Guide to Overlooked Aspects of Warfare

[Abruzi]

AMF,

I like your guide but something I'd like to mention about morale, you should add a little bit about your culture. If you look at World War Two, the German Forces in 1945 fought on largely because of their patriotism and love of country. You could say this is propaganda but I like to think that this is simply the German Spirit.

The same thing with the Russians, in 1941-2 when the chips were down, Uncle Jo used the concept of War for Holy Mother Russia and boom suddenly the Red Army had new life (largely because of Russian Nationalism (I like to think their natural Nationalism).

I could mention Japan but all I will say is that, well, we all know of Japan.

Rambling and horribly generalized examples aside, what I'm trying to say is that if you are a nation such as myself or Kraven where warfare is the be all end all, your soldiers will reflect it. If you are a liberal democracy then your boys will be quicker to value life. There are of course negatives to being a nation that delights in grinding down human nature and turning the masses into little more than mindless drones for example, I can never, ever, ever, EVER, use Human Rights as a Caucus Belli or join a White Knight Alliance.

That said, I understand it's more of a pocket guide and it fills that role perfectly.

Well done.

[Salzland]

AMF,

I like your guide but something I'd like to mention about morale, you should add a little bit about your culture. If you look at World War Two, the German Forces in 1945 fought on largely because of their patriotism and love of country. You could say this is propaganda but I like to think that this is simply the German Spirit.

The same thing with the Russians, in 1941-2 when the chips were down, Uncle Jo used the concept of War for Holy Mother Russia and boom suddenly the Red Army had new life (largely because of Russian Nationalism (I like to think their natural Nationalism).

I could mention Japan but all I will say is that, well, we all know of Japan.

Rambling and horribly generalized examples aside, what I'm trying to say is that if you are a nation such as myself or Kraven where warfare is the be all end all, your soldiers will reflect it. If you are a liberal democracy then your boys will be quicker to value life. There are of course negatives to being a nation that delights in grinding down human nature and turning the masses into little more than mindless drones for example, I can never, ever, ever, EVER, use Human Rights as a Caucus Belli or join a White Knight Alliance.

That said, I understand it's more of a pocket guide and it fills that role perfectly.

Well done.

OOC: Frankly, Abruzi, I would strongly contest your argument that one must have an "anti-democratic" culture in order to maintain a "be all end all" military. For lack of a better example you might as well state that unless someone has ice skates they cannot drink whiskey. In other words, you have taken two concepts (anti-democratic culture and military superiority) that have no real relation to each other, and mashed them together in order to try and make the point that free states are inherently inferior with regard to military capacity.

Your first example is the defensive campaign maintained by the German Army against the Soviets during 1943-1945. Of course the German Army fought on for "Patriotism" and "Love of country," because they were locked in a brutal campaign that saw both sides committing hideous atrocities, and the Germans wanted to ensure that their homelands were not subjected to the same brutalities that they inflicted on the Soviets. But there were certainly many other factors beyond sheer patriotism that kept the German Army in the field for two years against the Soviet counter-offensive. First, the (plausible) hope that previous defeats could be reversed (such as the defeat at Stalingrad leading to the new offensive at Kursk) and that the war could still be won. Second, the desire to survive. When one's military conducts mass executions of enemy prisoners and civilians, one is motivated to fight far harder when the shoe is on the other foot and retribution is at hand. Third, as mentioned previously, the desire to ensure that the widespread rape and slaughter perpetrated by the German Army was not repeated against German civilians. Fourth, to buy time so that the German officer corps (and especially its High Command) could surrender to the Western Allies and avoid the summary executions that awaited them in the East.

