NationStates Jolt Archive

One thing I get annoyed with when I see countless RPs is the whole idea of "OMFG! I'm a 3 billion + country. You're a tiny 500 million pop country. I PWN J00!!!!!1111" A LOT of RPers seem to think throwing numbers at a country is going to get them a "win" in RP no matter what and there is no chance a smaller country is going to "beat" them in a war.

For a variety of reasons, this is patently false. If you look at world history, wars weren't always won by the country with the largest population or the greatest military numbers. Before Great Britain was THE dominant naval power, Spain had an Invincible Armada that if RP logic were to be believed, would have crushed the English fleet and, well the Queen would be speaking Español right now. But the English dealt a crushing blow to Spain and turned it into a shadow of its former greatness. In 1939, the Soviet Union went to war with a smaller Finland and the Finns embarrassed the "superpower" Soviets. Finland ultimately lost the war, but didn't have to give up any territory because they inflicted some serious pain on the Soviets. Finally, look at the United States in Vietnam. The U.S. was humiliated by the North Vietnamese and they were supposed to be a superpower.

In the roleplaying world (or worlds) in NationStates, size of population or military alone do not determine any winners or losers in a war. Just like in the real world of military conflict, a "smaller" country that knows how to press its advantages can either 1) tire out the "larger" enemy and force them to end the war without any land concessions or 2) defeat the larger foe outright. A 500 million population country that is played by someone who has a relatively good grasp of strategy (whether it's borne from actually being in the military or it comes from ravenous study of miltary strategy books isn't that important) and is a very good RPer can "beat" a country of about 1 billion-plus or larger by 1) out RPing his or her opponent or 2) by out-strategizing the opponent.

Finally, in the eyes of the serious, respected RPer, the "winner" in a war is not the country that dominates every war if it's done by number- or stat-wanking. The "winner" is the country that tells the better, more believeable story. I wrote a post (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7489215&postcount=38) for the Writing Challenge in which I RP'd a declaration of war against Automagfreek. I don't know what the outcome of a war between us would be (though I think I might end up the way Finland did against the Soviet Union in 1939), but the post was all about story. It outlined the reason for declaring war (a threat against Sarzonia's closest ally), the strategy the Sarzonian military was going to employ (win the naval and air battles and blockade AMF so the Sentinels couldn't land in Sarzonia, plus set traps for the unlucky Sentinels that DID land in Sarzonia) and set the stage for the declaration of war itself. You know what my reward was for a post I spent a great deal of time writing and developing was? Respect. A statement from AMF that he'd have to pull some tricks out of his sleeve to get one over on me speaks volumes about what can happen when you write a good story.

I've seen other serious RPers say they would love every minute of a crushing defeat if it were RP'd well on all sides. I love victories as much as the next person, but the truest sense of victory in NationStates lies in the story itself. Sometimes, size doesn't matter after all.

Very, very well said. If everyone had this approach to war, the NS forums would be RP heaven. Sarzonia=wickedawesome. :)

Sarzonia, no one disputes that war is not won with population. Events over the course of history has proven this fact.

However, it is clear that your examples are in essence flawed.

The Spanish Armada although defeated by a weaker English navy, was also adversely affected by a strong weather conditions, which sank many Spanish galleons, ill-suited to the Channel weather.

For the embarrassment that America suffered in Vietnam, it was not just due to Vietnamese fighting prowess. The Tet Offensive was a massive failure. Thousands of Viet Cong and North Vietnamese were killed in that disastrous North Vietnamese offensive. It was only through the efforts of the American media and the work of protestors by which the Americans lost the war through psychological means...

In the case of the Soviet-Finnish War, the Soviets at the end won with overwhelming military force, crushing the Finnish through a war of attrition. The Soviets had been losing primarily because they had unestimated the determination of their foe and was adversely affected by the freezing cold weather.

I agree with Sarzonia, size does not really matter. One can tell in that Kill Bill moment with Uma Thurman and the Crazy 88s, lol.

Finally, look at the United States in Vietnam. The U.S. was humiliated by the North Vietnamese and they were supposed to be a superpower.

(OOC: Not to change the subject, but the U.S. could have won the war in Vietnam in six weeks or less, had they done the following:

