Earth II [ARCHIVE THREAD #1]

[Dinkamana]

Nation Name: The Districts of Dinkamana
Demonym: Dinkamani
Capitol: Neo-Moscow (Formerly Houston)
Independence Date: Jan. 30th 2010
Population: 150 Million
Language: English
Gov. Type: Military Junta
Head of Gov.: Archon Dmitri Rakanov
Head of State: Archon Dmitri Rakanov
Official Religion: None
Constitution: No
Economy Type: Mixed
Currency: $Dinkamani Ruble
Time zone: UTC-6 to UTC-8
Calling code: 3
TLD: .dink
Military Percentage: 1%

Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska

[New Sadira]

Nation Name: The Districts of Dinkamana
Demonym: Dinkamani
Capitol: Neo-Moscow (Formerly Houston)
Independence Date: Jan. 30th 2010
Population: 150 Million
Language: English
Gov. Type: Military Junta
Head of Gov.: Archon Dmitri Rakanov
Head of State: Archon Dmitri Rakanov
Official Religion: None
Constitution: No
Economy Type: Mixed
Currency: $Dinkamani Ruble
Time zone: UTC-6 to UTC-8
Calling code: 3
TLD: .dink
Military Percentage: 1%

Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska

You won't starve for lack of bread...

[Achesia]

So six mile rucks are freaking pain in the butt, killed my feet doin that, haha Well im back, I had to go to a weekend training so I should be able to post shortly in WoTM.

[Layarteb]

Nation Name: The Districts of Dinkamana
Demonym: Dinkamani
Capitol: Neo-Moscow (Formerly Houston)
Independence Date: Jan. 30th 2010
Population: 150 Million
Language: English
Gov. Type: Military Junta
Head of Gov.: Archon Dmitri Rakanov
Head of State: Archon Dmitri Rakanov
Official Religion: None
Constitution: No
Economy Type: Mixed
Currency: $Dinkamani Ruble
Time zone: UTC-6 to UTC-8
Calling code: 3
TLD: .dink
Military Percentage: 1%

Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska

k post RP here when you got it.

[Riveara]

East Nusa Tenggara has been secured and I am moving on to Wallis and Futuna. I would also like to add onto that Indonesian claim, the Indonesian provinces of West Nusa Tenggara and Bali

Here is the tread documenting all my Pacific accusations: Om uit te Breiden

[Layarteb]

In the Eyes of Heaven has been given rebirth!

viewtopic.php?p=1411680#p1411680

[Dinkamana]

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=35226

[Third Spanish States]

viewtopic.php?p=1401969#p1401969

Adding too many technical details in an IC post just to make it look longer doesn't make for an interesting post to read. Detailed technical data about a design would be easier to read if it was linked to in the IC post instead, when the aircraft/tank/etc is mentioned. I know it is just the way things tend to be done in most Modern Tech RPs*, but it really irks me.

Not that I mind it that much, as long as it is not employed excessively to the point of every post having like 35% of it with copypasta or transliterations from NSD. But no problem, I know it's not going to become like that, and being able to develop a thread with wildly different styles of writing and posting is what leads to a good RP.

* The overuse of technical details over character development and description of the underlying events and action is a typical element in the Lifecycle of NS MT War RPs that Fail, a cycle that is roughly: "Post ORBATS, technical details nomnom I Launch x missiles that work like y and are awesome with features like z when compared to w, Post Losses nomnomnom No U nomnom Godmodder nomnom You don't have proper PhDs to claim your missiles work like that and there is no RL example proving it could work nomnom -drama- nomnom - Moar drama- nomnom -Ignore cannon exchanges-" which of course does not mean that all war RPs too centered at technicalities over story Fail, only that most people who make Fail War RPs take such approach.

*Edit 1: Also, I have lots of planned posts detailing the events. Once I've done them, then I'll send replies to the International reactions so far.

[Cotland]

In quite a few of such cases (but certainly not all!), its not really tech wank, but rather application of tactics, which at the end of it all is what gets battles and wars won. You can have a million man army ready to strike, but if I employ the proper tactics and correctly, I can defeat it with a tenth of that. That's what makes proper war RPs interesting - the tactics employed by the players and counters to these tactics.

