NATION

PASSWORD

International Incidents Information Desk

A staging-point for declarations of war and other major diplomatic events. [In character]
User avatar
Euroslavia
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 7742
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

International Incidents Information Desk

Postby Euroslavia » Sat Aug 15, 2009 6:52 pm

Last edited by Dread Lady Nathicana on Fri Dec 02, 2011 11:47 pm, edited 36 times in total.
BRAVE ENOUGH

BRAVE ENOUGH

BRAVE ENOUGH

User avatar
Euroslavia
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 7742
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Re: International Incidents Information Desk

Postby Euroslavia » Sat Aug 15, 2009 6:57 pm

What Godmoding Is 3.0


NOTE: This, like most information stickies, does not represent 'the rules.' If you and the people you RP with enjoy yourselves outside these rules and within the game rules, good for you. This is an attempt to compile general rules as used by the 'mainstream' RP community. In other words, if you follow these rules more people will accept your RP.

Definition of Godmoding:
1) Saying what happens to other people's stuff.
2) Refusing to take any losses. Or lose. Ever.
3) Having übertech armies that are too large, etc.
4) Having your nation’s geography to your extreme advantage.

1) Example: "Okay, I just blew up 300,000 of your troops!"

Why this is Godmoding: Because in free form role-play, it's up to the person being attacked to determine their own losses. This leads to OOC bickering which in turn, ruin the entire RP. Trust me, it’s happened many times. Don’t let it happen.

2) Example: "Oh, well, my soldiers had personal forcefields so none of them were actually hurt. "

Why this is Godmoding: This is probably where godmoding gets its name (from God Mode in Doom, where you were invincible after typing IDDQD). Naturally, if nobody ever takes a hit, the fight degenerates into "I HIT YOU!" "NO YOU DIDN'T!", etc. Remember now, roleplaying isn’t about winning or losing, it’s about telling a story. A nation who is willing to accept defeat gains a lot of respect from others, in turn. Refusing to lose could permanently damage your reputation, making not too many people not want to RP with you.

There is no device known or yet to be invented which is perfect. There is no perfect stealth, there is no perfect radar, there is no perfect acoustical protection, there is nothing which cannot be defeated.

Therefore you cannot tell someone what their results are in trying to find you! You can tell them how your system works, but you can't off and say "you can't see me nyah!".

3) Example: A 2 day old nation with a population of 6 million posts "My 6 billion man army invades u with NUKES!!!!1"

Why this is Godmoding: Okay, little guy nations, I know you're anxious to start throwing your weight around, but let's be honest; you are piddling nothings when you first start out in the world.

Note: Nothing stops you registering a group of nations and RPing each as a different but allied entity, or any other reasonable method of leveling the playing field you can come up with. However, puppetwanking is generally something that is looked down upon, in the event that the puppets themselves are found out. If you plan on roleplaying here, it's probably something you should avoid doing. Age should NOT bring with it arbitary RP advantage.

3.5) Example: 'Ok, I'm going after your major cities with cruise missiles.'
'Aha! My EMP defenses short out your missiles and defeat you!'
'But...Don't they destroy every electronic device in your cities, too?'
'No, because they're...Shielded. Yeah.'
'But then why couldn't I just send a spy to buy, say, a calculator or trouser press which would allow me to learn your secrets?'

Why This is Godmoding: EMP isn’t magic. If you're a nation which has EMP devices and uses them regularly, it'd be ridiculous to think that in all that time nobody would have come up with an effective defense. Same goes for most technology, in fact: you should at least allow for the possibility that a nation which has faced your mighty ubertech on the battlefield has gone off and built something to counter it.

4) Example: “My territory is completely surrounded by mountains, and I have every possible missile defense system that works 100%, so all of your planes will be shoot down, and all of your troops will die trying to get over the mountains!!”

Why This is Godmoding: It is possible to have terrain like this, but there are different ways of showing it. You can’t just up and say, after the war already began, that this is your nation. It also goes a little bit into the first example in that you can’t claim other peoples’ losses. Firstly, it is strongly recommended that you make a map of your nation. If you really don’t want to, then adapt the geography of a Real Life nation. Also, if you do want to RP your nation as having such a rough terrain, you need to enforce it within your nations. For example, the soil probably won't be the best in your nation if you have all rugged terrain.

Not Quite a Godmode, but...
Separate Example of Weaponry

“My tanks go 1044054650mph, and they can fire 100 missiles!!! My ships go 235436 knots, and can avoid your attacks no matter what!!

Explanation: Ultimately, no weapon is a godmode in and of itself, it may be unrealistic and therefore abuse-worthy if it's creator tries to imply it could really be built, but until you do something technology has no effect on anyone else and therefore does not qualify for the high and supreme definition of Godmode, namely:

A Godmode is an arbitary statement of superiority detrimental to good RP.

The aforementioned ridicu-tank / ship would make a difference if used as such in a military RP without any related problems RP'd [in fact I personally believe most techno-sillyness isn't that bad as long as you don't start dodging the natural drawbacks of weapon types], but having a character RP party on a million-mile-per-hour ship shouldn't be a problem because the ship's existence and performance confer no advantage to the owner in that scenario. Everything is relative; you can Godmode just as well with a T-72 as with any ridicu-tank design.

However, abusing higher tech for arbitary advantage [i]is Godmoding. For example, using FTL cold fusion-powered spaceships with ultrashields against a modern nation would be godmoding if the modern nation did not agree to their existence beforehand; in other words, you can't force a higher tech level on another player.

__________________


Table of Contents
1. Logistics
2. Troops and Godmoding
A. Stealth Troops
B. Invisible Troops
C. Very Fast Troops
D. Military Involvement with Nations NOT Bordering You
3. Acts of God
4. The Space Time Continuum
A. Future Tech vs. Present Tech
B. Future Tech vs. Past Tech
C. Present Tech vs. Past Tech
5. The Effects of War
6. Weapons In Your Nation
7. Economy vs. Military
8. Government Ideals
9. The Indefatigable Army
10. Completely Discounting an Opponent
11. Nothing is Perfect
12. Untraceable


__________________


1. Logistics
Also, everybody's happier if you pay attention to logistics. And if you don't know much about Role Playing, there are people willing to teach you.

2. Troops and Godmoding
A. Stealth Troops
"Stealth" is a cool word, but it doesn't mean "invisible". A stealth bomber is just harder to detect than an ordinary one is on radar - ditto stealth fighters. To my knowledge, there is no such thing as a "stealth tank", "stealth rocket launcher" or anything else like that.

B. Invisible Troops
The temptation with magic (of any description) is to make people and things invisible. Thus, "my invisible tank has driven into the middle of your city. HA HA."
Think about this for a minute. Invisibility only extends to sight - an "invisible tank" would still make noise, especially when it shot you. "Invisible troops" would be even harder to work with, doors would open by themselves and all those orders of the sergeants would be very audible. This doesn't mean you can't have invisible tanks / ships / planes, it just means that not being seen doesn't make you undetectable.

C. Very Fast Troops
NationStates is a big place. You might have a large army, but if it's all on one side of the world fighting in one war, it can't suddenly appear on the other side of the world fighting in another war. In other words, your battalions can only be in one place at once. Transporting troops takes time, moving ships takes time, setting up bases and moving supplies takes time.

As a random note, war threads where troops are being deployed should ideally start with troops being readied for combat rather than departing [or worse, arriving] on the first post. It gives your opponent time to prepare, spy on you, and do all those other things that happen in real-life.

D. Military Involvement with Nations NOT Bordering You
You cannot directly invade a nation that doesn’t border you. There has to be a way to get there, whether it be with transports, airdrops, or permission to march through another nations’ territory. You cannot just say that your troops arrived at their border and are invading. That, in itself, is a godmode, coinciding with the “Very Fast Troops” explanation.

3. Acts of God
The cheapest godmode tactic of them all -- invoking God. Surely there is nothing more repugnant than that, especially to those of us who -are- religious. This is a game. God has better things to do with His time than intercede in someone's RPing. This doesn't mean you can't have characters who are minor or even major Gods, it means you cannot simply say 'God smites you because he's on our side!' as a response to an attack. 'S cheesy beyond mortal comprehension.

The Space-Time Continuum and God-Moding
Just because your country zips around in flying saucers and comes from another planet doesn't mean it's invincible. Despite the fact that there are multiple techs, it is still possible to have a war between such nations. It’s going to be a lot harder than having a war with someone within your tech range, but if you can pull it off, it’ll look great.

A. Future-tech vs. Present-tech
What's to stop an M-16, well-aimed, from knocking out all sorts of important bits of androids?

B. Future-tech vs Past-tech
Even a catapult could do some sort of damage. Ditto a crossbow bolt - they're still effective murder weapons today.

C. Present-tech vs Past-tech
If your castle's being shelled by tanks, try to tip some boiling oil over them. Crude, and only successful if the tank is charging your castle, but hey, you gotta do what you gotta do. Again, bow and arrows on the castle walls is very effective, although, the armor that present-tech may have could probably stop majority of the shots. Just aim for the head *wink*. It’s still very possible though, especially when it comes to close combat.

5. The Effects of War
Wars on your soil damage your infrastructure and economy in ways not quantified by the game in NS1. Wars abroad typically cost lots of money. Keep that in mind, for those of you who are frequent warmongers. Mobilizing troops, tanks, artillery, planes, etc, takes a surprising amount of money each time you do it. Be careful about how you do it as well, especially for you younger nations out there. Your first action being a mobilization, is definitely not recommended. Other things that’ll cost you money is keeping your mechanized military up-to-date, and refurbished. You can’t just let it sit in the shop, its gotta be checked every now and then for problems, and tested out. Don’t forget the amount of supplies each soldier will need too. They’ll obviously need food, water, and for those of you out there who take things safe, gas masks, and things like that [do not mistake this for needing to KNOW the exact amounts].


6. Weapons in Your Nation
When selling/inventing weapons... keep the specs reasonable, as well as the cost.

Example: If you claim you can sell a fighter jet for around $1M USD at any sort of profit, it obviously can't be a topline modern fighter... small old fighters like the F-5 Eagle come to mind.

If your equipment is 'cutting edge' - ie it's at the very top of whatever tech bracket you place yourself in - then you need to boost how much it costs you. Also note that how much the contracting costs your government will vary according to the cost of labor in your country; the rate at which you can build new weapons will vary according to how much industry your country has. For some countries, particularly a number that have no close real world equivalent and few factories, manufacturing may be largely done by humans, or sometimes even individual craftsmen; in others, it is entirely mechanized. The most efficient method varies wildly from state to state.

When buying weapons... remember the above, and additionally remember that the manufacturer may be over-reporting the specs slightly. That top speed of 700mph for your new bomber may have been clocked relative to the ground with a hurricane strength tail wind, and only the pilot and a quarter tank of fuel on board - no cargo, no payload, no copilot, no guns, etc. In other words, feel free to scale down other people's ludicrous specs when you buy their equipment if you're not happy using it 'as-is.'

When selling supplies try to keep in mind real world prices. You may be able to undersell this by a significant amount, or oversell to gullible or desperate countries, but it's a good marker to look at.

Even if they gave it to you... it still costs money to maintain. It may be dirt cheap to man it if you're a communist state, and easy to find skilled operators if you're well educated, but the nuclear subs won't work if you don't have a source of uranium, which is expensive. So is new ordinance to replace the stuff you fired off during the last war on Tuesday.

Stealth matters: the F-22 is much less visible to other aircraft, BUT IT IS STILL VISIBLE ON RADAR, much like the way the B-52 Stratofortress is very visible but a B-1 Lancer is LESS visible.

The F-117A is slow (sub-Mach 1), carries no gun, has no radar (it can only pick up fighters with IR sensors maybe 5 miles away), and carries maybe two reasonable-sized laser-guided bombs.

The F-22 is nowhere near as stealthy. For one, it has that massive heat signatures from the engines- the F-117A has cooling jets to reduce the signature. It has a radar and gives off a big electromagnetic signature, and enemies can know there's an F-22 around from the radar signature. The shape, while stealthy, is not perfect at all and is only moderately stealthy to radar. And it carries just 8 missiles.


7. Economy vs. Military
Sometimes, a lousy economy is entirely due to too much military spending. When in doubt, refer to (if possible) a nation's per capita military spending ranking. Poorer nations often have armies that are more effective for their money, but typically less potent in absolute terms. This means you cannot simply say 'I have a bigger economy, so my army should be bigger than yours.'

As an extreme example, an entire population could have cheap assault rifles, have no permanent home, and exist as nomadic raiders. In which case, you don't have much of an infrastructure to manufacture stuff with.

Try to stay in line with your government type. A democracy would be allowed to do a war every week, but don't expect that candidate to be elected when the next elections come. A oppressive psychotic dictatorship would not have its citizens willingly marching into someone else's country with AK-47's just because the Grand Poobah said so. An anarchist government would not even have an organized military, seeing as there isn't anyone to oversee it. It would be composed of militias, created by the people themselves.


8. Government Ideals
Democracy- Form of government in which government officials are elected by the people.
PROS: Tends to have high evils of political freedoms, good but privately owned infrastructure, moderate sized volunteer armies.
CONS: The people can remove people they don't like from office. People tend to be leery of war and grow ever more dissenting the longer the country is in a state of war.
Military is volunteer based and populace grows disconcerted at huge numbers of military. Although, if the large force still consists of all volunteer forces, it isn't likely that the populace will get upset. It's when a draft is instated, that the people get uneasy.

Theocracy- Government by the religious institutions of the country.
PRO: Populace tend to have fanatical dedication to the government, large military force.
CONS: Tend to be monarchies or puppet democracies. Secular governments tend to frown upon them as terrorist or irresponsible states..
Military is both volunteer AND forced, people however are fanatically devoted to cause and are often willing to declare holy war against their enemies. However, the belief in holy blessing for their cause may lead to poor tactics in combat, since their Generals may believe they will win regardless of what they do or that their enemy are weak from corruption and will fall easily.

Dictatorship: The people are ruled by a single person or group of persons. Is often the most versatile form of government as it can include elements from any other forms of government. Can have elected dictators ((think of Naboo from SW:TPM)) or a dictator which appoints a council to aide him, etc.
PROS: Can have high levels of population support [unlikely for non-benevolent dictatorships], low to no unemployment, Huge militaries (you're a dictator, the people do what you say or else.. mwhaha.. anyway percents vary here depending on the size of your country, economic and infrastructure base, and amount of populace in the acceptable age range.
CONS: Can have low levels of population support. Can have bad infrastructure and high crime ((depending on how well the populace like you)).
Military is forced or selected so it's at will, populace can either be fanatically devoted or not or somewhere in between. What really counts here is how much importance you place in other areas and you could put the leftovers into military ((note the term military THROUGHOUT this post is defined as: combat troops, offices, pilots, naval officers/crew, support personnel, relevant government officials, anyone employed in the sole manufacture, storage, or transport of military goods, an anyone working for the military as defined.)) and then use real word statistics to figure out the individual areas so overall combat troops might only be like 4-9% depending.


Again, the key to not godmoding is to be consistent, think about your form of government AND use your country (give it a history where it came from ect..). Your country is an advantage. If you mix fantasy with role-playing and say your populace JRR Tolkiens' Elves then your military numbers could get a boost (Tolkiens; elves can't die or be affected by disease or old age) and effectiveness increases because of their natural abilities. Just remember to be consistent and within the bounds of the RW or the world you set your nation in. Some people will ignore anything out of the ordinary, but that's something you'll have to live with.

Deploying huge fleets at a moment's notice is one of the more bizarre feats of wankery a player can do, because it involves assuming that your fleet is at DEFCON 1 at all times. Care to say how long the economy of a developed nation could stand up to that?

9. The Indefatigable Army.
Okay, so you've just conscripted your huge (but not too huge) army from your reservists. You've sent them to fight, they arrive in reasonable time, and then you go and screw it up by having them all act like Space Marines. Think about it: how much of your army is career soldiers and how much is petrified civil servants who just want to go home? Your army will start to lose hope if they're being absolutely hammered in some foreign land for reasons they can barely remember. Writing from their perspective makes RP more interesting to read.

10. Completely Discounting an Opponent
'I attack you. You're small, I'm big. I win.'
'That was fun...'

Ok, with superior numbers and weaponry you'll probably have a fairly one-sided fight, but you shouldn't just assume your enemy will be a walkover. Remember, you're on your enemy's home turf and they're fighting for their homes and families. They won't roll over and die just like that. SPR is not real and you can't beat an enemy by throwing troops at his machine gun nests in the hope he'll eventually run out of ammunition. Anything can happen really, when it comes to role playing. A smaller nation can drive out a larger nation through superior tactics, and overall superior role playing. It's difficult and horribly costly, but it can be done.

11. Nothing is Perfect
That goes for your tanks that never break down, your troops that never give up, your NMD that never misses. Adding in things like this during a battle/war would make it much more realistic.

Not Looking Before You Leap
Ex: 'I send a fleet to your nation.'
'Err...The only port we have comes in bottles...'

ASK. If you're going to war with someone, ask for a basic breakdown of their nation's appearance, size and military strength. It is understandable for a nation to have classified information when it comes to military, but all of it shouldn't be. One thing that needs to be stressed is the fact that in order to set up an aggressive war with someone, both nations need to know the other nations’ terrain [or the area of operations if the war isn't fought on either country's home soil]. Without that, then how will you know where to invade?

12. Untraceable (Terrorist Nation/Group)
It’s one thing to make your nation into an organized terrorist organization, and have cells around the world that are hard to detect [assuming that the nations the cells are in agree to the presence of your terror cells beforehand], but when it’s a nation itself that is hosting this terror org, it’s not impossible to see.
Last edited by Euroslavia on Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:58 am, edited 17 times in total.
BRAVE ENOUGH

BRAVE ENOUGH

BRAVE ENOUGH

User avatar
Euroslavia
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 7742
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Re: International Incidents Information Desk

Postby Euroslavia » Sat Aug 15, 2009 10:15 pm

The Wide World of Diplomacy


There are a large amount of ways of diplomacy when it comes to interaction between 2(+) nations. I plan on covering every aspect of this, as well as relations between nations, and how it effects NS politics.

Table of Contents
1. Intro
2. Forms of Diplomacy
3. Ministers
4. Conferences
5. Transmissions/Communiques/Code
6. Embassies and Their Importance
7. Diplomatic Immunity
8. Custom Contracts for Establishing Embassies
9. Importance of Respect in Foreign Territory
10. Declaration of War


Once you really start to get into Nation States, you really start to see the ‘cliques’ that have been formed, otherwise known as Alliances. Some that really come to mind lately are NATO, RBA, APTO, RWC, and many many more. Some of these Alliances (NATO) are based off of real world alliances, with an NS twist. Others are alliances for specific aspects of a nation. For example, the RWC is the Right Wing Collective, which obviously contains right-wing nations. For those new nations out there, don’t expect to get into an esteemed alliance within your first few weeks of being on NS. Gain roleplaying experience, and make yourself known. Trust me, other nations will take notice. Don’t be afraid to try something new, although, if you make a lot of outlandish threads, such as executing Nazi’s or Republican’s (some nations will still support you), majority of the nations out there will condemn this action, and see to it that your nation doesn’t do it again.

When you first begin your nation, a big suggestion is to either create an ‘Invite RP’, where either your leader sets up conference’s with other world leaders, or you just invite them all over to your nation to discuss relations. It’s a good way to get to know people. For most people out there, the first few nations you interact with will probably become your best allies in the times to come. It’ll surprise you how much some of the older nations out there will be so glad to open up relations with newer nations.

Forms of Diplomacy

There are two major forms of diplomacy. The simplest and the oldest is bilateral diplomacy between two states. Bilateral diplomacy is still common with many treaties between two states (e.g. the Canadian-American Free Trade Agreement), and it is the main concern of embassies and state visits. The other form of diplomacy is multilateral diplomacy involving many states. Formal multilateral diplomacy is normally dated to the Congress of Vienna in the nineteenth century. Since then, multilateralism has grown in importance. Today most trade treaties, such as the WTO and FTAA, arms control agreements, such as the Partial Test Ban Treaty and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and environmental agreements, such as the Kyoto Accord, are multilateral. The United Nations is the most important institution of multilateral diplomacy.

There is a third form of diplomacy, in fact a variant of multilateral diplomacy, i.e. regional diplomacy, that is mulitlateral diplomacy that is practiced within a closed circle of geographic neighbors. We might call it 'multilateral diplomacy among intimates'. Since neighborhood is a fact of life, regional diplomacy involves a close blend of the bilateral and the limited group multilateral methods in pursuit of mutual interests.


Ministers

A good thing to do is to create Ministers, depending on what type of government you have. For example:

Minister of Defense- Charles Johansson
Minister of Energy- Spencer Abraham
Minister of Defense- James English

Etc, etc, etc...

The most important Ministers you can probably reveal are your ministers of defense and foreign relations, as they will be answering most of the ‘questions’ and making most of the statements to other nations’ actions. One thing you could do is create a thread with all of your Ministers attending, and discuss your nations’ policies. It’ll add a little spice to your responses, but if you decide not to do it, it’s not going to have a major impact on your roleplaying skills.

Another way to do it is to just have the leader of your nation respond to everything. It’s a lot easier, so that you only have to remember 1 name for your nation. Majority of the nations out there do this anyways.

Conferences

Conferences are a big deal in NS. They are easy to lose interest in though. Yes, they may seem boring, but its something that is strongly recommended to have. If you’re new, and you find yourself agreeing with a lot of a specific nations’ policies, then telegram them, and ask if they would like to participate in a Conference to discuss relations with that nation. You never know what may come out of it. You could have just found yourself a new ally, or in time, a new enemy. It makes the game so much more interesting. Remember, do not forget about the thread. If you take a long time to respond to the other nations’ responses, then most likely, they will lose interest as well. Also, too many nations in a single conference could lead to chaos, and in turn, not getting into the actual discussions that were meant to take place.

Transmissions/Communiques/Code
Many nations use transmissions/communiques/code to send a message to another nation, specifically of more important information, for example:

Quote:
Transmission to Granzi:

We must ask of you a favor. We need your help in attacking 'Nation A'. We request, because of our alliance, that you send reinforcements in 'Nation A' to help defeat them. Please respond as soon as you can.

End Transmission

You can post these sort of things in a thread, but make sure that it is known who you are sending it to. Other nations cannot use this transmission as evidence of something. That would be considered godmoding. Code is basically the same thing, except the fact that the words are different.

Code:
Code: Select all
To whom it may concern in Granzi,
"We must ask of you a favor.  We need your help in attacking 'Nation A'.  We request, because of our alliance, that you send reinforcements in 'Nation A' to help defeat them.  Please respond as soon as you can."


Just a different look to it.

Embassies and their Importance

Embassies are another aspect of the game that could add a lot of roleplay ideas, such as the establishing of relations through an embassy, or even, to make things more interesting, either the expelling of a nations’ diplomats, or the arrest of these diplomats for ‘crimes’ within the foreign nation. Embassies, obviously, help to give nations a presence within another nation, possibly to understand their culture, from an observer stand-point. One thing to remember is that embassies are the territory of the nation establishing the embassy. For example, Euroslavia has an embassy within the nation of Super American VX Man. The embassy is Euroslavic territory, and the diplomats have certain immunities within the other nation. This should be discussed with the other nation before an embassy is established.

To fulfil its obligations, a nation normally establishes diplomatic relationships with the different nations of the world. Depending on the level at which these relations are to be maintained, each nation positions an ambassador, charge d'affairs or a consul in the other country with reciprocal arrangements. The embassies have the following clear cut functions:-

- To project the parent nation's interests and endeavour to protect them.
- To further trade between the two countries.
- To gain as much of information about the host country's interests, actions and activities as possible. Both by overt and covert means.
- To study and report the military implications of the actions of the host nation.
- To look after the interests of its nationals, living or travelling in the host country.

The basic aim of the ambassador is to, 'sell' his country's viewpoint to the people and the government of the host country. This he does by projecting the positive aspects of all his country's activities and policies. He has also to explain away any aberrations, or likely pin pricks, without jeopardising the interests of his country.

To be able to look after the Interests of his parent country, the ambassador, normally, has a number of professional officers, whose ranks would vary from the third secretary to the first secretary. In addition, he has attaches from all the three services. The most important aspect, i.e., of projecting the economic Interests of the parent country would be the responsibility of the trade mission, functioning under the ambassador.

An ambassador has the right to meet the executive head of the host nation, whenever he so desires and project the country's point of view. Similarly, the host country also has the right to summon the ambassador and project its point of view.

To project his country's point of view and even mount pressure on the host country, an ambassador would invariably try to establish a lobby, whose activists would plead and fight for the parent country's interests. They would also mount pressure on the host country's government, through its executives. The best example of the functioning of such a lobby is the pro-Israel lobby in the United States of America. It is also legitimate to use the nationals or people of the parent country's origin, to create pressure groups, in the host nation, to look after the interests of the parent country.

The most important activity of any embassy and the ambassador is to further trade between the parent country and the host nation. Towards that end it must be his never-ending endeavour to search and develop newer markets for his country's produce. It would be profitable to use the nationals/\people of his parent country's origin, in trade, to project and market his country's produce, in the host country. He should also develop the source of supply of raw material required by his parent country, being produced by the host country.

Diplomatic Immunity

The sanctity of diplomats has long been observed. This sanctity has come to be known as diplomatic immunity. While there have been a number of cases where diplomats have been killed, this is normally viewed as a great breach of honour. Ghengis Khan and the Mongols were well known for strongly insisting on the rights of diplomats, and they would often wreak horrific vengeance against any state that violated these rights.

Diplomatic rights were established in the mid-seventeenth century in Europe and have spread throughout the world. These rights were formalized by the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which protects diplomats from being persecuted or prosecuted while on a diplomatic mission. If a diplomat does commit a serious crime while in a host country s/he may be expelled. Such diplomats are then often tried for the crime in their homeland.

Diplomatic communications are also viewed as sacrosanct, and diplomats have long been allowed to carry documents across borders without being searched. The mechanism for this is the so-called "diplomatic bag" (or, in some countries, the "diplomatic pouch"). In recent years, however, signals intelligence has led to this use of diplomatic bags being largely discarded.

In times of hostility, diplomats are often withdrawn for reasons of personal safety, and in some cases when the host country is friendly but there is a perceived threat from internal dissidents. Ambassadors and other diplomats are also sometimes recalled by their home countries as a way to express displeasure with the host country. In both cases, lower-level employees remain to actually do the business of diplomacy.

Custom Contracts for Establishing Embassies

Each nation has a specific set of rules that they wish to establish before setting up an exchange of embassies. Certain nations do not give 'immunity' do diplomats at all. It all depends on the customs of the host nation. Here is an example of what Iuthia has as his own customs:


Iuthian Diplomatic Contract

This document provides the authorization of Lord General James deGritz for the building of Embassies within the Diplomatic Quarter of Iuthia’s capitol city, Iuthia Prima. As the capitol is an inland city, 24-hours notice must be given to the Iuthian Diplomatic Corps in written format such as teletype, secured e-mail, or secured fax prior to the arrival or departure of Iuthia Prima borders. Travel outside the diplomatic compound must be escorted by Iuthia Prima Foreign Services personnel.

Rules for Diplomatic personnel and stations are as follows:

Extraterritoriality of Embassies
Embassies are considered to be extraterritorial. Iuthian personnel may only enter with the permission of the Ambassador.

Embassy Law Enforcement
Embassies are responsible for their own security and law enforcement. Embassies are permitted a small armed force up to thirty (30) people to accomplish this. No foreign nationals may carry weapons outside the Embassy compound.

Subjugation of Iuthian Law
With the exception of the Ambassador and five members of the Embassy staff (chosen by the Ambassador) who will be granted Extraterritoriality, all Embassy personnel are subject to Iuthian law outside the Embassy itself.

Expelling of Diplomatic Personnel
The Lord General or Foreign Minister of the Iuthian Diplomatic Corps reserves the right to expel any and all members of any foreign government at any time, for any reason. With the exception of active hostilities between Iuthian and the government in question, any personnel so expelled are secure in their persons and personal baggage until after they have been removed from Iuthian territory (in other words, if we expel your Ambassador, he still has diplomatic immunity until he leaves Iuthian territory).

Diplomatic Security Outside Embassy Compound
Diplomatic security outside of the Embassy compound is the responsibility of Iuthian Diplomatic Corps personnel and National Police personnel. No foreign diplomatic personnel are allowed to travel unescorted within Iuthian territory. All foreign diplomatic nationals employed at the Embassy who object to this are free to live within the Embassy compound.

