NationStates Modern Tech Advice and Assistance Thread

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

First, welcome; I hope you will have fun here, and remember to try not to stop anyone else from having fun.

(1) Army sizes are a matter of some contention, and vary depending on relative population, needs, relative inclination towards types of warfare, and just how specialized the forces are - there is a choice between quality and quantity. This may not be such a useful answer, so personally in a nation(?) of - well, I can't actually say exactly, due to an extremely confused web of sovereignty, but it's in the billions - the army is - again I can't say exactly - about 6 million in size. (If you've heard the saying that a country is a navy with a language, Ausitoria is a navy with lawyers).

But in a way the question is irrelevant: the vast majority of any army will be for defence, and the size dictated by strategy and politics: logistics are the limiting factor on any deployment, and Ausitoria has never committed more than 100,000 to a fight - and typically commits 10,000. Now from my experience this means Ausitoria's army is outnumbered 5:1 on most occassions, has air parity, and has naval supremacy at a 5:1 ratio, but I'm not completely sure most people understand quite how many ships you need to move large armies around, although perhaps they're simply less mechanized forces.

So in short, consider how you can get your forces where you need, and work from there.

(2) You can RP in many ways. I am often an omniscient writer and I often cast extremely disparaging judgements about the characters I create, or go off on the most absurd tangents. I know one person who nowadays RPs solely by writing factbooks and drawing ships. Yohannes RPs by for instance writing a hansard and running a bank. Many people write newspaper articles, or draw maps, or issue communiques. I enjoy writing scenery and think-tank papers and laws. Experiment, find what you like, and remember you don't have to stick to it. Not even within an RP.

One of these days I'd like to RP by musical, or in the form of a play...

(3) The world is flexible or fractal, as you prefer. But most nations should be within a few earths of each other. I tend to go wherever I'm RPing via the arctic/antarctic.

[Allanea]

but I'm not completely sure most people understand quite how many ships you need to move large armies around, although perhaps they're simply less mechanized forces.

Less many than it is typically assumed. If you want a landing capability, you'd need a specialized ship that has a very limited capacity for its volume. If you've got a harbor accessible, a large MT freighter could move a tank division's entire supplies in a single journey.

I am in a weird place where my nation only deployed small forces lately, but I have worked out what it would take to have my nation move the sort of giant forces that used to characterized Big NS [tm] roleplays. I've also written a large guide for people to do it themselves. It's not hard at all. The bottleneck is loading and unloading the gear from the ships, but all you need is a few days on the receiving and launching end.

Done properly, it requires some diplomatic effort, both to play for time to do these things, and to secure facilities on the receiving end to land your troops.

But if, for some reason, you're interested in roleplaying a large war with dozens of thousands or even millions of men deployed, it's certainly possible to do so, certainly if you're the sort of person that dots their i's and crosses their t's.

[New Aeyariss]

Less many than it is typically assumed. If you want a landing capability, you'd need a specialized ship that has a very limited capacity for its volume. If you've got a harbor accessible, a large MT freighter could move a tank division's entire supplies in a single journey.

I am in a weird place where my nation only deployed small forces lately, but I have worked out what it would take to have my nation move the sort of giant forces that used to characterized Big NS [tm] roleplays. I've also written a large guide for people to do it themselves. It's not hard at all. The bottleneck is loading and unloading the gear from the ships, but all you need is a few days on the receiving and launching end.

Done properly, it requires some diplomatic effort, both to play for time to do these things, and to secure facilities on the receiving end to land your troops.

But if, for some reason, you're interested in roleplaying a large war with dozens of thousands or even millions of men deployed, it's certainly possible to do so, certainly if you're the sort of person that dots their i's and crosses their t's.

It again depends on what is your force. Nifonese DoKoDan (essentially a light cav brigade) is supposed to be deployable via airlift within 36 hours - albeit DoKoDan is a light cavalry unit based on a light tracked vehicle known as Type 49; with it's base weight being 13t and upgraded with NxERA (which is optional) - 17t, with most of artillery being towed.