1.Invaded the North
2.Closed the port of Haiphong
3.Invaded Laos and Cambodia and destroyed the enemies' sanctuaries there
4.Bombed the transportation links to China
5.Mined Haiphong harbor
6.Permitted pilots to destroy SAM sites while they were under construction, instead of waiting until they were operational
7.Allowing our troops to blow up dams, factories, power plants, etc.
8.Ceased trade with the USSR and its satellites, upon whom the North Vietnamese were entirely dependent to maintain their war effort
9.Bombed strategic cities such as Haiphong and Hanoi
10.Allowed our pilots to bomb trucks that had wandered more than 200 yards off the Ho Chi Minh Trail
11.Fully supplied our pilots and troops (there were often ammunition and bomb shortages)
12.Restored Bao Dai as Emperor of Vietnam, thereby restoring Vietnamese unity among all non-communists
13.Appointed Nguyen ton Hoan as Prime Minister (he was a militant anticommunist and pro-Western who was popular among Vietnamese but hated and feared by the communists)
14.Put Le Van Vien in charge of ARVN (he was a former pirate who was a military genius and was highly efficient at killing communists and beating them at their own game)
15.Provided ARVN with the latest in weapons and technology (rather than obsolete crap that was almost worthless)
16.Repealed the absurd rules that prohibited troops from firing at the enemy unless and until fired upon (provided the enemy missed)
17.Allowed our pilots to attack ships which were bringing supplies to the enemy
18.Mobilized the reserves
19.Allowed allies such as Rhodesia and Taiwan (who had offered to send troops but were turned down) to contribute troops, and beseech South Africa, Nicaragua, Iran, Portugal, Spain, Malaysia, Paraguay, and other anticommunist countries to do the same, if necessary
20.Put military men in charge with the war rather than politicians
21.Fired Robert McNamara, who gutted the hell out of our military
22.Heavily censored our pro-communist media to keep public morale high)

Another problem I often see if people believing that a bigger ship means they will win. Just because you have a ship so big it's gravity well destroys black holes doesn't mean my tiny overglorified fighters are not going to win. It just means they'll be laughing all the harder as their more-maneuverable design and far braver pilots fly loops around your cannons while your missiles and torpedos are striking your own ship.

Now, while I appreciate being able to attach cannons of Uberdeath (TM)(C) to a ship, the fact remains that smaller ships designed to be able to maneuver and dodge will be able to totally screw up your best plans by simply getting out of the way of the projectiles. And your ships have far more area to hit than mine do, so your pilots have to be 115% accurate while mine have to be only 70%. And since my ships are smaller, that means I paid less per ship and am able to field more of them (capital ships don't stand up too well to large numbers).

Anyone else have a problem with this and wish to add on?

The English won because they had the greatest naval tactician of all time and there were a myriad of logistical problems for the Spanish, had the latter not existed the English would have lost, tactics or no.

Finland lost, and more often than not that's all that matters. True, they put some serious hurt down on the commies but they wouldn't have even managed that if the Soviets hadn't been arrogant bastards.

The Vietnamese didn't win a military victory, traitors at home defeated the US military effort for them.


The real lesson here? Tactics matter, but size matters just as much and if the two are combined then whoever wields those joint forces is nigh undefeatable.

Well Britain took over much of the world... people forget that.

ANyway, I pwnz0rz j00 Sarz0n1a cos 1 am t3h frightening ec0n0my.

Yes. Tactics are one of the most important thing on NS in combat. But sometimes just the advanced weapons will be enough to waste a enemy.

Also another good example of real world tactics would be when Russia was being lead by Peter III I think. It was during the time when the british were the greatest naval power. Anyways. Peter wanted to get a port closer to brittan and such. But Finland was in the way so with 40,000 men they marched on finland but during a blinding snow storm the Fins used it to there advantage with only 8000 troops they slaughtered the Russians. Beautiful tactics.

And let's not forget General Andrew Jackson and the Battle of New Orleans sending the Redcoats scurrying for their lives... tactics won that battle, the Battle of Lake Champlaign, the Battle of Lake Erie...

And for IC RPs, here's an example:

My current "Farewell, My Darling" war is going rather smoothly for me and my allies, despite the fact it is essentially 4vs12...it is mainly due to tactics, coordination between us, and the fact that we discuss plans before going through with them. Also, we do some research on land and such...

And if you combine the national populations, we would be getting "OMG N00kZoRz Pwn3d!!!11oneone"...but so far, this is not the case.

[OOC: I agree with this wholeheartedly. In warfare, it is almost entirely irrelevant who has the greater capacity to project force; what is the real defining factor in any war can be defined in a single sentence.

The 'losing' general is always the one to make the last mistake.

That's paraphrased from something Montgomery said; basically, the victorious army will always be the one that makes the least mistakes. The Nazis made horrific errors of judgement all through WWII - the worst being the torpedo attacks on US shipping - and, despite superior technology and manpower at the beginning of the conflict (considering the land that they took and held very early in the war), failed to defeat the Allies. In the first world war, the same primary mistake was also made, showing that it is not always realistic to RP our nations as never making the same mistake twice: the Germans there, too, torpedoed American shipping - and definitively lost the war therefore.

The Swiss also have a history of turning a minority to a victory; their fight for independence against the Hapsburg rulers was always one fought from a weak position, but they used the land to their advantage - in one decisive battle, large boulders were rolled onto the unsuspecting and superior enemy force before any reaction could be made; the ensuing panic handed the Swiss rebels a seemingly easy victory.

At Bannockburn, June 24th 1314, King Robert Bruce of Scotland lead his force to an overwhelming victory against the English - his force was one third the strength of that fighting for the English King of the day (Edward II).

