NS Military Realism Consultation Thread

[The Soviet Technocracy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union

Generally something along those lines.

Lol, I was expecting something along those lines but GWO doesn't seem to be going bankrupt.

Freeform RP means you don't have to conform to reality. Although that begs the question as to why you are posting in this thread in the first place.

In reality, when you spend too much money on one thing, others are neglected. In NS, being a text based freeform RP browser game, this isn't so. You can make up whatever you want, and as long as everyone in the thread agrees to RP with you, it's set.

What happens if one's military budget is too high?

Oh, it has nothing to do with your budget. It all depends on the percent of your nation's GDP you spend on military expenditures. If the percentage is too high, then you don't have enough of your GDP left to put into other government programs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union

Generally something along those lines.

Oh please, not even close. Try Eritrea and Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia has basic healthcare and social services.

Dunno about Eritrea. They might be similar to the old communist states, with breadlines for miles and never enough furniture.

[The PeoplesFreedom]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union

Generally something along those lines.

Lol, I was expecting something along those lines but GWO doesn't seem to be going bankrupt.

GWO is hardly the kind of roleplayer you should be aspiring to emulate.

[Automagfreek]

GWO is hardly the kind of roleplayer you should be aspiring to emulate.

This.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

Freeform RP means you don't have to conform to reality. Although that begs the question as to why you are posting in this thread in the first place.

I post to ensure that I maintain a decent level of military realism when RPing so as to ensure I don't get called out by more experienced nations. That being said, I'm still a relative rookie when it comes to waging warfare.

GWO is hardly the kind of roleplayer you should be aspiring to emulate.

Noted.

[Novraslavia]

Oh please, not even close. Try Eritrea and Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia has basic healthcare and social services.

Dunno about Eritrea. They might be similar to the old communist states, with breadlines for miles and never enough furniture.

Eritrea is far from communist, trust me. They're just a poor-ass country in Africa who spends too much on their military. Also, and I'm not usually one to defend the current state of communism in the world, but considering that one of the most economically stable countries in the world (China) is communist, perhaps it shouldn't be communism that you blame for a nation's poor economical situations (like you did earlier with the Soviet Union and North Korea). Frankly, there are a variety of factors that go into a nation failing economically, as there are plenty of non-communist countries who both spend too much on their military and are neck-high in debt.

[Transnapastain]

GWO is hardly the kind of roleplayer you should be aspiring to emulate.

This.

Yiouch!

I remember, when I was a wee noob, looking up to AMF there, always afraid he was gonna crash my thread with missions of Freekish soldiers.

But this isn't the "Remember when..." NS thread, so I will cease my nostalgia.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union

Generally something along those lines.

Lol, I was expecting something along those lines but GWO doesn't seem to be going bankrupt.

Probably because he is wanking.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

Saudi Arabia has basic healthcare and social services.

Dunno about Eritrea. They might be similar to the old communist states, with breadlines for miles and never enough furniture.

Eritrea is far from communist, trust me. They're just a poor-ass country in Africa who spends too much on their military. Also, and I'm not usually one to defend the current state of communism in the world, but considering that one of the most economically stable countries in the world (China) is communist, perhaps it shouldn't be communism that you blame for a nation's poor economical situations (like you did earlier with the Soviet Union and North Korea). Frankly, there are a variety of factors that go into a nation failing economically, as there are plenty of non-communist countries who both spend too much on their military and are neck-high in debt.

China isn't communist.

They're pragmatist.

[Novraslavia]

Eritrea is far from communist, trust me. They're just a poor-ass country in Africa who spends too much on their military. Also, and I'm not usually one to defend the current state of communism in the world, but considering that one of the most economically stable countries in the world (China) is communist, perhaps it shouldn't be communism that you blame for a nation's poor economical situations (like you did earlier with the Soviet Union and North Korea). Frankly, there are a variety of factors that go into a nation failing economically, as there are plenty of non-communist countries who both spend too much on their military and are neck-high in debt.

China isn't communist.

They're pragmatist.

Let's not split hairs now. :-P

[The Greater Aryan Race]

Probably because he is wanking.

Lolcakes.

But anyways, I shall begin the long (and arduous) road of initiating defence-spending cuts and sizing-down of the military.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Eritrea is far from communist, trust me. They're just a poor-ass country in Africa who spends too much on their military. Also, and I'm not usually one to defend the current state of communism in the world, but considering that one of the most economically stable countries in the world (China) is communist, perhaps it shouldn't be communism that you blame for a nation's poor economical situations (like you did earlier with the Soviet Union and North Korea). Frankly, there are a variety of factors that go into a nation failing economically, as there are plenty of non-communist countries who both spend too much on their military and are neck-high in debt.

China isn't communist.

They're pragmatist.

If China is communist they really suck at it. Letting capitalist entities that are run from capitalist countries open up factories in a communist state so that they can pay very little in salaries goes against every communist ideal last I checked.

[Trivval]

Official population: Four Billion
Current military size: Five Million
Current military budget: NS$12'597'574'480'394.8595 (7% of GDP)

Feasible?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Would it be a good idea to use artillery in a jungle enviroment if i cleared out an area of high ground?

The problems with using artillery in a jungle is mostly that you'll have a hard time spotting targets, and what targets there are will easily be able to hide from you once you start firing.

