NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #2

[Onekawa-Nukanor]

Got a military history question here:

How was it that the Romans were able to utilise sword-wielding infantry so effectively when everyone else preferred spears or other forms of long pointy sticks? Also, could their strategy have still worked against the weapons and tactics of the Middle Ages?

By using fuck-off massive shields, close formations and professional soldiers. The weakness of the legions was when facing cavalry, something that would severely handicap them in the Medieval period. They'd also need leg and arm protection by then too.

Many of the gains the Romans made was long before the Marian reforms and the birth of the professional legionary. And in all honesty, the Roman legionnaire proved themselves (and any well trained heavy infantry could do this) against Parthian Cataphracts. So I believe Roman legionnaire infantry would, properly trained, equipped and led, have no trouble facing medieval cavalry.

Also, one of the reasons Romans abandoned the spear idea was that, despite the phalanx being the epitome of spear/pike armed troops in that era and everyone used it, it was pretty poor on uneven ground which was the norm in Latium, and top have really effective spear troops its best to have flat ground and a single, unified front. Of course you don't need these things, but its handy to have them. Therefore, they used something that was far more maneuverable in combat, and therefore able to overcome these terrain disadvantages, without becoming light infantry.

[DASHES]

I've been wondering if two recovery vehicles can tow the same wreckage at the same time.

Say I have a 'knocked-out' AFV in the field, and the only vehicles I have in the area that are equipped for recoveries are a few HEMTT Wreckers.
Now, the only problem is, the AFV in question is too heavy for a single Wrecker to evacuate it.

Could I have two Wreckers simultaneously use their recovery gear to evacuate the AFV?

[Ularn]

By using fuck-off massive shields, close formations and professional soldiers. The weakness of the legions was when facing cavalry, something that would severely handicap them in the Medieval period. They'd also need leg and arm protection by then too.

Many of the gains the Romans made was long before the Marian reforms and the birth of the professional legionary. And in all honesty, the Roman legionnaire proved themselves (and any well trained heavy infantry could do this) against Parthian Cataphracts. So I believe Roman legionnaire infantry would, properly trained, equipped and led, have no trouble facing medieval cavalry.

Also, one of the reasons Romans abandoned the spear idea was that, despite the phalanx being the epitome of spear/pike armed troops in that era and everyone used it, it was pretty poor on uneven ground which was the norm in Latium, and top have really effective spear troops its best to have flat ground and a single, unified front. Of course you don't need these things, but its handy to have them. Therefore, they used something that was far more maneuverable in combat, and therefore able to overcome these terrain disadvantages, without becoming light infantry.

Well, since my city-state (name pending) sits on a river delta the ground is unfortunately likely to be pretty flat. On the other hand, marshland is probably bad for cavalry, as is having to get them on and off of boats in the middle of a battle so you can get them into the fight, and that's not even considering their relative uselessness against city walls. Defensively, swords would probably make a reasonable degree of sense, although that might change when the nation tries to expand itself beyond the delta and move its borders upriver.

[The Reliquary]

Many of the gains the Romans made was long before the Marian reforms and the birth of the professional legionary. And in all honesty, the Roman legionnaire proved themselves (and any well trained heavy infantry could do this) against Parthian Cataphracts. So I believe Roman legionnaire infantry would, properly trained, equipped and led, have no trouble facing medieval cavalry.

Also, one of the reasons Romans abandoned the spear idea was that, despite the phalanx being the epitome of spear/pike armed troops in that era and everyone used it, it was pretty poor on uneven ground which was the norm in Latium, and top have really effective spear troops its best to have flat ground and a single, unified front. Of course you don't need these things, but its handy to have them. Therefore, they used something that was far more maneuverable in combat, and therefore able to overcome these terrain disadvantages, without becoming light infantry.

