That's just an extra century or two of breeding before we get back to our 8 billion goal, given my proposal of a human population that doubles every 25 years. Want to make a generation 35 years instead? Ok.

If we start with 100 million surviving humans and double our population every 25 years, it'll take only about 150 years to get us back to 6.4 billion. Even with 10 million people to start and a generation of 35 years, we can get back up to 5.4 billion in 350 years.  We were capable of doubling our global population in 35 years with 20th century technology. Even if we were reduced to using 20th century tech again, I think we could easily recover in a few centuries.

Oh, I think the council would certainly protect a few paragon worlds for a few centuries. Not exactly a happy ending for humanity. We survive as pets for a few centuries until we become respected again. We probably lose our entire culture and have our young people running around wanting to grow up to be Turians.  In that time, we would contribute almost nothing to galactic civilization. The Batarians would claim all the surrounding space, hemming us in. Humanity would become another do-nothing little species. The human haters get their wish and humanity is far from anything special. We'd just be a bunch of farmers trying to breed our way back from near-extinction.

If that's the case, I'm with Zulu and renegade all the way. Cerberus wouldn't let humanity go down like that. We'd be unleashing bioweapons on Batarian worlds, building reapers, nuking enemies. Heck, we could try to claim the citadel permenantly. Set up several powerful nukes inside it and evaporate all the internal workings and keepers if anyone tries to take it from us. And we could take Zulu's advice and work with AI - even if we couldn't control the Geth, use our new technology to create an AI army. Basically, humanity woudl become the largest terrorist organization in the history of the galaxy.

I mean, who would chose to be pathetic Turian pets?

[CulturalGeekGirl]

jamesp81 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

@ Almostfaceman and also @Whatever666343431431654324 I'm consolidating my replies to both of you.

No no, it's fine. I am willing to concede that giving us a "symbolic" seat on the council is a best-case scenario. I still think it's possible, but I agree that it is by no means guaranteed, so I'll abandon that idea for now.

But I can't imagine the council not letting us keep at least one or two garden worlds in Citadel space, and helping us evacuate surviving colonists from endangered colonies back there, if they want to be evacuated. Even if all we get to keep is Eden Prime, we may still be OK, as long as we can get back a decent percentage of the surviving colonists.

While letting us still have power may be a pipe dream, letting us go extinct without protecting a single one of our colonies just seems... insane, and would strip them of all credibility, at least for the next few asari lifespans. The best example of this would be relations with species like the Hanar - they seem to lack copious colonies, and to be fairly easy to kill. If the council doens't defend a single human colony in its own space, what benefit do the Hanar get from being an associate race?

I can imagine humanity being a "pet" race for a few centuries, but not forever. We more than doubled our population between 1950 and 1985. That's 35 years, and we don't have humans with a lifespan of 130 and crazy-ass medical tech. If we're reduced to 10 million, rather than 100 million? That's just an extra century or two of breeding before we get back to our 8 billion goal, given my proposal of a human population that doubles every 25 years. Want to make a generation 35 years instead? Ok.

If we start with 100 million surviving humans and double our population every 25 years, it'll take only about 150 years to get us back to 6.4 billion. Even with 10 million people to start and a generation of 35 years, we can get back up to 5.4 billion in 350 years.  We were capable of doubling our global population in 35 years with 20th century technology. Even if we were reduced to using 20th century tech again, I think we could easily recover in a few centuries.

While I can appreciate a well written story along these lines, I'll just have to say I prefer it to not go this way.  I want there to be enough humanity left that any subsequent games in the ME universe occur with humanity being a significant power bloc that can take care of itself, with a Council seat.

Personally, I think a lot of good storytelling could happen if the Council, after ME3, reverses it's stance on not opening uncharted mass relays.  I want humanity to be a part of that when it happens.

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. But if we do get proper screwed, there's no reason to say "well, I guess that just about wraps it up for humanity. Time to linger in obscurity until we eventually die out." Humanity is a survivor, but I'd agree I do not want my scenario to be the Mass Effect default.

