[SUBMITTED] Bigger, or better?

[Tsarus]

This issue is regarding military doctrine, whether quantity is better or quality we should do a doctrine of close, far, passive or aggressive..

EDITED 3 times

New Title: Passive, or Aggressive?

Description:
@@NAME@@ under-performed during recent military exercises with allies due to lack of standardized attacking procedure and subsequent lack of efficiency.

Choice 1:
Across the bar where you and various military leaders have decided to meet, a sniper from one of the allied militaries delineates: "Aye, so I told tha' bloody rascal, 'I could shoot ya head clean off yer shoulders blootered as I am from far 'way if ya dont believe me.’”
He belches drunkenly and continues, "Oi, @@LEADER@@, why dont we train em soldiers o' yers ta' shoot straight like I can, and give em all proper battle rifles? That way tha enemy can't hit ye, cause yer too far away!"

Outcome:
Drunk @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ soldiers have been trained to shoot the enemy's head off from far away.

Choice 2:
As @@HE@@ completely inhales @@HIS@@ dinner, General @@RANDOMNAME@@ states, rather loudly, "BAH! Nonsense, we need production! More soldiers, tanks, planes, numbers! To hell with losses if we have boatloads of reinforcements! With our numbers, nothing shall stop us!"

Outcome:
Wars with @@NAME@@ make great business for body bag companies.

Choice 3:
"Why I agree," United Federation machine gunner and gun-nut @@RANDOMNAME@@ speaks up, eating particularly large barbecue rib eye steak. "Course y'all should be more aggressive. But let's be reasonable here, you can't put yer fine soldiers' lives at stake! I suggest y'all start usin' more a gun, no need for bigger numbers, no need to risk nobody's lives. Just keep them bullets flyin', their heads duckin', and @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ boots movin'. Firepower's the way to go!"

Outcome:
Firing shots at @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ soldiers will usually result in a hundred more shots back.

Choice 4:
@@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@, a mother of an active duty soldier, says "Oh dear! My poor Billy is out there on the battlefield, and I'm so worried about him!" she weeps, as she eats from a carton of ice cream. "Please, @@LEADER@@, just let them call for help when things get too rough!"

Outcome:
Soldiers tend to do less attacking, and more calls back to base.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Pretty good!

Feels familiar though, I'm sure we've asked this question in issues before, though perhaps not with the exact phrasing of quality vs quantity. I'll search the issue base...

Ah here we are: #854 is an issue for low tech nations with armies, asking if soldiers be at a tech disadvantage is a problem, and option 2 is basically embracing quantity over quality. There's also 372, which deals with cowardly conscripts in a communist army, and 810, which notes that conscripts are less motivated and courageous than their volunteer counterparts.

I think it's fine here to ask the question of quantity vs quality again, but perhaps to do so from a specific angle, rather than in generalities. The above issue, for example, asks about equipment. You could focus in on length and intensity of training, and do so specifically within nations with a volunteer armed service. You could, for example, ask how long a recruit should be trained before being deployed to active service, and you could approach the nature and well-roundedness of their training.

[Trotterdam]

Also #157: "Training, what a load of old hooey. The only thing it teaches our soldiers is how to shine boots and fight plastic dummies. We'd be better off if we just dropped them into the fight so they could learn to shoot for themselves."

And #147: "It's not about the money - it's the manpower. Not enough people by far are signing up! All we seem to be getting nowadays are drunks and people who volunteered for a dare. The current conscription laws need to be either more strictly enforced or drastically rewritten. What I propose is a universal draft: everyone capable of pulling a trigger should become a part of the Army, Navy, or Air Force."

[Chan Island]

Building off what the others have said, you basically need to specify what you mean by just 'quantity' and 'quality'.

One way I think this could be framed is in terms of doctrine. Maybe have the military fail at some task (like, say, some terrorists in a hostage situation killed the hostages before the military could get to them or perhaps they didn't do very well in some exercises with allies).

Then you could have all of the generals going back to the drawing board arguing about what approach the future of the military lies in. Small teams of specialist super soldiers with expensive equipment or large battalions of poorer quality troops? Or just chuck all of the cash in the universe to make both approaches true?

