Small nations with an unrealistic military.

[Yellow Zone 20-A]

I do believe it doesn't matter what technology they have, just the size of their military.

You are wrong, i spend 79% of my military budget on technology ( new planes, nuclear weapons...)
Technology is one of the most imporatnt factors if you want to win a war or battle...

No i dous not!
Not in vietnam not in iraq not in the lebanon war (2006)
STRATEGY wins!

[Pivovarsky]

I do believe it doesn't matter what technology they have, just the size of their military.

You are wrong, i spend 79% of my military budget on technology ( new planes, nuclear weapons...)
Technology is one of the most imporatnt factors if you want to win a war or battle...

No i dous not!
Not in vietnam not in iraq not in the lebanon war (2006)
STRATEGY wins!

Geography wins!

But I must say, America sucks.

[Sugara]

I have looked at the military of several nations in nationstates and i believe that some nations (I admit iam pretty shure even my own even my own)
Claim way more military technology than there nation could logicly support.
For example a nation claiming to have f-22 raptors and b1 bombers or an army of 100.000.000 whilst only having a population of lets say 18 million.
Whe all agreed that you need 100 million population to build nuclear weapons.
What should be the rule on the number of tanks bombers planes jets etc etc.....
I believe that there should be clear rules to better prevend god-modding.
Do you agree and if so why.
Or disagree and if so why.

RL Israel's got nukes, and there are sure as hell no 100 million israeli's in the world.

[Yellow Zone 20-A]

I do believe it doesn't matter what technology they have, just the size of their military.

You are wrong, i spend 79% of my military budget on technology ( new planes, nuclear weapons...)
Technology is one of the most imporatnt factors if you want to win a war or battle...

No i dous not!
Not in vietnam not in iraq not in the lebanon war (2006)
STRATEGY wins!

Geography wins!

But I must say, America sucks.

I will admit that 90% of ANNY strategy relies on Geography!
And i just dislike the us goverment not the entire country!

[Yellow Zone 20-A]

I have looked at the military of several nations in nationstates and i believe that some nations (I admit iam pretty shure even my own even my own)
Claim way more military technology than there nation could logicly support.
For example a nation claiming to have f-22 raptors and b1 bombers or an army of 100.000.000 whilst only having a population of lets say 18 million.
Whe all agreed that you need 100 million population to build nuclear weapons.
What should be the rule on the number of tanks bombers planes jets etc etc.....
I believe that there should be clear rules to better prevend god-modding.
Do you agree and if so why.
Or disagree and if so why.

RL Israel's got nukes, and there are sure as hell no 100 million israeli's in the world.

Yes but in nationstates you do need 100 million population or every war is going to be nuclear making for verry bad rp.

[Martilia]

Problem with strategy is that certain players doesn't give more complex information about their country or on the battlefield (eg. maps, terrain, troop numbers, location of tows and major cities and other military-related stuff). This is why strategy sometimes don't exist in wars that we roleplay. If the player can give the maps of their nation with the existence of rivers, hills, mountains, towns, cities and major bases, each of you can make their own strategy in order to win the war.

For example, a military frontline stretches almost 3 miles wide. There are no additional information of town, military base, major city or other stuff. In this matter, the defenders forces doesn't know where to focus most of his troops or doesn't know where the enemy will attack next. But if we could provide lets say that a town, a city, and a military base, respectively, is a mile away from each other. From this point, the defenders army can pin point where is the possible attack of the attacking army. He/She could even theorize that the attacking forces should attack the military base first to jeopardize any reinforcements that will support the defender's forces defending the city so the attacking forces can proceed smoothly with the offensive on the city - (I hope you get me) - or other stuffs that he could postulate. In that way, strategy could work on a certain roleplay invasion or civil war.

[Hodori]

I do believe it doesn't matter what technology they have, just the size of their military.

You are wrong, i spend 79% of my military budget on technology ( new planes, nuclear weapons...)
Technology is one of the most imporatnt factors if you want to win a war or battle...

No i dous not!
Not in vietnam not in iraq not in the lebanon war (2006)
STRATEGY wins!

Geography wins!

Logistics wins. Technology, geography, and strategy are good, but without the ability to supply, you can't do much.

