NationStates Jolt Archive

Looking though a large number of Storefronts here in II, I notice most of them sell the usual US/Soviet equipent to people- M-16s, AK-47s, MiGs, F/A-18s, and so on. Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with this (aside from a lack of originality), but it's gotten me thinking about a few things.

Most of the Military Action in NS takes on two forms: "I send 9,000 Ships to your Nation and 240,089 Marines. I pwn j00!" (Ie the numberwanking approach), or the carefully plotted out, Tom Clancy/Frederick Forsyth-esque geopolitical manuevering involving Important People in Clandestine Meetings making Important Decisions, and then having an elite team of SAS/SEALs/Spetznatz/whatever go and do something about it.

Either way, it appears to me that it doesn't actually matter what sort of weapons your Military is armed with (provided it isn't muskets, of course).

Roycelandia, as many of you know, is a Modern Tech (ie 2004) nation, that uses "Modern" versions of WWII (and earlier!) equipment.

"Well, you're an idiot then". I hear you all saying.

No, No, I'm not, I reply. Allow me to explain.

In the "OMG I send 1million troops to j00r nation! j00 r pwned!" situation, the armaments and equipment of each nation's troops are irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether your troops have M-16s and Tacticul HUDs in their helmets, or a Martini-Henry and a convenient rock to hide behind- the actual battles aren't being RPd... it's all numbers. Hence, you could conceivably have an army of Napoleonic Grenadiers beat the snot out of an army of UberSpaceMarines based on the usual "I have 3billion pop and frightening economy!" line of argument. What this really does is turn NS into a version of "Risk" without the dice (or the strategy, for that matter).

The second Scenario (The Political Thriller type of RP) is based more on character interaction and tactics, political maneuvering, and so on.

Again, the sort of weapons your army have are largely irrelevant- since most of the military action is small scale, most of the participants are Special Forces. Even though Roycelandia's Imperial Special Air Service can carry any weapon they like, a reasonable number of them choose to carry M1928A1 Thompson Sub-Machine Guns, with Russian PPSh-41 SMGs and FN-FAL Assault Rifles being close seconds.

In an RP sense, they're still gun. A PPSh-41 will still kill someone at the same range as an MP5. An FN-FAL will still put some down as well as an M-16.

In fact, Roycelandia's Army still carries Lee-Enfield rifles- specifically, the Roycelandian-designed and manufactured Self-Loading Lee-Enfield, which is a semi-auto version of the SMLE Mk III.

Has any of this been a disadvantage? Not in the slightest. In fact, I think that my RPs are BETTER because of the "character" they have.

All this, I think, is a very long-winded way of trying to encourage people to be a bit more creative with the equipment their military has, and not to forget the opportunities that Historical Weapons can offer to the discerning NS player.

A complete breakdown of Roycelandia's military can be found here, along with some illustrations:

http://s4.invisionfree.com/The_Commonwealth/index.php?showtopic=7&view=getnewpost

Did I mention that we export and sell everything that our Military uses as well? :)

Ok you obviously have no idea what your talking about, please feel free to have your infantry, armed with your 10 round Bolt-action rifles, attack my forces, and while your men are reloading, my men will use the 22 extra rounds they have in thier clips to completely decimate your forces, and I will laugh as my infantry down your entire airforce with hand held stingers.

that is the biggest sentace i have ever made ^_^ :p

and i will smile as My one single tank drives through your infantry who have nothing but bolt action rifles and slowly but surley runs everyone of them over while their pointless little musketballs ping on the side of it.

OOC: You young'uns dont get it, do ya? Its about story, not "OMFG MAH TANKZ" and the like.

im no youngin

the point to his thread is that a musket kills a person just as dead as an AK-47.

he is also saying that just because a person says they have 100 million soldiers marching with muskets, they will kill someone just as dead as a person with 100 million soldiers marching with AK-47s.

the point to his thread is that a musket kills a person just as dead as an AK-47.

he is also saying that just because a person says they have 100 million soldiers marching with muskets, they will kill someone just as dead as a person with 100 million soldiers marching with AK-47s.
Actually the musket wouldn't kill someone just as dead as an ak-47. A musket would cause much more internal damage, yet less instant mortality rate, while an ak-47 is the opposite

musketball in head = death
AK-47 round in head = death

all I said was that muskets are cool, until a tank comes rolling buy. Or there is a sniper.... or kevlar armor..... etc...

musketball in head = death
AK-47 round in head = death
True, but a shot to the body would be different

*Sigh*

As Kriegorad says, it's not about the "TANKZ0RZ" and the "n00ks"- it's about the STORY!

