[DRAFT] Up Up and Blown Away

by **Socialist Macronesia** » Sun Aug 02, 2020 3:10 pm

This is my first time drafting anything, so bear with me on this.

Please tell me what you think!

Currently on: DRAFT III

by **USS Monitor** » Sun Aug 02, 2020 4:07 pm

The issues submission page no longer asks players to suggest stat changes for each option, so you do not need to include those in your draft.

As to the issue itself, I have a couple of questions:

What happened to the missile?

Why are the first three options talking about general approaches to national defense instead of responding to this specific incident? If another nation fired a missile at your country, I think the conflict with that nation would become a top priority, and then weapons development would be something you talk about afterward.

What sets this apart from existing issues where an NPC nation is behaving aggressively toward @@NAME@@?

by **Socialist Macronesia** » Sun Aug 02, 2020 4:25 pm

USS Monitor wrote:The issues submission page no longer asks players to suggest stat changes for each option, so you do not need to include those in your draft.

As to the issue itself, I have a couple of questions:

What happened to the missile?

Why are the first three options talking about general approaches to national defense instead of responding to this specific incident? If another nation fired a missile at your country, I think the conflict with that nation would become a top priority, and then weapons development would be something you talk about afterward.

What sets this apart from existing issues where an NPC nation is behaving aggressively toward @@NAME@@?

Sorry, meant to indicate that it didn't hit and was just a test fire. Fixing.

The difference is slight, but it separates it a whole lot from others: In a lot of NS military issues, the choices are to attack or not; never to strengthen. Sure, attacking here is an option, but why spend a ton of money on a war when you can just buy your way out of huge trouble for a lot less.?

I do see what you mean about it not being super distinct, though. Any specific ways you think it could be made more different? Or better? Or more grammatically correct?

by **Trotterdam** » Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:31 pm

They launched a "test fire" anywhere near another nation, let alone an unfriendly one? Wow, what a bunch of incompetent idiots.

by **Minskiev** » Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:37 pm

Well, I spot a ‘denonym’ in the description, when it should be ‘demonym’.

Option 3 doesn’t really do anything. Perhaps if you added a line such as “Hell, ignore all the Blackacrean missiles; they wouldn’t dare hit us.” Then you’d actively be ignoring them, instead of not doing anything.

Option 4 sentence 1, should be whose.

Effect lines don’t need to end in punctuation...or do they?

Why do the first two options say that the military is weak and spread thin, while the fourth says it’s strong?

by **Drasnia** » Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:41 pm

Socialist Macronesia wrote:
USS Monitor wrote:The issues submission page no longer asks players to suggest stat changes for each option, so you do not need to include those in your draft.

As to the issue itself, I have a couple of questions:

What happened to the missile?

Why are the first three options talking about general approaches to national defense instead of responding to this specific incident? If another nation fired a missile at your country, I think the conflict with that nation would become a top priority, and then weapons development would be something you talk about afterward.

What sets this apart from existing issues where an NPC nation is behaving aggressively toward @@NAME@@?

Sorry, meant to indicate that it didn't hit and was just a test fire. Fixing.

The difference is slight, but it separates it a whole lot from others: In a lot of NS military issues, the choices are to attack or not; never to strengthen. Sure, attacking here is an option, but why spend a ton of money on a war when you can just buy your way out of huge trouble for a lot less.?

I do see what you mean about it not being super distinct, though. Any specific ways you think it could be made more different? Or better? Or more grammatically correct?

I think you've approached this draft from the wrong way. You decided what options you wanted and then tried to shoehorn an inciting incident to prompt the responses. The thing is the responses are completely disconnected from the premise; it has no logical flow or verisimillitude.

Launching a test missile over another nation is inherently an act of aggression. Actually military advisors would not be acting they are in this draft if confronted by a situation like this one.

by **Socialist Macronesia** » Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:56 pm

After looking at all the feedback, I am making some changes, more specifically, away from the Blackacre aggression line and more on the SAM line. So how about something more like that in a "training exercise they were unable to hit a single missile"

but then the concept is similar to other "incompetent military" issues. More thought is needed.

Also Miniskiev, your answers are noted, but where does it say where the military is strong?

Thanks for the feedback!

by **Minskiev** » Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:10 pm

Option 5.

by **Socialist Macronesia** » Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:49 pm

Minskiev wrote:Option 5.

The SAM missiles are outdated, not the whole military

Does anyone else have anything to say about it? Otherwise, gonna make a couple changes.

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Wed Aug 05, 2020 4:53 am

Welcome to the fora!

I think there's a seed of an idea here, asking about the effectiveness of anti-ballistic missile defences. I would suggest though that your current approach lacks finesse, and the issue presented essentially boils down to "what if your missile defence systems were currently really rubbish?"

That's not a great issue premise, honestly, and I think we can do something more subtle than that.