That said Nifon hadn't actually fought a large scale conflict in the later days, mostly because "hybrid" ways of power projection are far more cost-effective. At this point at Kojiro's disposal are the MCCs (Monks, Contractors, Criminals) which on their own form efficient light infantry units that tend to be perfectly effective in third world conflict zones where Nifon fought in last years. Most of the proxy conflicts rarely require anything more. Then there is also the "agenture of influence" that is perfectly efficient at waging non - kinetic aspect of warfare; Gunpeitai and it's associated propaganda groups, Nifonese businesses, the yakuza (which actually very often works with the government) etc.

Often, like in case of Oceanica, Nifonese diaspora (which is quite sizable) has served as what Mao defined as "resistance base" for hybrid warfare.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Well, if you count citizens and corporate personalities as weapons, there's any number to throw into the mix. Which does illustrate an important point: the size of an army depends on what you count. Military Police? Truckers? Administrators?

But to an extent Allanea is right - it is often worthwhile for a nation to also consider strategic prepositioning and reinforcements, which will justify the utility of larger armies. Ausitoria's experience has been largely confined to amphibious operations, where no decent ports were available, which is what I was referring to above.

More broadly I am inclined to think the day of giant wars is over for most people - I've slowly reduced my population by about 75% in the past three years, even Sondria has abandoned anything vaguely approaching NS stats, last I knew even Knootoss was at 6 billion. Nowadays even 2 billion people is thought of as large. But I expect it won't go on forever, we seem to be settling towards something between 3xRL and NS/5.

I just wish we would converge a bit faster. Currently it's still too much like two different worlds! Much as the movement towards smaller, more realistic nations was probably a good one, it seems to have been hijacked, while simultaneously a few hold-outs continue to put themselves out of reach on the top end. I wish there were more nations to bridge the gap at around the 1-2 billion mark: not too unrealistic, but you get to have epic confrontations all the same. What's keeping the camps separate?

[Allanea]

I have no desire to roleplay my population as anything other than what is on the official nation page. I've managed to interact with nearly everyone with little problems.

[Inyourfaceistan]

Larger armies also cost more.

Sending 10 million men into combat requires money to recruit 10 million men.
Then time & space to train and house 10 million men.
Then resources to acquire equipment for 10 million men.
Then money to convert those resources into working equipment.
Then space & infrastructure to support 10 million men and their families.
Then money, time & resources to move them to combat.
Then more money and resources to keep them supplied in combat.
Factor in the risk of 10 million coffins coming home draped in your flag...

Personally, I stopped giving a damn what my NS pop was when I stopped playing to win. Coincidentally that's also when I started modeling my military off of real-world examples rather than a menagerie of over-numbered RL equipment and several wankish and unrealistic weapons.

Then again, I am a biologist by education & trade; so trying to hypothesize and play the military and economic behaviors of an obnoxious 5 billion pop nation was like trying to guesstimate and study the spatial & behavioral ecology of a Jabberwocky or the Rancor; and I found it to be quite distasteful...

[Inyourfaceistan]

Also, I forgot to add that your military size and composition should be based off your nation's IC geopolitical situation.

Are you an island?
Do you share borders with a hostile nation?
Do you have access to green waters and/or narrow sea lanes?
What is your terrain?
What resources are found in what parts of your country and what do you require?

[New Aeyariss]

Also, I forgot to add that your military size and composition should be based off your nation's IC geopolitical situation.

Are you an island?
Do you share borders with a hostile nation?
Do you have access to green waters and/or narrow sea lanes?
What is your terrain?
What resources are found in what parts of your country and what do you require?

Well the issue that most of people tend to ignore is that war itself has changed, because we are no longer in the industrial age, as Brzezinsky or Toffler pointed in their, no matter how much idealistic and naive (less so in Brzezinsky's case, he is actually more on track in "between two ages"). We are entering technotronic age / third wave that is basically changing everything we know about societies, and war by proxy.

