Exhuming a Discussion on Military Numbers and Roleplay

[Mr. President]

It may not be logical, but do you want someone to come at you with his 100,000,000 shock troopers?

[Urban Ranger]

Maintaining a large force is not the same as the ability to field them abroad. Logistics limitations have always been a bottle neck.

[Rasputin]

the whole reason that rather thanjust population figures being taken into aco**** but also the Economy rating of your nation and your industrys is to show how you can or cant support a large army in the field.

As to newbies joining who cant role play a war, well i agree they shouldnt be able t orole paly a war. if they are fearful of being swallowed by a larger neighbour then they need to ally with a larger nation.

For those that want an example of Real life here is the USA..

[Rasputin]

as you can see the USA actually comesclose to their reported 1.5 million forces...

and heres australia

[joncha]

That looks about right for the US.

How about some other nations (weak and strong, small and large)?

[Urban Ranger]

The US does not have a Freightning economy as per some of the old threads. It's big, but GDP per capita isn't that high. There are countries higher.

[Rasputin]

.

[Rasputin]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The US does not have a Freightning economy as per some of the old threads. It's big, but GDP per capita isn't that high. There are countries higher.

if i downgrade the calculator to make the USa less than frightening then al lnations here witha frightening econmy will have even larger armies.. i can do that if you want though. but i would rather not ...

[xiaodave]

Originally posted by DarkCloud


well, sadly, that's how it is in real life.

the small nations just can't compete.

however, if you militarize yourselves, then you might be able to

and if the point-buy system is enabled and tanks, airplanes, etc. are broken down- then nations can specialize

Play with the calculator for a bit, specialization will be meaningless. A new nations entire army can be crushed underfoot quite easily. I agree that that is how it is in real life. Luxembourg is no match for the United States of the world.

But my arguement here is that a player interested in participating in the military threads is not going to enjoy playing Luxembourg. When you design a system like this and stress realism over inclusiveness what you end up with is a system that only allows established players to enjoy the game.

Im not particularily a military player neccisarily, but I can tell by looking at the posts that a majority of players are. And what I am saying is that this calculator, as its currently working will not accomplish what you want it to from a game design standpoint. All its going to do is exclude alot of players from the game. I mentioned FCL last time, put them through the calculator, they end up with 60% of the troops that I have and I, though I may be Luxembourg no longer, Im certainly not as lofty as say Belgium.

You need to abstract population instead of multiplying directly. Do something like this:

NS Population Military Modifier
5-100 Mil 1
101-500 Mil 2
501m-1Bil 3
1.001-1.5Bil 4
1.501-2Bil 5
2.001-3Bil 6
3.001Bil+ 7

And do the same with economy. Put it on a 1-5 scale. Add bonus points for industries that apply, Arms, Auto, IT, Uranium, etc. Add bonus points for space program etc, etc.

By all means the established countries should have the biggest militaries, but give everyone a chance to play.

[GeneralTacticus]

The US does not have a Freightning economy as per some of the old threads. It's big, but GDP per capita isn't that high. There are countries higher.

Yes, but not many, and most of them tend to be like Luxembourg.

Regarding the issue of new players being excluded from military threads: the solution to that is fairly simple - 'newbies' who want to get ivnovled need to be inventive. They can't beat an older nation in a stand-up fight, so they need to use diplomacy, guerilla warfare, and so on discourage big nations from attacking, or beat them when they do (if you have every othe rmajor power in the region on your side to beat off an invader, the fact that your own army consists of a platoon of men with pointy sticks who are only duty on Wednesday afternoons becomes rather irrelevant).

[xiaodave]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus


Yes, but not many, and most of them tend to be like Luxembourg.

Regarding the issue of new players being excluded from military threads: the solution to that is fairly simple - 'newbies' who want to get ivnovled need to be inventive. They can't beat an older nation in a stand-up fight, so they need to use diplomacy, guerilla warfare, and so on discourage big nations from attacking, or beat them when they do (if you have every othe rmajor power in the region on your side to beat off an invader, the fact that your own army consists of a platoon of men with pointy sticks who are only duty on Wednesday afternoons becomes rather irrelevant).

Well said, it is possible to roleplay a way to defend your nation no matter what size it is. But, that isnt really my point here.

Take the current Azan rp as an example. A new country cannot play in any realistic manner. Thier entire military could be steamrolled by some of the little units on the board. Additionally the rp as it stands is FCL vs the world. Ming Tran could defeat FCL as this calculator stands. The ten nations opposing it now should not need more than an hour and a half realistically to win the conflict.

My point is that few players will want to play the army with the pointy sticks and given the population progression in NS, they will always be the chaps with the pointy sticks cause even as they gain population, the big boys are gaining more.

A new country will have somewhere on the order of 4000 troops it can deploy if it brings half its military. The other players on the board will combine to field 3-5 million bringing less than 20% of thiers. My point is that that is no fun for the new player, and the new player is not likely to stick around the year or so it will take them to become a middling power so they can actually rp military conflict.

A 10-1 difference between the large countries and the small would give everyone some role to play. 1000-1 difference means only a handful (less than half of those currently playing I might add) will be viable military entities. All of the rest of the players will be reduced to begging someone else to fight for them.

[Guardian]

Originally posted by xiaodave

My point is that few players will want to play the army with the pointy sticks and given the population progression in NS, they will always be the chaps with the pointy sticks cause even as they gain population, the big boys are gaining more.

Well, this is not entirely accurate.

Guardinia's population is more than 3 times larger than Boondi's, yet according to the calculator, Boondi still has a larger military. (About 150% the size of Guardinia's.)

[GeneralTacticus]

Take the current Azan rp as an example. A new country cannot play in any realistic manner. Thier entire military could be steamrolled by some of the little units on the board. Additionally the rp as it stands is FCL vs the world. Ming Tran could defeat FCL as this calculator stands. The ten nations opposing it now should not need more than an hour and a half realistically to win the conflict.

That's true to an extent, but the main advantage FCL holds is simple: they can, if they choose, make their defeat an incredibly bloody one, which no realistically played democracy is going to accept. FCL can't win the war militarily, but they can get a more favourable peace deal by other means... which is as it should be.

[Mr. President]

To be quite honest, I never thought of that.

I always figured that Israel beat armies ten times the size of its in 1948 and 1967; Finland, population 3 million, held off the USSR, population ~150 million, for years on end; Indonesia's army is garbage while Australia's army is considerably better.

Granted, the population disparities are much greater in NationStates. But I think similar things could apply in the NationStates world - but only if (even some of) the larger powers are willing to accept that sometimes a small country will have a better technological base, or better training, or another advantage, compared to them.

[xiaodave]

Originally posted by Mr. President
To be quite honest, I never thought of that.

I always figured that Israel beat armies ten times the size of its in 1948 and 1967; Finland, population 3 million, held off the USSR, population ~150 million, for years on end; Indonesia's army is garbage while Australia's army is considerably better.

Granted, the population disparities are much greater in NationStates. But I think similar things could apply in the NationStates world - but only if (even some of) the larger powers are willing to accept that sometimes a small country will have a better technological base, or better training, or another advantage, compared to them.

Isreal had American equipment and training. Modern well maintained units. The militaries they fought were very much incomprable. Ming Tran vs FCL using the calculator would be a good example of this kind of fight. I have an eighth of the population but my economy is so much stronger that I end up with a striking military advantage.

A 3 billion country with a strong economy against Finland? It would be Agincourt, only this time the English wouldnt have bows.