Umoja and Kel Morian Combine

[Mislagnissa]

I never disputed this nor said the Protoss are antagonistic. I dispute the fact that Terrans and Protoss would ever reach amicable grounds. The Protoss don't give a shit about the Terrans and the Terrans will always hold resentment against the Protoss for their attack. In such a scenario, any future TvP encounter would likely have the Terrans be the aggressor in most cases with the Protoss justifying any action against the Terrans as "defending" themselves from hostile lesser beings.



Please remember that my position is limited to what we know from the manual up to and before the events of Sc1's game story in order to explain why TvP would be justified over the long term. I'm not saying it can't change but even so, the changes would only be at a micro level (individual groups/people like Tass' force and Raynor's crew). There was a realisation that the Zerg were the main enemy and a need to team-up in SC1 what with the last mission having Raynor involved, but you have to keep in mind that Raynor and Tassadar were sort of outliers of the people they represented. The larger institutions of their respective races (ie: Terran Dominion and Khalai Protoss society) would've still harboured distrust of each other.




I laughed hard at this. Pot kettle black anyone? All I'm doing is putting it up to scrutiny - similar to what you claim to be doing when "criticising" Sc1.



And yet the idea of fictional characters being focused on too much or doing significant things doesn't make sense to you either... Besides, the differential between Protoss and Terran power levels are huge, even if we're not counting the possibility that the Protoss actually outnumber the Terrans too by all accounts what with their supposed galactic reach/spread, use of war machines to limit loss of life and having been around far longer. The factions in 40K are more balanced/equal in power levels and there's more of them compared to Sc.



It is also entirely reasonable to assume alien don't have psychological hang-ups because you know, aliens! Fictional "aliens" only have psychological hangups because they're written by humans who want to make things relatable.

Then damn Starcraft to hell. I'm tired of these pointless circular arguments.

In my original milscifi universe, the protoss-expies are significantly more advanced than the terran-expies but I've contrived various circumstances preventing them from simply incinerating human space.

Does that explanation satisfy you?

[Turalyon]

Anyways, I feel like I can agree with both Tura and Nissa with different reference points of view in mind. I feel like Nissa is going through with a more faction directed approach. Despite of the catastrophe there's a difference in faction identity between the UP and the Sara System. Add to that the possibility of information bias throughout the Koprulu sector or at least information lag. I can totally see the UP trying to hail the Protoss fleets. The DTs were also around, trying to snipe the Zerg cerebrates, there's another possibility of contact there. However, if I understand correctly Tura argues that at a racial level the Protoss have a omnicient perspective of the Terrans and their factions, if they care to study them. Said awareness is what allows them to react quickly upon the Zerg infestations and make the best decision to save the greater amount of Terrans. That being said, I don't the Terrans would ever understand the measured actions of the Protoss and would therefore not forgive such actions. That said, I agree the most with Nissa that at least the UP can eventually make peace with the Protoss forces as they did with the status quo of the Dominion despite their ideology differences.

Sort of. I don't mind if the Terrans make peace with the Protoss, I just questioned the verisimilitude of it actually happening straight away and the internal consistency of it given how the manual is the only context we had when the game was first released (and yes, I am aware that there is lore that retcons the fact that Terrans knew and interacted with Protoss before Chau Sara's burning, which is understandably irrelevent to this particular argument). It got a bit side-tracked but it started off with the manual description of the Umojan Protectorate wanting to petition the Protoss for peace. It seemed somewhat at odds given that the information in the manual (which is set before the events of the game story itself) sets up a clear hostile relationship between Terran and Protoss. Why would any Terran agency (ie: the UP) think the Protoss are peaceful or benevolent when all that they know up to that point was their first direct contact being the burning of Chau Sara?

I thought of a new question too. Would the UP be able to understand the fall of Tarsonis as it happened or as Mengsk narrated it?

What do you mean by "as it happened"? Like as if the Zerg just made a beeline to Tarsonis for no particular reason other than just wanting to? Would this have been any different to how Mengsk would've spun it? Did Mengsk add in a layer to it by saying the Confeds were partially responsible for the Zerg coming to Tarsonis? Whatever the case was, it allowed all the disparate Terrans to become a more unified force for a time.