Well, since my city-state (name pending) sits on a river delta the ground is unfortunately likely to be pretty flat. On the other hand, marshland is probably bad for cavalry, as is having to get them on and off of boats in the middle of a battle so you can get them into the fight, and that's not even considering their relative uselessness against city walls. Defensively, swords would probably make a reasonable degree of sense, although that might change when the nation tries to expand itself beyond the delta and move its borders upriver.

Give every citizen over 16 a crossbow and put them up on a wall. Look at the successes of the Italian militias in the late Middle Ages.

What part of the medieval period? If it is after plate armour became widespread then polearms like warhammers or even maces become much more useful than swords.

[Ularn]

Well, since my city-state (name pending) sits on a river delta the ground is unfortunately likely to be pretty flat. On the other hand, marshland is probably bad for cavalry, as is having to get them on and off of boats in the middle of a battle so you can get them into the fight, and that's not even considering their relative uselessness against city walls. Defensively, swords would probably make a reasonable degree of sense, although that might change when the nation tries to expand itself beyond the delta and move its borders upriver.

Give every citizen over 16 a crossbow and put them up on a wall. Look at the successes of the Italian militias in the late Middle Ages.

What part of the medieval period? If it is after plate armour became widespread then polearms like warhammers or even maces become much more useful than swords.

I was thinking pretty much right before firearms became commonplace within infantry weapons. Common weapons are swords, halberds and crossbows for the City Watch, with the Army using more bows and spears, though swords and halberds remain commonplace because they are such badass weapons!

[Crookfur]

No but he did. But now for something completely unrelated. I want to ask what you people think of my new concept for squad level tactics. The idea is as fallows:

Each squad consists out of 11 men. The squad commander is also the IFV commander and mans the squad IFV (BMP-3) with a 2 men crew. One of the two crew is trained as a mechanic and another as the squad medic. Although all men have basic first aid training. The remaining 8 men are divided into two sections. The rifle section is composed of 4 men, armed with rifles (select fire bullpup battle rifle, 7.5 Swiss) and hand grenades. One of them also has an UGL and another carries a RPG-7. Disposable RPG's are available in the IFV for deployment as needed. The second section is the heavy weapon section. It is composed of 2 heavy weapon crews, one with a GMPG (MG3 rechambered in 7.5 Swiss) and another with a grenade rifle (A light, man portable GMG. Something like this). Each crew consists of a gunner with the respective weapon and an assistant with a battle rifle and extra munitions. The combat doctrine is that the rifle section serves to provide covering fire for the heavy weapon section, flush enemies out or assault positions. Where as the heavy weapon section uses its overwhelming firepower and is the one that inflicts casualties on the enemy.

Basically you've got things backwards, its your GPMG thats provides all the sustained surpession/covering fire to allow the assualt section to clsoe with and assult enemy positions. The AGL-lite thing doesn't really add a whole lot in this equation sicec you also have the IFV's gun to do the job so i woudl ditch it and add another rifle/UGL pair so you can have the gun group support two 3 man assault groups who can provide additional covering fire to each other and allow assault from multiple facings

ver nice example is set out in this video series: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciFnTiac ... el&list=UL


Maybe if you use the same section setup for dismoutned infantry you cna use what would normally be the vehciel crew as a addintional gun team with the grenade rifle.

[Crookfur]

I've been wondering if two recovery vehicles can tow the same wreckage at the same time.

Say I have a 'knocked-out' AFV in the field, and the only vehicles I have in the area that are equipped for recoveries are a few HEMTT Wreckers.
Now, the only problem is, the AFV in question is too heavy for a single Wrecker to evacuate it.

Could I have two Wreckers simultaneously use their recovery gear to evacuate the AFV?

yes

[The Reliquary]

Give every citizen over 16 a crossbow and put them up on a wall. Look at the successes of the Italian militias in the late Middle Ages.

What part of the medieval period? If it is after plate armour became widespread then polearms like warhammers or even maces become much more useful than swords.

