NationStates Jolt Archive

Today, I am proposing the formation of the NationStates Request-For-Comments committee. This committee will oversee the creation and publishing of various educational/standards memoranda, encompassing many different fields of NationStates roleplay.

Every author who wishes to create and publish an NSRFC must follow set guidelines:

1) Your NSRFC must be more than two (2) paragraphs in length and must remain on-topic.

In the event that your NSRFC exceeds one (1) page in length, the respective page number and author name must be placed at the bottom of each page. At the top of each pace proceeding page one (1) must exist the NSRFC title and the date of creation (modified to Date Published).

2) Your NSRFC must contain a header for basic filing purposes. This header must contain the following information:

Name of Author(s)
Date Created (If accepted, will be changed to Date Published)
Category
Any Relevant, Modified or Obsoleted Documents

3) Your NSRFC must be written in a clear and concise manner.

4) Your NSRFC must be written in Plain Text-compatible format for the sake of guaranteed system compatibility.

5) References, if applicable, MUST BE CITED. Additionally, acronyms, if applicable, must be defined at the bottom of the document.

Authors wishing to submit NSRFCs may do so in this thread. Upon receipt, the individual NSRFCs will be processed and posted to http://nsrfc.flashwirenetwork.net for immediate viewing. A much more private, but much slower route is to email them to nsrfc@flashwirenetwork.net and the NSRFC comittee will go from there.

I will begin with NSRFC1, outlining a few of the Basics of Vacuum Warfare

Foe Hammer
April 2006
Category: Warfare - Vacuum Warfare
Relevant: N/A

The Basics of Vacuum Warfare

Abstract

When one imagines space warfare, what does one relate it to? Football? Chess? The truth is, either of those two games are, in fact, very similar - Only in space warfare, you have alot more guns and alot less room to mess up. This Request For Comment concerning Vacuum Warfare should enhance the general quality of Vacuum Warfare Roleplaying and set in place strategic standards to take into account.

Table of Contents

1. THE BASICS OF VACUUM WARFARE STRATEGY.................................1
1.1 "He's not a real bishop! I never once saw him move diagonally."........1
1.2 Scare Tactics...........................................................................1


1 . THE BASICS OF VACUUM WARFARE STRATEGY

One of the most crucial components of any form of competition, be it a game or all-out combat, is the player or piece, and the ability to position that player or piece in such a way as to maximize his, her or it's performance and longevity. Let's take chess as the subject for the first example...

1.1 "He's not a real bishop! I never once saw him move diagonally."

In chess, one's key pieces are preceded by a line of pawns, referred to as the Shield Wall. The Shield Wall formation dates back to Roman times, where the front line of soldiers in a given formation would literally form a wall of shields, defending the front ranks from spears and other projectiles.

Possibly the most effective strategy in combating a shield wall formation of vessels is to use intelligent projectiles, such as guided missiles or torpedoes, to strike the rear of a formation. (World War II soldiers would often fire at soldiers near the rear of a line of troops, as this was the least noticeable loss, as opposed to seeing the head of the poor bastard in front of you literally explode.)

One less effective and possibly less humane strategy, the one that applies to chess, is to slowly weaken the shield wall. This, of course, is achieved in chess by sacrificing your own pawns first to overtake and remove your opponent's pieces from the board. Sounds easy enough, but if your Fleet Admiral isn't a heartless bastard, this is the very last thing you'd want to try, due to the sheer loss of assets that WILL hurt your side as much as it does the other. (Notice I don't refer to one side as good and one side is bad... Because you may be using this for wrongdoing.)

1.2 Scare Tactics
A great man - well, a few great men - once said, "It is better to rule with fear of force than to rule with force alone." This is very infrequently the basis of one's political standpoint in NationStates - You want to blow things up with as little interference as possible. This is your choice, but it's my choice to tell you that your choice is the wrong choice! Think of it this way... You have sentient assets and you have mechanical assets. Mechanical assets are your vessels, your ships, et cetera. Sentient assets are... well, your pilots and your crew.

