NATION

PASSWORD

[SUBMITTED] Bigger, or better?

A place to spoil daily issues for those who haven't had them yet, snigger at typos, and discuss ideas for new ones.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Tsarus
Secretary
 
Posts: 30
Founded: Dec 26, 2016
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Tsarus » Thu Oct 17, 2019 6:28 am

Im gonna submit later today
Tier 6.5, type 4.5 according to this
21st century military superpower
Geniocratic Fascist state

User avatar
SherpDaWerp
Envoy
 
Posts: 326
Founded: Mar 02, 2016
Anarchy

Postby SherpDaWerp » Thu Oct 17, 2019 5:02 pm

Not so fast on that submission...

Tsarus wrote:After being unable to compete with better organized allies during military exercises, and realizing yours lacks any engagement organization, you have called for a discussion on a doctrine for the @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ military over dinner and have invited those who have shown interest to share their ideas.
Saying "You have called for a discussion" breaches player autonomy. It doesn't really flow, as there is also a little bit too much 'description' of what happened. The majority of what's being said can be cut out. For example:
After @@NAME@@ underperformed in the recent @@REGION@@ War Games, @@DEMONYM@@ military generals are questioning the lack of an official military doctrine.
That flows a lot better, and most of the extraneous information has been cut out. From that description, you know that @@NAME@@ didn't do well in a practice exercise, and people want the leader to decide on some official 'tactic' to use in warfare. That's really all that's needed to set up this issue.


Tsarus wrote:"Aye, so I told tha' bloody keech, 'I'll shoot ya head clean off yer shoulders blootered as I am from afar if ya dont believe me,'" a Bigtopian sniper delineates, drunk off his arse. "Oi, @@LEADER@@, why dont we train em soldiers o' yers ta' shoot straight like I can, and give em all proper battle rifles? That way tha enemy can't hit us, cause we're too far away!"
Good characterisation! Not sure if there is an 'official bigtopian accent' that has been established before, or he's just drunk, but it works well. Although, being Bigtopian he wouldn't be saying "the enemy can't hit us. And he probably also wouldn't be giving military advice to @@NAME@@ given that he's a foreigner... I'm not sure if you can assume NPC nations are in @@REGION@@, but if you can, try using an NPC nation that is deliberately and obviously non-hostile to the nation, under the assumption they participated in the war games? Maybe one of the scandinavian-style nations, they seem like they would have snipers.


Tsarus wrote:"WAAAGH!" General @@RANDOMMALENAME@@ bellows as he inhales his dinner. "More guns, more soldiers! Specifically, we need shotguns and SMG's, and a lot of soldiers! Sure, this may cost a few more lives, but we can just replace them, of course!"
Also good characterisation. Although, gender-specific macros could be avoided here by calling the general @@RANDOMNAME@@, and then saying @@HE@@ inhales @@HIS@@ dinner. The @@HE@@ and @@HIS@@ macros will decide on he/she and his/her depending on whether the @@RANDOMNAME@@ is male or female.


Tsarus wrote:"I agree," ex-machine gunner and gun-nut @@RANDOMMALENAME@@ speaks up, eating a bacon cheeseburger and fries. "We should be more aggressive, of course! But let's be reasonable here, we cant put our fine men's lives at stake! These are human beings, fighting for our country. I suggest we assume a suppress and advance doctrine. Keep the bullets flyin', their heads duckin', and our boots movin'! Suppressing fire is always the way to go."
Again with the gender-specific macros. Especially if @@NAME@@ is a matriarchy or a queendom, having all-male speakers would be a bit off. There is also some non-option-specific feedback that's relevant here, but I'll get to that soon.


Tsarus wrote:@@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@, a mother of an active duty soldier, says "Oh dear! My poor Billy is out there on the battlefield, and I'm so worried about him!" she weeps, as she eats from a carton of ice cream. "Please, @@LEADER@@, keep him safe however you can. Just let the airforce do all the work or something."
This is (I think) a valid place for a gender-specific macro, given that there's no mother/father macro that I'm aware of.