[Layarteb]

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=1401969#p1401969

Adding too many technical details in an IC post just to make it look longer doesn't make for an interesting post to read. Detailed technical data about a design would be easier to read if it was linked to in the IC post instead, when the aircraft/tank/etc is mentioned. I know it is just the way things tend to be done in most Modern Tech RPs*, but it really irks me.

Not that I mind it that much, as long as it is not employed excessively to the point of every post having like 35% of it with copypasta or transliterations from NSD. But no problem, I know it's not going to become like that, and being able to develop a thread with wildly different styles of writing and posting is what leads to a good RP.

* The overuse of technical details over character development and description of the underlying events and action is a typical element in the Lifecycle of NS MT War RPs that Fail, a cycle that is roughly: "Post ORBATS, technical details nomnom I Launch x missiles that work like y and are awesome with features like z when compared to w, Post Losses nomnomnom No U nomnom Godmodder nomnom You don't have proper PhDs to claim your missiles work like that and there is no RL example proving it could work nomnom -drama- nomnom - Moar drama- nomnom -Ignore cannon exchanges-" which of course does not mean that all war RPs too centered at technicalities over story Fail, only that most people who make Fail War RPs take such approach.

*Edit 1: Also, I have lots of planned posts detailing the events. Once I've done them, then I'll send replies to the International reactions so far.

Tough.

[New Sadira]

In quite a few of such cases (but certainly not all!), its not really tech wank, but rather application of tactics, which at the end of it all is what gets battles and wars won. You can have a million man army ready to strike, but if I employ the proper tactics and correctly, I can defeat it with a tenth of that. That's what makes proper war RPs interesting - the tactics employed by the players and counters to these tactics.

*points to Vietnam*
While I belive the United States killed more NVA and VC fighters than soldiers it ever deployed, the tech certianly failed the United States big time. Tactics can bet technology.

[Layarteb]

In quite a few of such cases (but certainly not all!), its not really tech wank, but rather application of tactics, which at the end of it all is what gets battles and wars won. You can have a million man army ready to strike, but if I employ the proper tactics and correctly, I can defeat it with a tenth of that. That's what makes proper war RPs interesting - the tactics employed by the players and counters to these tactics.

*points to Vietnam*
While I belive the United States killed more NVA and VC fighters than soldiers it ever deployed, the tech certianly failed the United States big time. Tactics can bet technology.

Technology was a major advantage for the US in Vietnam. The US won every battle over company sized and technology was a big part. What didn't help the US was simply the rules of engagement and the political handcuffs. Look what happened when the handcuffs came off (Linebacker I & II), the Vietnamese begged for a peace conference. Tactics were very prevalent too throughout the war but rules of engagement hampered US forces more than anything. They weren't allowed to go into Laos or Cambodia (though they eventually did) where the VC had their bases and caches and what not. They weren't allowed to fight the VC effectively in the south and air power wasn't allowed to hit Hanoi or Haiphong during the war. Additionally, ARVN forces were loaded the NVA spies and what not and the US forces weren't allowed to go after them too much. Look at Tet, that was a setpiece battle that the NVA engaged the US and ARVN forces with and when it was over, it was a crippling defeat for the NVA. Technology played a MAJOR role there.

[New Sadira]

In quite a few of such cases (but certainly not all!), its not really tech wank, but rather application of tactics, which at the end of it all is what gets battles and wars won. You can have a million man army ready to strike, but if I employ the proper tactics and correctly, I can defeat it with a tenth of that. That's what makes proper war RPs interesting - the tactics employed by the players and counters to these tactics.

*points to Vietnam*
While I belive the United States killed more NVA and VC fighters than soldiers it ever deployed, the tech certianly failed the United States big time. Tactics can bet technology.

