I'm not terribly qualified to debate this, seeing as most of this is before my time. But's that just it. It's been at least a year since the TNO-GC war ended. Like Brandt said, that's some time to work with. Economies can be ruined quickly, but they can also be built up quickly as well. I think the aftermath of World War II shows that economies can be built so that they are even better than before.
I might be making a stretch... but I'll bet war will have negative effects on the economy. I also doubt one Corporation's influence on the economy of a government the size of the GC.
Brandt Enterprises has truly done some outstanding work for the Coalition. Sadly, I've only managed to read one thread about their work for the Coalition. I think there may be more though.
I don't think war and economy aren't directly linked in this. War can be bad for it in some cases, yes. But in other cases, it helps the economy out tremendously. An example of this would be America entering World War II. War means making more things, which means more jobs, and increased industrial development. Closer to our timeline in Real life, I think Haliburton's profits from the war show that it can actually be profitable.
This means that N. Korea's army is 5.2% of its population. America's is 0.0086%.
Granted, there is much more to a military than simply numbers of footsoldiers. However, what this demonstrates is that your claim is false. America's armed forces size is a function of its superior population. If N. Korea's population and army ratio were expanded to match America's population, they would have an army of 15.6 million men. Much larger than that of the USA.
Certainly. That's very true example, but one example doesn't mean it is for all cases. For all that matters, we could look at France and Germany at the start of WW II. France actually was stronger on paper in terms of men and tanks, despite being a democracy, and Germany being a military dictatorship at that time.
It does mean something. When the rules changed, so did everything. Fleets et al. did not remain constant - things changed. The aforementioned worlds, in canon, were major producers of warships. Under the realism doctrine, I see no reason they should cease to be such. If you can offer one, I'd love to hear it.
But I don't think there is one, other than it suites the GC's needs at this time that the advantadge belong to them. I disagree - I think these worlds contribute to TNO's superior production.
This sounds like something that the staff should discuss, mainly because of the switch in rules.
To consider this, let's look at a real life example. Compare the costs of producing an item in the United States, where workers receive fair wages, health benefits, vacation pay, etc. for their work, to producing an item in China or Thailand, where workers are barely paid anything. This is as close to slave labour as we are likely to find for example purposes. Considered how many items carry "made in China" labels, I'm going to say that this sort of labour is highly effective.
Certainly effective in cost and mass production, but how about quality? Does TNO use cheap and easily broken equipment now? Slave labour also tends to be lower than paid workers, no matter how low the wages are for a paid worker. Bear in mind that the standards of living in China is cheaper in comparison to the United States as well. As well, with slave labour, there is a risk of internal sabotage. I doubt that's something TNO wants in its war machine.
It was around the time of the Phantom Menace. But thanks for playing.
I note Kamino and Khomm on the Imperial list. As well, I am under the impression that GC is not using cloning facilities to produce soldiers at the moment. That's from talking to Dolash, because I thought about doing it once.
This is the part where I actually have some decent knowledge. Enter the Confederation.
The Confederation is basically about two things: the military, and the economy. Most of my RPs show the military aspect reasonably well. Most people don't seem to notice the economy parts I include in my takeovers, albeit they're always there. I make sure of that every time I conduct a takeover. And for easy reference, there is generally an entire section devoted to each planet's economy and role within the Confederation within the planet databank.
Most people can take a look at the databank and see this for themselves, so I'm only going to point out the highlights. The first is Metalorn, which is canonically as industrial as any of TNO's major industrial planets, mostly because it was a primary industrial planet of the Empire in the past. But unlike most of those planets within TNO, a good-sized portion (at least half) is civilian operations. That generates a lot of revenue simply in taxes. Another one I'll point out is Genon. Genon, with the help of Stellar Enterprises, has been developed into GC's version of the canonical Thyferra. It's a bacta producing planet. Also a big source of revenue.
I have rped all of this. And I've referred to it in other RPs as well. What makes this interesting to me is this subfaction was produced after the GC-TNO war. This economy isn't crushed, and it's not been shattered by TNO or any other faction. It's an economy that's taken multiple RPs to build.
On the other hand, I have yet to read any TNO threads in which there is any mention of Imperial economy in there at all, albeit perhaps there is, and I just simply haven't seen it. How can say debate TNO's economy being better when it doesn't ever seem to have RPed or developed, whereas GC's has, through the collective efforts of Brandt Enterprises and other members of the Coalition? I know Irtar and Beff has also done work regarding the economies of their own subfactions as well.
Case and point being Thyferra. If I recall correctly, this is a planet that Drayson took in Past, Present, and Future. Yes, I actually read the entire thing. Yet, when I read it, I found no references to Thyferra's economy, except for its past economy, which did not appear to be portrayed as being very good. I have yet to find any work regarding TNO rebuilding Thyferra's commercial infrastructure. Though it wouldn't surprise me if there was, in which case, I gladly stand corrected.
There's also the planet list to look at. I've tallied the planets listed on both sides, and I wouldn't be too surprised if it's off a planet or three, but it currently stands that GC owns 77 planets, TNO has 115. In other words, GC is basically 2/3s the size of TNO.
I believe Jan brought up a point within the Pegasus Mk II thread how unbalanced this was in terms of large capital ships for our given sides. It would appear to be roughly all of GC's large ships in terms of meterage are equivalent to the Four Conqueror-class Battleships built. Now, this is likely going to cancel out in my opinion by GC's losses within the BDE war. But in turn means besides large capital ships, the average sector fleet from either faction will roughly be the same size. Of course, I've heard there is some sort of staff ruling on this as well, in which the strong stay strong, or something like that.
But that's not to say that this is not without substantial cost to TNO. Keeping such massive ships have equally massive maintenance costs, something which GC doesn't suffer from because of the relatively few large capital ships on that scale.
I know I'm forgetting a few things, maybe a helpful Ewok will come along and bash me in the head; then I might remember them, so I can post them later.
