NationStates Jolt Archive

First off this is not a rant to say that everyone must play within their stats - whether you do or not is up to you. My personal opinion is that playing within your stats actually makes roleplaying more fun because there are boundaries and limitations that give you some good material to work with and challenges to overcome. Please though - if you are going to use your stats don't cherry pick and only play some of your stats. I realize in some cases a medieval nation having an automobile manufacturing industry doesn't make sense, but replace it with carts - knights are still under Arms Manufacturing.

----

The first area I'd like to cover is the industrial and commercial rankings. Arms Manufacturing, Basket Weaving, and the Retail Sector all have one very important thing to note under their description - nothing is mentioned about the quality of said goods or the sector in general. Thus the quality is somewhat up to you, the player. Somewhat because there are three other rankings that can help to determine how good the goods and services sold are.

The first and best place to start is the Smartest (Or Dumbest) ranking. The smarter the people, the better the designers are for the goods or the services. Of course every society has it's stand outs - but remember that this is true of the nation with a ranking of 1000 on the smartest scale as well as the nation with the 110,000 ranking on the smartest scale.

Then there is the Government Corruption ranking. How corrupt are the people that pass the regulations? The inspectors of the goods? A corrupt inspector can result in a lot of poor quality or defective goods going to market. Generally the government reflects the people as well, so its reasonably to assume that corrupt suppliers and manufacturers will pawn off low quality goods as higher quality goods - perhaps keeping the good stuff for themselves.

The Free Market ranking is the next poll to consider. How quickly can new ideas make it into the marketplace? Government regulation has a lot to do with that. A highly regulated government might not allow a marginally unsafe product onto the market for just that reason. But this can also keep a great product from coming to market in time to beat the competition.

Once you consider those three areas that can help determine how your sector works. Does it produce a massive amount of cheap, shoddy product? Or does it produce a good amount of higher quality goods? If you are going to roleplay your sector rankings you should keep this in mind.

The next section is on Defense and to a certain extent numbers. Per Capita Defense Spending is how much money you spend per person on defense. Note that this does not say anything about what is obtained for the money spent - or the quality of it. You could purchase your military equipment from another nation, or make it yourself. That choice is easily enough material for a whole other post, but here are some things to think about when considering what you have.

Is it idiotproof? If your people are idiots, no matter where you got it, they will need to maintain it. Book learning will only get you so far before you need to know how to do a juryrig on a rotator sleeve on a Pantera-V hovertank. Smart people can figure it out. Dumb people might be able to, but its likely not before the smart person does and has aimed that tank in the dumb persons direction.

Is it really what you paid for? Even when purchasing from another nation (which is even riskier really) you should consider your government corruption ranking. A bribe can make sure that $400 toilet seat is really a $20 toilet seat and $380 worth of fine wine. Kickbacks, stolen or 'misplaced' parts, and other corrupt acts can cripple or severely slow down the war effort. Now imagine what would happen if that nation you are purchasing from has an even higher corruption ranking than you?

That's enough for now - if you have an arguement for or against any of these points go for it.

<Tag>

Another point to remember about your rankings - especially certain things like the 'smartest' rankings. The UN doesn't really take these polls - they are based on the engine itself. While in the case of 'smartest' apathy also comes into play membership in the UN and your IC stance towards them makes no difference except through resolutions passed.

This is very interesting. I'll be sure to keep this in mind when roleplaying my nation. From a new player to a veteran- thanks for the invaluable insight, all us noobs appreciate it greatly!

Very nice Sunset.

*applauds*

I agree to a point--but I think the rankings sometimes assume too much about your country. Like "best weather" for instance. How the hell is that one decided?

I, for example, probably have just about the worst weather of anyone I can think of in NS. It doesn't get much worse than huge swirling black clouds of choking ash and constant heat storms and acid rain all over the place. Yet, accoring to the UN, Wretchengard has worse weather than I do. I shudder to think what it must be like over there. So no, I cant say I agree with all the rankings to the letter. I think they're a good guideline--the player should be smart enough to RP his or her nation at least to some extent the same way he/she votes on their issues: it doesn't make much sense to systematically reject all offers for higher defense spending, and turn around and claim you have a bomb-ass OMG UBER 1337 military.

So essentially, I view the 'real' rankings based off a combination of the ranking itself and actual RP. Praetor is a classic example. He's always high on the defense spending list, but spends little or no time RPing the development and progression of his military. Well, okay maybe he does, but not nearly to the extent that lifeless sods like me do. This system, I think, rewards good RPers and gives an opening for players to work around their nations deficiences.

Of course, it's to be expected that someone in a relatively passive state trying to develop a spending priority for defense should actually pass the relevant issues as they come up: if I don't see defense listed in the 'top three' budget priorities, I'll generally assume their military to be second-rate.

But again, that's another thing that makes almost no sense about this game: the 'per capita' dfense spending stuff: you'd figure the smaller nations would hav an advantage there, but it doesnt seem to be the case. You'd figure #1 would be a 5 or 6 million person nation, but it isnt. This leads me to beleive that the 'per capita' stipulation is a misnomer.