Technology was a major advantage for the US in Vietnam. The US won every battle over company sized and technology was a big part. What didn't help the US was simply the rules of engagement and the political handcuffs. Look what happened when the handcuffs came off (Linebacker I & II), the Vietnamese begged for a peace conference. Tactics were very prevalent too throughout the war but rules of engagement hampered US forces more than anything. They weren't allowed to go into Laos or Cambodia (though they eventually did) where the VC had their bases and caches and what not. They weren't allowed to fight the VC effectively in the south and air power wasn't allowed to hit Hanoi or Haiphong during the war. Additionally, ARVN forces were loaded the NVA spies and what not and the US forces weren't allowed to go after them too much. Look at Tet, that was a setpiece battle that the NVA engaged the US and ARVN forces with and when it was over, it was a crippling defeat for the NVA. Technology played a MAJOR role there.

Yes, but you admit that the tech wasn't allowed to flourish because of the rules of engagement. Also, Giep also wanted to fight the war in the US too, by breaking down the will to fight, which is why Tet, a complete tactical failure, was instrumental in winning the war because it made Americans feel like the war was going badly. That was Giep's goal.
We also didn't have an effective doctrine in fighting guerrillas. Hell, we burned villages and expected that to work and increase sympathy.

[Layarteb]

To your point the technology did not fail the US whatsoever in the war. Technology was the reason why we made many of the advances we made. Khe Sanh alone is a major proponent for technology and also innovation (go go LAPES).

[New Sadira]

To your point the technology did not fail the US whatsoever in the war. Technology was the reason why we made many of the advances we made. Khe Sanh alone is a major proponent for technology and also innovation (go go LAPES).

No, it didn't fail, but puting faith in technology alone is a mistake. That's what Hitler did and he lost, the Soviets tooks some time to start the ball rolling, but eventually overcame them. Technology is an aspect of a conflict, but even a technological superpower can be overcome by the right doctrine.

[Layarteb]

To your point the technology did not fail the US whatsoever in the war. Technology was the reason why we made many of the advances we made. Khe Sanh alone is a major proponent for technology and also innovation (go go LAPES).

No, it didn't fail, but puting faith in technology alone is a mistake. That's what Hitler did and he lost, the Soviets tooks some time to start the ball rolling, but eventually overcame them. Technology is an aspect of a conflict, but even a technological superpower can be overcome by the right doctrine.

Hitler failed for whole different reasons. His most prized possessions he tried to keep off the front and limited them like the Me-262 that he used as a fighter bomber. Hitler's biggest problem was micromanaging instead of just letting the military do what they do best.

[Areona]

To your point the technology did not fail the US whatsoever in the war. Technology was the reason why we made many of the advances we made. Khe Sanh alone is a major proponent for technology and also innovation (go go LAPES).

No, it didn't fail, but puting faith in technology alone is a mistake. That's what Hitler did and he lost, the Soviets tooks some time to start the ball rolling, but eventually overcame them. Technology is an aspect of a conflict, but even a technological superpower can be overcome by the right doctrine.

What do you mean the soviets overcame technology? at the start of the eastern front the T-34 dominated the field and then later the IS2 came into being both had advantages over the German tanks up to the Tiger which was suffering from so many reliability issues it was often abandoned. That being said they were not completely the be all and end all of tank technology but even so Russia could mass produce their very high technology tanks while Germany could never meet the same manufacturing capabilities with their facilities being constantly under attack.

Also the reason Hitler lost was because he moved too quickly and three occasions:

For example, in the west after the conquest of France Germany stopped producing aircraft. They had 2,000 airborne vehicles in the Luftwaffe. This marks mistake number 1.

Mistake number 2, The German Luftwaffe changed its targets from the RAF to the Radar stations, to the civilian targets throughout the battle of Britain. Thus they were never able to completely finish a job and thus the British could rebuild their forces.

Next example, The Battle for North Africa, The reason this was lost was because of poor planning in all honesty. To be perfectly correct, the Battle could have been won if Hitler hadn't been diverting so many recourses to the Eastern Front. That being said the plan to stop producing aircraft was pretty stupid and thus the "Common Wealth" was able to gain air superiority and defeat the Germans.

Final example, Hitler attacked Russia too soon. He should have Finished of Britain first and then North Africa, From there he could have taken The Middle East and secured an oil supply that could have removed any oil supply problems and thus Stalin would have been fighting a 2 front war.

