NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm a new nation posing a question. Whatever happened to plans and strategy? If you read about wars you read about famous victories and defeats and how they were planned and executed. The famous escape at Dunkirk, for example. I scan random wars now and again and am surprised to see fleets appear magically out of nowehere.

Since when did armed conflicts become affairs of who's a bigger nation? Hasn't history taught us that every defense is breakable and every situation escapable? Maybe I'm not looking in the right place. Anyway, any feedback would be apreciated, thank you.

The only tactics anyone uses now are WWI tactics, where you send thousands of men of death charges, and you use super dreadnaughts to destroy entire navies. People think that huge numbers means good rping.

It works.

Oh, screw Dunkirk. The British shouldn't have been evacuating France in the first place, their army was larger and more well-armed then the Germans.

They were encirlced and virtually out of fuel and supplies.

WWI. As had been mentioned before. Soldiers are more assets and statistics rather than actual people. Don't believe what the ads tell you. Your just another GI.

Kahta: They weren't encircled, actually, they just got spooked. They were actually in a rather secure position. They were scared because they were running low on supplies and the German field commanders proved to be better then the French field commanders.

I'm guessing it's because most NS posters don't have much experience with military strategy when compared to the generals and admirals who fight the RL wars.

I would have no more than a basic idea of army strategy and I have no clue about air force strategy. I MIGHT have a little better idea what to do when it comes to naval tactics. But still, that would pale enormously in comparison to someone who actually serves in the military.

WWI. As had been mentioned before. Soldiers are more assets and statistics rather than actual people. Don't believe what the ads tell you. Your just another GI.


This is so sad, but so very true!

I agree with Sarzonia. I, however, through the reading of many, many novels, have a fair sized arsenal of tactics. However, ive never been in a war, so I cant use them yet. So far all I do is small, spec ops stuff, like eradicating the rebels in Rufai.

Kahta: They weren't encircled, actually, they just got spooked. They were actually in a rather secure position. They were scared because they were running low on supplies and the German field commanders proved to be better then the French field commanders.

This map shows differently.

http://www.dailypast.com/graphics/photos/dunkirk-map.jpg

The Germans were stronger and better equipped.

The map only shows me an 'X'.

And the Germans were NOT stronger. They were actually outclassed. German tanks during the invasion of France were some of the worst tanks in the world, while the British had some of the best.

OOC If anyone wants a stragegy RL type conflict, let me know.

I use tactics all the time. Tactics are my friend.

More relevant to the thread: I use tactics on a large scale, but not individual battles.

Kahta: Going to bed, we can debate this later.

The map only shows me an 'X'.

And the Germans were NOT stronger. They were actually outclassed. German tanks during the invasion of France were some of the worst tanks in the world, while the British had some of the best.

http://www.dailypast.com/graphics/photos/dunkirk-map.jpg


You must have learned history from a biased view because the Germans had better tanks than the west for the entire war. The Germans had the Panzerkampfwagen IV. A tank which was used from 1940 until 1945.

I use tactics and attempt to have creative strategies...

Every documentary I've ever seen has said that the Germans tanks at the start of the war were inferrior to the Allies tanks; they just concentrated them, while the allies, or atleast the french, spread them out amoungst their army to support the troops, allowing the gernams to overwhelm the superrior machines.

Every documentary I've ever seen has said that the Germans tanks at the start of the war were inferrior to the Allies tanks; they just concentrated them, while the allies, or atleast the french, spread them out amoungst their army to support the troops, allowing the gernams to overwhelm the superrior machines.

The Germans had better tanks all the way through the war. The only reason allied tanks managed to overcome them, is because we could make them quicker and outnumber German tanks.(towards middle-end) The Germans dominated the beggining of the war. I believe the turning point was Stallingrad(im just a bit rusty on my history) The Germans had the best weapons and tactics through most of the war.

I tend to agree. In NS, a lot of people tend to think "numberwank > strategy", and RP accordingly.

Then, if you come up with a good way to destroy their forces or otherwise render them useless, "OMG IGNORED GODMOD!!!!!111shift+1one!1!"

Axis Nova

I scan random wars now and again and am surprised to see fleets appear magically out of nowehere..

WELCOME TO NATIONSTATES! :D

Seriously, though... I hate it. I refuse to RP war with most people. Its just not done correctly.

Now, I'm just going to draw a random name out of a hat. Oh. Here. Communist Mississippi... Until a few days ago, he had NO concept of logistics or economic backing. I could've closed his troops in with a huge wall and he would've still assumed they would have had unlimited amounts of ammunition. Classic Nationstates..

Anywho, I think the best thing to hope for is that Nationstates will finally incorporate a way for RP actions to effect you statistically.

Yes, war in NS is tough to do right. Yes, good war RP is rare. No, it's not getting worse. People, please, quitcherbitchin.

People are self-centered, and most free form RP will reflect this. So, you find a circle of friends, people you like OOCly. Then, you talk it out in AIM, post stuff. Talk to each other, joke around, tell stories about your characters. Don't think of it as a conflict, because neither side will admit inferiority. Think of it as cooperative story writing.

There will always be people who suck. Find some that don't, and make an RP circle. Look around for good players, try to play with them. If you just walk around starting wars at the drop of a pin, you'll get people who "delcare war on yuo" and claim "rael ultimaet powar".

The quality isn't falling. The good ole' days weren't that great. There isn't a n00b influx. It's the same as always, so get over it, or give up.

[/rant]

The Germans had better tanks all the way through the war. The only reason allied tanks managed to overcome them, is because we could make them quicker and outnumber German tanks.(towards middle-end) The Germans dominated the beggining of the war. I believe the turning point was Stallingrad(im just a bit rusty on my history) The Germans had the best weapons and tactics through most of the war.

The PzKfw IV could be easily destroyed by a Somua S35s 47mm gun or the Char B1s 75mm. But the German tactic of massed tank attacks gave them victory (like in Ciney).

The basic idea of a Blitzkrieg is to take away your enemies will to fight.
Therefore the Germans attacked the Allies at their weakest point, Sedan where general Coraps 9th army of disgruntled recruits and conscripts held the line. Corap failed to see the problems von Kuchler was having when crossing the Meuse, and concluded that he could not stand up against the German army. Therefore he withdrew his position and allowed the German panzers to break through.