Let's take the United States Navy as an example. The average cost of training a naval fighter pilot hovers around $2 million, depending on your sources (Adjust for political bias). The sheer cost of deploying and maintaining training materials for vacuum training would break the AFT (Atmospheric Flight Training) budget in a split second. It's clear that your sentient assets are not to be thrown around like play toys, especially when your decisions could affect their performance and their will to cooperate (Not very fun being dead, is it?).

In a standard fleet, you can expect to have a command ship, a few destroyers, cruisers and/or battleships, and oodles of gun ships, support craft and fighters. Now, here's where the fear comes in - The most effective way to resolve disputes with little loss of life is to scare the pants off of the poor bastards in your cross hairs. To achieve this, you need to maximize the appearance of the size of your fleet - Or, in English, space them out. Someone staring into a colossal wall of starships is more likely to "get to steppin'."

Foe Hammer................The Basics of Vacuum Warfare................[Page 1]

Not sure if this is what you wanted but it just came to me… so I submitted it.

1. The porous nature of a representative government
1.1 Homeland morale v. in theatre morale
1.2 How the ordering of your society affects you ability to fight a war

1. The porous nature of a representative government

Very often in NationStates warfare is seen as a viable option in foreign relations. This can very easily be observed by looking at technology threads – which all boast of their military tech – or by a quick survey of the front page in International Incidents. In the NationStates world war is as common – if not more so – then peace.

This seems very contrary to the real life world that we – the players – find ourselves in. It could be because we lack an outlet in real life that NationStates seems to become a war game more often than naught but there are certain realities players who seek realism must contend with.

As Emmanuel Kant observed democratic governments are less likely to war with other government with the same ruling principles. Moreover they find themselves less involved in the same blood baths which characterized early European history. Another interesting note is that a good majority of the military code of conduct in western countries deals with preventing the dereliction of duty – i.e. not fighting. And so it would seem easy enough to conclude that people – commoners as a social group – don’t like war. In more authoritative regimes this makes little difference – beyond the monies spent on keeping the populace in line. In representative governments this can be seen by the – for a lack of a better word – squeamish nature of the government. Any country with a representative government has popular support to worry about – in regards to maintaining a properly functioning engine of war.

1.1 Homeland morale v. in theatre morale

It should be noted that there arises a distinct division between the morale of a country. It is much more complex than what follows but these two main grouping should illustrate the point nicely.

The people who join the military – voluntarily – are more prone to accepting that government’s decision to fight a war. These people are socialized by an institution whose primary function is to fight wars. Moreover these same people will find themselves in isolation from the population at large. They will have only the other people in the same situation as themselves to refine their opinions of the war. It is entirely possible for a government to fight a war with no domestic support. They need only to isolate their military from the opinions of the homeland; something which is terribly common in war time.

The group which grows most dissatisfied with a war effort in the shortest amount of time is usually the domestic urban population. Things a player must consider is: how metropolitan their country is, what is the level of education, what is the population density in their cities, and finally are there other pressing social issues which are not being addressed. It would seem that while – for a short time – people are willing to bear discomfort on the local level for the sake of their country this self sacrificing nature is not limitless. Moreover if a player has fostered a country that rejects collectivism and embraces individualism their individual citizens will start thinking of the war in terms of how it relates to them. This is especially true when it comes to initiating a draft, raising taxes, or any other measure that alters the daily lives of the citizenry.

A player must remember if they have given their citizens rights then they will use them. Remember that if a country in NationStates has a billion citizens an approval rate of 98% (something which rarely ever happens) they still have 20 million disenfranchised citizens. This once again becomes problematic with the right to free assembly and the right to a free press. Demonstrations several hundred thousand large become common. This will lead to other people questioning the war in turn.

1.2 How the ordering of your society affects you ability to fight a war

Finally one has to ask how this makes a difference to the war effort itself. The answer is dependant from nation to nation. If your nation is organized in a more traditional Westminster model – see British parliament – then one might not see any immediate affect. A party with majority government can be given carte blanche in these issues. Governments like Canada for example have a vast amount of control during their reign. If however a player’s government functions like this then the next election may see a massive party upset. A government who supports an unpopular war with this system in place might not be able to support another for decades depending on the mood of the electorate.

