NationStates Modern Tech Advice and Assistance Thread

[Allanea]

Can I have magic alongside Modern Tech?Maybe like Final Fantasy XV where a fantasy setting is shared alongside a modern setting.......

Go forth, brother. Here's Mystria, a region that does exactly this sort of thing.

[Carlist Spains]

Hello people, I guess this can be an RP question forum. If not, then I apologize. But my question is mainly about modern navy. See, I have no idea of what modern navy actually constitutes. I just recently knew that Battleships are obsolete and that the main focus is on navies. But then again, there's things like Destroyers, Cruisers, etc.

Also, I don't have any idea of helicopters or aircraft in general. Seeing as my nation is a superpower in its universe, I feel shamed for being ignorant on this matters.

I want to ask two questions here, since my google research doesn't show much on navy.

• First, What kind of ships are used today in naval warfare?
• Second, According to the stats of my factbook, which should be the "ideal" composition of my navy?
• Third, The same as my navy, but this time with the airforce.

Factbook = https://www.nationstates.net/nation=carlist_spains/detail=factbook/id=946627

I really, really would thank if anyone could help me out or lend a hand on this one!

[Oakrugia]

This is possibly the wrong forum. You could've joined the MT discord server instead to help you.

[North Yemen-]

Hello people, I guess this can be an RP question forum. If not, then I apologize. But my question is mainly about modern navy. See, I have no idea of what modern navy actually constitutes. I just recently knew that Battleships are obsolete and that the main focus is on navies. But then again, there's things like Destroyers, Cruisers, etc.

Also, I don't have any idea of helicopters or aircraft in general. Seeing as my nation is a superpower in its universe, I feel shamed for being ignorant on this matters.

I want to ask two questions here, since my google research doesn't show much on navy.

• First, What kind of ships are used today in naval warfare?
• Second, According to the stats of my factbook, which should be the "ideal" composition of my navy?
• Third, The same as my navy, but this time with the airforce.

Factbook = https://www.nationstates.net/nation=carlist_spains/detail=factbook/id=946627

I really, really would thank if anyone could help me out or lend a hand on this one!

Questers has written a very good guide on this subject.

[Carlist Spains]

Hello people, I guess this can be an RP question forum. If not, then I apologize. But my question is mainly about modern navy. See, I have no idea of what modern navy actually constitutes. I just recently knew that Battleships are obsolete and that the main focus is on navies. But then again, there's things like Destroyers, Cruisers, etc.

Also, I don't have any idea of helicopters or aircraft in general. Seeing as my nation is a superpower in its universe, I feel shamed for being ignorant on this matters.

I want to ask two questions here, since my google research doesn't show much on navy.

• First, What kind of ships are used today in naval warfare?
• Second, According to the stats of my factbook, which should be the "ideal" composition of my navy?
• Third, The same as my navy, but this time with the airforce.

Factbook = https://www.nationstates.net/nation=carlist_spains/detail=factbook/id=946627

I really, really would thank if anyone could help me out or lend a hand on this one!

Questers has written a very good guide on this subject.

This is painful to read. I just want to know about modern units (probably info found outside NS). Thanks for helping, though.

[North Yemen-]

Questers has written a very good guide on this subject.

This is painful to read. I just want to know about modern units (probably info found outside NS). Thanks for helping, though.

Painful how? It offers most of the information you need, on modern naval combat. As for finding questions to your questions in specific, you should probably take a gander to the military realism thread. Your questions are all pretty complex and don't led themselves to simple cookie cutter answers.

If that still isn't for you, feel free to TG me if you want one-on-one help. I help with all your questions over TG or discord.

[The State of Monavia]

Questers has written a very good guide on this subject.

This is painful to read. I just want to know about modern units (probably info found outside NS). Thanks for helping, though.

I can provide some basic answers to your questions, but to be brutally honest, the sort of shortcut answers you are asking for will only carry you so far before you end up having to do a bit of reading. Like it to not, roleplaying is an activity where the amount of fun you have is a product of the amount of effort you invest in making it happen. You will do yourself a good service to read the guide Questers wrote, as well as the basic guide Allanea wrote on creating a military doctrine for your NS nation.