Everything - be it socially, economically or military - is based on networks those days. As Gen. Rupert Smith pointed out, since XIX century conflicts as described by Clausewitz where we are observing the triad of army, state and population no longer exist. In Boer war, the "army" factor was replaced by the commandos. Today we see plenty of violent non-state actors that often lack one or two parts...

Loss of nation-state monopoly over violence is far more revolutionary than most people realize. Who controls guns, controls people through them. Until now, the nation-state has been the primary actor of international relations through monopoly on violence; when that monopoly was lost, forces that are not state actors gained international prominence. Take a look at Hezbollah, which runs basically a state within a state in Southern Lebanon, and has militia that is armed better than many Middle Eastern armies...

All that while costs of conventional warfare goes up again and again. Precision guided munitions make it even more lethal for fighting sides, and that without even mentioning nuclear weaponry. Conventional warfare is simply ceasing to pay off.

At the same time we are seeing return of actors that were buried through the state monopoly. Erosion of nation-state has given rise to nationalists, religious fundamentalists, corporations, criminal groups, ideologically fueled insurgents, tribes and other until now suppressed groups a mean to establish their power. Thus the future enemy is far more likely to be hooded insurgent hiding in a cave than a high tech army - especially when the hooded insurgent takes upon himself role of foreign power's proxy...

The model of war based on Clausewitzian triad was not always most prominent one. And by my opinion will not be again in XXI century.

Of course you are free to RP however you like, but for me asymmetrical conflicts are fascinating (apart from being something I specialize in IRL wise) and offer a chance to escape a lot of issues that plague large scale conventional war RPs...

[Nevada Communes]

Thank you all for your advice and insight! I've taken everything you have said into careful consideration, and will likely be back here for more help in developing a proper military.

If you would like to try, when I will feel better (on break from RPing due to health ATM) I will eagerly help you make a proper introduction in the RPing world.

That is awfully kind of you pardner. I'd appreciate it!

[Inyourfaceistan]

Also, I forgot to add that your military size and composition should be based off your nation's IC geopolitical situation.

Of course you are free to RP however you like, but for me asymmetrical conflicts are fascinating (apart from being something I specialize in IRL wise) and offer a chance to escape a lot of issues that plague large scale conventional war RPs...

I guess my point was that you don't need "X amount of carriers and capacity to transport X amount of troops" when you control a sea passage and should really invest in a few anti-ship missiles and low-profile attack aircraft.

Likewise, unless you directly border a hostile nation or a nation likely to play host to hostile forces; then the need for a massive standing army is diminished (unless of course you plan to be the hostile aggressor)...

[Nevada Communes]

Of course you are free to RP however you like, but for me asymmetrical conflicts are fascinating (apart from being something I specialize in IRL wise) and offer a chance to escape a lot of issues that plague large scale conventional war RPs...

I guess my point was that you don't need "X amount of carriers and capacity to transport X amount of troops" when you control a sea passage and should really invest in a few anti-ship missiles and low-profile attack aircraft.

Likewise, unless you directly border a hostile nation or a nation likely to play host to hostile forces; then the need for a massive standing army is diminished (unless of course you plan to be the hostile aggressor)...

A question about that though ... I'm not likely to *need* carriers in much of an in-character perspective, but I feel like lacking carriers would diminish my Role-play opportunities depending on what paradigm of distance/travel I end up adopting.

Do you think it's reasonable to have carriers solely for the purpose of being able to join Role-playing threads?

[Allanea]

It's literally what aircraft carriers are for.

That's to say, a nation primarily needs aircraft carriers for the purpose of being able to intervene in foreign wars.

[The Akasha Colony]

A question about that though ... I'm not likely to *need* carriers in much of an in-character perspective, but I feel like lacking carriers would diminish my Role-play opportunities depending on what paradigm of distance/travel I end up adopting.

Do you think it's reasonable to have carriers solely for the purpose of being able to join Role-playing threads?

Carriers are an integral building block of any navy for the same reason aircraft are an integral building block of a military. Which is to say, aircraft are a fundamental part of modern warfare and carriers are the way in which aircraft are transported across the ocean.

They are not more common IRL simply because relatively few nations can afford them, as they (and their aircraft) are rather expensive. At the very least, capable ones worth fielding are expensive.