Your second example, the Russian resistance from 1941-1943, falls into the exact same category. Certainly "patriotism" played a part in rallying the troops, but absolutely nothing in your argument indicates that patriotism is the exclusive province of anti-democratic states. At any rate, numerous other factors played a part in the Soviets rallying and ultimately defeating the Germans. For example, Stalin learning his lesson from the 1939-1940 "Winter War" (another fine example of the "superiority" of anti-democratic military forces) and halting the executions of his generals and officer corps, the Russians receiving massive logistics support from the Western Allies at the same time German logistics points were being struck daily by Allied bombing campaigns, Adolf Hitler's decision to assume direct control over strategic planning on the Eastern Front (as exemplified by the brilliant strategic decision to divert forces from the drive on Moscow and toward Stalingrad), the desire to not be subjected to the widespread butchery practiced by the German Army, the opening of the Italian and French fronts and the development of Russian military equipment capable of standing up to their German counterparts (most notably the introduction of the T-34 main battle tank) all played a role in the Soviets' victory. And, of course, the greatest military advantage that Russia has ever wielded against its opponents, General Winter.

Your third example, Imperial Japan, also fails to pass muster. Yes, it is true that the Japanese fought fanatically in their campaigns. But the American, British, French and Chinese forces (among others) that opposed them did so with equal, if not greater tenacity throughout the entire war. The only clear difference between the two sides was the prevalence of suicide attacks conducted by the Japanese. As we are all aware, those tactics profoundly altered the outcome of World War Two.

On the other hand, history is stuffed full to the brim with examples of nations, especially free states, fighting campaigns against otherwise-massive odds and being highly successful. Thermopalye, Marathon, the campaigns of the American South from 1861-65 (most notably the Manassas Junction, Fredricksburg, Chancellorsville, Blue Ridge, Wilderness and Petersburg campaigns), the success of the British Army in its campaigns worldwide (specifically from the late 17th through 20th centuries), the Israelis in 1948, 1967 and 1973 (If I'm recalling correctly, I may be slightly off on those dates), etcetera. All of these are examples of free states fighting with the same "Patriotism" and "Love of country" that you cited as being critical, and all are examples of (comparatively) highly successful military campaigns.

History is also stuffed full to the brim with examples of free states taking on, and utterly demolishing anti-democratic opponents. Once again I cite to the military histories of the Israelis, the British, the United States, the French (I know), the ancient Greeks and the Republic-era Romans among many others. All of these fly in the face of your basic premise that (paraphrased) democracies suck in times of war.

In my humble opinion, there are three major factors that go into determing the overall quality of a military. The level of training that is provided to its soldiers, the quality of the equipment that the relevant military is able to field, and the ability of the nation to equip and supply its soldiers in the field. Or, in other words, training, equipment and logistics. I will conceede that societal composition can play a role on the homefront (because democratic societies will allow protests and condemnations of the war effort, while anti-democratic societies will simply execute or jail dissidents), though that does not extend to the warzone nearly as much as you are contending, and your theory completely disregards any of the alternate societal problems that are traditionally found in anti-democratic societies (such as civil unrest, guerilla movements, widespread economic problems caused by the necessity of supporting gargantuan militaries and the paramilitary/domestic security forces necessary to keep the civilians in line, etcetera).

If the biggest drawbacks that you can come up with for an anti-democratic state are being unable to raise "Human Rights" as a justification for war, and being prohibited from joining certain alliances, then (with absolutely no offense intended to you) I would humbly submit that you do not really understand how anti-democratic societies work. There is no inherent advantage to the quality of a military force, or any inherent disadvantage, provided by the choice of society of the host nation. A soldier that has been subjected to three days of non-stop artillery bombardment will be just as disheartened and demoralized regardless of whether he has been sent to the front lines by a President or by a King. A conscript that has been poorly trained, poorly supplied and poorly equipped will generally fight just as badly, regardless of whether he fights for an elected government or a hereditary ruler. Likewise, a professional soldier that is fighting in a military that is well-funded, well-equipped and well-supplied will generally fight well, regardless of the type of government he swears allegiance to.

Soldiers will also almost always fight better on the defensive than they will on the attack. Prepared defensive positions, pre-sighted artillery and the general "home field advantage" are all factors that have helped nations on the defensive. It is, after all, much easier to fight to defend one's home against a horde of genocidal invaders than it is to fight an offensive war because the national ruler was insulted at some diplomatic summit (which seems to be a popular casus belli among the broader International Incidents community).

To make a long story short, in my opinion (based on the preceeding), you are quite incorrect in your contention that one receives an automatic military advantage by building an anti-democratic society.