In my original milscifi universe, the protoss-expies are significantly more advanced than the terran-expies but I've contrived various circumstances preventing them from simply incinerating human space.

I get that but I'm asking why are you having to make contrivances at all when these were the very things you railed at. If you wanted to make them truly equal, one side shouldn't be more advanced in a way to suggest that it's unbalanced. If you have to excuse the vastly more powerful faction from not beating the others from the get-go, is it even meaningful to even focus on the interactions of these three sides in the first place?

WH40K's main factions are each large and powerful and despite despite their varying differences are equal. One exception is the Tau. They're technically piss-weak in terms of size compared to the others and would normally be crushed if any of the major faction focused on them, but given there are so many other larger factions that are legitimate threats to each other, no-one gives a shit about pounding them into dust. And that's ok because WH40K isn't all about the Tau or any one faction being more powerful. Whereas with your setup, you deliberately focus on humans, bugs and highly advanced aliens but the latter is vastly more powerful than the other two. If the "highly advanced aliens" are too busy fighting off other threats to kill the humans and bugs, why are we focusing on the humans and bugs to begin with and not one of the other opponents that the highly advanced aliens are fighting? How is this "better" than what we got?

And please, don't take this as destructive criticism. I'm asking genuinely out of interest and partly to "hold a mirror" to your position given your strong opinions about other things (ie: Sc) being irrevocably and technically "bad".

[Nissa]

I never disputed this nor said the Protoss are antagonistic. I dispute the fact that Terrans and Protoss would ever reach amicable grounds. The Protoss don't give a shit about the Terrans and the Terrans will always hold resentment against the Protoss for their attack. In such a scenario, any future TvP encounter would likely have the Terrans be the aggressor in most cases with the Protoss justifying any action against the Terrans as "defending" themselves from hostile lesser beings.

Probably. But again, read what I actually wrote. I never said that relations would be overall amicable. I'm saying realistically that the two could not have prolonged war against each other, at least in the short term. With the Zerg and internal conflicts on both sides, it's simply logical that they would set this aside for more pressing matters. Although yes, definitely the instigators would be human. Probably a group of people angry that their leaders aren't dealing with the fact that the Protoss' actions were never avenged.

I've been reading a ton of real world politics these days, and well, even a country hates another, that does not mean either side desires war.

Please remember that my position is limited to what we know from the manual up to and before the events of Sc1's game story in order to explain why TvP would be justified over the long term. I'm not saying it can't change but even so, the changes would only be at a micro level (individual groups/people like Tass' force and Raynor's crew). There was a realisation that the Zerg were the main enemy and a need to team-up in SC1 what with the last mission having Raynor involved, but you have to keep in mind that Raynor and Tassadar were sort of outliers of the people they represented. The larger institutions of their respective races (ie: Terran Dominion and Khalai Protoss society) would've still harboured distrust of each other.

Well, my position isn't limited to pre-game information. I'm saying that both the Dominion and the KMC have logical reasons to put aside their misgivings for the time being (ie in a hypothetical second expansion). If you're in doubt about specifically the Umojans forming alliances with Protoss, well, they're the minority of humans in the sector, and I can see real world reasons why someone in that much hatred of the Confederacy would find technologically advanced outsiders appealing. It makes sense to me on a level of hatred of one's own nation, or a powerful nation with international influence. Other than these feelings and estimations, however, I can't really explain why Blizzard thought it was such a good idea to make Umojans that interested in Protoss. They simply never explained it.

I thought of a new question too. Would the UP be able to understand the fall of Tarsonis as it happened or as Mengsk narrated it?

Uh...let's see...obviously they would have seen broadcasts. From the outside looking in, it might look as if both the Protoss and Zerg were after Tarsonis, and the Zerg are just the ones who made it in the end, before the Protoss destroyed the planet. I guess this depends on how much outsiders know of Mengsk's involvement. Probably they wouldn't know that he was defending the Zerg, but I don't think he could have hidden fighting with the Protoss.

[Mislagnissa]

WH40K's main factions are each large and powerful and despite despite their varying differences are equal. One exception is the Tau. They're technically piss-weak in terms of size compared to the others and would normally be crushed if any of the major faction focused on them, but given there are so many other larger factions that are legitimate threats to each other, no-one gives a shit about pounding them into dust. And that's ok because WH40K isn't all about the Tau or any one faction being more powerful.

