RPing Questions? Ask Here!

[Astholm]

Are RPs like this that use real-earth geography actually permitted?

Link: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=116682

What is and isn't NS-setting: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=5989

I was concerned this one, and any similar ones weren't; how can I be sure it isn't?

[Cascade States 2]

yes they are permitted !

But you cannot "RP a real life nation" ( the America vs Russia, thing ).

I use the West coast of the USA and Canada as my geographical reference point and nation's layout.

[Kagetora]

hey I asked this in General, they told me off for it.

What GDP Calc's do you guys use ?

What are the advantages and issues with them ?

Now before I begin this, I'm just gonna say this is only one side of the argument, and this response is quite biased.

Don't use GDP Calculators. They are restrictive to the storytelling aspect of roleplaying your nation, and don't take into account a million and one factors of your roleplayed nation that simply don't exist in the "official" NS page. All they reveal is how you answer issues. Also, they often have a larger government budget than your GDP (which IS possible by the way, just stupid) with 0 public spending or output. They can give unrealistic budgets and constrict your government budget, market shares, and other things like that.

Your GDP Calculator should be your imagination. Do you want your country to be dirt poor with essentially no economy? Do you want your country to be hyperdeveloped and an economic powerhouse? Just be reasonable and you'll find the experience much more enjoyable.

This wasn't so much advice as an uneloquent rant.

[Santheres]

I agree. Don't use calculators.

If you really, really want a reason why, I could pick any of several, the best one being that they are restrictive to your creativity. A more superficial but every bit as valid reason is that the sectors the budget is cut into are ridiculously stupid.

[Cascade States 2]

I actually like the restrictiveness.
It limits the insane quantities of "stuff" and people, that some nations imagine they actually have.

I was watching a nation say "I want a war, I have 10,000,000 people and 5,000 tanks and 400 fighters"
Their nation was only 11million people?!

That's not role playing, it's just pure fantasy, there are economic rules built into this to help people actually imagine and quantify what they could have.

[Santheres]

Someone who is going to do things like that isn't going to listen to the calculators even if they know about them. That's an issue of noobery, and noobery is difficult to deal with. Some players go years playing without ever becoming not noobs.

Restricting yourself only makes sense if you don't trust yourself at all to not be a noob. And even then, the calculators, in some aspects, aid people in being ridiculously unfeasible, such as when they answer issues to get 80% defense spending on a 100% of GDP budget, and then claim they have a nation that actually works at all. They tend to say things like "the private sector does it" even though there cannot be a private sector if the government is taking all the money to begin with.

[Kagetora]

I actually like the restrictiveness.
It limits the insane quantities of "stuff" and people, that some nations imagine they actually have.

I was watching a nation say "I want a war, I have 10,000,000 people and 5,000 tanks and 400 fighters"
Their nation was only 11million people?!

That's not role playing, it's just pure fantasy, there are economic rules built into this to help people actually imagine and quantify what they could have.

There's a difference between being creative and being rational/realistic/reasonable. And while I would never roleplay with someone like that, it doesn't mean others wouldn't either. If that's the way they have fun you don't need to butt in.

[Vetok]

Well, the number I've listed as active troops contains logistics personell. So of my 10 million active military personell, maybe 4 million or so are actual soldiers, pilots, tankers, etc. The others are the logistics abd rear echelon personell. I'm able to get a mix of only 1.5 rear echelon to combat by passing along anything I can to corporations, and calling in reserve troops for short stints.

At least that's my logic....

Aight hold up there. Ideally, assuming your nation to have an utterly streamlined supply line, like I do (as an example), you will have three logistics troops for every combat soldier. Any lower, and your military will fall apart. This comes out of your entire military, including reserves and actives. Assuming this with your military (total of 22,500,000), you could have 6,375,000 combat troops in total while the other 19,125,000 are logistics.

Let's split this into your active and reserve division. Assuming you follow the same 1:3 combat:support ratio that you do with your military as a whole, this gets you 2,875,000 for combat troops and 8,625,000 logistics. Your reserves would be 3,500,000 and 10,500,000 combat and logistics respectively. Privatisation of your military is not a magic pill.

[Ustio North]

Well, the number I've listed as active troops contains logistics personell. So of my 10 million active military personell, maybe 4 million or so are actual soldiers, pilots, tankers, etc. The others are the logistics abd rear echelon personell. I'm able to get a mix of only 1.5 rear echelon to combat by passing along anything I can to corporations, and calling in reserve troops for short stints.

At least that's my logic....

Aight hold up there. Ideally, assuming your nation to have an utterly streamlined supply line, like I do (as an example), you will have three logistics troops for every combat soldier. Any lower, and your military will fall apart. This comes out of your entire military, including reserves and actives. Assuming this with your military (total of 22,500,000), you could have 6,375,000 combat troops in total while the other 19,125,000 are logistics.

Let's split this into your active and reserve division. Assuming you follow the same 1:3 combat:support ratio that you do with your military as a whole, this gets you 2,875,000 for combat troops and 8,625,000 logistics. Your reserves would be 3,500,000 and 10,500,000 combat and logistics respectively. Privatisation of your military is not a magic pill.