For me the ideal scenario is this: if we "win" and get the "good ending" as a Paragon, about 1/3 of Earth's population and a third of our colonies are destroyed. Most of our military is trashed, but so are the militaries of most council races. Other races suffer slightly smaller population losses (10 - 20% or so), and massive infrastructure losses. The terminus system races are actually hit less severely, so the next few centuries are going to be spent trying to keep the Batarians and Vorcha (and some other Terminus races we haven't met yet) from our door, while trying to rebuild to a point where we're capable of dealing with some hypothetical future Reaper-grade threat.

If we get the "good ending" as a Renegade, losses on earth are only around 10%, while losses for other species are much higher... largely because we decided to destroy some more Mass Relays in inhabited systems as an anti-Reaper tactic. While the other races grudgingly respect us for our willingness to "do what it takes" to take out the Reapers, grudges about their worlds which were sacrificed will fester, and anti-human sentiment will sill be persistent throughout the galaxy.

The question being - is it better to lose another 20% of our population and be loved, or to lose fewer people and be feared?

[kaotician]

Agreed. About the best that can be hoped for at the moment, for our colonies, is that the forthcoming war, assuming we survive, leaves everyone equally crippled and incapable of taking advantage. Not much to hope for, is it?

Modifié par kaotician, 06 avril 2011 - 09:14 .

[Malanek]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...
We probably lose our entire culture and have our young people running around wanting to grow up to be Turians.

Hmmm... on one hand we have an alien bird-like creature, on the other we Shepard, the man or woman who saved the galaxy. Humanity would not lose their culture, it would be reinforced many times by the disaster scenerio. Young Turians would want to grow up to be Shepard.

Modifié par Malanek999, 06 avril 2011 - 09:12 .

[jamesp81]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

@ Almostfaceman and also @Whatever666343431431654324 I'm consolidating my replies to both of you.

No no, it's fine. I am willing to concede that giving us a "symbolic" seat on the council is a best-case scenario. I still think it's possible, but I agree that it is by no means guaranteed, so I'll abandon that idea for now.

But I can't imagine the council not letting us keep at least one or two garden worlds in Citadel space, and helping us evacuate surviving colonists from endangered colonies back there, if they want to be evacuated. Even if all we get to keep is Eden Prime, we may still be OK, as long as we can get back a decent percentage of the surviving colonists.

While letting us still have power may be a pipe dream, letting us go extinct without protecting a single one of our colonies just seems... insane, and would strip them of all credibility, at least for the next few asari lifespans. The best example of this would be relations with species like the Hanar - they seem to lack copious colonies, and to be fairly easy to kill. If the council doens't defend a single human colony in its own space, what benefit do the Hanar get from being an associate race?

I can imagine humanity being a "pet" race for a few centuries, but not forever. We more than doubled our population between 1950 and 1985. That's 35 years, and we don't have humans with a lifespan of 130 and crazy-ass medical tech. If we're reduced to 10 million, rather than 100 million? That's just an extra century or two of breeding before we get back to our 8 billion goal, given my proposal of a human population that doubles every 25 years. Want to make a generation 35 years instead? Ok.

If we start with 100 million surviving humans and double our population every 25 years, it'll take only about 150 years to get us back to 6.4 billion. Even with 10 million people to start and a generation of 35 years, we can get back up to 5.4 billion in 350 years.  We were capable of doubling our global population in 35 years with 20th century technology. Even if we were reduced to using 20th century tech again, I think we could easily recover in a few centuries.

Oh, I think the council would certainly protect a few paragon worlds for a few centuries. Not exactly a happy ending for humanity. We survive as pets for a few centuries until we become respected again. We probably lose our entire culture and have our young people running around wanting to grow up to be Turians.  In that time, we would contribute almost nothing to galactic civilization. The Batarians would claim all the surrounding space, hemming us in. Humanity would become another do-nothing little species. The human haters get their wish and humanity is far from anything special. We'd just be a bunch of farmers trying to breed our way back from near-extinction.

If that's the case, I'm with Zulu and renegade all the way. Cerberus wouldn't let humanity go down like that. We'd be unleashing bioweapons on Batarian worlds, building reapers, nuking enemies. Heck, we could try to claim the citadel permenantly. Set up several powerful nukes inside it and evaporate all the internal workings and keepers if anyone tries to take it from us. And we could take Zulu's advice and work with AI - even if we couldn't control the Geth, use our new technology to create an AI army. Basically, humanity woudl become the largest terrorist organization in the history of the galaxy.

