NS Military Realism Consultation Thread

by **Jagalonia** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 2:02 pm

In WW2, German soldiers were known to have grenades in their boots....It's not a totaly foreign concept. Also, one grenade can make a huge difference, if every soldier is carrying that one extra grenade.

Think of it this way, A brigade of Jagalonian soldiers, is 1106 troops total, with leadership. That would be an extra 1106 grenades to throw at the enemy.

by **Trivval** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 7:44 pm

Can I just get you guys to look over this. The THA's contribution to the Foreign Expeditionary Force is shown below. Trivval only has a total combat force of Five Million, so thus the THA only has Fifty Three (give or take) Combat Brigades.

Introduction: Army XI has been created to replace the old Army XXC that has been in place since the 1980s. Army XI follows the new orders filtering through the Defense Act 2005 and the creation of the DEF300 program to begin the creation of Trivval’s new Defense Force – now known as the Trivvalian Holy Armed Forces, or THAF. The DEF300 program cuts down the total number of the Army and abolishes the Air Force altogether, merging the two as one as to support the new doctrine being set forth.

Army XI is intended to reduce the total fighting force of the Trivvalian Holy Army however increase the training and effectiveness of the force as a whole. The THA has been decreased to two million men based in two Armies and one Army Group. The new doctrine that the DEF300 program is implementing now requires the Army to change the way it fights. The small military allows the average budget given to the Ministry of Defense to better spend its money amongst a smaller population of soldiers, providing better military training and equipment. Thus, the THAF aims to become the best soldiers within the region, sacrificing Quantity for Quality.

The Religious Democracy has finally come to the realisation that it is no longer the smallest within the region. No more does Trivval need to respond to threats such as petty attacks and invasions for colonial space – now Trivval has the ability to fight upon battlefields of her own choosing, and with this the Army is changing the way it fights. A large military is no longer needed, nor wished, and thus the Holy Army is faced with the prospect of fighting a battle where the enemy is greatly superior in numbers. As thus, the Army is adopting a form of Asymmetrical Warfare as a standard in any battle that is to be fought by the Army. Gone are the ideals of large tank battles that border on the historic with armoured divisions smashing head to head.

In fact, gone is the conventional form of the ‘Battle Division’. No longer does the Holy Army employ Divisions as combat forces. On an Asymmetrical Battlefield one has to deploy swiftly, a continue as a mobile force. The divisions are too large and too unwieldy to support the momentum required to fight a battle where the numerical odds are dramatically stacked against them, and thus have been marked as redundant. The Brigades are being formed up as the largest ‘concrete’ force, with other organisation above that such as the ‘Brigade Group’ becoming fluid as a structure that can form, split and dissolve without a mountain of organisation and planning.

Doctrine: The now dramatically smaller THA has to cope with always being the smaller force in a fight. Thus the Ministry of Defense, with the DEF300 program, has drawn up a set of guidelines that the THA is set to put in place for any conflict.

Organic deployable units.

Due to the removal of the Divisional level in the THA Combat forces, every brigade must be able to support itself in any conflict. Each battalion must organically include medical staff, logistics and heavier weapons once reserved for the brigade. Everything must be brought down a level so that the Brigade has the ability to punch above it’s weight. On top of this, each Brigade must be able to deploy within thirty-six hours. Fight a mobile war.

Due to the decreased size of the fighting force, the THA has to aim to fight at an engagement it decides. A standing fight could not be sustained for long with the lack of Divisional support, even with the upgraded brigade firepower. Every avenue that can be exploited must be exploited. Full Communications Overload.

Each brigade must be able to fight an electronic war. To be able to fight a war on our fronts we must be able to intercept, confuse and interrupt enemy communications. The THA has to remove the enemies command capabilities and each unit’s ability to effectively communicate with other elements of the opposing force. Without inter-element communications we can fight our war where we want, when we want. Step into the Next Generation.

When possible the THA must conduct fourth-generation warfare. In an effort to combat the large difference between force size when at a significant disadvantage the THA must fight a Guerrilla War. Each unit has the capability to break down and fight an insurgency within any nation, fighting a low-intensity conflict in an effort to tie up resources while support arrives in the theatre. The THA must also incorporate PsyOps units within each Brigade at a minimum. The Trivvalian Holy Army will fight on a multi-spectral level in an effort to attack the target’s very culture and convince the opponent that a war, any war against the THA is too costly to maintain. Cheat.