The French then freed 4 divisions in the North(2 inf, 2 DLC) and send the south to attack the German breakout troops. Allied communications were , however really bad, HQs were miles away from the front and most HQs had no radio's. So when the French commander received the order to attack it was already to late (the order came aprox. 5.5 hours to late).
He did attack with only 1 infantry division and 1 DLC and failed(you alreday knew that)

Guderian raced through France and cut France's experienced and well equiped army of from the rest of France. France's field Army did not only get cut of from their supplielines, they could no longer defend France(this is where they lost their will to fight, the French forces in the low countries played no further role in the campaign).
That defense was left to the unexperienced French reserve units (and BEF).
The rest of France's defeat is rarely ever mentioned in historybooks as there were no great battles, the Weygand line fell quickly and the French surrendered.

The allies had 30 divisions more than the Germans but the Germans used superior tactics to defeat them, so more and better strategy in NS would be nice indeed.
I always try to include some tactics in what i do, just as i try to avoid getting humiliated by another tactician. Good players who have no idea of how tactics works do not need to be afraid of that. I'm really a nice guy and this is only a game.

Ah ... Turkmeny: Possibly the British retreated because the French armies had all but surrendered to the Germans? I don't think you should imply the British as cowards when you look at their victories in the desert and oh... The BATTLE OF BRITAIN. Also they had no air support and the Luftwaffe was pounding them day and night. The British may have had a larger army, but it was demoralised from the German blitzkrieg and it had much less efficient armour and air support.


In some ways your right, I guess. But if you use tactics youre generally classed as a better RPer like AMF.

Oh, screw Dunkirk. The British shouldn't have been evacuating France in the first place, their army was larger and more well-armed then the Germans.
No it wasnt and no it wasnt. They had already been surrounded by the German pincer movement and the Germans had overrun their airbases. Either they escaped or they were all taken prisoner or killed.

The problem with most RPs here is the fact that few people understand the relationship between tactics and strategy.

All most people in the game know about strategy and tactics is what they see in movies and the odd strategic simulation computer game. These are lousy teachers of how things work in the real world.

In most movies, the only important people are the officers and politicians. In most strategic-simulation computer games, you never see individual soldiers- only the larger units (usually division-sized groups).

RL tactics and strategy are hard to teach, and the only good way to learn is through experience. Few players in the game have had the opportunity to learn these lessons. Under these circumstances, most players choose to skip the tough parts and concentrate on simplistic (or non-existent) tactics and completely ignore logistics (see my extended rant on this subject over on NS).

Tactics should always be subordinate to strategy. Strategy is the reason for the tactics. Strategy is what you use to accomplish your long-term goals. Tactics are the intermediary steps you take to achieve that long-term goal.

One final note: Amateurs study tactics. General study logistics.

TEO

I agree- very little strategy now. It's basically short campaigns like the 1940 attacks on Norway, Denmark, and the Low Countries. Where's the fun in that? No one seems to be willing to fight Dunkirks either. In NS, people always make it impossible for your army to retreat.

I'm a new nation posing a question. Whatever happened to plans and strategy? If you read about wars you read about famous victories and defeats and how they were planned and executed. The famous escape at Dunkirk, for example. I scan random wars now and again and am surprised to see fleets appear magically out of nowehere.

Since when did armed conflicts become affairs of who's a bigger nation? Hasn't history taught us that every defense is breakable and every situation escapable? Maybe I'm not looking in the right place. Anyway, any feedback would be apreciated, thank you.

My friend, you have a tactical mind that is very hard to find these days. I totally agree with you, you will go far in this game. I would love to do battle with you one day. Tacticians forever!

In my opinion, everyone should read The Art of War before engaging in a battle. At the very least it will get your mindset correct


http://www.kimsoft.com/polwar.htm

The Art of War is very general and outmoded for modern-tech. It does tell of a few useful concepts, but it assumes a lot.

I would go with Rommel's Infantry Attacks.

What I don't like is how people refuse to lose.

OOC:

The problem with tactics is that you have to post what you are doing, otherwise it'll be ignored. If you do that, your opponent will magically discover the movements and block them. Because people cannot lose, they find some way to beat your tactics every single time. Which leaves you in the situation where only number-wanking will win. I still try tactics, and probably will be the person with the least forces committed into any war i get involved in, other than my current civil war, obviously.

For a nation that could mobilise twenty million troops with ease, sending in twenty better armed and better trained troops to disrupt supply lines and what have you seems tactical. Truth is, they'll be spotted on perfect radar systems two hundred miles out and killed before they reach down.

Thats nationstates kid, you gotta get used to it.

I agree that it would be nice to see well thought out and original tactics being used more often, but as was said earlier, most NS players aren't exactly professional military planners, are they? Actual commanders have made horrific mistakes after years of experience, so we can't expect too much of civilians playing a game, can we?

I think that the only war-heavy series of RP's Walmington's been involved in was the conflict between WoS, Iansisle, Calarca and NPC allied nations on the one hand, and Der Kriegsmarine, Ercolana, briefly Chiang Mai, and other NPC nations on the other. It was cut short by absences, but I'd like to think that some tactical considerations were taken into account in WoS's snail-like mobilisation against Fascism, though a lot of it didn't get plaid out properly as would have been ideal (such as the North African feint, begun, but not completed in active RP with Operation Minos' liberation of Sicily). It's difficult to play these things out, because it takes time, unless you're just going to jump in with some plan and expect it to go through smoothly... having read about some brilliantly executed plan doesn't mean you can apply it, of course.

Anyway, lets join the tangent... tanks, eh? The Somua S-35 was not superior to its rivals, though it's sometimes called the best tank of 1940, it had to make do with a one man turret that was going to make it operationally inferior to many German tanks even if it had been properly deployed. The Char B1bis was tough to kill but a stubby howitzer slaved to the hull didn't even put it ahead of cheap German assault guns. Then there's the technical quality of the French air farce at the time, without mentioning one third compenent of Britain's monoplane fighter force...
Uhm, I dunno, I suppose the significance of the whole evacuation to this thread would be the German decision not to throw the weight of its massive army against the pocketed British, more or less assuring their own eventual defeat.

...And Sun Tzu's work is still in large part applicable to-day, especially if you read various modern -even pretty basic- interperatations by experienced commanders like General Tao Hanzhang.
"I should have read the book [Sun Tzu's Art of War] twenty years ago." -Kaiser Wilhelm II, when it was all too late.

The Germans had better tanks all the way through the war. The only reason allied tanks managed to overcome them, is because we could make them quicker and outnumber German tanks.(towards middle-end) The Germans dominated the beggining of the war. I believe the turning point was Stallingrad(im just a bit rusty on my history) The Germans had the best weapons and tactics through most of the war.

The Germans always had better tanks, the problem was that the Allies were destroying the factories that were making them. The Allied (USA+ Britan) strategy was to attack each panzer from 3 sides with 4 sherman tanks. The Soviets had a similiar strategy.