I mean, who would chose to be pathetic Turian pets?

I'm with you.  If my choices are 1) be a pet race or 2) sign on fully with TIM and go OMGWTFBBQ on everyone's ass, I'm choosing 2.

[ErebUs890]

There better be some sort of major decision where you're going to have to choose between the fate of the galaxy or the fate of humanity.

[jamesp81]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

@ Almostfaceman and also @Whatever666343431431654324 I'm consolidating my replies to both of you.

No no, it's fine. I am willing to concede that giving us a "symbolic" seat on the council is a best-case scenario. I still think it's possible, but I agree that it is by no means guaranteed, so I'll abandon that idea for now.

But I can't imagine the council not letting us keep at least one or two garden worlds in Citadel space, and helping us evacuate surviving colonists from endangered colonies back there, if they want to be evacuated. Even if all we get to keep is Eden Prime, we may still be OK, as long as we can get back a decent percentage of the surviving colonists.

While letting us still have power may be a pipe dream, letting us go extinct without protecting a single one of our colonies just seems... insane, and would strip them of all credibility, at least for the next few asari lifespans. The best example of this would be relations with species like the Hanar - they seem to lack copious colonies, and to be fairly easy to kill. If the council doens't defend a single human colony in its own space, what benefit do the Hanar get from being an associate race?

I can imagine humanity being a "pet" race for a few centuries, but not forever. We more than doubled our population between 1950 and 1985. That's 35 years, and we don't have humans with a lifespan of 130 and crazy-ass medical tech. If we're reduced to 10 million, rather than 100 million? That's just an extra century or two of breeding before we get back to our 8 billion goal, given my proposal of a human population that doubles every 25 years. Want to make a generation 35 years instead? Ok.

If we start with 100 million surviving humans and double our population every 25 years, it'll take only about 150 years to get us back to 6.4 billion. Even with 10 million people to start and a generation of 35 years, we can get back up to 5.4 billion in 350 years.  We were capable of doubling our global population in 35 years with 20th century technology. Even if we were reduced to using 20th century tech again, I think we could easily recover in a few centuries.

While I can appreciate a well written story along these lines, I'll just have to say I prefer it to not go this way.  I want there to be enough humanity left that any subsequent games in the ME universe occur with humanity being a significant power bloc that can take care of itself, with a Council seat.

Personally, I think a lot of good storytelling could happen if the Council, after ME3, reverses it's stance on not opening uncharted mass relays.  I want humanity to be a part of that when it happens.

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. But if we do get proper screwed, there's no reason to say "well, I guess that just about wraps it up for humanity. Time to linger in obscurity until we eventually die out." Humanity is a survivor, but I'd agree I do not want my scenario to be the Mass Effect default.

For me the ideal scenario is this: if we "win" and get the "good ending" as a Paragon, about 1/3 of Earth's population and a third of our colonies are destroyed. Most of our military is trashed, but so are the militaries of most council races. Other races suffer slightly smaller population losses (10 - 20% or so), and massive infrastructure losses. The terminus system races are actually hit less severely, so the next few centuries are going to be spent trying to keep the Batarians and Vorcha (and some other Terminus races we haven't met yet) from our door, while trying to rebuild to a point where we're capable of dealing with some hypothetical future Reaper-grade threat.

If we get the "good ending" as a Renegade, losses on earth are only around 10%, while losses for other species are much higher... largely because we decided to destroy some more Mass Relays in inhabited systems as an anti-Reaper tactic. While the other races grudgingly respect us for our willingness to "do what it takes" to take out the Reapers, grudges about their worlds which were sacrificed will fester, and anti-human sentiment will sill be persistent throughout the galaxy.

The question being - is it better to lose another 20% of our population and be loved, or to lose fewer people and be feared?

I like your ideal Paragon ending, although my estimates were calling for a 50 to 60 percent kill off of Earth's population.  It's enough of a catastrophe to really change things without reducing us to pets.  You could make an entire game with a "wild west" feel to it that covers the Citadel races trying to rebuild while fending off Terminus thugs.  It could even be kind of like Firefly, except with more mayhem

Edit:

I want to preserve humanity as a galactic power in the short term AND long term in ME3.  But I also want the same for the other citadel races.  It's so much more fun when you face a threat down the road to do it with your friends at your side.