Their general utility tends to get lost in the weeds given that the most famous uses of modern carriers in recent memory have been Western interventions in poor third world nations, but it should not be forgotten that the carrier came into existence as a fleet asset, not a land attack asset. It's just that the characteristics that made them excellent fleet assets also made them good land attack assets. In any situation where aircraft are useful, a carrier will be useful.

Thus, if your nation can afford them, it will have them. If it cannot afford them, it won't.

[The State of Monavia]

Howdy y'all, I would like to ask a question about role-playing-conventions.

I'm new here so - like obviously - I'm not sure about all the rules and conventions and not, and it mostly seems to be laissez-faire "RP as you like." There also don't seem to be many rules here, which I find strange having come from a character-based forum with an abundance of rules regarding characters' statistics and backstories, and the number of characters you can have etc. That being said, there does seem to exist a culture of precedent and convention that and I would like to try to mostly follow these. When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

I want to ask firstly about military size and numbers. I see a lot of people making beautiful armies with differing levels of detail. And I know the official answer is '"use whatever equipment and numbers you like" as per the advice threads and all that but I also notice a culture of derision towards those who literally just spam abnormally massive armies. The official answer aside, I would like to know what is more or less considered in the RP community based on context, and what kinds of weapons I can use in Modern-Tech (as this is the modern-tech thread, and I think my nation falls into the purview of 'modern') and where my army goes from simply big to godmodding.

Secondly, I would like to ask about characters. I'm unsure of how to role-play nations. This concept is fascinating, but even after reading countless threads, I'm a little intimidated in actually getting started. I'd like to think myself a decent writer, so I don't think there would be issues there, but when is it appropriate to switch between character and national/third person narrative. As in, say I want to role-play my army attacking a rebel position: do I write that from the perspective from a soldier in the attack, a rebel, or just as an objective narrator? I know the answer isn't set in stone but any advice would be helpful.

Finally, I would like to ask about location. I want to set my nation in the continental US. I know the official answer is, again, to just wish everything away, but I really would like to get a good gague [sic] on my actual concrete location from nations I intend to interact with. Like, I'm thinking of getting involved in this one RP but my response would change entirely if it was my neighbor or if it was 5432424234 miles away. What can I do regarding this?

I’m always glad to see someone new pop up around here who wants to be a part of the nation RP community. Welcome aboard!

The process of getting involved in nation RP has a number of fundamental similarities to the process of getting involved in character RP. In a character RP you start with a basic concept, such as a set of tropes or classifications you want to apply to your character. Successful nation roleplayers often start out the same way by coming up with a “thumbnail sketch” of their fictitious civilization. I do not know what your overall nation concept is, but I assume from your other posts in this thread that your goal is to sketch out a country in which the population’s dominant culture is inspired by the RL American West. Your account name leads me to believe that you are looking for it to be mostly rural, defined by small towns far inland from any nearby oceans, and the “Nevada” part makes me imagine that a majority of its territory is mountainous, arid terrain. My guesses may be a bit off base, but I think I have captured your nation’s “essence” pretty well.

Some roleplayers have a bit of trouble with this part in that they might struggle to define what they want their main inspirations and influences to be; however, I don’t think you are suffering from this problem. It’s the challenge of completing subsequent phases—determining what you want your nation’s people, values, governance structure, culture, economy, and foreign policy to be—that often strains the imaginations of newer players. This process, often called worldbuilding, has no set series of rules or conventions, but having a logical point A-to-point B progression to follow makes the process easier.

My first piece of advice in building up your new nation is to create a one-page “character sheet” for your nation concept. You put the in-character name you want it to be known by at the top and then provide a short description. Your description section should answer the following question: If I lived in my fictional nation and decided to travel around the world, how would I describe it in fifty words or less? If you can cut your description down to twenty-five words or less, more power to you. Simplicity helps, especially at this stage.