With the incorporation of the Air Force into the THA, several squadrons of the Holy Army Aviation, or HAA for short, have been brought down to Brigade level as to provide a close air support for the Brigade when it is on operations. Obviously these Squadrons need a landing field with the capabilities to support the planes and personnel, and are often based with several other squadrons at a larger Aerodrome or HAA Base. Along with this, the THA fights along a thin moral line, going along the basis that the opposing force won’t cross the line into international condemnation. Given Trivval’s isolationist tendencies it matters not the international opinion of the Religious Democracy. Where something can be exploited, no matter the moral or social implications it must be done.

Brigade Group Seven
Commanding Officer: Major General Kalier Badan Jessut
Total Personnel: 45'344

Five Brigade Group
Commanding Officer: Major General Sevvi Lest
Total Personnel: 45'344

Eighth Brigade Group
Commanding Officer: Brigadier Jullian Deseri
Total Personnel:

Special Operations

Sixth Army Aviation Wing
Commanding Officer: Major General Harris Levau
Total Personnel: 45'334

Fourth Army Aviation Wing
Commanding Officer: Major General Neste Juilian Vicres
Total Personnel: 45'334

by **Fischermann** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 9:47 pm

Standard Loadout of a Conscript in the Fischermann National Army

1- ARM-100 Rifle, 7.62mm or KA-73 Rifle, 7.62mm or PMW-M983 Rifle, 7.62mm
2- Fischermann Standard Issue Bulletproof Vest, integrated magazine rig
3- Sleeping Bag
4- Gloves
5- Socks
6- Military Issue Boots
7- Camo Fatigues
8- Military Issue Ushanka
9- Military Issue Backpack that keeps the MRE, sleeping bag, spare outfit and cleaning bag inside
10- MRE's
11- Knife Holster
12- Multipurpose Knife

by **Ponistan** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 11:37 pm

United low territories wrote:I think compring with the US doesn't go far enough if a country is at war, a country actively defending itself would have a much bigger fighting force than one that's basically at peace. The US spends way more on its military than most countries (proportionally speaking, in absolute numbers they spend more than anybody period), but it's only a lot for a country not currently under attack.

The United States has been involved with some war or foreign conflict or another near constantly since World War II.

Tehraan wrote:My nation alone has a military budged that dwarfs the RL USA's one by far. And my military budget is in no way impressive compared to some NS nations out there. I say comparing to the USA might even not be good enough for the average NS military power.

-St George wrote:Disagreed, mainly because many NS nations have (according to calcs at least) military budgets much much higher than the US's is, so, in theory at least, they can have similar sized armed forces.

The United States military budget is 42% of the entire world's military budgets. If every other nation on NationStates has greater military might than the United States, then that means you have to scale it down for comparison, meaning you'd be looking at above average nations at the absolute best. Otherwise you're just trying to show off how super awesome and kickass your military is with no regards to how realistic that is when compared to OTHER hyperpowerful militaries.

Oh, and if you want to go around measuring e-peen by how big your military is, through either numbers or budget, keep in mind that the US spends roughly only 4% of it's GDP on the military, and the armed forces total size are relatively smaller compared to even third world countries. As an example, before the Gulf War back in the early '90s, Iraq had the fourth largest military in the world and devoted a sizable chunk of it's GDP to the military. The USA kicked it's ass in under a month.

by **-St George** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 1:28 am

Ponistan wrote:
United low territories wrote:I think compring with the US doesn't go far enough if a country is at war, a country actively defending itself would have a much bigger fighting force than one that's basically at peace. The US spends way more on its military than most countries (proportionally speaking, in absolute numbers they spend more than anybody period), but it's only a lot for a country not currently under attack.

The United States has been involved with some war or foreign conflict or another near constantly since World War II.

Tehraan wrote:My nation alone has a military budged that dwarfs the RL USA's one by far. And my military budget is in no way impressive compared to some NS nations out there. I say comparing to the USA might even not be good enough for the average NS military power.

-St George wrote:Disagreed, mainly because many NS nations have (according to calcs at least) military budgets much much higher than the US's is, so, in theory at least, they can have similar sized armed forces.

The United States military budget is 42% of the entire world's military budgets. If every other nation on NationStates has greater military might than the United States, then that means you have to scale it down for comparison, meaning you'd be looking at above average nations at the absolute best. Otherwise you're just trying to show off how super awesome and kickass your military is with no regards to how realistic that is when compared to OTHER hyperpowerful militaries.