From there you could even throw in some more unique options to get some hilarious doctrines. A "firepower kills" approach vs the current world militaries' approach of"speed kills" might have some consequences worth writing, for example.

EDIT: Also, I don't like how it states that we were arguing with the Dad, because that assumes that we the leader already had some opinion behind the scenes. Better to have the dad argue with somebody else, or better yet, have a different opening description around some distinct watershed moment like that the military did poorly in exercises.

[Tsarus]

Description:
After losing the annual competition of the best militaries in @@REGION@@, your military advisors have suggested discussion over dinner on what to change in order to win.


Choice 1:
A frazzle haired old man in a lab coat speaks up,"We need better soldiers! Energy weapons, power suits, genetic modifications and train children from a young age to be soldiers too! The enemy will never be able to stop us then." He takes a swig from a round flask containing a mysterious green substance. "Sure, we may have to erm... borrow some insignificant family's children, but it's for the greater g-..." He subsequently faints.

Outcome:
Child abduction reports are on the rise.


Choice 2:
A much more frazzle haired man by the name of Ned Kavinsky chimes in, "I've said this for years: We need to stay away from this modern technology, not embrace it! The modern world has been a detriment to humanity and the world itself. What we must do is bar any tech from the military and only use what nature has given us!"

Outcome:
Sticks and stone may break bones, but do little against mechanized infantry.


Choice 3 (without compulsary military service):
"WAAAGH!" General @@RANDOMMALENAME@@ bellows as he inhales his dinner. "More guns, more soldiers, more more more! Train them for a day for all I care, give me more! Force everyone to serve, if it means an unending supply of troops! We will be unstoppable!" He then consumes the rest of your food, and then everyone else's.

Outcome:
The military is well equipped with dirt cheap gear.
Military service is also mandatory.


Choice 4:
"Screw it, let's have both!" your eldest military advisor says. "I'm too old for this nonsense. Just throw more funding towards the military and put those two hooligans in charge. They'll sort it out. Besides, this way we know we'll win this silly competition!" He struggles out of his chair and says "Now if you excuse me, I have a retirement to get to!"

Outcome:
Small terrorist organizations are now dealt with by large battalions of super soldiers.


I'm expecting to make a few changes as I've altered it quite a bit more. Please, nitpick as much as you can.

[USS Monitor]

Can you please edit the OP with your most recent draft so people don't come in the thread and criticize things you already fixed?

[Tsarus]

Fixed.

[Baggieland]

There was a recruitment poster I saw in the 1980s for the RAF. There was a picture of one RAF jet fighter on the left, and a picture of three Soviet jet fighters on the right. The text simply said "Quality vs Quantity". Thus informing potential RAF recruits that their equipment was of a far higher quality (though probably not true these days!).

Does NAME want to pursue quality or quantity?

[Australian rePublic]

Option 3- I genuinely want to know how this idiot got the authority to enter your office and speak for such matters. Did the defence minister need comic releife?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Description:
After losing the annual competition of the best militaries in @@REGION@@, your military advisors have suggested discussion over dinner on what to change in order to win.

This set up is way too vague.

By the end of the premise, you should have raised a specific dilemma.

Also, what on earth is "the annual competition of the best militaries in @@REGION@@"? Have you ever heard of such a thing in real life? Who would judge such a thing? How could you determine a winner, short of going to war?

I'm afraid this issue has got worse from its initial draft, which was still too unfocused but at least made sense. Go in a different direction, as I suggested in my last post. Find a specific dilemma that asks a question about quantity vs quality, and go from there.

[Tsarus]

Description:
After losing the annual competition of the best militaries in @@REGION@@, your military advisors have suggested discussion over dinner on what to change in order to win.

This set up is way too vague.

By the end of the premise, you should have raised a specific dilemma.

Also, what on earth is "the annual competition of the best militaries in @@REGION@@"? Have you ever heard of such a thing in real life? Who would judge such a thing? How could you determine a winner, short of going to war?

I'm afraid this issue has got worse from its initial draft, which was still too unfocused but at least made sense. Go in a different direction, as I suggested in my last post. Find a specific dilemma that asks a question about quantity vs quality, and go from there.

