The Years After (Post Nuclear War RP, OOC, Sign Ups)

[Of The Rnclave]

I swear , none of you understand the concept that you can't have massive Army's like you can in 'modern' day. This is after the Apocalypse , Modern logistics are practically non-existent. Your entire method of resupply and troop movement is going to be though either Ruck Marches , Rail Roads (what are left ) and Water ways. I mean you really couldn't sustain an active military over 60,000 to be entirely realistic. You simply lack the resources in a post apocalyptic world. Look at the Army's of the 18th and 19 Century's and those should be your gauge. All of this "500,000 Soldiers " Crap needs to stop because honestly i'm going to enjoy laughing at you guys when your Soldiers are under-equipped , under-trained and starving.

I have 210,000 and the states are responsible for arming them, each state is connected by a railway and each state would have had a military base for them to steal, copy and reproduce gear from

[Imperial City-States]

I swear , none of you understand the concept that you can't have massive Army's like you can in 'modern' day. This is after the Apocalypse , Modern logistics are practically non-existent. Your entire method of resupply and troop movement is going to be though either Ruck Marches , Rail Roads (what are left ) and Water ways. I mean you really couldn't sustain an active military over 60,000 to be entirely realistic. You simply lack the resources in a post apocalyptic world. Look at the Army's of the 18th and 19 Century's and those should be your gauge. All of this "500,000 Soldiers " Crap needs to stop because honestly i'm going to enjoy laughing at you guys when your Soldiers are under-equipped , under-trained and starving.

I have 210,000 and the states are responsible for arming them, each state is connected by a railway and each state would have had a military base for them to steal, copy and reproduce gear from

You're missing the point. A single Railway or series of railways is insufficient to supply large volumes of troops. There has to be multiple avenues of resupply. And you also need to know that the vast majority of 'Military Bases' would've taken direct nuclear hits in the event of a Nuclear war. They would be so irradiated and so completely and utterly destroyed that nothing could be used out of them. The concept of 'Arming' from Military bases is not realistic. National Guard Armories ? Sure , if those weren't already looted after the bombs originally fell.

Reproducing gear ,again is not nearly as easy as you make it out to be. This is Post Nuclear Engagement. Look up how long it took to make a flintlock rifle in the 18th Century , how about a pair of pants ?

[The Floating Citystate of Serenity]

Bottlecaps are now the new currency in the NSR, since rumors have gone around that pre-war money is now worthless...

[Icrum]

I swear , none of you understand the concept that you can't have massive Army's like you can in 'modern' day. This is after the Apocalypse , Modern logistics are practically non-existent. Your entire method of resupply and troop movement is going to be though either Ruck Marches , Rail Roads (what are left ) and Water ways. I mean you really couldn't sustain an active military over 60,000 to be entirely realistic. You simply lack the resources in a post apocalyptic world. Look at the Army's of the 18th and 19 Century's and those should be your gauge. All of this "500,000 Soldiers " Crap needs to stop because honestly i'm going to enjoy laughing at you guys when your Soldiers are under-equipped , under-trained and starving.

Many nations have rebuilt the railways and have a small amount of cargo automobiles. And I'm going to laugh when you get steamrolled because you are a realism nazi. There can be a slight distortion of reality to have up to 500K troops if it makes sense. Look at Australia. If he devotes most of the land to farmland, he could support a lot of troops. I've devoted a lot of Manchuria and Northern Korea to farmland.

[New Decius]

I swear , none of you understand the concept that you can't have massive Army's like you can in 'modern' day. This is after the Apocalypse , Modern logistics are practically non-existent. Your entire method of resupply and troop movement is going to be though either Ruck Marches , Rail Roads (what are left ) and Water ways. I mean you really couldn't sustain an active military over 60,000 to be entirely realistic. You simply lack the resources in a post apocalyptic world. Look at the Army's of the 18th and 19 Century's and those should be your gauge. All of this "500,000 Soldiers " Crap needs to stop because honestly i'm going to enjoy laughing at you guys when your Soldiers are under-equipped , under-trained and starving.