Oh, and if you want to go around measuring e-peen by how big your military is, through either numbers or budget, keep in mind that the US spends roughly only 4% of it's GDP on the military, and the armed forces total size are relatively smaller compared to even third world countries. As an example, before the Gulf War back in the early '90s, Iraq had the fourth largest military in the world and devoted a sizable chunk of it's GDP to the military. The USA kicked it's ass in under a month.

The US kicked it's ass? I was under the impression that there were almost 30 countries involved.

Your lack of historical knowledge aside, if the money is there (through either calcs or your own derived economy), then they can use it.

by **Ponistan** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 1:37 am

-St George wrote:The US kicked it's ass? I was under the impression that there were almost 30 countries involved.

Fair enough.

Addendum: The United States only lead the 34 state coalition and only provided the vast majority of the forces.

Please forgive me for my horrible slight.

Your lack of historical knowledge aside, if the money is there (through either calcs or your own derived economy), then they can use it.

I'm not saying they can't. I'm saying that you have to scale down if you want something realistic. And, oh look! This is the realism consultation thread.

by **-St George** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 1:47 am

Ponistan wrote:
-St George wrote:The US kicked it's ass? I was under the impression that there were almost 30 countries involved.

Fair enough.

Addendum: The United States only lead the 34 state coalition and only provided the vast majority of the forces.

Please forgive me for my horrible slight.

Your lack of historical knowledge aside, if the money is there (through either calcs or your own derived economy), then they can use it.

I'm not saying they can't. I'm saying that you have to scale down if you want something realistic. And, oh look! This is the realism consultation thread.

And who says US sized military spending is unrealistic? NS is much, much, much more militarised than the real world, and when every man and his dog has a Longsword or whatever that king of military spending is both justified and realistic.

by **Ponistan** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 2:11 am

-St George wrote:And who says US sized military spending is unrealistic? NS is much, much, much more militarised than the real world, and when every man and his dog has a Longsword or whatever that king of military spending is both justified and realistic.

Actually, you have a good point. Third world countries are often highly militarized, constantly in a state of war, and... well even most of those don't spend more than 2% of their GDP on military spending.

Military spending in absolute numbers.
Military spending by percentage of GDP.

by **Immoren** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 2:21 am

Jagalonia wrote:
Immoren wrote:I was wondering your opininion on this. Similarly to finnish defence manouvre brigades, my nation's manouvre brigades are suported by artillery regiment instead of artillery battalion. But would amount of guns in single brigade grow too large if I use eight gun batteries similar to anglo-saxon(?) world, instead of six gun batteries finnish defence forces uses?
Amount of gun per brigade on paper would be 72.
edit IE 1 regiment, with->3 Battalions, each with->3 batteries, each with->8 guns

Artillery assets are always important. If you can keep them supplied, and behind the frontline, you shouldn't have many problems. Also, you would want to attach some light, or mechanized infantry to your artillery battallions, so they aren't completely defenseless if they get attacked...Unless you use self-propelled guns, then you would be attaching some armoured units.

I know arty (and mortars) are important. I have in my free time studied military history, tech and so forth and take active participation to few military forums. And I served few years ago im Finnish defence forces.
It's just that when making own formations I always think, do this have too many men or too few? too much arty? Too little logistics base?
And guestion this time was "Too many guns per manouvre brigade?" You said, If you can keep them supplied and safe, no problem?
As I said those arty regiments are part of part of manouvre brigades, and battlegroups (independent overstrenght battalions) have arty battalion (and mortar company). And I have propably missed something, but I have understood that if enemy somehow gets into arty units, arty crews are their own self-defence.

by **The Anglo-Saxon Empire** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 9:02 am

Ponistan wrote:
-St George wrote:And who says US sized military spending is unrealistic? NS is much, much, much more militarised than the real world, and when every man and his dog has a Longsword or whatever that king of military spending is both justified and realistic.

Actually, you have a good point. Third world countries are often highly militarized, constantly in a state of war, and... well even most of those don't spend more than 2% of their GDP on military spending.

Military spending in absolute numbers.
Military spending by percentage of GDP.