[Communist Estainia]

I'm actually going back to read this right now because I'm guilty of that entirely. But I figured you should know that morale is really honestly; nothing. Is it important? To an extent, but it's not the linchpin of armies, it is second or even third line to almighty all needed Discipline. Morale can completely falter, but if Discipline holds; all is well.

Thought you should know, now excuse me while I go and read what looks to be a wonderfully constructed guide.

[Automagfreek]

Rambling and horribly generalized examples aside, what I'm trying to say is that if you are a nation such as myself or Kraven where warfare is the be all end all, your soldiers will reflect it.

Nobody understands that more than myself (possibly Pantera), the very foundations of my nation are built upon blood, fire, and warfare. AMF is one of the few true warrior cults left in NS, but like I said in the first post, most people RP their soldiers as die hard fanatics who will not break regardless of the circumstance. So to me, there's little point in pressing the issue of morale too much because nobody wants to admit that their soldiers can be afraid, especially of someone else.

[Automagfreek]

I'm actually going back to read this right now because I'm guilty of that entirely. But I figured you should know that morale is really honestly; nothing. Is it important? To an extent, but it's not the linchpin of armies, it is second or even third line to almighty all needed Discipline. Morale can completely falter, but if Discipline holds; all is well.

Thought you should know, now excuse me while I go and read what looks to be a wonderfully constructed guide.

This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of warfare.

Morale is one of the most important factors when it comes to maintaining the integrity and functionality of an army, because if morale hits a low enough point, discipline begins to breaks down. If soldiers suffer enough hardship and no longer believe in the cause they are fighting for, they will simply not fight any longer. Men can have morale without discipline. Men cannot have discipline without morale.

[The Mighty Islands]

Can you make a guide to dealing with Noobs? I would make it myself but I don't think I have enough experience for me to know everything about it, or for people to listen.

[Christantle]

Can you make a guide to dealing with Noobs? I would make it myself but I don't think I have enough experience for me to know everything about it, or for people to listen.

I think Azura's handled that?
I made a guide for Blitzkrieg strategy awhile back.

[The Mighty Islands]

Can you make a guide to dealing with Noobs? I would make it myself but I don't think I have enough experience for me to know everything about it, or for people to listen.

I think Azura's handled that?
I made a guide for Blitzkrieg strategy awhile back.

May I have a link?

[Christantle]

I think Azura's handled that?
I made a guide for Blitzkrieg strategy awhile back.

May I have a link?

It was a Blitzkrig for WERTA War strategy style. WERTA no existe senor. Not anymore. I'll try to locate it.

[Milograd]

May I have a link?

It was a Blitzkrig for WERTA War strategy style. WERTA no existe senor. Not anymore. I'll try to locate it.

I wouldn't hand out anything related to WERTA as advice, that stuff was horrible. Its not a good source of advice...
If you want a strategy guide to military strategy I would point to this guide.

[Christantle]

It was a Blitzkrig for WERTA War strategy style. WERTA no existe senor. Not anymore. I'll try to locate it.

I wouldn't hand out anything related to WERTA as advice, that stuff was horrible. Its not a good source of advice...

I know, only mentioned it. I agree on your statement.

[Communist Estainia]

I'm actually going back to read this right now because I'm guilty of that entirely. But I figured you should know that morale is really honestly; nothing. Is it important? To an extent, but it's not the linchpin of armies, it is second or even third line to almighty all needed Discipline. Morale can completely falter, but if Discipline holds; all is well.

Thought you should know, now excuse me while I go and read what looks to be a wonderfully constructed guide.

This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of warfare.

Morale is one of the most important factors when it comes to maintaining the integrity and functionality of an army, because if morale hits a low enough point, discipline begins to breaks down. If soldiers suffer enough hardship and no longer believe in the cause they are fighting for, they will simply not fight any longer. Men can have morale without discipline. Men cannot have discipline without morale.

I'm afraid to say I disagree, as do the Prussians, the National Socialist Germans, the Fascist Japanese. Morale was horrible, non-existent in the latest stages of the conflict that undid the latter mentioned two; yet discipline held because it was beat into their minds to the point it became so second nature as breathing. And the first ones; were so sadistic with it, that men would rather die than break discipline or rank.

