Military Strengths

[Drogue]

Jack, 7 Million active duty looks fine. 7% total GDP, when you only have 16% tax seems very very high to me. The US's main aim is also defence, has a higher tax rate and does not, IIRC, give over 40% of it's budget to defence. 5 of tax revenue is a better measure than % of total GDP.

Also Jack, Akiria has a higher defence spending per capita than you have, indeed, than anyone but the Hive has, and Akiria's is ~$1450 US per capita. At 7% yours would be over $2000, which is impossible, as the UN says that mine is higher. Maybe go for 15% of tax, but any higher would be unfeasable. Some others have 7% of GDP, because they have higher tax rates. SOme have 7% of GDP because there's is unrealistic. But 7% for Jackson would put it higher than Akiria's, when it is lover according to the UN.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by elijah
Too reasonable!! jk

You can afford more kit if you wish it, alternatively more people in army, or a bit of both. Not that one is obligated to have a military that is at its theoretical maximum for that nation.

I just make the great assumption that we put the extra $ into equipment R&D and personnel training

[Urban Ranger]

Drogue and Jack,

As I demonstrated in this thread, something is really buggy about the NationStates program in terms of economy:

The Rogue Nation of Gorgeous Specimens is very similar to The Dominion of Noosland, except that it has a higher tax rate. Strangely, the former has a "Strong" economy while that latter is "Imploded."

Either his economy is one or two steps below mine, or mine is one or two above his.

[Giovanni Wine]

Originally posted by Drogue
This formula will give defence budget:
GDP per capita*population*tax rate/100*defence % allocation/100=total defence budget

GDP per capita - based on economy rating, sector sizes and UN Reports. $35,000 being huge (higher than US IIRC) $25,000 being ok (about Spain or Greece IIRC) $15,000 being a poor country (about Eastern Europe IIRC). Just rough figures obviously.

I posted some better figures some time ago in this thread:

Here they are... also I've placed Frightening above All-Consuming, but I'm not sure which one is better.

Frightening (40,000$ - more GDP; i.e. Luxemburg 44,000$)
All Consuming (35,000$-39,999$; i.e. USA 36,600$)
Powerhouse (30,000$-34,999$; i.e. Switzerland 31,700$)
Thriving (25,000$-29,999$; i.e. Germany 26,600$ or Italy 25,000$ or Great Britain 25,300$ and many other EU countries)
Very Strong (20,000$-24,999$; i.e. Spain 20,700$)
Strong (16,000$-19,999$; i.e. Portugal 18,000$)
Good (12,500$-15,999$; i.e. Czech Repubblic 15,300$
Reasonable (10,000$ -12,499$; i.e. Saudi Arabia 10,300$)
Fair (8,500$-9,999$; i.e. Russia 8,800$)
Developing (7,000$-8,499$; i.e. Brazil 7,400$ or The World 7,600$)
Weak (5,500$-6,999$; i.e. Panama 5,900$)
Fragile (4,000$-5,499$; i.e. China 4,600$)
Struggling (2,500$-3,999$; i.e. Egypt 3,700$ or India 2,540$)
Imploded (1,000$-2,499$; i.e. Bangladesh 1,750$)
Basket Case (1$-999$; i.e. Mozambique 900$)

The Real Life GDP was based on the CIA World Factbook by the way.

Saluti

[Urban Ranger]

Thanks, that's very useful

[Whaleboy]

I have an all cosumming econonmy for a long time

Which is itself an ***indication*** that you have people in work and making that economy all consuming, instead of in the army.

