RPing Questions? Ask Here!

[Abserdia]

After reading several threads, the idea of increasing the realism within this forum/sub-forum came to my mind immediately. I don't know how things tend to work here, but is there a way to know which is the strongest nation in a conflict? Sorry for my ignorance... I am new to NationStates.

In an RP the strongest nation is determined by a few factors.
1: Size and population. If a nation is the size of the US and has the most troops, it will be more successful in battles.
2: Science. If a nation has developed nuclear bombs (for example) while other nations are still trying to figure out missiles, it is better in tactics.
and 3: Treaties. If a nation is allied with 3 other nations it will have much more help than a nation that is a lone wolf but equal power.
I'll let RP mentors tell you the rest if there is.

[Islas del Sol]

After reading several threads, the idea of increasing the realism within this forum/sub-forum came to my mind immediately. I don't know how things tend to work here, but is there a way to know which is the strongest nation in a conflict? Sorry for my ignorance... I am new to NationStates.

In an RP the strongest nation is determined by a few factors.
1: Size and population. If a nation is the size of the US and has the most troops, it will be more successful in battles.
2: Science. If a nation has developed nuclear bombs (for example) while other nations are still trying to figure out missiles, it is better in tactics.
and 3: Treaties. If a nation is allied with 3 other nations it will have much more help than a nation that is a lone wolf but equal power.
I'll let RP mentors tell you the rest if there is.

Oh, useful. Thank you.

[Abserdia]

In an RP the strongest nation is determined by a few factors.
1: Size and population. If a nation is the size of the US and has the most troops, it will be more successful in battles.
2: Science. If a nation has developed nuclear bombs (for example) while other nations are still trying to figure out missiles, it is better in tactics.
and 3: Treaties. If a nation is allied with 3 other nations it will have much more help than a nation that is a lone wolf but equal power.
I'll let RP mentors tell you the rest if there is.

Oh, useful. Thank you.

Science might be the most important though, as a nation that has an arsenal of nuclear bombs with no allies can still take out a few nations.
Treaties probably the least useful, and size and population is a footnote.

[Sunset]

Who wins and who loses? It's a pretty complex topic, at least in confrontational role-play, but I'm going to come at it from a different direction...

1: Communications.

This, this, this. Talk to your opponent. Find out, out of character, why they want to fight and why they want to fight you specifically. Explain the same to them. If there is a valid, in-character reason, for the conflict then I would discuss where you both want things to end up. Approximately. No one wants to know exactly how the movie goes, but everyone knows that one side will triumph in the end. Will it be a skirmish with both sides withdrawing after a couple victories on both sides so they can tell their people 'We won!' or will it be an absolute war of conquest? Work together to make it the best story you can.

Past that?

2: It's a Spider Web.

Ten million dirt farmers won't beat a million man modern army in a straight-up fight. An imploded economy is going to be overrun by a someone of equal size with frightening. Sure; 25b compared to 1b is going to be a little... Massacre-y. But can the 1b put up a good fight? Possibly.

How prepared is one side compared to the other? And I'm not talking about head-canon (What you imagine your nation to be like in your head) I'm talking about work you've actually done, in-character, to prepare for a conflict. Written up a stellar factbook? Portrayed your military in your previous posts as being nearly-omnipresent (Marine gunships crossing the city skyline, harbors full of battleships, and similar descriptive pieces. Or are you just making it all up as you go?

If you are making it all up as you go, then I would refer you back to 1. and then say 'Why are you doing this if you have no reason for doing it?' We care about a conflict because of the history behind it, the stories of those involved, the future events it portends. I would very seriously question my participation in a thread where the only point is to fight especially if that is the only thing that the nation ever does.

So, Spider Web. There are literally dozens of different potential threads that could determine which side wins. The best thing to do is start with #1.

[Islas del Sol]

Oh, useful. Thank you.

Science might be the most important though, as a nation that has an arsenal of nuclear bombs with no allies can still take out a few nations.
Treaties probably the least useful, and size and population is a footnote.

And what about if a nation refuses to admit the "death" of his military? What would be the next step, then?

[Abserdia]

Science might be the most important though, as a nation that has an arsenal of nuclear bombs with no allies can still take out a few nations.
Treaties probably the least useful, and size and population is a footnote.