Electronic Communication Outside Embassy Compound
Each Embassy compound is permitted one- and only one- satellite communications station within the Embassy compound. Communications carried on this system may be encrypted or employ any other anti-intrusion measures the Embassy personnel consider prudent. All other message traffic must go through public communications circuits or be carried in the Diplomatic Pouch.

Diplomatic Pouch Communication Outside Embassy Compound
Messages between the Embassy and its parent government may be carried by one of the Embassy staff with Extraterritoriality in a Diplomatic Pouch- which may be no larger than a standard briefcase. This pouch will be secure against any search beyond normal non-invasive passive sensors. For safety reasons, the briefcase must be transparent to X-rays. Any anti-intrusion electronics within the briefcase must be demonstrated to Diplomatic Corps personnel before the establishment of the Embassy. Any subsequent changes to anti-intrusion electronics must also be demonstrated to Diplomatic Corps prior to its use being permitted within the Diplomatic Pouch. Any electronics within the Diplomatic Pouch that do not match the X-ray signature of the agreed-upon system will not be permitted entry. Embassy security personnel are permitted unrestricted access to the Diplomatic Security screening station before, during, and after the Diplomatic Pouch passes through to ensure that Iuthian is not attempting electronic breaching of the Diplomatic Pouch.

Communication with Foreign Nationals Accused of Crimes
Embassy personnel will be permitted to communicate with citizens of the Embassy's government accused of crimes within Iuthian territory. This communication will be monitored by Diplomatic Corps and National Police personnel, and is not considered privileged information. The Lord General or Foreign Minister of the Iuthian Diplomatic Corps reserves the right to restrict any such communication in the event it may (in the opinion of Iuthian Diplomatic Corps) it may jeopardize National Security.

Diplomatic Vehicles
Each Embassy will be permitted to import two non-military vehicles for use by Extraterritorial Embassy personnel. Diplomatic vehicles will be considered part of the Embassy compound when in use by Embassy personnel with Extraterritoriality.

Prior to entry, any such vehicle will be thoroughly inspected by a team from the Iuthian Diplomatic Corps in the presence of Embassy security staff. All equipment installed in or on the vehicles will be demonstrated to IDC personnel. Any additional equipment installed subsequent to approval must also be examined by IDC and its purpose demonstrated. Diplomatic vehicles will be examined at random intervals agreed to by the Ambassador. Any alteration to the agreed equipment will be considered a violation of the Diplomatic Agreement.

In the event of a suspected crime or threat to National Security, the vehicle and its occupants will be detained in place while Iuthian Diplomatic Corps requests access to the vehicle from the Ambassador. Failure to grant such access will constitute a breach of the Diplomatic agreement. Under these circumstances and in the absence of a state of war, the Embassy may send Security Observers to ensure that the vehicle is not searched or entered by Iuthian personnel as it is destroyed in place. The remains of the vehicle will be returned to the Embassy once destruction is completed. The Embassy will be closed and all personnel expelled once this is completed. The destroyed vehicle will be permitted to leave with the Embassy staff.

Diplomatic Personnel and Espionage
Any Embassy personnel engaging in espionage will be summarily expelled (if granted Extraterritoriality) or prosecuted within the full extent of Iuthian law (all others). Embassy personnel who escape (or attempt to escape) the supervision of their Diplomatic Corps escorts will be assumed to be engaged in espionage.

Travel Restrictions Placed on Embassy Personnel
No Embassy personnel are permitted to depart Iuthia Prima for any reason other than to leave Iuthian territory.

Assuming that these terms are acceptable, The Lord General and Foreign Minister of the Iuthian Diplomatic Corps welcome the opportunity to establish diplomatic relations with your government. Please send any applicable restrictions for Iuthian Diplomatic personnel in your territory.

Best Regards,

Foreign Minister Mick Lakely
Iuthian Diplomatic Corps
The Benevolent Dictatorship of Iuthia
Importance of Respect in Foreign Territory


These diplomats/ambassadors representing a specific nation within another territory must be sure that they are able to respect the laws and customs within the nation they are staying. If a diplomat were to act foolishly, and get punishment from the host country, relations between the two could be dramatically affected. If a supposedly respectful representative from another country cannot act with responsibility, then who says that the entire nation can? Harmful acts by a single man can ruin the reputation of an entire nation.


Declaration of War

Normally, diplomacy precedes and follows the employment armed forces, to fulfil the Policy Imperatives of the Nation to protect or project that nation's Interests. In fact, today, however, the employment of War as an Instrument of State Policy invariably implies the failure of Diplomacy. It, therefore, is important to realise that to fulfil the nation's policy imperatives the employment of diplomacy is of prime importance. For after all War is an instrument of last resort. This takes on more importance when we realise that invariably, a nation's Interests are invariably spelt out in economic terms and war is an extremely uneconomic venture.

War between any two nations will normally occur when there has been a situation created where the two develop irreconcilable differences, resulting in a clash of interests. The resultant is that the Policy Imperatives head for a collision course. We find that before the Second World War, Japan and the United States of America, both vying for the markets of China and East Asia had reacherd an impasse. The War became inevitable when the United States of America placed an embargo on the sale of petroleum products, to Japan. Thus pushing Japan, practically, to the brink of an economic disaster.

Similarly war became inevitable when Iraq occupied Kuwait and thereby threatened the supply of petroleum products to Western Europe, Japan and the United States of America.

Diplomats again take over, after the war to ensure that the Interests of their countries are safe guarded and at the same time not to create a situation, where the loser becomes desperate. It was the failure on the part of the allies, after the First World War, to give Germany a fair deal that forced Germany to go in its search for 'Lebensraum' and take on practically the rest of the World.

Sadly, after all diplomacy has failed, war is likely, meaning, this is the end of the thread.
Last edited by Euroslavia on Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:58 am, edited 3 times in total.
BRAVE ENOUGH

BRAVE ENOUGH

BRAVE ENOUGH

User avatar
Euroslavia
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 7742
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Re: International Incidents Information Desk

Postby Euroslavia » Sat Aug 15, 2009 10:17 pm

Guide to Terrorism
Originally posted by Jaxusism


This is the second version of my terrorist guide. This one is waaaay more detailed and is really a great resource for terrorist nations. I suggest those who have read it read it fully again. I made a few word changes that make a difference and added examples. Sorry if the examples are a bit weird, I made them fast.

1) Communication

OK, lets face it people, Nation 1 doesn't want to wake up and find out Nation 2 has set off a "n00k" in their nation. Nation 3 doesn't want to find out Nation 4 has set off a car bomb and killed the President of Nation 3's nation.

Which is why you should find out a way to get into contact with the nation your attacking. I dont care whether its by TGs, IRC, AIM, MSN, Y, or ICQ, as long as you get communication.

Once you do, come up with an answer to these:

a. What am I using to attack you? (Compromise with the attacked. Be creative. Be original.)
b. How am I going to get the stuff into your nation? (Compromise again. This is simple. Unless the nation doesn't allow in anybody, getting in is easy. The thing is, how am I going to get the things I am using into your nation? And will you find some if not all of it?)
c. What are my target(s)? (Not your choice, his. But for the people being attacked, don't make it lame. No one wants to spend their time on a descriptive post to kill 5 embassy workers and make 1 building crumble.)
d. How should I get to doing these things? (Driving a car in and setting off a bomb? Planting the bomb somewhere and setting it off? There's all sorts of ways one item could be used against a nation. This is the fun part, because good RPers will let you ruin their economy, take out their government, etc etc etc and if you can figure out a great way to do it. Make it very interesting.)
e. Is my attack going to fail or succeed? (Don't be a 500-time succeeder, you need to fail in an attack every once in a while. Maybe only half your attack succeeds and the rest is stopped.)

Then you can write up the post. I usually try to write as much as I can, and be so descriptive. Then you TG it to the guy, he makes any edits necessary, he TGs it to you, you look over it, and then post it.

2) Supplies

You have to think of where you got the supplies. Where are they coming from if they are being shipped. How are you going to get them past the borders if they aren't already inside. Are they already inside?

If not then you have to RP them coming in. Maybe you loose one half of the shipment of it coming in. No terrorist is perfect. Maybe you get your attack leader killed and you have to re-sketch everything with the second biggest brain. Think of all these things.

Oh and you cant bring a nuclear bomb through a border. Its not reasonable. The nations would know of that big a movement. I suggest something other than a nuke or launch it from another nation. Either way, it cant go through borders unless you plain something really well.

And don't plan on being supplied with a nuclear weapon and getting away with it. Nations will probably notice. And if they do you cant just ignore them. Its gonna cause trouble. So don't count on many nuclear attacks.

Bad:
Quote:
I brought nukes into your country while your guard was asleep. I also shut down your cameras so it got through.

Quote:
I have had these bombs in your nation for 48 years! I just never told anyone!

Quote:
I am so secretive all 400 of my troops and their gunzorz slipped into your nation.


Good:
The airplane lands in the suburban airport as Bob walks towards the landing zone. The airport is generally small but still has security. The plane lands as the civilians leave the plane and the cargo workers start unloading the cargo.

"What the!? Whats this stuff?" one of them in an orange suit says. A closer look shows a few white circular containers with no label. "This isn't on the cargo list."

Bob takes his chance. "Its mine, boys, Ill take it from here."

One of the workers steps in front of Bob as he tries to get to the hold. "Sorry, buddy, but its not on the list. We're gonna have to verify it first. We'll call you tomorrow when everything has been checked."

"That wont be necessary." And Bob lifts a single index finger. From the nearby forest emerge four men armed with SOKOL-31 rifles. Bob takes out a pistol hiding under his suit.

The three airport workers try and run, and the two guards dressed in navy blue uniforms take out their pistols. Bob shoots the first guard, the rifles take down two of the airport workers. Bob fires at the second guard, but misses as the guard dived down.

The rifles took down the last cargo hold worker. Bob reloaded and walked towards the airport car the guard was hiding under. The guard got up and started firing, Bob was too late to pick up his gun and took three to the chest. The rifles took advantage of the guard's exposure and shot him down.

Now you'd have to find a way to get the containers out without anyone noticing, and maybe hide the bodies too, but you'd have to do it without anyone noticing. Remember, do all this in as much detail as well.

3) Know Where Your Operatives Are

But don't let other nations say they have found them. This is the thing about responsible terrorist organizations, they hide in hundreds of countries at once (if they are that big). The way I have my terrorist nation do it is to have no more than 10% (and usually its much lower) at one nation at a time. And remember, after an attack, your operatives shouldn't hang around. They should leave. Fast. As pointed out by someone in the previous guide, some nations don't want some terrorist org to suddenly declare they have operatives in the region. This presents a huge problem. How do we make sure our operatives are officially in a place without telling nations who'd react with, "NO they AInt cuz i dont lettem of j00 org inside my nation!!1111". That's an interesting question. But I think as long as the terrorist organization is truthful, it'll work out. So only RP with terrorist orgs that you can trust is my solution.

You should especially know where your leader is and what he is being protected by.. And if you have any broadcast stations to hack into TVs (which shouldnt ever be in the same place) know where that is, too. Also know how your going to scramble the signal, even though you should probably leave location soon as the broadcast has been sent through.

Know where your training camps are. Know where your equipment is being held and by who. It makes everything organized and realistic.

4) Get Captured

Let a few of your terrorists get killed, captured, captured but rescued, etc etc etc. This makes for interesting RP with nations. I for one love having my operatives killed during a mission. Some nations RP interrogations with terrorist's they've caught. Hell, even let your leader be captured! That'll cause some havoc! But as a terrorist nation you'd probably be able to recoop without the leader.

Its fun being captured sometimes. You can even RP some of it yourself. Dont make your enemy stupid. That offends the nations your attacking. Have their security be tough and trained. Have it be strong enough to outsmart you sometimes.

Bad:
Quote:
All my guys escape your nation through the boats I had there. No one was captured or killed.


Good:
Bob had set off the bomb and he saw it explode from the outside. Someone must have been noticing his movement because the guards started firing at him. Black uniformed, military-standard rifle-holding police officers, they seemed to be. His shoulder was pierced with a bullet and one in the neck. He died instantly.

Joe on the other side started running, hoping he wouldnt meet the same fate. He turned around to see where the guards were, and when he turned back, a fist was in his stomach and all he saw was a black, blurry officer. He had been captured.


5) The Actual Roleplay

Make it detailed. I like to make it as detailed as long as it doesnt bore me because then nobody would want to read "he went right, he went left, he skipped the red light and went right". Get what Im saying? But make it interesting and long! Post interaction between the terrorist! Post them talking about their plans! Post about one guy sitting in the shotgun of a bomb-truck talking to the other guy about his ex-gal. And make everything else descriptive, too!


The bomb was in the back of the truck and Bob was driving while Joe was riding shotgun. The truck was black with the label of "BooBoo Bandaids" on both sides. They were set to go into the middle of New Fork Town and blow the truck, killing several.

"So, Bobby, why are you doing this?" Joe asked, blowing cigarette smoke from his mouth.

"Huh?" Bob was concentrating on the road. "Doing what?"

"Ya know... This whole... terrorist thing..." Joe took another inhale of smoke.

"Oh, I dont know... Cause it pays good?" They had a laugh at that. They werent getting paid. They were suicide bombers. What good was money if they were dead?

"Yeah... The money. Take a right here." Joe directed. There it was, four blocks down, the center of New Fork Town. Joe had the bomb control in his hand. The big red button to the left was the manual set-off.

"See ya downstairs, Joe." Bob said as he smashed into a man walking across the street. At the same time Joe hit the big red button. Boom.

Detail, detail, detail.

6) The Cause

Now, this is a tricky subject. Some say you have to have some sort of cause for attacking. Well, Jaxus Nine's cause? Is to strike fear. Why? Because once enough fear has been set, it'd be time to start demanding. And who are those nations to refuse demands from some organization who has destroyed their economy or taken out their President? But after all, you have to have some sort of motive. Whether it be money, politics, etc etc etc, you have to have some in the end.

7) Attacking Those Who Helped Attack

If you attack someone, and a lot of people rush over to help that someone, attack one of those people! Its the perfect way to scare the others off. If they still don't budge, attack again! Announce that anyone helping that nation will be attacked! You don't want the nation you just attacked to be back to normal in a few years. You want the effect to be long-lasting. So do a follow-up on another nation helping the nation you attacked. Following me here?

8) Have A Headquarters

Wherever you attack, you should have a headquarters, a base of operations, a place to stop by and have coffee before bombing hundreds of people. This would usually be in an uncrowded suburban area. I mean, if citizens see 10 big black trucks that seem to have bombs in them in a parking lot, they will get suspicious.

Then again, if your terrorists arent planning anything that requires to be hidden, then be close to your target. Be renting out a hotel next to the place if your just planning to send in a few of your guns.

Sometimes you can work for your target, and they wont even know your planning to blow the hell out of them!

9) Attacks

Be original in your attacks! Be creative! And remember, it doesnt need huge bombs or machinery to be huge! A few men and a few matches could do the job just as well as a plane could if done right. It can go from a nuke to a single pistol. Either way, it could be enormously devestating. Assassinations are fun, too. Remember, creativity and new attacks keep it interesting.

10) Casualties

Only a few words to say on this. Let the one being attacked decide.

Stuff You Should Just Plain Know :

No all caps. No 4, yes four. Spell everything correctly. Use punctuation. Use commas. Use paragraphs. (Dont need to indent though.) Make sure your facts are right. Make sure you look intellegient.

Follow all these rules and you'll be a semi-respected Terrorist. But you have to keep at it to get yourself known.
Last edited by Euroslavia on Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:38 am, edited 5 times in total.
BRAVE ENOUGH

BRAVE ENOUGH

BRAVE ENOUGH

User avatar
Euroslavia
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 7742
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Re: International Incidents Information Desk

Postby Euroslavia » Sat Aug 15, 2009 10:27 pm

Introduction to Nationstates Roleplay
Originally posted by Iuthia


Introduction: Welcome to my rather brief guide to role-playing in space. You would think that a lot of these nations have been role-playing space a lot longer then I have and would be more experienced at it, in general this is correct, but due to the fact that these nations commonly have arguments about number-wanking, tech-wanking, puppet-wanking and stat-wanking I think it’s about time we organised something to point out how role-playing etiquette fits into the space universe.

Please note these are suggestions, not laws or rules. They are not official and they are only being mentioned to hopefully point out some problems. Also note I will be changing this as I go along as I may have missed points… I’m fully prepared to change if someone has a better suggestion.

General Role-Playing Suggestions So that’s the basic idea of the thread out of the way, now on to the actual suggestions themselves. As many have noticed throughout the many role-plays in space, a lot of them in International Incidents have ended in arguments and claims that one player is ignoring the other, here are some tips to help avoid this:

> Work things out OOC: First piece of advise is fairly simple; you will find that when you start an role-play with a nation you may have combat with, you will find that most of the time you will both have different technologies and ideas on how the role-play will go. As such it’s important to work out any problems OOC before you start the RP. You can do this in MSN, telegram or even in a separate thread… if you don’t do this you may waste a lot of time arguing with the other nation over the power of your weapon, why they aren’t taking enough damage and so on. Work out how your technology will interact with one another… bare in mind people RP many different times and technologies and to say that yours is automatically better in every way will put them off role-playing with you. Work out an agreement.

> Spelling, Grammar and Format: This is a quick addition, but basically if you want to be understood you should make it easier to read for everyone else. Basically you should try and make sure that you’re spelling it reasonable, your grammar is ok and your format makes it easy for people to read. The best way to achieve this is to use a program like Win Word to spell check your post and maybe even point out some grammar problems. However your format is down to you. The best advice I can give you is to remember to space things out so it’s not all in one clump. Basically look at other peoples posts and see how they do it, who’s post is easier to read, which one looks neat… and so on.

> Its freeform baby! Yeah, I know I should have pointed this out earlier, but it goes without saying. You can RP anything you want and there is little anyone can do about it. However, while this is the case the little people can do about it includes the ignore feature, if you are being unreasonable with your latest idea people may choose not to acknowledge this. Remember, while you can role-play anything, you can also ignore anything. So while you can RP your nation being the best in the universe, everyone else can ignore such a claim and choose not to RP with you. That’s the beauty of freeform, and it’s greatest frustration. This is why you should be reasonable.

> Be reasonable: This one is related to the last tip, basically you are both about to role-play a story which may end in some form of combat, or maybe even start with combat. However you can’t assume that NS is a competition that you can win, think of it as a cooperative storyline where you each add a party and play out a battle. The winner can be determined by both of you depending on how well you do against the other; you can probably come up with an agreement as to the winner assuming you didn’t decide at the beginning. Don’t just assume that because Star Trek technology will automatically win against Homeworld technology… you are here to write a story, not wank over how superior your technology is. However, that said, if the other person admits they are weaker but are willing to role-play a futile attack/defence then fair enough, because it comes out as interesting for both players…

> Be descriptive: This isn’t really as important, but it makes the thread a whole lot better. The more description you put into it, the more interesting it is to read and the more you will enjoy the role-play on the whole. It also allows the other player to have a better idea of what’s going on. However, it’s possible to have too much description… its up to the individual player, but try not to let the information get drowned out by the description.

> Show (OOC) respect: You may or may not respect the player you are role-playing with, but if you are going to insist on role-playing with them I would suggest you don’t insult them or their role-play fashion… after all, you are role-playing with them right? So at least role-play with them without going out of your way to insult them otherwise you will end up with nothing more then a bitch-fest on your hands. However, on the other hand, don’t assume every OOC criticism is intended as an insult, if you don’t like it then respectfully ask them to not to criticise like that… in the end they can choose not to role-play with you if you won’t pay attention to their problems.

> Have fun: It gets forgotten a lot of the time but Nationstates is just a game; albeit an addictive game which takes a lot of time and effort for some people. The important thing is to have fun; if you are not having fun then you should try something else. Tired of having wars with everyone? Chill out and try something else, make peace with those you fight or have a peace conference… that way you automatically have a character/diplomatic role-play. Or perhaps you don’t have enough combat… again, you can probably find something to get involved with or if you want to keep a good reputation you can role-play war games or something. Just enjoy yourself.

Combat Role-Playing Suggestions: Now that we have the basics out of the way, I think it’s time to move on to the more important parts of looking at combat itself. The problems here are that players often do things like deny the other player of the chance to defend themselves and so on. So these are the hints regarding combat:

> Work things out OOC: Oh dear, I’ve mentioned this one before, however I feel that this one is damn important for a combat role-play. In space, or anywhere for that matter, you will find that the other people will have different weapons and different ideas on how effective they are. Hell, both of you are using fictional weapons in a fictional universe, so how about working out together how effective your weapons would be and so on. This is important because if you don’t you may not like how the other player role-plays the damage he takes and argue about it, which would damage the thread. You can also talk about the speed of the thread here too, like if you want to bother role-playing mobilisation and deployment, mentioned below. Different players work at different speeds, work it out first guys.

> The Basics: These are the actual rules you shouldn’t be ignoring but a lot of people do anyways. I shouldn’t have to mention these but I guess that with people acting as they do it needs to be included. We are talking about things like claiming other people’s damage, role-playing other players’ character/forces and generally taking all the fun out of the role-play for the other players.

Firstly there is the godmode that is claiming damage. Freeform role-play is designed around the idea that you can role-play anything you like however you like. However you can only RP your own stuff, and more importantly, to make combat fair the defender chooses how much damage he takes from an attack. It’s a godmode to claim their damage for them; however it’s a godmod for them to ignore damage completely. As we all know, you can RP whatever you like, but if RP something in a way others can’t agree with, they can ignore whatever they like, including you.

Then there’s simple role-play etiquette like role-playing another nations forces or characters. You have to get permission to do so otherwise you will be enforcing something they may not have wanted to do; they control their people and you control yours. Breaking this one is to me a rather serious thing and I generally ignore any action which RPs when I didn’t allow them to do so.

You also need to know that you can’t puppet wank. This is basically the description I use of nations who use puppets to make their nation stronger then it is. You have one nation, you can’t use puppets to make it have more people or more forces… you can’t control another nation and claim it’s an ally, basically put puppets shouldn’t interact. Each nation is independent and one player can’t use two nations for the same problem.

> Mobilization and Deployment: Ah, we are now on to the good stuff, you will recognize these words as being distinctively military based. Well now we discuss the importance of describing how your forces got into the combat, sometimes you won’t have to do this because neither player wants to bother with it… after all; you have a battle to get to. But to be safe, I’ll cover it here because many nations feel it is important and adds a level of realism.

Mobilization is the process of getting your forces together and organizing them so they are ready for action. This process is usually costly and you can’t really have your forces mobilized all the time because that’s pretty expensive. For space, imagine if your fleet was always on red alert, you can’t keep it up all the time. However could probably be done fairly quickly but remember that your forces could be all over the place so it could take some time, future tech or not.

Deployment is the process of moving the prepared forces into the areas they are going to be needed in. This can take a while and it depends on the speed of your vessels, you can use deployment to your advantage to flank and position yourself in the best area… however it needs to be said that the other side has to do this too so getting a good spot isn’t always possible. Both deployment and mobilization should take at least a post each. Mobilization takes more time depending on how much you are mobilizing and where they are at the time. Deployment takes as long as it takes you to get the forces to the area you are deploying too.

> Take Turns You are in a cooperative story, it only makes sense to take it in turns to take actions. Basically you make your move and then allow them to make their move, fairly simple really. However, you can make more then one post at a time if you are bumping the thread a little or adding new information but you aren’t doing any more actions. You can also post more then once to describe action which isn’t going on between you and your opponent, such as reinforcements (bare in mind you can only post for the reinforcements once for each time your opponent posts). Basically, you do your bit and they do there’s… its simple.

> Made up statistics mean very little: Lets face it, we all know half of International Incidents is filled with posts about the latest tanks, ships and space craft which are going to be the greatest ever. However, when it really comes down to it, and I mean really comes down to it; these statistics are often over looked and ignored by the majority of role-players. Do you know how much damage a 10’000 Terawatt Phaser will do to a 5ft plate of Unobtanium? No? Well neither do I… they are both made up weapons for fiction. It’s up to the defender to decide how affective your weapon is against his unit, and a lot of the time he’s thinking about what he can afford to take without being ignored, he may take some of it into consideration but he won’t actually research the difference between two makes of one weapon. As such having a ship with uber-statistics will end up performing the same as a normal ship of its type because a lot of people don’t care about your improvements.

> Logistics: This isn’t as important as many others, as some technology levels ignore this completely. However it’s something I felt should be mentioned because a fair few nations hold this as important. Basically logistics is the aspect of military operations that deals with the procurement, distribution, maintenance, and replacement of material and personnel. In modern warfare it is vital to an operation as your troops need supplies to keep fighting. In many space battles it’s not so important so I’m not going to be too harsh about this one, but generally it limits the range of your vessels as you have to re-supply after a while, the more combat you are in the more often you will need supplies. In the modern world you need ships to transport your supplies to your troops, these ships need deep water ports to offload their cargo and then they need trucks to distribute them further and so on. The larger the operation the more complex it is, the smaller the operation the easier it becomes, but other factors like getting them there and how dangerous it is come into it.

In space this could be anything from having to go and get a proper system check done at a space station to actual supplies needed. It’s not often RPed but it can be important.



Realism Suggestions: I couldn’t think of a name for this section, but basically this the idea is to go into detail as to how to be reasonable with the forces of your nation and statistics, I know that these things aren’t always important, but people like to be detailed. This is a guide on how to be reasonable with your nation’s forces and cover some hints to help:

> Concept Your nation is clearly based on something’s, maybe you are using ideas you like from real life be they real or fantasy, maybe you are making it up as you go along, but you have an idea of how your nation is run and what technology it has. This is your concept. Iuthia is based on a benevolent dictatorship run in the fashion I would rule the world if I had the chance (who’s surprised about that one, I bet it’s not many). The Fedral Union’s concept is Star Trek’s Federation with some changes to suit the player.

This concept is important to helping you imagine your nation. You can make it up or your can follow some other fiction or reality, freeform is freeform after all, you can do what you like.

> Be Feasible: This is the more important hint really, a lot of nations seem to get a little lost in the concept which is all very well but you have to remember you aren’t the best nation in the world, there is no such thing. At best your nation may be brilliant at some things and poor at others, but there is no overall best and it’s quite common that someone is bigger then you, has more money then you or more naked then you. So don’t get caught up in being the best. You should try and stay true to your concept while bearing in mind that others will want to interact with you and won’t always agree that you are the best. Your concept may be better then you if you are role-playing science fiction, after all those fictions have an entire galaxy to use for their adventures, you have a nation with a set population. The population isn’t always important, but a lot of people take note of it so it’s important not to get carried away with your concept. For example; you are a Star Trek nation, if you RPed it as though you were just like them you would have the resources of the Federation with just under a trillion people and thousands of advanced ships, but then what if someone then RPed Star Wars? They would have an entire galaxy to play with, maybe hundreds of thousands of ships and hundreds if not thousands of trillions of people. How about Warhammer 40’000? Well then you have pretty much the same as Star Wars, only your ships are even more obscene, you have worlds which produce nothing but Titans and stupidly powerful space marines…

Everyone can RP an idea and some of those ideas are a lot more powerful then others, the trick here is to balance them out to an acceptable level. The acceptable level depends on who you are role-playing with, some people don’t mind you having several systems to yourself, and some people will ignore your extra population and obscene amounts of ships. Some will ignore you on site and others may even mock you, even though they should not. It’s up to you to strike that balance, who do you want to RP with? Personally I like to be pretty feasible and strike a balance. I hope you do to.


Thanks, that is the conclusion, for the time being, of my guide. I didn’t cover the points I wanted to, I wanted to get into numbers and so on, but this is a fairly open thing now. Anyone can use these hints and it will probably help you get along better with some. Remember, these aren’t rules, just suggestions.

I will take comments as you like and I’m not really looking for a sticky (though I have to admit, if the title is changed it would be nice) this is all because I want to explain, in detail, what you can do to improve your chances in role-play. Thanks, I hope you find this useful.

Pete – The Player behind Iuthia.
Last edited by Euroslavia on Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:59 am, edited 4 times in total.
BRAVE ENOUGH

BRAVE ENOUGH

BRAVE ENOUGH

User avatar
Euroslavia
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 7742
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Re: International Incidents Information Desk

Postby Euroslavia » Sat Aug 15, 2009 11:26 pm

Proposed Code of Conduct for Storefronts (OOC Post)
Originally posted by Sarzonia


This proposed code of conduct applies to both storefront owners and customers. Feedback is welcomed and additional codes are also welcomed.