[Drogue]

Wine: There are far more things that affect GDP per capita thann just economy. That system is far to rigid, as it does not take into account public sectors, the size of sectors, and UN Reports. For example, Alecrast has an almost as large sector for IT and many many other things (most indeed), while having about half the population. Considering we have very similar sector sizes for almost everything, and thus very similar economy sizes. That would mean that his GDP is about twice what mine is. According to Wine's thing, my GDP per capita would be about 20 times less than Alecrast, which would be inconsistant with the sizes of our industries. Therefore, although the economy measure is a good guide, not only is it flawed as UR has stated, it is also not always consistent with other UN reports. Thus you should look at the whole picture. Obviously you will never find a Basket Case economy nation having a GDP of $30,000, but $10-15,000 might be possible in extreme cases.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by elijah


Which is itself an ***indication*** that you have people in work and making that economy all consuming, instead of in the army.

I already said half of my army is in reserves, thus they have jobs that they work at while being in reserves. Only half of my army is active duty.

[GeneralTacticus]

I posted some better figures some time ago in this thread:

Here they are... also I've placed Frightening above All-Consuming, but I'm not sure which one is better.

Frightening (40,000$ - more GDP; i.e. Luxemburg 44,000$)
All Consuming (35,000$-39,999$; i.e. USA 36,600$)
Powerhouse (30,000$-34,999$; i.e. Switzerland 31,700$)
Thriving (25,000$-29,999$; i.e. Germany 26,600$ or Italy 25,000$ or Great Britain 25,300$ and many other EU countries)
Very Strong (20,000$-24,999$; i.e. Spain 20,700$)
Strong (16,000$-19,999$; i.e. Portugal 18,000$)
Good (12,500$-15,999$; i.e. Czech Repubblic 15,300$
Reasonable (10,000$ -12,499$; i.e. Saudi Arabia 10,300$)
Fair (8,500$-9,999$; i.e. Russia 8,800$)
Developing (7,000$-8,499$; i.e. Brazil 7,400$ or The World 7,600$)
Weak (5,500$-6,999$; i.e. Panama 5,900$)
Fragile (4,000$-5,499$; i.e. China 4,600$)
Struggling (2,500$-3,999$; i.e. Egypt 3,700$ or India 2,540$)
Imploded (1,000$-2,499$; i.e. Bangladesh 1,750$)
Basket Case (1$-999$; i.e. Mozambique 900$)

The Real Life GDP was based on the CIA World Factbook by the way.

Saluti

Just a minor note: Imploded is worse than Basket-Case.

[Archaic]

And just to confirm, Frightening is above All Consuming, just like you thought Wine.

[Giovanni Wine]

Originally posted by Drogue
Wine: There are far more things that affect GDP per capita thann just economy. That system is far to rigid, as it does not take into account public sectors, the size of sectors, and UN Reports.

Well, that's more of a weakness in the NS Systems rather than in my list

Saluti

[Whaleboy]

Perhaps we should start a thread on the accepted failings of NS that we can RP around, like I said before, we shouldnt slavishly stick to a flawed economic model, for no real reason, especially when it would make a better game if we were somewhat more flexible.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Giovanni Wine
Well, that's more of a weakness in the NS Systems rather than in my list

Partly, but what I meant is that the economy rating is not a GDP measure. NS never claimed it was. Therefore for GDP, you have to look at other things, such as size of sectors, apparent money for investment and other things, UN Reports etc.

I don't think we need to RP round anything, simply take it all a little liberally. Remember we are playing NS, and so abide by those rules. You don't play civ but change the rules because it's more realistic. If we ignore NS, then this ceases to be NS. Accept what it says liberally, but accept what it says.

[Whaleboy]

What I mean is that NS gives us certain figures for our nation, with which we build up a nation in RP.

Some of those figures may and can be inconsistent with each other, so we could be liberal in which of these figures we take, and how we take them, for example, hypothetically, if it gives us the tax rate of 28%, we could take that to mean perhaps 25%-30%, or something along those lines, that example may be too much.

Perhaps, if we are given by NS a range of figures or information, and something is inconsistent, we replace it with something that is consistent.

Just a thought, but certainly, we should be loose and liberal (thats the way ) with NS.

[Urban Ranger]

Okay, sounds good. What is the "economy rating" though if it doesn't bear any semblence to GDP per capita?