Well, because you asked for it, here it is:
This thread is, in a nutshell, a place to discuss how to make your NS military more realistic. This can include everything from doctrines to design procedures, tactics to technology. For more specific discussion about aircraft, ground vehicles, warships, or infantry, there are also dedicated threads on these topics, which can be found further down this post.
Recommended Etiquette:
1. Read the OP. Whether you’re new to NS, or just new to the thread, it'll help you tell what MilRealism is all about. I've also included some helpful links on realism-related topics below, which people can refer back to as the thread progresses.
2. Be open to criticism. Anything you post here is open to be critiqued from a realistic perspective, sometimes a little harshly. If you don't want to play realistically, that’s your choice, but unless otherwise stated people will assume that you're looking for feedback. And if you do want to play realistically, then listening to what others tell you is a good place to start. For more information on what constitutes "realism," you can refer to the FAQs section.
3. At the same time, try to be constructive. The above is not an excuse to flame, troll, or otherwise act in an insulting way towards posters.1 While it's certainly tempting to make fun of the n00b who wants to make thermobaric bullet propellant, put an APS on a bomber, or ban autopilot landings, at least take the time to follow it up with an explanation of why that's a bad idea.
4. If you don’t know what you’re talking about, don’t give advice. To paraphrase the old Socratic adage, it’s better to know that you don’t know something than to not know it and think that you do. In other words, if you don't know, ask. Someone will tell you. Try to learn from what the more experienced players have to say, and use that knowledge to improve your understanding.*
5. All tech levels are welcome, so long as you are willing to treat them realistically. While MT (modern tech) is the most discussed, there are some people here who can give you advice on "hard FT," and others who can help you with a historical scenario. Just be aware that if your tech level relies on "it works because I want it to" (i.e., FanT, "soft FT") others will have a hard time giving useful advice.
6. This is F&NI, not F7. Long streams of spammy, chatty, or generally off-topic posts are fun for you and your pals, but they can be a little irritating to everyone else. Likewise, it’s appreciated if you spoiler large images, strings of large images, or very long writeups.
7. Forum rules still apply. No flaming, baiting, trolling, you get the idea. Discussion can get a little heated on occasion, but there is at least one moderator (Transnapastain) who regularly frequents these threads, and warnings, bans, and DEATs have taken place from time to time.
Frequently Asked Questions:
1. How many soldiers can I have? Wrong question. Instead, start by asking “How many soldiers do I need?” What are my nation’s strategic aims? Who is threatening me, or who do I need to threaten? Am I preparing to fight a major land war with a much larger adversary, or am I sending small peacekeeping units abroad to deliver aid and help suppress insurgencies? Only when you’ve answered questions like these should you move on to ask how much of that force you can afford to supply. Wikipedia’s list of countries by number of military and paramilitary personnel is a good place to see how real-life nations do this; note that none of the top six defense spenders around the world (Russia, China, US, etc) come anywhere near the "1% active forces" mark, while the countries near or above the 1% tend to be in “enemy at the gates” situations.
2. We've been EMP’d! Currently, the only way to produce an Electro-Magnetic Pulse of any useful strength is by detonating a nuclear weapon, typically in the upper atmosphere. Most military equipment is designed with EMP hardening to reduce its vulnerability to this overload, and most failures can be fixed fairly quickly by the operator. A temporary upset in the more complex equipment may create a brief window of vulnerability, and the civilian power grid will be severely damaged over a vast area; but the whole "jets falling from the sky, tanks stopping in their tracks, missiles self-destructing in midair" thing is mostly a Hollywood fantasy. More information on this can be found in the "helpful resources" section below.
3. Is [x] (idea, concept, tactic) a good idea? First, stop and ask yourself 'Has anyone thought of this before?' If the answer is yes, ask yourself why it's not common today. Why have centuries of engineers, theorists, strategists, tacticians, and politicians not considered it a good idea themselves? Has anything changed to suddenly make this idea practical when it wasn't before? Does it seem too good to be true?
Could another nation use this idea? Generally speaking, whatever one nation can develop it can be reasonably expected another nation can develop the same general concept. How effective would it be if they developed it? If it seems like something only your nation can use for some reason, there's likely something wrong with it.
Could anything go wrong? Does it pass the grin test? Put perhaps a bit more simply,2
Purpelia wrote:When looking at Wikipedia for fun stuff to use look at things that were a success. Not at things that were abandoned.
