Rules Proposal for Military Design

[xiaodave]

Originally posted by Rasputin
i like the idea of using conscripts as cheaper cost..

Conscripts would probably cost 1/2, reflecting thier nature as sub-professional and less well trained. Ill add them to the list.

jsut dont think adding bonus points is the right thing to do for the industrys and defence priority, it should be a multiplier as the larger your econmy and population the larger the benifit of having Arms manufacturing and defence becomes.. if you only 6 mill pop your arms bonus shouldnt be the same as a larger nation....

Two reasons this shouldnt be done: From a game balance point of view making them multipliers would break the engine. The large countries would go right back to dominating things off the chart.

From a real world prospective, if you are a bigger country you will have a bigger army and then need a bigger arms manufacturing and defense budget in order to keep it properly supplied. Hence the flat bonus. It is possible to make a seperate bonus table for nations whos army is over 100 pts and perhaps double thier bonuses, but thats as far as Id go with that.

[xiaodave]

Originally posted by Mr. President
Perhaps cost modifiers could be introduced for training and technology. For instance, a poorly-trained Army division might cost 0.5 points and an excellently-trained Army division 1.5 or 2 points.

Abselutely. This would be a personal choice of each country but by spending a little extra you should get an elite unit of that type.

[Rasputin]

as people say population is an automatic growth with Nation States , but the industrys and defence rating is linked to your choices in the issues , id like to see more wweighting put on the industrys and defence option rather than popualtion size...

[xiaodave]

Originally posted by Rasputin
as people say population is an automatic growth with Nation States , but the industrys and defence rating is linked to your choices in the issues , id like to see more wweighting put on the industrys and defence option rather than popualtion size...

What do others think. I can actually see both sides of this one. Using population as a primary modifier is obviously more inclusive as, indeed, its a pretty static increase for everyone. The industry and government priority option would basically reward one specific type of govornment over all others, but, it would seem to be a logical conclusion to thier specific set of govornmental choices.

There cant really be a third multiplier as that would invalidate the basic premise of this system. The biggest countries would suddenly be 35-1 over a similar new nation. So the only option would be to promote the bonus section to being the second multiplier.

Im leaning towards keeping population as a primary modifier just based on the fact that its more inclusive.

[Rasputin]

by maybe changing the population to a bonus addition isntead of multiplier then you get the same sort of numbers, also the smaller nations wont be so adversely affected..

multiply the defence rating by the industry type to get a number the nadd the population .

not sure what you mean by a tpye of government getting an advantage here

[xiaodave]

Originally posted by Rasputin
by maybe changing the population to a bonus addition isntead of multiplier then you get the same sort of numbers, also the smaller nations wont be so adversely affected..

multiply the defence rating by the industry type to get a number the nadd the population .

not sure what you mean by a tpye of government getting an advantage here

The goverments that bend over backward for the military and private sector. It would greatly diminish everyone else. Socialist, Democracy, liberatarian alike in favor of a more despotic political outlook.

[Rasputin]

but isnt that what nationstates is about, if we not going to bias the issues then we may as well start a whole new game..


from a quick look some democracys have defnece and good industrys too....

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Rasputin
as people say population is an automatic growth with Nation States , but the industrys and defence rating is linked to your choices in the issues , id like to see more wweighting put on the industrys and defence option rather than popualtion size...

The issues are very random, so are industrial choices.

[Urban Ranger]

Social happiness

I don't think it makes any sense that there are 3 indicators in the game but only one of them is used. In fact, it does not make any sense at all for a very restrictive country to have a very high economic rating IRL. Therefore, politicial and civil right ratings must play a part in determining the real economic situation.

The first thing to do is to assign a numerical rating. Starting from Average as 0. Each step above Average is +1, each step below average is -1. Therefore Good is +1, Very Good is +2, Excellent is +3, Superb is +4, and so on. Do this up to World Benchmark. Ratings higher than WB gives a -1, as people spend an excess amount of time doing other things.

Suppose C is the civil rights ranking and P is the political rights ranking. The total modifier T is (C+P)/2, dropping any fractions. T is number of steps to move up or down the economic rating ladder. Suppose a country has Strong economy, and Excellent in both civil and political rights. The net shift here is +3, so the real economic rating is 3 steps up from Strong.

The exception is where a country has neither political or civil rights. In this case the economy of that country will be automatically be Imploded, as massive unrests and internal strifes batter the country.

[Urban Ranger]

What really matters...

is not how big the armed forces is. It is how big an armed force in actual combat can a country maintain abroad, particularly when said force is separated from the home county by difficult terrain, such as a mountain range or an ocean.

[xiaodave]

Except alot of the strongest militaries in history have been from countries with low political and civil rights. USSR, Napoleanic France, Hitlers Germany, Japan. Countries like these would be the best bad guys in the game. It doesnt make sense to weaken thier military so potentially dramatically.

I also thought about working the other indexes into the computation somehow. But I have yet to come up with a way that makes sense.

[GeneralTacticus]

Originally posted by xiaodave


Id love to do it that way. But for fairness sake it has to be something that is verifiable. If it says IT in your nations description you should get a bonus for it, otherwise I dont think there should be one.

Well, as long as you'e patient (i.e. as long as you can wait for the UN Report to come up again), it can be verified, and just excluding it would be grossly unfair to people who run nations without private sectors.

[Rasputin]

hehehehehehehe, perosnal biases as to how their nations look at mometn are coming into this !!!

AS i stated already , ithink popualtion is overrated and a simple solution was to set a max pop to be used in calculator, as someone said the law of diminishig returns so to speak. that way smaller nations joining wont be walked over so easliy.

Doing this and then using my claculator to come up with a NUMBER of points instead of size of military would work for me. Youd enter your details into calculator then SPEND those points to create your own military.


You would also need to spend Points on supply and logistics....

[Rasputin]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus


Well, as long as you'e patient (i.e. as long as you can wait for the UN Report to come up again), it can be verified, and just excluding it would be grossly unfair to people who run nations without private sectors.

post an example of how your nations reports General with no private enterprise i havnet seen one..

but i tend to agree, certain things will have t obe taken as done. and we can keep a thread for all those type of dispalys if necessary

[GeneralTacticus]

post an example of how your nations reports General with no private enterprise i havnet seen one..

Um... what? Please try to be more coherent this time.