The Customer
1. The customer-nation shall ensure that sufficient funds are available before placing an order at a storefront. The customer-nation may do this by checking one of three budgetary calculators (Pipian (replace Sarzonia with your nation's name and replace the 21 with your nation's percentage of GDP spent on defense) Thirdgeek (replace Sarzonia with your country's name to get your figures). You are supposed to account for money needed for salaries, supplies, support, and other logistical and non-combat elements and not spend your entire funds on buying ships, tanks or artillery, or fighter jets. However, so many people spend on actual weapons on NS and do not factor in other expenses that very few storefront owners will get you for lack of attention to logistics. However, that lack of logistical foresight will show up in RPs, so keep that in mind.

2. The customer-nation shall write the order clearly and effectively. Some storefront owners (notably Isselmere and I) ask you to do some RP, even if it's as simple as "my country would like." That is a good way to provide you with quick RP skills. It helped me get more comfortable with RP here on NationStates. However, check the storefront thread you want to order from to find out what the storefront owner expects.

3. The customer-nation shall be courteous to the storefront owner at all times. There is no rule that forces a storefront owner to sell you items. If the storefront owner is giving you an IC reason for denying your order (be it lack of funds or concerns about your government type), getting nasty will not help your cause. Not only may you be alienating the storefront you tried to purchase from, but other storefront owners will be paying attention to purchases from their competitors. You may find it increasingly more difficult to purchase items if you start to get a reputation as a hard head.

4. The customer-nation shall pay attention to storefront conventions when it comes to payment of orders. Typing "money wired on confirmation" and receiving said confirmation usually means that the order is considered a done deal.

The Owner
1. The owner-nation shall outline policies regarding sales, discounts, and other storefront rules in a clear manner. In addition, the owner shall enforce these policies consistently with all customers.

2. The owner-nation shall confirm or deny the order in a reasonable timeframe as his or her Internet access and RL responsibilities allow. Denials for IC reasons such as those listed above shall be made ICly with an explanation. Denials for OOC reasons (for instance, if a country that the storefront owner IGNORES tries to buy something), the owner should post an OOC note denying the order.

3. The owner-nation shall be courteous to the customer-nation at all times. Even in a "game" that is largely based on the imaginations of its players, customer service is a vital element of storefronts. The better storefronts act as businesses, and businesses that neglect their customers in a highly competitive environment will be left behind.

4. The owner-nation shall not advertise his own storefront in an attempt to draw customers from a competitor's storefront. This is considered rude and the moderators will intervene if you do not delete such a post.

Copyrights
In addition, unless items are RL equipment that can not be copyrighted on NS, items listed on one storefront shall be considered to have the copyright of the storefront where they are being sold, unless otherwise stated. In other words, if you post an original design (be it a combination of features of two or more RL designs, a modification of one RL design, or a completely original design), you may copyright it. If you use an existing design or you simply rename an existing design, you may not copyright it. You may not use the statistics for one product and change its name to "create" another product. It WILL get you in trouble with other players. Since this applies to either a customer or an owner, it has its own paragraph.

There are many websites that deal with RL technologies and can help provide inspiration for your own designs. You can use Army, Navy or Air Force-related websites. You can also Google for a particular class you're creating. If you're creating something like a Doujin-equivalent Trimaran battleship, you may ask for feedback from storefront owners who already have such ships in their stores, but do not just swipe the stats from one and use them for your own, and most certainly do not attempt to sell them, and especially not at a lower price than the product you are copying.

Following these rules and procedures will help you improve your experience at your storefront, whether you are the customer or the owner.
Last edited by Euroslavia on Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:28 am, edited 2 times in total.
BRAVE ENOUGH

BRAVE ENOUGH

BRAVE ENOUGH

User avatar
Euroslavia
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 7742
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Re: International Incidents Information Desk

Postby Euroslavia » Sun Aug 16, 2009 11:22 am

A Guide to Making Embassies
Originally posted by The Far Echo Islands


Abstract/Preamble:

When you start role playing on NationStates, a good option for your first thread, maybe even your first post, is to make a thread where other nations can establish embassies in a major city in your nation, usually your capital but not always.

What is an embassy?

Merriam-Webster defines an embassy as:

“1: a body of diplomatic representatives; specifically : one headed by an ambassador

2 a: the function or position of an ambassador b: a mission abroad undertaken officially especially by an ambassador

3: embassage 1

4: the official residence and offices of an ambassador” [source: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/embassy]

And on NationStates embassies are usually most like the number ‘4’ definition, a building in your nation that houses an ambassador, several clerical staff, and sometimes a small security force, for relations between your nation and the nation establishing the embassy.

Establishing embassies.

The typical way embassies are established is as follows:

1.) You open embassies in your nation by making a thread about doing so
2.) You create a form asking for some specifications of the nation requesting the embassy
3.) You confirm that the other nation’s application for an embassy was accepted.
4.) You edit your first post and make a list of nations that have embassies in your nation

Why Make Embassies?

Embassies are great for spring boarding onto International Incidents. Often, conferences are hosted between nations in embassies, and it’s a good way to get noticed for the right reasons. Often nations with embassies take interest in alliance and trade. Also Embassies are a far better war to get started role playing than a war which may ravage your nation and cause your to become a colony of a larger nation, which is not good.

Mapping Your Embassies.

You need to locate your embassies, a street name in the city where the embassies are located should suffice, however, some nations make maps of where the embassies are located, but this is not required.

Introducing Your Embassies.

It is usually a good idea to give a short intro about your nation and its current economy, government, and its beliefs. It doesn’t need to be very long, just a small paragraph about your government and your people.

An Example of an Embassy Application Form.

Full Name of Nation:
Form of Government:
UN Category:
Civil Rights Rating:
Political Freedoms Rating:
Location of Embassy:
Number of Vehicles:
Total Number of Personnel:
Total Number of Security Forces:
Special Requests:


Of course this is just an example, there have been many longer and shorter than this form is just an idea.

Advertising Your Embassy.

Many nations put a link to their embassy thread in their signature, so that other nations that may whish to establish diplomatic relations through an embassy may quickly find it. To edit your signature, click ‘User CP’ at the top of the page, click edit signature. To put in your embassy thread, type Embassies in the text box that appears, highlight it, copy the URL of your embassy thread, click the ‘Insert Hyperlink’ button [it looks like a globe with a chain link on it] and paste the URL of your embassy thread into that. Click ‘Insert.’

Conclusion.

Congratulations, you have created your embassies, good luck in role playing on International Incidents, and on NationStates as a whole.
Last edited by Euroslavia on Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:28 am, edited 7 times in total.
BRAVE ENOUGH

BRAVE ENOUGH

BRAVE ENOUGH

User avatar
Euroslavia
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 7742
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Re: International Incidents Information Desk

Postby Euroslavia » Sun Aug 16, 2009 11:28 am

How To Make a Great Factbook!
Originally posted by The Capitalist Republic of Pacitalia


Table of Contents
A. Introduction
B. "Must-have" Information
1. Geography
2. Economy
3. History
4. Military
5. Government Structure and Political Structure
6. People and Population
7. Communications
C. Other Information You Can Include
D. Factbook Setup and Formatting
1. Keep it simple
2. Keep it together
3. Keep it in a safe place
4. Keep it organised
5. Make it nice, but keep it clean
6. Formatting
a. Headers
b. Subheaders
c. Individual Facts (Tertiary Headers)
d. Alignment
e. Fonts and Weight
E. Add-In "Widgets"
F. Finish it off!
G. In conclusion...


----------------------------------------------------------

A. Introduction
In this topic, I'll show you how to make the factbook of your dreams. We can do this, keeping it simple and clean to the average eye, but packed full of everything people want to know about your great nation! Everyone should have a factbook - whether for their own use or intended for others to use, they're extremely helpful, especially for military or commerce related roleplays, or just general need for lookup of information.

And you know what they say, after a Gmail account and an iPod, a factbook on NationStates is third on the must-have list of tech magazines everywhere!*

* - Not really, but it's fun to dream.

B. "Must-Have" Information
First in a factbook, you must have information to be formatted. That's what a factbook is all about, of course: displaying information about your country in an organised, easy-to-read format so that other nations can learn about you in an easily-accessible resource.

1. Geography
You can/should include in geography at least 5-7 of the following: relative location, absolute location (coordinates in latitude and longitude), area, comparative area, bordering nations, coastline length in kilometres, maritime claims, terrain, climate, elevation extremes, natural resources, land use, irrigated land, natural hazards, environmental issues and current environmental agreements.

2. Economy
You can/should include in economy at least 10 of the following: a paragraphical overview of your economic structure, gross domestic product, GDP per capita, population below poverty line, unemployment rate, income tax rate, household income consumption % share, inflation rate, labour force, budget, industries, electricity (production, consumption, exports, imports), natural gas (production, consumption, exports, imports), oil (production, consumption, exports, imports), agricultural products, exports (value, commodities, partners), imports (value, commodities, partners), internal or external debt, economic aid, currency, currency code, exchange rates, fiscal year.

3. History
Make sure your history is concise but don't write a book. Always ensure that you have covered to at least a minor extent all the major events that have occurred in your nation since its inception, or even beforehand if you like. This is the big killer for spelling and grammar, but easy for formatting.

4. Military
You can/should include in military at least 5 of the following: branches, manpower, available manpower, percentage of total population, expenditures (and as part of your GDP), allies, annual nationals reaching military age, manpower fit for military service.

5. Government and Political Structure
You can/should include in this category at least 7 of the following: country name (long form, short form, common reference), government type (republic? monarchy? dictatorship?), capital city (cities), administrative divisions (provinces, states, territories), major cities, date of independence or founding, national holiday, constitution, legal system, suffrage, executive branch structure and figures, judicial branch, legislative branch, political parties, international organisation participation, UN description category (check your nation's main page on nationstates.net for that).

6. People and Population
You can/should include in "people and population" at least 5-7 of the following: total population, age structure, median age, population growth rate, net migration rate, life expectancy at birth, nationality, ethnic groups, religions, languages and literacy.

7. Communications
You can/should include in communications at least 5 of the following: country code, number of televisions, number of telephones, number of cell phones, number of radios, radio broadcast stations, major radio broadcasters, television broadcasters, internet hosts, internet service providers, internet users, web TLD (domain extension).

C. Other Information You Can Include
Really, anything you think pertains to your nation and would be interesting and a positive addition to your factbook can be added. Unnecessary things like how many clowns live in your nation should be excluded from your factbook to leave room for the more frequently looked up facts.

D. Factbook Setup and Formatting
The most important thing to remember about factbooks is that they are yours. You have the power to make them personal to your style, your feeling, what you want in there, but remember, there are guidelines, general forum guidelines for sizing, emoticon use and language that you still have to follow.

1. Keep it simple
Nobody will visit your factbook more than once if they can't read what you have. Make sure that if you have lots of information in your factbook, you have made it very well organised and neat. (See Section D4 for more)

2. Keep it together
If your factbook is shorter than, say, 200 lines, keep it all in one post. If it's longer, like mine (link) for instance, try to separate into bunched posts. If you keep a factbook the length of mine in one post, it will take a while to save changes to your post, and that can become tedious, especially on smaller, one-letter or one-line edits.

3. Keep it in a safe place
It is especially important, just like on a regular post, to make a backup copy of your factbook in Notepad, just in case Jolt crashed and it lost your post. Just think how you would feel after all that work, and then seeing it flushed down the toilet by a server error. Save your work. Constantly.

4. Keep it organised
Don't start putting things in randomly. Before you begin to input information into the posting window, it's better to put your text and headers in notepad, then copy and paste into the Jolt posting window and format all the text and headers there. Make sure all information that is relevant to each other goes together. For example, geographically related stuff should all go in a category of your factbook named something along the lines of "Geography". Things like "land area", "natural disasters", "water area" could go in that category. Of course, economic stuff should all go in an economic category, history in a history category and military in a military category. A good example of formatting to follow is the CIA World Factbook.

5. Make it nice, but keep it clean
Now that you have all this beautifully organised information, it's a good idea to start formatting.

6. Formatting

a. Headers
The title of your topic should always also be included in the topic body. So, if you name your factbook the "Randomistania World Factbook", make that the header text of your factbook. Here's a good example of how to set up your main header. Remember to remove the spaces in the tags.
Code:

Code: Select all
[ U ][ B ][ COLOR=Green ][ SIZE=6 ]Randomistania World Factbook[ /SIZE ][ /COLOR ][ /B ][ /U ]


b. Subheaders
On a well-organised factbook, subheaders are what lead each of your categories. Place them at the beginning of a new category, and don't forget to do this. A poor example of factbook construction is when you forget to separate your categories - the poor readers will be confused as to why you have military facts in your geography section. Here's a good example of how to set up your subheaders. Remember to remove the spaces in the tags.
Code:

Code: Select all
[ U ][ B ][ COLOR=DeepSkyBlue ][ SIZE=4 ]Geography of Randomistania[ /SIZE ][ /COLOR ][ /B ][ /U ]


c. Individual Facts (Tertiary Headers)
In a sub-categorical format, you can format your facts to have the title of the fact in bold above the fact itself, and double space between each fact. It should look something like this:

Natural mineral resources
Copper, silver, tin, gold

Natural non-mineral resources
Timbre, fresh water, petroleum

The bonus of this format is that it can be used as a tertiary header, for example in your history section. If that doesn't appeal to you, just do it in a basic format, like so:

Natural mineral resources: Copper, silver, tin, gold
Natural non-mineral resources: Timbre, fresh water, petroleum

And the third option in formatting your facts inside a category is to put them in a bulleted list format, which you can find on your forums posting page.

d. Alignment
The most common and best-looking alignment is left-align, which is of course the default alignment, but some factbooks, usually the smaller ones, are aligned to the centre or alternate per category (one category in the left, the next is centred, the next to the right, and the next back to the left and so on). However, you do whatever you think looks best and most visually pleasing. Most people are afraid to experiment and just end up leaving it as the default which is, as mentioned, left alignment.

e. Fonts, colours and weight
Don't get fancy in this category, as said, keep it simple, and stick to the normal fonts - Times New Roman, Verdana, Tahoma, Arial and Trebuchet MS. This has to look good for everyone that views it, and by using one of these five fonts, you ensure that they all do. Any bolding, text-colouring, italicising or underlining you do should be decipherable from your tertiary headers to avoid confusion.

E. Add-In "Widgets"
Widgets are images, tables, charts, sound files and hyperlinks that you can add to your factbook (sensibly, of course) to jazz the look up a bit. The best widgets one can put in their factbook are 1) their national flag, 2) a picture or two of the skyline of their largest city or a picture of natural scenery or 3) the coat of arms of the nation. Remember to use tags around the link and provide a description below. If your image is larger than 640x480 pixels, link to it instead of posting directly in the topic. Use [ url ][ /url ] for that (remove the spaces).

F. Finish It Off!
By now, you should have most, if not all, of your information and formatting completed. Just run through your post to check for formatting errors (a good way to check is by previewing your post before you actually submit) and for spelling or grammar mistakes.

Make sure you have copied your completed factbook into the notepad file to create a backup (and if possible, upload a copy to your personal website or server). Post your factbook in International Incidents where it will get the most exposure. If you don't want to put it in II, put it in NationStates, the next most viable option.

Lastly, if you want, you can put a link to your factbook in your signature so that nations RPing or interacting with you can easily access your factbook by way of that link. It's an easy way to advertise and usually is how you get your most hits, excluding topic-bumping.

As for topic-bumping, restrict your bumping of your factbooks to once every 3-6 hours. Too frequently may result in you being warned by the mods. Of course, if people are commenting on your factbook, that's positive bumping, because it keeps your factbook at the front of the forum without any effort on your part.

G. In Conclusion
I sincerely hope that this topic has taught you, as best as possible and as easily as possible, how to create a great factbook without being boring, tedious or disorganised, or at the worst, ugly. I hope this has helped you make your factbook and overcome any initial intimidation, because when it all boils down, making a factbook is fun and easy, and is something you'll be proud of. Most of all, factbooks are a true and circumferent representation of your country and make your RPing and nation a lot more realistic.
Last edited by Euroslavia on Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:29 am, edited 15 times in total.
BRAVE ENOUGH

BRAVE ENOUGH

BRAVE ENOUGH

User avatar
Jenrak
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 5676
Founded: Oct 06, 2004
Ex-Nation

The Politician - Repost

Postby Jenrak » Sun Aug 16, 2009 8:12 pm

The Politician of NationStates Roleplay
OOC Food for Thought, a short article on the construction of a leader in the world of NS Politics


What I've seen through many threads are the same politicians, spanning the variety spectrum between black and dark gray. People in power, although restrained by particular things, come to power through different means and accentuate different qualities. As a result, reigns come and go as people come and go, and how you present your character is instrumental in how your nation presents itself. However, the world is littered with two and one-dimensional nation, where one is either an overly formal and monotonous pro-democratic modernist or a blood-sucking children recruiting tinpot dictator with too advanced an army. Politics can be boring if you make it, but that's only because of what society allows to slip in to become politicians. This is an article that will point out the finer details to a character. Nothing here is black and white, all I wish is for you to think. Remember, this is food for thought.

Throughout this article there are questions you are to ask in the creation of your character. Once you have all the questions done, you are then suggested to piece together your conclusions and thereby finish the final pieces of your character, and modify them as you see fit. Hopefully this information will help you in the creation process next time.

The Circumstances

One of the important things to understand about a character is how they are raised. Growing up in particular areas will make it easier or harder for characters to get into power and maintain power. In rural areas, particularly classical farming scenarios, characters will largely have a hard time in a dictatorship getting into power, whilst an easy time maintaining it. The reason is because of the circumstances upon which such a character gets into power. Control of information within a dictatorship is such that rural areas are largely unaffected and uncaring of the majority of decisions made in capital, and thus doesn't really serve as a breeding ground for rebellions. Exceptions are where agricultural and industrial areas are in jeopardy, which is economic based. Maintaining power, however, is much easier that achieving it for a rural character. Propaganda of a simple life, alluding to chosen destinies and a false sense of empathy all perpetuates an artificial charisma that with an erratic and eccentric personality can lead to a cult personality within a nation.

Cities, on the other hand, are reversed. High political activities and stronger industrial sectors allow for a more economically aware party and a more politically fired party due to the strong presence of the media, whether government funded or not. However, while it is easier to get into office through merit and loyalty to the state, because of the lack of a sudden transformation of the regime it becomes difficult to mold it accordingly to each character, and therefore politicians from an urban background can be just as easily displaced as they were promoted.

What did he/she grow up doing? Understanding the nature of the labour of your character is important to the background of the story, as it will provide the basic economic frame for his/her work. Generally more agriculturally based leaders will take a more left-wing approach to politics due to the underrated and unappreciated hard work of farming. Working in the city, however, will have the opposite effect as larger corporations, the sustenance of metropolises, will be considered as vital to maintaining the well-being of the nation. How hard your character had to work also effects their attitude - aristocracy tend to be out of touch with their people, unless your nation had a system or loophole upon which an aristocrat could become one from humble origins.

Where did he/she grow up? Is it abandoned now? An important question to ask. Now, people might not understand the whole idea of it now, but this is very telling about a particular person. A person within a state of power and how they treat their place of origin is very important because whether or not they have ordered it maintained, occupied, destroyed, or turned into a museum will reveal their character about their current self. Those who tend to leave their homes empty but intact for whatever purpose is usually personal, wanting to have things maintained and kept quiet as a symbol of a simper lifestyle. Destroying a home denotes that a character is ashamed of his own past, especially if his past was boiled in conflict and turmoil. Opening a museum will likely mean they have crafted a sort of beyond-human personality cult and wish to maintain it, or that they're attempting one. This can lead to a few intriguing RPs, such as a leader having a mental breakdown, a small group blackmailing a politician or even an old childhood friend that just doesn't connect anymore.

Did he/she go to school? Was there post-secondary education? Leaders that were academically trained tend to keep larger numbers of staff and have more idealistic goals and (without being offensive) are less active on the political scene. Now, there is a difference between the public and the political scene - the political scene is where the leader, as part of an executive branch, creates laws according to the situation as is both understanding and active because he is more empathetic of the people. In general, the poorer the leader, the quicker he rallies people together and this is usually done by arguing to his experience, one of the most tell-tale signs being education. A Post-secondary education usually results in a more talkative but more laissez-faire leader who leaves the majority of decision making to his council, but then regularly pulls an override decision to either express his power or if it doesn't coincide with his beliefs.

If so, was he/she exposed to different ideas of government from this school? How did they get actively involved? If he was active in his youth, he tends to consider 'settling down' in the later years of office. Conversely, a leader who was more radically active is normally one who retains large amounts of idealism, but understands the pragmatic methods that must be used to enact his ideals, and thus a more compromising leader. Usually, this leads to larger amounts of opposing parties as his ideology does not particularly seem strong many times, especially if he was just a member of an active group during his youth. However, remember that can also lead to a leader to use the award-winning dialogue - "Have you ever been gassed by the police that were meant to protect you?" This usually leads to copious amounts of lulz, both ICly and OOCly. IC lulz tend to carry significantly higher levels of spitting and yelling.

Was the means for advancement within the group through merit, or through corruption? Are they a nepotist, or gained a position of power through nepotism?
Nepotism is a rampant thing I've seen in NS, but that's understandable. Having a group of characters all with the same personality makes it bland and uninteresting, but when argued that they are there because they've all served in the same bloody war or in the same bloody division during some horrid conflict or were friends growing up in some bloody town in the middle of bloody nowhere (sorry for the run-on), then it gives an excuse for players to have a bunch of palette swapped politicians. Now, a character that attains power through corrupt means will usually reply in a corrupt manner to certain politicians, especially if they consider themselves morally superior. At first, this might seem confusing, but then one needs to remember that politicians make deals all the time that's not openly visible to the public. A politician that gets into power through corrupt means likely has a benefactor that he believes must repay later in his career, and thus it is more than possible to open up the corruption door.

The System

How is your system built? Characters are many times created out of the circumstances of the systems around them, as the making of the government will filter particular personalities in and out. You will rarely find a highly eccentric politician as the ruler of a group of technocrats, nor will you find a crazed Secretary of Armed Forces gunning (no pun intended) for a position of executive or legislative power with widespread support, not even in wars (cause they're crazy). You may be working under the jackboot or the ballot box, but either way, government defines the politicians and who get into power, not the other way around.

Is it democratic? Democratic systems are generally more aware and of their surroundings, for the acknowledgments of such surroundings is what put them into power - addressing issues, charisma, affirmative action and choosing others similiar to himself is what makes a politician in a democratic country successful. If the nation is democratic, then the politician is well spoken and politically correct, largely because what he says or does will affect the country as a whole, and may offend one or two groups, thus jeopardizing his power. Additionally, because of the entire top-down issue, a leader of a democratic country has the tendency to bring his underlings down with him, as he himself appoints the members.

Is there a separation of the church and state? Disestablished governments will lead to generally more logical politicians but also tend to create less charismatic leaders as well. A democratic leader who is highly religious or openly religious will be much more charismatic, especially if his ideals are similiar to the mainstream media. Additionally, he is more likely to fill his cabinet or council with members of his same faith, upon which you can redirect yourself to the nepotism question. A separated church and state means that there is less influence on the political process of appointing a leader, and therefore a more pragmatic leader with a more varied council.

Is it militarily active? An active military is the result of a bolder politician with a higher amount of charisma. If your country is militaristic, your leader is likely also a veteran of war, as it serves as a platform for him to argue the validity of a war, as well as it generates a lot of charisma already for him. A country that tends to be less active in terms of the military means that your leader is likely more economically conscious. A country that regularly exercises its military isn't a very economically powerful nation comparative to a more corporate-focused nation that works through diplomatic means. Although some may disagree with this, it would also depend on how active the military is. If they're going to war after every little thing their ally gets themselves into, then it's not worth it.

If it's not a democracy, does it control by the jackboot, or the speaker? The jackboot represents military force. The speaker represents control of the media. A politician that focuses more on the control of power within a nation through the butt of a rifle is more than often a member of the military due to the large amount of resources available for such a suppression method. This is many times as a result of the military coming into power through coup d'etat, and therefore because of the coup leading to the leader's rise to power, he is more often slightly careful about things around him. Paranoia is definitely a prime characteristic of the jackboot dictator, and he is almost always one who eats alone. This is important. He. Eats. Alone. In addition to dining by himself, he also rarely sends out his most loyal troops for force projections, nor does he expend himself on military actions that much. Rather, a military dictator on a coup rarely goes toe-to-toe in large conquests that often, as sending military forces out that he could trust can compromise his position. On the other hand, a dictator that obtains power through propaganda is more of a fan of a democratic regime for the sake of maintaining the facade of 'everyone is happy'. He's a fan of the quasi-democracy, and when pitted in a war, he rarely takes responsibly for actions, and rather a dictator that declares war on another nation does it in the guise of his secretary of armed forces, one of his generals or some other semi-stock political character. Less paranoid than a military dictator, he is usually quite rich largely because of connections to the media and through bribery. Controlling through propaganda, however, does not necessarily mean he is a nepotist.

Does it control both? Both the media and the military is the result of a thorough overtaking. Politicians of these sort rarely ever go to open war. Skirmishes are frequent, but not a whole scale open war. The inability to maintain control with both during an open war becomes difficult in the later stages, especially against an equal power paradigm.

It is a technocracy? A technocracy is a country that focuses more on the ability of the leader(s) than charisma, military strength or divine right. A country staffed with doctors, lawyers, professors and generals, it is the modern version of the philosopher king. When a politician is the leader of a technocracy, he is either one of two opposites - either a highly capable and sophisticated and well groomed man of high pedigree, or an idealistic dunce. The reason is simple. In a technocracy of merit, he would have gotten there on ability, and therefore he would be pragmatic, realistic and far-thinking in his decisions. Characters of a technocratic nation tend to keep their opinions to themselves to prevent any sort of fallback, thus risking their legitimacy of claim. A leader of a technocracy tends to talk very little. On the other hand, a 'false leader' of a technocracy is generally very boisterous and seemingly prodigious in his actions, but regularly it is revealed he is used as a fall guy for a much more intelligent ruler. This leads to the entire 'shadow cabinet' dilemma, and characters of this sort frequently end up being killed or exiled. The exiling of such a character can turn the latter into the former.

FrequentlyRaisedIssues
And other completely pointless issues that are nevertheless likely to be brought up

I already have characters!
That's fine. I'm not expecting you to actually listen if you're not willing to. This is an accumulation of both literary tropes and realistic evaluation compared to how politicians have acted thus far. I'm compiling them together in the broad topics that will assist a person in creating a new character and what values, ideas and beliefs would be the most realistic in their situation. In a fantasy world such as NS, an attempt at psychological realism is different when the majority of the people on it aren't politicians.

I have real life example 'X' disproving your claim of paragraph 'Y'.
There are definitely exceptions within the real world, but if you look at the mitigating circumstances and the situation they are in, you'll be able to fill in the blanks and see that tropes aside, you'll understand their mindset much easier and it becomes easier to emulate such a personality.

I tried answering your questions and it didn't help me at all.
Tried answering them? They're largely rhetorical, and rather than try answering them, you should consider them as they are without an answer in mind until you're in a situation where your character has to actually act according to situation. I'm doing this because frankly the majority of characters I've run across on NS aren't very well-developed, and there is no excuse for a character with a name and more than two paragraphs of existence to not have some sort of development. A realistic portrayal of a character in his or her social setting with others will be a very good telltale of one's understanding the human social web and its psyche. Just think about the things that make your character yours, and then see if their personality then matches with the ones you have now. Does it? If not, what do you have to change? Are you willing to change it? Is it a change that'll change alot of things, not just the character's personality?

You're missing things such as significant others, hobbies, etc.
I'm missing them because I choose not to do them. They're highly personalised facets of a character and whether he's a crazed lunatic or a pothead doesn't change the fact that he's more than likely going to dote on his or her child in most situations. There are some common grounds that characters work on, and these common grounds aren't really grounds that need to be addressed, as they form the basic foundation that people usually build by themselves without help. The article is largely for smaller details about particular characters and how they should function.

This isn't like a real politician at all!
No, it fits the politician pretty closely. Kings, Generals and so forth portrayed in NS aren't any more realistic than what you might consider how I approach these characters.