Governments with greater divisions of power – like an American style republic – can see more direct effects on the war in question. With a system like this in place generals might be pressed into strategies which are tactically less sound for political reasons. Players of republics needs to ask themselves which branch of government controls military funding, what political bias dominates each branch of government, et cetera.

With any unpopular war which is waged over an extended period of time one must consider the effect of ‘disenfranchisement’. Could this war be creating social divisions within your country that might have political ramifications further down the road? Is it possible that politicians in your own country might renege on alliances do to political pressure?

A player must ask themselves: How does my citizenry see themselves and how does this fit into the impetus of this war? If a dichotomy arises in this logical test then that player – in an effort to maintain realism – must begin considering the political fallout from the war in question.

It's a good start.

Look here for an example of the format: http://nsrfc.flashwirenetwork.net/nsrfc1.txt

Also, try to make it more standards-oriented. I can see that you're talking about political repercussions of war, but try to make it more about the process, and how it comes around. Great start, though.

This is an excellent idea, and I look forward to seeing it continued. I'd contribute, but I doubt I know enough about anything relevant to be useful.

Wow. VERY, very, very nice idea. Could you perhaps make an article on tactics for warfare in various environments? (Urban, plains, swamp, forest, jungle, mountains, hills, island, etc?)

Would you mind being a bit more specific in your critique? I have no problem re-writing it for format issues and as long as I know that you are appreciative of the submission I will be secure enough to be criticized.

The process? Do you specifically instances and types of war which inspire low morale or do you mean the expected ramifications? Should I spell out some ideas of what players can do to show that the war is affecting their democracy?

Lay it on. If the goal is a better article I can appreciate the critique.

Lol. Pythogria you just want an urban combat strategy guide to fight SAD :p

(kidding)

Would you mind being a bit more specific in your critique? I have no problem re-writing it for format issues and as long as I know that you are appreciative of the submission I will be secure enough to be criticized.

The process? Do you specifically instances and types of war which inspire low morale or do you mean the expected ramifications? Should I spell out some ideas of what players can do to show that the war is affecting their democracy?

Lay it on. If the goal is a better article I can appreciate the critique.

Well, actually, that was for a whole new article, but to critique this one:

-What should be done to raise the numvber of people wanting to finish the war?

-What should you do to the enemy to lower that same number for him?

Oh, and yes, that is what I wanted. A strategy guide.

Would you mind being a bit more specific in your critique? I have no problem re-writing it for format issues and as long as I know that you are appreciative of the submission I will be secure enough to be criticized.

The process? Do you specifically instances and types of war which inspire low morale or do you mean the expected ramifications? Should I spell out some ideas of what players can do to show that the war is affecting their democracy?

Lay it on. If the goal is a better article I can appreciate the critique.
Well, the most obviously format problem is the header, be sure to include that (Like what I have... name, date, et cetera. Don't bother with the Requests For Comments number line though. I'll put that in.)

What I mean by process is, try to explain some potential solutions to low morale and the like. And yes, spelling out what players can do (Not should do... "can do". Just make suggestions as to the possible solutions, don't make it "Do this, do that.")

The article's great so far, but just make a few tweaks and it'll be superb.

Otares
April 2006
Category: Warfare – Social Costs
Relevant N/A

The Porous Nature of a Representative Government
Abstract
How often does your nation involve itself in military matters? When you – as a character – role play an armed conflict do you consider the effects it might have on the people at home? The morale of your citizens directly affects how well a representative government can wage a war. In the effort to maintain a realistic portrayal of your nation this request for comment should offer up some considerations that players of democratic nations should take into account. It will also offer up a few viable considerations for counteracting the de-moralizing effects within said same nation.

