Big Change to QCRF : To become BAF

[ioha]

Hm, this'll certainly bring some fresh air to good ol' Bretonia.

I'd go with BAF) as the tag, it avoids confusions with the indies and would create some more unison with BPA.:)

Anyways, best of luck with the BAF, Dieter.

---

Sebastian Goldig | Carlos "Coyote" Wells | Joshua Cooper
Colony News Service | Bretonian Royal Court | Characters & Biographies | Signatures & Designs

[Cawdor]

what ever tag you are going to use, PLEASE use a special char like ( [ * = or anything else in the front of the name so its easier to sort out in the players list. I still regret that my faction uses the VF) tag with no special char at the front.

---

.

.

[bluntpencil2001]

Release me from jail, and I'm in.

I'll think of a better Privateer subtitle.

---

[beander2]

Hi Dieter - First, I'm PM-ing you the faction info we've developed so you can see perhaps a fuller story and rationale behind the Federalists.

Well, this sort of pulls half the rug out from under us, but not fully. Our group is (theoretically) a coalition of political leaders, workers and labor advocates, scholars, and former government pilots, all with different, but allied, interests:

1. We work for full democracy in Bretonia based in a federal system of government (hence the name)
2. We therefore seek the dismantling of the monarchy, but also the military industrial complex that supports it.
3. We seek to bring down BMM as it currently operates, with neglect for its own employees and the environment of Bretonian space, and also in exclusive service to the Crown.
4. Points 2 and 3 mean that we strike at BMM trade, which is currently in process. This includes trade interdiction but even nonviolent persuasion of traders to stop doing business with BMM (and yes, this has happened). (We don't like Bowex either, but at this point there's not a pressing need to strike at them.)

Basically, we're a combination of Bundschuh and Unioners, only Bretonian. Our operations are primarily political rather than combat (though there is inevitably combat), and we also have a trade wing for revenue.

I'm not entirely sure about being absorbed, since we're not primarily about combat. Also, the governmental changes would have to be far more extensive than you've suggested here for the Federalists to agree to disband.

Speaking for myself, let me first wish you luck with BAF - we'll do whatever we can as a group and as individuals to support you. Second, I'd be open to other ideas and plans to change things, but I don't know that I'm ready to give up on the Feds yet, especially now with Molly players being mostly inactive.

But again, I'm open to discussion.

---

Sir Alisdair Buchanan, KBE ~ Gateway)Trafalgar

[Cawdor]

Release me from jail, and I'm in.

I'll think of a better Privateer subtitle.

oi, boss! need a SIC for the privateers?

---

.

.

[Thexare]

Ugh. More unilateral faction naming.

Oh well.

For the Privateers, you could go with a different acronym instead - in fact, if you ask me, Queen Carina's Privateers sounds better than anything else I can come up with, I'd leave 'em as that. Alternately, a simple -P, similar to what I've seen on some of the LR players, would save space if you have to go with a suffix.

The Guards seem relatively pointless to me as a seperate group; even if they do exist, I wouldn't bother with any changes to the name. I'd say you should keep the Privateers though.

[beander2]

As far as naming conventions go, I've sort of seen Faction)----- as a Bretonian model. I see Rheinland using the brackets more, as far as house forces go.

---

Sir Alisdair Buchanan, KBE ~ Gateway)Trafalgar

[bluntpencil2001]

oi, boss! need a SIC for the privateers?

Sweet! I'm in charge again?! Excellent. Depends on Stoat though. He's been doing a good job in spite of inactivity.

---

[Dieter Schprokets]

I hope our contracts with the QCRF will stay valid with the BAF as new contractors?

And yes, the guard thing is a little too much I think.

Of course, just as they survived the loss of SF:)

---

[beander2]

Something I'm not quite clear on: Why does this move with BAF - and I fully support you there, Dieter - require a change in the political situation, thereby removing one of the FED's main reasons for existing? Why can't BAF continue to be under a strong monarchy, just newly reorganized?

Again, I'm open to discussion and new ideas, but I'd like to know this first.

---

Sir Alisdair Buchanan, KBE ~ Gateway)Trafalgar