The next section should be titled “People” and describe what your people are like. What is your demographic inspiration? Do you want to roleplay with a large population or a small one? (Sometimes asking yourself if you want to roleplay as a global superpower or a microstate can help answer that last question.) Do you want your nation to be multicultural or have just one culture? Ask yourself basic questions like these and come up with simple answers you can use as “character notes” for your nation profile.

The third section of your nation profile page should describe your nation’s culture and values. The easiest way to figure this part out is to create a separate document titled “You Know You are From Nation X When…” and make a list. Here is mine if you want an example. If you can summarize the results of this exercise, you will have a figurative goldmine of information you can refer to in your roleplays down the road.

Your geography section relies purely on your imagination and a few basic constraints. If you want to roleplay your nation as a hidden country that stays neutral in world affairs, it helps if it’s surrounded by mountains or water or other natural barriers. If you want to roleplay your nation as a great commercial trading power, you will want your country to have a lot of coastline and warm-water ports. In other words, make a rough draft of your geography concept and check it against your people and culture. If you cannot realistically see your people (who are products of their environment) acting in a manner consistent with people who grow up in the environment you just brainstormed, you need to change one or the other to bring the two into harmony. For example, people who have grown up in a strategic chokepoint for hundreds of years are not likely to develop into a civilization of diehard pacifists.

Your nation profile’s government section should be based off what you came up with in the previous sections. Take a moment to think about what sort of government can realistically arise in your country. If your country is populated by people who aren’t very religious, it is unlikely to be a theocracy. If your country has few resources or a poorly-developed economy, it is unlikely that its leaders will be controlled by robber-barons. If your country is populated by pacifists and has no real enemies, it is unlikely to be ruled by a junta. You should also ask yourself questions like “How big is my nation’s central government?”, “How is it organized and structured?”, “How do its various components work together with one another to make things happen?”, “How much does it like to meddle in local affairs?”, and “what are its main priorities?”

Your nation’s economy should be based off its people and geography. In simple terms, your people can only play the economic hand they have been dealt. They can improve their economy by trading with other countries the way a poker player improves his or her hand by getting new cards from the dealer, but it’s regarded as noobish (i.e. bad form) around here to deal yourself four aces and a joker straight out of the gate. Your government’s foreign policy will largely be determined by economic and cultural factors as it will be by politics. A country with a weak economy should not go around ticking off all of its neighbors over every little thing unless it wants to get beaten in a fight. Likewise, a country’s military arsenal is a product of what it can afford to build, buy, or steal (especially when it comes to intellectual property like weapon designs).

When it comes to dreaming up the basic details of your nation’s military, you can take one of two approaches. As Allanea wrote in one of his guides:

There are two major ways to do it in NS.

One is top-down, and the other is bottom up. In the top-down method, you as a player decide what kind of military you want your nation to have, and then worldbuild the relevant national factors to lead to a relevant doctrine.

Example: You want to do lots of naval warfare RP. You need to come up with reasons your nation has a disproportionately powerful navy. Perhaps it has developed on a major island chain, or perhaps it has a globe-spanning trade empire and has required a navy to protect its sea lanes. Or perhaps it has suffered a national humiliation two generations ago after being defeated in a war by a nation with a larger navy, leading the culture to overcompensate.

The other is bottom-up. You contemplate what your nation is like, and what do its people perceive itself as, and therefore design its military doctrine accordingly.

Example: Your nation has a extensive land border with the nation of Suslikland. While Suslikland has been at peace with your nation for 50 years, your people are still paranoid about the threat of Suslik armor, and therefore military doctrine in your nation lists the Susliks as the Probable Strategic Opponent. Defensive measures are taken to limit the ability of Suslik Armored Divisions to penetrate your borders, and your leadership invests heavily in tanks and anti-tank weaponry.

I personally prefer the bottom-up method for roleplayers working on their first nation concept as it will provide them superior quality control and precision on determining just what they want to be able to do in their RP threads. Conversely, I find the top-down method more efficient for roleplayers who already have nation RP experience and want to create their second or third NS nation. The choice is ultimately yours.

Please let me know if my advice helps you at all int he coming days.