Table of Contents


1. The porous nature of a representative government
1.1 Homeland morale v. in theatre morale
1.2 How the ordering of your society affects you ability to fight a war
1.3 Possible solutions to the quandaries explored
1.3.1 Civic morale
1.3.2 Political morale
1.3.3 Social morale
1.3.4 Domestic abandonment
1.3.5 Attrition damage

1. The porous nature of a representative government

Very often in NationStates warfare is seen as a viable option in foreign relations. This can very easily be observed by looking at technology threads – which all boast of their military tech – or by a quick survey of the front page in International Incidents. In the NationStates world war is as common – if not more so – than peace.

This seems very contrary to the real life world that we – the players – find ourselves in. It could be because we lack an outlet in real life that NationStates seems to become a war game more often than naught but there are certain realities players who seek realism must contend with.

As Emmanuel Kant observed democratic governments are less likely to war with other governments which posses the same ruling principles. Moreover they find themselves less involved in the same blood baths which characterized early European history. Another interesting note is that a good majority of the military code of conduct in western

Otares………... The Porous Nature of a Representative Government……….…[ Page 1 ]
countries deals with preventing the dereliction of duty – i.e. not fighting. And so it would seem easy enough to conclude that people – commoners as a social group – don’t like war. In more authoritative regimes this makes little difference – beyond the monies spent on keeping the populace in line. In representative governments this can be seen by the – for a lack of a better word – squeamish nature of the government. Any country with a representative government has popular support to worry about – in regards to maintaining a properly functioning engine of war.

1.1 Homeland morale v. in theatre morale

It should be noted that there arises a distinct division between the morale of a country. It is much more complex than what follows but these two main groupings should illustrate the point nicely.

The people who join the military – voluntarily – are more prone to accepting that government’s decision to fight a war. These people are socialized by an institution whose primary function is to fight wars. Moreover these same people will find themselves in isolation from the population at large. They will have only the other people in the same situation as themselves to refine their opinions of the war. It is entirely possible for a government to fight a war with no domestic support. They need only to isolate their military from the opinions of the homeland; something which is terribly common in war time.

The group which grows most dissatisfied with a war effort in the shortest amount of time is usually the domestic urban population. Things a player must consider is: how metropolitan their country is, what is the level of education, what is the population density in their cities, and finally are there other pressing social issues which are not being addressed. It would seem that while – for a short time – people are willing to bear discomfort on the local level for the sake of their country this self sacrificing nature is not limitless. Moreover if a player has fostered a country that rejects collectivism and embraces individualism their individual citizens will start thinking of the war in terms of how it relates to them. This is especially true when it comes to initiating a draft, raising taxes, or any other measure that alters the daily lives of the citizenry.

A player must remember if they have given their citizens rights then they will use them. Remember that if a country in NationStates has a billion citizens an approval rate of 98% (something which rarely ever happens) they still have 20 million disenfranchised citizens. This once again becomes problematic with the right to free assembly and the right to a free press. Demonstrations several hundred thousand large become common. This will lead to other people questioning the war in turn.

1.2 How the ordering of your society affects you ability to fight a war

Finally one has to ask how this makes a difference to the war effort itself. The answer is

Otares………... The Porous Nature of a Representative Government……….…[ Page 2 ]

dependant from nation to nation. If your nation is organized in a more traditional Westminster model – see British parliament – then one might not see any immediate affect. A party with majority government can be given carte blanche in these issues. Governments like Canada for example have a vast amount of control during their reign. If however a player’s government functions like this then the next election may see a massive party upset. A government who supports an unpopular war with this system in place might not be able to support another for decades depending on the mood of the electorate.

Governments with greater divisions of power – like an American style republic – can see more direct effects on the war in question. With a system like this in place generals might be pressed into strategies which are tactically less sound for political reasons. Players of republics needs to ask themselves which branch of government controls military funding, what political bias dominates each branch of government, et cetera.

With any unpopular war which is waged over an extended period of time one must consider the effect of ‘disenfranchisement’. Could this war be creating social divisions within your country that might have political ramifications further down the road? Is it possible that politicians in your own country might renege on alliances due to political pressure?

A player must ask themselves: How does my citizenry see themselves and how does this fit into the impetus of this war? If a dichotomy arises in this logical test then that player – in an effort to maintain realism – must begin considering the political fallout from the war in question.