I read the guide however, and I think it's brilliant and you're correct. Very well done and I hope it helps people, I know it did a bit for me just now even.

[Mount Shavano]

...what I'm trying to say is that if you are a nation such as myself or Kraven where warfare is the be all end all, your soldiers will reflect it. If you are a liberal democracy then your boys will be quicker to value life.

In modern war, war material is far, far more important than "warrior spirit" could ever be, and free nations with free economies have far more of it. Give me "une nation de boutiquiers" over the Spartans, every time. In a rout.

[Automagfreek]

I'm afraid to say I disagree, as do the Prussians, the National Socialist Germans, the Fascist Japanese. Morale was horrible, non-existent in the latest stages of the conflict that undid the latter mentioned two; yet discipline held because it was beat into their minds to the point it became so second nature as breathing. And the first ones; were so sadistic with it, that men would rather die than break discipline or rank.

The 225,000 German soldiers who surrendered on April 18th, 1945 might beg to differ. I'm not denying that there are fanatics and true believers and will gladly fight not matter what to odds, but your common man will not if he no longer has any stake in the fighting. Do not make such generalizations that everyone under those regimes was so well disciplined that they did not break when morale and circumstance turned against them, because it happened.

[The Grand World Order]

Rambling and horribly generalized examples aside, what I'm trying to say is that if you are a nation such as myself or Kraven where warfare is the be all end all, your soldiers will reflect it.

Nobody understands that more than myself (possibly Pantera), the very foundations of my nation are built upon blood, fire, and warfare. AMF is one of the few true warrior cults left in NS, but like I said in the first post, most people RP their soldiers as die hard fanatics who will not break regardless of the circumstance. So to me, there's little point in pressing the issue of morale too much because nobody wants to admit that their soldiers can be afraid, especially of someone else.

I hate when people completely ignore morale. I mean, hell, in one of my current RPs my opponent is feeding his troops on one potato a day and they have a casualty rate of 100:1 in my favor, and they still charge while chanting Communist slogans, and somehow he claims he has the civilians of the land (which isn't his own land) on his side even if he starves the fuck out of them.

I RP my troops as professional, extremely loyal, and with great esprit de corps- but even still, I RP that they freak out on the field, especially when they take a large number of casualties. I seldom write a character-based combat post without at least one of my guys nearly shitting himself, and that's usually because my troops have a habit of getting into bad situations but usually making it through them, but obviously with heavy losses or in some cases total destruction.

My nation's culture is essentially a blend of Prussian militarism and American Cold War anti-Communism, with some even more fanatical elements (more often in the Marine Corps) and the nation's own "blue and orange" system of morality.

[The Mighty Islands]

When I do my wars, I try to keep my men as far from front-line battles for as long as possible. I try to use my navy, air force, artillery and long range forms of engagement for as long as possible. And when it comes to the front line, in the trenches, I use less soldiers that are better trained so I need less supplies to give them and have less men to keep happy. Because 50,000 men need less food than 75,000 men, and if they are better trained, then they fight just as well.

I do have a question about logistics, would it be wrong to employ private logistics like mercenaries. I know that in real war, some people refuel jets and do other jobs in the same way as mercenaries, but to a lesser extent. Could I have entire companies that that do private logistics for my military so I can send more men to the field? And just like mercenaries, I wouldn't have 100% of my logistics corps privatized, but part of it would, freeing up more men to hold a gun instead of putting bullets in the clips. And I know that this would have an effect on morale on the privatized men because they aren't really prepared for combat, so if the front lines reach them they might scatter. But is this at least possible?

[Nodsliw]

This should cut-down on unrealistic wars - congrats'.

[Abruzi]

AMF,

I like your guide but something I'd like to mention about morale, you should add a little bit about your culture. If you look at World War Two, the German Forces in 1945 fought on largely because of their patriotism and love of country. You could say this is propaganda but I like to think that this is simply the German Spirit.

The same thing with the Russians, in 1941-2 when the chips were down, Uncle Jo used the concept of War for Holy Mother Russia and boom suddenly the Red Army had new life (largely because of Russian Nationalism (I like to think their natural Nationalism).