Before the First World War (and politics in NS is very similar to late 19th early 20th century politics) most western nations had massive militaries that compared to even WW2 militaries in terms of heavy equipment was absurd. The Royal Navy used two have a policy where they MUST outnumber the next two navies combined and as a result they pumped out battleships in their dozens. Between 1880 and 1905 the Royal navy made 63 pre-dreadnoughts, during that entire time they were pretty much involved in no major conflicts that would warrant even one battleship, let alone dozens. From 1905-1946 the RN made over 40 dreadnoughts (does not include battlecruisers) and would have made more if it wasn't for the treaties between the world wars that cancelled the N3 and G3 class battleships and battlecruisers.

Now, you might say "but a battleship isn't an aircraft carrier or division of tanks.", but at the time they were, battleships were the carriers of the 20th century, they were used for everything from power projection (Teddy Roosevelt had a bunch of US battleships sail around the world and stop at several major ports), to using force against lesser nation (gunboat diplomacy). Pretty much in the modern world it isn't that the US is super strong it is that everyone is super weak. If you look at the far east like China, Korea, and Japan they are beginning to increase their military capabilities with new tanks (type 10 and K2 (which they are considering giving an ETC gun in a later variant having ditched a 140mm gun)), China is developing stealth fighters, meanwhile the West is stagnating militarily with the US and to a far lesser extent Russia being the only countries that are really increasing their capabilities in any way, shape, or form.

The late 20th and 21st centuries have been extremely peaceful with no major wars since WW2, the 19th century had Napoleon, the US civil war, the Taiping Rebellion, the Crimean war, the Opium wars, not to mention cold wars like the Great Game were Britain and Russia vied for influence in the Afghanistan-Iran region. Hell even their guerrilla wars were worse than the wars we bitch and moan about, the second Boer war cost about 44,000 British soldiers, 300,000 horses, 27,000 civilians, and 9,000 Boer militants.

My point is that the difference between real life countries and NS countries is that RL countries got soft, and NS countries can't afford to get soft.

NS is 20th century warfare using 21st century technology caused by 19th century problems.

by **Tehraan** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 9:11 am

Tehraan wrote:My nation alone has a military budged that dwarfs the RL USA's one by far. And my military budget is in no way impressive compared to some NS nations out there. I say comparing to the USA might even not be good enough for the average NS military power.

The United States military budget is 42% of the entire world's military budgets. If every other nation on NationStates has greater military might than the United States, then that means you have to scale it down for comparison, meaning you'd be looking at above average nations at the absolute best. Otherwise you're just trying to show off how super awesome and kickass your military is with no regards to how realistic that is when compared to OTHER hyperpowerful militaries.

Oh, and if you want to go around measuring e-peen by how big your military is, through either numbers or budget, keep in mind that the US spends roughly only 4% of it's GDP on the military, and the armed forces total size are relatively smaller compared to even third world countries. As an example, before the Gulf War back in the early '90s, Iraq had the fourth largest military in the world and devoted a sizable chunk of it's GDP to the military. The USA kicked it's ass in under a month.[/quote]

Your point being? This is NS not the real world. Most nations can affort having a military on the level RL USA or above. I don't see how I should somehow tune it down because I don't compare to nations like Allanea in terms of military. Doesn't mean must have a military less powerful in equipment and spending compaired to the RL USA's miltary. I think the reasons behind this and such are already explained well enough by othera such as The Anglo-Saxon Empire

by **Ponistan** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 10:37 am

The Anglo-Saxon Empire wrote:The late 20th and 21st centuries have been extremely peaceful with no major wars since WW2, the 19th century had Napoleon, the US civil war, the Taiping Rebellion, the Crimean war, the Opium wars, not to mention cold wars like the Great Game were Britain and Russia vied for influence in the Afghanistan-Iran region. Hell even their guerrilla wars were worse than the wars we bitch and moan about, the second Boer war cost about 44,000 British soldiers, 300,000 horses, 27,000 civilians, and 9,000 Boer militants.

Iraq War - Upwards of a million casualties.
Somali Civil War - Hundreds of thousands of casualties.
The various wars in Afghanistan that have constantly engulfed the country for decades - Over a million casualties.
Mexican Drug War - About 40,000 casualties.
The Korean War (which still hasn't ended) - A few million casualties.
Conflicts in the Kashmir regions of India and Pakisan - About 100,000 casualties
Israel/Palestine conflicts - Roughly 15,000 casualties.
Kurd uprisings in Turkey and Iraq - Upwards of 100,000 casualties.
Myanmar internal conflicts - Over 100,000 casualties.
Colombian wars against the cartels and revolutionaries - A couple hundred thousand casualties.
Libyan Civil War - About 20,000 casualties.