My preliminary remarks aside, I will answer each of your preceding questions in turn. First, a modern (i.e. contemporary) navy uses the categories of ships that are best suited for its geographic position and operational objectives. The factbook you linked here did not contain any maps (just a few stats and stuff), so I looked at your other factbook that actually had maps. Since you are using maps of a historical real-life country that spanned multiple oceans, you will be operating a blue-water navy. Blue-water navies have capital ships (carriers, cruisers, and the like) that green-water and brown-water navies do not so they can project significant force cross oceans. Larger surface ships tend to have multiple escort craft (destroyers, corvettes, etc.) to protect them while submarines generally do not require escorts. Coastal patrol vessels, minesweepers, and related craft are generally reserved for defensive purposes while assault ships, landing ships, and other vessels are designed to serve offensive purposes.

Second, if you are trying to use RL geography and the like for your country, then you will want to divide your navy into a series of oceanic fleets (Pacific, Atlantic, Indian, etc.) and subdivide them into smaller units that are large enough to operate autonomously. As this article explains, fleets are usually broken into autonomous combined-arms units that are further subdivided into flotillas and squadrons. Bear in mind that the exact terminology used to describe units of various sizes is not always the same from one country to another.

Third, air forces are structured to focus on specific operational objectives and organized to account for geographical considerations. Air force organization is not one of my strong points, but on a basic level, you need to think about what sort of strategic objectives your nation is trying to achieve and what sort of threats and dangers it is likely to confront. A country that wages a lot of wars, especially away from its own soil, will need lots of long-range bombers and transport craft for moving troops into an attack zone. A country that expects to wage defensive wars (if any at all) will instead focus mainly on maintaining a large number of fighter aircraft (including a handful of interceptors for defending mission-critical fixed positions) and AWACS craft. In both offensive and defensive cases, you will need some air-superiority fighters to win dogfights against other fighter craft.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Mind you, even Quester's guide is nowhere near complete (although about as much as anyone needs to know for NS, and very useful and serviceable). After people stop being know-it-all teenagers/conspiracy theorists (and this is a general observation, which my first boss mentioned), they discover the terrifying fact that after you've scratched the surface of a subject, there's more, and more, and more, enough to get the impression it goes on forever...

(And it doesn't make it any easier that topics are built on top of other topics - the expanding knowledge of centuries. Brainwork is hard. But not doing it is harder. And boring and unproductive).

So, Monavia's reply above is an excellent series of brief answers to your questions. Or, if you'd like a bit more, wikipedia's page on naval ships has a bit more, ditto naval strategy. Then I'd go to Questors. Then we're into defence articles, then books, which I can recommend if you like...

Hope that helps!

[The Macabees]

After people stop being know-it-all teenagers/conspiracy theorists (and this is a general observation, which my first boss mentioned), they discover the terrifying fact that after you've scratched the surface of a subject, there's more, and more, and more, enough to get the impression it goes on forever...

Reminds me of this:



a.k.a. the more confident (or absolutist, as I like to say) you are of what you know, the more likely you are wrong.

[North Yemen-]

Mind you, even Quester's guide is nowhere near complete (although about as much as anyone needs to know for NS, and very useful and serviceable). After people stop being know-it-all teenagers/conspiracy theorists (and this is a general observation, which my first boss mentioned), they discover the terrifying fact that after you've scratched the surface of a subject, there's more, and more, and more, enough to get the impression it goes on forever...

(And it doesn't make it any easier that topics are built on top of other topics - the expanding knowledge of centuries. Brainwork is hard. But not doing it is harder. And boring and unproductive).

So, Monavia's reply above is an excellent series of brief answers to your questions. Or, if you'd like a bit more, wikipedia's page on naval ships has a bit more, ditto naval strategy. Then I'd go to Questors. Then we're into defence articles, then books, which I can recommend if you like...