I could mention Japan but all I will say is that, well, we all know of Japan.

Rambling and horribly generalized examples aside, what I'm trying to say is that if you are a nation such as myself or Kraven where warfare is the be all end all, your soldiers will reflect it. If you are a liberal democracy then your boys will be quicker to value life. There are of course negatives to being a nation that delights in grinding down human nature and turning the masses into little more than mindless drones for example, I can never, ever, ever, EVER, use Human Rights as a Caucus Belli or join a White Knight Alliance.

That said, I understand it's more of a pocket guide and it fills that role perfectly.

Well done.

OOC: Frankly, Abruzi, I would strongly contest your argument that one must have an "anti-democratic" culture in order to maintain a "be all end all" military. For lack of a better example you might as well state that unless someone has ice skates they cannot drink whiskey. In other words, you have taken two concepts (anti-democratic culture and military superiority) that have no real relation to each other, and mashed them together in order to try and make the point that free states are inherently inferior with regard to military capacity.

Your first example is the defensive campaign maintained by the German Army against the Soviets during 1943-1945. Of course the German Army fought on for "Patriotism" and "Love of country," because they were locked in a brutal campaign that saw both sides committing hideous atrocities, and the Germans wanted to ensure that their homelands were not subjected to the same brutalities that they inflicted on the Soviets. But there were certainly many other factors beyond sheer patriotism that kept the German Army in the field for two years against the Soviet counter-offensive. First, the (plausible) hope that previous defeats could be reversed (such as the defeat at Stalingrad leading to the new offensive at Kursk) and that the war could still be won. Second, the desire to survive. When one's military conducts mass executions of enemy prisoners and civilians, one is motivated to fight far harder when the shoe is on the other foot and retribution is at hand. Third, as mentioned previously, the desire to ensure that the widespread rape and slaughter perpetrated by the German Army was not repeated against German civilians. Fourth, to buy time so that the German officer corps (and especially its High Command) could surrender to the Western Allies and avoid the summary executions that awaited them in the East.

Your second example, the Russian resistance from 1941-1943, falls into the exact same category. Certainly "patriotism" played a part in rallying the troops, but absolutely nothing in your argument indicates that patriotism is the exclusive province of anti-democratic states. At any rate, numerous other factors played a part in the Soviets rallying and ultimately defeating the Germans. For example, Stalin learning his lesson from the 1939-1940 "Winter War" (another fine example of the "superiority" of anti-democratic military forces) and halting the executions of his generals and officer corps, the Russians receiving massive logistics support from the Western Allies at the same time German logistics points were being struck daily by Allied bombing campaigns, Adolf Hitler's decision to assume direct control over strategic planning on the Eastern Front (as exemplified by the brilliant strategic decision to divert forces from the drive on Moscow and toward Stalingrad), the desire to not be subjected to the widespread butchery practiced by the German Army, the opening of the Italian and French fronts and the development of Russian military equipment capable of standing up to their German counterparts (most notably the introduction of the T-34 main battle tank) all played a role in the Soviets' victory. And, of course, the greatest military advantage that Russia has ever wielded against its opponents, General Winter.

Your third example, Imperial Japan, also fails to pass muster. Yes, it is true that the Japanese fought fanatically in their campaigns. But the American, British, French and Chinese forces (among others) that opposed them did so with equal, if not greater tenacity throughout the entire war. The only clear difference between the two sides was the prevalence of suicide attacks conducted by the Japanese. As we are all aware, those tactics profoundly altered the outcome of World War Two.

On the other hand, history is stuffed full to the brim with examples of nations, especially free states, fighting campaigns against otherwise-massive odds and being highly successful. Thermopalye, Marathon, the campaigns of the American South from 1861-65 (most notably the Manassas Junction, Fredricksburg, Chancellorsville, Blue Ridge, Wilderness and Petersburg campaigns), the success of the British Army in its campaigns worldwide (specifically from the late 17th through 20th centuries), the Israelis in 1948, 1967 and 1973 (If I'm recalling correctly, I may be slightly off on those dates), etcetera. All of these are examples of free states fighting with the same "Patriotism" and "Love of country" that you cited as being critical, and all are examples of (comparatively) highly successful military campaigns.

