Guide to Overlooked Aspects of Warfare

[Saxon Germany]

'Tis a good thread AMF, shame that you're now being insulted by TSS and Lhazastan. TSS, in the words of your NSD brethren who've been DEAT'ed over the years for thinking they're too good for NS so they don't have to follow the rules;

Deal with it.

-snip-

How predictable "Hai gais I hate NSD and you are always right can I become mod", or "Hai gais I want join inner circle of #g clique". Obvious bias favorable to those who put comments like yours impeaches me of providing a proper answer to your yesman comment over a matter that has been already obviously left alone and is tangential to the thread's content, left alone for a good reason because obviously, everything that had to be written about it already was.

There are no legal, fair following and application of rules here as surely as Dear Leader thinking you look funny and wanting you executed in North Korea isn't written anywhere. But that is not the subject at hand and that is a problem that will last until this site goes offline, as will last those who exploit it by being liars and sucking up in exchange of favors and ego strokes. The subject at hand is that you obviously tried to troll me, perhaps in the hopes the immunity of those who post opinions favorable to the status quo shall grant you the pleasure of using mods as weapons in this thread. On that, I will just put another name in my fortunately tiny ignore_list, and hope you're not a puppet of someone who would rather not have his main associated with this kind of comment you made.

And to finish this, commenting on a potential problem is not an "insult" to the great, flawless ones in the join date lottery. Only a gigantic ego would treat any form of direct or tangential criticism as an insult, and besides, I didn't give names, and there are more than just one person who does that thing(or did it before moving offsite) so my comment, specifically, was not targeted at anybody. Someone who wouldn't have no feeling of guilty about the subject wouldn't feel "insulted".

And, like I say when I know the futility of hoping improvement over something inherent to a few cliques that won't ever change for the best, let's leave at that.

I'd respond to it were it not for the fact that you're practically a professional troll, TSS. Looking at it you seem to categorise me as a brownnoser. I guess if you got out of your habit of sitting around moaning about 'Mod tyranny' and paid attention to NS, you'd know I don't really associate with Automagfreek at all, regardless of which nation I'm using.

Nothing I say should be taken as an insult against all of the #d crowd, because I do respect a few of them, such as Satirius and Anemos Major. Hmm. It appears I've ended up responding. I will bid you good day, and do the same in putting yourself on ignore so I do not find myself provoked by your trollish sentiments.

[Jenrak]

Best course of direction is to get back on topic on this guide. So, let's do that.

[Crimmond]

Best course of direction is to get back on topic on this guide. So, let's do that.

But... but... I had a really scathing response lined up!

[Jenrak]

Best course of direction is to get back on topic on this guide. So, let's do that.

But... but... I had a really scathing response lined up! :(

>:\ SUCH IS FATE

to prevent being fault for being offtopic, I would like to ask a (marginally) topical question: what are your (anyone who's reading this and willing to answer) thoughts on desertion within times of more pressing crises?

[Alexiandra]

But... but... I had a really scathing response lined up!

>:\ SUCH IS FATE

to prevent being fault for being offtopic, I would like to ask a (marginally) topical question: what are your (anyone who's reading this and willing to answer) thoughts on desertion within times of more pressing crises?

We kill zem. Kill zem all!

[Jenrak]

>:\ SUCH IS FATE

to prevent being fault for being offtopic, I would like to ask a (marginally) topical question: what are your (anyone who's reading this and willing to answer) thoughts on desertion within times of more pressing crises?

We kill zem. Kill zem all!

Mayhap I am in the teh philosorapter moed, but!!!!!

How can you kill that which you cannot catch, grasshopper????

[Dimoniquid]

Nuke it? I mean, that's another overlooked aspect. I mean, you can't just send it off, like throwing stone. You have to choose the size, how long the distance is...

[Questers]

It's a nice guide, it's just a shame that people won't actually take it in. People can read this, but a lot of people don't have the RP skill to enact it properly. Or a lack of interest; I mean, really, quartermasters aren't fun.

[Dimoniquid]

It's a nice guide, it's just a shame that people won't actually take it in. People can read this, but a lot of people don't have the RP skill to enact it properly.

I've taken it aside. See my war thread against Lewis with Harris - I might not have actually set up the amphibious assault, but I have the rest intact.

[Dystopianus]

But... but... I had a really scathing response lined up!