Hope that helps!

While it is always better to learn more than less, it's ultimately down to Carlist Spain if he/she wants to learn more about naval strategy. After conversing with him/her via telegram it's evident that he/she simply does not have the time or interest at the moment. If Carlist Spain just needs help building a fleet for an immediate role-play or something of that nature - and then maintains the expectation of learning more down the line - then let's just offer the help as asked. Not defense articles or books of unknown pedigree.

For the purposes of roleplayer, Quester's guide is - as you said - probably more than enough.

[Carlist Spains]

Mind you, even Quester's guide is nowhere near complete (although about as much as anyone needs to know for NS, and very useful and serviceable). After people stop being know-it-all teenagers/conspiracy theorists (and this is a general observation, which my first boss mentioned), they discover the terrifying fact that after you've scratched the surface of a subject, there's more, and more, and more, enough to get the impression it goes on forever...

(And it doesn't make it any easier that topics are built on top of other topics - the expanding knowledge of centuries. Brainwork is hard. But not doing it is harder. And boring and unproductive).

So, Monavia's reply above is an excellent series of brief answers to your questions. Or, if you'd like a bit more, wikipedia's page on naval ships has a bit more, ditto naval strategy. Then I'd go to Questors. Then we're into defence articles, then books, which I can recommend if you like...

Hope that helps!

While it is always better to learn more than less, it's ultimately down to Carlist Spain if he/she wants to learn more about naval strategy. After conversing with him/her via telegram it's evident that he/she simply does not have the time or interest at the moment. If Carlist Spain just needs help building a fleet for an immediate role-play or something of that nature - and then maintains the expectation of learning more down the line - then let's just offer the help as asked. Not defense articles or books of unknown pedigree.

For the purposes of roleplayer, Quester's guide is - as you said - probably more than enough.

It’s mostly time, and yes, I just need help building a Fleet I can use on naval warfare. I can learn tactics later. School consumes me and I can’t pay that much attention, since I’m also working on Economy. Seeing how diversified it is, i require time to learn about everything since it’s based on an IRL nation and i can’t just take the economy out of thin air. I need to study the economy of all the territory too, that’s why I haven’t paid that much attention to military.

[Inyourfaceistan]

It’s mostly time, and yes, I just need help building a Fleet I can use on naval warfare. I can learn tactics later. School consumes me and I can’t pay that much attention, since I’m also working on Economy. Seeing how diversified it is, i require time to learn about everything since it’s based on an IRL nation and i can’t just take the economy out of thin air. I need to study the economy of all the territory too, that’s why I haven’t paid that much attention to military.

Just a reminder that bigger is rarely better. That's probably the #1 mistake/fallacy new players fall into is the belief that the age of the battleship (even """modern""" battleship abominations) is still alive and well.

A swarm of small ships carrying 10 missiles a piece can easily overwhelm a large ship carrying 100 missiles, and most modern countries bet their lot on the former rather than the latter.

[Carlist Spains]

It’s mostly time, and yes, I just need help building a Fleet I can use on naval warfare. I can learn tactics later. School consumes me and I can’t pay that much attention, since I’m also working on Economy. Seeing how diversified it is, i require time to learn about everything since it’s based on an IRL nation and i can’t just take the economy out of thin air. I need to study the economy of all the territory too, that’s why I haven’t paid that much attention to military.

Just a reminder that bigger is rarely better. That's probably the #1 mistake/fallacy new players fall into is the belief that the age of the battleship (even """modern""" battleship abominations) is still alive and well.

A swarm of small ships carrying 10 missiles a piece can easily overwhelm a large ship carrying 100 missiles, and most modern countries bet their lot on the former rather than the latter.

A big fleet of small ships tho lol jk

[Ghant]

Hello all,

Big thanks to everyone who participated in the previous topic, especially to Macabees for granting us permission to feature his thread. We had some great conversations and insights shared, which is what the MT A&A thread is all about.