And I never said my military didn't have Anti-Tank equipment... did you look at the link? We have tanks, Grenades, rocket launchers and the like...

As for the fact your troops has 32 round mags... that's great. Do you know how fast you can reload a Lee-Enfield? More importantly, there are so many variables to take into account that it's not really fair to say "OMG 1 have m0r3 4mm0 1 pwn j00!" War doesn't work like that.

I'll also point out that an M-16 or an AK-47 has an effective range of 300 yards (600, if you're a REALLY good shot).

A Lee-Enfield (Any of them) has an effective range of about 1km. Before anyone out there tries to say I'm full of shit, I'll point out that I OWN a Lee-Enfield rifle, and it WILL kill a medium-sized animal at 1km. Without a scope.

Even so, that's not a lot of help in an Urban Environment, but that's where SMGs come in.

Look, I'm not saying "Don't use modern guns!"- I'm just trying to make people aware that there are other guns besides the M-16, AK-47, MP-5, and Gatling Gun...

430-450 grain .58 minie ball hits you in the gut @ ~800 fps or so it's gonna tumble and rip the heck out of your insides. If it hits a bone, like your scapula, chances are it's gonna bounce around some more in your chest cavity

122 grain FMJ 7.62mm round hits you moving at ~2000fps, chances are, it's probably gonna go through you without doing as much damage as a minie ball.

7.62x54R (full sized old Russian rifle ammo) has a muzzle velocity of about 870 meters per second

as opposed to

710 meters per second for the 7.62x39 ammo (AK-47)

Well I have an 1873 Richmond rifle, it has the same range, and it will still kill a medium sized animal at that distance, it's just you have to be a really good shot for it to work, that is the point

P3X1299 you are right, that is the case. Most of the deaths in the Civil war wern't from bullet wound's, but the surgries, and diseases caused by the wounds

ooc: Def agree with you on the number wank thing... too many people sending in millions of troops... can you actually imagine controlling that??? I doubt there's anybody on here with sufficient mental ability to control numbers that size..

As for me, personally, whenever - if ever - I deploy, its usually a division or two... then I usuallly find someone deploys half a million troops and that finishes it for me..

My tech is modern+ with a heavy soviet influence, given that my nation is meant to be an ex-Soviet client state.. however, I do try and find interesting Russian prototypes to try and advance my airforce etc..

In the historical sense, my airforce has got a load of older aircraft and I might even consider using some 50's and 60's Russian craft should the situation get desperate enough, or I know that I have air superiority..

Plus at the end of the day, the technicallities can sometimes bog stuff down, which is why I think a system of unit ratings could be put in place.. allowing for quick mathematical calculations.. but then that would make it more like a wargame than RP..

Personally, I tend to have three kinds of units, Elite, Veteran and Line... I only have a couple of elite divisions, namely my airborne and marine divisions.. and they tend to be bloodthirsty as hell..

Now, on the "Musket vs AK-47 thing", let me share some wisdom about ballistics. (I know others have made the same point, but it took me ages to type, dammit!)

An AK-47 fires a 7.62x39 Soviet round, using a Copper-coated Full Metal Jacket bullet (At least they used to- the point is, it's still an FMJ round).

A Brown Bess (or any other musket) fires a lead ball about .50" in diameter.

So what, you say?

Well, the 7.62x39 round will go straight through your body and out the other side. It will hurt like fuck, but unless you get hit in a vital area, you won't die immediately.

A Musket ball, however, being Lead, is soft(er). It enters your body and as it does, it flattens and deforms, basically doing a huge amount of damage to you as it either bounces off bones or whatever, or simply takes a huge chunk of you with it when it leaves your body. Death, whilst more likely than the 7.62x39 round, is not assured, but your chances of dying from shock, trauma, blood loss etc are much, much greater. More importantly, it will simply mess you up more.

Now, the AK-47 is a better gun than a Musket, but the Musket still has it's uses... don't discount it just because it's "old skool", or doesn't have a full-auto option and a 30-round banana clip...

The four guns mentioned are the 4 most well-known guns that comes to mind, not counting pistols. Just want to make a point of fact.