Thanks, Vetok

[Lubyak]

Well, it's not that I privatized ny military, I just gave as many jobs in the logistics department to civilian contractors as I could. E.g. The quartermasters and other organizers are military personell, but things like truck drivers, loaders/unloaders, cargo pilots, cargo vessel crews, airfield fuelers , mechanics etc. are civilian contractors.

I'm not sure if that'd justify how low I've made my combatant:logistic ratio, but I hope it makes my claim a bit more logical.

I'll probably up it a little, to say at least 2 or so uniformed logistics personell per combat troop. The 3:1 ratio does exist, it's just that I didn't count a lot of them as active military.

[Ustio North]

Well, it's not that I privatized ny military, I just gave as many jobs in the logistics department to civilian contractors as I could. E.g. The quartermasters and other organizers are military personell, but things like truck drivers, loaders/unloaders, cargo pilots, cargo vessel crews, airfield fuelers , mechanics etc. are civilian contractors.

I'm not sure if that'd justify how low I've made my combatant:logistic ratio, but I hope it makes my claim a bit more logical.

I'll probably up it a little, to say at least 2 or so uniformed logistics personell per combat troop. The 3:1 ratio does exist, it's just that I didn't count a lot of them as active military.

It's worth noting that employing Civillian Contractors for Logistics is basically the same as employing enlisted military personnel to do it. If you contract civillians to do those jobs, the people who would normally do those jobs would need to find new employment - most likely with the contractor that has had their job outsourced to them. So at the end of the day, the difference is literally none, and as these contractors are employed by the military, they would count as part of the military and would be part of the .05% - 5% Pop guidelines.

[Astholm]

What's the general rule on using real-life nations, as this RP I participate in does this, but this says you can't (well, for nation names/RP's only).

So, if I'm right, an RP set in alternate-universe France/Belgium/wherever would not be permitted, and it'd have to be a fictitious nation modelled on them?

Sorry if this is confusing, I'm not sure what's right or wrong here!

[Hakkalakkazakka]

Question: will I ever marry an asian wife?

[Ustio North]

What's the general rule on using real-life nations, as this RP I participate in does this, but this says you can't (well, for nation names/RP's only).

So, if I'm right, an RP set in alternate-universe France/Belgium/wherever would not be permitted, and it'd have to be a fictitious nation modelled on them?

Sorry if this is confusing, I'm not sure what's right or wrong here!

Yeah, that's right. Playing as a RL nation is illegal, but a nation based on them should be fine. As an addendum, the RP may say it's okay, but the forum rules supercede that of RP rules.

Question: will I ever marry an asian wife?

Good question.

[Astholm]

Yeah, that's right. Playing as a RL nation is illegal, but a nation based on them should be fine. As an addendum, the RP may say it's okay, but the forum rules supercede that of RP rules.

So this nation based on Finland is OK (note the pseudo-Scandinavian "stenholm", meaning "stone island"), but I guess this RP is not OK?*:

Expanding China's Borders

since it's a real-life nation, just with alternate history?

Sorry about this... it's just so confusing - you can use a nation based on a real-life nation but not an alternate history one of the same name?

Trying to keep within the rules, without rules-lawyering or finding loopholes.

* This question is reposted at moderation on advice of another player here.

[Vetok]

Yeah, that's right. Playing as a RL nation is illegal, but a nation based on them should be fine. As an addendum, the RP may say it's okay, but the forum rules supercede that of RP rules.

So this nation based on Finland is OK (note the pseudo-Scandinavian "stenholm", meaning "stone island"), but I guess this RP is not OK?:

Expanding China's Borders

since it's a real-life nation, just with alternate history?

Sorry about this... it's just so confusing - you can use a nation based on a real-life nation but not an alternate history one of the same name?

Trying to keep within the rules, without rules-lawyering or finding loopholes.

Alternate history is fine, otherwise the Earth Empires group and Earth2 would have been banned many, many moons ago.

[Astholm]

Alternate history is fine, otherwise the Earth Empires group and Earth2 would have been banned many, many moons ago.

I see; so I could in theory re-create an alternate-world version of the Los Angeles Motor Show, with alternate-history manufacturers, automobiles, people etc.
I'm just trying to avoid getting any warnings or that; keeping within rules, basically.

[Vetok]

Alternate history is fine, otherwise the Earth Empires group and Earth2 would have been banned many, many moons ago.

I see; so I could in theory re-create an alternate-world version of the Los Angeles Motor Show, with alternate-history manufacturers, automobiles, people etc.
I'm just trying to avoid getting any warnings or that; keeping within rules, basically.

Actually, you shouldn't take my word on anything. Why don't you ask a mod for clarification?

[Ustio North]

I see; so I could in theory re-create an alternate-world version of the Los Angeles Motor Show, with alternate-history manufacturers, automobiles, people etc.
I'm just trying to avoid getting any warnings or that; keeping within rules, basically.

Actually, you shouldn't take my word on anything. Why don't you ask a mod for clarification?