For the next discussion topic, I've decided to feature something much lighter, and something that I don't think there's been much discussion on. The new MT Topic of the week is...

First vs. Third Person Pronouns

You're probably thinking "what's this got to do anything?" Allow me to explain. Whenever you're in an OOC conversation with someone about IC things, there's generally one of two ways of referring to those IC things. You guessed it, First and Third Person Pronouns. Here's an example of each, in the context of talking about my main nation, Ghant, and what it's doing:

First Person: "I'm going to declare war on this other nation. I'm going to impose sanctions. I'm going to demand concessions. I'm going to increase trade for cocoa. I'm going to send this many soldiers to this nation, and I'm going to torture these prisoners of war."

Third Person: "Ghant is going to declare war on this other nation. Ghant's going to impose sanctions. Ghant's going to demand concessions. Ghant's going to increase trade for cocoa. Ghant's going to send this many soldiers to this nation, and Ghant's going to torture these prisoners of war."

I would like to state that I almost always refer to my work in the third person, when speaking about it OOCly. One might think the distinction between these is trivial, but I consider it quite important for a few reasons. Firstly, that it has to do with OOC / IC separation. Referring to your nation in the third person creates a greater distinction between the writer and their nation, keeping their identities more separate. I don't take things that occur ICly personally, because I view my nation as a work of literature, a product of my creative mind that in no way is a personal fantasy or vicarious ego construct of mine.

There are some great insights into this issue to be found online. Here's one Roleplaying Perspective I'd like to share, regarding how the roleplayer in question views their work. Which leads me to my next observation, which is what "I, Me and You" are actually referring to in this context. My general thought is that it is referring to the nation's "government." So when someone says "I'm going to declare war" what they mean is "my nation's government is going to declare war." This produces an interesting dilemma, as it personifies artificial constructs.

Whenever I write, I almost always write from the point of view (POV) of characters, many of whom "comprise" government. This comes from my belief that all actions and decisions made by nations are those actions and decisions made by people in positions of power. Who are these people? What motivates them? What are their thoughts, feelings and goals? That's why whenever I talk about what I'm writing at any given time, I refer to things in terms of "this person is doing this, this person is doing that," and if those people compel government policy (like the Emperor or the Prime Minister), at that point I might say that "the government of Ghant is doing this" or simply "Ghant is doing this."

I understand why people use First Person Pronouns when referring to IC actions. It's quicker, simpler and most of the time easier to understand. Perhaps I'm just a bit OCD about it, but I've seen some trends that make me consider the matter carefully. In my experience, writers with poor OOC / IC separation use First Person Pronouns, and in some ways, I believe that their casual use encourages that lack of separation and can lead to problems in roleplaying (like taking things personally and refusing to take losses).

What about all of you? Do you primarily use First or Third Person pronouns when talking about your work? Have you noticed any trends like I have? I don't know about any of you, but next time someone asks me what I'm going to do about something on NS, I'll just tell them that I'm going to sit down on my couch with a tall, cool glass of sweet tea and write something

[Yohannes]

What about all of you? Do you primarily use First or Third Person pronouns when talking about your work? Have you noticed any trends like I have?

For me, um I have mainly been using first person pronouns. I would like to use first person pronouns less though and third pronouns more, because I feel that by using third person pronouns more I will be able to, um, separate OOC stuff more from IC stuff (e.g. referring to the NationStates nation 'Yohannes' from a third person perspective I believe will, um, allow me to separate myself more from my NationStates stuff; meaning I can be more clear-headed next time something bad will happen)

And I do agree with your opinion, re: writers with poor OOC / IC separation use First Person Pronouns. I have been guilty of this multiple times in the past (and probably still is, sadly), and I have noticed that when I try to look at things (relating to Yohannes the NS nation) from a third person perspective, or use third person pronouns, I tend to be more clear-headed and less subjective when dealing with other players and their NS nations. Yeah.

[Inyourfaceistan]

It depends on the context...

