NationStates Jolt Archive

Anyone notice how the vast majority of wars here involve two (or more) nations mobilizing enormous numbers of troops in a matter of days, then sending them off to the frontlines where the fighting ends up becoming a bizarre high-tech parody of World War I with millions of men dying over a few yards of territory?

I thought modern warfare involved speed, precision and small(er) numbers of troops, not this crap where you have entrenched lines that stretch for god-knows how long.

It makes no sense!

Anyone notice how the vast majority of wars here involve two (or more) nations mobilizing enormous numbers of troops in a matter of days, then sending them off to the frontlines where the fighting ends up becoming a bizarre high-tech parody of World War I with millions of men dying over a few yards of territory?

I thought modern warfare involved speed, precision and small(er) numbers of troops, not this crap where you have entrenched lines that stretch for god-knows how long.

It makes no sense!
It is because the political situation in NS is like WWI in too many ways

OOC: It comes down to being something quite simple, yet hard to express.

Let us say that person A is a very good RPer. He wants to engage person B with a small number of forces, in a lightning fast strike.

However, since the major proponent of a lightning strike implies secrecy, --and secrets are a no-no in Nationstates Roleplay-- then person B will automatically know how to block the attack.

And even then, person B won't want to lose the nation he's worked so hard on. So person A will attack with 13814814885851 troops because he knows person B will pull 9451959195845 troops out of his arse to defend.

If that made any sense...........Yeah.

However, since the major proponent of a lightning strike implies secrecy, --and secrets are a no-no in Nationstates Roleplay-- then person B will automatically know how to block the attack.

ANY war RP waged as a competition rather than a story, will not work. It's as simple as that. If the two participants are trying to keep secrets, and somehow defeat the other, then world war I is what you will get, because world war I generals were n00bs. If both participants are trying to win at the expense of the other, then the level of RP will be crap.

This is why I don't RP with anyone who makes their posts primarily using the pronoun 'we'.

My point was that, for example, you cannot sneak troops around his flank.

I personally try to be cryptic in those movements, hoping my enemy will not catch it until its too late, then I simply quote myself.

My point was that, for example, you cannot sneak troops around his flank.

I am well aware of that. I'm saying that the only reason you cannot sneak troops around his flank is if he's regarding the war as a competition which must be won, in which case he won't allow it under any circumstances.

I am well aware of that. I'm saying that the only reason you cannot sneak troops around his flank is if he's regarding the war as a competition which must be won, in which case he won't allow it under any circumstances.

War is the epitome of competition. Sports? A nonviolent war. Humans have a very aggressive and possessive side, and war is the perfect embodiment of it.

Nimzonia is right, and Communist Rule seems to be missing the point entirely. You can't use information obtained during any OOC discussion as if it were IC tactical information unless both parties are agreed. I just don't see how this can be hard to understand. I'm really really drunk and I understand it. Look I'm not even punctuating properly and I understand.

....Well, it is quite obvious you are drunk because you do not understand a word of what I am saying......Please sober up and return for a debate..

....Well, it is quite obvious you are drunk because you do not understand a word of what I am saying......Please sober up and return for a debate..

Really? I could say the same about you. I think we seem to have fundamentally different ideas of what constitutes roleplay.

Actual war is a competition. Freeform RP is not. So trying to hold a competitive war in freeform RP is like playing monopoly without dice; everyone just prances around the board ignoring each other's hotels.

....Well, it is quite obvious you are drunk because you do not understand a word of what I am saying......Please sober up and return for a debate..Quite frankly, you are wrong. The point behind roleplay is not who "wins" and who "loses." It's about telling a story. Any reputable RPer knows that.

Yeah, I stand by what I said, and CR is still missing the point. Don't try to put me down, instead try to understand.

RP is only about competition for the people who would lose, anyway. Anyone capable of winning understands that it's just for amicable fun, and that victory by cheating or lying to the other player is a complete waste of time. It doesn't matter if you lose an RP war... some people set out to lose. You just don't use OOC information against someone IC unless the two of you have agreed that you should be winning, anyway, or something like that.