I'd suggest a little wikipedia research (here ya go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile ) looking out for interesting RL dilemmas that have emerged around this.

For example, there's an interesting question about the relative cost of missile defence systems vs missile attack systems, and the problem that if you want to protect a large geographic area you need to multiply and reproduce your defence systems across the whole nation, in order for them to maintain high efficacy. For any nation to be able to defend itself against a determined attack by a major nuclear power it must make trade-off choices. Russia has chosen to concentrate defences just on Moscow. The USA has decided it only needs to be able to stop rogue state attacks of limited scale, and that in defending against a major nuclear power the best approach is deterrence through offensive capabilities. The British approach has been to deem the whole thing too expensive, and to rely solely on strategic alliances and maintaining offensive capabilities. You see the issue emerging here?

That's not to say that's the only potential interesting issue. There's some other subtle strategic questions worth asking, you just need to present with a little more finesse and verisimilitude. Likewise, good research will let you present your issues with more technical accuracy, and will draw a reader into a deeper sense of immersion. It's always good to feel an author knows what he's talking about when reading an issue.

by **Socialist Macronesia** » Thu Aug 06, 2020 3:36 pm

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Welcome to the fora!

I think there's a seed of an idea here, asking about the effectiveness of anti-ballistic missile defences. I would suggest though that your current approach lacks finesse, and the issue presented essentially boils down to "what if your missile defence systems were currently really rubbish?"

That's not a great issue premise, honestly, and I think we can do something more subtle than that.

I'd suggest a little wikipedia research (here ya go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile ) looking out for interesting RL dilemmas that have emerged around this.

For example, there's an interesting question about the relative cost of missile defence systems vs missile attack systems, and the problem that if you want to protect a large geographic area you need to multiply and reproduce your defence systems across the whole nation, in order for them to maintain high efficacy. For any nation to be able to defend itself against a determined attack by a major nuclear power it must make trade-off choices. Russia has chosen to concentrate defences just on Moscow. The USA has decided it only needs to be able to stop rogue state attacks of limited scale, and that in defending against a major nuclear power the best approach is deterrence through offensive capabilities. The British approach has been to deem the whole thing too expensive, and to rely solely on strategic alliances and maintaining offensive capabilities. You see the issue emerging here?

That's not to say that's the only potential interesting issue. There's some other subtle strategic questions worth asking, you just need to present with a little more finesse and verisimilitude. Likewise, good research will let you present your issues with more technical accuracy, and will draw a reader into a deeper sense of immersion. It's always good to feel an author knows what he's talking about when reading an issue.

But question: are chained issues still around? If so, then you could have something along the lines of, if you picked to revamp missiles, then you could choose how to revamp them, or if you ignored the problem, you could have something where the @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ building X gets destroyed by a Blackacre missile and you choose how to react. Otherwise, you'd be jamming a bunch of issue choices together and it would lower the overall quality. Plus, you could go further in depth without sacrificing length-wise.

So something like

Revamp missiles: Russian, USA, or British ways

Lasers: (any ideas?)

Ignore: Blackacre attacks with BMs; emergency buildup of ABM, build own missiles, attack as normal

Nukes: Recon plane spots a missile site; publicly deny, publicly confirm, espionage, etc

That way, without making an 11 choice issue, you could have an in-depth concept that people would like.

And my internet decided to opt out of the "Existence" program, see you when it opts back in tommorow.

by **Australian rePublic** » Fri Aug 07, 2020 12:22 am

Option 3- This guy's an idiot

by **Socialist Macronesia** » Fri Aug 07, 2020 7:04 pm

Australian rePublic wrote:Option 3- This guy's an idiot

fun fact: some people are idiots

Or, I don't know, he didn't feel like it was a worthwhile investment. There are many reasons why you just wouldn't care here.

by **Socialist Macronesia** » Wed Aug 12, 2020 1:38 pm

Alright, I made a few spelling and grammar corrections, as well as changing a few terms around.

by **Australian rePublic** » Wed Aug 12, 2020 4:24 pm

Option 5- How is that supposed to promote peace?

by **Socialist Macronesia** » Wed Aug 12, 2020 4:32 pm

Australian rePublic wrote:Option 5- How is that supposed to promote peace?

It was supposed to be mild sarcasm.

"Annex- I mean liberate"

Liberate means "set (someone) free from a situation, especially imprisonment or slavery, in which their liberty is severely restricted." Annex is almost always the opposite. Instead of "we took over X because their missiles were a threat and propped up our government" it is more "X was building dangerous rockets, so we promoted "peace" by taking them down and fairly instituting our "democratic" government." His name is Gimmea R. Eason for a reason: gimme a reason to invade a nation.

[DRAFT] Up Up and Blown Away

[DRAFT] Up Up and Blown Away

Who is online