>:\ SUCH IS FATE

to prevent being fault for being offtopic, I would like to ask a (marginally) topical question: what are your (anyone who's reading this and willing to answer) thoughts on desertion within times of more pressing crises?

I was about to ask something about the "discussion who must not be named", but I'll just jump over to the new topic.

Official answer of the Imperial Dominion's army, taken from the Combatwiki (online Dystopian combat manual wiki):

"Desertion is when people stop fighting to protect their own minds. When that happens, their minds are vunerable to the ethernal enemy, and that is why the ethernal enemy will allways encourage you to stop believing in Minerva. If you don't keep your mind right, the enemy will posess it, and then there is no turning back. Your body will be a mortal slave of the enemy, with your soul trapped inside it, screaming for salvation from the darkness. The only way to free a soul from a conquered body is to end the mission and kill you, the soldier. Only then the soldier's soul can be at ease.

In some very rare cases we have encountered that by heavy cleansing of the mind, a person can regain control over his conquered body from the shadow's will, without us having to kill that person. But only in very rare cases, and only if the subject is willing and determined to escape from the shadows. Even so, killing the subject is most likely a faster way of freeing his soul. Besides that re-conquered minds are still more vunerable to enemy attacks and therefore those people are not allowed to serve in the army again.

Even then, you must always be sure to keep your mind clear, as there is a chance that your remaining body will be used as a slave by the enemy, and that we might not get the chance to relieve your soul anytime soon."

(in other words: Kill deserters if you can, for you will be doing something humane actually. If you can't kill them, no probs; let them go and just forget about them. If they are captured or return again, put them in prison and convince them that what they did was bad, they should regret what they did, and if they are lucky they won't have to serve again and they'll be replaced in society, although they will be frowned upon by the general community.)

[Tecknoko]

We kill zem. Kill zem all!

Mayhap I am in the teh philosorapter moed, but!!!!!

How can you kill that which you cannot catch, grasshopper????

Run away and wait for it to come to you, O' High One.

[RandomGuyNation]

tag

[Alexiandra]

We kill zem. Kill zem all!

Mayhap I am in the teh philosorapter moed, but!!!!!

How can you kill that which you cannot catch, grasshopper????

We always catch them... muhaha...

[Stefannica]

I couldn't agree more. Thanks for the info, be sure to use this and remind some of my friends. Job well done

[The Mighty Islands]

I have a question about logistics, would it be wrong to employ private logistics like mercenaries. I know that in real war, some people refuel jets and do other jobs in the same way as mercenaries, but to a lesser extent. Could I have entire companies that that do private logistics for my military so I can send more men to the field? And just like mercenaries, I wouldn't have 100% of my logistics corps privatized, but part of it would, freeing up more men to hold a gun instead of putting bullets in the clips. And I know that this would have an effect on morale on the privatized men because they aren't really prepared for combat, so if the front lines reach them they might scatter. But is this at least possible?

[Mount Shavano]

I have a question about logistics, would it be wrong to employ private logistics like mercenaries. I know that in real war, some people refuel jets and do other jobs in the same way as mercenaries, but to a lesser extent. Could I have entire companies that that do private logistics for my military so I can send more men to the field? And just like mercenaries, I wouldn't have 100% of my logistics corps privatized, but part of it would, freeing up more men to hold a gun instead of putting bullets in the clips. And I know that this would have an effect on morale on the privatized men because they aren't really prepared for combat, so if the front lines reach them they might scatter. But is this at least possible?

I don't think this would free up more men; the same jobs still need to be done. It would increase the percentage of your military on the firing line at the expense of the total size of your military (since the private logistics men would come out of the percentage that most nations would have in their military). Just my two cents.

[The Grand World Order]

I have a question about logistics, would it be wrong to employ private logistics like mercenaries. I know that in real war, some people refuel jets and do other jobs in the same way as mercenaries, but to a lesser extent. Could I have entire companies that that do private logistics for my military so I can send more men to the field? And just like mercenaries, I wouldn't have 100% of my logistics corps privatized, but part of it would, freeing up more men to hold a gun instead of putting bullets in the clips. And I know that this would have an effect on morale on the privatized men because they aren't really prepared for combat, so if the front lines reach them they might scatter. But is this at least possible?

The mercenaries still take a man out of the factory or burger joint.