[Collective Systems]

Yes but in nationstates you do need 100 million population or every war is going to be nuclear making for verry bad rp.

Yet most people with a population higher than 100-million, who have access to nuclear weaponry, don't use them in a war.

[Yellow Zone 20-A]

Problem with strategy is that certain players doesn't give more complex information about their country or on the battlefield (eg. maps, terrain, troop numbers, location of tows and major cities and other military-related stuff). This is why strategy sometimes don't exist in wars that we roleplay. If the player can give the maps of their nation with the existence of rivers, hills, mountains, towns, cities and major bases, each of you can make their own strategy in order to win the war.

For example, a military frontline stretches almost 3 miles wide. There are no additional information of town, military base, major city or other stuff. In this matter, the defenders forces doesn't know where to focus most of his troops or doesn't know where the enemy will attack next. But if we could provide lets say that a town, a city, and a military base, respectively, is a mile away from each other. From this point, the defenders army can pin point where is the possible attack of the attacking army. He/She could even theorize that the attacking forces should attack the military base first to jeopardize any reinforcements that will support the defender's forces defending the city so the attacking forces can proceed smoothly with the offensive on the city - (I hope you get me) - or other stuffs that he could postulate. In that way, strategy could work on a certain roleplay invasion or civil war.

You make sense yes.

[Collective Systems]

You make sense yes.

That's all you have to say? That entire post... and that's all you have to say?

[Pivovarsky]

Yes but in nationstates you do need 100 million population or every war is going to be nuclear making for verry bad rp.

Yet most people with a population higher than 100-million, who have access to nuclear weaponry, don't use them in a war.

Because they're smarter. I've only used nukes three times, in the same RP. It was only to start a Civil War between one half of the country and another though.

[Collective Systems]

Because they're smarter. I've only used nukes three times, in the same RP. It was only to start a Civil War between one half of the country and another though.

The only reason I use nuclear weaponry at all is because I'm an FT nation, and nuclear warheads are the bases behind ship-to-ship combat and bombardment. This is the only reason I use nukes.

[Monte Mare]

I do believe it doesn't matter what technology they have, just the size of their military.

You are wrong, i spend 79% of my military budget on technology ( new planes, nuclear weapons...)
Technology is one of the most imporatnt factors if you want to win a war or battle...

He means on what should be regulated, not on what wins wars.

ooh ok sorry...

[Monte Mare]

Problem with strategy is that certain players doesn't give more complex information about their country or on the battlefield (eg. maps, terrain, troop numbers, location of tows and major cities and other military-related stuff). This is why strategy sometimes don't exist in wars that we roleplay. If the player can give the maps of their nation with the existence of rivers, hills, mountains, towns, cities and major bases, each of you can make their own strategy in order to win the war.

For example, a military frontline stretches almost 3 miles wide. There are no additional information of town, military base, major city or other stuff. In this matter, the defenders forces doesn't know where to focus most of his troops or doesn't know where the enemy will attack next. But if we could provide lets say that a town, a city, and a military base, respectively, is a mile away from each other. From this point, the defenders army can pin point where is the possible attack of the attacking army. He/She could even theorize that the attacking forces should attack the military base first to jeopardize any reinforcements that will support the defender's forces defending the city so the attacking forces can proceed smoothly with the offensive on the city - (I hope you get me) - or other stuffs that he could postulate. In that way, strategy could work on a certain roleplay invasion or civil war.

Yeah i agree i think maps should be placed at any starting war...

[Yellow Zone 20-A]

I do believe it doesn't matter what technology they have, just the size of their military.

You are wrong, i spend 79% of my military budget on technology ( new planes, nuclear weapons...)
Technology is one of the most imporatnt factors if you want to win a war or battle...

No i dous not!
Not in vietnam not in iraq not in the lebanon war (2006)
STRATEGY wins!

Geography wins!

Logistics wins. Technology, geography, and strategy are good, but without the ability to supply, you can't do much.