Half of the time it's because nobody is clear enough on what's going on. They just say "I am defending this position with this many men", giving no idea of what the situation is, which means that all the opponent can do is blanket the area with fire and overrun with numbers, or vice-versa. Also, there's seldom any illustration. Most manoeuvres are planned on a map of some sort.

And Kahta: I presume by "Allied" you mean "British and American." On the whole I'd say that the tanks on the Eastern Front were much better-matched.

I think tactics died on NS. Especially after a post where I was raiding supply lines and luckily enough there were 40,000 enmy soldiers down the road waiting...

I like the idea about only rping with certain people. Then if the people that you don't rp with get better, add them to your list. I also make sure I stay within my era of technology when I rp. I do not rp often with future tech nations simply due to the fact that it probably would not happen in RL. Sure, there's Celdrone's old space resort, or Mekanta's AI equipped robots, but those are easier to rp against or with than star wars space ships and Klingons. Its just yeet another wrench in the RP gears: People taking things from movies, TV shows, or video games(Namely the 5 or 6 HALO armor building countries).

ALso, I try to keep logistics as a main part. If someone were to attack me right now, I would evacuate my people through an underground tunnel(which was built in another thread, ill probably have to redo it....from before new server.). I think that if someone ignores you for logistics or tactics that you can not use, then you should always have proof of it. Also a big part of my logistics is that many of my cities are underground(approximately 40%) to help prevent attacks. That was a multi-billion dollar project, but in several posts in several threads I have mentioned it. Therefore it cant be ignored. If it is still ignored, then hear them out, decide what makes sense, and then act upon it. For example, with the above mentioned underground cities, if someone attacked and went for the 60% that were above land, they could do it fairly easily. Then if they wanted to continue they would have to rp finding the tunnels that led to my below ground cities. So, yes, I agree, logistics is a HUGE part of RPing.

And Kahta: I presume by "Allied" you mean "British and American." On the whole I'd say that the tanks on the Eastern Front were much better-matched.

Yes, the T-34 was almost equal to most German tanks in the latter part of the war.

I've mentioned before that it's usually a good idea to have a couple of unbiased referees to "reality check" the RP as it goes on. Wolfish designated several players who were not participating in his "Desolation of Wolfish" thread to be referees to resolve disputes. He also carefully picked the players he would allow to participate, and thoroughly discussed the rules and situations before the RP started. Another good idea is having another thread for OOC discussions of the RP as it evolves.

Ideally, every player would gracefully accept losses and present clever ideas and situations. We all know that this is usually not the case.

For those who are interested, there's a lot of good information in this thread:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=275828

It's all about logistics, but there's a lot of discussion about the tactical and strategic effects of logistics in the game.


TEO

It's interesting that I notice this thread now. On my own nations page for military hardware I have just added a tactics overview post as well. I thought that it would be a good idea to not only post what my military is made of but how it is actually used.

It's too common to see nations engaged in war and simply number wank 'so many soldiers attack' or 'so many missles fire' and it's absolutely astounding the number of nations that post that their modern tech soldiers are charging and then only posting 5-10% losses. Many people forget that the firearm and other ranged weapons are at their most effective in a defensive setting, or at least a setting that keeps the enemy at range. After all, if you're going to charge the enemy swords still work at close range and are far cheaper, why have your troops commit mass suicide carrying expensive weapons?

anyhow my thread is at: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=347434

and like I said it posts hardware and basic tactics.

And the link posted by TEO is pretty spiffy as well.

I like the idea about only rping with certain people. Then if the people that you don't rp with get better, add them to your list.

I do too. For people who would scream about it being elitist or snobbish, you have to realize that when you sign up for NS, we don't know who you are or how you RP. [b]It takes a while of people reading your RPs before you start getting the experienced gamers to want to RP with you.[b] It's not being cliquish. I think of it as being sort of like applying for a job or auditioning for an acting role. You have to present yourself in such a way that you will be attractive to would-be RP partners.

The longer you RP on NS and the better your initial RPs are, the more willing established players will be to RP with you, either by opening the door for you to join their RPs or by asking to join yours. It's not easy to get that respect, but once you get it, NS will be a LOT more fun for everyone involved.

there is no tactics as the majority of peeps are teenage boy gun nuts/pc geeks/ plain bored losers (like me)

to plan for tactics and strategy you need maps at least, and the vast majority have no mpas at all, just huge armies

The other problem is with people thinking their troops will always fight to the last man and never retreat or surrender.

Yes, very true. Yet another is that people get impatient thanks to fluid time. In reality planning for a minor battle can take days, for a major battle weeks. But in NS you get at most a day or so before people start to say "well I do this anyway" and you're screwed.

I base all my tatics on the Israli ones in their wars against the arabs.

If you want some good advice on tactics, read over TEO's threads. He has a lot of data. Wolfish's old Role Play University was (is?) a good place to learn, as well. CSJ used to put up good stuff, especially on naval engagements, but he's been gone for a while.

The most balanced way to do tactics would be to use a GM to interpret and write the results of battle orders.

I'm a new nation posing a question. Whatever happened to plans and strategy? If you read about wars you read about famous victories and defeats and how they were planned and executed. The famous escape at Dunkirk, for example. I scan random wars now and again and am surprised to see fleets appear magically out of nowehere.

Since when did armed conflicts become affairs of who's a bigger nation? Hasn't history taught us that every defense is breakable and every situation escapable? Maybe I'm not looking in the right place. Anyway, any feedback would be apreciated, thank you.

They dont do that anymore its a magic thing called automatic weapons, we dont use tactics that we used in WWII and before, why? Because we have outdated that kind of battle, with two armys on a field shooting at each other.

Yes, very true. Yet another is that people get impatient thanks to fluid time. In reality planning for a minor battle can take days, for a major battle weeks. But in NS you get at most a day or so before people start to say "well I do this anyway" and you're screwed.

I don't think anyone can really understand how the fluid time works in NS. I'm still not completely sure how to work that one out in a logical way. What I do is so convoluted that it would take quite a while to explain just the basics of it. All I know is that my main characters age using RL time and ship construction uses 1 RL day = 1 NS year. Other than that, it gets complicated.

For all the tatics you need just read about the Six-Day War. The Isralis proved that a much smaller and unequipped force could destroy armies 3 times larger and better equipped than theirs.

Ah, but I contest: Why not the '73 war?

Becasuse in '73 Isralis were on the defensive.

Exactly. But the Egyptian methods were excellent. Not so much the Syrians, but the Egyptians were good.