Yeah, at this point you're going to want to ask a Mod for clarification on this. Interpretation of the rules is their job, not mine Odds are they won't give you a warning or what have you for asking.

[Lubyak]

It's worth noting that employing Civillian Contractors for Logistics is basically the same as employing enlisted military personnel to do it. If you contract civillians to do those jobs, the people who would normally do those jobs would need to find new employment - most likely with the contractor that has had their job outsourced to them. So at the end of the day, the difference is literally none, and as these contractors are employed by the military, they would count as part of the military and would be part of the .05% - 5% Pop guidelines.

Ahhh, I see your point, and you're right. I'll adjust max available troops to compromise.

[Shanix]

Here's a question about god-modding, (Our favorite topic!)

Lets say your roleplaying a nation that invades an NPC nation. And you messed up the infrastructure somethin' fierce. So your send in a unit for reconstruction of a certain area, but the locals don't want you there. Yadda yadda. Back on point.

If you're vague about how you treat the citizens of the occupied NPC nation, and someone says that your soldiers are pillaging the ruins, raping and murdering people, so on and so forth (without prior approval), is that god-modding?

[Kagetora]

Here's a question about god-modding, (Our favorite topic!)

Lets say your roleplaying a nation that invades an NPC nation. And you messed up the infrastructure somethin' fierce. So your send in a unit for reconstruction of a certain area, but the locals don't want you there. Yadda yadda. Back on point.

If you're vague about how you treat the citizens of the occupied NPC nation, and someone says that your soldiers are pillaging the ruins, raping and murdering people, so on and so forth (without prior approval), is that god-modding?

Depends. If they SAY your soldiers are doing all that, then no. It's just propaganda or an excuse. If they say your soldiers ARE doing all that, then yes. That's controlling what they don't have a write to. Get the difference?

[Shanix]

Here's a question about god-modding, (Our favorite topic!)

Lets say your roleplaying a nation that invades an NPC nation. And you messed up the infrastructure somethin' fierce. So your send in a unit for reconstruction of a certain area, but the locals don't want you there. Yadda yadda. Back on point.

If you're vague about how you treat the citizens of the occupied NPC nation, and someone says that your soldiers are pillaging the ruins, raping and murdering people, so on and so forth (without prior approval), is that god-modding?

Depends. If they SAY your soldiers are doing all that, then no. It's just propaganda or an excuse. If they say your soldiers ARE doing all that, then yes. That's controlling what they don't have a write to. Get the difference?

I see the difference, I hadn't seen anything relating to a scenario like that, so I wanted to be sure. Thank'ya kindly.

[Telsiai]

I had an idea yesterday, but I'm not sure if there's any rules about it.

Basically, it's alternate history where semi-automatic rifles were invented a lot earlier (like, during the 1800s). Not too advanced (as far as semi-auto rifles go), with a relatively low rate of fire.

Is that technically allowed in International Incidents?

I've had a quick look around, but nothing has really helped. I'd keep digging, but it's late, so I decided to take the lazy way to finding out.

[Ustio North]

I had an idea yesterday, but I'm not sure if there's any rules about it.

Basically, it's alternate history where semi-automatic rifles were invented a lot earlier (like, during the 1800s). Not too advanced (as far as semi-auto rifles go), with a relatively low rate of fire.

Is that technically allowed in International Incidents?

I've had a quick look around, but nothing has really helped. I'd keep digging, but it's late, so I decided to take the lazy way to finding out.

Inventing a technology earlier than expected is not frowned upon by moderation, but if you were doing it as part of, say, an Alternate History to the United States (or similar) you would have to adhere to the rules of alternate history Roleplaying.

As an aside, the earliest recorded Semi-Automatic rifle is that of the German Model 85, where the design was first unveiled in 1885.

EDIT: Furthermore, there are rules on Alternate History RPs. As put by DLN;

Basically, it's like this.

If you are roleplaying YOUR nation, whatever it happens to be based on, you're fine to rp in the regular rp forums in character.

If you are roleplaying a scenario wherein you use your nation and others to claim this that or the other for an alternate take on a historical, future, or otherwise real-life-related scenario, you can take it to F7 and alternate rp your little hearts out.

You can base your nation on whatever you like - it doesn't matter if it's Spain Re-envisioned, or anything else so long as you establish what your nation is, how you're playing it out, and take it from there.

I hope that clarifies somewhat. I know it can get a little confusing, given how many ways people can and do play things out on the forums.

Or a further piece of advice on Alt. History RPs from DLN;

I've explained at length elsewhere in here how some silly sods got the idea that there could be only one, and their solution to sorting out who got what rl territories was to come up with alternate Earths.

So much simpler to assume reality is broken, nations have an odd overlap, and hey - you play with and recognize who you want. More fun to make stuff up than just reclaim the same tired old things anyway, imho. But I digress.

If an NS nation is laid out and created to have been a part, an entirety or a conglomeration of real nations/territories, it's fine. If it hasn't been, and they are just jumping in on the latest bandwagon to come through to claim more territory, outclaim someone else in THIS new Earth that beat 'em on the last run, or just to try something different in another rp that way ... then no.

Hope this helps.