I was thinking pretty much right before firearms became commonplace within infantry weapons. Common weapons are swords, halberds and crossbows for the City Watch, with the Army using more bows and spears, though swords and halberds remain commonplace because they are such badass weapons!

Swords have issues with plate armour, they can't cut through and when stabbing the vulnerable points are fairly small and hard to get to. I'm not saying it can't be done, but maces, poleaxes, warhammers and halberds are good.

[Ularn]

I was thinking pretty much right before firearms became commonplace within infantry weapons. Common weapons are swords, halberds and crossbows for the City Watch, with the Army using more bows and spears, though swords and halberds remain commonplace because they are such badass weapons!

Swords have issues with plate armour, they can't cut through and when stabbing the vulnerable points are fairly small and hard to get to. I'm not saying it can't be done, but maces, poleaxes, warhammers and halberds are good.

To be honest, I'm still making up my mind a lot about the puppet - don't even have a name for it yet and I'm even considering taking it in a steampunk direction. Asking here's more a case of "I want swordsmen; how do I make them work in this period?" as opposed to "Can swordsmen work in this period?" while I figure out the details in my head.

[Liugark]

So I thought out a part of my Nations history.Its 500 A.D. and the World awaits a new conqueror.So I made one and let him conquer big parts of the world.
This is a WIP and will be changed (grammatical errors,logical mistakes and such).But what do you guys think about the overall outline ?´

In 485 A.D.,years after the fall of the mighty Xiongnu,the Liu Khan Bramu extended the rule of the
Liu Khanate,raiding Wei Territories and forcing them to pay tribute.Now he settled his eye on the
west,on the Tarim Basin,which was populated by the White Huns.Former brothers of the Liu,these
men were descendants of the Xiongnu just as them.

He subjugated the Tuyuhun.Then,shortly before he invaded the Hephtalites,he died.He got successed
by his Son Preamu,to many one of the Greatest in Liu History.

Preamu was young,and the Wei broke any contracts made with the Liu.So he raided some of their cities,slaughtering
their population and forcing the Wei to subjugate and pay tribute to his state.

Then he marched West.He invaded the Hephtalites,forcing them out of the Tarim Basin in just a year.

He crossed the Hindukush and emerged victorious against the Hephtalites in Bactria,subjugating them.

Then he persued the scattered remains of the Hephtalites,gaining control over the north of Transoxania.His Empire
now reached from the Gansu Valley to the Caspian Sea.

His aggressive and expansive nature led the Sassanid Empire to challenge him,fearing that his army would invade Persia.

Preamu forced them back to the Heartland of Persia,where he won one of his most glorious battles against the
Shah of the Sassanids,outnumbered heavily.

He reached Ctesiphon,the Sassanid Capital,as Victor.He was embraced by the Persian population.

But he wanted to expand even more.So he led his army to totally annex the Sassanids,claiming a big part of Arabia and the
whole of Mesopetamia in the process.

Preamu was now faced against the Eastern Roman Empire.He gained control of the Levant quickly.

Then he moved on to Egypt.He was stopped at Alexandria.He captured the city,but made treaties with the Romans and
went to Ctesiphon.There he died.After his death in 544 A.D. his closest friends who acted as Generals were battling
over his gigantic Empire.It split up in smaller Laqan States,the Liu equivalent of a Quaghanate.

In his biggest extension the Liu Empire of Preamu reached from Alexandria to the Gansu Valley.

No one ?´

[Strykla]

By using fuck-off massive shields, close formations and professional soldiers. The weakness of the legions was when facing cavalry, something that would severely handicap them in the Medieval period. They'd also need leg and arm protection by then too.

Many of the gains the Romans made was long before the Marian reforms and the birth of the professional legionary. And in all honesty, the Roman legionnaire proved themselves (and any well trained heavy infantry could do this) against Parthian Cataphracts. So I believe Roman legionnaire infantry would, properly trained, equipped and led, have no trouble facing medieval cavalry.