To me those who RP a war simply for the fun of it denote the term "warmonger." I believe that Nationstates war is a very serious thing. It should be serious, as it should be entered into with serious and logical reasons.

And finally, from the start I've said that I hate when people use OOC information in an IC way. (Though not in that same manner.) Thusly, I stated you did not understand my point of view.

It should be serious, as it should be entered into with serious and logical reasons.

Let's make the distinction here. It is serious IC, but trivially unimportant OOC. It hardly effects me IRL if my entire army gets shot to pieces. It may matter ICly, to the people of Nimzonia, but they're mine to screw over however I feel is appropriate.

Thus, a war is entered into for my OOC entertainment, regardless of how the IC population of my country feel about it. That's not to say one should declare war without IC reasons, but the point is, if I'm warmongering for fun OOC, I can easily find reasons to go to war IC, without being unrealistic.

Right, I'm rambling now.

War in nationstates is an IC and OOC choice. OOCly, no, we won't walk away and poorer if we lose or richer if we win. ICly it can mean life and death.

HOWEVER. I stand by my statements that war should be taken seriously and started logicially because some people in here find that their nation EXISTING is entertaining enough. To be invaded randomly by someone who finds the destruction of an enemy entertaining and for no other reason is quite annoying.

Well, we don't disagree on that, CR. No one can force an RP on an unwilling partner.

To be invaded randomly by someone who finds the destruction of an enemy entertaining and for no other reason is quite annoying.

This is where we're not connecting, I think. Or at least, where it feels like I'm not getting my point across.

When roleplaying a war, the fun is not in the destruction of an enemy, but in the telling of the story, the quality of the writing, and the doing of nasty things to your characters. That's it. It shouldn't matter if your country wins or loses, if the above conditions are satisfied. If allowing an enemy to sneak round your flank is more conducive to the above conditions, then it should happen!

If your entertainment comes from destroying an enemy, from winning the war, then you aren't roleplaying, you're competing, and you'd be better off on Battle.net than Nationstates.net.

this is a good reason to post some rules of conduct in the begining of the rp thread..

It seems like today we have similar-sized nations fighting one another with similar armed forces.

Unless one is totally inept when it comes to tactics, things generally end up in a stalemate.

And even then, person B won't want to lose the nation he's worked so hard on.

I'd also like to know exactly how it's possible to lose a nation.

I'd also like to know exactly how it's possible to lose a nation.

Three letters: A. M. F.

:D

Ever heard of The Fedral Union?

He's been invaded so many times over that almost no one admits his existance. Would you like to be ignored constantly? Indeed...


Last post of the night, my points have been made.

Ever heard of The Fedral Union?

He's been invaded so many times over that almost no one admits his existance. Would you like to be ignored constantly? Indeed...

TFU is basically ignored because he can't RP worth a damn, and anything else is just a symptom of that.

Basically, having your country conquered and occupied doesn't equate to losing that nation. You simply change from being a sovereign nation to an occupied nation. You are still RPing the people thereof, just not the government. Then your activities consist of civil unrest, or integration into an empire, rather than declaring foreign policy.

I expect I'm surrounded by the kind of people who think that Desert Storm was a much better story than the Warsaw Uprising, so clearly my point isn't getting across. Except to those who already agreed with me.

OOC: It comes down to being something quite simple, yet hard to express.

Let us say that person A is a very good RPer. He wants to engage person B with a small number of forces, in a lightning fast strike.

However, since the major proponent of a lightning strike implies secrecy, --and secrets are a no-no in Nationstates Roleplay-- then person B will automatically know how to block the attack.

And even then, person B won't want to lose the nation he's worked so hard on. So person A will attack with 13814814885851 troops because he knows person B will pull 9451959195845 troops out of his arse to defend.

If that made any sense...........Yeah.
Just cause you lose a war does not mean you have to give up your nation, it just means you should wait at least at least 2 to 3 days before starting another war. THough waiting at least 7 days would probably be preferable.