What do you have to legitimise this article? You only have *** posts!
On this forums, yes. But I have been roleplaying since '04, and stretching farther back than that with Jenrak before, with my specialty in character development and their portrayal in literature, especially the use of tropes. I'm not going to try and inflate my ego by saying that I'm sort of authority on character development, but if you're going to come in and read in the interest of finding out any tidbits of information, don't take my information at such a shallow value.

TvTropes?
Yep.

This is a very general character information article. This might not be suited for politicians.
Politicians are the general characters that will see the most spotlight in the International Incidents field, but yes. The guide is generally fairly open and can apply to rebels, people, infantry, anything. This is from a largely western perspective and a primarily Anglo-Saxon cultural climate, so those who follow made up or differing social climates may choose to modify certain suggestions in a particular way that skews the original suggestions to their own liking, and that's fine. However, I will say that the suggestions are all provided in a manner open and vague enough that it umbrellas the general qualities of a character.

This is stuff most people know.
But don't apply. I'm not going to get into the horrid economics of military forces that are poorly maintained by many militaries on NS or just outright ignored. This information is the same, though because there isn't a comprehensive article (let alone a guide) to the development of a fully-fleshed out political character there is a lack of unity as to the general makeup of said character. Politicians aren't all rainbows and sunshine that can be created at a drop of the hat, no. There are rules and limitations each one has that must meet a certain minimum if they are to maintain themselves in power, and to deviate from the norm must require the increased awareness to another attribute. As characters on the political get more complex, so too must the complications that result from such flaws and attributes, so being aware is greatly important.

Frankly, this concludes the article, hope you guys got something out of it. General comments, questions, suggestions and any sort of information are always welcome by anyone. If you have something you wish to add, let me know, and I will add it, and credit you accordingly.

User avatar
Euroslavia
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 7742
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Re: International Incidents Information Desk

Postby Euroslavia » Sun Aug 16, 2009 8:39 pm

A(nother) Basic Guide to International Incidents
Originally posted by Third Spanish States

Because this is urgently needed, and because I needed a try to break yet another writer's block, I decided to write this guide for those who just joined and stumbled upon the world of play-by-post roleplaying inside Nationstates. Where to start? This guide will be configured in the shape of basic questions, and information to help you get your own answers.

Disclaimer: This thread is not completely free of bias, random wits, TVTropes links and gags. Nor it is intended to be a single-author guide if someone else would like to add anything complement to it, ask or argue about anything. Either by posting in it, or by editing it as long as the edits are pointed out.

Will I really enjoy play-by-post roleplaying? How does it work? How should I start?

Quick answer: If you hate reading and writing, you will not like International Incidents or the Nationstates sub-forum

The first question can be translated into very simple ones: "Would I have or did I have good fun in at least one activity that involves reading and writing?" and "is there something I like so much that I would write about it even if I'm not usually into writing?" Play-by-post roleplaying are totally different from CRPGs, from the broad spectrum of styles that range from the likes of Fallout 1 and Planescape:Torment to Diablo and Dungeon Siege and JRPGs like Final Fantasy series. While in CRPGs all you need, in the case of more story-centered ones is reading, interpreting what you read and in the less railroaded ones, making one already set choices in a message box and trying to predict their consequences, while the more action-centered CRPGs you can get away without reading much, a play-by-post roleplay requires you to actively write as well as reading, and broaden the number of choices you can make to as many as realistically possible or acceptable between all involved players in a situation.

In other words, it will demand more from the players, but it will also be much more flexible, unpredictable* and with far greater replay value than a computer or console RPG. There are no limits imposed by game engines, there is no defined "Game Over", "Ending" nor there is a defined concept of what is to "Win" in NationStates roleplaying , but also there are no set rules for rolling dices and calculating hit chances during a combat like in board games.

Instead, these RolePlays will be based on an acceptance of each player over the actions of others that affect their characters and/or nation. In other words, there is no written game rule that forbids you from launching over 9000 unstoppable nuclear warheads against someone's else NationState, but such action would be considered nonsensical, absurd for any nation regardless of their population and power, and thus ignored, as anything which has excessive numbers and a feature starting with "un" or "in" like "invincible", "unstopabble", "undetectable" will. There are no rules here, but this is not like in child plays or in those classical cartoon joke where one of the characters pull a gun, the other pulls another even bigger, and they keep piling up over and over until everything goes mad or in a gag. Or more specifically, as written by Leistung:

------------------------------------------------------

On Godmodding

Unfortunately for Hans, it’s his eighteenth birthday, and in Leistung, that means it’s time to pick up a gun (erm, pen) and kill some communists. Luckily for Hans, he’s been issued the standardized "How Not to Fail in NS War" guide and his trusty G500 rifle (which for our purposes is actually a really long pen). So what does he do now?

----------------------------

Firstly, Hans decides to clone himself fifteen times and then meld himself into a massive Hans with superhuman strength.

STOP

Puppet-wanking is the practice of creating multiple nations and merging the populations into each other. It is quite possibly the worst thing one can do within the technical boundaries of the rules, and should never be attempted. It’s really that simple.

----------------------------

Hans then mobilizes the troops and invades a neighboring country in one post, reaching the gates of the capital in about twenty minutes.

STOP

Always give opponents ample time to respond -- that means posting your military preparations at the very least, or at the very least a generic "The fleet set off for Oompaloompaland" post. Don't simply invade in the opening post, or it absolutely is a form of godmodding (unfairly giving yourself an advantage or declaring the losses of an enemy).

----------------------------

Hans orders a flight of bombers to bomb the enemy capital, and proudly declares that his attack has killed 14,000 civilians and permanently crippled enemy airfields.

STOP

No one but the person being attacked is allowed to declare their losses. This is a major form of godmodding.

----------------------------

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=856

STOP

For Christ's sake. International Incidents is for the realistic roleplaying of national politics and war from the standpoint of the posting nation. If a State Department in the real world would not say it (and I mean grammatically and content-wise, not applicable for super-evil nations and whatnot), neither would your nation. Use that rule...um, that's what Hans says, anyways.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sometimes, the way such acceptance(which also depends on not doing the sort of godmodding that was mentioned) is given happens before you join a RP, and others while you are participating from it. You may see some threads labeled (Open), (Semi-Open)/(Semi-Closed) and (Closed). Open threads allow anyone to participate. In Semi-Open or Semi-Closed threads, you either have to send a telegram to the thread starter through the NationStates interface asking to join, or to make a post first in a Sign-up thread which will usually be linked in the first post of such thread, either in its first or last line. Closed threads on the other hand are usually not open for anyone besides people the started invited for the RP, although if you really wish to join one, it costs nothing to ask through a telegram.

It's not the purpose of this guide to define precisely what is properly and what is not. Common sense is actually helpful for that. There is an old listing of guides already giving pointers on it as well. And last if not least important, chatting with older player that entered in your RP or whose RP you have joined can be very helpful, and that includes Instant Messaging and IRC besides telegrams, Out-of-Character posts or even e-mails. For that it must also be pointed a difference between In-Character and Out-Of-Character

As a roleplay inevitably involves a character, it also means such character, be it an entire fictional nation, perhaps a squad or a team, or single individual, such character is not you. Thus there is an essential difference between what you write while "playing the role" of your NationState or of a fictional character you created and when discussing things with other players regarding such roleplay, like issues on realism, suggestions for improving the way a roleplay is progressing and general tidbits of chat. The former is In-Character, while the latter is Out-Of-Character. It is a usual practice to put OOC comments and messages inside a post which also has IC content between ( ) or [ ] to separate them from what is written In-character.

In other words, In-Character might be compared to what a movie actor says when he is performing his character, while Out-Of-Character might be compared to such same actor's comments in the extras of the movie's DVD about the movie and his own character.

Some guides tend to focus on setting the baselines and starting embassy threads that are usually just "fill form #53456 for setting your embassy in my nation" bureaucracy lacking any more active interaction between players. That also means writing Factbooks and cranking out numbers for one's nation. In my opinion, starting such way isn't really conductive to improving the quality of play-by-post roleplays you do. Actively participating of Open roleplays is, and once you gather some experience from doing so, you'll usually have better knowledge to write more convincing information about your NationState.

Also, there are many "tech levels" people roleplay their nations at. Just because most issues in NationStates game suggest a nation in our modern times, there is nothing really wrong about having your nation existing in the Future(Future Tech or FT) with spaceships, planets and all, in the Near Future(Post Modern Tech) with some cyberpunk gizmos like arcologies, some cybernetics and early space technologies, in a Middle Earth equivalent with elves, orcs and magic(Fantasy), in Ancient ages(Past Tech) like with the churchs of Medieval times, the redshirts of the Industrial Era, or with something more fantastic but not fitting into Fantasy like steampunk(Alternate Tech). However, it's important to inform you that the Modern Tech and Future Tech are the first and second most commonly chosen tech levels, while there are some people who do Fantasy around

If you didn't skip this thread's content so far for thinking it was too long for you to bother reading it, the answer to the first question pointed above is likely "yes".

*See the next question for details on how such unpredictability varies between the two roleplaying boards of NS.

Is this the right sub-forum for what I prefer?

If you would like to write about fictional sports competitions, you'll like NS Sports. If you would like to discuss the way a plot progresses during a roleplay and pre-set its outcome through IRC rather than let it go in an unpredictable manner for yourself and with more leeway and if you prefer peaceful interaction over action, you'll prefer NationStates. If you want to "get into the fray", to participate or start an event where there'll be action and perhaps some firefight, scheming or major conflict, be it a conspiracy, a war, the intrigues of diplomats, corporations and foreign interests, and you want for it to free flowly and not be entirely predictable, you'll prefer International Incidents. However, NationStates and International Incidents are not mutually exclusive, it's just that each of them tend to draw a majority of older players with different writing styles and genre preferences.

Personally, I have chosen International Incidents because I am not a fan of sports stories and movies, and because even the threads I created or joined that are Semi-Closed are not entirely predictable. I never ask the other player or players I roleplay with how he/they intend(s) to make his/their character(s) or nation(s) react to something beforehand, nor I would like to let a roleplay flow in a preset, previously agreed upon manner. Of course such thrill from the lack of predictability(the same which makes the difference between watching a good movie with and without reading its spoilers first) has its disadvantages, most related to the fact there are also some Munchkins and people who only see numbers rather than story-writing in International Incidents, just as there are some Mary Sues in both NationStates and International Incidents, both from older(and even from some "reputable"* older NSes you'll soon hear about, believe me or not. Their identities are irrelevant to the purpose of this thread so they will not be given) and newer NationStates players. Of course, once you get the hang of it, you'll either learn how to avoid them, or to counter their antics and sometimes quite well written absurdities.

Note that the mentions on International Incidents and NationStates are stereotypes of their typical types of roleplay threads. Nobody forces you to conform to what the majority in each of these sub-forums prefer, although usually you'll find more people willing to participate of a war RP in International Incidents than in Nationstates, and vice-versa.

*I have a certain skepticism about using the word "reputation" when mentioning the Internet.

--------------------------------

How can I Write Better Posts?

The following section was written by Leistung, comments in (@Third Spanish States: ...) were done by someone whose identity only Captain Obvious knows. PS: I know that is supposed to mean I am addressing my own NS.

PEOPLE SHOULDN'T POST RANDOM OOC SHIT IN IC THREADS

(@Third Spanish States: Seriously, it ruins an otherwise well-written thread unless the very purpose of such thread was to be a joke roleplay or a satire over some of the typical Nation States tropes

Also, this needed a fitting image to complement the subtitle. Just because this is a guide it is not enforced to have utter seriousness.

Image

)

Grammar

Grammar! Grammar, grammar, grammar. There is nothing more irritating to a reader than seeing a post which consists of:

Hans steps out of his plane and walks down ramp to tarmac. It is his 15th birthday and he like people to come to his 15th birthday.


Please, for the love of God, before posting, read your sentences in your mind. If you honestly cannot find anything wrong with a sentence like this when you are posting, you either are too young for these forums (and yes, though there is no rule, nine year olds are generally not mature enough for a sprawling forum-based RP) or have not mastered the English language to the point where you can string together a story which will be as fun to read as it is to write.

As a quick pointer, RPs are almost always (as in, 99% of the time) conducted in the past tense, even though the events may be occurring "right now." Bear that in mind while writing, and look to real-life literature for examples of past-tense writing.

Firstly, remember that the word "the" is a staple. If it doesn't sound right, it likely isn't, and that's the easiest way to remember where to put your "thes." With those two guidelines in mind, the sentence begins to take shape:

Hans stepped out of his plane and walked down the ramp to the tarmac. It was his 15th birthday and he wanted people to come to his 15th birthday.


The next thing which should catch your attention as you read this out loud to yourself is the second sentence -- the object of the sentence is repeated twice. Simply cut the extraneous object and the sentence is readable:

Hans stepped out of his plane and walked down the ramp to the tarmac. It was his 15th birthday and he wanted people to come.


Of course now, we come to the essence of the RP -- this is a fine sentence on its own, but if that was the opening sentence to a novel you were reading, would you ever progress past the first page?

Detail

Our friend Hans is stepping off his plane! It's his fifteenth birthday! Dear God, how exciting is that!

It's about as exciting as the politics of Liechtenstein. Why are you posting about this, and just who is this boy Hans? Why would I care enough to take time out of my day to respond to this one-line post? The simple answer is that I wouldn't, nor would anyone. These sorts of threads only attract "Please read the stickies" posts, or plummet into the realm of one-liners until the thread reaches two thousand horrifying posts which no one can, or would want to, read.

When you write an OP (original post), you want to draw in the caliber of person who will stick with the thread, and provide a fun experience for the whole group (and RPing is a group activity -- always remember that). Hans stepping off the plane wanting people to come is a wonderful start, but it truly isn't enough to draw in anyone but the most casual, one-lifetime-post RPer.

Lets go into how to remedy that. We start with our grammatically correct post from the last section:

Hans stepped out of his plane and walked down the ramp to the tarmac. It was his 15th birthday and he wanted people to come.


Where is the plane? What does the plane look like? Is Hans planning on walking to a house, or is his party going to be conducted on the runway? Why does he want people to come? There's no way I can possibly answer these questions. They're for no one but the writer to decide, and every writer will answer them differently -- personally, I would go into far too much detail, but an example good first paragraph would be this:

A cool breeze blew back Hans' hair as he stepped off his private jetliner, his boots clanging on the metal gangplank as he walked onto the tarmac. He took a deep breath and cracked his fingers before stepping into the waiting limo. As the car inched forward, a thought ran through Hans' mind -- would anyone come to the birthday party which had occupied his time for the last week and a half?


Already I have a location set in my mind. It's breezy, and there's a waiting limo at the airport -- the party is taking place elsewhere, at a location I'll probably go into in subsequent paragraphs. Most importantly, readers know that all the hard work going into their responses will not be in vain; you're going to respond to them in complete, interesting to read sentences, and you obviously care enough to write out something thoughtful, so you're not simply going to lose interest and stop posting.

(@Third Spanish States: Don't go too far with adjectives and descriptions though, or you may end with something as bad as The Eye of Argon or with something else unnecessarily long that will make people bored from seeing too much scenery and little action or happenings in your posts. This is not supposed to be a poetry contest on who uses the most deep and intriguing ways to describe something. You don't need to put every detail about how a character makes a castle of cards like in two-digit minutes long scenes of certain kinds of movies, to them mention someone dies when such character finishes building the castle of cards)


Spelling and Various Other Peeves


Quite simply, there is no reason for you to mispell a word. You have the entirety of the internet at your fingertips, yet you cannot be bothered to figure out how to spell "necessary"? Misspelled common words are the first warning sign of an uninterested, unmotivated, or occasionally just bad, writer, and they must be eliminated before a post is made. Before I go on my rant, accidentally writing "form" instead of "from" or a variety of other similar mistakes are not grounds for execution -- spellcheckers won't notice them, and they almost always come about because the writer is typing too fast.

Did you notice that I misspelled misspell? I certainly wouldn't have unless I had a spellchecker. Luckily, a red squiggly line appeared under the offending word and I saw my mistake (which would have normally been corrected). Such is the beauty of the almighty spellchecker, a tool so simple that it is included by default in Mozilla Firefox, but so powerful that without it, NationStates would consist of a jumbled list of irritating spelling mistakes.

Use it. Please, please use it. If you do not write your posts in Microsoft Word (or similar), and do not use Firefox or another spellchecking browser, http://orangoo.com/spell/ is an excellent alternative. On the internet, there is no excuse for:

it is $20.00 for each mre and the delivery is $20.00 because ther deliverd in a convoi of tanks or battle ship or bomber


Honestly.

(@Third Spanish States: At least I never saw people writing in 1337 and MMO jargons like "wtb 1337 tankz plz". I haven't been long enough to witness something like that, I suppose.)

Miscellaneous Guidelines

Quotes

When writing a dialogue, remember that the rule is "comma, quotes, capitalization" for a quote integrated in a sentence.

Hans said, "No way are those real!"


Alternatively, and more commonly, it will be "word, comma/question mark, quotes." Much less catchy, unfortunately. Always, always remember that it is a comma or question mark, but never a period in this case. The next word is not capitalized.

"I assure you that my arms are not prosthetic," she replied dryly.


If you'd like to use a period, for whatever reason, the third method is outlined below, and it should be noted that the person speaking is not introduced or mentioned:

"I find that hard to believe." Hans' eyes began to wander downwards, and he noticed that her legs appeared quite thin...


Whom versus who and other pretentiousness

This is a forum frequented by intelligent individuals (or so we'd like to think). Though there is a difference between whom and who, while and whilst, and other rules a pedantic individual would yell at others for using wrong, for the most part, no one cares. In fact, I find uses of "whilst" to be pretentious in the extreme, just like saying "pedantic in the extreme" is. Use them if you'd like, but no one will care if you don't.

(@Third Spanish States: Also, unless you are fluent in a language, even it may superficially seem to enrich a thread by giving it "character" as unlike in the usual movies not everyone will "speak English", I don't advise using Gratuitous -insert language spoken in your NS other than English here- People who aren't fluent in the mentioned language won't notice, but people who are, like Allanea has shown to me, will.)

----------

The following was written by Valipac but complements this:

Instead of saying, "I declare war on random_nation_x," it's very easy to make a much longer and higher quality post. Rather than the above, why not include a discussion of your nations president/dictator/whatever and his top ranking associates about the merits of going to war as opposed to staying neutral in the conflict. Doing so will give the other RPers in the forum more insight to how your nation actually thinks and functions on top of enhancing the quality of the post. Similarly, why not go ahead and type up an official government letter spelling out why you are declaring war on that nation.

The same goes for any government action, not just declaring war. Does the President of the United States make decisions about whether to condemn a nation for pursuing nukes by himself, or does he first refer to his cabinet? No matter what the action your government takes, it is always a good idea to show their thought process behind making the decision.

(@Third Spanish States: Some people also add links to musics put in the first line of their posts to try making a mood. It has its downsides. Particularly when the chosen music has so little to do with the vibe of the post that it seems like the link was posted as a discrete Rick Roll- don't search for it in Google please. However this is subjective. Putting a link for "What a wonderful world" in a roleplay involving the aftermath of a nuclear war is more fitting than you may think. Although I would prefer "A Kiss to Build a Dream on")

---------------------

Contractions

Simply, it is best to use contractions when speaking, not when writing. They'll be used frequently in dialogue, but not so much in description -- also notice that I'm using them in every sentence, because I'm writing as I would speak, in an informal tone. For anyone who is unaware, a contraction is exactly what it sounds like -- a contraction of two words. A full list can be found here: http://www.enchantedlearning.com/grammar/contractions/list.shtml

---------------------------------------------------------------

This next part was written by Valipac

What is the difference between gameplay and roleplay?

Roleplay is known as the written posts in this forum. Gameplay is known as the different things that go on in the NS site, such as issues or the World Assembly. Within the International Incidents forum, most (if not all) roleplayers choose to ignore gameplay functions entirely. This means that the WA resolutions have no effect on your nation in II, and similarly there will be no wars composed of WA nations vs anti-WA nations. Likewise, if your nation's home page says you are a "Benevolent Dictatorship" but you prefer to RP as a democracy, then nothing is stopping you. The only thing that always transfers between gameplay and roleplay is population, and this can even vary if you decide to cap your population for RP purposes or if you RP a lot of your citizens dying. Regardless of those scenarios, your population will never be higher than what is listed there.

(@Third Spanish States: Nothing forbids you to establish a alliance that may serve as a regional supranational power or trying to set a global organization. Just don't expect everyone to join if you just post it in day one. Forming strong organizations and alliances in NS roleplaying requires time and to have a good reputation already with other players, and even then it may not work. Likewise, NationStates regions(a gameplay function) are widely used for roleplay functions, and some, like Haven, became centered at roleplay rather than gameplay )

Similarly, economic calculators should be seen as a guideline and nothing more, as they too are a gameplay function. If your economic calculator says you have a 100% tax rate with 50% of that going to the military and thus a huge military budget, you have to realize that it is completely unrealistic (and even more so if you claim to be a democracy or capitalist). Likewise, if it says you have a 0% tax rate, you are not forced to RP with no money going to your armed services. The calculators serve as a good way to estimate your GDP but not as a way to give you a clear cut governmental budget.

(@Third Spanish States: If you have decided to take Future Tech as your NationStates tech level, you shouldn't even bother with NS Calculators. However, if you wish to roleplay something more competitive In-character, you better not claim to own an entire galaxy with your CLICHÉ LEGION OF DOOM(TM) or, you'll be ignored by nearly everyone and even OOCly laughed by a few, should you make a thread titled "Galactic Empire X prepares to invade the Milky Way". The pointlessness of these calculators also applies to anything that is not Modern or Post Modern Tech... except for realistic Past Tech because you obviously won't have the same economical and industrial power in a medieval nation with 30 million inhabitants that you would in a modern nation with such population)

So now that I have learned some of the basic requirements, what exactly do I do?

First, peruse the threads on II to find one that interests you. Do you like diplomatic situations? War? Conferences? Once you have found an open thread (as described above) that interests you, it now becomes your turn to apply everything we have told you. Click that reply button and start typing!

(@Third Spanish States: You won't be able to make a good post in the brief time your job's supervisor is distracted talking to someone so he/she won't give you a warning for browsing Internet forums. And even if allowed, you could be forced to stop doing at any moment. If you really want to kill some time, do it in a IRC channel that is safe for work, or in the likes of BYOB and of the unfortunately gone Forum 7(Forum 7 was a spam forum in the first NationStates forums, some people blamed it for the constant server crashes and bugs that happened in the 2002/2003 period, when I didn't even know NationStates existed). I take no responsibility by anyone who may lose his/her job for interpreting that advice wrongly)

Handy links

Compilation of in-depth guides

The Art of NS War: Handy guide with the basics of War RPing in NationStates.

Suggestions for writing Epic War roleplay threads: A guide on the literary, writing side of war RPs, with advices on how to describe battles and how to build up a conflict roleplay/story in a way inspired by the Epic genre

Economic calculators

Project Rho: Atomic Rocket(realistic space and future tech)

http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom - for discussing and asking about designs, strategies and tactics, and thus avoiding(in part) Hollywoodian grade war RPs and thus unlike that stuff, your RPs will have better basis to make sense. Mostly for NationStates founded upon realistic tech levels, although also recommended for those seeking advice to stay within(or mostly within) Hard Science Fiction in the tech levels beyond MT.

http://z13.invisionfree.com/Lineartinc - if you like drawing, this is the place to try drawing the cars that only exist in your NationState, the guns your soldiers use, the airplanes that your NationState created, the ships in its Navy, and anything else related to your fictional Nation, and to have it peer reviewed. Some people who play NS also do Linearts as a hobby. Just one note: Lineart INC is for posting original drawings, not for posting modifications of things other people have already drawn* or of drawings you found through Google Image Search

*Unless you asked them to allow you to do it first and they replied back with an OK(in the case of other LINC members)

http://tvtropes.org - If you want to try making something unique and that makes sense, this site has lists of what you shouldn't do. Just don't get too obsessed with it.

#nsarms - #nsarms is an IRC channel focused on the discussion of realistic military technologies, or of overall technologies, strategies, tactics and logistics. To join #nsarms you should first type /server irc.esper.net to enter in the server where it is hosted and then type /join nsarms to enter in the channel. You need a client like Chatzilla (Firefox IRC Plugin) to do so.

#draftroom - IRC channel related to NSDraftroom, which serves well for planning roleplays, among other things.

I have a question about -insert technology that is supposed to make sense here-

There are some NationStates players who have acquired knowledge about certain technologies, mostly of the military kind of course, or of tactics, strategies, common sense etc. who you may address through a telegram if you wish. You can contact some of the people who will be listed below more directly by accessing #nsarms or #draftroom IRC channels. Don't be afraid to try contacting them, because certainly many would be willing to help you. It is good to check first if your question wasn't already answered over and over or to think whether your idea was made purely over the Rule of Cool or not. Here is a list of some of these NS players. If for some reason any of the following wish to have their NationState name removed, just telegram me and I will do so:

Alfegos: Airships and tactics for using them in Modern Tech.
Amastol: Guns
Dostanuot Loj (Sumer): Armored Vehicles(Tanks, Armored Personell Carriers, etc.) and their tactics involving them. Also good knowledge about the RL Sumerian civilization.
Franberry: Cavalry in Modern Tech. The use of Vespas. Logistics of horse-towed combat aircrafts.
Izistan: Realistic Space Technology for Modern, Post Modern and Future Tech and their tactics. Also one of the people to consult if you wish to make a joke RP.
Layarteb: Logistics, general tactics. How to write Spec and Black Ops. How to write.
Lyras: Tanks and overall tactics. Also the source to consult if you want to create a Christian-inspired fictional religion for NationStates that makes more sense than the usual depictions in TV series etc. Or any fictional religion.
The Macabees: Armored Vehicles and their tactics.
Nianacio: Ballistics of Tank Guns/Artillery etc. and Armored Vehicles, and also hints on how to roleplay negritos without Gangsta stereotypes.
Questers: Naval technology and naval tactics. Air tactics using airplanes with 1970s technology. If you want to do something similar to RL Rhodesia in NS, ask him.
Rosdivan: Aerospace technology and aerial warfare tactics.
Russkya: Guns and infantry tactics. Napoleonic Era included
Trailers: Overall Future Tech. Ideas for people who don't want to bother about realism but still want to have an unique NS rather than copypasta from -insert space opera series/game here- Wiki
Vault 10: Any technology, very knowledgeable in Naval Technology and also(through contacts) in Aerospace Technology. Overall tactics. Also the source for asking about post-nuclear roleplaying games and how to make a NS inspired by the post-apocalyptic genre that is sufficiently realistic. How to roleplay hackers.
Zepplin Manufacturers: Realistic Space Tech and tactics.

Congratulations, you are now Level 2 (Informed Newbie), to level up again, just keep roleplaying: you don't need to grind the same dull monster over and over for EXP points or hire a China farmer for this.

Image
Last edited by Euroslavia on Sun Aug 16, 2009 8:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
BRAVE ENOUGH

BRAVE ENOUGH

BRAVE ENOUGH

User avatar
Euroslavia
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 7742
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Re: International Incidents Information Desk

Postby Euroslavia » Sun Aug 16, 2009 9:12 pm

The Ultimate Guide to WAR
Originally posted by Automagfreek


+++++++++++++++++

Q: Um...where is the 'declare war' button?

A: There isn't. War on NationStates is entirely role play, there is no actual game engine that makes war. What is that you may ask? Make believe story telling, plain and simple. NS war can be fought in a few ways, and many NSers have their own style they like to use:

1. War based on story

There are some RPers out there (myself included) who choose to fight wars based almost entirely on story, IE: the sights, the sounds, the taste, and the touch of battle. There are the people who sometimes enjoy going into great length to paint the picture of a battle scene, and technical stats of weapons are not a big concern.

2. War based on tech/stats

There are other RPers who enjoy fighting wars based on technical specs and stats of their weapons, and sometimes enjoy going into great detail to make sure their weapons (and how they employ them) are as realistic as possible. Focus on the story is still there, but tactics and stats are of more importance to these RPers.

Which style is the best style? That is for you to decide. Not everyone plays on the same level (IE: Modern tech, future tech, fantasy, and so on), so it is important to 'scout out' a potential opponent before fighting them, this way you know what you will be facing.

Q: How do I make a military?