Modifié par jamesp81, 06 avril 2011 - 09:29 .

[James2912]

So the Systems Alliance would basically become Israel small but powerful but surrounded by numerous empires with huge population bases in comparison. There are billions of Turians for example. Versus its current position as a first level empire able to project force. Sure they might be able to survive like Israel has but you lose your ability to project power and have to depend a lot on a system of allies. The Systems Alliance will take hundreds of years to build up its population again and will no longer be a sleeping giant because it will no longer have a huge manpower source for its military in a total war.

What is the total population of all non Sol system based colonies anyway?

[Zulu_DFA]

jamesp81 wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I'm not great at math, so this calculation is very crude. It implies that the average human will have 4 kids, live 'til 50, and die, so this growth rate may well be a lowball estimate. The only limitation is food resources, and on a garden world with future tech, I have no doubt we can feed a population of 2-3 billion, easy.

Edit: Addendum - human population in 1350 was 300 million. It was only 600 million in 1700. We've got this.

At that level of technology there would be artificial wombs so your estimates have been quite conservative.

That's right. Put Cerberus in charge and get on clonin'.

I do find it intriguing that the biggest pro-human Cerberus people in this thread also want to nuke Earth.

Why?

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

@ Almostfaceman and also @Whatever666343431431654324 I'm consolidating my replies to both of you.

No no, it's fine. I am willing to concede that giving us a "symbolic" seat on the council is a best-case scenario. I still think it's possible, but I agree that it is by no means guaranteed, so I'll abandon that idea for now.

But I can't imagine the council not letting us keep at least one or two garden worlds in Citadel space, and helping us evacuate surviving colonists from endangered colonies back there, if they want to be evacuated. Even if all we get to keep is Eden Prime, we may still be OK, as long as we can get back a decent percentage of the surviving colonists.

While letting us still have power may be a pipe dream, letting us go extinct without protecting a single one of our colonies just seems... insane, and would strip them of all credibility, at least for the next few asari lifespans. The best example of this would be relations with species like the Hanar - they seem to lack copious colonies, and to be fairly easy to kill. If the council doens't defend a single human colony in its own space, what benefit do the Hanar get from being an associate race?

I can imagine humanity being a "pet" race for a few centuries, but not forever. We more than doubled our population between 1950 and 1985. That's 35 years, and we don't have humans with a lifespan of 130 and crazy-ass medical tech. If we're reduced to 10 million, rather than 100 million? That's just an extra century or two of breeding before we get back to our 8 billion goal, given my proposal of a human population that doubles every 25 years. Want to make a generation 35 years instead? Ok.

If we start with 100 million surviving humans and double our population every 25 years, it'll take only about 150 years to get us back to 6.4 billion. Even with 10 million people to start and a generation of 35 years, we can get back up to 5.4 billion in 350 years.  We were capable of doubling our global population in 35 years with 20th century technology. Even if we were reduced to using 20th century tech again, I think we could easily recover in a few centuries.

Oh, I think the council would certainly protect a few paragon worlds for a few centuries. Not exactly a happy ending for humanity. We survive as pets for a few centuries until we become respected again. We probably lose our entire culture and have our young people running around wanting to grow up to be Turians.  In that time, we would contribute almost nothing to galactic civilization. The Batarians would claim all the surrounding space, hemming us in. Humanity would become another do-nothing little species. The human haters get their wish and humanity is far from anything special. We'd just be a bunch of farmers trying to breed our way back from near-extinction.

If that's the case, I'm with Zulu and renegade all the way. Cerberus wouldn't let humanity go down like that. We'd be unleashing bioweapons on Batarian worlds, building reapers, nuking enemies. Heck, we could try to claim the citadel permenantly. Set up several powerful nukes inside it and evaporate all the internal workings and keepers if anyone tries to take it from us. And we could take Zulu's advice and work with AI - even if we couldn't control the Geth, use our new technology to create an AI army. Basically, humanity woudl become the largest terrorist organization in the history of the galaxy.

I mean, who would chose to be pathetic Turian pets?