4. What makes something "realistic?" There's no single hard-and-fast definition of what constitutes "realism." It's certainly possible for a modern military to field an army of crossbowmen, but nobody would consider that realistic. Likewise, rape as a weapon of war is a deeply flawed strategy, but it would be considered realistic for ethnic-nationalist paramilitary fighters to engage in it. And while one can be expected to avoid the most egregious mistakes, it would be a Sisyphean undertaking to accurately model and predict all variables at stake in a modern war. Under the most commonly accepted definition, then, something can be considered "realistic" if it would make sense for a real-world military under the same conditions to do it; a better term might be "believable." If you want to make something outlandish but nonetheless physically possible, like The Corparation's Orion Starships and LRNSA, that's not necessarily out of bounds; but as with technology levels, it can be hard to hold a discussion with someone who's consistently falling back on "but it makes sense because reasons!"
5. Hey, I have a question about that "Longsword" ship.
NO.
Helpful Links and Other Resources
NS Military Realism Calculator Pack: compiled by Kyiv (The Kievan People)
Nuclear Weapons:
Atomic Rockets: Up for the challenge of “hard FT?” This site has everything you need and more.
Authoritative Capabilities of Nuclear Weapons: in two parts.
EMP Effects of Nuclear Weapons
Nuclear Weapons Effects from the FAS site
Effects of Nuclear Weapons Princeton University PDF/powerpoint
Naval Warfare:
New Vihenia’s Submarine Displacement Calculator: determine surfaced and submerged displacement for your submarines.
Naval Resources Page: a useful primer on how to conduct naval warfare realistically on NS.
Naval Weapons Site: a guide to naval weapons and technology from the 19th century to the present.
ORBATs and Organization:
Armoured Acorn Find ORBATs under the “references” tab; a better listing of vehicles than most, but doesn’t show personnel.
FM-100-2-3: The Soviet Army’s organization near the end of the Cold War; small inaccuracies throughout.
FM-100-60: Organization of the Heavy Mechanized OPFOR, a US “evolution” of the Soviet Army.
NATO Military Symbol Generator: Helpful for making unit symbols for organization charts and scenario maps.
FM-100-63: Organization of the Infantry-Based OPFOR. Think Iraq or Serbia instead of the USSR.
FM 3-21.21: The Stryker Brigade Infantry Battalion.
Shipbucket Organization page: A visual thinker? This has FD-scale images of RL countries’ platoons and companies.
TM-E 30-480: Japanese Army Organization in WWII
UK TOEs
Military Doctrine:
Breaking the Mold: Tanks in the Cities: For those who come here thinking MBTs don't belong in cities.
FM-100-2-1: US study of Soviet army doctrine; somewhat obsolete.
FM-100-2-2: Soviet warfare in special roles, as well as rear-area support and protection.
The Foundations of the Science of War: Some compiled works of Colonel JFC Fuller
TRADOC 350-14: Heavy Mechanized OPFOR Operational Art.
And finally, just for giggles:
The AeroGavin: Sparky in all his glory.
(If there's anything else you want me to include here, just post a link and let me know; I think it'll be helpful to new and old NSers alike if we can gather some of more resources like these).
Links to Other Threads:
Past Military Realism Threads:
NS Military Realism Consultation Thread, Sept 2011 – May 2012
NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #2, May 2012 – March 2013
NS Military Realism III, March 2013 – July 2013
NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #4, July 2013 – Jan 2014
NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #5, Jan 2014 – May 2014
NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #6, May 2014 – Sept 2014
NS Military Realism Mk. 7, Sept 2014 – Feb 2015
Other Threads in the Military Realism Family:
Military Ground Vehicles of your Nation: MBTs, IFVs, APCs, SPAAGs, and the like.
Your Nation’s Air Force: a place to talk about fighters, bombers, and aviation in general.
Your Nation’s Warships: nope, still no place for Longswords.
Non-Military Realism Consultation Thread: for things like police, government structure, and economics.
Infantry Discussion Thread: Now with 300% more DPRK.
Create Your Own Everything: No, it's not technically a “realism” thread, but it's a nice place to post vehicle or uniform illustrations.
Selection of the Next OP:
When the thread reaches 450 or so, I’ll put up the following template to begin the nomination process. Once nominations end, votes will be cast on the voting thread if Akasha permits it.
- Code: Select all
[size=120]This is my Nomination. There are many like it, but this one is mine.[/size]
[b]Nominee:[/b]
This OP by Soode. The last OP was a little sparse, so I decided to include some helpful links and guidelines. Most are more or less original, but some were copied verbatim from past Military Realism OPs. These are cited below, partly to credit the true authors but also to redirect any hate I get for putting them in there.
1: The Akasha Colony, Thread 4, taken from top paragraph with minor edits
2: The Akasha Colony, Thread 4, taken from FAQs section
Possibly others, but the other thread is reaching 500 and I'm in a hurry