More often than not I just casually throw around "I" in reference to myself playing as Inyursta - the same way I would say "Man I kicked your ass real good!" after defeating my brother in a round of Street Fighter instead of saying "Man, Ryu sure kicked E. Honda's ass real good!" even though I am visibly playing as the character Ryu and not actually fighting my brother as myself.

Sometimes I will have to state loud and clear that Inyursta did something or that the Inyurstan president feels a certain role, or a certain character doesn't find a given action immoral. I find I have to do this with people who can't separate OOC and IC - usually to explain that I'm not waging some personal vendetta against them, but rather that my nation is giving strict repercussions for the actions of their nation.
The problem, however, in discussing people who can't separate OOC and IC is a whole different can of worms and a discussion for another day...

That being said, it really just depends how casual vs how serious I am being at that time, honestly.

[The State of Monavia]

It depends on the context...

More often than not I just casually throw around "I" in reference to myself playing as Inyursta - the same way I would say "Man I kicked your ass real good!" after defeating my brother in a round of Street Fighter instead of saying "Man, Ryu sure kicked E. Honda's ass real good!" even though I am visibly playing as the character Ryu and not actually fighting my brother as myself.

This statement perfectly encapsulates my own behavior in that arena. I admit that I have rarely maintained perfectly formal distinctions between OOC and IC perspectives when doing this. In fact, I have a habit of writing “I plan to have Monavia do x,” especially when writing telegrams.

What about all of you? Do you primarily use First or Third Person pronouns when talking about your work? Have you noticed any trends like I have?

For me, um I have mainly been using first person pronouns. I would like to use first person pronouns less though and third pronouns more, because I feel that by using third person pronouns more I will be able to, um, separate OOC stuff more from IC stuff (e.g. referring to the NationStates nation 'Yohannes' from a third person perspective I believe will, um, allow me to separate myself more from my NationStates stuff; meaning I can be more clear-headed next time something bad will happen)

I agree. In fact, I think it would be wise if more experiences RPers made a point of teaching newbies to follow this practice. It would spare lots of people from OOC grief they might otherwise suffer.

[The Akasha Colony]

What about all of you? Do you primarily use First or Third Person pronouns when talking about your work? Have you noticed any trends like I have? I don't know about any of you, but next time someone asks me what I'm going to do about something on NS, I'll just tell them that I'm going to sit down on my couch with a tall, cool glass of sweet tea and write something [/align][/blocktext]

I've always preferred third person pronouns, especially in totally out of character discussion threads unrelated to any particular RP, like the military discussion threads in FB&NI. I feel it's a little more professional and helps foster a clear delineation between the nation and my person views, although at times I might resort to using "My nation..." rather than the completely unassociated "Carthage" (or any other nation I might be playing).

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

I found it a great deal easier think of Ausitoria as separate when it developed to do things I thought were pushing the boundaries of absurdity. E.g., I'm still not convinced 2.5% of GDP on space is a great investment, although in fairness Ausitoria hasn't started selling the contents of the asteroid belt on GE&T yet, because I haven't had time.

So I completely agree one should try to think of one's nation as an independant entity. This means it develops realistically, without being constrained by personal bias. Of course we all have an unavoidable bias in the things we will think of for our nations and the things we are willing to put aside time to RP for our nations, and whether other people are willing to RP with us, and of course there's all the biases we put in when we started our nations, but it's a battle worth fighting.

To sum, the separation of pronouns OOC and IC is the separation of OOC bias from realistic developments.

[Ghant]

Hello all,

For this next topic, I'd like to bring up a "nuts and bolts" related subject that I've seen become a matter of debate. The new MT Topic of the week is...

IC Passage of Time

This refers to how much time "progresses naturally" between posts in a thread or within an IC RP world. I know this probably seems fairly mundane, but believe me when I say that I've witnessed alot of conversations about this to the point of contention. Here is a story that illustrates the point.