[Allanea]

I'd really like to have a BIG!NS war at some point. Hundreds of warships, thousands of men, this sort of thing.

[Inyourfaceistan]

I guess my point was that you don't need "X amount of carriers and capacity to transport X amount of troops" when you control a sea passage and should really invest in a few anti-ship missiles and low-profile attack aircraft.

Likewise, unless you directly border a hostile nation or a nation likely to play host to hostile forces; then the need for a massive standing army is diminished (unless of course you plan to be the hostile aggressor)...

A question about that though ... I'm not likely to *need* carriers in much of an in-character perspective, but I feel like lacking carriers would diminish my Role-play opportunities depending on what paradigm of distance/travel I end up adopting.

Do you think it's reasonable to have carriers solely for the purpose of being able to join Role-playing threads?

Again, depends.

IRL nations such as Russia have "continental power projection"; that is they are able to intervene in most areas of strategic interest via overland routes. IRL the U.S. does not share this convenience and needs to cross oceans if it wants to fight a war.

If you are playing open-world RP and are isolated and/or surrounded by allies, then you will likely need carriers to intervene in any meaningful force besides assymetric power projection (I.e. Using non-state actors to fight your wars for you).
If you are playing in a closed-world region RP or find a close, tight-knit group of players who all have extensive interactions with one another; then it is likely you might not; especially because in the latter chances are you can find someone to border or utilize economic sanctions to their full extent, etc.

[The Macabees]

I'd really like to have a BIG!NS war at some point. Hundreds of warships, thousands of men, this sort of thing.

They are very fun. Edit: Not that you are unaware of that after 14+ years of RPing here, but just had to reinforce your comment there haha.

[Allanea]

I'm willing to have a Serious Thread, but if one could arrange one of these II threads where weird stuff happens routinely and hundreds of warships do battle, that would be great. Just entering this into the record.

[Nevada Communes]

1) @ The State of Monavia

Thank you so much for the ideas! Given your instructions, I drafted this character sheet. I would appreciate any and all feedback (from anybody!)

2) I also began trying to design a military here but I'm not sure how to add more detail. I guess I'll begin by asking if this is a start in the right direction for all of the more militarily minded of you!

Once again, thank you for the help everyone!

[The State of Monavia]

1) @ The State of Monavia

Thank you so much for the ideas! Given your instructions, I drafted this character sheet. I would appreciate any and all feedback (from anybody!)

2) I also began trying to design a military here but I'm not sure how to add more detail. I guess I'll begin by asking if this is a start in the right direction for all of the more militarily minded of you!

Once again, thank you for the help everyone!

I quickly reviewed both of your factbook entries and found them well-written. You have good material to use as a starting point upon which to build later. I will look over them in greater depth later today when I get back home. On a related subject, I love the elegant simplicity and symbolism you chose for your flag design. Hold on to it for the time being.

EDIT:

Your nation concept has several positive attributes. The biggest one is the consistency between your culture, economy, government, and geography. You also did well at making these things (and your military) square well with your background story, so you have a knack for assembling plausible, believable combinations of stuff that I can readily imagine happening. Your writing is very clear and sufficiently detailed to serve as a general overview for others to gain a solid understanding of what your nation is like and you did a great job of making your nation’s economy correspond with its geography. I like the amount of effort you invested in describing your government and the way it functions so that I have a clear understanding of it. Finally, I really like the fact that you took some initiative in mentioning a few historical details since I forgot to include history in my “character sheet” instructions.

On the negative side of things, your concept has a few items that merit mention. The most minor item is the presence of typographical errors which can be easily resolved by typing all of your factbook entries in MS Word (you can also save the finished posts to back them up). Apart from that, your concept has only two major flaws I can discern. I will address these as best I can, though I will also advise you to remember that I also have my biases and that you will want to wait for the others to share their input.