A: Simple, but there is no 'create army' button you press. While there is no fixed number as to what size your military can be, generally it is an age old rule of thumb that it remain around .5% to 5% of your population. However you are not obligated to follow this guideline, though most experienced RPers would agree an excessively large military will wreck your economy.

Generally most armies don't have more than a few million men total, including reserves, logistics, medics, ground pounders, etc. This number can depend on how strong your economy is and how big your population is.

Simply take your population and divide it by the percentage you want. Remember, a military cannot function soley with infantry. You need mechanics, medics, support, officers, etc. Just like in real life (even though NS is NOT real life).

Q: Ok, I want to go to war! What do I do?

A: Well, first off you have to get a few things down before you rush off to battle. Some things you should think of before you attack another nation are:

* Why are you attacking that nation/alliance/region? What did they do to warrant a strike by your military?
* Is your military capable of fighting large scale, protracted wars?


Let us examine the first question, why are you attacking?

GOOD REASONS FOR WAR

1. Attack on your nation/territory

Naturally this is grounds for war. If a hostile fleet moves into your waters or if (for example) a missile is launched or bombs are dropped into your territory, you may want to use diplomatic pressure or some other means first. This will may sway others to your banner if you make an honest effort to avoid war.

However, depending on how you want to play you may handle it differently. Some people would make an effort to avoid a potentially costly and devastating war, others would jump at the first chance to deal a little death. In the end it's all up to how you play.

2. Attack on an ally

This is cause #2 for war. Because of vast friendships on NationStates, war for this reason is very common. As an ally of a nation, you may feel obligated to defend them, and that is understandable. But you do not need to make all of your allies business your business. You have a nation to run as well, you can't alway rush off to protect your 4 dozen allies (or how ever many you have). But that's not to say you can't aid your allies. Sending weapons, ammo, money, equipment can be just as effective as sending your own soldiers.

Political and moral support can acutally avert an entire war, and I should know because I've done it myself. Experiment and find a style that suits you.


3. Human rights violations

This is International Incident's favorite past time. Mass murder, genocide, enslavement, and other such things all fall under this category. While many nations in I.I love to frequently abuse human rights, there are still a few 'good' nations out there who are willing to risk it all to defend the innocent.

Declaring war for a human rights violation is a delicate thing. Most of the time with enough political pressure and some light to moderate threat of force, you can usually stop human rights violations.

4. WMD possession

This reason is slightly exaggerated. A nation has the right to possess WMD, and use it when neccessary. BUT, if they go around gassing neighbor nations for giggles, then there may be a problem (but again, DIPLOMACY FIRST). Simply possessing, buying, or selling WMD is not sufficiant grounds for war...BUT abuse may be. Each situation is unique.

5. Conquest

Sometimes you just run out of room, or you want to expand your influence or empire abroad, and the need arises to take additional territories. If well RP'd, conquest wars can be quite fun and interesting to read, however if all you post is "LOL I TAEK UR LANDZ!1", people will most likely ignore you.

BAD REASONS FOR WAR

1. His leader insulted mine!

So what? If you rush off to war for this reason, you need to grow a thicker skin. As absurd as it seems, I've seen war erupt for this reason. Insults happen, don't take it personally. Remember "sticks and stones"? Declaring war because challenges are being issued is one thing, but declaring war because his leader called your leader a mean name is another.

2. I want to rule teh world!!!1111Shift+1

For one thing, you can't, there are simply too many nations in the game. Do you think your military, even your ENTIRE population for that matter, can conquer that many people? It's impossible, and will probably end with you being mocked by a hoard of other RPers.

Also, you can't declare war on the Jolt forums, the moderators or the WA*, sorry.

* The WA is a game function, and is NOT an actual organized alliance.

3. He said my mom was fat!

NEVER, EVER DECLARE WAR FOR OOC (Out Of Character) REASONS!!! It doesnt matter if your friend was being a jerk at school, that's not a good reason to declare war, forget about it. If there is absolutely no IC justification for war, most RPers either won't pay attention to it or the thread will devolve into bickering. This is one of the things that kills good war RPs, when Out Of Character and In Character feels mix together.

If you plan on being taken seriously in NS, DO NOT allow IC and OOC feelings and attitudes to cross. Keep your real world and in game identities as seperate as possible, and understand that how someone behaves ICly does NOT necessarily reflect their real life views.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Q: Ok, I have a good and valid reason to declare war, what do I do now?

A: This is where it gets tricky. I will walk through this as best as I can.

* Create a thread stating your case OR moving your troops into position either openly or as covertly as possible. This depends on whether or not you want your attack to be a 'surprise' or not. Good writing is essential to your cause, not just 'OMFG LOLZ!!11 I declare war on j00!'
* In this thread, describe what you will be using to engage your enemy and where it is going. It is GODMODDING to have your troops magically appear inside your opponents territory.
* When you actually begin to fight, make sure you take your fair share of losses. Nobody wants to 'lose' to anyone, but if your troops are being pounded by artillery, you're probably going to lose more than 1.
* Tactics are a big help no matter if you choose to RP using just story or tech elements. If your troops are being slaughtered by the enemy, try falling back and pulling up reserves. Although NationStates is NOT real life by any means, real life logic and tactics can help you in a pinch.
* If it looks like you will end up victorious, begin to close out the RP. If your foe wants to surrender, begin to work out the exact terms. If your opponent wants to fight to the death, then continue fighting until nobody is left to stand in your way.
* Once you have won, you may either pull out or occupy your newly conquered territory. Again, some sort of collaboration with the other party helps a lot, because even though there is NO such thing as 'losing' in NationStates, nobody wants to be occupied by a foreign army forever. Or maybe they do, who knows.
* If it looks like you might lose, you need to decide how far you are willing to go before you finally call it a day. Do you want to surrender early and spare extreme damage to your country and economy, or do you want to fight to the death? This, again, is your choice.


Q: Thanks, are there any alternatives to war?

A: Of course.

OPTIONS IN PLACE OF WAR

* Diplomacy: The art or practice of conducting international relations, as in negotiating alliances, treaties, and agreements... Tact and skill in dealing with people.
* Compromise: A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.
* Sanctions: A coercive measure adopted usually by several nations acting together against a nation violating international law.
* Compliance
* Threat of force
* Sever all ties with the nation


CONSEQUENCES OF WAR

War can have serious consequences, which for the most part are generally ignored on NS. Every time you attack someone, you make yourself more vulnerable to attack yourself. If you fight frequently, your troops are going to get tired and disgruntled. If your economy is bad, it's probably going to get even worse.

Face it, setbacks do happen, and frequent or long wars can be a strain on any nation. I don't care if you're the most powerful one around, if you attack a different nation every single day, your country is going down the gutter.

Warring with certain nations can also have different consequences. Fighting a nation that's larger, better equiped, more experienced, etc, will likely affect your troop's morale. Also, remember that defenders tend to fight harder, for it is their homes they are fighting for (Although a lot of the time civilians tend to leave areas that are about to be attacked. Not everyone is willing to die). Also, remember that supplies are crucial to your war effort, and this is often overlooked in NS.

You don't honestly think your tanks can drive without gas, do you? Can your troops shoot without ammo? Can your trucks drive with no tires? A LOT of people forget about these things, so you need to rememeber that supplies are critical. If your supply lines are attacked, then your troops will be in trouble. Granted, you don't really have to RP EVERY single supply you send, but every once in awhile casually indicate that more shipments to your bases and or troops are being made. Attacking someone else's supply lines can be to your advantage, as it will prevent your foe from re-arming himself and may delay his advanced if RP'd properly.

Also, war can have diplomatic consequences as well. Some nations may frown upon you for frequently choosing the sword over the pen. Expect this to happen if you go off to war too frequently and for the wrong reasons.

++++++++++++++
Last edited by Euroslavia on Sun Aug 16, 2009 9:15 pm, edited 3 times in total.
BRAVE ENOUGH

BRAVE ENOUGH

BRAVE ENOUGH

User avatar
Euroslavia
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 7742
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Re: International Incidents Information Desk

Postby Euroslavia » Sun Aug 16, 2009 9:18 pm

What Logistics Is
Originally posted by The Evil Overlord


Far too many people trying to roleplay military adventures of one sort or another are missing the point. Weapons do NOT win wars. Logistics does. No matter how tough your troops are, if they run out of ammo and food, they’re just cold meat.

Ever hear this one? “For want of a nail, a horseshoe was lost. For want of a horseshoe, a horse was lost. For want of a horse, a rider was lost….” This little thing goes on and on until we discover that a war was lost because one horse didn’t get the proper number of nails in its shoe. That’s logistics.

A modern infantryman carries a load of around 50 kilograms (a little over 100 pounds). This includes a couple of day’s worth of food and water, first aid kit, body armor, ammunition, mess kit, and shelter. Even if the soldier is careful with his ammunition, he will need more ammo by the end of the first or second day of fighting- otherwise his assault rifle becomes a club. By the end of the second or third day, he will need food and water as well.

Let us assume that these consumable items are about 2/3 of the total weight of the soldier’s gear. That’s 66 pounds of ammunition, food, and water per soldier. If you have a unit of 100 soldiers, that’s 6600 pounds of supplies required for that unit.

Every day. These items will have to be delivered to the unit every day. How this is accomplished is through the science of logistics. Food, water, fuel, and ammunition have to be transported from the places where they are assembled or stored to where the soldiers are fighting. Large trucks and trains will get the goods part of the way- most likely to a Supply Depot not too far from the fighting.

Now all of these goods need to be distributed to the combat commands still closer to the fighting. That means the large loads carried by a few trucks and train cars have to be broken down into lots small enough to fit into 5-ton trucks, transport helicopters, and Humvees. Small convoys of trucks move toward the forward supply areas carrying these essential warfighting materials.

Combat commanders have to insure that the supplies that arrive in the rear of the fighting area are protected from enemy attack and also are distributed to the soldiers who are actually doing the fighting. This means either rotating combat units back from the fighting for resupply or sending vehicles with fuel, food, and ammunition up to the fighting. Most military units try to do both.

If the fuel, food, and ammunition do NOT get to the troops where the actual shooting is going on, those troops will be killed, forced to retreat, or captured. Every day. These items will have to be delivered to the soldier every day. Oh, and let us not forget that the people transporting these vital materials will ALSO be using fuel, food, water, and ammunition. Does your head hurt yet? Imagine what kind of headache a Combat Commander gets during a major engagement.

The Combat Commander’s job is far tougher than merely figuring out where to move the troops and what they should do, it is at least as important to get the tools of the trade (fuel, food, ammunition, and REPLACEMENTS) up to where the fighting is. And- just to make the Commander get ulcers and grey hairs before nightfall- the enemy knows all of this and will make energetic efforts to disrupt this entire evolution. Whichever side does the best job of disrupting the enemy’s logistics will have the advantage.

This means that every military force will have a large portion of its resources dedicated solely to supplying the combat trooper with the means of doing his job- Food, fuel, water, ammunition, and spare parts. Along with all of this, there has to be some means of getting the wounded away from the battlefield and back to the medical units behind the lines. For every combat unit involved in the fighting, there will be a long chain of people responsible for getting supplies to that unit. There will be still more people involved in protecting the people getting supplies to that unit, and yet more people getting supplies to the people protecting the suppliers.

Anybody getting the idea about logistics yet?

Having a massive mechanized unit with 300 tanks is LESS THAN USELESS unless the tanks get food, fuel, water, ammunition, spare parts, etc. Each of those tanks will carry a set amount of fuel and ammunition. These will be used up as fighting continues. Pretty soon, each tank is nothing more than an uncomfortable armored box because there’s no fuel for the engine or ammo for the guns. Vehicles will need to carry these items up to where the tanks are fighting, and these vehicles will themselves need fuel and ammunition. The supply depots where the fuel and ammo are stored will need to be protected, and the units protecting the supplies will need fuel and ammo.

Let us issue General Rule #1: We’ll be generous and say that 50% of any Army unit’s resources (manpower and material) will be part of the logistics chain. So, if you have 300 tanks, you’ll need 300 tankers and supply trucks to keep those tanks going.

The same situation is true for Air Forces, perhaps worse. For ever aircraft in use, there will be dozens of people who do nothing except make sure that the plane is in good repair and has all the spare part, fuel, and ammunition to do its job. On top of that, we still need the rest of the logistics chain I described above.

Let us issue General Rule #2: We’ll be generous again and say that 3/4 of any Air Force unit’s assets (manpower and material) will be part of the logistics chain. In other words, you’ll need a minimum of 3 people on the ground supporting every aircraft in the air. You’ll also need support aircraft. In-flight refueling planes, electronic warfare planes, command and control planes. Take a look at how the US Air Force is organized.

Now let’s look at Navies. Back in the 1980’s, the US Navy had 600 ships. 12 of those were aircraft carriers. There were approximately 30 submarines. Toss in two classes of destroyers, three classes of cruisers, three (count ‘em- 3) battleships from World War II, two classes of frigates, for a grand total of around 150 combat ships. Yep, you read that right. At the height of its post-WWII military power, the US Navy was 75% support vessels.

With that in mind, I can’t help but laugh at the nations who boast of the dozens of aircraft carriers and scores of cruisers and destroyers- but lack even a single fleet replenishment ship. The US Navy prides itself on “sustainability”. Ships need fuel, food, and ammunition, too. The US Navy sends out ships loaded with these items to accomplish what’s called “Underway Replenishment” (“UNREP”). Fuel, food, ammunition, and other supplies are transferred between ships out on the ocean, so the fighting ships have the tools to keep sailing “in harm’s way”. Without these vital (but definitely unglamorous and unromantic) ships, the sexy and glamorous aircraft carriers, destroyers, and submarines could not do their jobs without pulling into port every couple of days to refuel and re-arm. One aircraft carrier was continuously at sea for 7 months during the Afghanistan conflict after 9/11/01. They didn’t get to pull into port at all. Yet they continued to launch aircraft and strike targets in Afghanistan the whole time.

Now let us discuss the most glaring omission in most of these world-conqueror wannabes: Transport ships and landing craft. It’s grand to have a big army and lots of sexy weapons, but what if your enemy lies across an ocean? How are your troops and tanks going to get there? Main Battle Tanks are too large and heavy to be carried by plane, with rare exceptions. Even those exceptions require a different aircraft for each MBT. These planes require a working runway (made of concrete) to land on. If you drop an MBT out of an airplane in flight, it’ll be reduced to a large number of metal fragments after the sudden stop at ground level.

“No problem!” I hear you thinking. “I’ll just commandeer a few dozen Roll-On/Roll-Off (RO/RO) commercial ships and fill ‘em with tanks.” That will work….provided that there’s a secure port with modern piers available for your use. In WWII, the Allies landed at Normandy because the Germans weren’t nice enough to allow their enemies to land tanks and troops in any of the French ports. The Allies had to fight hard to CAPTURE Cherbourg, and even then it took months of work to get the port operational after the number the Germans did on it to prevent the Allies from using it.

So, now you’re going to need a bunch of unglamorous and unromantic small ships that will carry a few tanks and a bunch of troops each, The ships have to be small, because otherwise they wouldn’t be able to (essentially) run their bows into the beach and off-load tanks and troops. Even worse, you’re also going to need a bunch of lumbering, unsexy, and unromantic ships that carry LOTS of troops and tanks. These behemoths can’t possibly get close enough to off-load onto a beach, so each one will have to carry a bunch of landing craft- small boats (or hovercraft) that can carry around 50 troops or one tank each. You’re going to need a LOT of these landing craft, and a lot of ships to carry them.

So now we come to General Rule #3: Only ¼ of your Navy ships will be combatants. ½ of the ships will be transports and fleet replenishment ships, and the remaining ¼ will be landing ships and assault ships.

Now let’s take a look at a reasonable breakdown of a military force: Use the very well-designed military calculator to determine how many personnel are in your military and make your distribution accordingly.

RULE 1- 50% of any Army unit (or Marines) will be support/logistics personnel. This will reduce your “effectives” (Combat-Effective personnel) quite a bit, since tanks (for example) require 3 or 4 personnel each. If your Army is 100,000 personnel, then 50,000 of them will be noncombatants- supply clerks, truck drivers, mechanics, etc.

That leaves you with 50,000 personnel who are “effectives”. Let’s say that you want a large mechanized force. Call it 2,000 Main Battle Tanks. That takes 6,000 men, leaving you with 44,000. Organize your Army how you want it, legions, divisions, forces, groups, whatever you want.

RULE #2- 75% of any Air Force unit will be support/logistics personnel. If you have 100,000 men in your Air Force, 75,000 of them are going to be ground crews, supply clerks, truck drivers, etc.

Again, each aircraft has a different manning requirement. You have 25,000 men left. Say you want a large fighter force- 2,000 F-15E’s. Each one requires a crew of 2, meaning 4,000 men. Bomber usually require a crew of at least 3, AWACS 6-12 men, and so on. Make your own decisions on the organization and assign personnel accordingly. DO NOT FORGET to get refueling planes, transport planes, etc.

RULE #3- 75% of your navy ship will be support, transport, or landing/assault ships. Your manpower situation is a bit different for the Navy. Due to the fact that each individual unit (ship) will have a lot of people on board, your actual manpower will be closer to 2/3 shore personnel (supply clerks, drivers, administrators, etc. So- if you have the standard 100,000 men- 66,000 of them will not be on ships. The remaining 34,000 men will need to be assigned to the various ships (called “platforms”) as follows:

NOTE: These numbers are all variables depending on ship design and the individual shipbuilder.
Carriers= 5,000-7,000 each
Cruisers= 300 – 500 each
Destroyers= 250 - 400 each
Frigates= 175 – 300 each
Attack Subs= 90 –125 each
Missile subs= 120 – 180 each
RO/RO ship= 75 - 150 each
Tanker= 50 – 110 each
Troop ship= 120 - 250 each
Landing ship= 150 – 225 each
Assault ship= 230 – 600 each (depending on capacity)
Landing craft= 5 – 12 each
Supply ship= 250 – 400 each
Repair ship= 600 – 1000 each

That’s more than enough to get you all started. As I’ve repeated several times throughout this long message, logistics is not sexy, glamorous, or romantic- but it wins wars.

Start paying attention to it.
Last edited by Euroslavia on Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:08 am, edited 3 times in total.
BRAVE ENOUGH

BRAVE ENOUGH

BRAVE ENOUGH

User avatar
Euroslavia
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 7742
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Re: International Incidents Information Desk

Postby Euroslavia » Sun Aug 16, 2009 9:21 pm

The Art of Losing
Originally posted by the Dracun Imperium

As weird as this sounds, yes losing is an art of role play. In order to gain certain things, including respect here you have to role play pretty good, and in order to do that you are bound by NS destiny to lose. We all hate it, sometimes the consequences of losing are so great we don't want to give up, but you will have to eventually or your battleship will be sunk by the mighty I.G.N.O.R.E. cannon. But when there is no hope, here are some tips.

-Make it epic
Everyone loves a good story, and there is nothing better then a great ending! Not only will this entertain people, but it will gain you respect here in the Nation States Community.

-Characters are more important then tech
Form a story, let the emotions of the dying overpower the tech and number wanking. In other words, develop characters; go into detail about how the populace feels and such. The more you go into it the more entertaining it is.

-Do the unexpected
When you are about to lose, do the unexpected also known as a plot twist. People always hope for a surprise in a story, and its always best to follow customer orders. Do something like surrender, form a resistance, even nuke yourself (Done that one myself, not recommended however).

Now What?
So what happens then, when your country becomes a colony or whatever there are several things you can do.

-Restart your History
Many nations have done this, however there are better alternatives. It basically means you are to start over.

-Role play the occupation
No nation in RL or in NS, will have the people fly towards the occupiers. There will be resistance, role play it. You never know you might win back your country. If this is the choice it always better to plan things out with the occupier. Find a way to contact him/her.

-Have a good old revolution. Similiar to a resistance movement, the revolution however would take time to occur and organize. This would also include contacting the invading nation on instant messaging asa good ide.

-Develop a way to free your nation, such as a 10 year treaty that will allow you to be a free nation in ten NS years of course if the occupying nation fails to comply with that after "signing" the treaty go to the last two ideas.

Continue to role play
Sure you’ve been taken control of but there are plenty of things you can do. Such as
-Role play like a protectorate, these are nations that are basically self governed colonies. They pay tribute and are the property of the occupying nation. This is though very limiting

-Create a new nation. Some nations do this, but most always have a back-up

-Develop an interesting plot line with the occupying nation. Say something along the lines of the breaking of the former leader, war trials, and stuff like that

Helpful tips on what not to do
-When you lose you lose, there is no denying that. Don’t go back in time, or try godmoding your way out of it.
-Don’t get noobish, and launch thousands of nooks at the invading country.
-However don’t just give up, follow the tips and advice displayed here.
-Don’t go tech wanking and expect to win, same thing with dog piling and number wanking. I’ve seen a hundred million pop. take on a coalition that numbered 10 times it’s size.
Last edited by Euroslavia on Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:09 am, edited 2 times in total.
BRAVE ENOUGH

BRAVE ENOUGH

BRAVE ENOUGH

User avatar
Euroslavia
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 7742
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Re: International Incidents Information Desk

Postby Euroslavia » Sun Aug 16, 2009 9:30 pm

Creating and Effectively Using an Air Force
Originally posted by Geisenfried


Historical Real Life Testaments to the Power of an Air Force

While I know that NS and RL are two very different things, using examples from the past that show how much of a turning point the air force can be. World War II is by far the best example of how essential an air force can be to winning. In the beginning of that war, at the Battle of Britain, the Royal Air Force’s maintaining of air superiority over the Luftwaffe ultimately scrapped Germany’s Operation Sealion, and most likely saved Britain. Around a year later, Japan nearly completely crippled the U.S. Navy’s Pacific Fleet with their aerial bombing of Pearl Harbor. Finally, when the Allied’s made their push into Europe, the bombing of key Nazi industrial factories most undoubtedly helped the allies push farther at a quick pace.

Two Words to Never Forget: Air Superiority

Air superiority is without a doubt, the key to winning any war with an Air Force. It is the single most important task. If you cannot maintain air superiority, then your Air Force is quite essentially useless. So, what is air superiority? Being able to maintain a corridor in which aircraft can travel with relative ease and safety. Without air superiority, you can’t bomb enemies, and you cannot stop enemies from bombing you.

The Most Important Tools to Your Air Force

To gain air superiority in a war, you must have a capable air force. A capable air force has a variety of planes in both combat and noncombat roles. There are 9 types of aircraft, and the best air force has all types. Here’s a brief explanation for each type.

Fighter: The mainstay of any air force, these units are fast and furious and are essential to winning an air war. They gain and maintain air superiority by fighting off enemy airplanes. The United States usually labels fighters with an F, though I have yet to figure out why the F-117 isn’t the A-117. Also, please note that many aircraft designated with an F are technically multiroles that are used most often in a fighter role fully, but can still be used as standard multiroles.
Bomber: These guys are the ones who pummel the enemy ground forces. They are usually slower than other combat aircraft, but can hold enormous payloads compared to the others. United States designates bombers with a B.
Attacker: These units usually have the speed of fighters, but instead of fighting air-to-air, they fight air-to-ground. Their payloads are usually smaller than bombers, but they make up that with their improvement in speed. The United States designates these with an A.
Multirole: These units are a mix of two of the above types. Often called fighter-bombers (though true fighter-bombers are somewhat rare, most are actually fighter-attackers) these are useful in combining air-to-air and air-to-ground, though it should be noted that multiroles are not as effective as the planes dedicated to the roles. Designated in the United States with an F/A.
Tanker: A non-combatant, this unit is used as a support craft to refuel units in midair. Always try and make sure that they are not in danger of being shot down. Refuel in safe places, or you’ll find a great deal of your planes having to land prematurely when your tanker gets shot down and the planes have no fuel…
Supply: Though sometimes not associated with the air force, I still classify them as part of the air force, since they are still aircraft. They provide supplies to army and navy, and are important to protect, as aircraft are becoming more and more commonly used to transport valuable goods.
Reconnaissance: With the use of recon satellites becoming increased, these units see less usage. They go extremely fast at high altitudes to evade detection, and use cameras to gain information. Even if you have satellites, it’s nice to have these as backup if someone launches an ICBM and blows up your satellite…
Jammer: You may be surprised, but planes have the ability to jam radar using a neat little thing called ECM (Electronic Counter Measures). Some combat units have portable ECMs that can be attached to hardpoints, but aircraft dedicated to jamming is much better at it, able to spread a jamming signal over a wide area. However, it has the unwanted effect of disabling your radar as well as the enemy’s. This is going into less use with stealth technology coming into play, which enables evading radar detection without affecting your own radar, but it can still be handy in a pinch.
Command: Better known as AWACS, these units are the most essential units that I haven’t seen roleplayed. These units give commands from the air, and can continually watch over the battlefield via radar and when close up to battle, visual confirmation. While these can be replaced with combination of recon satellites and regular bases, the fact that they can see things much closer makes them more capable. Their proximity towards the battlefield allows quicker reaction time for the pilots participating in the operation. However, they are much more vulnerable to attack when compared with others. Usually used from a couple miles away from the battlefield for maximum effectiveness.

If you can make a successful combination of these planes, you can unleash the full power of an air force.

Helpful Attributes

A key point in having a good air force is having good planes. No matter how effective your strategy is, a WWII plane will be cremated when placed against a modern fighter. So, here’s a list of helpful attributes to consider when buying aircraft.

Stealth: Stealth is the effective dispersal of radar waves so that they do not go back to the radar source, dampening the radar signature of an aircraft. It also has to do with dampening visual and heat signatures of the aircraft. Most common technologies in stealth aircraft are the use of continuous curves and certain angles to disperse radar, paint camouflage to lower visuals, and cooling heat exhaust to diminish heat trails. The results? The plane is considerably less detectable. But do not mistake this for being undetectable, as you can still find stealth fighters, though it requires more effort. Stealth is becoming more and more commonly used, though it’s strict restriction on shapes to lessen radar signature make it a less maneuverable aircraft compared to some others.
VTOL: Short for Vertical TakeOff and Landing, it is underrated attribute. Why is it useful? You see, most aircraft require long runways to takeoff and land. However, when a bomb or missile hits the runway, you’ve lost any way of getting off the ground. But with VTOL, you can take off with little room around the aircraft. Very useful in navies, where you can maximize the amount of aircraft you can place on the carrier, and allows more aircraft to get off if the carrier were to get hit.
Canard Foreplanes: Canard Foreplanes are basically miniature wings that are placed in front of the standard wings that drastically assist in maneuverability. I’m going to skip the physics behind it because it’s complicated, and I’m being sort of lazy. Just know that it helps the maneuverability of the aircraft. Also note that most stealth aircraft do not have these, as they mess with the continuous curvature, and can increase radar signature. While this may seem disadvantageous, you can evade missiles much more easily when using canard foreplanes. It’s a personal preference choice.
Forward Swept Wings: While this may sound odd, turning the wings around results in better maneuverability. However, it’s quite complicated, and the mechanics behind it are less than perfect, causing some problems with aircraft equipped with it. There are no stealth planes with forward swept wings because of continuous curvature. Again, it’s a personal choice between stealth and maneuverability.
Swing Wings: By being able to change the wings angle, you can greatly increase speed, maneuverability, and lessen G’s, upping crew comfort. The only drawback is that it doesn’t work with stealth, like other measures that increase maneuverability.

Weaponry

Now that you know what to look for when buying, it’s time to learn how to properly arm your combat aircraft. Unlike other units, aircraft are very dynamic when it comes to equipping them with weaponry. It’s important to remember what and how much you can add to your planes before putting them into combat. There are a multitude of weapons to be used, and many planes can use a wide range of them. Here’s another guide to assist you in correctly arming your planes.