Let me tell you whats going to happen in the world so when it dous it will not come as a shock........
I believe the united states is going to invade one or two more nations (syria iran venezuela cuba) and than the economy is going to collapse again.(just like Financial crisis of 2007–2010)
There will be bailouts again and ceos will fill there pockets and go on to run the system like nothing ever happened.
And than the people will start to get angry and protests will break out in 3rd world nations the usa puppet dictators will order them to be shot.........
And than they will start a revolution against this plutocratic system at first the us military easily wins all the battles but the more bombs it drops the more support this revolution will get.....
eventually even there indoctrinated nationalism or patriotism in the us wont get new recruits and the ods turn against you and the people will forget about there fears and FIGHT.
first the us is faced with 1 marine to 2 militia soldiers than 3 militia to 1 marine and eventually even 10 or 20 militia to just one marine
And not just 3rd world militias but homegrown insurgents fed up with an oppressive egotistical self centered violent warmongering regime and than the united states little empire will fall.
And when this happens all the stealth bombers fighters abrams tanks moabs and tomahawk missiles wont matter annymore.
Because there will be nobody left to make them.
Call me crazy,dismiss me as a paranoid say iam delusional or just ignore this but you know that this is a verry realistic scenario.

[Yellow Zone 20-A]

Problem with strategy is that certain players doesn't give more complex information about their country or on the battlefield (eg. maps, terrain, troop numbers, location of tows and major cities and other military-related stuff). This is why strategy sometimes don't exist in wars that we roleplay. If the player can give the maps of their nation with the existence of rivers, hills, mountains, towns, cities and major bases, each of you can make their own strategy in order to win the war.

For example, a military frontline stretches almost 3 miles wide. There are no additional information of town, military base, major city or other stuff. In this matter, the defenders forces doesn't know where to focus most of his troops or doesn't know where the enemy will attack next. But if we could provide lets say that a town, a city, and a military base, respectively, is a mile away from each other. From this point, the defenders army can pin point where is the possible attack of the attacking army. He/She could even theorize that the attacking forces should attack the military base first to jeopardize any reinforcements that will support the defender's forces defending the city so the attacking forces can proceed smoothly with the offensive on the city - (I hope you get me) - or other stuffs that he could postulate. In that way, strategy could work on a certain roleplay invasion or civil war.

Yeah i agree i think maps should be placed at any starting war...

ok.

[Hodori]

Logistics wins. Technology, geography, and strategy are good, but without the ability to supply, you can't do much.

I feel ignored...

Anyways, infantry, armor, air force, navy, whatever, if you can't keep it supplied or running, it won't do much except run out of needed supplies/ammo/fuel faster. Then you'll be whittled down by the enemy and attrition.

Or at least that's what I understand.

[Yellow Zone 20-A]

Logistics wins. Technology, geography, and strategy are good, but without the ability to supply, you can't do much.

I feel ignored...

Anyways, infantry, armor, air force, navy, whatever, if you can't keep it supplied or running, it won't do much except run out of needed supplies/ammo/fuel faster. Then you'll be whittled down by the enemy and attrition.

Or at least that's what I understand.

And a modern army is ALLOT more difficult to suply than a militia.

[Nimzonia]

I have looked at the military of several nations in nationstates and i believe that some nations (I admit iam pretty shure even my own even my own)
Claim way more military technology than there nation could logicly support.
For example a nation claiming to have f-22 raptors and b1 bombers or an army of 100.000.000 whilst only having a population of lets say 18 million.
Whe all agreed that you need 100 million population to build nuclear weapons.
What should be the rule on the number of tanks bombers planes jets etc etc.....
I believe that there should be clear rules to better prevend god-modding.
Do you agree and if so why.
Or disagree and if so why.

RL Israel's got nukes, and there are sure as hell no 100 million israeli's in the world.

Yes but in nationstates you do need 100 million population or every war is going to be nuclear making for verry bad rp.

It's a bad rule. The people who throw nukes about aren't suddenly going to become better roleplayers because you take their nukes away.
If it were used only to limit noob wars, that would be fine. Unfortunately, it intrudes on mature roleplay when a small nation wants to RP developing nuclear weapons, they get spammed by a bunch of butthurt idiots going "u cant has nooks!!!!1111".

