NationStates Modern Tech Advice and Assistance Thread

[The State of Monavia]

Godmoding is a subject that does not get discussed much in threads like this one, so your decision to mention it should offer us all a good change of pace. When I first saw your post I initially assumed that its contents were redundant since Euroslavia wrote an excellent guide on the subject a decade ago and made it pretty thorough. Once I actually read your post, I was very pleased to find that you have broken some new ground by addressing unfair infiltration, warping, dishonesty, and slow-posting since other posters have written little or nothing about them.

Thank you!

TBH I was hesitant to include slow-posting since 9/10 times the other player just has IRL obligations or other threads to respond to, and I hope I was distinct enough on the difference.

In my own experience, warping is the most pervasive godmode among NS RPers who are mature enough not to dictate losses or play characters that do not belong to them. Though I do not see many explicit cases of warping now, there were quite a few cases where I used to see RPers entering IC threads by stating they had warships on routine patrols that just happen to be close to the country hosting the thread. Stuff like this seems to qualify as metagaming in the sense that the player entering the thread knows he or she needs to have assets near the site of the action driving the story and therefore positions them in a location that is convenient for making the plot move a certain desired way. A less sordid form of warping involves RPers posting that they are dispatching planes, ships, etc. to a given location and having them show up almost immediately.

Yeah, warping is pretty common. I have had character RP's even where my guy steps off a plane in Country X and someone from country Y is already running up to him on the tarmac wanting to discuss a secret plot...

Continuing on with the theme of slow-posting or ignoring posts, I find that putting time and location stamps on each scene in an IC post is one way to help prevent RP participants from accidentally losing track of what is happening at different times and places. Nonetheless, there have been times where I go through the trouble of writing multiple scenes in a single post, only for someone to write a single post in response that does not address various things I have my characters doing. In your experience, are there any techniques you have successfully used to prevent other RPers from ignoring your IC actions?

[Stoklomolvi]

Continuing on with the theme of slow-posting or ignoring posts, I find that putting time and location stamps on each scene in an IC post is one way to help prevent RP participants from accidentally losing track of what is happening at different times and places. Nonetheless, there have been times where I go through the trouble of writing multiple scenes in a single post, only for someone to write a single post in response that does not address various things I have my characters doing. In your experience, are there any techniques you have successfully used to prevent other RPers from ignoring your IC actions?

The most blatant technique I find is to constantly hound them to respond to a particular action and refuse to proceed until they have addressed it. E.g. mention it in OOC in an OOC thread or within the thread if there is no OOC thread, and give them the benefit of the doubt (maybe they just overlooked it). If they continue posting while ignoring certain IC actions, then pressure them until they give you acknowledgement. Otherwise, they'll have got away with it and continue to do so. Like Macabees said, though, if it really does look like they're intentionally ignoring certain IC actions, then the RP is pointless.

[The State of Monavia]

Continuing on with the theme of slow-posting or ignoring posts, I find that putting time and location stamps on each scene in an IC post is one way to help prevent RP participants from accidentally losing track of what is happening at different times and places. Nonetheless, there have been times where I go through the trouble of writing multiple scenes in a single post, only for someone to write a single post in response that does not address various things I have my characters doing. In your experience, are there any techniques you have successfully used to prevent other RPers from ignoring your IC actions?

The most blatant technique I find is to constantly hound them to respond to a particular action and refuse to proceed until they have addressed it. E.g. mention it in OOC in an OOC thread or within the thread if there is no OOC thread, and give them the benefit of the doubt (maybe they just overlooked it). If they continue posting while ignoring certain IC actions, then pressure them until they give you acknowledgement. Otherwise, they'll have got away with it and continue to do so. Like Macabees said, though, if it really does look like they're intentionally ignoring certain IC actions, then the RP is pointless.

In my past experience, this problem is especially common in IC threads that have many participants. When a thread has many people posting in it over time, a single player might get bogged down trying to respond to multiple items at once. While this does represent a legitimate reason for excusing delayed or missing responses, a RPer can deliberately abuse this excuse on purpose by claiming that an item simply got “lost in the noise” and then waiting for everyone else to forget about it as pressure mounts to move other plot lines forward.

[Ghant]

snip

To a large degree this is the burden of the OP, finding the time to respond to everyone at once. In the past I've utilized a technique called "Ketchup Posting." It's a play on the words "catch up," and it involves making one post that is solely a response to everyone else's posts. I've utilized ketchup posting to great effect in social threads, such as my Midsummer Ball RP. Everyone that was expecting a response got one, because I'd wait until a "critical mass" of people posted, and then I'd write a post consisting of responses to all of them. There would usually be a decent amount of content in the post, just enough to respond to things other characters said and did and then moving things forward plotwise.