Guns: Most often used only when the enemy is close enough in which a missile explosion might damage the attacking plane as well. The exception to this rule is the A-10, whose large gun is used to destroy armored vehicles. Used on: All combat planes.
IR AAM: Short for InfraRed Air to Air Missile, these are cheap to purchase, and are ‘fire and forget’, in which you launch a missile and can then change targets without having to give chase. Their only problem is they lack range. Used on: Fighters and multirole, some attackers use it as a last defense.
ARH AAM: Short for Active Radar Homing Air to Air Missile, these units have both long range and the ‘fire and forget’ ability. However, they are much more expensive compared to infrared missiles. Used on: Fighters and multirole.
TV AGM: Short for TeleVision controlled Air-to-Ground Missile. This may sound odd, but it allows the missile to be controlled manually for utmost precision. However, if you’re not paying attention, you can be easy prey for enemy fighters when using this missile. Used on: Attackers and multirole.
ARH AGM: Quite basically the same as the radar air-to-air missile, but used for air to ground purposes instead. Used on: Attackers and multirole.
PGB: Short for Precision Guided Bomb, and also known as the smart bomb, it uses fins and radar to calculate its landing and hit it. While pricier than a so-called “dumb” bomb, it’s accuracy makes up for it. Bombs in general make much more of an impact than missiles, however, their weight only allows a few of them on a normal plane at one time (with the exception of bombers, which are designed for dropping large amounts of bombs). Used on: Bombers and attackers, some multiroles.
Unguided Bomb: Also known as a dumb bomb, this requires the computer on board the aircraft to calculate landing, and if dropped at the wrong time, will miss its target. Extremely cheap though, and bombers with high payload capabilities can unleash large amounts of these for widespread damage to an area. There are also specialized types of bombs that are unguided, such as napalm or cluster bombs. Again, bombs are usually more destructive than missiles, but are heavier. Used on: Bombers and attackers, some multiroles.

Always remember, your payload is limited to what your plane can carry. Fighters usually take 8 to 12 AAMs to battle. Multiroles usually take anywhere from 4 to 8 AAMs, and a group of either 6 AGMs or a group of bombs. Attackers usually carry a couple AAMs for a last defense, then a group of either 12 AGMs or 5 bombs. Bombers can take a large load of bombs, but rarely use missiles. These large diversities in payloads are what make it essential to buy a variety of aircraft to be used in your force.

Using the Air Force to Maximum Effectiveness

Okay. I can assume you now know what aircraft to buy, and how to properly arm it to the teeth. Now, it’s time to jump in and take these planes for a spin. Here’s where you get to learn how to effectively use your Air Force to pummel the enemy. And it doesn’t take much to learn, if you’ve remember those two key words…

Step 1: Gain and Maintain Air Superiority
I told you this was important, and I’m telling you again. The first step in any air war is to gain control of the skies. However, for such a critical task, it’s surprisingly easy to roleplay… you simply must attack the enemy’s air force until it is safe for you to bring in support and ground attack planes. Unless, of course, you’re on the defensive, in which case you simply want to make sure that your enemy cannot bring in their support and ground attack planes.

Step 2A: Eliminate Enemy Air Defenses (if on the offensive)
Now, before you go and blow up anything you want, you must eliminate enemy air defenses. This means that you take out airports and any surface-to-air missiles or other anti-aircraft weapons before you destroy anything else. Why? If you can destroy the enemy’s ability to counterattack you in the air, you can just pummel them over and over again without repercussions. If your enemy is lucky, they’ll be able to bring in reinforcements from other airbases, but it will take time to deploy, allowing you to pummel the enemy for a couple more turns, at the least.

Step 2B: Destroy Enemy Ground Attack Capabilities (if on the defensive)
If you’ve gained air superiority in the area, this will be simple; all you have to do is shoot down any plane left that can destroy your ground forces. This won’t take much, as most or their entire defense escort will be gone. However, be wary for multirole aircraft… they can hold their own in air-to-air combat and also decimate your ground forces. This step will also be considerably harder if you do not maintain air superiority, as you will have to deal with escorts.

Step 3: Take Out Key Targets
Alright, now that you've destroyed or secured air defenses in the area (depending on if you're attacking or defending), you can destroy key targets with bombers and attackers... supplies, important buildings, units, anything that is necessary to defeating the enemy on the ground. If you attack these critical points in the enemy's defense, you can force them to retreat.

Step 4: Remember to Occasionally Refuel
Unlike the others, this step does not have to go in chronological order. Every so often, you need to refuel from a tanker or land so that you continue flying. To maximize your efficiency in the air, refueling from a tanker is the better, if somewhat riskier option. To effectively do this, you need to cycle your planes. Have a small group go and refuel why the majority of your planes maintain air superiority. Remember, while you do not have to move at a snail's pace while doing this, refueling your air force takes time. The larger your force is, the more time you can expect to take refueling. Logistics isn't pretty, but it's necessary.

These four steps will help you win victory in the air and subsequently, on the ground. I would also like to note the importance of having the initiative... if you can get your guys in the air first, you'll immediately have air superiority, and the enemy will be facing an uphill air battle. Good luck fighting, and I hope these strategies help you find victory.
Last edited by Euroslavia on Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:10 am, edited 3 times in total.
BRAVE ENOUGH

BRAVE ENOUGH

BRAVE ENOUGH

User avatar
Euroslavia
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 7742
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Re: International Incidents Information Desk

Postby Euroslavia » Sun Aug 16, 2009 10:18 pm

Cost of nuclear program for your nation
Originally posted by Vault 10


Since the birth of the atomic weapons program in 1940, a total of $5.5 trillion was spent through 1996, the Washington think tank reports. That is 29 percent of all U.S. military spending and almost 11 percent of all government spending through the 52 years. Total spending with dismantling counts as $5.8 trillion.

- These are, of course, non-adjusted dollars, but the 29% figure works out fine. So both building and maintaining the arsenal of US scale, growing to 30,000 warheads/17 gigatons once, and falling to 10,000, with mean of 16,000 warheads, took about 29% of US budget. Since the budget was mostly constant in spending power, for current dollars, it's $166B/yr, complete with delivery systems, production and maintenance, up to dismantling. Pure maintenance is lower today, but only a fraction is left and new aren't being procured.
Out of GDP of $13 trillion, the budget is $3T, so the nuclear weapon production would be 2.5% of US GDP.

[ Note that GDP is not money, it includes intermediate services and equipment. If you buy $1000 of metal, cut it in shape and resell for $2000, and the buyer welds it into $3000 box, the GDP contribution is $5000 despite only $2000 worth of work done. So you can't just spend GDP like money even with 100% tax. The figure is for reference. ]


Making the warheads was relatively inexpensive. Firing, storing and handling them was extremely costly. The 70,000 warheads cost $409.4 billion, only about 7 percent of the total. But thousands of aircraft, submarines, ships, missiles, and a large network of factories, bases and personnel cost $3.241 trillion.

- So average $6 million per warhead procurement. That's a fraction of total cost. Let's keep this figure in mind for the future.
Not all of these are strategic, many are tactical.


Submarines took: $320.5 billion for the ballistic-missile submarine program, plus $97 billion for the missiles; $46 billion for the submarine share of naval nuclear propulsion research, development, testing, production, and operations; and $220 billion for attack submarine construction, weapons, and related systems.

...US maintaining 18 medium boomers, used to have 40 small instead. It's for quite hefty cost of 375 billion alone, or 470 with missiles (w/o warheads), so keep that in mind when deciding on platform. That's also why your very best warheads will go to the subs. These subs for US carry up to approx. 3200 small warheads, totaling around $160M/warhead, twice the average cost. Submarines are the most expensive way to base the missiles, costlier than even bomber (except for stealth one), but the most reliable as well.

To protect them, there's $220 billion for a hundred of attack boats, but note that figure is from another source describing procurement (maintenance is separate), and not included in the $5.8T US nuclear program cost.


Some 6,135 strategic ballistic missiles were purchased at a cost of $266 billion, as well as 4,680 strategic bombers since World War II at a cost of $227 billion.

- $44M per missile average, $48M per bomber.

Totaling, we got ~$1000B in equipment procurement and $4800B in other costs, like maintenance, R&D, et cetera. The former figure doesn't include bases, equipment only. These will likely add another $1000B.
If, as common for NS, you want to throw together a force in five years (don't hope for less even with foreign help) and forget until needed, then just keep in mind that US-sized program will cost you $2000B one-time investment and $100B from your military budget permanently dedicated to it. Or $500B for five years with $100B in the future.

Considering that US has done quite a bit of waste, the program, if not dismantling anything and cutting off unnecessary projects, would perhaps afford an arsenal of 25,000 warheads, about evenly split between strategic and tactical. Primarily the costs depend on delivery systems.
This variant will include, very roughly, about 5000 warheads on SLBM (20-25 of them), 5000 on ICBM (most MIRV), 5000 bombs complete with bombers, plus 10,000 tactical warheads. All with bases and support, long-term maintenance and resupply of the aging warheads and delivery systems.


Average cost of weapons with delivery systems (complete nuclear force) is therefore $80M per warhead for procurement and $4M/year maintenance and replacement. Note these numbers will only scale well upwards, not downwards.


P.S.
Here's some other information to consider.
Quote:
Thirteen major U.S. facilities - including Washington state's Bangor submarine base - handle and maintain nuclear weapons, and cover an area larger than Delaware, Rhode Island and the District of Columbia combined.
By one measure, an estimated 700,000 to 800,000 people worldwide have died or will die prematurely from a fatal cancer attributable to fallout from U.S. atmospheric testing.
In the U.S. today, vast areas of land remain severely contaminated. Where cleanup can be accomplished at all, it would require hundreds of billions of dollars and extend to 2070 and beyond.

Map of contamination of US by Iodine-135 from nuclear testing at Nevada - for just the primary one of the contaminating isotopes and just one of the test sites. Most of US shouldn't worry about X-ray scans in comparison, as one delivers just 0.02 rad.

There's no lower threshold for risks increases, though. In Nagasaki and Hiroshima, fetal exposure of over 12 rads was associated with severe mental retardation, with general severity and frequency proportional to the dose, starting from just 1 rad. There are significant areas in US which reach over 10 rads.
Not all costs are monetary. If you aren't prepared to take these costs, don't start the program on your own. Find an ally who will share his program with you.

But don't rush to the other extreme either, buying from random "nooks for noobs" storefronts. These things aren't done that way. Only 25% of total cost is the procurement of all systems, and 75% is their support and maintenance. "Nook shop" won't do it for you. If you don't have your own full-scale program, you need a long-term ally who will assist you, be it on political or commercial basis. These things can't be just bought like crayons.
Last edited by Euroslavia on Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
BRAVE ENOUGH

BRAVE ENOUGH

BRAVE ENOUGH

User avatar
Euroslavia
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 7742
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Re: International Incidents Information Desk

Postby Euroslavia » Sun Aug 16, 2009 11:06 pm

The Ten Basic Rules Of Naval And Ship Design Roleplay
Originally posted by The Freethinkers


OOC: The following is a list of basic problems I’ve found with Naval Role-play and Ship-Design within NS. This is not an authoritative guide or anything but is useful for pointing out many faults in people’s role-play regarding these issues. These items listed below can be easily applied to other aspects of military roleplay. Enjoy!

The Ten Basic Rules

1) Capability Costs! You see, its perfectly possible to have a ship twice as powerful, twice as armed, twice as armoured and twice as capable as a RL design. What is not possible is to have a ship twice as powerful, twice as armed, twice as armoured and twice as capable which costs the same as the RL design. You stick that new weapon system, or that brilliant new radar onto the ship it’s gonna cost more. Simple as that.

2) Research Matters! The quality, capability and effectiveness of your vessel directly corresponds to amount of time you spend researching and creating your design. Half an hour’s work righting out stats copy and pasted from Fas.org isn’t going to cut it against a well-thought-out opponent. Another point, however, is: don’t believe everything you read. Many articles in technical journals and magazines have an obvious bias towards one side or another, and it’s the same with official Navy websites too. If it sounds too good to be true, it is.

3) Economies Of Scale Work Both Ways! One of the most annoying things I’ve seen about seeing low-price designs is how people justify it by stating either: a) I’ve eliminated the corruption that inherent in RL building, or b) I produce so many it’s really cheap for each one! In Reality, the small levels of corruption make no significant changes in production costs and it is likely that such price-inflation and corruption is present in EVERY system, including YOURS, and as for the mass-production question the truth is that the Economies of Scale (the cost reductions gained because of large scale production) actually decrease and then turn into Diseconomies of Scale as production expands. BE forewarned.

4) You Get What You Pay For! Pretty obvious. The higher the price you pay the better quality ship you can buy. Should be common sense, but you would be surprised by people’s expectations.

5) Good Quality Ships Take A Long Time To Build It can take a decade or so to produce really large, complicated ships, especially if you are having to install the most advanced systems around. Rushing a carrier through in a year or so means that the ship will be so poorly made it will be unlikely to survive seaworthy for any amount of time and will be plagued by trouble for all its career. Yes, wartime production can build ships extremely quickly, but these are designed for short-run, ‘maximum hulls in water’ crisis thinking. Don’t expect them to last long in a fire fight with a more thoroughly made combatant.
Another add on point to this is the excuse of building ‘stocks’ of ships ready to sell on. Whereas the capacity to build ships without orders is not in question (though the business sense of a company building tens of billions of dollars worth of equipment without guaranteed income is….questionable), the quality of a ship, even maintained, sitting unused for years is going to diminish significantly.

6) Escorts Are Expendable. Capital Ships Are Not. This is the basic difference between the two. Remember when you design escort classes that a Frigate’s or Destroyer’s ultimate goal is to be launched, fight a bit and then take the bullet for your Carriers and Battleships. If you can’t afford to lose it then it’s not an escort, remember that when you are piling in the equipment and weapons onto that Escort Destroyer.

7) Teething Troubles No ship ever launched has worked perfectly first time. Never. The reasons being quite obviously that you never know for certain how things are going to operate in real life, and it will be the same for you too. It presents a good way to correct any details someone has pointed out after launch, and by identifying problems you can become a better designer because of it. This leads us into Rule #8:

8) What? It Broke? Things breakdown, go kaput, stop working on a ship almost all the time. When you consider how complex a vessel is this isn’t surprising. But people very rarely think that their vessel is going to be in anything other than perfect condition. To put it in perspective when I was aboard HMS Kent a few years back, neither the 114mm Main Gun or the ML Torpedo Tubes were operational. Simulating breakdowns and failures further shows that you have a realistic grasp of how ship’s behave and should enhance your reputation.

9) Constructive Criticism Learn to grow a thick skin, and be willing to take criticism from time to time. Read comments, listen to what people say and don’t be afraid to ask for help from established shipbuilders. No one starts out perfect, and even the best are learning continuously.

10) Most Importantly, It’s All About The Role-play! Perhaps too often forgotten when the latest, most high-tech battlewagon is rolled out, the main point of NS is to create enjoyable Role-plays. The main purpose of your new designs is to enhance the role-play experience that you partake in, not to try and prove how powerful you are.
Last edited by Euroslavia on Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:14 am, edited 8 times in total.
BRAVE ENOUGH

BRAVE ENOUGH

BRAVE ENOUGH

User avatar
Euroslavia
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 7742
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Re: International Incidents Information Desk

Postby Euroslavia » Sun Aug 16, 2009 11:34 pm

Logistics: War and Peace
Originally posted by The Macabees


Throughout history logistics has been the driving force behind all armies, great and small, famous and infamous. Alexander the Great could not have conquered the known world without logistics, and Napoleon couldn't have terrorized Europe without logistics, and consequently, just as is impacts the real world logistics, and the problems that are attached to it, concern the World at War just as much. So, this text is offered to all world at war players in order to explain, as best as possible, what logistics are in a fully professional manner.

Napoleon is quoted to say, "An army marches on its stomach," and he is not far from the truth. Every single person who marches with your army, whether a front line soldier, a combat engineer or a measly cook must be fed, at the very least a single meal a day. For those that wish for one hundred percent combat effectiveness this number rises to just around three meals a day. Just as humans eat food vehicles eat gasoline, and so they too must be periodically resupplied with the essentials to run. So, it becomes an early realization that an uninterrupted stream of essential supplies is absolutely necessary during both peace and war. Failure to do so will seal the fate of your army, and doom its success. A list of essential needs of an army are: Rations, water, petroleum, spare parts to armaments, new uniforms, pay, etc, etc.

So, the next question is obvious. How do you ensure this constant flow of goods and services? Well, good luck finding the answer - the geniuses of war throughout history have spent their lives looking for it, and failed. However, their are ways to improve it and give it just about 97% efficiency. For example, when Alexander the Great was returning from the Indus Valley he used naval vessels to run along the coast, port to port, supplying his army by sea - although it didn't work too well as he lost the majority of his army crossing the desert - during the past two thousand years human beings have improved on ship designs and such an idea would most likely succeed nowadays. The most straightforward way of making sure your army does not suffer shortages during combat is to make sure your rear is always clear and open. To ensure this you must be able to always keep your lines closed, or else an enemy armored, or mechanized, force could easily roll into the rear echelon and ruin your front line's day. You also want to make sure that when you're in enemy territory to keep a security force to supress any attempted raids, ambushes, or general insurrections against your logistical highways. Other ways is to armor your logistical trucks and other vehicles and arm the men on them so they can defend themselves - however, this is both expensive and excessive. Furthermore, you need to make sure you use good roads, and you must have alternative routes, such as railways or by air. All of them suffer their own disadvantages, but a coalition of all of them might just work.

Now, realistically, taking in mind logistical problems, what's a realistic number for your military? Well, in times of total war, meaning a complete draft - as in you're about to get your ass kicked and you need men fast - 5% is the absolute maximum you should go - anything else you'll have so many men in the military your economy won't be able to supply them even in total war. For anything other than that it's pretty much of to you and how much money you want to spend for your war. Most nations use 1% to 2% of their total population for peace time/normal war circumstances.

Now, 2% of your population doesn't mean that all of those are front line troops. Included in that percentage are logistical personnel - meaning, engineers, cooks, janitors, drivers, etc - and realistically the front line personnel to logistical personnel ratio is anywhere from 1:7 to 1:11, however, for all intents and purposes on this Roleplay a ratio is 1:7 is sufficient and is advised - most of the better roleplayers use this as their logistical ratio. Some claim that the United States has a ratio of 1:4. Until Agnosticium personally tells me that number is correct I won't buy it, so don't count on passing with that.

Now, just as important, your logistical personnel require logistics too. Yea, it's a pain in the butt having so much logistics - logistics, logistics, logistics - but, if you plan to have any sort of success you better count on logistics. So, in short, those truck drivers also require some kibbles and bits, so take that into account also. Additionally, the trucks you use to supply your armies require gasoline also, so that's also a major concern for logistics.

If you want to look truly professional in your writings always include logistics with utmost precision and the most accurate degree of detail in order to make sure your enemy knows you mean business and have a legitimate logistical system to get you to his capital. Meaning, if you fire two thousand missiles explain why and how - this saves later confusion and a lot of unnecessary out of character bickering. So, solve the problem before it comes up.

Important logistical cases that some people tend not to pay attention to are amphibious landings, offensive operations into enemy territory, and aerial operations. All of these require a bit more than normal combat operations and this must be explained in detail.

Amphibious Operations
At a certain point in a war you may want to assault an enemy coastline, as it is your only offensive option at the given time, and consequently you're provided with a stretch of beach, and some landing craft. In all respects amphibious operations require you to ship your soldiers to sea and to the general area, which provide you with two logistical situations, the resupply at sea, and the twofold complication of supplying your men on land. Both of these will be dealt with in the following paragraphs in as much detail as my poor brain can stand - I do get tired of writing these you know.

Supply at sea is not as easy as you think. It's not as simple as driving to the line and dropping off some crates or having a big jumbo military jet paradrop boxes full of equipment and supplies. What is required are supply ships, which should not have to shuffle between your fleet in a continous stream, less they suffer horrible casualties at the hands of enemy raiders. It does require, though, that your fleet starts out from port with sufficient logistical vessels to carry what you're going to need for the upcoming operations, and to guestimate that you're going to need to actually sit down and plan out your strategy instead of typing it out of your ass - meaning, you're going to have to measure the distance between you and your enemy, the number of days you think your fleet will be in combat operations before enemy ports are captured, and the number of ships and men your fleet contains. All of these are relatively easy and should be dealt with in a hefty explenation in your first post. Sometimes, though, plans go awry and you're forced to swiftly change to plan B. When plan B comes up you're probably going to need to organize large shipping convoys that sail in groups to your fleet with the resources necessary, and this may mean that you're going to have to set up multiple convoys and that convoys are going to have to sail back and forth as fast as possible. To ensure this the same basic rules as in ground operations apply, you want to keep your rear open, and you want to assign security forces to your convoys - that's why they sail in convoys.

Now, once your men start landing on the beaches you're presented with two different logistical scenarios - the fleet logistics and the ground logistics. Once your men are in combat operations they're going to need up to two or ten times the amount of goods as before, as they're going to be moving around quite frequently, even if you're not exactly advancing. Shuffling forces from one side of the front to the other requires fuel and food, and that fuel and food don't grow on trees - well the food does, but I doubt there are a lot of cherry trees on a beach. Additionally, your men don't secure sporadic supply dumbs when they first land like in Battlefield 1942 - those simply don't exist because I guess one day a general said, "Hmph, every time they land on the beach they take that damn supply dumb." Yea, damn that general, I know. Because of him you're forced to ferries supplies from the fleet to the beach - so the same rules apply... keep your rear open and assign security forces - again, men eat food - or if you're really, really, lucky your men will eat dirt.

Offensive Operations
When you enter enemy territory the enemy population rarely welcomes you as their new king, and gives you a golden crown hoping that they can give you a lap dance and return home without further ado. They normally raise arms and fire a couple of thousand shells into your army until you kill them. So, quickly put, when your army occupies towns and cities you're going to get a lot of insurrection and partisan action, which is going to danger your logistical supply routes, perhaps mortally.

For example, Soviet partisans were the main reason why the Werhmacht was unable to made quick advances along long axis, and was one of the major causes for the eventual German defeat. Tanks without spare parts aren't happy tanks, and unhappy tanks don't win wars.

That's pretty much it for this topic. Ah yes, one more thing. Roads in enemy countries aren't your roads, and sometimes your roads might be better than theirs - meaning, your trucks are accustomed to run on concrete, not on concrete with potholes, or sometimes concrete with big mines in it, and other times just mud and dirt. So, keep that in mind.

Aerial Operations
Look guys an aircraft with a ten thousand mile range doesn't mean it can go ten thousand miles straight, it means it can go five thousand miles, and then turn back. So keep that in mind when you go launch planes to bomb halfway across the world. Also, aircraft require to be refueled, pilots also eat and planes also get pretty banged up. So that's that.

Maintaining Forces
I've noticed that nations have a tendency to have batches of different classes of ordnance for the same type - such as having an Arleigh Burke AEGIS Cruiser and also having a Russian class Cruiser, or an older American class Cruiser. I severely suggest against this, as this forces said nation to provide spare parts for all three different type of weapons - meaning, there's going to be mix ups most likely and you're going to be wasting money trying to produce three things, when you're much better off simply mass producing one. Therefore, I suggest you standardize your equipment - as in, have one type of MBT, not five, have one type of carrier. That way, when you have to deliver spare parts your logistical personnel in the back only have to worry about one type, so it makes things easier for them, and consequently, makes logistics faster and much more fluid.

If you have trouble standardizing your equipment because you're afraid that only having one type of battleship means that its weaknesses aren't going to be made up by another then make your own equipment incorporated the strengths of both kinds - although the idea of such a thing is plain silly. Nonetheless, choose one, if you don't like either make your own.
Last edited by Euroslavia on Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:16 am, edited 4 times in total.
BRAVE ENOUGH

BRAVE ENOUGH

BRAVE ENOUGH

User avatar
Euroslavia
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 7742
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Re: International Incidents Information Desk

Postby Euroslavia » Sun Aug 16, 2009 11:40 pm

A Primer on Naval Strategy
Originally posted by Sarzonia and Praetonia


Introduction

As the NationStates world becomes more and more ultra-modern with the Doujin-class still being considered a benchmark that all other ship classes that follow are compared with and with later ships that make the Doujin as out of date as a wooden sailing frigate, why should we bother writing about naval strategy? The simple answer is that no ship or no number of ships, no matter how impressive-sounding a country’s naval complement is, can mask a country that doesn’t know how to use its navy. While there are threads devoted toward overcoming nearly-impossible odds when you’re on the battlefields with your main battle tanks and your artillery pieces, there isn’t a similar thread regarding naval battles that I am aware of. This thread, co-written with Praetonia, is an attempt to begin the dialogue regarding naval combat. While I don’t claim to be the greatest admiral afloat; in fact, I readily admit I wouldn’t even be a seaman in most navies; I have had some success as a naval combat RPer. Praetonia is also a highly-accomplished naval RPer and the combination of our skills and knowledge may help even more experienced naval RPers ply their craft more skillfully.

Naval Organisation

The first thing you must do when you get ready to establish your naval presence on NS is to determine what kind of country you are. As basic as this sounds, you need to figure out if you’re going to RP as an island country or as a country with a limited coastline. If you’re a landlocked country, there’s no sense in even reading this far. But if you have a significant coastline or you’re an island, a powerful navy is absolutely essential. Notice that I didn’t say a large navy was essential. I’m not suggesting that you take a page out of the United States in 1807 by drydocking all but a handful of ships. But pure numbers alone do not make you a great naval RPer.

What’s the difference between a large navy and a powerful navy? A large navy can be anywhere from 5,000 ships or more (this is not establishing an arbitrary figure; this is just giving you an example), but if most of the ships are small patrol ships or are poorly-designed or underarmed, a well-balanced navy with 1,000 well-built ships is going to have a field day with it. More to the point, a 5,000 ship navy that is poorly-conceived going against a well-balanced and well-organised navy is going to be a paper tiger. Know the saying “the bigger you are the harder you fall?” That’s what will happen.

The second thing to keep in mind when it comes to organising your navy is to consider what you want your fleet to accomplish. If you want your fleet to defend your coastline against a would-be threat, you will need a different type of navy from one that is intended to project power throughout the world. For instance, a nuclear power attack submarine is often the boat of choice for many attack missions, but a diesel-electric boat is actually quieter than a nuclear powered submarine. Not only that, but Dutch diesel-electric boats often penetrated American ASW screens and “hit” aircraft carriers during combat exercises. As a result, if you’re planning littoral warfare operations, you will likely need diesel-electric boats. Not only that, but the surface ships you would need for those operations will have to have low draughts (or drafts for any Americans who read this) since littoral combat takes place in shallow waters by definition.

Aircraft Carriers

If you’re planning to establish naval and air presence in a particular region, you’ll most likely need to have aircraft carriers for the task. They are the modern-day capital ships in most of the RL world’s predominant navies. They can project your country’s air power like no other ship and are often the vanguards of any country’s fleet. As such, they are the most important ships in your fleet and any navy commander realises that he must keep his aircraft carriers afloat at all cost. However, most aircraft carriers are built with very limited self-defence weaponry, and sometimes they only have CIWS (Close In Weapon Systems) for last-ditch defense in the event a missile gets past its escort squadron. As a result, the aircraft carrier is very vulnerable and an escort is essential. The Soviet Union had converted cruisers serving as aircraft carriers and they often carried a strong independent armament, so escorts were usually a good idea, but not nearly as essential as they were for American or allied carriers.

Battleships

Arguably the most controversial ship class when discussing the modern navy, the battleship is either admired as a harbinger of immediate doom for any enemy with its large, fearsome guns or is reviled by many so-called modern navy aficionados who argue that the battleship is obsolete in today’s “modern navy.” Does the battleship need an escort? Yes. Battleships are known for having limited or poor AA defences and would need to be modified with new ASW systems to face today’s submerged threats. However, as I mentioned earlier, the aircraft carrier also needs an escort. In addition, one half hour bombardment by a refit Iowa-class battleship actually costs about the same amount as two aerial strikes from an aircraft carrier’s jets. A modern-build battleship is estimated to cost about $3 billion U.S., approximately the price of a light aircraft carrier. Also, no ship in today’s navies and no ship currently in the plans for future navies carries the cachet of a battleship. Anti-surface missiles including ASuW missiles can be shot down and missiles such as the commonly-used Harpoon are often designed to penetrate no more than approximately four inches of steel armour (approximately 104 mm) before their explosive effects cause their damage. Built to withstand the 16” shells it fires, the Iowa-class battleship can shrug off a “modern” anti-shipping missile.

Escorts

What kind of escorts does an aircraft carrier or a battleship need, you ask? Bear in mind the various roles that ships are expected to play. If you want a ship that can deal with general threats or focus on ASuW combat, a GP (general purpose) destroyer or a cruiser may be your best option. To protect your aircraft carrier against attacks from enemy fighters or bombers, you will need AA destroyers or cruisers (the U.S. Navy’s Ticonderoga-class cruisers or the Royal Navy’s upcoming Daring-class destroyers are two good RL examples of ships devoted to AA combat). For ASW warfare, most modern navies use frigates to deal with those submerged threats. They would often carry towed sensor arrays and passive or active sonar to detect enemy submarines. If you put together a good combat squadron, you would likely need at least two or three ASuW cruisers, five AA destroyers, and 8-10 frigates. If you’re sending a squadron into an area where you expect mines, mine hunters and minesweepers are an important part of your naval arsenal.