And what about if a nation refuses to admit the death of his military? What would be the next step, then?

That would be called godmodding, if you assassinate his general with a knife through the heart and he refuses to die, talk with the creator or a mentor like Sunset above you.

[Islas del Sol]

And what about if a nation refuses to admit the death of his military? What would be the next step, then?

That would be called godmodding, if you assassinate his general with a knife through the heart and he refuses to die, talk with the creator or a mentor like Sunset above you.

Alright. Thanks Abserdia and Sunset. My doubts have been solved.

[The United Dominion]

And what about if a nation refuses to admit the death of his military? What would be the next step, then?

That would be called godmodding, if you assassinate his general with a knife through the heart and he refuses to die, talk with the creator or a mentor like Sunset above you.

If trying to assassinate another player's character, you should have talked to them about it and gotten permission first. If I don't want my character to die at this moment, you "stabbing my general with a knife through the heart" becomes you "making an attempt at stabbing my general with a knife through the heart, only to be quickly put down by security forces in the area."

You would be the one in the wrong here, not the other player.

[Draica]

How are chemical weapons used in MT RP?

[Santheres]

How are chemical weapons used in MT RP?

Nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons should only be used with the consent of those you're roleplaying with. Discuss it with them, and if they're okay with it, then feel free. If you mean dispersal systems, I believe that missiles and dropping from the air are the most common methods.

[Estenia]

Deleted, don't know how I did that?

[Roski]

Science might be the most important though, as a nation that has an arsenal of nuclear bombs with no allies can still take out a few nations.
Treaties probably the least useful, and size and population is a footnote.

And what about if a nation refuses to admit the "death" of his military? What would be the next step, then?

That's when the weapons of mass destruction come into play for me.

The average nuclear defence system I have seen (in NS) can handle say 200 WMDs at the same time.

So toss 1,000 Weapons of Mass Destruction into the air.

[Roski]

How are chemical weapons used in MT RP?

That completely depends on the weapon.

[Rhodevus]

For those new, uncertain, at a rut, or wanting to discuss any sort of topic in between in regards to II Role-Playing, please feel free to posit questions, threads, and topic discussions. This thread is intended to be an open area of general discussion on II Role-playing, for newer and older players and where assistance can be given. Please keep all off-topic chatter to a minimum.

NOTE: II, GE&T, and F&NI RPing questions only, please. NSSports and Gameplay-based RPing questions are not the main focus of this thread.

idiot

Why is Jenrak an idiot?

[The Macabees]

Troll/spam, ignore the post.

[Rhodevus]

Troll/spam, ignore the post.

Will do.

Also, what is a normal ratio of military personell to support?
And what are normal forms of military support?
MT

[Lubyak]

After reading several threads, the idea of increasing the realism within this forum/sub-forum came to my mind immediately. I don't know how things tend to work here, but is there a way to know which is the strongest nation in a conflict? Sorry for my ignorance... I am new to NationStates.

In an RP the strongest nation is determined by a few factors.
1: Size and population. If a nation is the size of the US and has the most troops, it will be more successful in battles.
2: Science. If a nation has developed nuclear bombs (for example) while other nations are still trying to figure out missiles, it is better in tactics.
and 3: Treaties. If a nation is allied with 3 other nations it will have much more help than a nation that is a lone wolf but equal power.
I'll let RP mentors tell you the rest if there is.

The issues with trying to decide who is the strongest like this is mainly that there's no way to enforce anything in NationStates. NS isn't a strategy game where there are hard coded rules determining who has nukes or who has more troops. Even the population figures provided by the game are often overlooked by RPers, either pop-capping themselves or something else. Remember, NS is not something where you can play it like Command & Conquer or Starcraft, with 'rules' determining who and what is stronger than anyone else. NS is about cooperative writing to tell a story.

When trying to determine who should 'win' a battle or war, it's best to talk to your fellow RPers, and try to determine whose victory would best further the story. You can factor in the things talked about here, but they are far from the only things you should think about when trying to decide who should be the victor.