[The State of Monavia]

snip

To a large degree this is the burden of the OP, finding the time to respond to everyone at once. In the past I've utilized a technique called "Ketchup Posting." It's a play on the words "catch up," and it involves making one post that is solely a response to everyone else's posts. I've utilized ketchup posting to great effect in social threads, such as my Midsummer Ball RP. Everyone that was expecting a response got one, because I'd wait until a "critical mass" of people posted, and then I'd write a post consisting of responses to all of them. There would usually be a decent amount of content in the post, just enough to respond to things other characters said and did and then moving things forward plotwise.

You and I seem to have the same basic habit for running threads that we host. While I appreciate people trying to keep things neat and tidy by writing a bunch of consecutive response posts, there is a reason our BB code options include the [hr] tool.

[Slarvainian]

So basically I'm looking for some artillery and anti-air platforms. I'm looking for towed and self-propelled. Jack-of-all trades would be good. I know I could really pull anything off the wikipedia list from the Americans or Russians but if you have any unique favourites that don't really get as much attention feel free to suggest them.

I do have a specific defence requirement for my nation. I use a littoral defence approach to protect my shores so I'm looking for artillery and anti-air platforms that could be moved quickly along the coast to provide support for my ships.

[Tcergaul]

Tag for a useful information thread.

[The State of Monavia]

Folks, I know this thread has been a bit sleepy with the academic year coming to a head. After a brief telegram exchange with Ghant, I would like to get this conversation moving again by addressing a specific technical matter: integrating IC messages into an RP post in a manner that appears natural and unforced. We all probably know one or more people who RP by communiqué but choose not to include and narration or dialogue that provides context for the message or packages it in any particular way.

In trying to determine why some RPers have this habit, I settled upon a few different theories that might offer plausible explanations. One is that some RPers feel they can compress the “gist” of their side’s IC actions into a memo, E-mail, letter, etc. and that contextual material is more about presentation than substance. Another is that some RPers are simply pressed for time and feel that they can always write and post other information later. A third is that some RPers are just unaccustomed to integrating narration and communiqués into a single post because they often see the latter posted as standalone posts. I for one believe that my first and third theories are especially pertinent to diplomatic exchange threads and multilateral organization threads.

One question I have for this discussion group is: Do any of these scenarios apply to you? If so, what are some reasons why you RP the way you do? What theories do you have regarding this issue? If you are somebody who likes to integrate communiqués into your narratives and provide lots of IC context for them, what are some of the methods you employ to aid your writing process and make your storytelling technique effective? What advice would you give someone trying to learn how to integrate IC messages into an RP post?

In describing my own RPing experience, I often like to think of IC messages as the result (i.e. output) of a set of IC events that precede them. In other words, characters write messages in response to some thing or another and simply posting a communiqué without RPing the sequence of events that result in its creation is like delivering a punchline without a joke. For example, when a country called Allardt initiated a church-building program, I made a point of RPing the plot points that led up to one of my characters writing an E-mail to a journalist in Allardt. This is not to say that writing a letter or memo or E-mail as a standalone post is never appropriate. Here is one example and here is another. There are also times when communiqués are a popular way to respond to an event but various alternative responses (like a press conference) are equally valid.

Given the points I have raised thus far, what are some thoughts the rest of you have on this issue?

[New Aeyariss]

Folks, I know this thread has been a bit sleepy with the academic year coming to a head. After a brief telegram exchange with Ghant, I would like to get this conversation moving again by addressing a specific technical matter: integrating IC messages into an RP post in a manner that appears natural and unforced. We all probably know one or more people who RP by communiqué but choose not to include and narration or dialogue that provides context for the message or packages it in any particular way.

In trying to determine why some RPers have this habit, I settled upon a few different theories that might offer plausible explanations. One is that some RPers feel they can compress the “gist” of their side’s IC actions into a memo, E-mail, letter, etc. and that contextual material is more about presentation than substance. Another is that some RPers are simply pressed for time and feel that they can always write and post other information later. A third is that some RPers are just unaccustomed to integrating narration and communiqués into a single post because they often see the latter posted as standalone posts. I for one believe that my first and third theories are especially pertinent to diplomatic exchange threads and multilateral organization threads.