History is also stuffed full to the brim with examples of free states taking on, and utterly demolishing anti-democratic opponents. Once again I cite to the military histories of the Israelis, the British, the United States, the French (I know), the ancient Greeks and the Republic-era Romans among many others. All of these fly in the face of your basic premise that (paraphrased) democracies suck in times of war.

In my humble opinion, there are three major factors that go into determing the overall quality of a military. The level of training that is provided to its soldiers, the quality of the equipment that the relevant military is able to field, and the ability of the nation to equip and supply its soldiers in the field. Or, in other words, training, equipment and logistics. I will conceede that societal composition can play a role on the homefront (because democratic societies will allow protests and condemnations of the war effort, while anti-democratic societies will simply execute or jail dissidents), though that does not extend to the warzone nearly as much as you are contending, and your theory completely disregards any of the alternate societal problems that are traditionally found in anti-democratic societies (such as civil unrest, guerilla movements, widespread economic problems caused by the necessity of supporting gargantuan militaries and the paramilitary/domestic security forces necessary to keep the civilians in line, etcetera).

If the biggest drawbacks that you can come up with for an anti-democratic state are being unable to raise "Human Rights" as a justification for war, and being prohibited from joining certain alliances, then (with absolutely no offense intended to you) I would humbly submit that you do not really understand how anti-democratic societies work. There is no inherent advantage to the quality of a military force, or any inherent disadvantage, provided by the choice of society of the host nation. A soldier that has been subjected to three days of non-stop artillery bombardment will be just as disheartened and demoralized regardless of whether he has been sent to the front lines by a President or by a King. A conscript that has been poorly trained, poorly supplied and poorly equipped will generally fight just as badly, regardless of whether he fights for an elected government or a hereditary ruler. Likewise, a professional soldier that is fighting in a military that is well-funded, well-equipped and well-supplied will generally fight well, regardless of the type of government he swears allegiance to.

Soldiers will also almost always fight better on the defensive than they will on the attack. Prepared defensive positions, pre-sighted artillery and the general "home field advantage" are all factors that have helped nations on the defensive. It is, after all, much easier to fight to defend one's home against a horde of genocidal invaders than it is to fight an offensive war because the national ruler was insulted at some diplomatic summit (which seems to be a popular casus belli among the broader International Incidents community).

To make a long story short, in my opinion (based on the preceeding), you are quite incorrect in your contention that one receives an automatic military advantage by building an anti-democratic society.

Salz, I'm not saying that an Anti-Democratic State is superior by default in a military engagement. I'm talking about (liberal democracies) valuing life more and being less willing to fight to the death when it's not necessary than the more Martially leaning states that are willing to suffer any cost for victory. As I mentioned, my examples were all the generalized/stereotypical examples commonly used when talking about hopeless situations and intended only to provide just that, vague examples of instances that everyone should know about.

My argument comes down to, if you have a warrior culture you will find that your people are more martially inclined.

I did mention my lack of democratic learnings having no drawbacks minus never using humans rights as a cacus belli that is true, but it was an attempt at humor. The repetition of ever and the whole way the bit was written I hoped came off as slightly humorous. I mean I seriously called Josef Stalin, Uncle Jo, who does that if they're not joking? Also the bit about Japan....I guess it sounds better in my head huh?

In the end I'm just arguing Martial tradition and national pride can help a Soldier accept the realities of military service better than a lack of both or either.

Also in regards to Anti-Democratic Societies and problems on the homefront/AO, I used me and Kraven as examples for a reason. Both of us reference Orwell's 1984 a lot with our nations, and I've shown in the past that those who do not submit are destroyed utterly. Information Control at home plus heavy handed Police Presence (Thought Police levels pretty much) keep things like protests and the like out of the picture. I did not at any point say all Authoritarian States are superior to Liberal Democracies nor was I meaning to imply it. (socially, I did imply it in regards to regard for life, which I stand by)


I made sure in fact to say " ...if you are a nation such as myself or Kraven where warfare is the be all end all..." right here I'm narrowing the field to states like myself and Kraven. I did assume people would know I was more than the run of the mill Single Party Totalitarian Soviet State, but it was after all a suggestion to AMF who (I hope) knows that I am the Orwellian-Dystopia that I am.