[Yellow Zone 20-A]

I have looked at the military of several nations in nationstates and i believe that some nations (I admit iam pretty shure even my own even my own)
Claim way more military technology than there nation could logicly support.
For example a nation claiming to have f-22 raptors and b1 bombers or an army of 100.000.000 whilst only having a population of lets say 18 million.
Whe all agreed that you need 100 million population to build nuclear weapons.
What should be the rule on the number of tanks bombers planes jets etc etc.....
I believe that there should be clear rules to better prevend god-modding.
Do you agree and if so why.
Or disagree and if so why.

RL Israel's got nukes, and there are sure as hell no 100 million israeli's in the world.

Yes but in nationstates you do need 100 million population or every war is going to be nuclear making for verry bad rp.

It's a bad rule. The people who throw nukes about aren't suddenly going to become better roleplayers because you take their nukes away.
If it were used only to limit noob wars, that would be fine. Unfortunately, it intrudes on mature roleplay when a small nation wants to RP developing nuclear weapons, they get spammed by a bunch of butthurt idiots going "u cant has nooks!!!!1111".

When you use nukes in rp it is you usually lack strategy!

[Estainia]

I have looked at the military of several nations in nationstates and i believe that some nations (I admit iam pretty shure even my own even my own)
Claim way more military technology than there nation could logicly support.
For example a nation claiming to have f-22 raptors and b1 bombers or an army of 100.000.000 whilst only having a population of lets say 18 million.
Whe all agreed that you need 100 million population to build nuclear weapons.
What should be the rule on the number of tanks bombers planes jets etc etc.....
I believe that there should be clear rules to better prevend god-modding.
Do you agree and if so why.
Or disagree and if so why.

RL Israel's got nukes, and there are sure as hell no 100 million israeli's in the world.

Yes but in nationstates you do need 100 million population or every war is going to be nuclear making for verry bad rp.

It's a bad rule. The people who throw nukes about aren't suddenly going to become better roleplayers because you take their nukes away.
If it were used only to limit noob wars, that would be fine. Unfortunately, it intrudes on mature roleplay when a small nation wants to RP developing nuclear weapons, they get spammed by a bunch of butthurt idiots going "u cant has nooks!!!!1111".

When you use nukes in rp it is you usually lack strategy!

Uhm, what? You've never heard of the term 'Tactical Nuclear Warhead' have you? It's a small device usually limited to under 50 kilotons designed to take out fortified structures or other objectives without damaging the surrounding area too badly. So Nooks = No Strategy = Wrong.

[Nimzonia]

I have looked at the military of several nations in nationstates and i believe that some nations (I admit iam pretty shure even my own even my own)
Claim way more military technology than there nation could logicly support.
For example a nation claiming to have f-22 raptors and b1 bombers or an army of 100.000.000 whilst only having a population of lets say 18 million.
Whe all agreed that you need 100 million population to build nuclear weapons.
What should be the rule on the number of tanks bombers planes jets etc etc.....
I believe that there should be clear rules to better prevend god-modding.
Do you agree and if so why.
Or disagree and if so why.

RL Israel's got nukes, and there are sure as hell no 100 million israeli's in the world.

Yes but in nationstates you do need 100 million population or every war is going to be nuclear making for verry bad rp.

It's a bad rule. The people who throw nukes about aren't suddenly going to become better roleplayers because you take their nukes away.
If it were used only to limit noob wars, that would be fine. Unfortunately, it intrudes on mature roleplay when a small nation wants to RP developing nuclear weapons, they get spammed by a bunch of butthurt idiots going "u cant has nooks!!!!1111".

When you use nukes in rp it is you usually lack strategy!

What has strategy got to do with anything? RP is roleplaying, not strategy gaming. If your nation's leader shoots all his top generals because he's jealous of how popular they are, that's also lacking in strategy, but it's not bad RP because of that.

Better than having a population cap for nukes is to have a requirement that nukes can only be deployed if both parties agree. That already exists implicitly anyway, because if someone declares their nation is attacking yours with nuclear weapons, you can just ignore them.

I get the impression that some people think a war in NS is a player vs player contest, rather than a roleplay opportunity. I think those people might be better off playing Civ or something.