THESE are just wars that are happening right now at this very moment, and it's not even a complete list.

My point is that the difference between real life countries and NS countries is that RL countries got soft, and NS countries can't afford to get soft.

You've got it wrong. The real world didn't get soft. It can't afford a big war. Do you realize that even without nuclear weapons, even tactical nukes, or any WMD of any sort, if the great powers of the world got into a true, total war, then World War II would look like a field trip to Candyland? I'm talking about hundreds of millions of people being trained to kill with semi-automatic rifles before the conflict even really gets fully rolling, and that's just for starters. The entire world would be devastated, and again, this is sans the WMDs.

NS is 20th century warfare using 21st century technology caused by 19th century problems.

That... doesn't make sense.

Tehraan wrote:Your point being? This is NS not the real world. Most nations can affort having a military on the level RL USA or above. I don't see how I should somehow tune it down because I don't compare to nations like Allanea in terms of military. Doesn't mean must have a military less powerful in equipment and spending compaired to the RL USA's miltary. I think the reasons behind this and such are already explained well enough by othera such as The Anglo-Saxon Empire

You are completely, 100% correct. You can do whatever the hell you want with your country and it's no skin off my nose.

The issue at hand is that this is the realism thread. You CAN do all of this and have h00j militaries with epically huge battles and superpowers going to war with each other at the drop of a hat, but what you can't do is say that it's realistic.

by **Cybus1** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 10:45 am

Could Cybermen from Docter Who work? I mean the Cybus Industries ones not the older ones?also any Cybermen type unit suggestions?

by **G3rmania (Ancient)** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 10:53 am

Not to mention it can be hard pressed to find someone willing to RP in that kind of battle..

Like I saw someone say they used 1,000 helicopters to attack and destroy someone's navy..the logistics and odds of that happening are astounding.

5% of my population is in the military, which gives me over 800,000 Guardsmen to use. I would never say something like;

"G3rmania's military mobilized and 800,000 guardsmen charged across the border, overwhelming the enemy with sheer numbers."

A government NEVER commits all of its troops to use, they use small task forces.

by **Hannait** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 11:28 am

The Anglo-Saxon Empire wrote:NS is 20th century warfare using 21st century technology caused by 19th century problems.

You do realize that this quote was a scathing criticism of II?

by **The Anglo-Saxon Empire** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 11:54 am

Ponistan wrote:
The Anglo-Saxon Empire wrote:The late 20th and 21st centuries have been extremely peaceful with no major wars since WW2, the 19th century had Napoleon, the US civil war, the Taiping Rebellion, the Crimean war, the Opium wars, not to mention cold wars like the Great Game were Britain and Russia vied for influence in the Afghanistan-Iran region. Hell even their guerrilla wars were worse than the wars we bitch and moan about, the second Boer war cost about 44,000 British soldiers, 300,000 horses, 27,000 civilians, and 9,000 Boer militants.

Iraq War - Upwards of a million casualties.
Somali Civil War - Hundreds of thousands of casualties.
The various wars in Afghanistan that have constantly engulfed the country for decades - Over a million casualties.
Mexican Drug War - About 40,000 casualties.
The Korean War (which still hasn't ended) - A few million casualties.
Conflicts in the Kashmir regions of India and Pakisan - About 100,000 casualties
Israel/Palestine conflicts - Roughly 15,000 casualties.
Kurd uprisings in Turkey and Iraq - Upwards of 100,000 casualties.
Myanmar internal conflicts - Over 100,000 casualties.
Colombian wars against the cartels and revolutionaries - A couple hundred thousand casualties.
Libyan Civil War - About 20,000 casualties.

THESE are just wars that are happening right now at this very moment, and it's not even a complete list.

Many of these conflicts include almost all civilians, and even then, several of your points are practically grabbing at straws "The Korean War (which still hasn't ended)" if by still hasn't ended you mean one or more parties haven't signed a treaty, using that logic the third Punic lasted over 2,000 years and several other wars have lasted for hundreds of years longer than they should have. Also the Mexican Drug War, the Drug Cartel Conflicts in Columbia, and the constant conflicts in Afghanistan are not wars. In the former two cases it is just like the government fighting crime, using that logic the US has been at war with various murderers since its beginning which has cost the lives of hundreds if thousands, and tons of countries were at constant war in the 19th century, random tribes killing each other doesn't constitute a war.