I disagree that a few centuries of rebuilding would make us irrelevant in the long-term. The Salarians and the Asari have had 2,000+ years to do things, and they haven't hemmed in the Galaxy. Similarly, the Turians and Batarians have had 1300 years or more do stuff, and neither of them have become unstoppable powerhouses. Another 300 years is not the end of the world, even given a theoretical "end" of our "world."

Humanity is fast, crazy, and just diplomatic enough to maintain relevance. We only took 30 years from FTL discovery to multiple colonies of several million people. That is insane. The Batarians are a problem for the council, and they're just going to get worse - nobody likes slavery, but nobody wants galactic war with a former ally, either. Humanity is the council's best weapon against them, and I think we will remain so, even if we have to wait another 300 years to be useful again.  The Turians obviously don't have what it takes to get in the Batarian's faces, or they would have resolved that situation centuries ago with no need for humanity. It's obvious that humanity was seen as an excuse to cut a dangerous and unpleasant race loose diplomatically (the council refused to favor the Batarians over us, so they stormed out. The general reaction to that seems to be "good riddance").

Also, if we become a "pet" race, it will be for the Asari or Salarians, I think. They don't want to become overly reliant on the Turians, after all. I think we'd have a similar status to the pre-council Turians during the Krogan rebellions - a valuable resource to be somewhat condescended to, but an important strategic bulwark. We are simply too good at exploration, colonization, and war to be squandered.

Also, don't forget that there are loads of inactive relays. When all habitable worlds in reach become overpopulated, someone has to go through those relays and see what we find on the other side. Humanity, with our curiosity and somewhat lax views on colonial safety, is the perfect candidate for such missions. Even if we aren't technically allowed to do so, I'm sure we'll have a few "wildcat" colony ships sneaking around, looking for relays.

[jamesp81]

James2912 wrote...

So the Systems Alliance would basically become Israel small but powerful but surrounded by numerous empires with huge population bases in comparison. There are billions of Turians for example. Versus its current position as a first level empire able to project force. Sure they might be able to survive like Israel has but you lose your ability to project power and have to depend a lot on a system of allies. The Systems Alliance will take hundreds of years to build up its population again and will no longer be a sleeping giant because it will no longer have a huge manpower source for its military in a total war.

What is the total population of all non Sol system based colonies anyway?

There's not an exact figure that I'm aware of.  However, the Codex tells us that the combined populations of Bekenstein, Terra Nova, and Eden Prime are 13.5 million, and these are supposed to be Earth's most populous, oldest, wealthiest colonies.  These were first wave colonies established after the Prothean ruins were found on Mars.  Most other colonies have populations measured in tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands in a few cases.  This give us a baseline to work from and the picture isn't pretty.  Loss of Earth means the destruction of 95% of the human race at best.  More likely that number approaches 97 to 98 percent.

Modifié par jamesp81, 06 avril 2011 - 09:32 .

[kaotician]

James 2912: 'So the Systems Alliance would basically become Israel small but powerful but surrounded by numerous empires with huge population bases in comparison. There are billions of Turians for example. Versus its current position as a first level empire able to project force. Sure they might be able to survive like Israel has but you lose your ability to project power and have to depend a lot on a system of allies. The Systems Alliance will take hundreds of years to build up its population again and will no longer be a sleeping giant because it will no longer have a huge manpower source for its military in a total war. 

What is the total population of all non Sol system based colonies anyway?'

Here's hoping not. I'd prefer the analogy of Japan, myself.

Modifié par kaotician, 06 avril 2011 - 09:28 .

[Whatever42]

James2912 wrote...

So the Systems Alliance would basically become Israel small but powerful but surrounded by numerous empires with huge population bases in comparison. There are billions of Turians for example. Versus its current position as a first level empire able to project force. Sure they might be able to survive like Israel has but you lose your ability to project power and have to depend a lot on a system of allies. The Systems Alliance will take hundreds of years to build up its population again and will no longer be a sleeping giant because it will no longer have a huge manpower source for its military in a total war.

What is the total population of all non Sol system based colonies anyway?

If it was even as high as a 100 million, I would be shocked. I'm thinking half that tops. Colonies would be far spread out and impossible to defend. We'd probably have to give up the vast majority. Maybe we would be permitted to hang on to 2 or 3 of the garden worlds.

[Icinix]

Goodbye Earth! Don't call us, we'll call you.

Waste of a perfectly good rock anyway.