I'll figure something out, I suppose the description matters least to me so thats why its been sucking a bit.
I have one idea, though. But I need to figure out how to make it fit with many different militaries a nation might have.

The idea is that you keep losing battles with your too-balanced military against militaries that are rather niche for their environment and enemy.
Such as bringing an assault rifle to a sniper battle, or to CQB against others with shotguns or SMG's.

Also, please let me know of anything else you think I should fix or change.

[Tsarus]

Just edited the description and made a few changes.

[Fontenais]

Description:
From facing unstoppable humanoid cyborgs, to lacking the equipment to deal with crowd control, the @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ military has met defeat after defeat against niche armies. You have called for a discussion over dinner to decide on what should be done, and have invited those who wish to share their ideas.

I'm not sure about the description. Possible breach of player autonomy to mention how nation was repeatedly defeated in war (when leader didn't get the option to decide to go to war in the first place)? Maybe the description could be something as simple as some senior people in the defence force are arguing over how to distribute the defence force budget?

[Tsarus]

Description:
From facing unstoppable humanoid cyborgs, to lacking the equipment to deal with crowd control, the @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ military has met defeat after defeat against niche armies. You have called for a discussion over dinner to decide on what should be done, and have invited those who wish to share their ideas.

I'm not sure about the description. Possible breach of player autonomy to mention how nation was repeatedly defeated in war (when leader didn't get the option to decide to go to war in the first place)? Maybe the description could be something as simple as some senior people in the defence force are arguing over how to distribute the defence force budget?

I agree I was worried about ‘player autonomy’, which is what I think i tried describing in an earlier post. Too lazy to check :I

Despite this I think I have encountered a few issues which breach autonomy, plus the senior editor guy (i forgot his name, again too lazy to check rn :I) suggested doing it this way, kind of.

The idea of this description is to give us a problem with having an army set on compromises. Yknow, some armies may use smgs/shotties or battle rifles while another army may use an assault rifle so that they dont have to change equipment often.
However this army finds they are outmaneuvered by the SMG guys in CBQ and outranged by the Battle Rifle guys in long range.

[USS Monitor]

We already have an issue where your underlings are asking how to distribute the defense budget, so don't use that suggestion.

However, Fontenais is right that the set-up is not quite right. It's still a bit unfocused and questionable on player autonomy.

You can call "the senior editor guy" Candle or CWA if you don't feel like remembering and typing out the name Candlewhisper Archive.

[Tsarus]

We already have an issue where your underlings are asking how to distribute the defense budget, so don't use that suggestion.

However, Fontenais is right that the set-up is not quite right. It's still a bit unfocused and questionable on player autonomy.

You can call "the senior editor guy" Candle or CWA if you don't feel like remembering and typing out the name Candlewhisper Archive.

Honest to God, i didnt remember his name. I come to understand that it would be taken as a bit disrespectful. My sincerest apologies for that, i struggle empathizing with others.

With that out of the way, damn I’m getting a little frustrated with this description, lol.
Should I add more detail to it? Like how adaptive militaries arent as effective or what.

Also, that first point. It was less on budget and more on doctrine. Should we use soviet doctrine or western doctrine essentially. Or, this is admittedly a budget thing, should we heighten spending so we could have the best of both worlds. Or cut back on it and use muskets or whatever.

[USS Monitor]

We already have an issue where your underlings are asking how to distribute the defense budget, so don't use that suggestion.

However, Fontenais is right that the set-up is not quite right. It's still a bit unfocused and questionable on player autonomy.

You can call "the senior editor guy" Candle or CWA if you don't feel like remembering and typing out the name Candlewhisper Archive.

Honest to God, i didnt remember his name. I come to understand that it would be taken as a bit disrespectful. My apologies for that, i struggle empathizing with others.

With that out of the way, damn I’m getting a little frustrated with this description, lol.
Should I add more detail to it? Like how adaptive militaries arent as effective or what.

Also, that first point. It was less on budget and more on doctrine. Should we use soviet doctrine or western doctrine essentially. Or, this is admittedly a budget thing, should we heighten spending so we could have the best of both worlds. Or cut back on it and use muskets or whatever.