Egypt had a larger military and got the Israelis by suprise.

Not quite, they were good but only to a degree. They only had the upper hand for a bit because their SAMs wouldn't let the IAF, the backbone of Israli offensive tatics, attack the ground troops or airfields. They also had Russian Pilots and advisors.

I do too. For people who would scream about it being elitist or snobbish, you have to realize that when you sign up for NS, we don't know who you are or how you RP. [b]It takes a while of people reading your RPs before you start getting the experienced gamers to want to RP with you.[b] It's not being cliquish. I think of it as being sort of like applying for a job or auditioning for an acting role. You have to present yourself in such a way that you will be attractive to would-be RP partners.

When you're own threads are ignored and you're not 'permitted' to join in other threads, that makes that rather difficult...

Hmm...I still think that the Russians helped, but it was the basic soundness of the Egyptian plan that worked.

Soundness?! They were bunkered down on both sides of the Suez Canal since after the six day war. Then one day in 1973 Egypt decided to start shelling Israel's side. The Israelis tried to use air power to bomb them, but the russian supplied SAMs shot them down. So for a bit it turned into WWI, but then Israel learned how to take out the SAMs, thanks to american aircraft, so graduelly they started to win.

When you're own threads are ignored and you're not 'permitted' to join in other threads, that makes that rather difficult...

I firmly believe that eventually, the cream rises to the top in RP as it does in other things. Sometimes, it depends on the type of RP you post.

I've posted things like a thread where my country celebrated winning the Baptism of Fire Cup (a soccer tournament) and it got zero replies and six total views (probably half of them were mine). Development threads sometimes seem to be neglected though I think they're very important for your nation to be a well-developed character. Yes, I consider NS countries to be characters in and of themselves. The ones that seem to garner the overwhelming attention here are war RPs.

If you write well enough in one or two RPs and they'll get noticed. Post something convincing enough in an RP and you'll get noticed. I severed ties with Doujin in one of my first RPs for reasons that stemmed from not reading the entire thread and fully three countries (including Doujin) responded with corrections that explained what happened IC. I posted an IC response to Dyelli Beybi declaring an Axis of Evil (in the first time I'd ever had IC contact with DB), not necessarily expecting even OOC acknowledgement that I wrote a post and DB responded to it IC in early on in the very next post. When I expressed OOC surprise, DB wrote an OOC explanation of why they'd react the way they did.

Believe me, I'm not trying to paint myself as an uber God of an RPer. I still have a lot work to do to improve. It has taken me just about five months of RP to get to a point where more than a select few start to pay attention to what I do in RPs. But if you're a good enough RPer, you will get noticed in due time.

The Germans always had better tanks, the problem was that the Allies were destroying the factories that were making them. The Allied (USA+ Britan) strategy was to attack each panzer from 3 sides with 4 sherman tanks. The Soviets had a similiar strategy.

Soviet tanks were far superior. They could engage head to head. Soviet doctrine had the tanks using their speed and going one-on-one.

you know what's funny? the guy who made the thread hasn't posted more than once.im new so i have nothing to say about strategy, so ill just say that. :D

CR i think you mistaken! Going one on one with a tiger was suicide!

soviet tanks were weak compared to the German tanks throughout the war until late 1944 and 1945, German tanks were superior in quality and design.Individual Tigers, Panthers, King Tigers were rightly feared. The only thing the soviets had were numbers.

By the end of the war soviet tanks became more equal with the likes of IS2 and the large gunned tank destroyers.

Anyway back to tactics, on something such as NS which is based a lot on imagination tactics are v difficult as no two people have the same imagination ideas etc.

That isn't true. The T-34 could almost go head to head with a Tiger and the T-35/85 version could take on a Panther and win most of the time. However the T-34 was also numerically and mechanically superior. The German tanks often broke down and were hard to repair.

whatever, i don't know where you are getting those facts from, some computer game i expect!

i don't know if any of you know the real truth unless you were IN one of those tanks during WW2 if you werent then you probably don't know. i think that would end this debate, wouldnt you?

i don't know if any of you know the real truth unless you were IN one of those tanks during WW2 if you werent then you probably don't know. i think that would end this debate, wouldnt you?

well no it wouldn't actually, there is such things as records, first hand accounts, damge reports and a whole host of information etc.

Anyway we shouldn't be arguing about this bollox in here anyway.

ok next topic
:)

whatever, i don't know where you are getting those facts from, some computer game i expect!
No I got them from several books and History Channel documentaries (sp). You shouldn't make assumptions about people based on mass media stereotypes, it's kinda insulting...

No I got them from several books and History Channel documentaries (sp). You shouldn't make assumptions about people based on mass media stereotypes, it's kinda insulting...


yeah well only losers get insulted by someone from the internet. :headbang:

Has tactics even been defined? I would like to use tactics, but since no one really explains it, the ol' soviet uber-numbers is what I do(sadley), I used some tactics(look at Shadows of Power RP when I attacked an airport)

yeah well only losers get insulted by someone from the internet. :headbang:
Flame bait. Knock it off.

flame bait! hardly

i was just stating an opinion, if he wants to feel insulted good for him, i don't care, no one else cares :headbang:

flame bait! hardly

i was just stating an opinion, if he wants to feel insulted good for him, i don't care, no one else cares :headbang:

I didn't say you could speak for me. You may not care, but that doesn't mean no one else does.

yeah well only losers get insulted by someone from the internet. :headbang:
So because they aren't in the same room as you it means that what they say can be insulting? You know what you're an idiot. My opinion. Now can everyone stop arguing?

yeah well only losers get insulted by someone from the internet. :headbang:

You're right. Sarzonia's wrong. It isn't flamebaiting.

It's flaming. You still ought to knock it off.

People take your tank debate out of this thread, it's threadjacking.

Also, about the tactics thing, meh it's true. This is why I stick to character RPs, I'll admit I don't know that much about logistics, all my knowledge is from the History Channel. So cha ya know what? Start some Character RPs, you'll get known, but it'll take long, I know...

That or attack AMF, you'll get famous pretty fast :)

Guerrillistan and Praetonia: The both of you knock it off.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

You know, there seems to be a lot of people on this thread are saying that they want a tactical RP... So what about if we make one?

I was thinking about perhaps setting up a situation where a new island is discovered (quite sizable) and each nation that signs up would have a limited amount of forces and try and conquer the island using (gasp!) realistic tactics (cause with a limited amount of forces you can't human wave the enemy)... thats the basic idea anyway.

So not to throw this topic too off-topic, I'll make a new thread for it tomorrow if enough people express an interest here.