'course, I use a Star Wars-ized version of the venerable M-16. The M-16BR (Blaster Rifle). It can have a concussion grenade launcher as an option.

If you wound a soldier, it distracts multiple soldiers from combat.

Training helps reduce that, but not totally.

Intense, you-die-for-the-glory-of-the-Empire, type of training tend to reduce that even more.

True.

Oh, for reference to the stats that I posted earlier, 437 grains=1 ounce

Either way, it's a lot of Bullet to be heading in your direction, regardless of whether it's fired from a .450/577 Martini-Henry, a Springfield .58 calibre musket, or an AUSTEYR...

Well, the 7.62x39 round will go straight through your body and out the other side. It will hurt like fuck, but unless you get hit in a vital area, you won't die immediately.
.
bull shit it will go straight through! I've seen a single ak round blow off a person's leg so STFU

Either way, it's a lot of Bullet to be heading in your direction, regardless of whether it's fired from a .450/577 Martini-Henry, a Springfield .58 calibre musket, or an AUSTEYR...

That gives me a seriously interesting idea. :p Hmm...I'll have to dwell on it some more.

While it's true that you can likly get away with historical weapons, alot of folks probally won't accept troops so armed as being as effect as they would otherwise be, if they realise what you're doing(not always that easy, given the large varriety of player-created or renamed weapons out there) - you have to take the realistic properties into acount.

Take the Lee-Enfeild vs M-16; the later might have a greater range, but is likly heavier, posessed of greater recoil, and iirc bolt-action - something partially corrected by Roycelandia for his varrient, but that's a modernised version, so it only kinda counts. The M-16 can also fire either full-auto or, iirc, 3-round bursts for newer versions(can't recall if that was actually implimented), lending greater firepower. An Assault Rifle is far more versatile, and the LE's only advantage - range - is something greatly limited by terrain and the skill of each trooper; in certain situations, it would have a great advantage, but then so would a proper sniper rifle.

There's also the IC factors to consider; your military isn't likly going to be happy if you saddle them with bolt-action rifles, for example.

OOC: However, it does add spice to the RP.

If you wound a soldier, it distracts multiple soldiers from combat.

You reffering to the NATO 'wounding the enemy is better than killing because it uses up more enemy manpower and resources caring for and transporting them' concept?

Well, there's a big hole in that idea; a wounded trooper will come back afterwards with all his collected experiance and skill, while a dead one will be replaced by a rookie - killing the enemy soldiers perminatly depletes their force of experianced troops, while wounding only does so temporarily.

If you wound a soldier, it distracts multiple soldiers from combat.


You reffering to the NATO 'wounding the enemy is better than killing because it uses up more enemy manpower and resources caring for and transporting them' concept?

Well, there's a big hole in that idea; a wounded trooper will come back afterwards with all his collected experiance and skill, while a dead one will be replaced by a rookie - killing the enemy soldiers perminatly depletes their force of experianced troops, while wounding only does so temporarily.

Depends how much you wound them. Someone who is sans a limb cannot effectively fight - and will serve as a show of what can happen to other troops at least, and to the enemy homeland at most. Severe burns, blinding, neurological damage - all these would remove a trooper without killing them.

Psychological warfare is wonderful.

You reffering to the NATO 'wounding the enemy is better than killing because it uses up more enemy manpower and resources caring for and transporting them' concept?

Well, there's a big hole in that idea; a wounded trooper will come back afterwards with all his collected experiance and skill, while a dead one will be replaced by a rookie - killing the enemy soldiers perminatly depletes their force of experianced troops, while wounding only does so temporarily.


Hmm.... not necessarily... read up on the Hurtgen Forest in WWII... Well dug in German troops with mortar and artillery turned the place into a slaughterhouse, casualty rates in US units were running up to between 70% and 90% and with attrition rates like that is hard for troops to face going back to near certain death or maiming... fact: the only US soldier to be shot for dissertion came from this battle... Plus, at the end of the day, mass wounding generates panic and fear among troops, which has a massive effect on morale..

Read up on the Battle of Gettysburg (US Civil War). Confederate units withdrew from the field because of the conditions, including number of wounded.

It's very hard not to be affected by a field of your fellow soldiers, all calling for help, all wounded badly, the scent of blood and roasted flesh strong on the winds...

Two battles in how many? I think, as a piece of evidence, that's as flimsy as a sheet of papyrus.