I was once affiliated with an RP Community that had a practice of, if I recall correctly, having 3 IC months pass for every OOC month, or something to that effect. What this basically meant was that in the regional news thread (which was the community's primary creative outlet at the time) the "IC date" was determined by whatever the relative OOC date was. This notion of the "IC date" and the rate at which it progressed was met with disagreement by several members of that group on the grounds that things moved too quickly and not organically. The counter to that argument was that if time didn't progress in such a manner, than things would take too long to happen.

In Greater Dienstad, a system was developed by the Macabees in order to avoid such dilemmas. In that RP community there is a general sense of a regional timeline that is based upon RP threads, with all of them being in a successive timeline with each other. As such, the present "IC date" is determined by the latest regional thread that takes place in that timeline. As I recall, the present "IC date" in Greater Dienstad is somewhere in 2028, unless it's moved further up from that based on more recent events.

Another community, Ajax, sets the present "IC date" upon whatever the current date is IRL. Which means that by default, if something is posted in the news thread, it's assumed to be taking place "today" unless otherwise stated. Personally many of my news posts (I don't tend to write them very often) are backdated in order to flesh out whatever's been going on during a particular moment in time, such as elections, political occurrences, royal happenings or hockey game results.

The present "IC date" of N&I threads is, as you can imagine, determined by the OP. In N&I threads things can get murky if there's several participants exploring multiple settings within the events of the thread, so as an OP I try to make sure people know what the date of the first post is, and when my subsequent posts take place so there's some sense of time organization. In relation to this, I'm usually fine with "non-linear progression posts," where some take place before others that had been posted previously (that's so writers don't get hamstrung if someone posts before them). A dilemma that I've seen in some competitive war threads is the notion of "racing" to get a war post up before someone else does, usually an opponent, to try to "beat them to the punch." Allowing a non-linear progression in the timeline of the thread helps to mitigate that.

My personal preference in terms of what the default "IC date" is would be to either base it upon the collective storyline from thread to thread (like in Greater Dienstad or Gholgoth), or if we are strictly talking MT, to simply have it be whatever the RL date is at present. The real danger with doing arbitrary passages of time im MT like in the first example is that after enough time passes by, what you'll have is no longer MT. The thing about Modern Technology is that once a certain point in the future is reached, you'll enter PMT territory, and then FT after that. MT won't stay static, so having an IC date of 2100 CE and calling it MT is pretty disingenuous in my opinion.

So what about you all? What are some of your experiences with IC passage of time? How are things done in your communities? Please share!

[No endorse]

I think there are two big confounding factors contributing to difficulties with time progress (at least historically): the fundamental difference between competitive and collaborative RP, and difficulties managing distance.

In a competitive RP, the end state may not be known, so being able to confine a scenario to a certain rough time period and outcome is difficult. It's hard to talk about your nation unveiling a glitzy new capitol amid much fanfare and unspeakable expense in 2024 if in 2022 you get completely pasted by a lost war and spend the next few years literally rebuilding / economic depression. I think this alone is a sufficient reason to try to rely on cooperative RP planning as much as possible; it's much easier to aim at a target than at each other. This can also result in some nice things, such as being able to reasonably lose a war without POST LOSSES level silliness AND while still having a nation afterwards to play with. Plus, I like that you can have a grizzled veteran in a 2030 thread talking about a war you haven't even written with someone that's taking place in the 2010 timeframe.

As for distance, I hope that it has mostly been managed in 2018, but ships should travel at the speed of the plot regardless of whether it takes 9 months to cross some stupidly huge region map. I think sometimes folks get bogged down there.

[Allanea]

My general rule unless state otherwise (and I don't mean to say anyone else should use it unless they want to) is like this:

1. If there's a regional map available or whatnot, my ships and airplanes travel at the IC time frame that this map mandates.

2. If there is not (such as in an interregional RP), I assume that, unless otherwise stated, the distance is broadly comparable to the distance across the Atlantic - i.e. taking a cargo ship 10-14 days to cross. This also means Allanean fighter jets cannot fly across directly, and bombers require some special arrangements to operate.