Fontenais suggested the budget thing as an alternate premise, and I was saying you shouldn't go that route because it will run into overlap.

Stick with quality vs. quantity in some form. Like maybe you could have a bunch of broken down tanks blocking a highway after a military exercise and someone suggests getting better equipment so your tanks don't break down as much. Or if you want to come at it from the other side, you could have some military official complaining that recruits are spending longer in bootcamp than they are in active duty. Or "OMG! East Lebatuck just released new tank production figures and they make 10x more tanks than @@NAME@@! Does it really matter if our tanks are better than theirs when they are producing 10x as many?"

[Artsotska]

I must say, I'm impressed. But I want to point out that Option 4 is too vague. I suggest that your old military guy who wants a retirement to provide more details. I also suggest the outcome for option 3 be given some more or better vocabulary. It's only a suggestion though. Instead of "dirt cheap gear", it should be "dirt cheap military equitment" or something like that.

You did well tbh. I honestly suck at a lot of stuff on NS, specifically WA resolutions (which is why I left the WA).

[Tsarus]

I’m thinking of scrapping the original idea for quality or quantity and instead going for something more doctrine based.

Currently I have no decent title. Suggestions are more than welcome.

Here is the general idea.

Precision
British Sniper?
Long range, outrange enemy
Well placed shots
Like british in ww2

Overwhelming numbers (like WAAGH guy)
Ork dude wh40k reference if possible
Lotta soldiers, probably dangerous job
Conscription
Smgs; shorter range
Like Soviets in ww2

Firepower
Guns blazin’
Suggested by machine gunner
Suppress enemy and advance
Like Germans in ww2

Safety
Worried veteran’s mom
Tanks and armor
Cautionary approach
Relatively like modern militaries, rely on air support more often

[USS Monitor]

I’m thinking of scrapping the original idea for quality or quantity and instead going for something a little more doctrine based.

Currently I have no decent title. Suggestions are more than welcome.

Here is the general idea.

Precision
British Sniper?
Long range, outrange the enemy
Well placed shots
Like the british in ww2

Overwhelming numbers (like the WAAGH guy)
Ork dude wh40k reference if possible
Lotta soldiers
Conscription
Smgs
Like the Soviets in ww2

Firepower
Guns blazin’
Suggested by machine gunner
Suppress the enemy and advance
Like the Germans in ww2

Safety
Worried veteran’s mom
Tanks and armor
Cautionary approach
Relatively like modern militaries, rely on air support more often

Those options are OK, but you still need an overarching narrative to explain why people are suggesting them to @@LEADER@@.

[Trotterdam]

Like british in ww2
Like Soviets in ww2
Like Germans in ww2
Relatively like modern militaries, rely on air support more often

Three 80-year-old doctrines and a modern one? Gee, I wonder what people will choose.

[Tsarus]

Like british in ww2
Like Soviets in ww2
Like Germans in ww2
Relatively like modern militaries, rely on air support more often

Three 80-year-old doctrines and a modern one? Gee, I wonder what people will choose.

Consider the fact that this is nationstates and you could be an evil autocracy or a complete anarchy. It really doesnt matter as long as its interesting.

I doubt everyone would pick the safe approach anyway.
Those who are autocratic and industrial may use the soviet doctrine.
Those who are tough and powerful may pick the german doctrine.
Those who like to be efficient and effective may pick the british one.

You have to understand Nationstates is basically a personality quiz.

[USS Monitor]

I think if you explain the philosophies without citing specific historical examples, not everyone will choose the same option.

What you really need is an overarching story to explain why @@LEADER@@ is considering these choices.

[Tsarus]

I think if you explain the philosophies without citing specific historical examples, not everyone will choose the same option.

What you really need is an overarching story to explain why @@LEADER@@ is considering these choices.

I wont include anything about the history. Thats just for comparison.

For description, this time I’ll add quite a bit of detail in how there currently is no proper doctrine.

If you have any ideas for the description, please suggest it. I don’t want to veer from the original doctrine based concept so I’m strapped for ideas.
And thanks for helping out too, i really do appreciate it.

[Tsarus]

Just edited description and made small changes.