Ok you obviously have no idea what your talking about, please feel free to have your infantry, armed with your 10 round Bolt-action rifles, attack my forces, and while your men are reloading, my men will use the 22 extra rounds they have in thier clips to completely decimate your forces, and I will laugh as my infantry down your entire airforce with hand held stingers.

that is the biggest sentace i have ever made ^_^ :p

A single Tekanian SCV enters orbit, firing 24 96 exaton ZPE missiles at The Pheonix Milita, it glasses their entire nation...

vice...

The Aurora Assault Shuttle enters the atmosphere, onboard are 5 Marines, and their unit commander, Captain Johnson...

"Ok Marines...." blurts out Capt. Johnson, lock and load... We'll be deployed in 10 minutes..."

"Yes sir..." the marines respond in unison, and then proceed to load up and arm their weapons... each one thinking about the upcomming mission...

---

The point is STORY, not throwing pieces around the board like you're playing monopoly.

Develope goals, develope characters, have main characters covered and developed through storyline, and be prepared to adapt to the changes coming from other players, that's the point of freeform RP.

The RP's should look like a novel, not like a description of the last game of stratego you played.

I concur wholeheartedly with this thread. Many people do have what some may consider invalidated armies, but they are still perfectly viable. Example? I still maintain T-34's and MiG15's in my army. Now I know jackshit about ballistics and suchlike, but I do know that I would rather be in a T-34 than on the ground with an M16.

Two battles in how many? I think, as a piece of evidence, that's as flimsy as a sheet of papyrus.

How many battles do you want referenced to show that wounded soldiers on your side are a distraction, put more pressure on your support units (you have to treat them) and cause problems for the soldier on the field on a morale level?

I mean, I've got the coming weekend off and can probably provide 300 to 400 references, depending if it rains or not.

OOC: Besides, I'd rather read a good post then a numberwank anyday.

I was reffering to the overall strategic implications; of course wounding hurts moral and can temporally decrease a unit's effectivness, especially if you can do it en-mass, but perminatly removing a soldier from combat is usually perferrible when given the choice, assuming a prolonged conflict - tree-bursting isn't a viable comparison, for example, as it is both a 'terror weapon' tactic and effects far greater casualties than a conventional bombardment.

But, a dead soldier does not:

1) Eat rations

2) Have a pension

3) Take up medical time

4) Take up medical money

5) Spread discord and panic

6) Turn bitterly against the war

7) Live off the state

etc. I could keep on going, but in the modern age of media wars, high profile injuries are just what a government dosn't need.

ooc: Def agree with you on the number wank thing... too many people sending in millions of troops... can you actually imagine controlling that??? I doubt there's anybody on here with sufficient mental ability to control numbers that size..

As for me, personally, whenever - if ever - I deploy, its usually a division or two... then I usuallly find someone deploys half a million troops and that finishes it for me..

My tech is modern+ with a heavy soviet influence, given that my nation is meant to be an ex-Soviet client state.. however, I do try and find interesting Russian prototypes to try and advance my airforce etc..

In the historical sense, my airforce has got a load of older aircraft and I might even consider using some 50's and 60's Russian craft should the situation get desperate enough, or I know that I have air superiority..

Plus at the end of the day, the technicallities can sometimes bog stuff down, which is why I think a system of unit ratings could be put in place.. allowing for quick mathematical calculations.. but then that would make it more like a wargame than RP..

Personally, I tend to have three kinds of units, Elite, Veteran and Line... I only have a couple of elite divisions, namely my airborne and marine divisions.. and they tend to be bloodthirsty as hell..

I think it's more about the way people control their military in wartime. Clancy-esque approach is fine in small conflict and there the weapons used are more important than in the 'grand strategy' approach. As for millions of men in the field, it's not very diffucult to control if you take overall control and say X Army, Y Corps etc is pushing towards Z town/city/landmark, supported by A Air Corps consisted of B Planes, which are C amount of D type and E amount of F type etc (you get the idea). Then your adversery can set the level of resistance they meet etc... it all works better than way... ofc you can include Clancy-esque description but what I have talked about above is the way your military fights, not many people in NS do it this way I have done it otherways on occasion but I would suggust this would be the best way.

As for muskets... they are rather deadlier than rifles atm because of the projectile they fire.... and the fact that projectile can quite easily cause blood poisoning :D (i.e. I'd give you more chance of surviving a shot from a modern gun than a musket if it hit you...)