One question I have for this discussion group is: Do any of these scenarios apply to you? If so, what are some reasons why you RP the way you do? What theories do you have regarding this issue? If you are somebody who likes to integrate communiqués into your narratives and provide lots of IC context for them, what are some of the methods you employ to aid your writing process and make your storytelling technique effective? What advice would you give someone trying to learn how to integrate IC messages into an RP post?

In describing my own RPing experience, I often like to think of IC messages as the result (i.e. output) of a set of IC events that precede them. In other words, characters write messages in response to some thing or another and simply posting a communiqué without RPing the sequence of events that result in its creation is like delivering a punchline without a joke. For example, when a country called Allardt initiated a church-building program, I made a point of RPing the plot points that led up to one of my characters writing an E-mail to a journalist in Allardt. This is not to say that writing a letter or memo or E-mail as a standalone post is never appropriate. Here is one example and here is another. There are also times when communiqués are a popular way to respond to an event but various alternative responses (like a press conference) are equally valid.

Given the points I have raised thus far, what are some thoughts the rest of you have on this issue?

If I am to be honest, I often do it due to lack of strength to wite longer messages . But truth be told, a well written communique can reveal a lot about if not the characters, then about the world or intrigues the characters are taking part in. You can easily use a communique, a social media post, to describe views of your characters and their plans for the future.

[Allanea]

So basically I'm looking for some artillery and anti-air platforms. I'm looking for towed and self-propelled. Jack-of-all trades would be good. I know I could really pull anything off the wikipedia list from the Americans or Russians but if you have any unique favourites that don't really get as much attention feel free to suggest them.

I do have a specific defence requirement for my nation. I use a littoral defence approach to protect my shores so I'm looking for artillery and anti-air platforms that could be moved quickly along the coast to provide support for my ships.

Greetings.

The difficulty with your question is, what is it going to be used for?

There's a whole range of anti-air and artillery platforms in current use, and unfortunately they can't really be jack-of-all-trades, because they operate on a bunch of different constraints. You can't really use just one.

Now, to clarify what I am talking about, I'm going to explain some of the issues that military designers and planners deal with when ordering an artillery piece or an AA platform.

First of all, what's going to be our target? Obviously speaking, if your target is an enemy intercontinental missile carrying nuclear weapons towards your capital city, you're going to need to be able to hit it with high accuracy (you can't afford do miss), and your weapon needs to be able to hit something that flies at an incredible speed. On the other hand, your launcher doesn't have to be small, and it doesn't need to be cheap, because your target is so expensive. So an anti-ballistic missile (ABM) can cost $10 million a shot, and it can be so huge that it is carried on a giant truck.

"Well, General, we wasted $40 million in missiles, and we shot down 1 out of the 2 nukes heading at our capital city, so now three million citizens died and not seven million!"

Congrats, you are a hero. You saved four million lives at just 40 million. Your national leader hugs the city air defense commander and cries tears of gratitude.

But suppose your targets are small rockets that terrorist groups are launching. Suddenly you can't really afford to fire $10 million missiles at each, and maybe what you're gong to do is have an automatic cannon that's programmed to engage every rocket or mortar shell with a handful of shells.

Or maybe you're firing at enemy helicopters, who are flying low to the ground at maybe 200 miles an hour. Once again, an ABM missile will have problems even aiming at those helicopters.

Now, another problem that you have - either with an artillery system or an AA system is - what level is it used at?

In other words, the more important and larger your military formation, the more huge the gun its commander is responsible for.

Suppose you have a small group of soldiers who need to fight some bad guys holed up in a large abandoned church. There's not really a point for the commander of this small group to have a giant enormous gun with a range of 40 kilometers when he's not really responsible for anything he cannot directly see. But the group might have a small mortar that they carry with them and they can shoot this at the terrorists or pirates or whatever. And if for some reason - say, the church walls are thick stone and the mortar isn't helping - they can call their superior on the radio, and he can order the crew of the giant enormous gun to fire it at the church.

So let's now imagine a more senior commander. Say he's a division commander. He's responsible for twenty thousand troops, and everything that's happening in a radius of 20 miles from him, so he has an important need for howitzers that can throw shells across (almost) this entire area. He might even need a tactical ballistic missile that flies 300 kilometers in some cases.

And all of this applies of course to air defense stuff too.

Which brings me about to the question of, 'how do we defend our shores'.

Today, in the age of the missile, the main form of shore defense artillery that exists is some variant of 'put my nation's main anti-ship missile on a truck, and fire it from the truck'. [An advanced form of this is [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MZKT-7930#/media/File:Truck_based_3M-54_Klub.jpg[/url] what Russia does.]