Also, one of the reasons Romans abandoned the spear idea was that, despite the phalanx being the epitome of spear/pike armed troops in that era and everyone used it, it was pretty poor on uneven ground which was the norm in Latium, and top have really effective spear troops its best to have flat ground and a single, unified front. Of course you don't need these things, but its handy to have them. Therefore, they used something that was far more maneuverable in combat, and therefore able to overcome these terrain disadvantages, without becoming light infantry.

Roman Triarii fought in a shallow phalanx formation, but that was before Marian, iirc.

Also, the segmentata lorica, the stereotypical Roman armor, was probably provided mostly to the heavy infantry, the Legionnaires and Centurions. Auxilia wore scale armor. Some people say the segmentata is used only for parades, like the helmet crests, but that wouldn't make sense considering they're really expensive.

Wikipedia seems to think they were made of iron and brass buckles; I'm pretty sure iron could stop a dory, but I've never tried. The wicker scutum was a good enough shield, and might have stopped some swords and provided infinite protection against any missiles less than a pila, but was far less durable than the Greek aspis, even if it did provide more coverage for less weight. The Greeks likes to cover their shields with a thin brass face, which dramatically increased the strength even if the thing weighed over twenty pounds.

The Roman testudo was geared to provide full protection to a lot of soldiers in a small space. A lot like the phalanx, they could push against the enemy's lines with men backing them up. However, they did not use the testudo exclusively, as Hellenic armies did with the phalanx, and individual legionnaires were far more flexible than individual Greeks or Macedonians. Like Nukanor said, the phalanx would suffer when there was uneven ground, as Polybus agrees. I'd be interested to see how Romans and Lacedaemonians fared against each other, both at the height of their power, because both were incredible armies.

Romans, after Marian reforms, could very well fight against medieval armies. Medieval armies typically just ran at each other in battle while archers shot away. While it's not terribly different in Roman times, they took large-scale troop formations into heavy account. Medieval warfare also relied heavily on the knight, and relegated the infantry to not much better than militia forces. In the Crusades, where there weren't knights, there were average joes with pitchforks. The Anglo-Saxons had the fyrd, farmers and lower-class guys, for example. While they did have shield walls, these were of poor quality compared to Roman or Hellenic ones.

Romans also fought very conservatively. The gladius was tailor-made for short, stabbing attacks, when their primary enemies, like the Gauls, were superb individual fighters but entirely lacked tactics. A single knight would easily lose to two or three Romans, because the longsword required great, big sweeps to lay about, and the gladius didn't. The knight's armor, also protected them to the fullest extend but didn't offer much maneuverability.

I'm not an expert. Just my thoughts.

[Liugark]

I was thinking pretty much right before firearms became commonplace within infantry weapons. Common weapons are swords, halberds and crossbows for the City Watch, with the Army using more bows and spears, though swords and halberds remain commonplace because they are such badass weapons!

Swords have issues with plate armour, they can't cut through and when stabbing the vulnerable points are fairly small and hard to get to. I'm not saying it can't be done, but maces, poleaxes, warhammers and halberds are good.

Swords also had trouble with mail,atleast slashes were pretty ineffective.Also most
soldiers wore a gambeson or some other kind of "soft" protection under their armour,making
it harder to hit vital spot.

Mail for example was very vulnerable to pointy objects.Arrows penetrated it
rather easily.

[Ularn]

Swords have issues with plate armour, they can't cut through and when stabbing the vulnerable points are fairly small and hard to get to. I'm not saying it can't be done, but maces, poleaxes, warhammers and halberds are good.

Swords also had trouble with mail,atleast slashes were pretty ineffective.Also most
soldiers wore a gambeson or some other kind of "soft" protection under their armour,making
it harder to hit vital spot.

Mail for example was very vulnerable to pointy objects.Arrows penetrated it
rather easily.