War is the epitome of competition. Sports? A nonviolent war. Humans have a very aggressive and possessive side, and war is the perfect embodiment of it.
But rping is supposed to be nothing more than storytelling.

But rping is supposed to be nothing more than storytelling.
Patton (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066206/) was good storytelling. Pearl Harbor (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0213149/) was bad storytelling. It's not the size of the war, it's the size of the story.

Patton (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066206/) was good storytelling. Pearl Harbor (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0213149/) was bad storytelling. It's not the size of the war, it's the size of the story.

Well put :)

I shall follow this example with another:

Full Metal Jacket (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093058/) was good storytelling. The Vietnam War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War) was bad storytelling. :D

Well put :)

I shall follow this example with another:

Full Metal Jacket (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093058/) was good storytelling. The Vietnam War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War) was bad storytelling. :D
I disagree. You are comparing a fictional movie with an encyclopedia entry.
Frisbeteeria's example was better. He was comparing movies with movies.

I disagree. You are comparing a fictional movie with an encyclopedia entry.
Frisbeteeria's example was better. He was comparing movies with movies.

Looks like my point went right over someone's head, then.

I was comparing a good story (full metal jacket), with a bad story (a load of encyclopaedia blurb about a war).

The point is, a good story reads like a movie, and a bad story reads like a dry list of dates, numbers and places. If I want an accurate history of the vietnam war, an encyclopedia is better, but if I want a good yarn about a bunch of soldiers going nuts in the vietnam war, I'll watch the frickin movie!

:rolleyes:

Guys, look at Hataria.

He's a prime example why war won't work on NS realistically. His nation keeps getting nuked and occupied over and over, yet he keeps coming back for more.

No matter what people do with wars, Hataria will just shrug it off.

People keep beating down on Hataria, expecting to "defeat" him and give him "GAME OVER!" but it will never happen. Some people have extra thick skulls. :rolleyes:

Actually, Nation States is an alternate universe where, due to a glitch in dating systems caused by Y2K, people have reverted to the early 20th century in mindset, but not technologically. Modern (04) refers to 1904.

True story.

It ends up like ww1 because all nations use the same tactics. They try to strike fast with tanks, but all these nations put so much into airforce that small, quick strikes can be defeated by faster, more percise aircraft. Nations have so many tanks, artillery, and aircraft that any attack can be beaten back by amassed Artillery, ATGMs, etc. You can't break a strong defender, so you make your own lines. Thus starts the stalemate.

what i don't understand is why war is what so many seem to be obssessed with rollplaying. i mean what is with war anyway? you just tear up a bunch of crap and make big holes in the ground full of unhappy dead people and what have you got? a bunch of holes in the ground full of unhappy dead people and a bunch of torn up crap.

i thought this place was supposed to be about rollplaying somekind of innovative and or alternative nation simulation. you can roll play wars zillions of places without any of that so why is there so much focus on that here? where there is so much else that we can and could be rollplaying. like building and maintianing sustainable infrastructure or tecnology in a post petrolium environment and or a future in which for any number of reasons even our genetic makeup may have radicly chainged to give us fur and tails but still creative and reasoning minds.

why do people (here) limit themselves to such narrowness when there is such a wide open opportunity for real immaginative diversity? isn't war just same old same old crap anyway?

=^^=
.../\...

[QUOTE=Communist Rule]War in nationstates is an IC and OOC choice. OOCly, no, we won't walk away and poorer if we lose or richer if we win. ICly it can mean life and death.

so, the moral of the story is...chuck everything you got at the opposition so you don't walk away poorer?

what i don't understand is why war is what so many seem to be obssessed with rollplaying. i mean what is with war anyway? you just tear up a bunch of crap and make big holes in the ground full of unhappy dead people and what have you got? a bunch of holes in the ground full of unhappy dead people and a bunch of torn up crap.

i thought this place was supposed to be about rollplaying somekind of innovative and or alternative nation simulation. you can roll play wars zillions of places without any of that so why is there so much focus on that here? where there is so much else that we can and could be rollplaying. like building and maintianing sustainable infrastructure or tecnology in a post petrolium environment and or a future in which for any number of reasons even our genetic makeup may have radicly chainged to give us fur and tails but still creative and reasoning minds.

why do people (here) limit themselves to such narrowness when there is such a wide open opportunity for real immaginative diversity? isn't war just same old same old crap anyway?