Now, some non-option specific feedback:
Tsarus wrote:Outcome:
Wars with @@NAME@@ are often bloody and demoralizing for all belligerents.
Outcome:
@@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ soldiers are trained to hit tin cans a mile away.
Outcome:
Ammunition manufacturing is at an all time high.
Outcome:
Soldiers tend to do less combat, and more phone calls to the air base.

The effect lines are (with the exception of Option 4), just stating the decision again. Try to work some humor or a weird way of thinking into them for satirical effect.

And as far as the actual options go, the incredible specificity in doctrine doesn't quite fit. A better example of doctrine (IMO) would be "Loads of men" or "Loads of tanks", vs having a military general explicitly stating "We need more SMGs and Shotguns!", or someone saying "We need suppressive fire!". Because as this issue stands, due to the intense specificity, I would dismiss this issue, under the assumption that my nation should have a broader approach to warfare. If I approached every war with a shotgun charge, I would start losing very quickly, as my enemies realized this fact and began to exercise flexible doctrine and started using long-range machineguns. I suggest you have a think about the actual doctrines themselves, and how they could be more open-ended for nations to choose from.

Overall, the issue is definitely getting there. Good job so far!
OOC: High school student who should almost definitely be doing assignments instead
  • I once wrote a 924-word analysis of how memes-as-political-commentary have a detrimental impact on many social issues. I got a 90% grade on my first draft.
  • My hobbies/interests include programming, parkour, hiking, camping, gaming, tabletop RPGs, and playing NationStates, of course
  • I seem to spend quite a bit of time explaining the effects of issue options. Good reading comprehension and a basic understanding of NS stats can work wonders, even without a backstage pass...

User avatar
Tsarus
Secretary
 
Posts: 30
Founded: Dec 26, 2016
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Tsarus » Thu Oct 17, 2019 5:07 pm

Final draft is done.
Any final edits I should make?
Tier 6.5, type 4.5 according to this
21st century military superpower
Geniocratic Fascist state

User avatar
Tsarus
Secretary
 
Posts: 30
Founded: Dec 26, 2016
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Tsarus » Thu Oct 17, 2019 5:11 pm

SherpDaWerp wrote:Not so fast on that submission...


Thank God I saw this!
These suggestions are really helpful. I certainly felt it might not have had a chance before I looked at this. Thank you for that.
Tier 6.5, type 4.5 according to this
21st century military superpower
Geniocratic Fascist state

User avatar
USS Monitor
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 28819
Founded: Jul 01, 2015
19th Century Iron Steamship

Postby USS Monitor » Thu Oct 17, 2019 9:22 pm

Tsarus wrote:
SherpDaWerp wrote:Not so fast on that submission...


Thank God I saw this!
These suggestions are really helpful. I certainly felt it might not have had a chance before I looked at this. Thank you for that.


Yeah, I would suggest keeping it in GI a bit longer.
Don't take life so serious... it isn't permanent... RIP Dyakovo and Ashmoria
NationStates issues editors may be harmful or fatal if swallowed. In case of accidental ingestion, please seek immediate medical assistance.
༄༅། །འགྲོ་བ་མི་རིགས་ག་ར་དབང་ཆ་འདྲ་མཉམ་འབད་སྒྱེཝ་ལས་ག་ར་གིས་གཅིག་གིས་གཅིག་ལུ་སྤུན་ཆའི་དམ་ཚིག་བསྟན་དགོས།

User avatar
Tsarus
Secretary
 
Posts: 30
Founded: Dec 26, 2016
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Tsarus » Thu Oct 17, 2019 9:36 pm

USS Monitor wrote:
Tsarus wrote:
Thank God I saw this!
These suggestions are really helpful. I certainly felt it might not have had a chance before I looked at this. Thank you for that.


Yeah, I would suggest keeping it in GI a bit longer.