The first is the absence of any real history (this is mostly my fault as I just explained). The purpose of including a history section is to explain how your nation went from being whatever it was when it got founded to whatever it is now. The little bit of history you have is highly implausible even as a real life alternate-history scenario as a result of several reasons. One issue is that the geographic area Sierra controls includes a combination of hardcore red states and blue states that would never secede together or get along well. A war which breaks the U.S. apart will probably assume an urban-versus-rural dynamic—Inyursta, Allanea, and New Aeyariss can explain (from a military perspective) why scenarios like this one and this one are not plausible. In other words, if you want your country’s background story to be “libertarian socialist West Coast region emerges from U.S. civil war as an independent nation,” you will want to do some research regarding the ways such a war can be plausibly expected to play out. One place where you can learn more about ways to imagine alternate-history scenarios is Alternate History Hub.

The second issue I found is your nation concept’s strict reliance on RL geography. In brief, loads of other players use RL geography and like to claim the same areas of the RL globe for their nations. While the site rules and present RP conventions allow this, it makes for highly confusing reading once you start interacting with these players. More importantly, you demonstrated great creativity and initiative in imagining the other aspects of your nation, so why not also apply your imagination to your nation’s geography as well? From my own experience, the best part of making up my nation’s geography from whole cloth was the fact that doing so gave me more freedom to craft my history however I liked. I had no hoops to jump through and did not have to worry about what sort of events I needed to cook up to make my nation get from one point to something radically different in just a few years.

My main recommendation for improving your nation concept is to apply the same imaginative genius you used for some of its aspects to the rest of them if possible. Regardless of whether you stick to real-life geography or not, you need to make a map that includes a distance scale and post it in a place where others can access and refer to it. You will also need to write and post some historical background information, even if all you come up with is a basic chronology.

[Allanea]

Another thing to look at is some of the Sagebrush Rebellion protests in the 1970s and 1980s.

It's possible to imagine some alliance between disgruntled farmers and urban libertarian socialists, perhaps?

[Nevada Communes]

I quickly reviewed both of your factbook entries and found them well-written. You have good material to use as a starting point upon which to build later. I will look over them in greater depth later today when I get back home. On a related subject, I love the elegant simplicity and symbolism you chose for your flag design. Hold on to it for the time being.

Will do! Thanks for the compliments!

Your nation concept has several positive attributes. The biggest one is the consistency between your culture, economy, government, and geography. You also did well at making these things (and your military) square well with your background story, so you have a knack for assembling plausible, believable combinations of stuff that I can readily imagine happening. Your writing is very clear and sufficiently detailed to serve as a general overview for others to gain a solid understanding of what your nation is like and you did a great job of making your nation’s economy correspond with its geography. I like the amount of effort you invested in describing your government and the way it functions so that I have a clear understanding of it. Finally, I really like the fact that you took some initiative in mentioning a few historical details since I forgot to include history in my “character sheet” instructions.

Again, thank you!

On the negative side of things, your concept has a few items that merit mention. The most minor item is the presence of typographical errors which can be easily resolved by typing all of your factbook entries in MS Word (you can also save the finished posts to back them up). Apart from that, your concept has only two major flaws I can discern. I will address these as best I can, though I will also advise you to remember that I also have my biases and that you will want to wait for the others to share their input.

I'll be sure to go back and edit the errors. Sorry if there were a lot... I've just found myself very addicted by this whole nation role-playing idea that I've been rushing to get things out the door! I'll be sure to go a bit slower in the future.

The first is the absence of any real history (this is mostly my fault as I just explained). The purpose of including a history section is to explain how your nation went from being whatever it was when it got founded to whatever it is now. The little bit of history you have is highly implausible even as a real life alternate-history scenario as a result of several reasons. One issue is that the geographic area Sierra controls includes a combination of hardcore red states and blue states that would never secede together or get along well. A war which breaks the U.S. apart will probably assume an urban-versus-rural dynamic—Inyursta, Allanea, and New Aeyariss can explain (from a military perspective) why scenarios like this one and this one are not plausible. In other words, if you want your country’s background story to be “libertarian socialist West Coast region emerges from U.S. civil war as an independent nation,” you will want to do some research regarding the ways such a war can be plausibly expected to play out. One place where you can learn more about ways to imagine alternate-history scenarios is Alternate History Hub.