=^^=
.../\...

People do do other things, take a look at this (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1223) forum.

what i don't understand is why war is what so many seem to be obssessed with rollplaying. i mean what is with war anyway? you just tear up a bunch of crap and make big holes in the ground full of unhappy dead people and what have you got? a bunch of holes in the ground full of unhappy dead people and a bunch of torn up crap.

i thought this place was supposed to be about rollplaying somekind of innovative and or alternative nation simulation. you can roll play wars zillions of places without any of that so why is there so much focus on that here? where there is so much else that we can and could be rollplaying. like building and maintianing sustainable infrastructure or tecnology in a post petrolium environment and or a future in which for any number of reasons even our genetic makeup may have radicly chainged to give us fur and tails but still creative and reasoning minds.

why do people (here) limit themselves to such narrowness when there is such a wide open opportunity for real immaginative diversity? isn't war just same old same old crap anyway?

=^^=
.../\...

Thats exactly what I'm doing.

I'm RP'ing a quite different type of RP, and I also RP development of new technologies, like modern day fusion power. I don't go warring aganist everybody and their mama's.

I want to come here to NS, to RP new ideas and original concepts. Take modern tech nation versus fantasy / magical nations for instance.

what i don't understand is why war is what so many seem to be obssessed with rollplaying. i mean what is with war anyway? you just tear up a bunch of crap and make big holes in the ground full of unhappy dead people and what have you got? a bunch of holes in the ground full of unhappy dead people and a bunch of torn up crap.

i thought this place was supposed to be about rollplaying somekind of innovative and or alternative nation simulation. you can roll play wars zillions of places without any of that so why is there so much focus on that here? where there is so much else that we can and could be rollplaying. like building and maintianing sustainable infrastructure or tecnology in a post petrolium environment and or a future in which for any number of reasons even our genetic makeup may have radicly chainged to give us fur and tails but still creative and reasoning minds.

why do people (here) limit themselves to such narrowness when there is such a wide open opportunity for real immaginative diversity? isn't war just same old same old crap anyway?

=^^=
.../\...


War can make the best backdrop to stories of struggle and sacrifice, and other such emotion-laden topics, that you don't get with dry scientific-research RPs, and so on. Unfortunately, most people seem to regard war as either a story in and of itself (with no human element), or they just don't bother with the idea of telling a story at all. Thus, most NS wars are extremely boring to read. Since nobody bothers telling the story of the people in the war, it's just a load of troop movements and stuff, so NS wars do end up all the same. And, sorry to disappoint anyone, but putting the name of your head of state at the end of your posts does not give them a human element.

In LETI/LOTI, everyone's at war with everyone all the time, over the most inane reasons, but it never gets tiresome because the wars focus on the exploits of the characters, rather than the war in general.

I know not everyone's interested in storytelling, and actually creating characters, but they are essential to RP. If you don't bother with them, then you're playing some manner of game, but it isn't roleplay.

To be honest I haven't been in a meaningful war for a while now...

One of the reasons many wars become like WWI is that no one wants to admit defeat. Thus, it turns into a giant godmod party, with armies fighting on regardless of losses. I've seen really good wars degenerate to a point where the average post becomes "My tank killed your tank." It's a sad thing to see.

A war goes better when the winners and losers have already been determined OOC before the fighitng begins. Then, the RP can flow well without having to worry about stupid godmoders refusing to take losses or something. On a side note, I prefer doing the OOC discussion via telegram of IM so that the rest of the NS community doesn't know the result of the war until it's over. Tends to make it more interesting for others to read if the ending isn't known.