I believe "best weather" is how much you spend on the environment.

okay...

There's already a ranking that deals with that. Besides, lots of people rape their environment and have relatively good weather, from what I've seen. It could be based off environmental spending to an extent, but I dont see it having too large of an effect.

Maybe you could ask violet or sal?

The Best Weather rating doesn't make much sense. I follow most ratings while also taling into account some RPing.
Thinks like "best weather" are relative. I like thunderstorms. And "nicest people" is determined with kittens.

Things like smartest and defence spending are pretty "hard" figures though.

Maybe you could ask violet or sal?

I'm not that concerned about it :wink:

Maybe you could ask violet or sal?

I'm not that concerned about it :wink:

We all are! We demand you find out!

So essentially, I view the 'real' rankings based off a combination of the ranking itself and actual RP. Praetor is a classic example. He's always high on the defense spending list, but spends little or no time RPing the development and progression of his military. Well, okay maybe he does, but not nearly to the extent that lifeless sods like me do. This system, I think, rewards good RPers and gives an opening for players to work around their nations deficiences.


I agree on this point - roleplaying is about figuring out ways around your deficiencies. But it's not about just writing them off completely by replacing one industry with another - at least directly. Someone with a great automobile manufacturing sector could use their tiny arms manufacturing sector and produce technicals of various kinds but these are not going to be even close to a tank produced by a very smart nation with an expansive arms manufacturing sector. It's a work around - and more importantly it's believable. From there it just comes down to roleplaying and writing skill.


But again, that's another thing that makes almost no sense about this game: the 'per capita' dfense spending stuff: you'd figure the smaller nations would hav an advantage there, but it doesnt seem to be the case. You'd figure #1 would be a 5 or 6 million person nation, but it isnt. This leads me to beleive that the 'per capita' stipulation is a misnomer.

This question actually leads to another important point: Economies of Scale. A larger nation does not just have an advantage because it has most people, it also has an advantage because of the larger number of transactions that occur. Industries that don't really exist in a smaller nation or city are essential as the population grows. Hygenie facilities, communications infrastructure, road networks, and similar create more jobs and more transactions to create more revenue inside of the nation. International trade will also increase as the nation begins to require more resources than are immediately avaliable inside it's borders.

Now, I'm not an economist by any stretch - but this seems to be how it works in the real world. Part of that could also be government regulation, and part could be global location but this is my sense of why a 2B nation will be able to outspend a 6m nation on a per-capita basis. Argue away!

I concur, and think that roleplaying to your UN rankings makes the creativity capital gains more lucrative!

I also think its a combination of roleplaying and rankings, of course. And some things don't make sense, like the subjective ones about beautiful weather etc, although playing up to those rankings is still a worthy benchmark.

I think of it as any pen and paper RPing game, and the game engine gives me my characters stats, which I then base my RP off of, at least as much as I care to.

It's not about cherry-picking, its about understanding the implications to your nation of all these qualities. High defense spending per capita and a population of billions of smart, entrepeneurial citizens employed in the information technology and arms manufacturing sector in a high economy nation, for example, would probably make for a pretty high tech and well funded military, no? Why not RP that?

Similarly if you have a huge, pacifist nation with low defense spending, might as well ACT like you don't prioritize your military and the consequences of doing that.

The only problem I have is when people simply dismiss the rankings as completely meaningless and then you can have a huge, pacifist nation with low defense spending per capita with a huge military that would cost gobs more than your choices you make in the game on the issues.

In my opinion, they're guidelines that reflect how you've made the decision that "made" your nation as it stands today. And if you're constantly contradicting those rankings you're essentially ignoring the outcomes of your own policies.

And that, in my opinion, is bad roleplay, it's like being given a low level, unintelligent and ugly orc as a RP character and then having him wander around arguing quantum physics and getting mad poontang. Sure you can get away with it, in a moderated game if the DM allows it (maybe he's drunk), or in FFRP if no one bothers to contradict you.

You are given the character's skeleton, it's up to you to put meat on it's bones, and also to make sure you're not putting, say, cardboard instead of meat. No one can make you be a good roleplayer, and you always have the option of being the god of your own little universe. Just don't be surprised when the worshippers label you a false god... and burn your churches, and enslave your womenfolk, burning the men and children alive...

:dreamy look in eyes:

Another point to remember about your rankings - especially certain things like the 'smartest' rankings. The UN doesn't really take these polls - they are based on the engine itself. While in the case of 'smartest' apathy also comes into play membership in the UN and your IC stance towards them makes no difference except through resolutions passed.

The UN Ranking for "Dumbest Citizens" doesn't necessarily mean that they are stupid. Just under-educated either intentionally or not. My nation ranks 42,000 in the world for dumbest citizens, but by no means are they stupid...they are intentionally kept ignorant of the world around them and as a result their knowledge of things that the government does not want them to know is very limited. This may apply to some nations, but others simply have stupid citizens.