There are a number of reasons why tactics arent that strong on Nationstates.

Firstly, most people here have only limited, if any, knowledge of tactics or indeed anything military at all. We're only civies after all b) What knowledge we acquire is through either reading up limited sources or taking instruction from people who are often as clueless as we are.

Secondly, the thing is we have to RP as a nation, so in the limited time we get to post, we have to basically explain what we are doing in general on all warfronts as oppossed to simple tactical manuervers by one small set of men and equipment. We have wars to fight, and this means we can only work with rather large units in 'general' battles and instead have to assume that the tactical stuff happens automatically.

Guerrillistan and Praetonia: The both of you knock it off.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation


sir yes sir, no problem sir

lol
ok

ill go with the russian piles'o'bodies war. it works if ppl are "expendable" (pffft "expendable") but tactics are betta.

Inkana (I think): That's precisely what I mean. The Egyptians knew the limitations of their own forces and the weaknesses of the Israelis, thus they knew their enemy and themselves. El-Shazly (a man who I admire deeply) judged that the best move was a swift knockout blow followed by digging in to maintain their ground and let the Israelis be ground down upon the wheel of attrition. This would have been doubly effective since the Syrians were approaching from the Golan too. If the Syrian Army had followed Egyptian example, and matched the method to the objective and shown a good assessment of their own abilities, I consider it likely that they would have won the day. It was only the Egyptian push from the Canal - on the behest of the Russians and badly-mauled Syrians - which screwed it up. Shazly was entirely correct: the Egyptian Army could not fight a mobile battle as well as the Israelis.

I don't really know much about military strategy. The only strategy I know probably comes from Advance Wars for the GBA and various C & C games. There is strategy in advance wars, but in RTS games, rushing with as many units as possible seems like a good strategy.


I'm assuming that's why most rp's are

Person A:"I DEPLOY 1 MILLION MEN!"

Person B:"I deploy 500,000 men, hiding on mountains, jungles, waiting to snipe your men. After they'll try to circle your men to prevent escape."

Person A: "1 MILLION IS BETTER THAN 500,000 SO I WIN!"

Yeah. or
"I deploy 500,000 men etc. Those men are totally undetectable and kill all your men, then disappear and turn up 20 miles away in a top-secret swamp HQ"

ill go with the russian piles'o'bodies war. it works if ppl are "expendable" (pffft "expendable") but tactics are betta.

Not better, just easier ... for the generals.

It's not even terribly effective against a well-prepared and well-supplied enemy. Here's a little thing I wrote several months ago:


HUMAN WAVE ATTACKS

Human wave attacks are rarely effective against a modern military. Don't get me wrong, human waves can be effective, they're just hideously expensive in lives and equipment- so much so that a "successful" attack could cost more than the objective is worth.

Toward the end of WWII, the Japanese Army essentially used human wave assaults (called Banzai charges) against their US and Australian opponents. These attacks almost always failed (charging straight into machine gun fire is rarely survivable), and- even when succesful- left the surviving attackers far too few to resist the inevitable counterattack.

The Soviet tactics in that war were some of the few examples of effective human wave attacks. Zhukov and his fellow generals stopped the Nazi advance through the USSR by essentially piling up walls of dead Russian soldiers to slow the Wermacht down long enough for reserve troops to arrive from farther east. Once the Russian factories started cranking out enough rifles, tanks, and ammunition for their troops, though, the Soviets began being thriftier with the lives of their troops.

As long as you don't care that you're slaughtering an entire generation of your own people, and outnumber your enemies by 20:1 or better, and have comparable weapons technology ... it can work.

But there's no guarantee that it will work, and the cost frequently far outweighs the gain.

"my Bombers Are Super Stealthed And Can Drop 1 Million Tons Each. When They're Done, They Can Travel At Mach 600 And Land At My Base Halfway Around The World"

That isn't true. The T-34 could almost go head to head with a Tiger and the T-35/85 version could take on a Panther and win most of the time. However the T-34 was also numerically and mechanically superior. The German tanks often broke down and were hard to repair.

The Panzer IV was reliable and not as fuelhungry as the bigger tanks, the weaknesses of the Panther and Tigers gave no real trouble as they were rarely used in offensive moves.
Besides, even if they broke down, they returned to action very quickly. The German army went through great lengths to keep their small amount of tanks operational.

The Panther can take out a T-34 at a distance of 2km while the T-34 fails at 100m. The T-34 had a better chance against a Tiger, the 85mm failed at 'only' 500m while the Tigers 88 could penetrate the T-34 armor at 1-1.5km. Throughout '43 the Germans were outnumbered 5:1, but the Soviet couldnt destroy them. Even by 1945 the German army was still years ahead of its enemies both in tactics and technology.

Just like Guderian and von Manstein, El Shazly had his own idiotic leader. Saddat wanted the Egyptian army to move into Israel, El Shazly told Saddat the SAMs couldnt cover them so far but Saddat insisted he should attack. As a result The Egyptians lost the '73 war

Vollmeria: I'd agree with you on most of that, bar the IS-2/3, which was only effective thanks to the size of the APHE shell and bloody good armour rather than the velocity of the gun. The Germans were, tank for tank, in many cases better than the Soviets, I admit, but I'd certainly vhave been cautious against a T-34/85 in anything bar a Tiger. Also, the German tanks were generally overrun and outflanked by the Soviets, with the result that they were either surrounded, cut off and destroyed or attacked from behind and destroyed.

And yes, bloody shame about '73. Damn Sadat - and the Russians - to hell for that!

First of all, start a different thread for the tank debate.

Second, I agree with Sarzonia. It takes a long time to become a recognized rper. I have had much experience rping through dungeons and dragons and such, but NS is my only experience with modern rping. I am semi-recognized by some, but not many. I have done a lot of stuff with Rufai, who, in my opinion, is an excellent rper. I've also done stuff with Aust, who is not so good. He had a school full of terrorists and had a bunch of nations come to help. Rufai and I were two of those nations. Aust rped the first room and after that the thread just....ended. Not realizing that it was done (Only one room taken over) Rufai and I rped the rest of it, just for the sake of fun and rping(which are one and the same, for me).

Another big part of rping, aside from tactics and logistics, is era. Celdrone I think does it best, where he is future tech(but nothing drastic) in a modern era. Or he's modern tech in a future era....I dont remember. The point is that he can effectively rp with either era, because he is in between and nothing would be truly infeasible(sp?). I try to use that same idea: I have modern weapons and such, but also have some future tech stuff(holo projecters, better computers, etc.). THis creates a sort of balance.