Guns - which also exist for this purpose - are mainly whatever your nation's artillery is, and you maneuver it into place and fire it at any landing craft, ships, or whatever are likely to be stupid enough to get close to shore.

There are some more unusual systems that are specifically designed for this purpose - Russia (again) has Bastion which has some manner of howitzers on a big truck, Sweden at one point maintained lots of shore defense guns in turrets that were masked to look as boulders, but that's pretty much it.

Once you answer the questions of what the target is and which military unit owns the gun in question you can now choose artillery and air defense stuff for your nation.

[The Holy Columbian States]

I probably asked this before somewhere on an different account, but my memory is as solid as a gold fishes.

But I was wondering, is there a good way to calculate the number of troops you would have in your military?

I figured I would ask here since there really isn't anything that would significant change my population dynamics from a modern tech country.

[Stoklomolvi]

Well, consider your budget, your population, your industrial base, and think about how many soldiers you can afford to support. Is it largely a local force based around local supply depots? You'd probably have a larger army, but it's not as mobile. Is it a largely foreign (e.g. expeditionary) force based around long supply chains? You'd probably have a smaller army, but it's more agile. NS RP is not strictly about deploying troops, though, so I'd just develop your nation as a whole. Your military will come naturally from there.

[Common Territories]

I probably asked this before somewhere on an different account, but my memory is as solid as a gold fishes.

But I was wondering, is there a good way to calculate the number of troops you would have in your military?

I figured I would ask here since there really isn't anything that would significant change my population dynamics from a modern tech country.

Well this doesn't directly answer you, but it does help a lot if you got your population already down.

Basically a military has to balance the manpower, budget, and efficiency of their military to what they require and are looking for in a military force. A time proven method is using percentages to get a solid (or semi-solid) number down based on what you're looking for. The basic scale is 1-5 percent. One percent is typically the lowest you go in terms of manpower and equates to a better funded and equipped force. Three-four percent is usually the beginning of conscription and is a hefty size for your military often seen in war time; conscription is not economically lethal here but it does obviously cause some pain. Five percent is the threshold where you have too much manpower where both your economy and population can't sustain without negative consequences. This is typically because of conscription levels like seen in Israel or North Korea where they either conscript everyone or keep them in service for too long; not every draft policy causes this, it depends on how many people drafted and how long they're kept in service. Yes you can go beyond this percentile and yes it's been done before, but if you ever want to know what that's like, ask someone who lived through the second world war and they'll let you know how rough it was even for the winning side. Hint: It sucked.

So lets use 100,000,000 as your population number. One percent of one hundred million is 1,000,000. You achieve this by simply multiplying your population by the percentile you're looking for (100,000,000 x 1% = 1,000,000). Next, 5% would look like 5,000,000 respectfully. Easy enough but it obviously gets a little trickier when it's not perfectly rounded numbers. You can also achieve this number if you don't have a percentage button by using 0.01 or so on. Now when you look at these numbers you may think that's not a lot when compared to the actual size of the population, but in most situations the manpower shortage isn't even the worst part in the beginning; manpower shortages in the economy become a long term problem typically. Like I said, 5% is the beginning of the downwards swing in terms of your economic costs of doing business. You have to feed, train, maintain, and equip these troops; then you need to deploy them, pay the cost of operating them in a theater, pay them for their service, and keep them in high moral too. People don't tend to think about the running costs it takes to do all that, especially for the millions of troops they may have. It doesn't sound too rough, but factor in their equipment, how much you invest in them, and of course the warships and planes you have/maintain and you get to understand why it becomes expensive and how nations can easily slip into debt because of it. And now as we get into the future where equipment is becoming even more expensive and budgets shrink or are missused, countries are finding new ways to cut costs and not pay as much as they once did - or recruit as much as they used to. Like I said at the start, it's a balancing act.

If you use this model today with real nations, you'll notice the trend where many don't even reach their 1% threshold, or they stick to the traditional scale fairly close. This is largely because of current situations in these countries in terms of their needs and economies. Take the US for example. We are currently about a million off from our 1% threshold even though a decade or two ago I believe we were within the 1-2 percent range. We do have winding down wars, but none that require us to maintain large units; you can read up on how we've deactivated a lot of units because we simply don't need them at the moment. Peace time has pretty much lowered our need to have this giant sized army because they're not entirely needed.