Stabbing also works, which is why I'm inclined to think a Roman with his gladius, who would never swing his sword, would be able to beat it.

[Liugark]

Swords also had trouble with mail,atleast slashes were pretty ineffective.Also most
soldiers wore a gambeson or some other kind of "soft" protection under their armour,making
it harder to hit vital spot.

Mail for example was very vulnerable to pointy objects.Arrows penetrated it
rather easily.

Stabbing also works, which is why I'm inclined to think a Roman with his gladius, who would never swing his sword, would be able to beat it.

Thats what I meant with pointy objects lol.

Mail was an essential part of many soldiers life,as it was perfect to deal with slashing blows.

Also if you have a problem with cavalry,do the logical thing.Shoot their horses.

Also the Romans had Laminar armour,perfect against multiple types of attacks.

It had similarities to Lamellar Armour,even though Lamellar was usually made of softer materials.

[Strykla]

\

Also if you have a problem with cavalry,do the logical thing.Shoot their horses.

Well, here are the problems.

Do you have archers?
Are your archers within range?
Do you have velites or javelin soldiers?
Are velites or javelin soldiers in range?
Are they pressed right now?
Might you hit your own soldiers?
Are their horses armored?
Et cetera

[Liugark]

\

Also if you have a problem with cavalry,do the logical thing.Shoot their horses.

Well, here are the problems.

Do you have archers?
Are your archers within range?
Do you have velites or javelin soldiers?
Are velites or javelin soldiers in range?
Are they pressed right now?
Might you hit your own soldiers?
Are their horses armored?
Et cetera

If you have no archers,then you won´t shoot their horses.
Javelin would not be plan number A,as it could be dangerous for your
soldiers.

Also I thought of the perspective of my Nation.Mounted Archers and such.

[Ularn]

Well, here are the problems.

Do you have archers?
Are your archers within range?
Do you have velites or javelin soldiers?
Are velites or javelin soldiers in range?
Are they pressed right now?
Might you hit your own soldiers?
Are their horses armored?
Et cetera

If you have no archers,then you won´t shoot their horses.
Javelin would not be plan number A,as it could be dangerous for your
soldiers.

Also I thought of the perspective of my Nation.Mounted Archers and such.

Not sure why throwing javelins at cavalry would be so much more dangerous than shooting them with arrows as to make it an inadvisable strategy. Sure, your range is diminished but lethality is significantly increased. Armoured cavalry might laugh at arrows but they should rightly shit themselves at javelins, which might have the weight and penetrating power to pierce their armour.

[Liugark]

If you have no archers,then you won´t shoot their horses.
Javelin would not be plan number A,as it could be dangerous for your
soldiers.

Also I thought of the perspective of my Nation.Mounted Archers and such.

Not sure why throwing javelins at cavalry would be so much more dangerous than shooting them with arrows as to make it an inadvisable strategy. Sure, your range is diminished but lethality is significantly increased.

If something went wrong you would have horrible casualities.
Archers just have longer range.Sure,the impact is lesser (even though Composite
Bows were pretty powerful),but the danger for the archer is minimal if protected
by other troops.

Legionaires with Pilla would be perfect for penetrating enemy cavalry with Javelins.

As your nation is using Crossbows,these would be perfect for such a task.Pavise Crossbowmen
would handle enemy cavalry pretty fast.

Also it depends on which type of armour the horses are armed with.Plate would be pretty effective
against arrows due to its shape and consistense,but mail or scale could be penetrated.

[Liugark]

So I thought out a part of my Nations history.Its 500 A.D. and the World awaits a new conqueror.So I made one and let him conquer big parts of the world.
This is a WIP and will be changed (grammatical errors,logical mistakes and such).But what do you guys think about the overall outline ?´

In 485 A.D.,years after the fall of the mighty Xiongnu,the Liu Khan Bramu extended the rule of the
Liu Khanate,raiding Wei Territories and forcing them to pay tribute.Now he settled his eye on the
west,on the Tarim Basin,which was populated by the White Huns.Former brothers of the Liu,these
men were descendants of the Xiongnu just as them.

