NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, today is my first day back after an extended leave of absence, and I have begun to notice one thing that I would like to hear other people's opinions on.

As most of the role playing community of Nationstates already recognize that most of the role players use tactics similar to those used before and during the first world war, such as the use of over sized warships such as the Doujin (not picking on the Doujin in Nationstates, (its the only one I can think of right now, I know there are many others) and the Dreadnaughts of the first world war, the use of massive armies that are used to basically overwhelm the enemy's position, which was still a tactic used during World War I but dates back to before the American Revolution, and the fact that there are probably hundreds of different alliance in the forums alone in which a nation could be a member in two alliances that are fighting with each other (the alliance situation is a little exagerrated in Nationstates than it was in World war I, but it is still very similar).

However with all these similarities to World War I, I am also beggining to see some similarities to more modern combat, such as the limited use of tactics (if only by a few of the more experienced role players and those with a good understanding of modern military tactics), and the growing amount of players who look down on the giagantic ships that everyone but the most respected "ship builders" have built in the past.

Now I ask, is this a sign that the warfare and politics of Nationstates is evolving like it does in the real world? While the instances are small in number that only apply to a small minority of players, and the fact that many of the tactics and views have been around for some time now, I would like to think that , hopefully, this is the way things are becoming because I for one am tired of the "I have more people in my military and our technology is better so I automatically win" mentality that many have in the role playing forums.

Now I open the floor for anyone that feels as I do, or for anyone that disagrees, but lets try and keep this topic civilized.

I... hope you're right.

And wasn't the concept of the assault column really developed during the french revolution to allow the mass armies created by the levee en mass to bear down on and roout the smaller professional armies of the other european powers who had no wish to be run down by a mob of bayonet weilding fanatics?

Naw man... everyone still has big armies.

I have the smallest Armed Forces in NationStates. Barely over 3,000,000 personnel total. Though I compensate by having the most advanced stuff.

That's another thing, big armies with advanced technology. Bullshit! I will never ever ever have a big army, I take pride that my army is numerically inferior.

But I can still kick your ass...! And no, I gots no WMDs either. But the politics have evolved though.

Naw man... everyone still has big armies.

I have the smallest Armed Forces in NationStates. Barely over 3,000,000 personnel total. Though I compensate by having the most advanced stuff.

That's another thing, big armies with advanced technology. Bullshit! I will never ever ever have a big army, I take pride that my army is numerically inferior.

But I can still kick your ass...! And no, I gots no WMDs either. But the politics have evolved though.

HAH! Not true. My total population is less than 4 million! AND we haven't developed internal combustion engines yet =)

I should hope things are evolving, because I left and let my original nation get deleted awhile back because things were getting so stupid, and I would hate to think that my return has been a waste of my time. Contrary to what a lot of RPers say, it is wholly possible for a few hundred men to cause nasty damages to an enemy force of thousands.

Yes, definitely.

The SD was created as a counter to the "I launch 3000 Yakhont 5s at your fleet" tactic.

And I myself have created tactics to neutralise the advantage of the stealth aircraft that everyone seems to have.

Next step: create a low cost counter to the Mach 4 fighters that lurk somewhere.

And I myself have created tactics to neutralise the advantage of the stealth aircraft that everyone seems to have.

How, in the name of ham sandwiches with cheese, did you do that?

There are several ways... though it's very hard to neutralize stealth aircraft when they are over their own territory or at sea.

Nascent, I'd say what you said sounds good. I think it is because people all over NS are getting tired of RPs turning into flame fests over "OMG!!! I N00K J00!!! MY TECH IS TEH BEST!!" and all that sort.

Lol Crossman is right ... its getting really tireing .. basicly almost evry one trying to attack me dose that ..

I believe NS is evolving for the better, as far as RPing wars go. What would have once been a clear victory (my 30000000 bombs beat your 200000) now can come only through tactics. Take my loss to Ilek-vaad in a naval war a long time ago. He surrounded me, and then he beat me to death. Because I don't know anything about surface warfare, I lost.

Now see a similar battle against Darkterror (although most ignore him because he nuked me and because he couldn't RP worth anything, he was not really a godmodder.), where my fleet just achieved victory due only to more shiny missiles and aircraft.

Naw man... everyone still has big armies.

I have the smallest Armed Forces in NationStates. Barely over 3,000,000 personnel total. Though I compensate by having the most advanced stuff.

That's another thing, big armies with advanced technology. Bullshit! I will never ever ever have a big army, I take pride that my army is numerically inferior.

But I can still kick your ass...! And no, I gots no WMDs either. But the politics have evolved though.