[Automagfreek]

I'm giving this a well needed bump.

[Lolzieristan]

The one glaring problem with this guide is that no one knows it exists. I actually started writing this before I discovered it exists. I even covered most of the exact same topics you did, like logistics and deployment, crossing oceans, and stuff like that. While writing it, Ie realized about half of this stuff boils down to is this:

People usually do not establish good maps to show the relationship between their country and their enemies. Thus, they have no idea how to even approach the things we're discussing here.

Nations in NS are a lot like ships; they float around in space until they choose to pull alongside each other to exchange broadsides, Every now and then, they'll cluster for massive battles. But they rarely take the time to concretely establish the distances and content of their interiors, and more importantly, the distances and content of the space between them.

If your country is separated from the enemy's by two thousand miles of ocean, then you'll have to ship your forces and supplies that far.
If your national boundary is focused on a wide river, then the enemy will have to secure bridges and/or vessels to cross it.
If the boundary is mountains, then they'll have to secure a pass and then funnel their lines of supply through it.
If there's a patch of jungle or marshland, then armor will be virtually negated, and even fire support from artillery and aircraft might be due to the thick tree covering. I've even heard incidents where satellite, and even radio, contact was interrupted due to the thickness of the canopy. Not to mention the misery of jungle/swamp fighting in general, what with the insufferable heat and humitidy, the swarms of insects and parasites, the inordinate amount of rainfall, and everything else you could possibly imagine.

But no one realizes this, because they usually assume the entirety of the world in which they're fighting is level grassland. Even if they don't, they conveniently skip over the rivers, mountains, woods, etc. that they put on their maps as if those things don't affect their operations. If you come out and ask them, "Is warfare in -40 degree weather different than warfare in 110 degree weather?", then of course they'll say "yes, duuuh."
But no one writes it in. And part of it is probably because they don't have maps detailed enough to show things like that.


If your nation is one hundred miles away from the enemy's, like Britain and France, then bombers can take off from one country, bomb the other one, and land safely in the first country without incident. However, if the distance is vast, like the area between the US and Japan, then you'll need to either deploy and protect multiple carriers, secure and defend air bases, or utilize tankers on a massive scale to achieve the same results. Likewise, if your capital is only a small distance away from the enemy's, like North and South Korea's, or like Richmond and Washington in the American Civil War, then desperate last stand defenses or a Korea-style reoccupation campaign will be much more probable than if the distances were, again, vast, like the distance between Moscow and Beijing. The Russians can trade space for time on an epic scale, while the South Koreans' capital is within artillery range of the North Korean border. The United States had to launch a massive chain of island-hopping campaigns to reach Japan; in Europe, it was only one massive amphibious landing, and then (more or less) conventional land warfare from there on out.

If one does not think about the relationship of the war to the map, then it's easy to ignore these elements. But if you have a map that's scaled, accurate, and followed, then questions like
"Where did those bombers come from, exactly?", or
"Now how did you slip that amphibious force past my navy, all the way down my coastline, and into my capital?"
will become clear. However, not only does that require the defender's country to be mapped out well, but it also requires both parties to know the magnitude and direction of the vector between his country and his enemy's.

[Itanica]

But... but... I had a really scathing response lined up!

>:\ SUCH IS FATE

to prevent being fault for being offtopic, I would like to ask a (marginally) topical question: what are your (anyone who's reading this and willing to answer) thoughts on desertion within times of more pressing crises?

Deserters may be shot at the will of the man in charge of the squad (ICly)

I think desertion should not be taken lightly or as an easy option. If large numbers of men desert to save their own lives, they could potentially pave the way for the enemy to take millions of lives on the homeland. Think, if the Red Army soldiers were allowed to retreat/desert in WWII, the Germans would have had a much more easy time steamrolling. It was the fact that they had to either face the German bullets or their comrades' bullets that made them keep pushing, for they would rather die at German hands as a hero than at Soviet hands as a coward.

[Itanica]

The one glaring problem with this guide is that no one knows it exists. I actually started writing this before I discovered it exists. I even covered most of the exact same topics you did, like logistics and deployment, crossing oceans, and stuff like that. While writing it, Ie realized about half of this stuff boils down to is this:

People usually do not establish good maps to show the relationship between their country and their enemies. Thus, they have no idea how to even approach the things we're discussing here.