1.3 Possible solutions to the quandaries explored

While it is easy enough to point out the failure of certain players and the way democracies are RPed it is another question to offer solutions. With the plethora of problems which arise it is wholly impossible to offer up any sort of comprehensive list – of either problems or solutions. To this end – and for the purposes of simplicity – one can see three main trains affecting domestic morale and two affecting military morale.

1.3.1 Civic morale

This is seen as the first decay of domestic morale. This decay arises in the dissenters of society first: the social critics, nay-sayers, intellectuals, and the youth. Loosing this section can mean the further decay into the political realm.

Effective means of preventing the decay of morale on this level include: limiting media access, offering patriotic imagery to the citizenry, holding town hall style meetings to

Otares………... The Porous Nature of a Representative Government……….…[ Page 3 ]
show government concern, emphasizing one type of education over another, and constantly offering stories of success from the front line.

The limiting access to media need not be an act of government. For example enacting standards of broadcast – such as requiring a certain strength or type of transmitter – are non-coercive measures of limiting some citizens’ access. Free market medias are notorious for creating large corporate media enterprises which – despite their other virtues – limits those aforementioned groups ability to spread their message.

Exposing your citizenry to patriotic imagery from a young age is also a good method of fostering compliance. This pre-emptive measure may not stop the decay of morale once it has started but it does mean that it takes longer for dissent to spread about the populace. Ensuring this love of country will see young student set against the inherently critical ideas they may be exposed to by their educators. Moreover this type of indoctrination will see that an ample supply of people is ever present for the military.

Town hall style meetings are meeting where government elected officials – the higher profile the better – meet with selections of people to directly answer specific questions. This type of reactive action is designed as a damage control measure and should appease many. Moreover when effectively executed it can assuage the concerns of many who may other wise be dissenter. It is important to note however that this measure is damage control only and not a solution in and of itself. Once more if done too late it is seen as a public relations endeavor and not taken seriously.

Emphasizing one type of education over another may seem odd but it works like this. A high correlation can be drawn between those likely to dissent and those who have a liberal arts education. While this is not a hard and steadfast rule it is an interesting observation supported by empirical evidence. A proactive measure to ensure that these types of people – often thought of as ‘hippies’ in some western cultures – are not as prevalent would be to emphasis the trades. If post-secondary education is not free in your country offer many more scholarships and trusts for engineers and other ‘hard sciences’. Students of these fields are taught skills first and perceptive ideologies second. While arts students are taught the same in reverse priority. This – like the patriotic imagery – alters a societal norm over long periods of time. Its effectiveness is measured in decades and this cannot be expected to be an appropriate response to an imminent action.

Lastly the best defense against the decay of civic morale is to constantly introduce images of success into the public realm. Irrespective of the losses your military might be suffering the benefits should be emphasized. If this is a war of liberation show them the cheering crowds – interviews of happy people. If it is a way of expansion show them evidence of the prosperity it is bringing. People are very willing to support a war that does not affect their daily lives negatively but might on some level bring about positive results.

Otares………... The Porous Nature of a Representative Government……….…[ Page 4 ]

1.3.2 Political morale

Political morale is an important morale to maintain. This is especially important for democracies – because while there can be some right between popular opinion and action there cannot be that same rift between the policy makers and that same action. The political morale is the will of the politicians in power to support the war.

Political morale drops off quickly once civic morale has fallen. This can include politicians seeking to capitalize on the upheaval or merely politicians who reject the war out of conscience. Having to combat falling moral politically is not a good sign. It suggests that the war is going to be rejected soon and the leader of your nation will suffer in the next election. As mentioned earlier Republics will see a direct effect on the strategies on the ground – while parliamentary governments have a bit more of a heat shield in this regard.

Methods to combat the falling political morale include: the party whip, progressive social programs, tax cuts, and appointments within government. Keep in mind that these are to appease the politicians and while some of these efforts may appease the citizenry their greatest affect is in government and on statesmen.