Besides i'm betting if Napleonic grenadiers overcame their obvious terror at a tank they would find a way of destroy it. They could always use their namesake weapon, they did on occasions in the Napleonic wars... message is: anything can take out anything, given enough luck and the ability to find a weakspot (everything has a weakspot).


Btw, passing through/seeing lots of wounded soldiers is serious morale dropper... why? Do you like seeing lots of people, crying, coughing blood with severed and smashed limbs/bones everywhere... with a nice red carpet underneath them... It can be temporary but remeber a lot of that is to how confident the soliders feel etc... it's all very intertwined with the level of dissent the average solider has...

Media in war should always been controlled... simply because otherwise like Mormanguise says they A) get in the way B) tend to give information out C) often recorded the horrors far more than the real successes since thats what tends to sell... shocking stuff :)

bull shit it will go straight through! I've seen a single ak round blow off a person's leg so STFU

Under the normal course of things, a 7.62x39 FMJ (ie milspec) bullet, fired from, say, 50 yards, shouldn't blow someone's leg (or whatever) off.

However, a JHP (Jacketed Hollow Point) or JSP (Jacketed Soft Point) round would be MORE than capable of blowing limbs and so on off the hapless enemey soldier or whatever at that range.

Of course, if an FMJ round hits a joint or other "critical" anatomical spot, then of course it might take a limb off- but that's not the usual effect of FMJ ammo, which is why all RL UN Nations are compelled to use it- it's a "cleaner" wound that other types of ammo (The British in WWI were known to "accidentally" load Incendiary Ammo intended for Anti-Zeppeling and Anti-Aircraft MGs into Vickers MGs in the trenches to use against German Assaults, but that's an entirely different kettle of fish...)

Incidentally, one of the methods used by ANZAC and British forces in both North Africa and The Pacific for taking out Tanks consisted of soldiers hiding in the jungle or the sand, then jumping on the tank from behind, and throwing a Pineapple Bomb (Grenade) though either the driver's slit, or by knocking on the hatch and waiting for the Commander to open it (yes, it really worked- there was no way for the Tank Crew to ID if the knocker was friend or foe until they opened the hatch and got a Pineapple Bomb and a Webley Revolver fired at them...)

Incidentally, one of the methods used by ANZAC and British forces in both North Africa and The Pacific for taking out Tanks consisted of soldiers hiding in the jungle or the sand, then jumping on the tank from behind, and throwing a Pineapple Bomb (Grenade) though either the driver's slit, or by knocking on the hatch and waiting for the Commander to open it (yes, it really worked- there was no way for the Tank Crew to ID if the knocker was friend or foe until they opened the hatch and got a Pineapple Bomb and a Webley Revolver fired at them...)

Heh... most amusing :D

Under the normal course of things, a 7.62x39 FMJ (ie milspec) bullet, fired from, say, 50 yards, shouldn't blow someone's leg (or whatever) off.

However, a JHP (Jacketed Hollow Point) or JSP (Jacketed Soft Point) round would be MORE than capable of blowing limbs and so on off the hapless enemey soldier or whatever at that range.

Of course, if an FMJ round hits a joint or other "critical" anatomical spot, then of course it might take a limb off- but that's not the usual effect of FMJ ammo, which is why all RL UN Nations are compelled to use it- it's a "cleaner" wound that other types of ammo (The British in WWI were known to "accidentally" load Incendiary Ammo intended for Anti-Zeppeling and Anti-Aircraft MGs into Vickers MGs in the trenches to use against German Assaults, but that's an entirely different kettle of fish...)


Well, adapting weapons is what its all about.. look at the Flak 88 and 441... able to penetrate 200mm of armour from a kilometre away... just not cricket!

So long as one's weapons do not have a game effect, then it really doesn't matter much what your military is equipped with.

That said, there are some differences that do have game effects. Lasers and other energy weapons rarely require any time lag between shots, and can fire indefinitely, so long as there is enough power.

As previously stated, if a unit armed with bolt-action rifles faces a unit with assault rifles, so long as all other factors are equal, the group with the better firepower will probably win. Picture for example the prospect of letting a modern main battle tank loose on the battlefields of WW II. It wouldn't be a contest, it would be a slaughter. Ditto for aircraft. Modern fighters would have little trouble dealing with squadrons of WW II fighters. By WW II standards, the A-10 would dominate any aerial battlefield, for example.