I never said that they didnt. And when you say the smallest, are you talking about the ratio of your pop to the size of your military? Because 3 mil is a lot more than I could even hope to field unless I gave everyone pickaxes and flintlock pistols. You kind of lost me as I read through your statement though, especially your second paragraph, I just oculdn't make any sense out of it at all. And I really dont think you saying you could kick my ass is really needed, just makes you sound like a school yard bully.

And Ive been away for a while, what exactly does SD mean?

And Ive been away for a while, what exactly does SD mean?

Strategic Defence (Initiative). Your own personal Reaganised 'Star Wars' system to shoot down teh n00ks.

I never said that they didnt. And when you say the smallest, are you talking about the ratio of your pop to the size of your military? Because 3 mil is a lot more than I could even hope to field unless I gave everyone pickaxes and flintlock pistols. You kind of lost me as I read through your statement though, especially your second paragraph, I just oculdn't make any sense out of it at all. And I really dont think you saying you could kick my ass is really needed, just makes you sound like a school yard bully.

And Ive been away for a while, what exactly does SD mean?

What I meant was, that "army-modding" is rampant. It would take a lot of money to field millions of soldiers and give them advanced technology. And nobody seems to know that.

That's what I meant. I was kidding around, I thought everyone knew I kid around =/

And when I said your, I meant NationStates in general. I gotta learn to be more tact....

What I meant was, that "army-modding" is rampant. It would take a lot of money to field millions of soldiers and give them advanced technology. And nobody seems to know that.

That's what I meant. I was kidding around, I thought everyone knew I kid around =/

And when I said your, I meant NationStates in general. I gotta learn to be more tact....

I figured you were kidding but I wasnt quite sure. But I agree with you that that large of an army would be extremely unbelievable unless you had quite a large population and had a hefty amount of change that was burning a hole in your pocket.

I could have sworn SD stood for Superdreadnaught =)

I could have sworn SD stood for Superdreadnaught =)

What counters a nuke-frenzy better than a missile sheild? Some floating metal island that happens to have an engine at the back? Pffft. ;)

The nuke frenzies that I remember when I first started playing have definantely died down. So have the OMG mechs, that apparently can single handedly defeat 100 tanks and not take a scratch. I still occasionally see those enormous ships, that are such a blatantly bad idea. I am claiming to have all of 5 Battleships, but most Nations have several hundred if not thousand.

It comes from the whole 'guns beat missiles' theory of warfare, which is blatantly wrong. If it was right, people would have been buiding big Battleships in the cold war, rather than destroyer sized ships armed to the tooth with missiles. I find it funny how players on NS like to think they know more about ship design than the combined brains of the US, UK, French and Russian military ship design boards.

I remember getting into an argument, and bringing in volumes of nice evidence about how missiles weren't as crap as people like to make out. The person I was arguing with stuck to his guns (no pun intended), brought in no evidence of his own and just kept repeating things along the lines of 'I'm right, you're wrong, what would you know n00b?' The fact that my Nation is considerably older than his and I have been on the forums considerably longer (albeit with a lower post count) seemed to have escaped his mind.

It's because the realities of NS warfare are different to RL. In NS, all ships carry lots of point defence and armor, rendering missiles relatively ineffective. Add in the difficulty of spotting a stealthy warship, and guns may make a comeback IRL too. Asymetrical warfare and all that. Do you really want to waste a Harpoon on a fishing trawler full of men with RPGs?

Guns are also far far better for shore bombardment.

Also, I'm pretty sure SD stands for superdreadnaught, just like DN stands for dreadnaught, BB for battleship, BC for battlecruiser, et cetera.

Also, I'm pretty sure SD stands for superdreadnaught, just like DN stands for dreadnaught, BB for battleship, BC for battlecruiser, et cetera.

Thanks for clearing that up for me all of you, I know I only quoted Archipelago, but this is for everyone who said this.

Actually it's fairly easy to make a missile that CAN penetrate armour, you just switch the warhead. There is no rule to say a missile has to carry a HE warhead, in fact, several of the larger Russian missiles carried SAP warheads anyway, which is the same form of warhead as what you get on a shell from a cannon. Also it is INCREDIBLY hard to make a superdreadnaught stealthy. It would show up on every radar screen from here to Saturn.

If putting enormous amounts of armour on a ship had been a good idea and would have given the crews a big advantage, don't you think the US or Russia would have toyed with that during the Cold War? They didn't, because it would have been far cheaper and faster for the other side to upgrade their warheads than for them to make the ship.