The party whip may be the only tool a parliamentarian ever needs. By keeping the ruling party inline the dissenting politicians may never gain ground. This method works best in conjunction with the aforementioned methods to combat civic morale. If the party whip is used without ever addressing the issues the ruling party will suffer terribly in the next election.

Progressive social programs are used to curry the more liberal dissenters. The fact of the matter is those who support a welfare state generally don’t support war. By using the nuances of your country’s legislative system you can dangle this in front of more leftist members of your government. With this they are in the position of opposing the war and all of the social spending they campaign on – or not talking about the war and being able to bring campaign promises to their constituency. This may not work in every country but all too often it seems the in the milieu that is government politicians are left with strange bed fellows.

1.3.3 Social morale

Should morale fall to the point that it is affecting the society of the country itself a player is left with two options: one, call off the war as quickly as possible or two, institute martial law. When opposition to a way becomes so pervasive that there are riots in every major city and that all anyone can talk about is the war then the battle of moral has been lost. If the only political ideology that matters to anyone is yea or nay the war then drastic steps must be taken. Pull out of the war or indefinitely revoke your democracy.

Otares………... The Porous Nature of a Representative Government……….…[ Page 5 ]

1.3.4 Domestic abandonment

Domestic abandonment is the feeling soldiers get when morale on the home front becomes so embittered that they feel abandoned. This normally occurs somewhere in the middle of the political morale category. In this state the following can be observed: The recovery rate in the hospital is not as high, more soldiers derelict their duty, defensive actions begin to look more like retreats, and in the final stages officers may outright refuse orders.

The only cure for the domestic abandonment is to win the morale contest at home. Failing that here are two band-aid measures: direct contact to loved ones and bringing your culture into the theatre.

Direct contact with loved ones will give the soldier some sense of that they are fighting for. They will try to transfer the love and support of their friends and family over the information that they are getting that they are not supported by the people in their own country. This could be internet access, phone calls, or even a regular mail service. This connection will compensate for the loss of camaraderie they feel with their countrymen at home.

Bring your country’s culture into the theatre is simple. As soon as a city is held and can be assured to be held for some time begin reconstructing it. A good portion of reconstructing it should be to mass export your culture into the theatre. This is done because the soldier will not feel as home sick as they once did. Moreover all of the things they loved about their life back home are now in this other country. While it might seem terribly culturally insensitive it does give the soldier a feeling that they ‘gave’ the locals something.

1.3.5 Attrition damage

Attrition damage is the bloody loss of your forces over time. Moreover it is the instigator of the morale dilemma in the first place. The fact of the matter is if no democracy ever lost a single soldier in military action then there would be no widespread dissatisfaction. Some may object to this by pointing to the selfless nature of some people – the victims of your military – but one must remember that the action does not happen in a void. The preemptive measures of morale boosting will still be in place and the argument ‘well none of our people have died so this war is not so bad’ is an effective platitude.

This piece is not a piece on military tactics but it should be remembered that soldier survivability and extensive use of the airfare – within air superiority situations – are surefire ways to keep the casualties down. This last subsection was included expressly for raising awareness of why democracies must embrace military technology and why they must consider carefully what is ‘worth dieing for’.

Otares………... The Porous Nature of a Representative Government……….…[ Page 6 ]


Gah... ready for next edit you vultures ;)

Thank you for your submission! Your NSRFC has been assigned the Index Number (IN) of 2 and is now available for viewing at:
http://nsrfc.flashwirenetwork.net/nsrfc2.txt

The NSRFC staff has made a few minor grammatical and formatting corrections before posting.

Thanks again.

[1] We already have consolidation stickies for useful threads. If you want to write something useful, post it and ask to have it linked in those threads.

[2] We don't really need an extra offsite section for 'stickies that the mods won't sticky but Foe Hammer wants to show everyone anyway.'

[3] This gets locked for 'advertising an offsite site.' If anyone thinking of posting to this has something worth stickying, post it in a thread of its own and other users will criticise and suggest additions. That's how all the existing stickies were made.

Reviewing....