That being said and my hand getting tired, I must bring this to a close saying it is not a trust in technology that is why Hitler lost the war, but rather a lack of leadership ability by Germany's leadership. I also feel I should make a not that Hind site is 20/20.

[Third Spanish States]

Germany should have done something like that

- Ignore submarines, they can't outright defeat Britain anyway.

- Alliance with Turkey, Portugal and Spain (Optional: Axis Iran, I mean Persia, for the lulz)

- Steamroll Poland

- Don't wait next year to invade France, refuse the peace treaty.

- ???

- Profit

Anyway, yeah, I agree tactics make for an interesting war RP. But I prefer to combine them with a first person perspective when describing a battle instead of taking a "bird's eye view".

Also, I'll have to really come with a convincing post. It'll also demonstrate why Third Spanish States Spy Blackguards are far more trained in persuasion, intimidation and bluffing and sneaking around than they are in combat. But, well, it'll be a challenge to make it believable, I think. I'm not sure if the post describing how that special forces guy sneaked to the base commander room was convincing enough too, but I'm trying to portray it as realistic as possible.

Sometimes I really go too far with the "Attack by Stratagem" concept, I think.

[United States of Brink]

Ha. Profit. I caught that.

[Bavin]

In quite a few of such cases (but certainly not all!), its not really tech wank, but rather application of tactics, which at the end of it all is what gets battles and wars won. You can have a million man army ready to strike, but if I employ the proper tactics and correctly, I can defeat it with a tenth of that. That's what makes proper war RPs interesting - the tactics employed by the players and counters to these tactics.

Ah, but it is logistics that wins wars.

[Third Spanish States]

In quite a few of such cases (but certainly not all!), its not really tech wank, but rather application of tactics, which at the end of it all is what gets battles and wars won. You can have a million man army ready to strike, but if I employ the proper tactics and correctly, I can defeat it with a tenth of that. That's what makes proper war RPs interesting - the tactics employed by the players and counters to these tactics.

Ah, but it is logistics that wins wars.

Yes, if you have what it takes to encircle an enemy force long enough to run for them out of supply, you're done with them. But to succeed at that requires tactics. And a proper grand strategy.

Also, just to know, are seasons considered in Earth II? If yes, do they match RL seasons?

[Layarteb]

In quite a few of such cases (but certainly not all!), its not really tech wank, but rather application of tactics, which at the end of it all is what gets battles and wars won. You can have a million man army ready to strike, but if I employ the proper tactics and correctly, I can defeat it with a tenth of that. That's what makes proper war RPs interesting - the tactics employed by the players and counters to these tactics.

Ah, but it is logistics that wins wars.

Yes, if you have what it takes to encircle an enemy force long enough to run for them out of supply, you're done with them. But to succeed at that requires tactics. And a proper grand strategy.

Also, just to know, are seasons considered in Earth II? If yes, do they match RL seasons?

Yes they do and yes they are.

[Taledonia]

Along with that, I'd like to make some claims. Don't worry, it's territory open to everyone this time so I should be good. I'd like to have New South Wales, South Australia, Ethiopia, and Sudan(only the states of Red Sea (Al Bahr al Ahmar), Kassala (Ash Sharqiyah), and River Nile (Nahr an Nil)). Once acknowledged, I shall begin my threads.

So is there any problem with this? I will start threads if there is no dissention.

[Layarteb]

Along with that, I'd like to make some claims. Don't worry, it's territory open to everyone this time so I should be good. I'd like to have New South Wales, South Australia, Ethiopia, and Sudan(only the states of Red Sea (Al Bahr al Ahmar), Kassala (Ash Sharqiyah), and River Nile (Nahr an Nil)). Once acknowledged, I shall begin my threads.

So is there any problem with this? I will start threads if there is no dissention.

Oh shi yeah missed that everything is good but Ethiopia is on reserve until In the Eyes of Heaven completes. We sort of set it aside completely to have free reign for the RP. Which is open to all by the way.

[Layarteb]

Just an FYI to all make sure you post your E2 threads here for adding to the list.