RPing Questions? Ask Here!

[Morthyria]

At the moment we have an army of 91 million men.

[The Macabees]

Presumably, that's 65% within a certain age range -- usually the same age range as your labor force --, meaning that it cuts your labor force by over six-tenths. Economically, you'd be extremely weak (poorer than, say, Zimbabwe, scaled to the size of your pop.); military-wise, that translates to low-training and low-quality weaponry.

[Morthyria]

Presumably, that's 65% within a certain age range -- usually the same age range as your labor force --, meaning that it cuts your labor force by over six-tenths. Economically, you'd be extremely weak (poorer than, say, Zimbabwe, scaled to the size of your pop.); military-wise, that translates to low-training and low-quality weaponry.

Also 50% of our budget goes to military roughly don't believe the official figures they are false.

[Rhodevus]

We are an ultra militarized nation.

but, you do need to factor in the people that are too old or too young to join the military. So out of 140 people (1 person=1 million) 14 are below 18 years and 20 are over 50 years, so now only 106 people are left. Then factor in people with diseases or other crippling injuries that make them unfit for combat and other military roles. That is about 15 people. bringing the number down to 91. It still may seem like a lot but it is now 65%. And it can still lower. If your nation is ultra militarized, then you need to factor in the amount of people that are in non-combat roles in the military. These are the people who will not even see combat. According to US statistics, that is around 10% of the military (which I am going to assume is the remaining amount of people), so about 10 people out of 140 will serve in the active armed forces. This is about 7%.

So in all, 65% is technically allowed in the military, but a maximum of 7% would be anywhere near plausible to use in combat. The numbers I used are from American statistics, and I was being very lenient with the numbers. Since I did not even include people with jobs outside the military. But, as you can see, to have a functioning society, percentages need to remain quite lower than we would like

[Morthyria]

We are an ultra militarized nation.

but, you do need to factor in the people that are too old or too young to join the military. So out of 140 people (1 person=1 million) 14 are below 18 years and 20 are over 50 years, so now only 106 people are left. Then factor in people with diseases or other crippling injuries that make them unfit for combat and other military roles. That is about 15 people. bringing the number down to 91. It still may seem like a lot but it is now 65%. And it can still lower. If your nation is ultra militarized, then you need to factor in the amount of people that are in non-combat roles in the military. These are the people who will not even see combat. According to US statistics, that is around 10% of the military (which I am going to assume is the remaining amount of people), so about 10 people out of 140 will serve in the active armed forces. This is about 7%.

So in all, 65% is technically allowed in the military, but a maximum of 7% would be anywhere near plausible to use in combat. The numbers I used are from American statistics, and I was being very lenient with the numbers. Since I did not even include people with jobs outside the military. But, as you can see, to have a functioning society, percentages need to remain quite lower than we would like

Oh this figure of 65% includes reserves 5% works full time the other 60% are reserves.

[Rhodevus]

but, you do need to factor in the people that are too old or too young to join the military. So out of 140 people (1 person=1 million) 14 are below 18 years and 20 are over 50 years, so now only 106 people are left. Then factor in people with diseases or other crippling injuries that make them unfit for combat and other military roles. That is about 15 people. bringing the number down to 91. It still may seem like a lot but it is now 65%. And it can still lower. If your nation is ultra militarized, then you need to factor in the amount of people that are in non-combat roles in the military. These are the people who will not even see combat. According to US statistics, that is around 10% of the military (which I am going to assume is the remaining amount of people), so about 10 people out of 140 will serve in the active armed forces. This is about 7%.

So in all, 65% is technically allowed in the military, but a maximum of 7% would be anywhere near plausible to use in combat. The numbers I used are from American statistics, and I was being very lenient with the numbers. Since I did not even include people with jobs outside the military. But, as you can see, to have a functioning society, percentages need to remain quite lower than we would like

Oh this figure of 65% includes reserves 5% works full time the other 60% are reserves.

you should have lead with that. Reserves are usually allowed to be big, since most people are allowed to be reserves if there is conscription involved. So then, yes. I think it is fine if only 5% is your main force

[Maltropia]

Also 50% of our budget goes to military roughly don't believe the official figures they are false.

Keep in mind that your budget will still be small if you've got so many people in your military. If they're not earning money, you can't really tax them and your government isn't going to be able to secure loans. It's usually not worth sacrificing that much of your labour force since the extra manpower isn't really a gain over the loss of funding.

[Morthyria]

Also 50% of our budget goes to military roughly don't believe the official figures they are false.

Keep in mind that your budget will still be small if you've got so many people in your military. If they're not earning money, you can't really tax them and your government isn't going to be able to secure loans. It's usually not worth sacrificing that much of your labour force since the extra manpower isn't really a gain over the loss of funding.

Only 5% work full time in the military.

[The Macabees]

Also 50% of our budget goes to military roughly don't believe the official figures they are false.

I went by the figure you gave us.

[The Macabees]

Without an adequate labor force you can't produce the national product you'll need to sell in return for the military equipment and training you'll need for your army. Furthermore, you won't be able to produce the basic consumer items your people need to survive, meaning your society would be highly impoverished and susceptible to things like famine and widespread disease.

Edit: And there's a trade-off to large militaries during wartime, as well. Generally speaking, huge mobilizations that take up >8% of your labor force should be last resorts, because you're surrendering your productivity -- it's basically a signal that you're about to lose the war (because you're going to end up losing it if that last effort doesn't pan out, since you won't have the production to support a continued war effort).