Napoleonic Wars: 3,350,000-6,500,000
Crimean War: Approximately 500,000
Taiping Rebellion: About 20 million
Boxer Rebellion: About 40,000
Franco-Prussian War: Almost 1 million
Nien Rebellion: About 100,000
Austro-Prussian War: About 100,000
American Civil War: About 600,000
First Second and Third Anglo-Afghan Wars: At least 24,000 (first Anglo-Afghan war was the bloodiest with 12,000 British losses and Afghan losses are unknown)
Spanish-American War: 29,000
Mexican-American War: Just under 30,000
Mahdist War: About 90,000

My point is that the difference between real life countries and NS countries is that RL countries got soft, and NS countries can't afford to get soft.

You've got it wrong. The real world didn't get soft. It can't afford a big war. Do you realize that even without nuclear weapons, even tactical nukes, or any WMD of any sort, if the great powers of the world got into a true, total war, then World War II would look like a field trip to Candyland? I'm talking about hundreds of millions of people being trained to kill with semi-automatic rifles before the conflict even really gets fully rolling, and that's just for starters. The entire world would be devastated, and again, this is sans the WMDs.

Source? Military casualties in wars have remained relatively consistent since the 18th century with the exception of large scale conflicts. Semi-auto weapons didn't change much in the way of losses since artillery and disease have always been the biggest killers in warfare.

NS is 20th century warfare using 21st century technology caused by 19th century problems.

That... doesn't make sense.

Yes it does. Everyone in NS uses 20th century strategy particularly WW2 tactics, strategy, and doctrine, they use stealth fighters, ETC guns, air craft carriers, caseless assault rifles and other 21st century technology, and NS politics are a lot like 19th century politics in that everyone is actually pretty equal militarily.

Tehraan wrote:Your point being? This is NS not the real world. Most nations can affort having a military on the level RL USA or above. I don't see how I should somehow tune it down because I don't compare to nations like Allanea in terms of military. Doesn't mean must have a military less powerful in equipment and spending compaired to the RL USA's miltary. I think the reasons behind this and such are already explained well enough by othera such as The Anglo-Saxon Empire

You are completely, 100% correct. You can do whatever the hell you want with your country and it's no skin off my nose.

The issue at hand is that this is the realism thread. You CAN do all of this and have h00j militaries with epically huge battles and superpowers going to war with each other at the drop of a hat, but what you can't do is say that it's realistic.

Except you can because NS is a massive scale. Really nations on NS are massive as in 3x China's population and 2x the US GDP per capita being average. Even if they only spent a fraction of their GDP on the military they can have militaries with tens of millions of soldiers and equipment better than the US. Also, unlike the US all NS nations have competition, the US has no reason to have a bigger military, neither does Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Italy, Spain, Belgium, China, or any other major country.

If you want to look at RL countries that are forced to live like NS countries look at Israel and South Korea. Both countries have disproportionately large militaries because they both are under constant threat of war. South Korea has its retarded angry neighbor to the north and Israel has Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Iran, and Iraq threatening them or having fought them in the past. Britain doesn't have to deal with a North Britain that has almost 5% of its people ready to pour over its borders. France isn't going to be invaded by Spain, Germany, Italy, and Britain unless something drastic happens.

by **The Anglo-Saxon Empire** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 12:04 pm

Hannait wrote:
The Anglo-Saxon Empire wrote:NS is 20th century warfare using 21st century technology caused by 19th century problems.

You do realize that this quote was a scathing criticism of II?

Yes, but it is true and it has its reasons.

NS is not like the real world, and thus the only way to have anything make sense to most people is to connect it to something recognizable. There has not yet been a 21st century so NSers frequently use the nearest conflict of an NS like scale WW2. NS countries all have enough resources unless they are voluntarily RPed as third world shit holes so they must fight wars like countries did when several countries were stable and well off but still fought frequent wars, the closest analogue is the 19th century where wars were frequently fought for positioning and influence. Russia didn't want the Crimean peninsula for food or iron or other resources they wanted a port city that wouldn't freeze over. Britain didn't support the Ottoman Empire because they cared about them, they just didn't want Russia to threaten them in the Mediterranean.