I don't know what you've been reading, but the factions are not equal. The Imperium controls millions of worlds and is easily the largest side. ("Faction" isn't really accurate, since a faction is "a small organized dissenting group within a larger one, especially in politics.") The reason why the Imperium doesn't obliterate all the aliens is due largely to things like the impossibly huge bureaucracy, their lack of a scientific community, and sheer incompetence. And because if they won, then out-of-universe there wouldn't be anymore worthwhile lore.

I get that but I'm asking why are you having to make contrivances at all when these were the very things you railed at. If you wanted to make them truly equal, one side shouldn't be more advanced in a way to suggest that it's unbalanced. If you have to excuse the vastly more powerful faction from not beating the others from the get-go, is it even meaningful to even focus on the interactions of these three sides in the first place?

But I'm not trying to make them equal. I never was. Their current forces are equal, yes, because it's lore for an RTS project. I like writing lore that is consistent with gameplay.

Under the scenario I proposed, the protoss-expies would inevitably win unless the bugs have time to get the determinant and properly R&D it. That's the entire reason why I settled on a fixed timeline. Either the bugs eat humanity and then destroy the protoss-expies, or they don't. In the later case, humanity either brokers a peace with the protoss-expies or is benevolently enslaved.

No, exploring the interactions isn't meaningful. No more than The Diary of Anne Frank is meaningful, at any rate.

Whereas with your setup, you deliberately focus on humans, bugs and highly advanced aliens but the latter is vastly more powerful than the other two. If the "highly advanced aliens" are too busy fighting off other threats to kill the humans and bugs, why are we focusing on the humans and bugs to begin with and not one of the other opponents that the highly advanced aliens are fighting? How is this "better" than what we got?

Firstly, I'm pretty sure that's exactly what we got in SC, at least if we're reading the manual which states pretty much that exact thing. I'm not writing anything better, except insofar as I want to address other perceived flaws in Blizzard's writing.

Secondly, I can ask you the same question. Why focus on the human/bug conflict and not one of the bazillion others going on? The simple answer is that I don't want to because that tangent doesn't interest me.

And please, don't take this as destructive criticism. I'm asking genuinely out of interest and partly to "hold a mirror" to your position given your strong opinions about other things (ie: Sc) being irrevocably and technically "bad".

I don't recall criticizing SC for depicting the protoss as too advanced. I criticized SC for depicting power levels inconsistently, treating its setting like an Etch A Sketch, and writing Sues.

My problem is, by contrast, contriving answers to your well-reasoned questions. Unlike Blizzard, I actually care about consistency. I have to give the protoss-expies superior tech in the lore because, in the RTS project I'm part of, their design involves fielding a small number of powerful units compared to the other sides in the game. Otherwise the lore would be utterly disconnected from the gameplay. Furthermore, making them perfectly equal is just plain boring to me.

I'm first setting constraints out-of-universe and then trying to justify them in-universe with convincing reasons. You don't seem to buy into that premise in the first place. In the end, these things happen because I'm the author and I can write what I want. The reason why I criticize SC has less to do with the actual events depicted in-universe and more to do with Blizzard's disregard for quality storytelling and their disrespect for their audience's intelligence.

The scenario I desire is one in which the bugs are trying to assimilate humanity as the determinant in their war against the space elves. Other scenarios are possible (e.g. the plots of any three-sided RTS like Atrox, StarFront, Dark Planet, Rise of Legends, Universe at War, Dune, Command & Conquer, etc), and I won't discount exploring them eventually, but I wanted to explore that particular one because I find it an interesting avenue of exploration (read: I'm still butthurt that Metzen botched it). None of explanations I provide convince you it's worth making in the first place.

What explanation would you personally find convincing?

[Mislagnissa]

I’m reading the Vang series by Christopher Rowley. It was a direct inspiration for Halo and probably plenty other scifi.

Anyway, in the first book Starhammer, it’s basically the same plot as the determinant with a few tweaks. Humanity has already been conquered by advanced aliens, so somebody is looking for the Starhammer (a superweapon that causes stars to go nova) to defeat the aliens and emancipate humanity.