[Laka Strolistandiler]

So, I have but a small question.
Is having a moon base within the limits of the MT? We’re not talking mining Helium-3, of course, that would be PMT, but rather having a small, purely scientific and research moon station with a personnel of, say, 20-30 astronauts. In order to maintain and supply it, a cicler or a NERVA-powered shuttle could be potentially used. All in all, while this will be extremely costly, it could be theoretically built with modern technology.
Correct me if I’m wrong.

[Erythrean Thebes]

So, I have but a small question.
Is having a moon base within the limits of the MT? We’re not talking mining Helium-3, of course, that would be PMT, but rather having a small, purely scientific and research moon station with a personnel of, say, 20-30 astronauts. In order to maintain and supply it, a cicler or a NERVA-powered shuttle could be potentially used. All in all, while this will be extremely costly, it could be theoretically built with modern technology.
Correct me if I’m wrong.

Not an expert, but I think all the required technology is currently in place. There is, however, a considerable amount of research and development that will need to go into devising the methods by which our existing technology shall be applied to realize such a project. In that sense, a moon base will in itself constitute a technological advance for humanity

[New Roma Republic]

So, I have but a small question.
Is having a moon base within the limits of the MT? We’re not talking mining Helium-3, of course, that would be PMT, but rather having a small, purely scientific and research moon station with a personnel of, say, 20-30 astronauts. In order to maintain and supply it, a cicler or a NERVA-powered shuttle could be potentially used. All in all, while this will be extremely costly, it could be theoretically built with modern technology.
Correct me if I’m wrong.

Yes, we have the technology to have a moon base. The limiting factor is related to money. Funding to make it happen is very, very, very expensive

[New Aeyariss]

I am not sure if we have a technology for a moon base, but my question is weather it would be worth it, and if current methods of scientific study are more cost effective.

NS nations tend to often forget that a thing called budget exists. Building moon base means less money to be spent on schools, hospitals... or a new aircraft carrier.

[Inyourfaceistan]

There is also the realistic function of "why" build a moon base and if its even worth the risk.

[Gothian Crimea]

Building a moonbase is a flawless plan. It always works, great rewards, and we didn't fund schooling anyway.

[Santheres]

So, I have but a small question.
Is having a moon base within the limits of the MT? We’re not talking mining Helium-3, of course, that would be PMT, but rather having a small, purely scientific and research moon station with a personnel of, say, 20-30 astronauts. In order to maintain and supply it, a cicler or a NERVA-powered shuttle could be potentially used. All in all, while this will be extremely costly, it could be theoretically built with modern technology.
Correct me if I’m wrong.

It is thoroughly possible, but you have to consider how long people would actually be there. With no ability to induce sufficient gravity, you wouldn't want people on a moonbase for any longer than you want them on the ISS (shorter, really, due to transit time). You're looking at either very frequent (and thus expensive) trips to keep it fully staffed, or long periods of time where it is not staffed. In either case, however, as much automation as possible would be your friend (which also increases upfront cost, but will have downstream savings).

20-30 people at once, however, seems like a stretch especially if you're planning on maintaining that permanently. It would have to be huge and maintaining life support for that many is going to be much harder than, say, 8 (max on ISS; higher than average). As would transporting them. They'd have to be very staggered and you're basically running nonstop flights whenever there's a good launch window.

[Allanea]

The substantial issue is what launch costs are.

Now, if you are a country like the US, this in no way meaningfully affects your ability to provide social services ( the NASA budget is 22.6 billion - less than $30 per every American - by comparison, US spending on schools, on all levels of government, is just under $2,280 per student, as per 2019 numbers, and rounded somewhat).

The current lunar vehicles that are planned for the Artemis program are intended to carry up to 6 crewmembers. Clearly to fully staff a 20-man space station on the moon (excluding the cost of the delivery of the station itself!) you'd need to launch at least four of them.

So to do this you would have to develop a spacecraft which is substantially cheaper than those used at the time of the Apollo Program.

A number of programs exist today that are very publicized that promise to deliver this, but since none of them have actually delivered anything beyond prototype, I don't want to sound more optimistic about them than is appropriate.

If your nation is set in a context where these programs are assumed to be successfully and reliably delivering then it's possible to have a regular presence on the moon.

[Laka Strolistandiler]

So, I have but a small question.
Is having a moon base within the limits of the MT? We’re not talking mining Helium-3, of course, that would be PMT, but rather having a small, purely scientific and research moon station with a personnel of, say, 20-30 astronauts. In order to maintain and supply it, a cicler or a NERVA-powered shuttle could be potentially used. All in all, while this will be extremely costly, it could be theoretically built with modern technology.
Correct me if I’m wrong.