He subjugated the Tuyuhun.Then,shortly before he invaded the Hephtalites,he died.He got successed
by his Son Preamu,to many one of the Greatest in Liu History.

Preamu was young,and the Wei broke any contracts made with the Liu.So he raided some of their cities,slaughtering
their population and forcing the Wei to subjugate and pay tribute to his state.

Then he marched West.He invaded the Hephtalites,forcing them out of the Tarim Basin in just a year.

He crossed the Hindukush and emerged victorious against the Hephtalites in Bactria,subjugating them.

Then he persued the scattered remains of the Hephtalites,gaining control over the north of Transoxania.His Empire
now reached from the Gansu Valley to the Caspian Sea.

His aggressive and expansive nature led the Sassanid Empire to challenge him,fearing that his army would invade Persia.

Preamu forced them back to the Heartland of Persia,where he won one of his most glorious battles against the
Shah of the Sassanids,outnumbered heavily.

He reached Ctesiphon,the Sassanid Capital,as Victor.He was embraced by the Persian population.

But he wanted to expand even more.So he led his army to totally annex the Sassanids,claiming a big part of Arabia and the
whole of Mesopetamia in the process.

Preamu was now faced against the Eastern Roman Empire.He gained control of the Levant quickly.

Then he moved on to Egypt.He was stopped at Alexandria.He captured the city,but made treaties with the Romans and
went to Ctesiphon.There he died.After his death in 544 A.D. his closest friends who acted as Generals were battling
over his gigantic Empire.It split up in smaller Laqan States,the Liu equivalent of a Quaghanate.

In his biggest extension the Liu Empire of Preamu reached from Alexandria to the Gansu Valley.

No one ?´

Shameful try to get some attention on this.

[Ularn]

No one ?´

Shameful try to get some attention on this.

There's not much to say. There was a dude; he won some battles and conquered most of Asia. End of story.

What I would suggest is that you look into the whys of these battles. Why did he go off on this grand conquest? Why did he win all these battles? What factors, both internal and external, made him a better warlord than everyone he faced? Look at the difficulties he faced as well, not just on the battlefield, but also look at how his personal and political life influenced his military campaign. And rather than deciding at the outset "this is the story of how a dude conquered Asia," work your way through it in steps. Consider what the repercussions of each battle were, and how those repercussions led to the next battle. In short, make this guy a character, instead of a page from a history textbook.

[Liugark]

Shameful try to get some attention on this.

There's not much to say. There was a dude; he won some battles and conquered most of Asia. End of story.

What I would suggest is that you look into the whys of these battles. Why did he go off on this grand conquest? Why did he win all these battles? What factors, both internal and external, made him a better warlord than everyone he faced? Look at the difficulties he faced as well, not just on the battlefield, but also look at how his personal and political life influenced his military campaign. And rather than deciding at the outset "this is the story of how a dude conquered Asia," work your way through it in steps. Consider what the repercussions of each battle were, and how those repercussions led to the next battle. In short, make this guy a character, instead of a page from a history textbook.

It should act as a general outline for the History of the Liu.I actively decided against going into detail.

He will get his own factbook entries,depicting his life and how he conquered the world
in detail.Where and by whom he was born,how he succeded his father.How he reformed his
military and so on.

[Purpelia]

@The Kievan People
I honestly don't understand why you are saying what you are saying. It just makes no sense to me. I have tried elaborating why. But now I am flat out lost. I just give up. So just go ahead, write an essay or something. Explain your logic to me.