In terms of competitive RP, I typically carry out something like this, as taught to me by Crystal Spires, to allow other players a chance to respond:

1. For long-distance air movements, I typically split the events into two separate posts, one where the flight is launched or the decision is made to launch it, and one where the flight arrives, in order to allow players to react. [I deviate from this where it has already been establishede that flights are regular, or where I have the consent of the other player.

2. For long-distance naval operations, I try - obviously this doesn't always work - split the events into three posts - Decision/Departure, Travel [where I discuss events that occur while the warships are in transit], and Arrival [where they arrive and start interacting with the events.].

There are obvious situatinos where I deviate from this and I'm not saying I've always perfectly kept to these rules of thumb, but I like them.

[Layarteb]

I think there are two big confounding factors contributing to difficulties with time progress (at least historically): the fundamental difference between competitive and collaborative RP, and difficulties managing distance.

In a competitive RP, the end state may not be known, so being able to confine a scenario to a certain rough time period and outcome is difficult. It's hard to talk about your nation unveiling a glitzy new capitol amid much fanfare and unspeakable expense in 2024 if in 2022 you get completely pasted by a lost war and spend the next few years literally rebuilding / economic depression. I think this alone is a sufficient reason to try to rely on cooperative RP planning as much as possible; it's much easier to aim at a target than at each other. This can also result in some nice things, such as being able to reasonably lose a war without POST LOSSES level silliness AND while still having a nation afterwards to play with. Plus, I like that you can have a grizzled veteran in a 2030 thread talking about a war you haven't even written with someone that's taking place in the 2010 timeframe.

As for distance, I hope that it has mostly been managed in 2018, but ships should travel at the speed of the plot regardless of whether it takes 9 months to cross some stupidly huge region map. I think sometimes folks get bogged down there.

Distance is precisely why once upon a long time yonder I joined the Earth 2 RP. The distances on NS Earth were simply infeasible back then and without nuclear-powered bombers there was no way in an MT setting to RP with some states. It was a lot simpler back then as we were all "regions on the map" but the distance factor is primarily what sent me looking for a more realistic setting distance-wise.

[The State of Monavia]

Throughout my entire stay around this game, I always preferred taking an organic approach to plot progression. In this system, time moves forward at whatever pace the plot demands and I try to avoid skipping ahead until I have exhausted whatever subplot is currently ongoing. I actually find opening new subplots a bit harder than closing them, mainly because I usually have to perform some additional brainstorming to generate the requisite settings, characters, and other details.

One principle I am adamant about following is the inclusion of concrete time and location stamps on each IC scene I write. These headers exist not only for my own convenience in allowing me to keep track of where my characters etc. are at any given point in a given IC timeline, they also offer that same benefit to all of the other participants. One of my biggest pet peeves in RP writing is entering a situation where nobody puts any IC timestamps on anything so that nobody has any clue regarding where the events fit into their own canon’s timeline. The end result of such ambiguity is that everybody involved in the thread ends up picking different points at which to place the opening events of the IC thread and has trouble coordinating the development of any shared canon.

I think there are two big confounding factors contributing to difficulties with time progress (at least historically): the fundamental difference between competitive and collaborative RP, and difficulties managing distance.

In a competitive RP, the end state may not be known, so being able to confine a scenario to a certain rough time period and outcome is difficult. It's hard to talk about your nation unveiling a glitzy new capitol amid much fanfare and unspeakable expense in 2024 if in 2022 you get completely pasted by a lost war and spend the next few years literally rebuilding / economic depression. I think this alone is a sufficient reason to try to rely on cooperative RP planning as much as possible; it's much easier to aim at a target than at each other. This can also result in some nice things, such as being able to reasonably lose a war without POST LOSSES level silliness AND while still having a nation afterwards to play with. Plus, I like that you can have a grizzled veteran in a 2030 thread talking about a war you haven't even written with someone that's taking place in the 2010 timeframe.

As for distance, I hope that it has mostly been managed in 2018, but ships should travel at the speed of the plot regardless of whether it takes 9 months to cross some stupidly huge region map. I think sometimes folks get bogged down there.