Lastly, I'd like to congradulate WinTree on an excellent idea. He said:

You know, there seems to be a lot of people on this thread are saying that they want a tactical RP... So what about if we make one?

I was thinking about perhaps setting up a situation where a new island is discovered (quite sizable) and each nation that signs up would have a limited amount of forces and try and conquer the island using (gasp!) realistic tactics (cause with a limited amount of forces you can't human wave the enemy)... thats the basic idea anyway.

So not to throw this topic too off-topic, I'll make a new thread for it tomorrow if enough people express an interest here.

Vollmeria: I'd agree with you on most of that, bar the IS-2/3, which was only effective thanks to the size of the APHE shell and bloody good armour rather than the velocity of the gun. The Germans were, tank for tank, in many cases better than the Soviets, I admit, but I'd certainly vhave been cautious against a T-34/85 in anything bar a Tiger. Also, the German tanks were generally overrun and outflanked by the Soviets, with the result that they were either surrounded, cut off and destroyed or attacked from behind and destroyed.

And yes, bloody shame about '73. Damn Sadat - and the Russians - to hell for that!

Just think of the idiotic German leader and his haltebefhel.

This is a point i have made before.

Point of veiw:
This is soemthing you should take time to think about in a war Rp, from what command level are you veiwing the action? msot people view actions from the point of veiw of thier nation's high command if not the overall polical authority. Here the actual events on the feild are very very distant and it is pretty mucha ssumed that local comamnders are acting with soem intelligence. Of course those who take this level tend not to actually explain it or describe it fully they juist throw out numbers.

Personally i preffer to use a mix of levels. Primarily i use a brigade/divsional(occasionally as high as a Corps) level frame work to describe the overall events and plans and then follow this up with bits of company and character RP to give more detail and depth. this can lead to hideously long posts but in my mind it offers the msot interesting way of presenting an Rp that can move reasonably quickly yet retain soem detail of plans and action and provide scope for details of everythign involved.

My main problem is my impatience as it can take me ages to coem up with good posts.

This is a point i have made before.

Point of veiw:
This is soemthing you should take time to think about in a war Rp, from what command level are you veiwing the action? msot people view actions from the point of veiw of thier nation's high command if not the overall polical authority. Here the actual events on the feild are very very distant and it is pretty mucha ssumed that local comamnders are acting with soem intelligence. Of course those who take this level tend not to actually explain it or describe it fully they juist throw out numbers.

Personally i preffer to use a mix of levels. Primarily i use a brigade/divsional(occasionally as high as a Corps) level frame work to describe the overall events and plans and then follow this up with bits of company and character RP to give more detail and depth. this can lead to hideously long posts but in my mind it offers the msot interesting way of presenting an Rp that can move reasonably quickly yet retain soem detail of plans and action and provide scope for details of everythign involved.

My main problem is my impatience as it can take me ages to coem up with good posts.
OOC: well said and same here, except everyonce and a while i go down onto the front lines, at home, on the news, blah blah blah, and i love tactics especially pincer movements, those are fun. New Empire and i had a good RP going but i died and it was on the old forumn so it kinda dissapeared though he had his rebels surround me and i was retreating into a smaller circle by the minute and he had his military firebase try to blast them to hell, but the whole 30,000 almost was wiped out because he flanked me.

Sorry about the threadjacking gents :D

Yeah. or
"I deploy 500,000 men etc. Those men are totally undetectable and kill all your men, then disappear and turn up 20 miles away in a top-secret swamp HQ"
This does seem to be the preferred tactic of NS players recently - back when I was a mere lurker I saw many interesting threads and that was what spurred me to get involved - I don't really know what's happened since...
I remember one of the first RPs I got involved in, basically mopping up terrorist stragglers from a conquered nation... about 10 nations poured about a hundred thousand troops each into the damn thing.

I used special forces teams and helicopter strikes - OK so it wasn't based on experience or reading any more than the Discovery Channel and 2 or 3 books on the capabilities of units with a few chapters on tactics - I thought I ought to keep the numbers low because I was new, but I think it was just plain common sense, no tactical smarts needed - special forces are more effective at fighting a small, hidden enemy than huge amounts of regular soldiers.

Hmm... My point is, people don't need to be a tactical genius, so I don't think it's inexperience... I think people just like to have a good numberwank every now and then :p

Well i have been sort of involved with a full on clancyfied up clsoe and personal TG RP with an M8 and lets just say the actual 2weeks of conflcit have taken us about 6months...

Politicians are too dumb too understand tactics, so in my nation the generals decide what tactics and strategy gets used. The only one who can change military plans is the Emperor. Most of the time i let the generals have a good discussion. then i execute their plans. The main problem with such military planning is that some RPers take advantage and come up with all kinds of ridiculous (godmoded) solutions and moves.

So if there is any indication of the opponent being godmoder/lamer/whetever, i just skip most of the discussion and get to the military moves.
Tactical is fun(and a good alternative to atrittion) if you have a good opponent.

Agreed. Sadly it's hard to find an opponent able or willing to employ it, and a lot of the time I think it's not for want of interest in doing so. :(

The Dra-pol invasion of korea was jam-packed with tactics. It was so fun.

You just need to look around for a good Rp and not one of these little wars that pop up every day.

Sorry for the no post, I had some RL stuff to do.

I'm not complaining about how things are done, I'm just inquiring. And what is war without details. Why is this tank superior to that tank? Why did this group of soldiers charge and end up winning? I especially live for details. I like the possibility of creating people. Everyone knows Rommel, no one will remember soldier number thirteen out of five hundred thousand eighty six. I think it would be great to have two known and feared generals fighting it out.

Why can't you personalize war and also use numbers? Johnny Good Boy Tyler was 18, fresh into (insert squad name and number here) which had at least (insert number of men here). This lends to the inclusion of tactics and surprises.

Also, I have read some AMF war posts and I really liked them. I'm not trying to be a sycophant or anything, but he does a good job. Also, I dont consider your tank talk thread hijacking because Originally it was presented to me as a follow up to my Dunkirk statement. Debate is always good.

Weyrean tactics:
(General): Take that district by tomorrow.
(Captain): Take that block by tomorrow.
(Sergeant): CHARGE!
(Private): *sigh* Here we go...

I personalize only when it moves along the plot.

Mm, yes, I think the Korean War For Unification was a step in the right direction. The Crusader Wars were a good start, and I think those fights I've been involved in (started) have more or less got better one on top of the other.