The original point of Roycelandia's post is still valid: It doens't matter what equipment you write about, the writing is the most important part of any RP. If you want to use modern RL equipment for the familiarity factor, feel free. If you want to invent your own equipment, knock yourself out. If you want to use familiar equipment updated to modern standards, that's your choice.

Personally, I prefer the last two options. I create my own equipment, mainly because it gives me a chance to describe the gear and its uses. Utilize every chance to hone one's descriptive writing skills.

TEO

I definitely agree. I feel that modern technology can actually degrade the quality of an RP, especially when we get to air/naval power. I think we can all agree that a dreadnaught clash or an aerial dogfight is easily more enjoyable than entire navies being nuked/Yakhonted to death, and "dogfights" taking place practically across the horizon. As far as Ground engagements are concerned, fully up to date tech just doesn't have the style of an Enfield (great choice of rifle by the way.), killing power is secondary. And T-34s rule.

Finally, of course it's about the story! Hopefully after reading this people who think it's about "teh stats!" might reconsider their view.

Being a Future Tech nation, I find technology is really not that important. Why? Because I know enough missile will wear down my shields and take down the ship anyway. It may require more missiles than a modern tech fighter, but a modern tech nation can afford more fighters and more missiles for the same price as my ship and its armaments (at least, realistically, they could). So while my ship may be able to take our yours in one shot, it doesn't stand up well to concentrated firepower over a period of time.

One thing some people may notice is my tactics with fleets. I may have a fleet there, but usually I focus on one ship and tell the stroy through them with everything that I relate being something they can observe. You get all of the tactics of a big-time battle and all of the story of a character-driven RP at the same time. Really quite fun to do.

I'm also on the side of story vs. number or tech wank. If you RP a detailed strategy and you are able to bring that strategy to fruition, you should be able to beat someone's OMG! HUGE METAL PENIS RAWRR!

In real life, technology and numbers are an aide to victory, they don't guarantee victory. If they did, Finland would have been part of the Soviet Union after 1939. Finland "lost" but they kept their country against a "superior" opponent. The United States would have easily beaten Vietnam except for the U.S.'s own failings. The United Kingdom would have gotten major land concessions from the United States in 1812 if it weren't for some major victories, including the Battle of Lake Champaign. The war ended without a decisive victory for the U.K. and the world took notice because the U.S. withstood a superpower.

So pay attention to your story, folks. It's not all about the numbers or the tech. Strategy plays a key role.

The preceding has been an OOC post.

OOC: Note to self; build intimidating giant metal penises....

I'm also on the side of story vs. number or tech wank. If you RP a detailed strategy and you are able to bring that strategy to fruition, you should be able to beat someone's OMG! HUGE METAL PENIS RAWRR!

In real life, technology and numbers are an aide to victory, they don't guarantee victory. If they did, Finland would have been part of the Soviet Union after 1939. Finland "lost" but they kept their country against a "superior" opponent. The United States would have easily beaten Vietnam except for the U.S.'s own failings. The United Kingdom would have gotten major land concessions from the United States in 1812 if it weren't for some major victories, including the Battle of Lake Champaign. The war ended without a decisive victory for the U.K. and the world took notice because the U.S. withstood a superpower.

So pay attention to your story, folks. It's not all about the numbers or the tech. Strategy plays a key role.

The preceding has been an OOC post.

One correction, the UK was no longer on the whole interested in regaining it's old colonies (bar perhaps little bits of the south, in my studied opinion, it was more interested in India at this point), and the British pretty much shattered the US economically (blockade) and it's northern army, although the southern army kept fighting & won a batte killing 3,000 British regulars after the peace was signed. But the example as a whole is fitting and I agree with your suposition :)

OOC:

I fully agree with Roycelandia on this. Everyone out there thinks their rifle is the best, but at the end of the day, a round from an old Kar or a Springfield will kill you just as dead as thirty from an XM-8. It doesn't matter how many rounds you've got if your troops are so complacent that they don't make rounds count.

On more than one occasion, i have heard stories of the newer 'improved' rounds being too greater penetrators, and passing through people. It will only cause damage if it hits a joint. A musket ball is gonna put a man down regardless of where it hits.