[Morthyria]

Without an adequate labor force you can't produce the national product you'll need to sell in return for the military equipment and training you'll need for your army. Furthermore, you won't be able to produce the basic consumer items your people need to survive, meaning your society would be highly impoverished and susceptible to things like famine and widespread disease.

Edit: And there's a trade-off to large militaries during wartime, as well. Generally speaking, huge mobilizations that take up >8% of your labor force should be last resorts, because you're surrendering your productivity -- it's basically a signal that you're about to lose the war (because you're going to end up losing it if that last effort doesn't pan out, since you won't have the production to support a continued war effort).

Also 10% of that 65% figure works in military related industries.

[The Macabees]

Also 10% of that 65% figure works in military related industries.

A good rule of thumb is that military-related industries produce large economic inefficiencies. The ends these productive capacities serve are almost never the ends that would be served if production were organized by the highest-ranked values. War industries are extractive in that the cost is partly externalized to society as a whole, in the sense that there's an opportunity cost that implies a net loss of future social wealth. This "rule of thumb" gets greyer when we're talking about military industries mainly for export, because in that case the industry is participating in the extraction of wealth from the importing country.

[Crosshill]

I have a small question on wars in nation states. Are there any general rules which apply to wars in nation states? I don’t mean all that no godmodding stuff. But let’s say we have a modern tech scenario, are there any rules or regulations at all? There are some in the World Assembly which forbid general conscription, regulate the treatment of corpses and the use of landmines or WMDs. Than there are regulations for POWs but other than that there are only very few regulations regarding armed conflict. Malice for example or the deployment of unmarked soldiers. The deliberate targeting of population centres and so on. Is it generally assumed that the real life regulations on war are valid by default or is there no law when there is no law in naionstates?

[The Macabees]

I have a small question on wars in nation states. Are there any general rules which apply to wars in nation states? I don’t mean all that no godmodding stuff. But let’s say we have a modern tech scenario, are there any rules or regulations at all? There are some in the World Assembly which forbid general conscription, regulate the treatment of corpses and the use of landmines or WMDs. Than there are regulations for POWs but other than that there are only very few regulations regarding armed conflict. Malice for example or the deployment of unmarked soldiers. The deliberate targeting of population centres and so on. Is it generally assumed that the real life regulations on war are valid by default or is there no law when there is no law in naionstates?

Binding rules are hard to enforce. Plus, different RPs call for different rules, depending on the preferences of the players involved. Generally speaking, the thread creator is the ultimate rule-maker.

You can also try to create some type of agreement which other nations could sign, which regulate the different things you discuss (treatment of POWs,...). But, the only way to enforce these rules is either if the other player just accepts them or by going to war with them -- even then, no player is necessarily forced to RP with whoever attacks them. We have to freedom to pick and choose the players we interact with.

[Morthyria]

Do I have to obey the NStracker?

[The Macabees]

Do I have to obey the NStracker?

You don't; it's just an independent tool.

[Pharthan]

Do I have to obey the NStracker?

No. You don't even have to obey your Nation's main page by any means. Many who want to maintain realism try to maintain below 2-3 Billion people, if not less than 1 Billion for population. However, if you have a small population on your main page and try to roleplay as a massive nation, you probably won't be taken seriously (you'll be seen as a newbie)

NS issues are not at all realistic, nor are their outcomes. If you want to roleplay as a realistic MT nation, then you can't abide by the "genetically augmented supersoldier" issue, so on and so forth.

Keep in mind that even of those 5% of your population you have as military, you also only have roughly 10-25% of those being active combatants. It takes a lot of people to maintain a military, and it takes a lot of support roles to maintain the combatants. Now, many of the remaining 75%-90% will still deploy, they just won't be "combatants."

What may be far more realistic is to have 65% of your population as a "Militia." I wouldn't expect you to be able to sustain more than an additional 5-15% as deployable Reserves, but it is far more reasonable to have a wide amount of your population marginally trained in combat, perhaps as part of a post-High School program, and every citizen issued a weapon. This helps protect your nation in the event of an invasion; your entire population can become an effective insurgency.

[Cologene]

Hello!

I do have a question, well more looking for help. I want to do a roleplay involving a map, but I would like to know what is best thing to use to edit a map or make one for free.

[Geanna]

Hello!

I do have a question, well more looking for help. I want to do a roleplay involving a map, but I would like to know what is best thing to use to edit a map or make one for free.

You can make one in simple Paint, You could also do one using Paint.net or GIMP - Both are free software but are a bit more complicated, Paint.net is easier to use than GIMP but GIMP provides the best results.

[Diaxia]

So I'm new to all of this...
What brought me here was interest in future RP. I've seen lots of posts where people show off spaceships and extremely advanced tech, but I'm afraid of getting banned or something for mistagging a future post, or any other unobvious rule violation.

[Tiami]

Jenrak and other players have compiled a plethora of guides that are dedicated to helping new RPers develop and hone their skills as writers (which are stickied at the top of the International Incidents forum). As long as you write/post within respectable parameters (nothing violating NS's PG-13 code), then you cannot been banned for a post.

[The Macabees]

Just to follow up on Tiami, here's the Jenrak guide he's referring to. Also, there's an FT assistance thread.

[Draica]

Could the monarch in an absoloulte monarchy launch an operation against terrorists?

[The Macabees]

Could the monarch in an absoloulte monarchy launch an operation against terrorists?

If the monarch has the power to do so, why not?

[The Caucasus Emirate (Ancient)]

If RPIng a civil war type of thread and youre also RPing the opposition (e.g Russia) is it okay if I determine the Russian losses alongside the Chechen losses?