In NS wars are more frequently fought for ideology or influence than simple resources or long terms claims to land since there is no internationally defined history and everyone RPs having all the reources they need either through trade or simply having them in their countries.

by **Hannait** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 2:01 pm

The Anglo-Saxon Empire wrote:
Hannait wrote:
You do realize that this quote was a scathing criticism of II?

Yes, but it is true and it has its reasons.

NS is not like the real world, and thus the only way to have anything make sense to most people is to connect it to something recognizable. There has not yet been a 21st century so NSers frequently use the nearest conflict of an NS like scale WW2. NS countries all have enough resources unless they are voluntarily RPed as third world shit holes so they must fight wars like countries did when several countries were stable and well off but still fought frequent wars, the closest analogue is the 19th century where wars were frequently fought for positioning and influence. Russia didn't want the Crimean peninsula for food or iron or other resources they wanted a port city that wouldn't freeze over. Britain didn't support the Ottoman Empire because they cared about them, they just didn't want Russia to threaten them in the Mediterranean.

In NS wars are more frequently fought for ideology or influence than simple resources or long terms claims to land since there is no internationally defined history and everyone RPs having all the reources they need either through trade or simply having them in their countries.

Yes, it's true.

It's also, as the original quote was meant to say, almost always ridiculously stupid, especially when people godmod having surpluses of all resources in the world all the time.

And yet you're using it to try to defend the status quo.

by **-St George** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 2:10 pm

Hannait wrote:
The Anglo-Saxon Empire wrote:Yes, but it is true and it has its reasons.

NS is not like the real world, and thus the only way to have anything make sense to most people is to connect it to something recognizable. There has not yet been a 21st century so NSers frequently use the nearest conflict of an NS like scale WW2. NS countries all have enough resources unless they are voluntarily RPed as third world shit holes so they must fight wars like countries did when several countries were stable and well off but still fought frequent wars, the closest analogue is the 19th century where wars were frequently fought for positioning and influence. Russia didn't want the Crimean peninsula for food or iron or other resources they wanted a port city that wouldn't freeze over. Britain didn't support the Ottoman Empire because they cared about them, they just didn't want Russia to threaten them in the Mediterranean.

In NS wars are more frequently fought for ideology or influence than simple resources or long terms claims to land since there is no internationally defined history and everyone RPs having all the reources they need either through trade or simply having them in their countries.

Yes, it's true.

It's also, as the original quote was meant to say, almost always ridiculously stupid, especially when people godmod having surpluses of all resources in the world all the time.

And yet you're using it to try to defend the status quo.

So do what many of people who actually RP in II do, and RP without the whole 'unlimited resources olololol'. You do know what RPing is like, correct, what with your grand total of 28 posts?

by **Hannait** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 2:22 pm

-St George wrote:
Hannait wrote:
Yes, it's true.

It's also, as the original quote was meant to say, almost always ridiculously stupid, especially when people godmod having surpluses of all resources in the world all the time.

And yet you're using it to try to defend the status quo.

So do what many of people who actually RP in II do, and RP without the whole 'unlimited resources olololol'. You do know what RPing is like, correct, what with your grand total of 28 posts?

Did it never occur to you that, given that I'm speaking with clear experience seeing as I know the origin of the quote used, I am a puppet of a nation who knows a whole lot more than you actually do?

Of course it didn't. You still think that post count means something.

by **Milograd** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 2:36 pm

-St George wrote:So do what many of people who actually RP in II do, and RP without the whole 'unlimited resources olololol'. You do know what RPing is like, correct, what with your grand total of 28 posts?

Obviously post counts are a good way to scale one's knowledge of roleplaying.

Herp derp.

by **The Anglo-Saxon Empire** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 3:03 pm

Hannait wrote:
The Anglo-Saxon Empire wrote:Yes, but it is true and it has its reasons.

NS is not like the real world, and thus the only way to have anything make sense to most people is to connect it to something recognizable. There has not yet been a 21st century so NSers frequently use the nearest conflict of an NS like scale WW2. NS countries all have enough resources unless they are voluntarily RPed as third world shit holes so they must fight wars like countries did when several countries were stable and well off but still fought frequent wars, the closest analogue is the 19th century where wars were frequently fought for positioning and influence. Russia didn't want the Crimean peninsula for food or iron or other resources they wanted a port city that wouldn't freeze over. Britain didn't support the Ottoman Empire because they cared about them, they just didn't want Russia to threaten them in the Mediterranean.