[Hodori]

Logistics wins. Technology, geography, and strategy are good, but without the ability to supply, you can't do much.

I feel ignored...

Anyways, infantry, armor, air force, navy, whatever, if you can't keep it supplied or running, it won't do much except run out of needed supplies/ammo/fuel faster. Then you'll be whittled down by the enemy and attrition.

Or at least that's what I understand.

And a modern army is ALLOT more difficult to suply than a militia.

The modern army at least has the advantage of standardized weapons and ammunition.
The militia, if I'm interpreting this correctly, has whatever's laying around.

Let's say our hypothetical militia has G36s, M16s, some AK-47s, AK-74s, etc., and our hypothetical modern army only has HK416s.
With the Hypothetical Militia, the G36 and M16 share ammunition, but unless you have the proper magazine well, the G36 does not take STANAG magazines like the M16. The AK-47 and AK-74 use different ammunition. The Hypothetical Army only uses one standard rifle per soldier with a standard ammunition, with a standard magazine.

If the two forces were to engage in combat with limited ammunition, which would be easier to resupply?

[Yellow Zone 20-A]

I have looked at the military of several nations in nationstates and i believe that some nations (I admit iam pretty shure even my own even my own)
Claim way more military technology than there nation could logicly support.
For example a nation claiming to have f-22 raptors and b1 bombers or an army of 100.000.000 whilst only having a population of lets say 18 million.
Whe all agreed that you need 100 million population to build nuclear weapons.
What should be the rule on the number of tanks bombers planes jets etc etc.....
I believe that there should be clear rules to better prevend god-modding.
Do you agree and if so why.
Or disagree and if so why.

RL Israel's got nukes, and there are sure as hell no 100 million israeli's in the world.

Yes but in nationstates you do need 100 million population or every war is going to be nuclear making for verry bad rp.

It's a bad rule. The people who throw nukes about aren't suddenly going to become better roleplayers because you take their nukes away.
If it were used only to limit noob wars, that would be fine. Unfortunately, it intrudes on mature roleplay when a small nation wants to RP developing nuclear weapons, they get spammed by a bunch of butthurt idiots going "u cant has nooks!!!!1111".

When you use nukes in rp it is you usually lack strategy!

What has strategy got to do with anything? RP is roleplaying, not strategy gaming. If your nation's leader shoots all his top generals because he's jealous of how popular they are, that's also lacking in strategy, but it's not bad RP because of that.

Better than having a population cap for nukes is to have a requirement that nukes can only be deployed if both parties agree. That already exists implicitly anyway, because if someone declares their nation is attacking yours with nuclear weapons, you can just ignore them.

I get the impression that some people think a war in NS is a player vs player contest, rather than a roleplay opportunity. I think those people might be better off playing Civ or something.

Yes there batter off playing civ.

[Satirius]

-snip-

Let me tell you whats going to happen in the world so when it dous it will not come as a shock........
I believe the united states is going to invade one or two more nations (syria iran venezuela cuba) and than the economy is going to collapse again.(just like Financial crisis of 2007–2010)
There will be bailouts again and ceos will fill there pockets and go on to run the system like nothing ever happened.
And than the people will start to get angry and protests will break out in 3rd world nations the usa puppet dictators will order them to be shot.........
And than they will start a revolution against this plutocratic system at first the us military easily wins all the battles but the more bombs it drops the more support this revolution will get.....
eventually even there indoctrinated nationalism or patriotism in the us wont get new recruits and the ods turn against you and the people will forget about there fears and FIGHT.
first the us is faced with 1 marine to 2 militia soldiers than 3 militia to 1 marine and eventually even 10 or 20 militia to just one marine
And not just 3rd world militias but homegrown insurgents fed up with an oppressive egotistical self centered violent warmongering regime and than the united states little empire will fall.
And when this happens all the stealth bombers fighters abrams tanks moabs and tomahawk missiles wont matter annymore.
Because there will be nobody left to make them.
Call me crazy,dismiss me as a paranoid say iam delusional or just ignore this but you know that this is a verry realistic scenario.

How the hell is that relevant? And how the hell is there going to be a Communist revolution in the US, prophesied by he who cannot write its tounge correctly?