The list goes on and on and on. Another important point to remember is that having a vast capacity for force projection is not a strength, but a weakness. This is why modern active militaries (meaning those parts of a nation's armed forces that are active servicemen, and not including reserves) are streamlined; they are not intended to fight massive battles anymore, but instead to fight mobile wars - and large numbers are a blow to mobility in the field. It's difficult to bring massive quantities of supplies to a front line, especially in the modern day of artillery and air power: and on NS, we sometimes face even larger problems than that - space power, global strike capacity missiles, hyper-sonic aircraft...

Technology is the great leveller. Once a certain level of technological prowess is gained, all are essentially equal 'at the starting line'. But what really counts is how what one has is used; thus having a massive, intimidating military force might well be useful to some methods of warfare still - but (s)he who uses only what (s)he needs and uses it well will almost always triumph.

Warfare has always been about intellect, not brute force. The generals who fight with numbers alone are the generals who are historically hated; the generals who fight with their minds are historically applauded; and the generals who fight with both are remembered for hundreds of years to come.

But lets also think about something else, here: roleplay is not about winning. It's about two things: character development, always first and foremost, in truth - and story, as Sarzonia very rightly pointed out. So the first question you should always ask yourself when entering into a conflict is this: is it more important to 'win' - or to be true and realistic to the 'character' that is your nation?

If you want to be a good roleplayer, the question is always the second. If your people are a bunch of people who wouldn't swat a fly and enjoy gardening, sewing, petting fluffy animals in their spare time, do not believe in the use of weapons, and are almost always pacifistic, then they sure as hell aren't going to stand a chance against five million marauding orcs unleashed against them from the Five Kingdoms of Melkor Unchained. This means that you will ICly lose. But the key point to remember is that if you keep within the confines created by your choices when you thought up your nation, you will always OOCly win.

And people will respect you for it. Presumably. One would hope. Unless they just don't like you.

But that's just life.

This also applies to diplomacy. Think about it. A big nation threatens a small nation. The small nation, on NS, always seems to become imbued with some supernatural desire to be slaughtered; now, I'm not saying it's a certainty that big nation will defeat small nation - but you have to admit: the people in the smaller nation, before the conflict begins, will almost certainly expect defeat: even if they intend to prevent that; unless they are severely out of touch with reality, that is.

Our two nations in this hypothesis are identical in relative strength. If small nation was the size of big nation, they would, in fact, be identical; so how should small nation respond?

'Tis a difficult question at the best of times. Some nations will have been historically affronted by any demands placed against them; these are probably acting in character when they tell big nation to take their demands and shove where the sun doesn't shine. But they wouldn't come out and say it in that way: the fact that they're still sovereign shows that they've obviously not overstepped the boundaries - otherwise some other nation who had had demands refused would have conquered them by now.

So our small nation, which has a history of being obstinate in the face of opposition, would be diplomatic. In this instance, this means balancing respect and denial; on the one hand, the small nation needs to tell the big nation it can't be bullied - but it also needs to show respect, so that the big nation doesn't lose face in front of the international community. Loss of face is dangerous; governmental leaders are, by default, patriotic. And we all know what patriots are like when their country is insulted: they get angry.

Anger on the individual scale is easily resolved; apologies can be exchanged. This is not so geopolitically. The small nation cannot take back what it says; it then appears weak, which can convince the big nation that it can 'win' those demands it was originally after. The small nation therefore has to stick to what it originally said - especially if it's a democracy, as the government wants to be re-elected.

So the key is to balance the response from the very beginning; it might not work straightaway, but by doing so, it at least shows a proper attitude to the 'international community' (being anyone who reads the thread) - and if big nation does declare war over those demands, it is likely to face stiff opposition from the 'international community'.

Of course, it's not always IC to try to avoid warfare; but on the whole, no matter the goal of your government, it is always key to appear to do so. Winning a war is easy - winning the peace afterwards is very difficult, if the war was not fought from the 'moral high ground'. Just look at Iraq.]

-tag for reading-

Another problem I often see if people believing that a bigger ship means they will win. Just because you have a ship so big it's gravity well destroys black holes doesn't mean my tiny overglorified fighters are not going to win. It just means they'll be laughing all the harder as their more-maneuverable design and far braver pilots fly loops around your cannons while your missiles and torpedos are striking your own ship.

Now, while I appreciate being able to attach cannons of Uberdeath (TM)(C) to a ship, the fact remains that smaller ships designed to be able to maneuver and dodge will be able to totally screw up your best plans by simply getting out of the way of the projectiles. And your ships have far more area to hit than mine do, so your pilots have to be 115% accurate while mine have to be only 70%. And since my ships are smaller, that means I paid less per ship and am able to field more of them (capital ships don't stand up too well to large numbers).

Anyone else have a problem with this and wish to add on?

[OOC: This is why I have six thousand single-or-double man strike craft and only (around) five hundred 'capital' ships. Of course, of those 'capital' ships, only six are larger than one thousand metres in length, so really...not exactly capital ships in the NS sense.

I have to laugh at those people who have ships built for war that are fifty kilometres long; I mean, that's big enough to cause tidal disruption if you were to move into orbit around the Earth.

I suspect this would piss people off greatly. Yet miraculously, it never happens...]