I like what Crookfur says about views and levels of command and what not... I like to know who's telling the opposition's forces to do what they're doing, and why they're telling them that. A lot of people, I think, just try to beat the other player... I'm not saying that they may not be willing to be beaten by the other player, just that I don't think that's necessarily what it should be about. In the Crusader Wars, Dra-pol alone fought Quinntonia, Happy Baseball Fans, Raysia, Promise of Joshua, and other minor contributors to the anti-me cause, and it wasn't half bad, over all... from my point of view, Director Kurosian I (our then chief of state and effective head of government) had his political aims, and, Hitlerlike, ordered such and such an objective be taken, and that was it so far as he was concerned. In the field, his yesmen generals got more than two million Drapoel killed in repeated human wave assaults against prepared coalition positions around Hamhung. Hotan (Secretary of the Communist Party (and later Director) and all around superman) was given command of a single Red Bamboo (elite corps) division in the field and fought what he made his war, picking the battlefield and kicking an utterly disproporionate number of backsides across the Korean peninsula.

The People's Republic was saved, but Director Kurosian's leadership would never recover. It's fun! Players should accept that they aren't (generally) the god directing the nation and its military from on high, and that there are layers to almost any society... Kurosian II utterly messed up his administration by further misguided military adventure, and he was replaced... but that actually means change, you know? It's not a matter of changing Kurosian I's name to Kurosian II, and Kurosian II's name to Koshiako, and Koshiako's name to Hotan, and continuing to play Dra-pol with exactly the same outlook and ambition throughout.

Tactics are fun when they ultimately screw with everything else in the character of a nation. Yay.

In the War For Korean Unification, under the unified political and martial control of comrade Director Secretary Hotan, the world had a casual long-standing plan for the defence of the ROK, and Hotan had a personally developed plan tangenting from the long-standing one for the forcible incorporation of the ROK into Dra-pol. It destroyed the long-standing defence plan, and left responding players like LRR, Kilean, Hudecia, and so on needing to come up with new plans on shaky intelligence, which I think they did pretty well -respecting the reality of their limited intel on Dra-pol, I mean. Like LRR says, you've just got to look for the right RPs and RPers, and there will be those prepared to respect the 'reality' such as it is, of a situation.

I'd add that the War for Korean Unification deadlocked after a nuclear exchange, but that this did not ruin the RP, so far as I'm concerned. The new border remains tense, nobody's nation state was completely obliterated by a gajillion nukes, and it all wound-down a hard fought clash quite nicely. How many times did that war swing back and forth? How many times did Andong and Inchon change hands?

I had so much more to say about the scale and view of things, but I'm already deep into self-interested rambling, so I'll just give up here :)

Why can't you personalize war and also use numbers? Johnny Good Boy Tyler was 18, fresh into (insert squad name and number here) which had at least (insert number of men here). This lends to the inclusion of tactics and surprises.

Here's my recent example of a thread with just those qualities.
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=339979

There are lots of others available from a variety of authors out there.

There are tactics-based RPs out there. Winnowing through the dross to get to the few good examples is tiresome, but rewarding. Make note of the people whose posts you like, and watch for their names in threads.


TEO

Well said, TEO.

I think that there are three things that are hindering tactics in NS.

1) A great majority of the people here, most likely all of them, have never been a general officer or even a colonel in any serious military. This means that they have no grasp of how to move corp and field army level groups in a tactical and strategic manner.

2) People tend to have this singularly detached notion that armies meet on the field of battle and when they do things are often decided in a series of sharp actions, this misconception has largely been fed by the media. Reporters who are at a battlefield tend to focus on the raw power of the battle (and it's there, make no mistake about it) to the detriment of the necessity of informing people of the horrors of war. When's the last time anyone's hear a reporter comment on combined smell of spent cordite, burned flesh, and petroleum that has caught on fire? I can't imagine that it's a pleasant smell, especially after I've heard vets comment on just that when they traveled the Highway of Death during Gulf War I.

3) Modern war more often than not depends on taking down utilities and making life generally miserable for an opposing army before battle is ever joined. The problem is that often don't provide the locations of dams, major bridges, large power plants, or anything else.

Said it before and I'll say it again: You can't conduct a war properly without maps. Nobody ever provides maps, so nobody can conduct wars properly.

There's also that DPUO, but I think that goes part and parcel with providing locations for things.

Aye, very true actually. Ah well, another example of my famed "let's say something already said" doctrine ;)

Said it before and I'll say it again: You can't conduct a war properly without maps. Nobody ever provides maps, so nobody can conduct wars properly.

Links to factbooks and the like are very helpful for planning RPs. So is communication beforehand. For anyone who gripes about stuff like city locations and key power plants and all not being knowable IC, you can always justify it by saying you have intelligence operatives or people who familiarize themselves with other countries. Why do you think the CIA has factbooks about so many countries in the world?

Locations of military operations is a different matter, but there should be no harm in providing OOC info about your country. I did that during my civil war RP to give my opponent an opportunity to plan his strikes and get a sense for what he's striking against. He also gave me the same when I planned strikes against his resistance forces in his country.

That's why I'm so emphatically in favour of pre-war planning and communication. I'm sure other folks have made these points many times over. I'll let this one alone now.

I wouldn't say that tactics is completely gone... In the Future Tech arena many nations do use tatics. Especially ones with powerful puppets. *cough* Mekanta *cough* Neo-Mekanta *cough* I should know, I was the victim of a ruthless plot...

Ever since the beginning I've used tactics in my wars. From fleet formations to weapons firing patters to hit-and-hide with my new toys, Temporal Shields... :)

Has tactics even been defined? I would like to use tactics, but since no one really explains it, the ol' soviet uber-numbers is what I do(sadley), I used some tactics(look at Shadows of Power RP when I attacked an airport)

Soviet doctrine DOES call for number wanking, in a way.. They use echelons.

They pound away at your troops until you are weak and ready to pull back, then they roll in a fresh and powerful new line of troops.

This is a point i have made before.

Point of veiw:
This is soemthing you should take time to think about in a war Rp, from what command level are you veiwing the action? msot people view actions from the point of veiw of thier nation's high command if not the overall polical authority.

I definitely see where Crookfur is coming from here. It's impossible for a leader of a country to command troop movements thousands of miles away or command naval squadrons, so if you're RPing as the leader of your country, you're pretty much stuck saying "send troops there."

I do have one character that's me (my president, since his name is my RL name), but other characters I use have certain elements of me in there. Best example: Admiral Marcus Patinkin. When I perform most naval actions, I use him and he takes on my cautious nature, my mean streak when provoked, and other attributes of me. That allows me to RP a more realistic war, though I often end up shifting characters and perspective from Parliament Hall to the situation room of the ISS Freedom.