That and--IIRC--the thick foliage may limit how effective shrapnel will be against even infantry in the open.

This last part is especially true.
Vietnamese jungle could survive Rolling Thunder.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

A solid tungsten rod that size would weigh ~34 tons. But if it has a rocket booster it ain't a solid rod is it? Or, you know, an attachment to the rod. You know...

Tungsten won't survive impact intact at near-orbital speeds, non-negotiable I don't want it to. In fact, I want it to explode. I couldn't care less if it disintegrates. I just need the kinetic energy it picks up. I do not know of any material that will. Rocket boosting it really, really will not help. I need guidance for it. I'm not planning on the costs of getting it up there just to hope it hits where I want it to hit.

It would put on a nice show, vaporize anyone in the immediate vicinity, shake the ground, soil many pants etc. etc. but the actual effects on target won't be anywhere near as impressive as the sheer KE would imply. Throwing metal rods into the ground isn't a great way to destroy anything but bunkers to begin with and it's not even very good at that for reasons discussed. RL it's been realized that a ballistic missile, ideally with a maneuverable RV that can control it's speed, is a far better way of perforating bunker things than space rods from god It's designed, not as bunker busters, but instead, the moment it hits the ground, it exerts the kinetic energy it's picked up, throwing up dirt and everything directly above it.

How do you intend on forcing a 34 tonne tungsten telephone pole to transmit a petajoule of energy rapidly and close to the ground enough to simulate an 'airburst' strike, exactly?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

I return, with the topic of nuclear weapons. From what I've read I'm possibly the only person to post here asking if it was realistic to have such.

I was told the unofficial rule for nuclear missiles was that you needed a population of 100,000,000, or have another country help you. I do not have 100,000,000 yet, I have 68,000,000. I was wondering if nuclear bombs would be sensible, because from what I've read the rule applied to missiles. My second largest industry is Uranium mining, it doesn't show anymore because the automobile industry simply dominates now. I was thinking it would be sensible, to have several bombs ranging in the low kiloton range (Around 23), and I work my way from there. My defense budget is 20%, so I am really sure I have the funds to research this.

England has a population of only 30-something million in the early postwar years IIRC. And we have had a nuclear arsenal since the late 1940s.

[Dolmart]

I return, with the topic of nuclear weapons. From what I've read I'm possibly the only person to post here asking if it was realistic to have such.

I was told the unofficial rule for nuclear missiles was that you needed a population of 100,000,000, or have another country help you. I do not have 100,000,000 yet, I have 68,000,000. I was wondering if nuclear bombs would be sensible, because from what I've read the rule applied to missiles. My second largest industry is Uranium mining, it doesn't show anymore because the automobile industry simply dominates now. I was thinking it would be sensible, to have several bombs ranging in the low kiloton range (Around 23), and I work my way from there. My defense budget is 20%, so I am really sure I have the funds to research this.

England has a population of only 30-something million in the early postwar years IIRC. And we have had a nuclear arsenal since the late 1940s.

Canada was and still is classified as a nation that can build nuclear weapons in the blink of an eye, and Canada only has 33 million people today and would probably have some logistics problems.

[Halgrond]

Is there any guide to building your military?

[Dolmart]

Is there any guide to building your military?

I second this...

[Spirit of Hope]

I second this...

I third this? I don't know, a guide to building a military would be nice

[Samozaryadnyastan]

The only 'guide' so far as I'm aware is to look at RL militaries you imagine your nation having parallels with, combining the features and then posting on here for crits.
But it only works for MT.

[Bafuria]

Official population: Four Billion
Current military size: Five Million
Current military budget: NS$12'597'574'480'394.8595 (7% of GDP)

Feasible?

It's sustainable if you don't have any kind of welfare system.

[Lubyak]

I second this...

I third this? I don't know, a guide to building a military would be nice

If anything, the best way to start would be to look at RL militaries on wikipedia, and start doing your own research as to what type of military you want.

It also depends on how you want to play your nation. Are you a land power, or a sea power? Are you a rich First World nation, or a poor industrializing one? Is your nation interested in projecting power across oceans, or are you interested in just protecting your own borders?

It all depends. My best response would be to decide what kind of nation you are first. That's potentially the most important part of building a military: what kind of nation is the military built upon?

[Jagalonia]

So what happens when I shoot down that satellite Well, uh, you destroy the mechanism? Though it'd be hard, considering the satellite was made to deal with threats like that.

And SAMs are meant to take down aircraft, but Wild Weasel missions have been relatively succesful at taking them down, no?

An F-15 can be equiped with an ASAT missile, multiple IIRC.
I doubt your satalites have anti-missile equipment on them.

[Jagalonia]

England has a population of only 30-something million in the early postwar years IIRC. And we have had a nuclear arsenal since the late 1940s.

Canada was and still is classified as a nation that can build nuclear weapons in the blink of an eye, and Canada only has 33 million people today and would probably have some logistics problems.

And the only nukes we have were de-activated a LONG time ago.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

The problems with using artillery in a jungle is mostly that you'll have a hard time spotting targets, and what targets there are will easily be able to hide from you once you start firing.

That and--IIRC--the thick foliage may limit how effective shrapnel will be against even infantry in the open.

This last part is especially true.
Vietnamese jungle could survive Rolling Thunder.

MOAB is the way to go.