What I don't understand is how I need to get rid of the ability of a metal pipe to launch one type of missiles in order to preserve it's ability to launch another type. Since that is what this thing is. It's a metal pipe with an ignition system to fire up a rocket, any rocket that I shove into it. That pipe is than put on an artillery like 360 degrees traverse mount that can elevate as well. It has no optics or any sort of sensors of it's own. And that's it. It's a metal pipe.

Sure if it's actually expected to act in the AA role than yes it would get all the fancy AA radar and guidance package. But I don't see how the ability to attach external sensors and external equipment to a metal pipe to make it do something else detracts from it's ability to be used as a metal pipe when that other stuff is not attached. It's like saying that if your gun is designed so that you can stick a knife on it to stab people, than it can't be good as a gun any more even without the knife. I just don't get the logic of what you are saying.

[Yes Im Biop]

@The Kievan People
I honestly don't understand why you are saying what you are saying. It just makes no sense to me. I have tried elaborating why. But now I am flat out lost. I just give up. So just go ahead, write an essay or something. Explain your logic to me.

What I don't understand is how I need to get rid of the ability of a metal pipe to launch one type of missiles in order to preserve it's ability to launch another type. Since that is what this thing is. It's a metal pipe with an ignition system to fire up a rocket, any rocket that I shove into it. That pipe is than put on an artillery like 360 degrees traverse mount that can elevate as well. It has no optics or any sort of sensors of it's own. And that's it. It's a metal pipe.

Sure if it's actually expected to act in the AA role than yes it would get all the fancy AA radar and guidance package. But I don't see how the ability to attach external sensors and external equipment to a metal pipe to make it do something else detracts from it's ability to be used as a metal pipe when that other stuff is not attached. It's like saying that if your gun is designed so that you can stick a knife on it to stab people, than it can't be good as a gun any more even without the knife. I just don't get the logic of what you are saying.

Man if i were you i would ask other's specifically, That and after the 3rd time of saying the same, I think you should go to others and quit replying. (It saves a lot of stress every time)

[Ularn]

There's not much to say. There was a dude; he won some battles and conquered most of Asia. End of story.

What I would suggest is that you look into the whys of these battles. Why did he go off on this grand conquest? Why did he win all these battles? What factors, both internal and external, made him a better warlord than everyone he faced? Look at the difficulties he faced as well, not just on the battlefield, but also look at how his personal and political life influenced his military campaign. And rather than deciding at the outset "this is the story of how a dude conquered Asia," work your way through it in steps. Consider what the repercussions of each battle were, and how those repercussions led to the next battle. In short, make this guy a character, instead of a page from a history textbook.

It should act as a general outline for the History of the Liu.I actively decided against going into detail.

He will get his own factbook entries,depicting his life and how he conquered the world
in detail.Where and by whom he was born,how he succeded his father.How he reformed his
military and so on.

Okay, but you're still focusing on the 'when' and the 'how'. 'When's and 'how's are for history books. For an interesting character people want to read about, you need to tell us the Why.

[Allmann]

Could anyone help me making the stats for these two rifles, or point me in the right direction?
Inspired by the FN FAL and the Kel-Tec RFB rifles, with some Interdynamics MKR and G36 thrown in there.

SLG7 (Standard)
Weight: 5.95 kg (13.1 lb)
Length:
Barrel length:
Cartridge: 6.5×55mm
Action: Gas-operating tilting breechblock
Rate of fire:
Muzzle velocity: 760 m/s (2,500 feet/s)
Effective range : Possibly 1,000 m (1,100 yards)
Feed system: 20 round detachable box magazine.
Sights: Iron sights, telescopic sight with 3x magnification.

SLG 8 (Bullpup)
Weight:
Length:
Barrel length:
Cartridge: 6.5×55mm
Action: Gas-operating tilting breechblock
Rate of fire:
Muzzle velocity: 760 m/s (2,500 feet/s)
Effective range : Possibly 1,000 m (1,100 yards)
Feed system: 20 round detachable box magazine.
Sights: Iron sights, telescopic sight with 3x magnification.