Do u have any suggestions? I feel about 80% confident in it, so I just want to make sure.
Tier 6.5, type 4.5 according to this
21st century military superpower
Geniocratic Fascist state

User avatar
Fontenais
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 162
Founded: May 18, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Fontenais » Thu Oct 17, 2019 11:26 pm

Tsarus wrote:Description:
After @@NAME@@ underperformed during recent military exercises with allies, your military advisors have questioned the current doctrine of the military. Subsequently, a meeting has been called over dinner by your advisors.

I think you can cut the last sentence for being redundant. On the 'How To Write an Issue' page it says that the fact that people are here to talk to you is always the case viewtopic.php?f=13&t=424657

Tsarus wrote:Choice 2:
"WAAAGH!" General @@RANDOMNAME@@ bellows as @@HE@@ inhales @@HIS@@ dinner. "More tanks, men, planes! To hell with losses if we have tons of reinforcements, we should be aggressive! Very aggressive!"

I'm not sure about the characterisation. It seems very immature for a General to be shouting 'WAAAGH!' during a meeting.

Tsarus wrote:Choice 4:
@@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@, a mother of an active duty soldier, says "Oh dear! My poor Billy is out there on the battlefield, and I'm so worried about him!" she weeps, as she eats from a carton of ice cream. "Please, @@LEADER@@, keep him safe however you can. Just let the airforce do all the work or something, I don't want my boy to die!"

If the mother is supposed to be advocating for keeping soldiers as safe as possible, then making the air force do all the work wouldn't really resolve the issue. Someone else's child will be in the air force. Perhaps option 4 should be about investing in drones and cyber warfare, etc, to minimise casualties?

User avatar
Candlewhisper Archive
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 20714
Founded: Aug 28, 2015
Corporate Bordello

Postby Candlewhisper Archive » Fri Oct 18, 2019 1:42 am

Don't submit yet. Generally about a month is right, or about 2 weeks from the last outside comment.

Description:
After @@NAME@@ underperformed during recent military exercises with allies, your military advisors have questioned the current doctrine of the military. Subsequently, a meeting has been called over dinner by your advisors.


This opening is still too vague, in my opinion.

How did we underperform? Tell more of a story, with an eye to humour and painting a picture in the mind's eye. Was it poor communication leading to miscoordination? Was it soldiers improvising too much on their orders, or not improvising enough?

Ask a more specific question than "discuss the military doctrine." Give us a specific type of underperformance, then address that.

Also, the second sentence is a redundancy, and can be dropped. Lines like "A meeting has called" or "People are demanding an answer" can generally be considered to be unneeded, as they don't add any new context (this is an issue, hence we know it's being discussed), or any humour, or any useful information.

User avatar
Tsarus
Secretary
 
Posts: 30
Founded: Dec 26, 2016
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Tsarus » Fri Oct 18, 2019 7:17 pm

Edited.
Tier 6.5, type 4.5 according to this
21st century military superpower
Geniocratic Fascist state

User avatar
Tsarus
Secretary
 
Posts: 30
Founded: Dec 26, 2016
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Tsarus » Wed Oct 23, 2019 9:54 am

Some minor edits made.
Tier 6.5, type 4.5 according to this
21st century military superpower
Geniocratic Fascist state

User avatar
Fontenais
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 162
Founded: May 18, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Fontenais » Wed Oct 23, 2019 3:07 pm

Well, I stand by the last two comments I made, but apart from that:
Tsarus wrote:Choice 2:
"WAAAGH!" General @@RANDOMNAME@@ bellows as @@HE@@ inhales @@HIS@@ dinner. "More tanks, men, planes! To hell with losses if we have tons of reinforcements, we should be aggressive! Very aggressive!"

Tsarus wrote:Choice 3:
"I agree," United Federation machine gunner and gun-nut @@RANDOMNAME@@ speaks up, eating a bacon cheeseburger and fries. "Course we should be more aggressive! But let's be reasonable here, we also cant put our fine soldiers' lives at stake! These are brave human beings, fighting for our country. I suggest we assume a suppress and advance doctrine. Keep the bullets flyin', their heads duckin', and our boots movin'! Firepower is always the way to go."