I can easily add Starhammers as macguffins to my story as a convenient way to explain why humanity “wins” the conflict. Some archaeologists find a Starhammer and extort the aliens into backing off.

Would that work?

Not to invalidate my previous question, though. If you have any other suggestions, then I’d like to read them nonetheless.

[Turalyon]

I'm saying realistically that the two could not have prolonged war against each other, at least in the short term.

Well, my position isn't limited to pre-game information.

I don't disagree with your conjecture here but it doesn't actually address my initial argument, which was about the short term from the get-go and having limited information at hand. To refresh: I started off pointing how it is somewhat odd that the UP would think the Protoss benevolent when first contact with the Protoss involved what looked like a genocidal act given that all the information we had at the time was only in the manual.

From the outside looking in, it might look as if both the Protoss and Zerg were after Tarsonis, and the Zerg are just the ones who made it in the end, before the Protoss destroyed the planet.

The Protoss didn't burn Tarsonis. It was the point at which Tassadar decided against using that action. One can only imagine what would've happened had Tassadar just continued burning the planet like he did before...

I don't know what you've been reading, but the factions are not equal.

I meant it in terms of relative power. The Ork and Tyranid outnumber the Imperium of Man whilst the Eldar do not but that is not the only metric as to which we can compare how equal they are. You don't have that when the "highly advanced alien" you propose is greater in number (I assume your keeping the vast galactic empire part that the SC manual hinted that the Protoss supposedly had), has been around far longer and technologically superior on many levels of magnitude compared to the few colonies of the "humans". In terms of relative strength, the "humans" are sort of equivalent to WH40k's T'au whereas your "highly advanced aliens" are equivalent to the Imperium of Man, with the further difference that your "humans" don't have superior technology over the "highly advanced aliens" whereas the T'au do compared to the Imperium of Man. In a direct match-up, the "humans" would be toast.

But I'm not trying to make them equal. I never was. Their current forces are equal, yes, because it's lore for an RTS project.

But they have to be equal "enough" in order to justify a prolonged three-way conflict... something that you felt Sc squandered/was lacking in, right?

Under the scenario I proposed, the protoss-expies would inevitably win unless the bugs have time to get the determinant and properly R&D it. That's the entire reason why I settled on a fixed timeline. Either the bugs eat humanity and then destroy the protoss-expies, or they don't. In the later case, humanity either brokers a peace with the protoss-expies or is benevolently enslaved.

Ok, cool. More questions: What do you conceive as a total victory for the humans in this setup? Is it even realistically possible without it reeking of contrivance? If Terrans can win via this contrivance, how would this be better than what we got with Sc (which you claim is to be so riddle with contrivance that it's irrevocably bad)? EDIT: I missed your next post before replying to this...

Firstly, I'm pretty sure that's exactly what we got in SC, at least if we're reading the manual which states pretty much that exact thing. I'm not writing anything better, except insofar as I want to address other perceived flaws in Blizzard's writing.

Secondly, I can ask you the same question. Why focus on the human/bug conflict and not one of the bazillion others going on? The simple answer is that I don't want to because that tangent doesn't interest me.

Oh ok, it's just that you've been going on about how the in-universe/Watsonian verisimilitude in the Sc we got being inconsistent or lacking in that department. I was just trying to apply that perspective here on your project.

I have to give the protoss-expies superior tech in the lore because, in the RTS project I'm part of, their design involves fielding a small number of powerful units compared to the other sides in the game. Otherwise the lore would be utterly disconnected from the gameplay. Furthermore, making them perfectly equal is just plain boring to me.

Well, I'm only asking about the lore side of things anyway. And when I said equal, I didn't mean they had to be balanced gameplay wise or essentially carbon copies of each other, just that there had to be something there to maintain/justify a protracted war that was longer than that depicted in the Sc we got. I know you've always thought that the setup in Sc suggested a prolonged three-way war but I'm trying to put forth a counter perspective that it never really did suggest a prolonged war (in part by citing the relatively large difference in power levels of the three sides as the reason why) and for you to consider that and perhaps offer a rebuttal to my counter in turn.

I'm first setting constraints out-of-universe and then trying to justify them in-universe with convincing reasons. You don't seem to buy into that premise in the first place.