I think it was already agreed that 50's tech was what we'd been sent back to.

[Luremurg]

I'd like to make clear, that once The Holy Land of Absolute Cagery annexes the Indonesian Islands we will have Indonesian slaves harvesting rice, that means our food production will go through the roof. That means we would be able to support a larger army as well, Australia was never affected or hit by a bomb, we got affected by the nuclear winter but that was about it. Our ability to produce equipment, tanks, planes hasn't changed. We have a healthy population and a well trained army. So I think it's completely realistic for my country to get an army of 200,000 eventually.

[Cainesland]

I'm pretty much the smallest group then huh?

I think I know the answer (yes) but figured I'd post the question regardless.

You're arguing about an army the size of 500,000. I don't suppose an army of 50 well trained and armed people out of my population of 1000 is too much then? Hope not, it was accepted but thought I'd check in.

[Mesrane]

I'd like to make clear, that once The Holy Land of Absolute Cagery annexes the Indonesian Islands we will have Indonesian slaves harvesting rice, that means our food production will go through the roof. That means we would be able to support a larger army as well, Australia was never affected or hit by a bomb, we got affected by the nuclear winter but that was about it. Our ability to produce equipment, tanks, planes hasn't changed. We have a healthy population and a well trained army. So I think it's completely realistic for my country to get an army of 200,000 eventually.

Why wouldn't Australia have been nuked?

>US ally
>large reserves of uranium
>*fairly* close proximity to China, and quite anti-China

[Mesrane]

I'm pretty much the smallest group then huh?

I think I know the answer (yes) but figured I'd post the question regardless.

You're arguing about an army the size of 500,000. I don't suppose an army of 50 well trained and armed people out of my population of 1000 is too much then? Hope not, it was accepted but thought I'd check in.

That's absolutely fine.

[Mesrane]

I swear , none of you understand the concept that you can't have massive Army's like you can in 'modern' day. This is after the Apocalypse , Modern logistics are practically non-existent. Your entire method of resupply and troop movement is going to be though either Ruck Marches , Rail Roads (what are left ) and Water ways. I mean you really couldn't sustain an active military over 60,000 to be entirely realistic. You simply lack the resources in a post apocalyptic world. Look at the Army's of the 18th and 19 Century's and those should be your gauge. All of this "500,000 Soldiers " Crap needs to stop because honestly i'm going to enjoy laughing at you guys when your Soldiers are under-equipped , under-trained and starving.

Many nations have rebuilt the railways and have a small amount of cargo automobiles. And I'm going to laugh when you get steamrolled because you are a realism nazi. There can be a slight distortion of reality to have up to 500K troops if it makes sense. Look at Australia. If he devotes most of the land to farmland, he could support a lot of troops. I've devoted a lot of Manchuria and Northern Korea to farmland.

How does a "slight" distortion of reality "make sense," exactly? I'm dying to know.

Listen up people, there is a thing called radiation. It is not kind to agriculture. Farmland that was previously productive would now be less so, or possibly absolutely worthless, depending upon its proximity to cities large enough to take a nuke. Because of this,the general size of armed forces nations can support will generally take a hit. You simply can't feed as many people.

[Luremurg]

I'd like to make clear, that once The Holy Land of Absolute Cagery annexes the Indonesian Islands we will have Indonesian slaves harvesting rice, that means our food production will go through the roof. That means we would be able to support a larger army as well, Australia was never affected or hit by a bomb, we got affected by the nuclear winter but that was about it. Our ability to produce equipment, tanks, planes hasn't changed. We have a healthy population and a well trained army. So I think it's completely realistic for my country to get an army of 200,000 eventually.

Why wouldn't Australia have been nuked?

>US ally
>large reserves of uranium
>*fairly* close proximity to China, and quite anti-China

Trust me Mesrane, Australia would ditch the U.S if a war between China was to break out. We'd declare neutrality and the Chinese would respect that. The Chinese wouldn't want to nuke Australia anyways because most Chinese have a good opinion on Australians, and most Australians have a good opinion on the Chinese.