Bearing in mind, I really don't know much about military tactics, but I can't see much of a differences between options 2 and 3
I can see in option 3, it says 'we can't put our fine soldiers' lives at stake', but, what the speaker actually suggests (more firepower), is really similar to option 2 (more aggression). I think it would be better if you could distinguish these options more.

User avatar
Tsarus
Secretary
 
Posts: 30
Founded: Dec 26, 2016
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Tsarus » Wed Oct 23, 2019 4:48 pm

Fontenais wrote:Well, I stand by the last two comments I made, but apart from that:
Tsarus wrote:Choice 2:
"WAAAGH!" General @@RANDOMNAME@@ bellows as @@HE@@ inhales @@HIS@@ dinner. "More tanks, men, planes! To hell with losses if we have tons of reinforcements, we should be aggressive! Very aggressive!"

Tsarus wrote:Choice 3:
"I agree," United Federation machine gunner and gun-nut @@RANDOMNAME@@ speaks up, eating a bacon cheeseburger and fries. "Course we should be more aggressive! But let's be reasonable here, we also cant put our fine soldiers' lives at stake! These are brave human beings, fighting for our country. I suggest we assume a suppress and advance doctrine. Keep the bullets flyin', their heads duckin', and our boots movin'! Firepower is always the way to go."

Bearing in mind, I really don't know much about military tactics, but I can't see much of a differences between options 2 and 3
I can see in option 3, it says 'we can't put our fine soldiers' lives at stake', but, what the speaker actually suggests (more firepower), is really similar to option 2 (more aggression). I think it would be better if you could distinguish these options more.


Touched it up a bit, made it more clear and characterized the machine gunner to be a Texan.
Tier 6.5, type 4.5 according to this
21st century military superpower
Geniocratic Fascist state

User avatar
Tsarus
Secretary
 
Posts: 30
Founded: Dec 26, 2016
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Tsarus » Mon Nov 04, 2019 11:00 am

Got around to it again.
Fixed up the second and fourth option.
Tier 6.5, type 4.5 according to this
21st century military superpower
Geniocratic Fascist state

User avatar
Candlewhisper Archive
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 20714
Founded: Aug 28, 2015
Corporate Bordello

Postby Candlewhisper Archive » Tue Nov 05, 2019 2:52 am

Let's look at the premise again.

@@NAME@@ under-performed during recent military exercises with allies likely due to lack of standardized attacking procedures, with a more notably embarrassing situation involving the use of highly outdated Line Infantry tactics.


Players may take offence at their nation being depicted this way. It's not an absolute player autonomy breach, but this does seem like an opening that will make more than half of players say "no, that's not my nation" and click dismiss.

As such, your military advisors have questioned the current engagement doctrine, or lack thereof, of the military.


Redundant sentence. Excise it.

User avatar
Tsarus
Secretary
 
Posts: 30
Founded: Dec 26, 2016
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Tsarus » Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:04 pm

Editted the description. More compact now.
Also set the scene for where the meeting takes place. Maybe a Bar isnt the best idea, but thats generally what I had in mind.
Fixed up the second guy too, to make him or her seem more human.
Tier 6.5, type 4.5 according to this
21st century military superpower
Geniocratic Fascist state

User avatar
Tsarus
Secretary
 
Posts: 30
Founded: Dec 26, 2016
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Tsarus » Wed Nov 27, 2019 9:38 am

Minor edits.
Tier 6.5, type 4.5 according to this
21st century military superpower
Geniocratic Fascist state

User avatar
Tsarus
Secretary
 
Posts: 30
Founded: Dec 26, 2016
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Tsarus » Tue Dec 03, 2019 7:41 pm

Should I submit? Im fairly content with it, and there hasnt been any suggestions lately.
Tier 6.5, type 4.5 according to this
21st century military superpower
Geniocratic Fascist state

Previous

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Got Issues?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bovrania, ROLASS

Advertisement

Remove ads