Littoral Warfare Operations

There's been some request for a more in-depth discussion of littoral warfare operations in this thread, as the first two posts mostly dealt with so-called blue water naval operations. There are some major differences with so-called brown water navies that I'm going to address with this post.

Number one, those uber large SDs you built or bought are worthless in a littoral combat situation. In fact, many of your battleships, cruisers, destroyers and even some frigates aren't going to be able to handle the shallow depths where littoral warfare takes place. They may be able to provide longer-range coastal bombardment, though anything smaller than a heavy cruiser would get into range of many RL weapons batteries.

Thus, you're going to need ships that are built specifically for littoral warfare. What kind of brown water navy do you need? There are specific vessels that have been built for riverine operations that are either intended to get special forces onto land so they can go do their jobs or provide covering fire against insurgents. Examples of RL river gunboats include one made by aircraft manufacturer Sikorsky that carried a 105 mm howitzer as its main armament and was built to get where it needed to go fast and it was intended to provide gun support for troops in a river environment.

Another example of river vessels used in Vietnam included the return of the monitor. That's right, the monitor. We're not talking about the monitors of the post U.S. Civil War period that were designed to serve as coastal defense vessels, though you can see the lineage if you look at a picture closely enough. Those monitors were conceived to serve as "battleships" of a brown water fleet. Their role was to bombard enemy armies and fortified positions. They were built when the U.S. Navy determined they didn't have adequate fire support that could get into the shallow waters near Vietnam.

Logistics

I know The Evil Overlord might have “talked your cyber ear” off about logistics as it pertains to ground combat, and perhaps The Macabees did the same, but naval battles fought without logistics are lost battles. You will need to have fuel, food, ammunition, uniforms, and other stores made available to you, particularly in combat situations. That’s where fleet replenishment ships, tankers, submarine tenders, and other non-combatants play a vital role. If you suffer heavy losses, you’ll need a hospital ship for those times when standard shipboard medical facilities (“sickbays”) are overtaxed. The hospital ship is the floating hospital that can help nurse your own wounded or another country’s injured back to health.

We hope this guide to naval combat has been useful to you. If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to ask.
Last edited by Euroslavia on Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:17 am, edited 5 times in total.
BRAVE ENOUGH

BRAVE ENOUGH

BRAVE ENOUGH

User avatar
Euroslavia
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 7742
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Re: International Incidents Information Desk

Postby Euroslavia » Sun Aug 16, 2009 11:47 pm

The Effects of Genocide/Mass Murder on Your Nation



What is Genocide?

'Genocide,’ consisting of the Greek ‘genos’ (race or tribe) plus the Latin ‘cide’ (killing). Many of these definitions assume some level of moral baggage, attempting to widen the definition to cover as many human-made horrors as possible. The word ‘genocide’ in common usage certainly does carry with it a special moral revulsion; but the purpose of different words is to denote fundamentally different phenomena, a purpose defeated at the expense of understanding if a word represents too wide a variety of meanings. Even on the moral front, a definition limited by theory rather than anger helps to illuminate the many facets of evil in the world: after all, is genocide really necessarily more morally reprehensible than mass killing of other types? Although more people are generally killed in a genocide than in another type of massacre, numbers should not inform morality.

The United Nations Genocide Convention, adopted in 1948, defines genocide as any of a list of specific ‘acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such.’ These acts include outright killing and infliction on the group of ‘serious bodily or mental harm [or] conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part,’ as well as the imposition of ‘measures intended to prevent births within the group’ or the forced transfer of group children to other groups.

Let's face it, genocide and mass murder occur in Nationstates very often, more often occuring in International Incidents, seeing as such an event would classify as an "International Incident". One thing that a lot of the people who actually commit is the serious side-effects of the population when a genocide occurs within their nations. In this thread, I'll go over exactly what happens during a genocide, as well as life after the horrible event that happened.

Why Do Genocides Occur?

(Note: I'm not looking for a debate over the specifics of these genocides, only trying to present a point on why they occur)
There are many reasons why genocides occur. I'll use some RL examples. For example, in Germany, the government blamed the economic state of the nation on the Jewish population, and proceeded to take it out on them. Hitler himself had a strong hatred for Jews. The Germans also executed political opponents such as Communists, and went as far as executing gypsies and homosexual men and women. They felt that the Aryan race was destined to be the superior race and they did all that they could to prevent political opponents from taking over.

In the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin wanted the Ukraine to remain a part of the nation, so he developed methods of keeping the country at bay:

To Stalin, the burgeoning national revival movement and continuing loss of Soviet influence in the Ukraine was completely unacceptable. To crush the people's free spirit, he began to employ the same methods he had successfully used within the Soviet Union. Thus, beginning in 1929, over 5,000 Ukrainian scholars, scientists, cultural and religious leaders were arrested after being falsely accused of plotting an armed revolt. Those arrested were either shot without a trial or deported to prison camps in remote areas of Russia.

Stalin also imposed the Soviet system of land management known as collectivization. This resulted in the seizure of all privately owned farmlands and livestock, in a country where 80 percent of the people were traditional village farmers.

By mid 1932, nearly 75 percent of the farms in the Ukraine had been forcibly collectivized. On Stalin's orders, mandatory quotas of foodstuffs to be shipped out to the Soviet Union were drastically increased in August, October and again in January 1933, until there was simply no food remaining to feed the people of the Ukraine.

By the spring of 1933, the height of the famine, an estimated 25,000 persons died every day in the Ukraine. Entire villages were perishing. In Europe, America and Canada, persons of Ukrainian descent and others responded to news reports of the famine by sending in food supplies. But Soviet authorities halted all food shipments at the border. It was the official policy of the Soviet Union to deny the existence of a famine and thus to refuse any outside assistance. Anyone claiming that there was in fact a famine was accused of spreading anti-Soviet propaganda. Inside the Soviet Union, a person could be arrested for even using the word 'famine' or 'hunger' or 'starvation' in a sentence.

By the end of 1933, nearly 25 percent of the population of the Ukraine, including three million children, had perished. The Kulaks as a class were destroyed and an entire nation of village farmers had been laid low. With his immediate objectives now achieved, Stalin allowed food distribution to resume inside the Ukraine and the famine subsided. However, political persecutions and further round-ups of 'enemies' continued unchecked in the years following the famine, interrupted only in June 1941 when Nazi troops stormed into the country. Hitler's troops, like all previous invaders, arrived in the Ukraine to rob the breadbasket of Europe and simply replaced one reign of terror with another.


As you can see, the Soviet Union covered it all up, using political schemes to maintain their geographic borders, and thus, the Ukrainian farms which is called the Breadbasket of Europe. Joseph Stalin did anything in his power to maintain as many resources as he possibly could.

The Effects of Genocide on a Populace

The Trauma that the population goes through during and after a genocide is immense. The fact of the matter is that genocide brings fear to every humans' heart, seeing as a group is trying to systematically wipe an entire race/people off of the planet. The psychological effects it has on your brain is enough to completely alter the way a person thinks and the way that they live life, for the rest of their time on Earth. The effects of a genocide, especially after it has occurred is of massive distrust, especially between those who committed the crimes, those who were the targets, as well as those who are citizens of that country. If there is no trust within a specific area, between two groups of people, then clashes are almost inevitable, especially if each is always suspicious of the other group. For example, the Armenians and the Turks still have a large distrust of each other after the genocide that occured. Political relations between Armenia and Turkey have remained cold.

Bringing This into the Nationstates Perspective

Many nations within International Incidents have committed mass murder, along with genocide in their own nations, and continue on as if nothing happened. In Ukraine, the people revolted even more, after the actions of the Soviet Union began taking their effect upon the population. In the event of such a thing occuring within your nation, it is highly unlikely that your entire population will remain calm, and obey their leader. There is bound to be some sort of minority, as well as some sort of political activist group that would protest against such a thing, which has occured in every instance of genocide. The country itself would probably fall into a more unstable setting than before the event, depending on how serious it is.

The roleplaying of genocide within ones' nation is often not taken too seriously. One expects to 'execute/crucify/murder' a small group of the population and not have any sort of retaliation, whether it be political or militarily, as well as the stability of the nation to remain the same. I would prefer not to use specific examples, but there is one nation that I know of, whom has committed mass murders/execution on its own population more than ten times. These type of actions would more or less send the entire country into revolt, seeing as multiple targets have been picked. A distrust between the nation and its people has grown to unsurmountable proportions. A massive conflict is almost inevitable, if the population doesn't want its specific group to be the next executed.
Last edited by Euroslavia on Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
BRAVE ENOUGH

BRAVE ENOUGH

BRAVE ENOUGH

User avatar
Euroslavia
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 7742
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Re: International Incidents Information Desk

Postby Euroslavia » Sun Aug 16, 2009 11:51 pm

Naval Landings
Originally posted by The Island of Rose


What is a Naval Landing?

It's when you land on a nation with boats.

Now when people think of Naval Landings I bet you think of OMG NORMANDY! That means you must think of.

-Heavily fortified beaches
-Men dieing and screaming
-Saving Private Ryan

Well guess what boys and girls, it's not as easy as it looks. If you want to make a naval landing first you must:

-Find out if he has a shore
(You can't invade an inland nation)

-Ask about defenses
(Make sure it is OOC, ICly he's not going to tell you. You just can't waltz up with 100,000 men, say "I claim this land in the name of England!" and not expect to get shot. No, quite the opposite, you'll get shot multiple times, yes, multiple times. Or beat back.)

Well... now that you have done the basics, let's get to more basics... how to land properly.

First of all, it takes time to enter a nation with water. And the defending nation can use that time to... I don't know, blow your ships out of the water making you waste billions of lives and dollars?

(But I have Air Troops!)

Oh yeah, but they can't stay alive without food, water, supplies? They'll run out soon and then they'll get cut! Or killed, or both...

Now, let's say most of your ships arrive at shore and you have a beachhead.

(But wait, you forgot about terrain!)

Why yes I did! Remember kiddies, soldiers can't walk on mud or tanks land good on forest coasts. They're not Master Chief you know!

(Now to the beach head)

Yes.... now you must figure out the following:

-Find a Harbor or make one
(Those big boats need to land somewhere!)

You have a Harbor? Good! Now you need to go inside the country, take down the cities, and then you can finally say....

"I claim this land in the name of England!"

But defenders, use scorched Earth. If they can't suck from your land, you'll complicate them logistics of theirs.

Ah logistics! Remember attackers, a Naval Landing is OMG LOGISTICALLY LONG! So you'll have to waste billions doing a landing.

Defenders, now you must be thinking (I'll build walls and things!)

Don't worry, just have tanks outside the landing beach and blast em.

Of course if you want to take an Island, there are alternatives:

Democratic Colonies wrote:OOC: The fact that naval landings are such difficult, complex, painful affairs is why I've never gone through with one. All the logistics, amphibious unit assualts, beating back already fortified enemy positions at the landing sites - in my admittedly limited RPing experience, I've found it easier to bomb the enemy from afar until they're forced to the bargaining table instead. There is much more to landing on a hostile shore than some currently believe, and I think this post does a good job of explaining some of that.

And defenders, you don't need to destroy every ship with big ships. And offenders, a small tip.

Crookfur wrote:To have a naval landing you need a couple of other things:
naval superiority
Well it is kind of obvious but you would be surprised how many people forget how damaging the odd mini sub or fast patrol boat is to things like landing craft and RiBs. You don't necessarily have to destroy their entire navy but you have to make sure he doesn't have any where you are landing, thus you can now use your big shiny ships to pound his defenses (or if you are a truly sneaky bugger, blow up his reserve tanks with long range missiles... oops did i say that out loud )

Air superiority:
Again pretty obvious but rather difficult considering that you will be relying solely on carrier borne aircraft (you did remember your carriers?), unless you happen to have friendly bases within a couple of hundred Ms.

Unless you have both of these you may as well not bother with a full naval landing, of course small raids are something else...

And of course there are other ways to land supplies.

Scandavian States wrote:Way back when the World-Wide Cluster Fuck, Scene Two was playing the amphibious troops didn't have the luxury of hovercraft to land tanks and other heavy equipment away from the wet sand of the shoreline. They also did not have the luxury of heavy-lift transport aircraft to land more troops once an airport was secure.

Standard Imperial Marines doctrine have always been to force an initial beachead with light infantry and cavalry divisions and then follow up with mechanized infantry divisions as a second wave. When that occurs the troops would move inland and secure the neareast international airport for the heavy-lift aircraft to begin bringing in Imperial Army troops. It saves time and lives to not have to force a harbor and is arguably the quicker and less risky solution.
But Crookfur wants to add something to that:


Crookfur wrote:the majority of amphibious operations in NS are not going to be D-Day or any of the other western theatre landings of WW2, they are going to at best similar to the pacific island hoping or at worst like the Falklands (funny how people forget about the fact that it was a rahter large modern amphibious, or rather combined arms, operation) ie fought at the end of very very long supply chains.

D-day involved over 7000ships (and contary to my estemed collegue SS's statemnet the nromandy ports were fairly high on the objective lists despite the fact that the allies basically biult entirely new ones at each landing site) yet it involved a relatively short crossing. To make that sort of landing in the NS enviroment you will be required to double or tripple the number of vessels. While the ships used will likely be individually of a higher capability you will face the fact that you will need to carry all the massive stores that were warehoused in the south east of england with you.


Here's a lil History for ya:

New Shiron wrote:The difficulty of amphibious landings is the prinicipal reason the US Marines got a bunch of helicopters, and there hasn't been a major (division sized) landing since Korea (Inchon 1950). It takes a really big war to have a situation so critical that a nation is willing to take the casualties and risks needed for a major amphibious assault. World War 2 saw a lot of Amphibous landings.... some were relatively unopposed, but some, like Omaha Beach, Tarawa and Iwo Jima were extremely costly.

Invade a defended beach and you are going to have to soak up a lot of lumps.

Major airborne (parachute) assaults have the same problems too, and the last big one was a brigade sized assault in Congo in the 1970s


Our own Omz222 has more info-mation.

Omz222 wrote:However, with airborne assaults, the danger of surface-to-air weapons aside, you do have to remember that if you drop troops into someone's territory in a joint operation, you gotta either have some way to have then link up with the incoming amphibious forces for supplies (just like in Operation Overlord/D-Day). Otherwise, it is highly likely that these airborne troops aren't going to survive for long without food and ammunition.

Helicopter landing could be possible, but it couldn't carry much equipment, and you do need a landing site for helicopters to actually land. The helicopters could also be exposed to surface-to-air missiles, if a shore bombardment is done improperly and there are still large concentrations of enemy troops very near the area. As with this, I also don't quite approve putting LCACs into the water tens of kilometers away and have them make their way towards the shore on their own, since the possibility is that they are going to be blown up, unless you drop a combination of LCACs and LCUs from a short distance offshore, while maintaining air support and have the naval gunfire support that you'd need (since most 5" guns on RL ships right now can't fire their percise rounds too far, and missiles are very expensive to do the job). Logistics will also be a problem if you do drop the LCACs thirty miles away, since not only you'd need a much longer time to pick up and deliver the supplies, but also that you can only do so via the landing craft and (hopefully) helicopters. The amphibious ships would be within range of shore-based missile and coastal artillery batteries anyways (which is also another reason why warships should be armored in NS naval combat).

----------------------------

Because of these factors, and although the Omzian Navy rarely conducts actual landings, our doctrine for a typical medium-scale amphibious operation is always (after obstacles has been cleared through an intensive shore bombardment) using a sizable amount of Marine infantry forces to land from landing craft and amphibious tractors at close ranges, while destroyers, cruisers, and carrier aircraft provide continued gunfire and close air support. If mobile gun and missile batteries on enemy shore fires, it is likely that UAVs over the area will pick the source up (which will be another target for the 5" and 8" rounds on my destroyers). Once the main infantry lands, armor (in the form of tanks) will also land via LST vessels, while they advance towards their objectives (which will be typically linking up with possible airborne troops, capturing a significant nearby town linked to other hostile territories, and/or capturing a possible airstrip or dock). Once this is finished and the beachhead is secured, casulties will be evacuated, while they are replaced by other soldiers, delivered from ships and helicopters.
Last edited by Euroslavia on Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:27 am, edited 3 times in total.
BRAVE ENOUGH

BRAVE ENOUGH

BRAVE ENOUGH

User avatar
Euroslavia
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 7742
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Re: International Incidents Information Desk

Postby Euroslavia » Sun Aug 16, 2009 11:57 pm

Spacetech: Orbital Mechanics
Originally posted by The Evil Overlord


A large number of the players in the game who roleplay with modern technology make use of satellites, space stations, and spacecraft. Sadly, though they use real-world technology, most of them seem to lack an understanding of real-world physics, particularly orbital mechanics.

All too often some player makes the statement, “Any satellites flying over my territory will be shot down.” There are several problems with this, and I’ll take ‘em one at a time.

Satellite Overflights
There are dozens- if not scores or hundreds- of nations with modern space technology in the game. Each one of these puts several dozen satellites of various types into a wide variety of orbital paths. We’ll pull a bunch of numbers out of the air and say that there are fifty nations with satellites in orbit (using only real-world technology). If each such nation puts up 5 reconnaissance satellites (a reasonably small number, since the USA has a large- but classified- number of advanced spy satellites). That makes 250 satellites. Each one also has 10 communications satellites (far too small a number), for an additional 500 satellites. We’ll also assume each nation has 5 weather satellites (another 250 birds). With these extremely rough numbers, we have over 1000 satellites in orbit. I haven’t even mentioned the GPS satellites, dedicated cell-phone satellites, orbital observatories, et cetera.

A lot of these birds will be in polar orbits. The satellite travels over both poles as the planet rotates beneath them. This allows the satellites to cover the entire planet over time. Other satellites will be in orbits that go slightly north and slightly south of the equator, thoroughly covering the terrain between their northern and southern maximum latitudes. Other satellites will be in geosynchronous orbits (at around 36,000 kilometers, the orbital speed matches the Earth’s rotation, so the satellite stays over the same portion of the Earth’s surface). Most of these will be observing the entire hemisphere that faces them.

Because of these facts, every nation may be reasonably certain that there are satellites flying over their territory at least once/day. Most rational nations agree that their national territorial claims end at the earth’s stratosphere, but I won’t get into International Laws here.

Orbits
Generally speaking, the lower the orbit, the shorter the satellite’s lifespan. In real life, it is very difficult to refuel a satellite in orbit. A satellite at 100 miles altitude will experience orbital decay due to friction with the atmosphere. This can only be countered by using the satellite’s engines to keep the speed up. The engines require fuel. Sooner or later, the fuel runs out. When the fuel runs out, the satellite starts to slow down and the orbit becomes a long spiral into the atmosphere.

Many satellites deal with this issue by spending most of their orbit at higher altitudes. Since few orbits are perfect circles, this is not much of an issue. The orbits resemble an oval (ellipse). The Earth is close to one end of the oval. Most of the satellite’s lifespan is spent far away from the planet, and it only swings close by once per orbit. Since the planet is turning beneath the satellite at the same time, the satellite covers a slightly different path over the surface as it orbits. Eventually, the satellite will fly over every millimeter of the planet’s surface.

Remember the fuel issue? It still exists. These birds are on ballistic orbits. They are NOT under thrust once they establish their orbit. They are still coasting on the initial thrust that set up the orbit in the first place. Changing the orbit takes LOTS of fuel. Few satellites can make more than a small number of MINOR maneuvers during their lifespan- usually to counteract atmospheric drag. Done properly, a miniscule amount of thrust can increase the satellite’s speed enough to counteract atmospheric friction- making the tiny amount of fuel onboard last much longer.


Shooting down a satellite
It CAN be done. The US Air Force built a few specialized missiles designed to be launched by F-15’s to take out low-flying satellites. This missile is nearly as long as the aircraft that carries it. The ASAT mission (AntiSATellite) requires specially-trained pilots and specially-equipped aircraft. Satellites with little or no maneuvering reserve fuel in low orbits are vulnerable to this attack.

In order to destroy a satellite in a higher orbit, actual launch vehicles must be used. Each ASAT mission requires the same preparations and cost as launching the satellite to begin with. Attacking satellites from the Earth is very difficult and expensive- mostly due to the problems involved with overcoming the Earth’s massive gravity. Think of it as trying to shatter some glass jars sitting on the rim of a very deep well. The only way you can shatter them is by throwing rocks. But you are at the bottom of the well. And the glass jars are zooming around the edge of the well at a high rate of speed.

“What about beam weapons- Lasers, and the like?” I hear you ask. Remember that we’re dealing with real-world physics here. The biggest problem with laser ASAT weapons is power throughput. Lasers are beams of light. They’ve been amplified and collimated down to coherent beams, but they’re still light. Light spreads out over distance (I won’t get into the physics of why this happens because it is fairly detailed and I’m trying to keep this simple). Even a beam collimated down to 1mm at the aperture (highly unlikely in a weapon) would spread enormously after traveling through 100 miles of atmosphere. This means that the laser would require enormous amounts of energy to be an effective weapon at that range. Too much of the energy is lost in forcing the air aside in order for the energetic photons to damage the target.

The US military has been working on classified missile defense beam weapons for decades, but they’re still not planning on destroying satellites with ground-based lasers anytime soon. Ground-based lasers HAVE been used to damage satellites. The Soviets routinely tried to blind low-flying spy satellites with laser beams. Anecdotal evidence suggests that they might have been partially successful, but hard data is very hard to come by.

The best way to destroy a satellite in orbit is to use a weapon that is also in orbit. Fire a shotgun shell into the path of a satellite and any pellets that hit will do enormous damage. A satellite or spacecraft-launched missile would be just as effective, and probably have a better chance to hit. Even beam weapons from orbital weapons would have a greater chance for success due to proximity and lack of atmospheric scatter. The SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative) had plans to use one-shot beam weapons to destroy ballistic missiles before they re-entered the atmosphere. Each one of these weapons uses the power of a contained (for a microsecond or two) nuclear explosion to generate the charged particle beam or X-Ray laser that would destroy or “mission-kill” (more on these terms later) the missile warhead. The contemporary plans to use ground-based lasers and orbital mirrors fell by the wayside when the power throughput issue killed the ground-based laser program.

Another possible ASAT concept is the so-called “killsat”, or killer satellite. Launch a bunch of satellites loaded with lightweight self-homing missiles, shotgun-like firearms, or chemically-powered beam weapons and lots of fuel. Put these birds in a high orbit. Whenever you want to take out a particular satellite, deploy the missiles or fire the shotguns or energize the lasers whenever the killsat is in relative proximity to the target satellite and ahead of the target’s orbital path.

Now we get down to the “destroying” satellites part. Space is vast. Even the relatively close quarters of planetary orbit still involves enormous amounts of space. Satellites are tiny by comparison. It is very hard to hit a satellite. Even “smart” or “brilliant” missiles can still miss, particularly if the satellite uses a great deal of fuel to execute a violent maneuver (unlikely in light of the fuel constraints, but technically possible). The most effective means of “destroying” a satellite is the Kinetic Energy Weapon (KEW). KEWs rely on relative velocity and mass to do damage. Basically, it means that the KEW must hit the target satellite. Radar guidance is one method for increasing the precision of the weapon, or any other self-guidance system, but these methods start adding a lot of cost to the already staggering expense of building and launching the orbital weapon or spacecraft to begin with.

The answer of course lies in “area-effect” KEWs. The shotgun effect. If a target satellite is zipping along at 20,000 KPH (a modest speed for space travel), firing a shotgun in the opposite direction from fairly close in front of it would have a devastating effect. Each individual shotgun pellet is a fairly insignificant mass, but the pellets are traveling at 100 meters per second (360,000 KPH) and run head on into a satellite with a mass of 200 kilograms traveling at 20,000 KPH (around 6 meters per second). The satellite would be pretty thoroughly shredded by the impact and the subsequent heating from the friction of the impact. This satellite could reasonably be considered “killed”, since it won’t be doing its designed task in its current state and the change in velocity from the impact (known as “delta v”) would doubtless end up dropping the satellite into a spiraling orbit that results in its eventual destruction during re-entry.

The big problem is how to get the shotgun in front of the target close enough to do this kind of damage. If the shotgun is too far away, the odds against successful impact increase exponentially with distance. In layman’s terms, every meter of distance between the target and the shotgun doubles the chances that the target will be undamaged (this is a rough approximation, used only for purposes of this post). Remember where I mentioned that satellites are hard to hit? Imagine this:

The satellite is zipping along at 6 meters/second. Your killsat is several kilometers ahead of the target, in an orbit two kilometers higher. These orbits are going to be in exactly the same orbital plane for purposes of keeping this example simple (meaning that at any given point in either satellite’s path, they will be covering the exact same territory on the planet beneath). So, your killsat aims directly at the target satellite and fires a shotgun at it. Any duck hunter could tell you what happens next- your shotgun blast misses the target by several kilometers. We’ll assume that the onboard computer has figured out the intercept problem and fires well AHEAD of the target (this is called “leading the target”), so that the pellets will arrive at the target’s orbit WHILE THE TARGET IS THERE. Success, right? Not necessarily. The pellets will spread as they leave the barrel of the weapon. As they travel the several kilometers toward the target, they spread farther and farther apart. Every meter of distance doubles the chances for a miss. The odds of actually hitting the target from that range are pretty slim.

So what is the answer? The weapon system most likely to ensure success would be a radar-guided missile with a shaped-charge fragmentation warhead. Radar from the killsat would track the target, compare orbits, and launch the missile into an interception orbit. Once the missile was in position in an imaginary cone no more than 45 degrees in front of the target’s projected orbit, it would explode. The shaped charge of the missile would direct most of the shrapnel at a high rate of speed into the projected orbit of the target. We get the shotgun effect, the target is extremely likely to be damaged beyond recovery, and will likely drift out of its original orbit.

Beam weapons can also “kill” satellites- if they are fired from outside the earth’s atmosphere. Here there is a lot less worry about accuracy, since the beams are by definition traveling at C (light speed- roughly 300,000 kilometers/second), and the target is unlikely to have traveled far between firing and impact (especially in planetary orbit). The problem with beam weapons is that they are unlikely to destroy the target. It’s likely that the laser would heat the satellite up, melt a hole in the hull, or damage the electronics onboard, but the bird would almost certainly remain in orbit. This brings me to the difference between “mission kill” and “destroy”.

We’ve already discussed destruction, so I will focus on “mission kill”. This is a military term meaning that the target is not “destroyed”, but it is incapable of performing its mission. Even if a KEW fails to reduce the target satellite to shredded metal, the impact friction and change in delta v are likely to cause a “mission kill”, because the satellite would be unlikely to be of much value to anyone afterwards. It would not take much of a change in delta v to change a satellite’s orbit enough to make it useless for its owners.

Lasers are good weapons to execute a “mission kill” on a target satellite. If the laser is powerful enough, it could do extensive damage in a few microseconds to the hull, solar screens, antennae, or sensors on the target satellite. The lower the laser’s energy level, the longer the contact with the target must be to do significant damage. Even relatively low-powered lasers (class III) could “blind” a satellite by creating an electromagnetic (EM) field around the target, or overloading the sensors with heat or EM energy.

X-ray lasers, Gamma-ray lasers, and Masers (Microwave Amplified by Sustained Emission of Radiation) are all examples of high-energy beam weapons with enormous potential to damage any target they hit. The problem with such high-energy weapons is the energy requirement. It takes the equivalent of a tactical nuclear bomb to generate enough energy in the extremely short time required to generate these beams. This is essentially what the US Government was looking at for the SDI program.

Put a small nuclear weapon into a casing with an extremely refractive lining. This lining is pierced by the laser emission tubes. When a target is detected, the entire assembly is turned to point toward the target, then the nuke within goes off. For a few microseconds, the nuclear explosion is contained, and the energy is channeled into the laser emitters. These tubes send out X-ray laser beams toward the target. The highly energetic beams penetrate the target (unless it is shielded by thick metal of one sort or another- in which case the beams melt everything) and burn out every electrical circuit onboard. Fuel tanks would rupture or explode from the heat of the beams’ passage. This would be more than enough to “mission kill” any satellite made with modern technology. It would also be enough to do the same for missile warheads.