I did go to alternate history hub to find out how I could make my nation work, but I think perhaps the inherent idea of my nation existing is a far stretch. I was hoping I could hand-wave the logical inconsistencies away with the whole collapse of society angle, but I guess that might not be sufficient. I'll probably take a crack at trying to make my own geography and history.

On a similar note, does anybody here know who could act as Spanish/British Empires/USA? analogues in my history? I'm assuming that it'd be better to link my history to the canon of this website. Also I'm not sure how to find good neighbors for my nation. The idea of world-building NPC nations just to border me seems daunting.

The second issue I found is your nation concept’s strict reliance on RL geography. In brief, loads of other players use RL geography and like to claim the same areas of the RL globe for their nations. While the site rules and present RP conventions allow this, it makes for highly confusing reading once you start interacting with these players. More importantly, you demonstrated great creativity and initiative in imagining the other aspects of your nation, so why not also apply your imagination to your nation’s geography as well? From my own experience, the best part of making up my nation’s geography from whole cloth was the fact that doing so gave me more freedom to craft my history however I liked. I had no hoops to jump through and did not have to worry about what sort of events I needed to cook up to make my nation get from one point to something radically different in just a few years.

Only issue with this - and it does sound very fun - is that I want to invoke RL things. I want to have Frank Sinatra become a national pop icon, I want to be able to refer to the 80 etc. But if you're certain world-building it would be a better way of going about things I'll try my best to fill in these gaps as I go along.

My main recommendation for improving your nation concept is to apply the same imaginative genius you used for some of its aspects to the rest of them if possible. Regardless of whether you stick to real-life geography or not, you need to make a map that includes a distance scale and post it in a place where others can access and refer to it. You will also need to write and post some historical background information, even if all you come up with is a basic chronology.

Do you know how or whereI can make/request a good map? Designing the flag was really easy but I doubt I have the topographical and ecological understanding required to craft ecosystems and rivers and land features.

Another thing to look at is some of the Sagebrush Rebellion protests in the 1970s and 1980s.

It's possible to imagine some alliance between disgruntled farmers and urban libertarian socialists, perhaps?

I took a look - and I truly appreciate the idea - but I'm not fully sure how to get the Sagrebrush Rebellion violent or left-wing enough to accomplish my current concept.

[Nevada Communes]

What is the consensus on nuclear weapons proliferation? I'm thinking of maybe having an RP based on international tensions with a Sierran Nuclear Test.

Also, as I am now trying to build a custom nation, I have no idea what population I want. I'm thinking around 200 million but I'm not sure if that's unreasonable for a "realistic" nation.

[New Aeyariss]

What is the consensus on nuclear weapons proliferation? I'm thinking of maybe having an RP based on international tensions with a Sierran Nuclear Test.

Also, as I am now trying to build a custom nation, I have no idea what population I want. I'm thinking around 200 million but I'm not sure if that's unreasonable for a "realistic" nation.

Frankly it depends a lot on your geography and socio-cultural-political factors if I am to be frank. The issue is how many people can your land provide for.

200 million is a fully realistic number, being akin to population of the entire USSR at it's peak.

[Forest State]

What is the consensus on nuclear weapons proliferation? I'm thinking of maybe having an RP based on international tensions with a Sierran Nuclear Test.

Also, as I am now trying to build a custom nation, I have no idea what population I want. I'm thinking around 200 million but I'm not sure if that's unreasonable for a "realistic" nation.

I'm not claiming to be the most experienced person in II, but from what I know, most players in II don't like nukes. You can have them, but there's many RPs that have rules against all WMDs. Mainly because they can kill stories very easily. Not much interesting conflict if the thread dissolves into shooting missiles at each other from across continents, or just dropping a bomb. There's also the fact that, while good players will take losses, most of them don't want to lose their entire nations because someone used WMDs on all of their major cities. Most regions also have rules either banning nuclear weapons, banning their use, or requiring approval from the other nation and/or regional officials before using them. In other regions, like the one that I'm in, players will just ignore nuclear war if it doesn't seem realistic.