Nations in NS are a lot like ships; they float around in space until they choose to pull alongside each other to exchange broadsides, Every now and then, they'll cluster for massive battles. But they rarely take the time to concretely establish the distances and content of their interiors, and more importantly, the distances and content of the space between them.

If your country is separated from the enemy's by two thousand miles of ocean, then you'll have to ship your forces and supplies that far.
If your national boundary is focused on a wide river, then the enemy will have to secure bridges and/or vessels to cross it.
If the boundary is mountains, then they'll have to secure a pass and then funnel their lines of supply through it.
If there's a patch of jungle or marshland, then armor will be virtually negated, and even fire support from artillery and aircraft might be due to the thick tree covering. I've even heard incidents where satellite, and even radio, contact was interrupted due to the thickness of the canopy. Not to mention the misery of jungle/swamp fighting in general, what with the insufferable heat and humitidy, the swarms of insects and parasites, the inordinate amount of rainfall, and everything else you could possibly imagine.

But no one realizes this, because they usually assume the entirety of the world in which they're fighting is level grassland. Even if they don't, they conveniently skip over the rivers, mountains, woods, etc. that they put on their maps as if those things don't affect their operations. If you come out and ask them, "Is warfare in -40 degree weather different than warfare in 110 degree weather?", then of course they'll say "yes, duuuh."
But no one writes it in. And part of it is probably because they don't have maps detailed enough to show things like that.


If your nation is one hundred miles away from the enemy's, like Britain and France, then bombers can take off from one country, bomb the other one, and land safely in the first country without incident. However, if the distance is vast, like the area between the US and Japan, then you'll need to either deploy and protect multiple carriers, secure and defend air bases, or utilize tankers on a massive scale to achieve the same results. Likewise, if your capital is only a small distance away from the enemy's, like North and South Korea's, or like Richmond and Washington in the American Civil War, then desperate last stand defenses or a Korea-style reoccupation campaign will be much more probable than if the distances were, again, vast, like the distance between Moscow and Beijing. The Russians can trade space for time on an epic scale, while the South Koreans' capital is within artillery range of the North Korean border. The United States had to launch a massive chain of island-hopping campaigns to reach Japan; in Europe, it was only one massive amphibious landing, and then (more or less) conventional land warfare from there on out.

If one does not think about the relationship of the war to the map, then it's easy to ignore these elements. But if you have a map that's scaled, accurate, and followed, then questions like
"Where did those bombers come from, exactly?", or
"Now how did you slip that amphibious force past my navy, all the way down my coastline, and into my capital?"
will become clear. However, not only does that require the defender's country to be mapped out well, but it also requires both parties to know the magnitude and direction of the vector between his country and his enemy's.

I agree with your post here. When I RP a war I will try and get details on the terrain of the enemy's nation and I will RP the time it takes for my troops to get to their country. I usually use regions as sort of continents, like everyone in my region is within the range of xx-yy close to me whereas if you are in another region you are going to be xx-yy far away from me. That is unless I can get specific numbers from the guy I'm invading.

[Automagfreek]

The one glaring problem with this guide is that no one knows it exists.

None of the new nations know about it, yes, but it has almost 5,000 views, so people have seen it. It does deserve a bump though.

[Radiatia]

The one glaring problem with this guide is that no one knows it exists.

None of the new nations know about it, yes, but it has almost 5,000 views, so people have seen it. It does deserve a bump though.

You know what? I agree that it deserves a bump, and I am going to give it one right now.

This is an excellent guide. I absolutely, completely and utterly suck at War RPing so this will be a great help if I ever get into one.

Thanks Automagfreek!

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

Morale. Thank heavens for morale. Every single army I've ever fought in the history of my RP career has been shaolin monks, I swear man. From conscripts with sticks being pushed on by comissars at machine guns to more believable yet still too brave professional mercenaries.

I'd make an addendum about the agrarian system of training in the middle ages. Farming provided more food, but took more time compared to nomadic pastoralism. Hence, your average levy sucked. This is why the Mongols rocked. Every soldier of theirs was better trained than the enemy. Even moreso than knights, who trained on their lonesome and not with each other like the Mongols did. Basically, in the middle ages being agrarian lets you have cities, but your army suffers for it (unless you have a rather small army compared to your population, cough cough Romans).

[Ivania]

Good job.