Personally, i use modern rifles like the XM-8, purely because of their modular abilities, meaning its cheaper and easier to maintain large numbers of them. The same pistol is used by the military and the civilian police forces. But i still maintain a civil defence force that can be called up in times of invasion (think the WW2 Home Guard style), all armed with older weapons, M-14s, Thompsons and the such-like. They are still good reliable weapons (most of the time), and far cheaper to produce than modern rifles.

As for the numbers vs story debate, where possible, i try to write a story. Anyone who bothered to read my last civil-war RP would know that. This is role-playing. Not number-wank anonymous. The whole idea is to write a good story, to entertain people, and let everyone have fun. Not "I send my 10 million men to defend the city", or "my entire fleet fires at yours". That's RPing Sephrioth style.


My Advice to newcomers:

Try and add characters to your RPs, develop storylines, and pretend you are writing a book. If you are stuck for ideas, read some Clancy, or Dale Brown. Don't plagiarise directly, but look at their styles, and try and adopt your own style. Its far more interesting for us old-timers to read, and makes you really stand out, making people more likely to become your allies.

I don't really want to argue against this, because I like the SMLE too much, and it is still a viable weapon, if not exactly the best choice for a standard issue rifle. Still, some of the specific arguments about range I think depend a little bit on poor planning by the modern enemies... Beth Gellert's armed forces, lately under-going vast restructuring and re-arming following the slightly more hard-line Igovian coup, are full of soldiers complaining about the withdrawal of the Dragunov SVD-type rifles since the introduction of light and heavy sniper rifles and new intermediate calibre assault rifles. This is because rifles like the semi-automatic SVD aren't snipers' weapons, though I suspect that a lot of Nation States issue them as such, they're infantry weapons meant to give squads the range to deal with, well, in this example to deal with Enfield-weilding Red Coats a kilometre away.

That in itself maybe doesn't change much, but while by and large I feel that Roycelandian troops are putting themselves at a disadvantage in many situations (I've seen them try to use volley-fire against guerrillas with automatic weapons, in Gabon, I think?), a lot of their critics would actually be surprised if their forces could somehow clash in reality. I mean, it's one thing to dismiss the Roiks (heh, sorry) as using arms and tactics full of holes in modern terms, but it's quite another to actually exploit these holes. Similar faults were assumed to be present in Dra-pol's (North Korea's) armed forces in another conflict that Beddgelens watched keenly (damn, we really need to get some fights of our own!), as the poverty-stricken communists went into battle with Japanese 7.7mm bolt-action rifles... but their enemies tried to fight them in the open with P-90s a primary weapon, so they all got shot from the better part of a mile away.

Nations like the Roycelandians may have faults in their armed forces (which is only realistic), but that doesn't mean that one can just assume victory against them and get it while set-up to fight a totally different (arguably more modern) enemy.

All right, I'm done, I was just bored. I'm still bored. I'm going to see if there's any way to arm my infantry with a decent long-range battle rifle without creating a new logistical headache.

Guys..guns havent really evolved over the past 560years. It still involves 3 things: Gun Powder, Barrel, and the Round. The only thing that has evolved, is the fireing rate, the quality of the gund powder and Amo. Hell, i could beat someone with an AK-47, useing a Musket. Why? Although ive really only got 1 chance to kill him, his weapon has less acuracy. 1 head shot, and he drops like a lead balloon.

One correction, the UK was no longer on the whole interested in regaining it's old colonies (bar perhaps little bits of the south, in my studied opinion, it was more interested in India at this point), and the British pretty much shattered the US economically (blockade) and it's northern army, although the southern army kept fighting & won a batte killing 3,000 British regulars after the peace was signed. But the example as a whole is fitting and I agree with your suposition :)[OOC: I wasn't suggesting that the British were going to try to re-take the American colonies. They couldn't afford to. But that's a point for a different debate.

The point I was making was that if you believed the logic of RPers here on NS, the much larger British military should have easily PWNed the Americans and they didn't win all that decisively compared to the disaster it COULD have been because the U.S. Army was a shambles and their navy was egregiously undersized.]

But, a dead soldier does not:

1) Eat rations

2) Have a pension

3) Take up medical time

4) Take up medical money

5) Spread discord and panic

6) Turn bitterly against the war

7) Live off the state

etc. I could keep on going, but in the modern age of media wars, high profile injuries are just what a government dosn't need.

He got it!