It's not that I don't buy it, not that you'd care if I did or not really! I'm actually fine with what you're doing. I'm just trying to hold you to the same standard that you held Sc to (which you found wanting) but without the vitriol. Nothing more. Just consider my questions as me being curious rather than with a malicious intent if that helps.

Anyway, in the first book Starhammer, it’s basically the same plot as the determinant with a few tweaks. Humanity has already been conquered by advanced aliens, so somebody is looking for the Starhammer (a superweapon that causes stars to go nova) to defeat the aliens and emancipate humanity.

I can easily add Starhammers as macguffins to my story as a convenient way to explain why humanity “wins” the conflict. Some archaeologists find a Starhammer and extort the aliens into backing off.

Would that work?

You would be forced to rely on contrivance to make the humans "win" when they're technically weaker than the other sides, which is something I thought you may have had an aversion, too but eh, whatever. Were we not limited to making it a gameplay sort of thing we're a traditional win is expected, we could look to other avenues/alternatives to what would constitute a win for the humans. That could end up being allying with the "highly advanced aliens" or somehow manipulating things such that the "highly advanced alien" and "bugs" destroy each other leaving the "humans" as winners by default.

[Mislagnissa]

It's not that I don't buy it, not that you'd care if I did or not really! I'm actually fine with what you're doing. I'm just trying to hold you to the same standard that you held Sc to (which you found wanting) but without the vitriol. Nothing more. Just consider my questions as me being curious rather than with a malicious intent if that helps.

I’m sorry. I’m so exasperated with SC that I lash out at the innocent. That’s on me.

I’m trying to write military scifi. I selected the determinant scenario as my constraint because I find it more interesting than the three sides being equal and attacking one another indiscriminately as in every other RTS plot.

I appreciate having you around to point out the flaws. My brain is currently having trouble finding them.

So we’ve listed “office politics”, “pulling their punches”, and “stolen super weapons,” as reasons why the elves don’t win before the story even starts. With varying degrees of believability. Can we think of more reasons?

[Nissa]

I don't disagree with your conjecture here but it doesn't actually address my initial argument, which was about the short term from the get-go and having limited information at hand. To refresh: I started off pointing how it is somewhat odd that the UP would think the Protoss benevolent when first contact with the Protoss involved what looked like a genocidal act given that all the information we had at the time was only in the manual.

Ah, well, I guess I kinda went astray there. But really, there's no reason to think that the UP's beliefs in the manual started that way in the game. Sometimes manuals just give off information that is pertinent for the story, and obviously the UP couldn't have an opinion on the Protoss before they knew about them. I mean, we can argue about it if we want to, but it all comes down to the fact that Blizz never clarified that point.

The Protoss didn't burn Tarsonis. It was the point at which Tassadar decided against using that action. One can only imagine what would've happened had Tassadar just continued burning the planet like he did before...

Actually, there were a couple of planets that Tassdar burned after allowing humans to leave. They talk about it in the text between missions. I was pretty sure that Tarsonis was one of those planets, but I could be mixing it up with another.





Nobody else has any speculation or thoughts on the KMC/UP? Any opinions? Remember any fan theories from back in the day?

[Mislagnissa]

Nobody else has any speculation or thoughts on the KMC/UP? Any opinions? Remember any fan theories from back in the day?

It’s difficult to care about this franchise when Blizzard screwed up the lore so thoroughly.

I’d probably care more if Mengsk and Kerry were aborted from time.

[Turalyon]

Actually, there were a couple of planets that Tassdar burned after allowing humans to leave. They talk about it in the text between missions. I was pretty sure that Tarsonis was one of those planets, but I could be mixing it up with another.

Really? I think the game story suggests that Tassadar's force was pretty much devastated after the incident on Tarsonis. Mission 2 of the Zerg campaign Egression mentions "remnants of the Protoss fleet" in the briefing and the text between the end of this mission and the start of the next mention them being "beaten and scattered". It kinda also explains why Tass becomes stuck on Char and needs help later on.

Also, even if Tass still had enough ships to continue burning Terran worlds, him going about doing that after the debacle at Tarsonis wouldn't be consistent with his supposed change of heart about burning worlds/his action of attempting to fight the Zerg on Tarsonis