Your point about continuity is pretty brilliant. My own take on it is that I do not like investing loads of effort into fashioning and developing characters that I will need later in a given timeline if there is a legitimate IC risk that they will not make it there alive. This constraint limits what I can do with somebody at the present point in whatever timeline I am using for a given RP thread and often forces me to make up other characters to throw into the thick of danger. Since making up new characters takes time and effort, thus slowing down my response time, but it also leaves me with a richer, broader canon.

When it comes to matters of distance, I love having maps handy. My general convention for handling long distances is that there are always plenty of neutral countries in the world (or at least in a given RP region) at which my national craft can make stops for various IC reasons. If you are a competent war RPer, your country will have fleets of tender ships and in-air refueling craft—not that nuclear propulsion lacks coolness by any means! I suppose I enjoy the challenge of seeing twenty-first century technology taking a month to cross an ocean as if the eighteenth century never went away. At the very least, it gives a weak country ample time to spot a hostile armada coming its way and pull off a miraculous victory by capitalizing on the inherent vulnerabilities of their opponent’s long supply lines.

My general rule unless state otherwise (and I don't mean to say anyone else should use it unless they want to) is like this:

1. If there's a regional map available or whatnot, my ships and airplanes travel at the IC time frame that this map mandates.

2. If there is not (such as in an interregional RP), I assume that, unless otherwise stated, the distance is broadly comparable to the distance across the Atlantic - i.e. taking a cargo ship 10-14 days to cross. This also means Allanean fighter jets cannot fly across directly, and bombers require some special arrangements to operate.

In terms of competitive RP, I typically carry out something like this, as taught to me by Crystal Spires, to allow other players a chance to respond:

1. For long-distance air movements, I typically split the events into two separate posts, one where the flight is launched or the decision is made to launch it, and one where the flight arrives, in order to allow players to react. [I deviate from this where it has already been establishede that flights are regular, or where I have the consent of the other player.

2. For long-distance naval operations, I try - obviously this doesn't always work - split the events into three posts - Decision/Departure, Travel [where I discuss events that occur while the warships are in transit], and Arrival [where they arrive and start interacting with the events.].

There are obvious situatinos [sic] where I deviate from this and I'm not saying I've always perfectly kept to these rules of thumb, but I like them.

If I am dealing with a regional map, I make a point of inquiring about the scale so I can calculate how long it takes to travel around and work the numbers into my IC timeline. When handling questions of interregional distances, I usually ask the host of the IC thread or a related party to inform me of any geographical conventions the region’s members have among themselves and with adjacent regions. For example, the interregional oceans separating Nova from GD has traditionally been about ~20,000 km across (at least that is what my fellow Novans used to say years back and I cannot answer for anyone around now). This is one specific question I will want to talk to Mac and Lamoni about as I have been seriously contemplating some major decisions regarding my nation account in general and my canon in particular.

While I concur with your general system for separating departures from arrivals and placing them in separate posts, I do not always follow it as there are times when it is convenient for me to consolidate them into a single post. Diplomatic conferences are one major example. I will write a scene where my characters make their decision to attend and another where they make their journey and use the two scenes as plot development tools with which to make my IC entrance.

[Inyourfaceistan]

It mostly depends on the players involved and the specific roleplay I'm in at the time. For some RP's there is a set standard of "at least two posts before arrival" or something similar; but sometimes I have been in RP's where it's more flexible, given that some players don't have the OOC time to devote to standard posting rules.

For me personally, I just assume the longest it could take any movement of ships or aircraft is the time it would take that same movement to cross half the IRL globe. I generally detest the "vast size of the NS globe" style thinking for a number of reasons, one of them being the types of players who will attempt to throw the distance as some backdoor defense (or even worse expect you to abide by such obnoxious para-realities while hand waving that they "have a fleet on every ocean").

The most complicated aspect of this question is dealing with time/distance in RP's using the IRL map but allow for other nations not using the IRL map to play...