There are a couple of problems with these. First is the fact that they are one-use weapons. One shot is all you get, because the weapon is destroyed as it fires. Another problem is the fact that nuclear weapons are dangerous. A weapon that would destroy a city on the planet has a lot of potential to create havoc in space. It also creates an Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP). A sphere of intense EM energy is released by the explosion, which reacts with and overloads any EM fields it encounters (this effect decreases with distance, of course). Active electronic components are destroyed by en EMP. This will affect the satellite or spacecraft employing the weapon as well as anyone else in the area.

************

http://users.commkey.net/Braeunig/space/orbmech.htm

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/RealTime/JTrack/

Types Of Orbits
For a spacecraft to achieve earth orbit, it must be launched to an elevation above the Earth's atmosphere and accelerated to orbital velocity. The most energy efficient orbit, that is one that requires the least amount of propellant, is a direct low inclination orbit. To achieve such an orbit, a spacecraft is launched in an eastward direction from a site near the Earth's equator. The advantage being that the rotational speed of the Earth contributes to the spacecraft's final orbital speed. At the United States' launch site in Cape Canaveral (28.5 degrees north latitude) a due east launch results in a "free ride" of 915 mph (1,470 kph). Launching a spacecraft in a direction other than east, or from a site far from the equator, results in an orbit of higher inclination. High inclination orbits are less able to take advantage of the initial speed provided by the Earth's rotation, thus the launch vehicle must provide a greater part, or all, of the energy required to attain orbital velocity. Although high inclination orbits are less energy efficient, they do have advantages over equatorial orbits for certain applications. Below we describe several types of orbits and the advantages of each:
Geosynchronous orbits, also called geostationary orbits (GEO), are circular, low inclination orbits around the Earth having a period of 24 hours. A spacecraft in a geosynchronous orbit appears to hang motionless above one position on the Earth's surface. For this reason, they are ideal for some types of communication and meteorological satellites. To attain geosynchronous orbit, a spacecraft is first launched into an elliptical orbit with an apogee of 22,240 miles (35,790 km) called a geostationary transfer orbit (GTO). The orbit is then circularized by firing the spacecraft's engine at apogee.
Polar orbits (PO) are orbits with an inclination of 90 degrees. Polar orbits are useful for satellites that carry out mapping and/or surveillance operations because as the planet rotates the spacecraft has access to virtually every point on the planet's surface.
Walking orbits: An orbiting satellite is subjected to a great many gravitational influences. First, planets are not perfectly spherical and they have slightly uneven mass distribution. These fluctuations have an effect on a spacecraft's trajectory. Also, the sun, moon, and planets contribute a gravitational influence on an orbiting satellite. With proper planning it is possible to design an orbit which takes advantage of these influences to induce a precession in the satellite's orbital plane. The resulting orbit is called a walking orbit, or precessing orbit.
Sun synchronous orbits (SSO) are walking orbits whose orbital plane precesses with the same period as the planet's solar orbit period. In such an orbit, a satellite crosses periapsis at about the same local time every orbit. This is useful if a satellite is carrying instruments which depend on a certain angle of solar illumination on the planet's surface. In order to maintain an exact synchronous timing, it may be necessary to conduct occasional propulsive maneuvers to adjust the orbit.
Hohmann transfer orbits are interplanetary trajectories whose advantage is that they consume the least possible amount of propellant. A Hohmann transfer orbit to an outer planet, such as Mars, is achieved by launching a spacecraft and accelerating it in the direction of Earth's revolution around the sun until it breaks free of the Earth's gravity and reaches a velocity which places it in a sun orbit with an aphelion equal to the orbit of the outer planet. Upon reaching its destination, the spacecraft must decelerate so that the planet's gravity can capture it into a planetary orbit.
To send a spacecraft to an inner planet, such as Venus, the spacecraft is launched and accelerated in the direction opposite of Earth's revolution around the sun (i.e. decelerated) until in achieves a sun orbit with a perihelion equal to the orbit of the inner planet. It should be noted that the spacecraft continues to move in the same direction as Earth, only more slowly.
To reach a planet requires that the spacecraft be inserted into an interplanetary trajectory at the correct time so that the spacecraft arrives at the planet's orbit when the planet will be at the point where the spacecraft will intercept it. This task is comparable to a quarterback "leading" his receiver so that the football and receiver arrive at the same point at the same time. The interval of time in which a spacecraft must be launched in order to complete its mission is called a launch window.

Newton's Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation
Newton's laws of motion describe the relationship between the motion of a particle and the forces acting on it.
The first law states that if no forces are acting, a body at rest will remain at rest, and a body in motion will remain in motion in a straight line. Thus, if no forces are acting, the velocity (both magnitude and direction) will remain constant.
The second law tells us that if a force is applied there will be a change in velocity, i.e. an acceleration, proportional to the magnitude of the force and in the direction in which the force is applied.

Motions of Planets and Satellites
Through a lifelong study of the motions of bodies in the solar system, Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) was able to derive three basic laws known as Kepler's laws of planetary motion . Using the data compiled by his mentor Tycho Brahe (1546-1601), Kepler found the following regularities after years of laborious calculations:
1. All planets move in elliptical orbits with the sun at one focus.
2. A line joining any planet to the sun sweeps out equal areas in equal times.
3. The square of the period of any planet about the sun is proportional to the cube of the planet's mean distance from the sun.
These laws can be deduced from Newton's laws of motion and law of universal gravitation. Indeed, Newton used Kepler's work as basic information in the formulation of his gravitational theory.
As Kepler pointed out, all planets move in elliptical orbits, however, we can learn much about planetary motion by considering the special case of circular orbits. We shall neglect the forces between planets, considering only a planet's interaction with the sun. These considerations apply equally well to the motion of a satellite about a planet.

Launch of a Space Vehicle
The launch of a satellite or space vehicle consists of a period of powered flight during which the vehicle is lifted above the earth's atmosphere and accelerated to orbital velocity by a rocket, or launch vehicle. Powered flight concludes at burnout of the rocket's last stage at which time the vehicle begins its free flight. During free flight the space vehicle is assumed to be subjected only to the gravitational pull of the earth. If the vehicle moves far from the earth, its trajectory may be affected by the gravitational influence of the sun, moon, or another planet.

Escape Velocity
We know that if we throw a ball up from the surface of the earth, it will rise for a while and then return. If we give it a larger initial velocity, it will rise higher and then return. There is a velocity, called the escape velocity, Vesc, such that if the ball is launched with an initial velocity greater than Vesc, it will rise and never return. We must give the particle enough kinetic energy to overcome all of the negative gravitational potential energy.

Thrust
Thrust is the force that propels a rocket or spacecraft. In this section we will take a look at how the application of thrust affects the orbit of a space vehicle.
A space vehicle in orbit experiences the sensation of weightlessness because the outward force of centrifugal acceleration perfectly balances the inward gravitational pull of the earth. By applying thrust, the space vehicle's velocity can be increased or decreased. If velocity is increased the outward centrifugal force also increases which "pulls" the vehicle to a higher orbit. Decreasing velocity lessens the centrifugal force and gravity "pulls" the vehicle to a lower orbit. Such altitude changes do not alter the inclination of the orbit, they merely reposition the vehicle within the same orbital plane. Applying thrust at right angles to the orbital plane modifies the inclination. These maneuvers, called plane changes, burn considerably more propellant than altitude changes.
For a spacecraft to perform an altitude change, two engine burns are required. To change to a higher orbit, the spacecraft fires its engine to increase velocity, thus placing it in an elliptical orbit with an apoapsis equal to the new altitude. When the spacecraft reaches apoapsis, a second burn is performed to once again increase velocity, thereby placing the vehicle in a circular orbit. For a spacecraft to change to a lower orbit, the procedure is reversed. The craft fires its engine in the direction of travel to decrease velocity, thus dropping the spacecraft into an elliptical orbit with a periapsis equal to the new altitude. When reaching periapsis the engine is fired to decrease velocity further, thereby circularizing the orbit.
When propulsive maneuvers are used to alter the orbit of a space vehicle, engineers calculate the magnitude of the velocity change required to achieve the desired alteration. This change in velocity is called delta v (v).

Drag
Drag is the resistance offered by a gas or liquid to a body moving through it. A spacecraft is subjected to drag forces when moving through a planet's atmosphere. This drag is greatest during launch and reentry, however, even a space vehicle in low earth orbit experiences some drag as it moves through the earth's tenuous upper atmosphere. In time, the action of air drag on a space vehicle will cause it to spiral back into the atmosphere, eventually to disintegrate or burn up. If a space vehicle comes within 80 to 100 miles of the earth's surface, air drag will bring it down in a few days, with final disintegration occurring at an altitude of about 50 miles. This deterioration of a spacecraft's orbit is called decay.
Last edited by Euroslavia on Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:19 am, edited 2 times in total.
BRAVE ENOUGH

BRAVE ENOUGH

BRAVE ENOUGH

User avatar
Euroslavia
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 7742
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Re: International Incidents Information Desk

Postby Euroslavia » Mon Aug 17, 2009 12:38 am

Nationstates Calculators

Nationstates Dossier
Sunset
NS Tracker
Thrace-Taliteann Budgetary Calculator
Nationstates Economy Calculator

Bear in mind that these calculators are not the end all/be all of your statistics. They should only be used as a general idea rather than a strict guideline of your finances. Here's an argument against the usage of calculators.
Last edited by Euroslavia on Mon Aug 17, 2009 12:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
BRAVE ENOUGH

BRAVE ENOUGH

BRAVE ENOUGH

User avatar
Solm
Senator
 
Posts: 3582
Founded: Jul 23, 2008
Corporate Bordello

Un-Official Guide to Nationstates Terms

Postby Solm » Mon Sep 14, 2009 4:57 pm

The Unofficial Guide To Role-Playing Abbreviations


Roleplay*-[roll’-play]-v To act out a story, or play a role, on the NationSates forum. EX: If you want to start a war, you will not just say, “We are going to war, who will join me?” Instead, you could play the role of your leader, telling your nation that they are going to war. This makes the thread more interesting, and more people will be inclined to post there. A Roleplay n A story told through roleplaying.(-ing, roleplaying,-ed, roleplayed, RP, RPed, RPing)


Tech Level*-[tehk leh-vul]-n The level of technology that a nation’s military operates

Types of Tech Levels:
PT - PT is Past Technology, it can be anything from muskets to bow an arrows and swords. PT also includes machinery used as recently as the Korean War, WW2, or The Vietnam War.
MT - MT is Modern Technology, It is the current technology of earth, modern planes and weapons.
PMT - PMT is almost modern technology, technology that isn't out yet, but is in development. Technology in the 2030s, like New and improved missiles and airplanes.
FT - FT is Future Technology, it can be anything from space technology to plasma rays, it is anything in the future, usually involves space tech.
FTL = Faster Than Light, e.g Warp Speed
STL = Slower Than Light, e.g No warp speed, fast space transportation, but nothing moving faster than light
FTLi = Faster Than Light Inhibitor, (see here for more details)


Sticky* -(NationStates sticky)-[stih-kee]-n Useful threads that appear on each page of a certain forum, usually helpful with roleplaying certain things, such as wars or terrorism. They are placed there by the Moderators. (See Moderators) To Sticky-v The act of stickying a thread.

OPEN* -[oh-pehn]-adj. The tag on the title of a thread indicating that all NationStates members are welcome to participate.(See Tag)

CLOSED - Closed*-[klohsd]-adj. The tag on the title of a thread indicating that only invited members are allowed to post in-character posts inside.(See Tag 1.)

SEMI-OPEN/SEMI-CLOSED - SEMI-OPEN can vary, but usually means that you have to TG the starter to post or RP in the thread

ATTN - ATTN means Attention, it usually has a nations name directly after it, it means that the nation after it should read and it is about them.

Interest - Usually a thread where the OP (Opening Poster) asks the Nationstates players if they are interested in the specific Roleplay, and if there is enough interest to actually start the Roleplay. This is an Out-Of-Character thread and usually leads to an In-Character thread.

Storefront* - [stohr-frunt]-n An In-Character thread set up by a NationStates user, in which varying items are sold to other nations. EX: A nation could set up a storefront selling military items, and another could set up one selling torture devices.

Earth*-(NationStates)-[urth]- n 1. The planet in which all nations and people standardly function on in NationStates and in the Real World. 2. A series of projects used by NationStates members to claim certain areas of the Real World in NS. Earths include Earth II, Earth IV, Earth V, Earth VI, Earth X, and Earth DA.

Tag* -[tag]-interj. 1. An exclaimation used by a member expressing that he/she is interested in the thread, and will post later. 2.-n Added on letters to a post or thread title that expresses the way it should be interpreted. EX: A post with the Out-Of Character tag (OOC) at the beginning should not be read as a roleplay. (See roleplay) However, a post that has the In-Character tag, or no tag at all, should be read as a roleplay. EX2: A thread title with the “Open” tag indicates that the entire thread is open. But a thread title with “Closed” added on indicates the entire thread is closed.
[Mod Note] As a side note, with the move to the NS forums, you do not have to tag something to be able to subscribe to it. See: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=8209

IC - ABBR: In-Character*-[ihn kayr-ahk-tur]-adj. Writing as a character, e.g. the president. In-character is how you roleplay. (See Roleplay)

OOC - ABBR: Out-Of-Character-[owt ov kayr-ahk-tur]-adj. A post as yourself, not as a character. Use out-of-character when asking a question while in an IC thread.

SIC - ABBR: Secret-In-Character [see-kret-ihn-kayr-ahk-tur] Writing as a character, to describe an event which the other members of the Roleplay can know OOCly but cannot use ICly, e.g two General's talking about an upcoming ambush.

Bump*-[bump]-interj. ABBR: Bring Up My Post; An expression used to bring up a thread to the top of the first page in the forums.

IGNORE Cannon* -[ihg-nohr can-nun]-n A weapon used against godmoders when they will not stop godmoding. IGNORE Cannons are invincible, never run out of ammunition or power, and cannot be used by godmoders.

Spam* -(NationStates spam)-[spam]-n Any degree of useless posts that are either in the wrong place or do not hold any real meaning. To Spam-v The act of spamming.(-er, spammer[n])

Flaming-[flaym-ing] -v To criticize one's ideas, values, and roleplay skills (See Roleplay), as well as out-of-character details (See Out-Of-Character(-er, flamer[n])

Godmod* - To, in any way, say what happens to your enemy’s forces. EX: “Your troops are dead, because I shot them with superguns.” It’s up to the opposition to determine their losses. 2. To avoid death. EX: “All of my troops have personal shields so none of them can get hurt.”(-er, godmoder[n.],-ing, godmoding[adj.,v.])

ORBAT - ABBR: ORder of BATtle; usually an extensive list of all troops/divisions/equipment that will or may be used in an upcoming battle. Used to show each side just how many troops are there to avoid confusion.

DEFCON - ABBR: DEFensive readiness CONdition; usually a scale from 5 to 1 to show if a nation is at war or peace and the corresponding level, 5 being peace, 4 being more intelligence, but no ongoing war, 3 being enhanced security, 2 being at war (but not full-out_, and 1 being a full-out war.

Czar -[zahr]-n A slavic emperor or king; autocrat. See Empire Czarina-n The feminine form of czar.

Junta -n A small group of military officers ruling after a seize of power.

Parliament -[pahr-lah-mehnt]-n A national representative body having supreme legislative powers within the state.

OP - ABBR: Opening Poster; The user who creates the thread, therefore called the Opening Poster, this person is the judge of everything in the thread and owns the thread (under the moderators).

Newb* -[newb]-n A NationStates player that is new to the game, and wishes to learn how to roleplay. (See Roleplay)

N00b* -[newb]-n A NationStates player who does not understand the concept of godmoding, and frequently does it. Usually perpetuated as an insult.(-ish, n00bish[adj.]) Orig.-Eng. New.

N00bspeak* -sometimes 1337-n The language that experienced members use to mock n00bs, and also to make a point to the n00b. EX: “1 fir3l> L00000000000000000))0000 n00ckz0rz a7 j00 an1) j00 dr3 d3ad!!!!!!1111!!!!one.”

Moderator;* informal Mod*- [Mahd]-n Members of NationStates who control the forums and the game; they watch over the forum, to look for spammers (see Spam) and threads that are full of spam. They have the ability to edit threads and posts made by other users, delete threads and posts, move threads to other forums, ban users, and other things.(-ing, modding[v.])


Government Types And Ideology Beliefs
Socialism-[soh-shall-ihs-um]-n Any of the various systems of organization in which the producing and distributing of goods is controled by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.(-ist, socialist[n, adj.])
Fascism-[Fash-ihz-um]-n The system of government under the extreme authority of a dictator, and supression under terror and censorship, typically under the policy of hostile racism.(-ist, fascist)
Communism -[Calm-you-nihs-um]-n The economic system under the theory of common advantage to all citizens.(-ist, communist[adj.])
Capitalism** -[Ca-pih-tall-ihs-um]-n an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations; In more blunt terms: an economic system, where citizens are free to create, own, and manage businesses freely not having competition and government influence from the government and having a free market (-ist, capitalist[adj.])
Theocracy-n A government ruled by, or subject to, religious authority.
Republic-[ree-puhb-lick]-n A political order that is not under the authority of a monarch of any kind, usually under the leadership of a president.(-ic, republican[n])
Direct Democracy -[deh-mohk-rah-see]-n Government by the people, directly e.g. through voting(-ic, democratic[adj.], -at, democrat)
Republic or Indirect Democracy - [ree-pub-lik]-n A Government by the people, indirectly e.g through voting for officials (elected officials) who will then vote for laws, propose them, and enforce them. They will govern the nation.
Federation -[fehd-ehr-ay-shun]-n A joint league or nation of different states joined together.(-al, federal[adj.], -ate, federate[v.])
Empire -[ehm-py-ehr]-n A politcal unit comprising of extensive territory or nations, ruled by a supreme authority.(Emperor, Empress[Ruler of an empire], Imperial[adj.],-ist, imperialist[n.], -ism, imperialism)
Monarchy - [mon-ark-ee] a form of government in which one individual is the head of state for life or until abdication, and may or may not pass down said power to his/her heirs. Usually involves a king or a queen. Similar to an Emperor.
Anarchy* -[an-ark-ee]-n The national order of no centralized government at all.(ist, anarchist) Origin: Greek. AN=none, ARCH=leadership.
Protectorate** - [pro-tek-to-rat]A relationship of protection and partial control assumed by a superior power over a dependent country or region.







Key
NOTE: Many of the Definitions were taken from Present Day Comatica's "The Complete Dictionary of Nationstates Terms"
* - Parts were provided by The American Heritage® Dictionay of the English Language, Fourth Edition.
** - Parts were provided by dictionary.reference.com
Red Color - Definitions in Red Are Tech Levels
Blue Color - Definitions in Blue Are Things That A Thread Can Be
Orange Color - Definitions in Orange Are Things That You Can Post
Green Color - Definitions in Green Are What People or Groups can be in A Roleplay
Peach Color - Definitions in Peach Are Thing either dealing with new players, mods, or types of players.


Original thread: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=16666&start=0
Last edited by Euroslavia on Tue Jan 19, 2010 1:27 pm, edited 25 times in total.

Retired: ns .hellodot. solm @ gmail .dot. com

User avatar
Layarteb
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8245
Founded: Antiquity
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Layarteb » Wed Sep 16, 2009 6:35 am

Brewing a Revolution


The one thing to remember for any revolution is it's success depends on three absolutely crucial elements. Unless all three are present the chances of success are slim to nil and I'll explain why but first the elements.

1. Widespread & popular disapproval, suffering, etc. by the people (aka the masses)
2. Support by the societal elites (i.e. intellectuals)
3. Support of the military

Now if any one of these elements are not present it'll just be put down or it will be something different than a revolution.

>> If you have no support for the elites, the revolutionary masses will mostly be disorganized and flounder out, splinter apart, etc.
>> If you don't have support of the military it's just getting put down by the military
>> If you don't have support of the masses it's just a coup (if it's the military) or just a replacement of leadership (military + elites)

Classic examples of revolutions to really study and learn from are Iran in 1979, Nicaragua, Russia, and even Cuba. The ultimate, classical revolution is of course the French Revolution. Granted three out of the four are communist revolutions, each and every one had these three key and crucial elements. You can certainly have successful revolutions without total support of these three elements so the key thing here to note is while this is the most common, there are many revolutionary theories and no single theory can explain every revolution. Take, for example, the American Revolution. The second criteria was fulfilled quite early on and they created a military for number three. However, the people were split on thirds. One third were absolutely for it, another third against it, and the last third were largely apathetic either way. Yet it succeeded quite handsomely.

This is just a little snippet that goes into this and I hope it helps.
Last edited by Euroslavia on Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:37 am, edited 2 times in total.
.:. MILCON Level 4 .:.
Discord (Earth II) | Guide to My Stories
Earth II Moderator | Member of The October Alliance
¤ ¤ ¤
Join Earth II today, we're always accepting new members!
• The Empire of Layarteb •

E M B R A C ET H ES Y N T H

User avatar
Solm
Senator
 
Posts: 3582
Founded: Jul 23, 2008
Corporate Bordello

OoC: Krieg's Guide To Losing

Postby Solm » Sun Jan 31, 2010 1:27 pm

Krieg’s Guide To Losing
Orignally Posted By Kriegorgrad, Twenty-Sixth of June, 2005



Admit it, we all don’t like losing and even if you do, I’m sure you’re not adverse to winning. It’s human nature, we all like winning in something or another, it isn’t your fault, if you want to blame someone, blame nature. However, this competitive instinct is the result of evolution, the idea that we need to be faster than the next guy to catch our food was relevant perhaps two thousand years ago but not now, now, we work in communities. And finally, after my irrelevant rambling, we begin to make sense.

Winning is not relevant in role-play.

It can be, if you find it entertaining or if you get a rush from the excitement of you and another role-player going head-to-head, you may not have to read this guide but it would be a good help if you did. There are a lot of pluses from losing that one does not necessarily gain from winning, while the victor in a war RP gets the “material” gain, the loser gets the RP gain.

1.) Losing Earns Respect


People will take note of you if you actually lose once in a while, it takes guts to lose, far more guts than it takes to win. It shows you're above your ego and it shows to other people that if they RP with you, they won’t have to worry about you going apeshit and owning them in a bloody display of wankage.

People will actually want to RP with you because they know you aren’t so caught up in winning, that you are actually quite fun and easy to role-play with.

I know this from experience.

I simply will not RP with nations that put competitive instinct before good writing and role-play, if you can combine the three, then that’s great but for me, only the latter two actually mean anything. I’m quite sure others will share my opinion on this point as well.

2.) The Possibilities of Losing


When you lose a war (in this case an invasion), you can do a whole lot of things with your nation. You could change regime if you’d like, you could role-play as a protectorate of the nation that conquered you, you could role-play a resistance. You could role-play a whole manner of things. However, the role-play that you want to do, is your choice, not the invader. It’s your choice if you want to role-play a resistance, it’s your choice if you want to change regime, it’s your choice if you want to become a puppet of the invader.

No, it isn’t the invaders right to dictate what goes on in your country, while you have a de facto obligation to have a puppet government, you could easily have it as corrupt and pro-rebellion. What goes down in your nation is just that, it’s your nation, your choice!

So, you have all this potential RP and guess who gets to pull the strings and make things happen: you. Not the invader, it’s the loser that gets to pick what happens next.

3.) No one or Thing is Perfect; Embrace Imperfection


Flaws are what define, make and break characters and even nations, a poor, unstable country with a communist dictatorship running the show via fists of AK armed troopers marching the streets, occasionally putting down the rebels in the jungle is far more interesting to read about than a generic rich nation with no flaws whatsoever.

Same goes for armies, I role-play in an offsite forum, World at War as Luxembourg and in that nation, I have an army of extremely pompous soldiers, well armed and trained but wearing bright, royal clothing. This is the twenty-first century, and yes, my army is going to get kicked in when they engage an enemy that uses camouflage and aims to get the job done, when my guys are only bothered with looking rich and important when pictures are taken of them. But who says that they aren’t a joy to role-play with?

In Nationstates, as you may be aware, I role-play Kriegorgrad as an Orwellian state, with its army made up of the Proletarian Guard, these guys, once more, are well trained but aren’t as well equipped, in fact, they’re equipped with what most nations regard as scrap metal. They are equipped with world-war-two British weaponry, the Enfield is the main weapon of choice. Once more, these lads will get their arses handed to them on a platter by whoever they go up against but who says that makes for bad RP?

The vices make up an army, they give it a flavour! When people think of the Proletarian Guard, I hope they think of emaciated troopers propped up by the lies and propaganda that the state perpetuates. When people think of the Royal Guardsmen, they think of stuck-up nobles and pampered young men rather than gritty, hard core warriors. While they are well trained, they are still the kind of characters that drink tea with pinky out.

Even characters are more interesting when flawed, one character in my Collective Oligarchy is named Mustapha Krin, he is a weedy, pale man with dark red lips who is constantly at political war with Henry (unknown surname as of yet!), who is broad featured and dark skinned. They are polar opposites, Mustapha with his quick parrot talk and Henry with his slow but well thought out speech: Mustapha gets trumped every time. While not particularly important, it’s nice to see someone lose, as you instinctively go for the underdog.

People like characters with flaws, not just some bullet-impervious uber soldier.

4.) You’re Nearly There, Now You Just Need to Lose That First Battle!


As ridiculous as it sounds, it is actually remarkably fun. I role-played a war with Hogsweat quite some time ago, it was called Blood and Mud if you can recall it. In that RP, I had ineptly equipped Proletarian Guardsmen, fuelled only by state sponsored propaganda charging over five hundred yards of muddy hell, getting gunned down in droves by Hogsweatian machine guns and having my aging Centurion battle tanks blown asunder by Israeli Merkava tanks, crewed by the well trained Hogsweatians. I got trumped, when eventually my men got into close quarter combat, things faired little better, my grimy destitute soldiers were mowed down by efficient Hogsweatian trench emplacements and kill zones. My tanks were still having the hell blown out of them, off-zone support, the artillery guns has been long since disabled, napalm annihilating more than half of the guns in one fell swoop from well trained Hogsweatian aircraft. The Kriegos aircraft were blown apart but are still struggling to hold on for dear life. However, this doesn’t stop them getting plucked out of the sky by Hog’s merciless anti-aircraft fire and superior aircraft.

And just to let you know, this role-play was perhaps one of the most amusing and fun role-plays I’ve ever had the pleasure of taken part in, while I got soundly beaten, it was great fun writing about my poor men getting beaten about like there’s no tomorrow. If you don’t believe me, try it yourself, describing your men’s grizzly fates and the echo of fear that resounds for the poor soldier’s comrades is an interesting subject to write about.

People love to hear about others suffering, so why not give the public what it wants? I know, that when I read a role-play, I don’t want to hear about some person gloating in-character or out-of-character about how amazingly uber-tastic his soldiers or technology are. If you have some soldiers with flaws and vices, you have a whole myriad of potential role-play paths, whereas if you have soldiers with no flaws and the best technology money can buy, you can’t go anyway, really.


5.) Yes, It’s Come To An End


This is the part where I say goodbye and I have to leave you to ponder your own ideas on losing. I hope you gained something from this guide and enjoyed reading it as much I enjoyed writing it (which I actually did, I’m a bit hyper on tea-induced-caffeine). When offered with an opportunity to role-play a war or other conflict, think to yourself: What would happen if I lost?

In a few ways, losing is more of a victory than winning is, you have the upper hand in choosing what to do next in many cases and you are the one who can dictate what will happen. Accepting a loss, while perhaps against human nature, is a sure fire signal that we’ve evolved beyond our ancient competitive instincts and into a truly communal animal that focuses on the greater good rather than personal advancement.

I’m not saying you shouldn’t win, certain role-plays demand you win but I’m saying that feel free to lose as well, people don’t think any less of you for it, if fact, a lot of them think higher of you. If I were to have an RP with Iuthia, I’d be happy to have my arse handed to me on a platter because it would be done well and not in an intimidating offence of acronyms and SIX-156-MG2 mach 15 armour penetrating missiles.

In the future, remember: It’s good to lose.

Please note the rest of this was not written originally by Kriegorgrad

6.) A DIfferent Perspective


If you want a different perspective on what is a casualty and another in-depth analysis of What Is Losing and How To Lose, visit and click here.
Last edited by Solm on Sun Jan 31, 2010 2:33 pm, edited 8 times in total.

Retired: ns .hellodot. solm @ gmail .dot. com


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to International Incidents

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Finland SSR

Advertisement

Remove ads