Let the AAR read that in hindsight I guess I didn't articulate my argument enough but hoped that the reader would see what I'm getting at and relied on people knowing who I was. Bottom line, Martial Tradition and pride helps.

[Mediterreania]

Nice guide.

[Lhazastan]

Rambling and horribly generalized examples aside, what I'm trying to say is that if you are a nation such as myself or Kraven where warfare is the be all end all, your soldiers will reflect it.

Nobody understands that more than myself (possibly Pantera), the very foundations of my nation are built upon blood, fire, and warfare. AMF is one of the few true warrior cults left in NS, but like I said in the first post, most people RP their soldiers as die hard fanatics who will not break regardless of the circumstance. So to me, there's little point in pressing the issue of morale too much because nobody wants to admit that their soldiers can be afraid, especially of someone else.

what I got from these two posts is this:

"it's okay when I wank because I have precedent"

nice example you're setting

[Mediterreania]

Nobody understands that more than myself (possibly Pantera), the very foundations of my nation are built upon blood, fire, and warfare. AMF is one of the few true warrior cults left in NS, but like I said in the first post, most people RP their soldiers as die hard fanatics who will not break regardless of the circumstance. So to me, there's little point in pressing the issue of morale too much because nobody wants to admit that their soldiers can be afraid, especially of someone else.

I hate when people completely ignore morale. I mean, hell, in one of my current RPs my opponent is feeding his troops on one potato a day and they have a casualty rate of 100:1 in my favor, and they still charge while chanting Communist slogans, and somehow he claims he has the civilians of the land (which isn't his own land) on his side even if he starves the fuck out of them.

I RP my troops as professional, extremely loyal, and with great esprit de corps- but even still, I RP that they freak out on the field, especially when they take a large number of casualties. I seldom write a character-based combat post without at least one of my guys nearly shitting himself, and that's usually because my troops have a habit of getting into bad situations but usually making it through them, but obviously with heavy losses or in some cases total destruction.

My nation's culture is essentially a blend of Prussian militarism and American Cold War anti-Communism, with some even more fanatical elements (more often in the Marine Corps) and the nation's own "blue and orange" system of morality.

It's quite fun to RP your troops as bumbling idiots. For example, the Black Knights Anarchist Organization.

[Automagfreek]

what I got from these two posts is this:

"it's okay when I wank because I have precedent"

nice example you're setting

I'm sorry, but where does wank come into this? ICly my nation has been around for thousands of years and has changed little culturally, with warfare being one of the pillars of my society. Explain to me how that is wanking,

[Lhazastan]

what I got from these two posts is this:

"it's okay when I wank because I have precedent"

nice example you're setting

I'm sorry, but where does wank come into this? ICly my nation has been around for thousands of years and has changed little culturally, with warfare being one of the pillars of my society. Explain to me how that is wanking,

probably the same way "genetic manipulation is our focus, so we get supersoldiers" is wanking

because anyone can claim "we're super badass soldiers all throughout history" all they want and for some reason this means "my soldiers are better than yours." because you're taking something and saying it applies to everyone with the caveat of "oh, but not to me because I made up some random shit that makes it not apply to me"

[The Grand World Order]

probably the same way "genetic manipulation is our focus, so we get supersoldiers" is wanking

Biotechnology (including genetic manipulation) is a huge GWO industry... but even we don't make supersoldiers, at least not ones that are genetically modified to be so (though we do have troops that would qualify as such given their training, which in turn means there's a dick amount of them).

[Automagfreek]

probably the same way "genetic manipulation is our focus, so we get supersoldiers" is wanking

because anyone can claim "we're super badass soldiers all throughout history" all they want and for some reason this means "my soldiers are better than yours." because you're taking something and saying it applies to everyone with the caveat of "oh, but not to me because I made up some random shit that makes it not apply to me"

So what you're saying is that the 8 real life years of NS that I've spent building the story and backstory of my nation, and participating in well over 30+ wars, counts for nothing?