It is thoroughly possible, but you have to consider how long people would actually be there. With no ability to induce sufficient gravity, you wouldn't want people on a moonbase for any longer than you want them on the ISS (shorter, really, due to transit time). You're looking at either very frequent (and thus expensive) trips to keep it fully staffed, or long periods of time where it is not staffed. In either case, however, as much automation as possible would be your friend (which also increases upfront cost, but will have downstream savings).

20-30 people at once, however, seems like a stretch especially if you're planning on maintaining that permanently. It would have to be huge and maintaining life support for that many is going to be much harder than, say, 8 (max on ISS; higher than average). As would transporting them. They'd have to be very staggered and you're basically running nonstop flights whenever there's a good launch window.

Would the base be sustainable if the astronauts themselves were considered “expendable”? I do understand that training a capable spaceman costs a lot of money, however considering the costs of bringing moonbase personnel back, excluding moral and ethical questions it can be argued that using them as “consumables” seems at very least viable.

The substantial issue is what launch costs are.

Now, if you are a country like the US, this in no way meaningfully affects your ability to provide social services ( the NASA budget is 22.6 billion - less than $30 per every American - by comparison, US spending on schools, on all levels of government, is just under $2,280 per student, as per 2019 numbers, and rounded somewhat).

The current lunar vehicles that are planned for the Artemis program are intended to carry up to 6 crewmembers. Clearly to fully staff a 20-man space station on the moon (excluding the cost of the delivery of the station itself!) you'd need to launch at least four of them.

So to do this you would have to develop a spacecraft which is substantially cheaper than those used at the time of the Apollo Program.

A number of programs exist today that are very publicized that promise to deliver this, but since none of them have actually delivered anything beyond prototype, I don't want to sound more optimistic about them than is appropriate.

If your nation is set in a context where these programs are assumed to be successfully and reliably delivering then it's possible to have a regular presence on the moon.

Would Orion-type engine (and a lunar cycler) be able to fix the cost issue? After all Orion offers way less costs per kg delivered to orbit (and can even get it to moon if I’m not mistaken

[Laka Strolistandiler]

There is also the realistic function of "why" build a moon base and if its even worth the risk.

In case of my nation they’re potentially planning to expand the base into Helium-3 harvesting facility. Can’t rely on your colonies forever eh.

Also count in their imperialism- they believe and are fully convinced that colonizing space is their manifest destiny just like colonizing places on earth. Just like the British Interplanetary Society IRL...

I am not sure if we have a technology for a moon base, but my question is weather it would be worth it, and if current methods of scientific study are more cost effective.

NS nations tend to often forget that a thing called budget exists. Building moon base means less money to be spent on schools, hospitals... or a new aircraft carrier.

Eh they’ll cut some corners here and there, beat some more resources out of Afghanistan, and they’ll have enough, given their already extensive investment into space.

Also moon can be arguably used to add in a new element for the nuclear triad- but that’s another story for another day

[Allanea]

I am not an expert – my understanding of Orion depends on having read George Dyson’s Project Orion and then also emailing George Dyson to ask questions about it, and also owning some issues of Aerospace Project Review.

A Lunar base resupplied by Orions was actually proposed by NASA and Air Force planners.

Of course, if your nation mines Helium-3 in quantity, then by definition it is substantially more technologically advanced than any real-world country – fusion power is currently even more experimental than Starship heavy lifters. If you have fusion power you can also have something more advanced than Orion – a nuclear pulse propulsion spacecraft that uses pure fusion fourth-generation nuclear bombs instead of fission. But this is arguably beyond the boundaries of Modern Tech because it involves technology that does not exist even in prototypes. There is not a single fusion reactor that produces more energy than is put into it, or even produces as much energy that is put into it. No fourth-generation nuclear weapon has ever existed even in PowerPoint presentation form.

Moreover, if your nation can regularly lift cargoes of 15000 tons or more into cislunar orbits, the mere presence of this technology would transform your entire society. You could certainly do this but it would no longer be ‘modern tech’ as we recognize it.

Within ‘modern tech’ as we know it the best you can have is ‘twenty people are on the moon and it costs us approximately $500 million a year to keep them well-supplied and rotated regularly’. I of course am absolutely in favor of doing this and if I was a citizen of a country that could plausibly carry this off I would vote for it.

[Gbokpoenic]

are there any company factbook templates?