[Luremurg]

Many nations have rebuilt the railways and have a small amount of cargo automobiles. And I'm going to laugh when you get steamrolled because you are a realism nazi. There can be a slight distortion of reality to have up to 500K troops if it makes sense. Look at Australia. If he devotes most of the land to farmland, he could support a lot of troops. I've devoted a lot of Manchuria and Northern Korea to farmland.

How does a "slight" distortion of reality "make sense," exactly? I'm dying to know.

Listen up people, there is a thing called radiation. It is not kind to agriculture. Farmland that was previously productive would now be less so, or possibly absolutely worthless, depending upon its proximity to cities large enough to take a nuke. Because of this,the general size of armed forces nations can support will generally take a hit. You simply can't feed as many people.

Rice actually bares well against nuclear radiation, and huge quantities can be produced. That's why I'm going for the Indonesian islands.

[Mesrane]

Why wouldn't Australia have been nuked?

>US ally
>large reserves of uranium
>*fairly* close proximity to China, and quite anti-China

Trust me Mesrane, Australia would ditch the U.S if a war between China was to break out. We'd declare neutrality and the Chinese would respect that. The Chinese wouldn't want to nuke Australia anyways because most Chinese have a good opinion on Australians, and most Australians have a good opinion on the Chinese.

Call me back when you've got an argument there. You are making one megaton of an assumption.

[Luremurg]

Trust me Mesrane, Australia would ditch the U.S if a war between China was to break out. We'd declare neutrality and the Chinese would respect that. The Chinese wouldn't want to nuke Australia anyways because most Chinese have a good opinion on Australians, and most Australians have a good opinion on the Chinese.

Call me back when you've got an argument there. You are making one megaton of an assumption.

Um nope actually. The Australians would refuse to go to war with China, members of parliament would refuse to go to war with China as well and would call for a double dissolution. The U.S is very aware of this that's why they're trying to butter up countries like Malaysia or Japan that would like to go to war with China.

[Luremurg]

Hell, Chinese troops could be trained in Australia in a few more years, Australia's been moving towards China for ages though, the U.S just doesn't tickle our fancy anymore.

[Icrum]

Many nations have rebuilt the railways and have a small amount of cargo automobiles. And I'm going to laugh when you get steamrolled because you are a realism nazi. There can be a slight distortion of reality to have up to 500K troops if it makes sense. Look at Australia. If he devotes most of the land to farmland, he could support a lot of troops. I've devoted a lot of Manchuria and Northern Korea to farmland.

How does a "slight" distortion of reality "make sense," exactly? I'm dying to know.

Listen up people, there is a thing called radiation. It is not kind to agriculture. Farmland that was previously productive would now be less so, or possibly absolutely worthless, depending upon its proximity to cities large enough to take a nuke. Because of this,the general size of armed forces nations can support will generally take a hit. You simply can't feed as many people.

1. Will there be a nuclear war ever? No. So we can pull some strings.
2. Rice can be produced like it was just spawned out of nowhere.
3. If this was 'realistic' everyone would starve as no farmland would be left.

[Mesrane]

Call me back when you've got an argument there. You are making one megaton of an assumption.

Um nope actually. The Australians would refuse to go to war with China, members of parliament would refuse to go to war with China as well and would call for a double dissolution. The U.S is very aware of this that's why they're trying to butter up countries like Malaysia or Japan that would like to go to war with China.

Where did you read or hear that Australia would need to ever go to war with China to get nuked?

[Luremurg]

How does a "slight" distortion of reality "make sense," exactly? I'm dying to know.

Listen up people, there is a thing called radiation. It is not kind to agriculture. Farmland that was previously productive would now be less so, or possibly absolutely worthless, depending upon its proximity to cities large enough to take a nuke. Because of this,the general size of armed forces nations can support will generally take a hit. You simply can't feed as many people.

