There's something that should definitely be noted here. Seriously.
If you're unwilling to take this point to heart, stop before posting.
If you post something in this thread, whether for critique explicitly, or just to post - you have basically submitted it for critique. If it seems... in some way or other peculiar, it will be critiqued.
Take this as it is, a critique, and not as an insult or a slight.
Further, players are encouraged to ask questions, and answer questions to the best of their ability. The adage "Better to be thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt" is apt. If you don't know what you're talking about, don't post. If you don't know, ask. Someone will tell you. Try to learn from what the more experienced players have to say, and use that knowledge to improve your understanding. As always, to the veterans, this is not an excuse to flame, troll or otherwise act in an insulting way towards posters. Finally, while some people believe there "is no such thing as a stupid question", posts which are judged by moderation to be made with the express intent to anger, upset or other wise piss off the regular posters of the thread will be treated as trolling.
Useful links to basic concepts will be added to this OP from time to time, but for now, a FAQ:
Nuclear Warfare Primer
Afraid we're waiting on this. A board member is writing such a primer, but it's not yet ready. In the meantime, have some open source information
Effects of Nuclear Weapons (Federation of American Scientists)
EMP Effects of Nuclear Weapons (Federation of American Scientists)
Effects of Nuclear Weapons (Princeton University [pdf])
That third link is a lecture given at Princeton University. It's amazingly in depth and pretty impressive.
How should I organise my force?
So, organisation. Organisation's an interesting one.
Possibly the most key point will be supporting elements. It's a very easy mistake to form up even entire divisions from simply stacking platoons into companies, into battalions, into regiments and up to divisions.
Supporting elements can range from something as basic as the headquarters of a formation, to an anti-tank unit, to an entire artillery regiment in a division and a field bakery.
To wit, here's a couple of images of a Russian Battalion, Regiment and Division from the Cold War-era. Click the images for full size.
Let's look at the Battalion (first image, right). It's made up of three companies, of three platoons each. Describing the BMP armament as a 76mm gun and the rifle as an AKM, it's clearly an old diagram. But still fine.
Note, on the right of the diagram, supporting elements. A mortar battery and an anti-tank platoon - and a series of units described as "tail". Tail, in military parlance, is primarily logistical supporting formations. The Battalion has a relatively "light" tail, of an ambulance, a technical support vehicle and five fuel and cargo trucks.
The Regiment? It features three Battalions, still with their subordinate supporting elements. But it adds even more supporting elements. A battalion of tanks. A reconnaissance company. An artillery subformation with anti-tank, field artillery and anti-air units. A "special troops" subformation of chemical defence and sappers (engineers). An expanded-size tail, with field kitchens, expanded medical section, expanded fuel and cargo section (forty vehicles in addition to the five each of a rifle battalion and those of the tank battalion)
The Division is much the same story. Several of the smaller formation, supporting arms, supporting logistics. It continues up beyond this level and further.
Here are some more Federation of American Scientists links, to American Field Manuals on organisation. The FM-100-2-3 and FM-100-60 manuals, to be precise.
https://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-3.pdf
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land ... 100-60.htm
From Akasha's #4 thread, also all marvellous points:
The Akasha Colony wrote:Frequently Asked Questions
- How big should my military be?
Before you just fire off that question in this thread, think about a few things, namely what the military's strategic role is supposed to be and how you plan to use it. A small home defense force not expected to be deployed will need fewer men and less money than a big expeditionary military or an enemy-at-the-gates Israel-like mmilitary. It seems common to compare militaries as a percentage of population, so it should be pointed out that in real-life, nations with a military population greater than 1% are exceptionally rare. In fact, out of the top six defense spenders globally, only one (Russia) has an active-duty strength greater than 0.5% of the population, and it's still well short of 1%. Of course, this is still NS, so there's a bit more latitude, but for a nation that expects to have a functioning economy, 2-3% is the limit for a standing military in peacetime. It can surge further in war time when economics are a bit more flexible, but otherwise, keep it reasonable.- Should I model my military after Israel? I hear they're badass!
They are. But unless your strategic situation is like Israel's, there's no point. And by strategic situation I mean surrounded by angry neighbors who'd like nothing better than to wipe you off the face of the planet if they could and supported by a global superpower that showers money and defense contracts to support a military beyond your means. Israel's military is geared toward a very specific type of conflict, and it is not a good model for a general-purpose expeditionary military like many prefer to have on NS.- Is [x] concept a good idea?
First, stop and ask yourself 'Has anyone thought of this before?' If the answer is yes, ask yourself why it's not common today. Why have centuries of engineers, theorists, strategists, tacticians, and politicians not considered it a good idea themselves? Has anything changed to suddenly make this idea practical when it wasn't before? Does it seem too good to be true?
Could another nation use this idea? Generally speaking, whatever one nation can develop it can be reasonably expected another nation can develop the same general concept. How effective would it be if they developed it? If it seems like something only your nation can use for some reason, there's likely something wrong with it.
Could anything go wrong? Does it pass the grin test? Put perhaps a bit more simply,
Purpelia wrote:When looking at Wikipedia for fun stuff to use look at things that were a success. Not at things that were abandoned.
Previous Threads:
Thread #1
Thread #2
Thread #3
Thread #4