Incidentally, one of the methods used by ANZAC and British forces in both North Africa and The Pacific for taking out Tanks consisted of soldiers hiding in the jungle or the sand, then jumping on the tank from behind, and throwing a Pineapple Bomb (Grenade) though either the driver's slit, or by knocking on the hatch and waiting for the Commander to open it (yes, it really worked- there was no way for the Tank Crew to ID if the knocker was friend or foe until they opened the hatch and got a Pineapple Bomb and a Webley Revolver fired at them...)

Lets not forget a nice sandbag down the muzzle of the gun... cement was a favored filling in Russia. Or a live grenade...

Lets not forget a nice sandbag down the muzzle of the gun... cement was a favored filling in Russia. Or a live grenade...

Or put a rock in it like Indiana Jones... :p

All weapons are deadly. You're just as dead if you get your head split with an axe as if you get an atomic bomb dropped on you. Rather extreme example, but true.

It's how you use what you have, not necessarily what you have itself, that wins the war. The French B-1 Bis tank was arguably if not the best, one of the best tanks in the world when the Germans invaded in 1940, and it was certainly better than the Panzer II's and III's they were using, but as we know, France was overrun, because the German tactics were better.

I myself tend to focus more on the story of the RP, and when I write about my naval fleets, I'll probably list the Capital ships, and what they can do (I do not use any RL designs for my ships), but anything smaller I'm very general about, I'll say something like "and a heavy destroyer escort," and then go on to write about the characters. This kind of RP is often more like 'group storytelling' than actual gaming. I don't want to read a numberwank, I want to read a good story.

All weapons are deadly. You're just as dead if you get your head split with an axe as if you get an atomic bomb dropped on you. Rather extreme example, but true.

It's how you use what you have, not necessarily what you have itself, that wins the war. The French B-1 Bis tank was arguably if not the best, one of the best tanks in the world when the Germans invaded in 1940, and it was certainly better than the Panzer II's and III's they were using, but as we know, France was overrun, because the German tactics were better.

I myself tend to focus more on the story of the RP, and when I write about my naval fleets, I'll probably list the Capital ships, and what they can do (I do not use any RL designs for my ships), but anything smaller I'm very general about, I'll say something like "and a heavy destroyer escort," and then go on to write about the characters. This kind of RP is often more like 'group storytelling' than actual gaming. I don't want to read a numberwank, I want to read a good story.

He gets it too.

All weapons are deadly and nearly everything can be used as a weapon. A tank can be stopped by rocks (in fact, with big enough a rock, it can be downright destroyed!) and a crossbow bolt through the head kills you just as surely as a bullet (surviving cases of both have been known to happen). And before you say 'kevlar', what it really does, is spread the kinetic force of impact throughout rather than in one concentrated point. How much fun would it be to have your kevlar armor stop a crossbow bolt with an oil-soaked, _burning_ rag wrapped around the tip? I think you'd be out of that armor pretty fast, and again just as vulnerable as anyone. ;)

But that was just an idea - I personally think that it would be super-cool to have an actually _fair_ fight between modern or modern+ tech nation and a nation using 'modernized' past tech. :D

All weapons are deadly and nearly everything can be used as a weapon. A tank can be stopped by rocks (in fact, with big enough a rock, it can be downright destroyed!) and a crossbow bolt through the head kills you just as surely as a bullet (surviving cases of both have been known to happen). And before you say 'kevlar', what it really does, is spread the kinetic force of impact throughout rather than in one concentrated point. How much fun would it be to have your kevlar armor stop a crossbow bolt with an oil-soaked, _burning_ rag wrapped around the tip? I think you'd be out of that armor pretty fast, and again just as vulnerable as anyone. ;)

But that was just an idea - I personally think that it would be super-cool to have an actually _fair_ fight between modern or modern+ tech nation and a nation using 'modernized' past tech. :D

I'd note here, molotov cocktails will still kill modern tanks if they get near the air intakes...

I'd note here, molotov cocktails will still kill modern tanks if they get near the air intakes...
Hehe, yeah, I forgot about those.

But that was just an idea - I personally think that it would be super-cool to have an actually _fair_ fight between modern or modern+ tech nation and a nation using 'modernized' past tech. :D

I'd like to try it, too... but as you say, a FAIR fight. We'd probably get our asses kicked, but it would be a good RP, which is what matters more than beating the crap out of a fictional army...