1. Will there be a nuclear war ever? No. So we can pull some strings.
2. Rice can be produced like it was just spawned out of nowhere.
3. If this was 'realistic' everyone would starve as no farmland would be left.

I second this <3

[Luremurg]

Um nope actually. The Australians would refuse to go to war with China, members of parliament would refuse to go to war with China as well and would call for a double dissolution. The U.S is very aware of this that's why they're trying to butter up countries like Malaysia or Japan that would like to go to war with China.

Where did you read or hear that Australia would need to ever go to war with China to get nuked?

The only country that would ever have a reason to nuke Australia would be China, and they wouldn't nuke us anyways.

[Scotatrova]

It is no one's say on what happened to Australia or the rest of the world. I will add something maybe this week or the weekend explaining which areas were hit and which areas are still radioactive

[Mesrane]

How does a "slight" distortion of reality "make sense," exactly? I'm dying to know.

Listen up people, there is a thing called radiation. It is not kind to agriculture. Farmland that was previously productive would now be less so, or possibly absolutely worthless, depending upon its proximity to cities large enough to take a nuke. Because of this,the general size of armed forces nations can support will generally take a hit. You simply can't feed as many people.

1. Will there be a nuclear war ever? No. So we can pull some strings.
2. Rice can be produced like it was just spawned out of nowhere.
3. If this was 'realistic' everyone would starve as no farmland would be left.

Of course farmland would be left. Did you read where I talked about proximity to cities? Some old lady's garden in the Atlanta suburbs would not yield anything worth eating. Some ranch in Wyoming would continue to produce healthy beef. Some wheat farmer in western Sweden would remain relatively unaffected.

[Luremurg]

It is no one's say on what happened to Australia or the rest of the world. I will add something maybe this week or the weekend explaining which areas were hit and which areas are still radioactive

Seriously though Scot, who would ever nuke Australia ._.

[Icrum]

1. Will there be a nuclear war ever? No. So we can pull some strings.
2. Rice can be produced like it was just spawned out of nowhere.
3. If this was 'realistic' everyone would starve as no farmland would be left.

Of course farmland would be left. Did you read where I talked about proximity to cities? Some old lady's garden in the Atlanta suburbs would not yield anything worth eating. Some ranch in Wyoming would continue to produce healthy beef. Some wheat farmer in western Sweden would remain relatively unaffected.

And so, due to N.K.'s lack of cities, I can use it a farmland.

[Bering]

It is no one's say on what happened to Australia or the rest of the world. I will add something maybe this week or the weekend explaining which areas were hit and which areas are still radioactive

Seriously though Scot, who would ever nuke Australia ._.

To make sure you go down with everyone else on the ship (world in this case)
I mean Russia has 2,700 useable nuclear missiles, Australia, as an ally of the US in a threat, and you want to bet out of 2,700 nukes, not a single one is pointed in the land down under?

[Bering]

I mentioned in my app that old caches and supply depots were opened up. Also if the war happened in 2023 and it is now 2076 (?) wouldn't that be enough time to accumulate recourses. Plus besides recon flights my army hasn't really used up fuel that much.

About 82% of my army is Infantry, 6% Armored Vehicles, 4% Tanks, 1% Artillery, and 7% Aircraft. My army is 224,000

Resources from where? I mean building those domes would have taken a great deal of time in itself, factories for war in a country like Germany would take even longer.

I didn't mean that it would use it up, I mean that you should be mindful of your limited resources

An army of 200,000? America and I only have 100,000. How could you afford that many "Highly trained" troops without your nation suffering. Wouldn't the domes take a lot of maintenance since you live underground and considering the shape of the environment, even keeping that up might be an issue because we lack the resources and clean environments of the pre-war world

And wouldn't Berlin have been hit badly by the nukes and kill a significant portion of the 3 million population? And if the nukes were concentrated there, then I can't imagine the rest of the area did well from the fallout since Brandenburg is fairly rural.

And again, the IX was not real. Building these things would probably take a very significant amount of your resources now that I think about it.

And I'm still waiting on a response from New Decius to this