In NS wars are more frequently fought for ideology or influence than simple resources or long terms claims to land since there is no internationally defined history and everyone RPs having all the reources they need either through trade or simply having them in their countries.

Yes, it's true.

It's also, as the original quote was meant to say, almost always ridiculously stupid, especially when people godmod having surpluses of all resources in the world all the time.

And yet you're using it to try to defend the status quo.

Having access to the necessary resources =/= resource wank. The point of NS warfare is that you have the material resources you need, like any first world country. Oil may be expensive in the US, but the state can more than function, there is no lack of food or wood. NS nations are the same, they may not produce everything domestically, but what they can't produce themselves they can easily import it due to the thousands of massive countries to choose from.

My point being NS wars are for the most part caused by things that 19th century wars were caused by (imperialism, revenge, grand concepts (like the unification of Germany)), since most other conflicts either require weakening your nation or making a united backstory, the former being difficult because people take advantage of weakness far too much in NS, and the latter being difficult outside of a small community because of how things change.

To truly make NS like the 21st century would effectively require a closed community (like NS earth) so that joint backstories could be formed, weaknesses could exist without being exploited, and different scales of conflicts could be justified.

Now, one example of this is SMS, there are tons of nations with a generally unified history with their neighbors, there are no real 'super powers' so everyone can participate, and people actually build weaknesses into their nations. My nation (Luthoria) is relatively small compared to its neighbors, has a small army, and has some decent reasons for fighting its neighbors that are very 21st century in nature. There are foreign terrorists, extremists, a massive rich/poor divide, and nationalist concepts that some people wish to pursue.

by **Tehraan** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 3:41 pm

That's an issue with NS. People seem to be more focused on winning then having fun. The endless ball game that is the NS arms race is enjoyable but if some people focused more on having fun then winning we might see a more interesting world. But then again their a sizable collection of nations who's armaments make the look like a Soviet satellite state. And generally creative arms designers who know what their doing have let to the fortune of not having every war be nothing bug F-22/F-35 in the sky with lots of Modern MBTs like abrams and challenger IIs. People generally go by their economic rating to decide how big and advanced their military is.

Put simply their enough variation in the different NS militaries and lot's of distinction between military powers in terms of size and money. Just the unfortunate fact that many people on II are more focused on winning and wanking (to be fair it's enjoyable to write about your army kicking ass) to their uber army then having a good and interesting story.

The way an War RP is done and by who is generally the prime cause on how a war is fought. If both sides are on good terms and good RP the wars aren't usually about major wank battles. At least one major players is only focused on winning then the other follow suit.

by **-St George** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 4:06 pm

Milograd wrote:
-St George wrote:So do what many of people who actually RP in II do, and RP without the whole 'unlimited resources olololol'. You do know what RPing is like, correct, what with your grand total of 28 posts?

Obviously post counts are a good way to scale one's knowledge of roleplaying.

Herp derp.

Hannait wrote:
-St George wrote:So do what many of people who actually RP in II do, and RP without the whole 'unlimited resources olololol'. You do know what RPing is like, correct, what with your grand total of 28 posts?

Did it never occur to you that, given that I'm speaking with clear experience seeing as I know the origin of the quote used, I am a puppet of a nation who knows a whole lot more than you actually do?

Of course it didn't. You still think that post count means something.

How is it that an II Mentor and a puppet of a nation that apparently knows more about rping than me can miss the point so badly?

My point was, if you dislike the way things are done so much, change them. RP with people and insist on the standards you set yourself.

Or is it easier to just sit back and bitch?

by **Vitaphone Racing** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 4:12 pm

-St George wrote:
Milograd wrote:Obviously post counts are a good way to scale one's knowledge of roleplaying.

Herp derp.
Hannait wrote:Did it never occur to you that, given that I'm speaking with clear experience seeing as I know the origin of the quote used, I am a puppet of a nation who knows a whole lot more than you actually do?

Of course it didn't. You still think that post count means something.

How is it that an II Mentor and a puppet of a nation that apparently knows more about rping than me can miss the point so badly?

My point was, if you dislike the way things are done so much, change them. RP with people and insist on the standards you set yourself.

Or is it easier to just sit back and bitch?

Yes it is. The amount of people who RP for fun and enjoyment and not for winning is growing smaller every day. Anybody who wants to RP with people who insist on good standards has joined SMS or an offsite regional forum.

NS Military Realism Consultation Thread

Who is online