Links to factbooks and the like are very helpful for planning RPs. So is communication beforehand. For anyone who gripes about stuff like city locations and key power plants and all not being knowable IC, you can always justify it by saying you have intelligence operatives or people who familiarize themselves with other countries. Why do you think the CIA has factbooks about so many countries in the world?

Locations of military operations is a different matter, but there should be no harm in providing OOC info about your country. I did that during my civil war RP to give my opponent an opportunity to plan his strikes and get a sense for what he's striking against. He also gave me the same when I planned strikes against his resistance forces in his country.

That's why I'm so emphatically in favour of pre-war planning and communication. I'm sure other folks have made these points many times over. I'll let this one alone now.

I've used maps to great effect before.

*Pulls out National Geographic Korea map, adorned with colored pencil markings*

I tend to agree. In NS, a lot of people tend to think "numberwank > strategy", and RP accordingly.

Then, if you come up with a good way to destroy their forces or otherwise render them useless, "OMG IGNORED GODMOD!!!!!111shift+1one!1!"

Axis Nova



I think that there are three things that are hindering tactics in NS.

1) A great majority of the people here, most likely all of them, have never been a general officer or even a colonel in any serious military. This means that they have no grasp of how to move corp and field army level groups in a tactical and strategic manner.

2) People tend to have this singularly detached notion that armies meet on the field of battle and when they do things are often decided in a series of sharp actions, this misconception has largely been fed by the media. Reporters who are at a battlefield tend to focus on the raw power of the battle (and it's there, make no mistake about it) to the detriment of the necessity of informing people of the horrors of war. When's the last time anyone's hear a reporter comment on combined smell of spent cordite, burned flesh, and petroleum that has caught on fire? I can't imagine that it's a pleasant smell, especially after I've heard vets comment on just that when they traveled the Highway of Death during Gulf War I.

3) Modern war more often than not depends on taking down utilities and making life generally miserable for an opposing army before battle is ever joined. The problem is that often don't provide the locations of dams, major bridges, large power plants, or anything else.


Both quoted for truth. ;)

I know I may be seen as raising a dead topic here, but how would people feel about a small-scale tactical/operational RP on NS? It's just the barest bones of an idea right now, but essentially, you'd play out a scenario in a hypothetical war of the 1970s. The theatres might be areas like the Middle East (Arab-Israeli war round IV), Korean Peninsula (Reunification attempt), South America (combat between two nations on either side of the Cold War) or Africa (same sort of thing). In both cases, the GMods would play as the two superpowers. The superpowers would have a restricted intervention ability so as not to spoil the game. There would be no "production" of units and forces; instead each nation would start out just prior to the conflict beginning with a certain number of units available, both active and reserve, and various rules governing stuff like popular resistance.

Any feedback/response?

bump

Sounds like a good idea... just a suggestion though that it may die out if you put it in an Invision Board off NS.

That happened with a Napoleonic RP I was going to do.

Yarr, I thought I might ask to do it here actually.

I think the main problem with our RPing is that all of the good players are forced to play with number-wanking, godmodding players. If we were to form a smaller, more elite gaming "club", that might allow for some fun, free spirited, intelectuall gaming, while drowning out all of the other bullsh**.

Would anyone be interested in this?

I would be very interested. I have a lot of experience roleplaying and it is hard to find the few who roleplay well on NS. I mostly RP fantasy pen/paper stuff in RL, but NS has brought in modern rping to my experience. Keep me in the loop.
-Ybronneb

Another possibility would be to put each player in command of, say, a single soviet motor rifle regiment or NATO brigade and RP out a single front. That way you could get the real numbers of a larger war, but each person would only need to focus on a small aspect of the battle... much like in real life. I had a very successful and fun RP with Peace and Terror on our regional board... a set peice armored meeting engagement between a Chardonayan Battalion Combat Team and a Patsy Brigade. I think it was fairly realistically done too, because the lessons we came out of the exercise with were ones that have been proven time and time again. Artillery is god, unsupported scouts die quickly, obscuration is key, make sure your tanks have the guns with the longest range, dig quickly and often, minefields are really really annoying, tactical reserves are nessisary but not at the expence of reduced concentrations at the front.

True...I've done a lot where I only focus on one unit, usually Wraith Unit, my main spec ops team.

I know I may be seen as raising a dead topic here, but how would people feel about a small-scale tactical/operational RP on NS? It's just the barest bones of an idea right now, but essentially, you'd play out a scenario in a hypothetical war of the 1970s. The theatres might be areas like the Middle East (Arab-Israeli war round IV), Korean Peninsula (Reunification attempt), South America (combat between two nations on either side of the Cold War) or Africa (same sort of thing). In both cases, the GMods would play as the two superpowers. The superpowers would have a restricted intervention ability so as not to spoil the game. There would be no "production" of units and forces; instead each nation would start out just prior to the conflict beginning with a certain number of units available, both active and reserve, and various rules governing stuff like popular resistance.

Any feedback/response?

There already has been a Korean war thread. Two, if I remember correctly. One good one (avec Dra-pol), and one numberwank (not naming any names).

Here (http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~amitp/Articles/StrategyAndTactics.html) is an excellent article on modern military tactics, written by a former(?) intelligence analyst.

One of these days, I'm gonna hafta make thread about that one...

--Felix

I am going to begin recruiting for this alternate community. "Tactical Gaming community" (TGC)

It will be open to all tech levels, just tell me which when you register. It wont be open to everyone, there will be a few trials that potential members will need to get through. I will devise a series of scenarios that applicants will need to reply to. Then we judge their RPing and detirmine if they make it in or not.
I can't do this on my own. Would anyone like to help? This could be just what NS needs. If you want to have wars and RP, put "TGC Only" on your threads, and you are insured to have a good RP. Anyone interested?

I am going to begin recruiting for this alternate community. "Tactical Gaming community" (TGC)

It will be open to all tech levels, just tell me which when you register. It wont be open to everyone, there will be a few trials that potential members will need to get through. I will devise a series of scenarios that applicants will need to reply to. Then we judge their RPing and detirmine if they make it in or not.
I can't do this on my own. Would anyone like to help? This could be just what NS needs. If you want to have wars and RP, put "TGC Only" on your threads, and you are insured to have a good RP. Anyone interested?

I am extremely interested in this. I try to use tatics, but have only a basic idea of the idea. Plus, it is hard to use tatics when the other nation does not, because when you do, they claim godmod. So yes, tell me more.

I would be greatly interested in this.

Go here: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=6952418

Go here: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=6952418

Going now.

I would, I am trying to find a good medieval game. I love fighting them