[The Macabees]

Also, what is a normal ratio of military personell to support?
And what are normal forms of military support?
MT

It's been a while, but if I remember correctly it's about 1:4 for ground forces and 1:8 for air forces, with navy being somewhere in between (1:6?). Even if those ratios aren't exactly right, they're pretty close. These include logistics, cooks, maintenance, and various other jobs -- to get an idea of what these are, I recommend looking through the list of MOS' you can enlist for in the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force.

[Sunset]

Also, what is a normal ratio of military personell to support?
And what are normal forms of military support?

And to toss a bit more salt in the water...

One of those factors that seems to affect how many support personnel a military has is how much they value their own forces; IE the safety and lives of their men and women. This would, to my mind, be somewhat based on the Nation's politics. A dictatorship where every soldier is expected to be ready to die for the man with the fancy hat might have less, while a democracy with a free media that covers every single death down to the minute might have far more so as to hopefully prevent some of those deaths and the perception of loss that comes along with it.

I personally run at... (checks the secret spreadsheet) around 12:1 and I'm very much not MT.

[Rhodevus]

Thank you both mentors for the assistance!

[Klemantan-Borneo]

How do we really define PMT/ Post-Modern Tech? It is by logic it's between Modern Tech(what we have today) and Future Tech(Star Trek/Wars/Battlestar Galactica Movies), and it's a subject of great debate and it's really in the area. What technology could be deemed as PMT

[Roski]

How do we really define PMT/ Post-Modern Tech? It is by logic it's between Modern Tech(what we have today) and Future Tech(Star Trek/Wars/Battlestar Galactica Movies), and it's a subject of great debate and it's really in the area. What technology could be deemed as PMT

For technologies, I split Past Tech into several sections, (club, sword and shield, siege, flint, rifle, great war, riech, korea, and vietnam eras), modern tech consists of everything from 1980 to 2020. Post Modern Tech is 2020-2050, and after 2050 its Future Tech.

This is typically opinionated. There is no clear answer.

[Vancon]

How do we really define PMT/ Post-Modern Tech? It is by logic it's between Modern Tech(what we have today) and Future Tech(Star Trek/Wars/Battlestar Galactica Movies), and it's a subject of great debate and it's really in the area. What technology could be deemed as PMT

The rule of thumb as to the difference between MT and PMT is that anything past 2020 is PMT. A for technology, I subscribe to Lyras' version: As long as there is the materials and the know-how in modern times, it is possible. I did ad-lib there a bit though since I can't remember the exact quote. FT is generally regarded as the far future, like 25XX to 100XX and even older!

[The Macabees]

I usually don't distinguish between MT and PMT unless we're getting really far out, like nuclear-powered power suits or something like that. Miltech doesn't have a significant impact on my RPs, because I'm probably going to take a similar amount of casualties whether my Nakíls and Linces are facing T-90s or another PMT tank. I choose to adopt that philosophy because arms races tend to be to the detriment to the RP -- rather than write a story, we spend time putting together write-ups. If it becomes too obsessive, you don't write at all; it happened to me and a lot of other nations during the heyday of the NSDraftroom. Miltech should be for the purpose of making the story more interesting, but nothing else beyond that.

Edit: Of course, some players' objective is just to sell miltech and that's perfectly acceptable. I don't intend to criticize the use of miltech towards those ends.

[Untaroicht]

How do we really define PMT/ Post-Modern Tech? It is by logic it's between Modern Tech(what we have today) and Future Tech(Star Trek/Wars/Battlestar Galactica Movies), and it's a subject of great debate and it's really in the area. What technology could be deemed as PMT

The rule of thumb as to the difference between MT and PMT is that anything past 2020 is PMT. A for technology, I subscribe to Lyras' version: As long as there is the materials and the know-how in modern times, it is possible. I did ad-lib there a bit though since I can't remember the exact quote. FT is generally regarded as the far future, like 25XX to 100XX and even older!

I have to respectfully disagree. I've been a strict PMT Roleplayer for about 2 years now, and I've generally agreed with everyone I've talked to that RP's we consider canon can take place anywhere from the 2020's, to the 22nd century (when I usually consider things canon), all the way up to the invention of interstellar travel.

I generally consider PMT to be FT, just without the space-travel and aliens. Futuristic tech in the near to far future, but only with humans and on one planet.