As for the guys in the boat with the RPG. Indeed it is, but you don't need a 12" cannon to do that. You can do that with a rapidfire 3" cannon far more cost effectively. You are also correct on the shore bombardment. Which is why DB has 5 Battleships.

Oh and according to Jane's Warships of the World 1930something edition;

B** = Super Heavy Battleship
B* = Super Battleship
BA = Battleship
BB = Pocket Battleship
BC = Battlecruiser
BD = Coastal Protection ship

Of course, modern definitions are slightly different. I'm just including this to point out there is no hard and fast rule.

All this talk has just reminded me of something; I need to go through and work out all my military stuff again. The agony.

I could have sworn SD stood for Superdreadnaught =)

SDI is missile defense, SD is Super Dreadnought.

I was doing that yesterday, I suspect I probably put in more effort than some others into working out exactly what I have where and who's in charge of it. I've got a map of my country with where all the Armies are based, marked out :P I also have big Charts so that I can easily work out what each Division should have in the way of manpower and equipment. It took me ages, but at least I'm organised when I go into a military RP.

I tried that with one of my older nations which I shall remain un-named at the moment. Ultimately I failed because of lack of patience. Might try it again though. Maybe.

That's why I don't like wars. Then some of my carefully calculated Divisions might take losses...

Haha, I try to only do character rps as my knowledge of military tactics and units is very limited.

Actually it's fairly easy to make a missile that CAN penetrate armour, you just switch the warhead. There is no rule to say a missile has to carry a HE warhead, in fact, several of the larger Russian missiles carried SAP warheads anyway, which is the same form of warhead as what you get on a shell from a cannon. Also it is INCREDIBLY hard to make a superdreadnaught stealthy. It would show up on every radar screen from here to Saturn.

If putting enormous amounts of armour on a ship had been a good idea and would have given the crews a big advantage, don't you think the US or Russia would have toyed with that during the Cold War? They didn't, because it would have been far cheaper and faster for the other side to upgrade their warheads than for them to make the ship.

As for the guys in the boat with the RPG. Indeed it is, but you don't need a 12" cannon to do that. You can do that with a rapidfire 3" cannon far more cost effectively. You are also correct on the shore bombardment. Which is why DB has 5 Battleships.

It's not so much a matter of the warhead, it's mass and terminal velocity as well. There are very few missiles with a one ton warhead, and they tend to be extremely large. A sixteen inch shell weighs about a ton and a half... that amount of mass plunging down at the deck will do more damage than a missile, regardless of whether the missile is capped or not.

Aditionally, ships can carry far more shells than missiles, so for extended engagements, guns are preferable. Consider the amount of punisment the bismark took before it went under... damaging a BB isn't the issue (even though the soviets were terrified of Iowa class battleships because they didn't have a missile that could penitrate the armor), you need to hit it and keep hitting it again and again to put it under.

Shells also do signifigant damage when they miss... the pressure wave caused by a straddle can crush the hulls of smaller ships, but missiles tend to miss cleanly because of their shallower trajectories (to avoid point defence)

Finally, missiles can be spoofed extremely easily... shells are dumb, and therefor hard to fool.

While it's hard to stealth a dreadnaught, it's rather easy to make it low observable. Conduct commiunications within the fleet with lasers, turn off your radar, and maintain radio silence. So loing as no one focuses an active scan on you, you're safe. And if someone does go active, you'll know about it well before they can see you.

As for why neither power was building battleships? they are enormous resource intensive vessels... but in the NS world of 'I have every resource within my boarders so HAH' expence is no issue.

ok, I think weve gotten a little off topic. Lets try and steer it back if yall could.

But just one more thing...seeing as how Im super swamped with school work and am pretty stupid with military things (being pretty lazy doesnt help much either) would some one like to "aid" me in gaining a decent military. When I say decent I mean tech wise, not numbers wise. I can figure that out on me own. If so contact me in aim,kyle0485, I do not have any of the other messengers though so yea.

Alright, I'm curious. Where do you go to get involved in this whole war thing? I mean, unless it's a private deal, I wouldn't mind trying it out. I like strategy.

I think its more to do with RP than whater mass missile cannon thingy is going off, two great warships hammering each other over a period of several hours is fun to RP.

A large warship having its back broken and sinking in a few minutes because of a cruise missile launched from a disguised fishing trawler a few hundred miles away, is not so fun.

Its down to personal taste and preference, more than real world statistics.

Sorry. /hyjack

NS goes through waves... mass attacks, impossible ships, slave wars, impossible tanks, banks and stockmarkets, impossible aircraft... I think we may be coming out of a bad period and into a good one. Until, of course, someone pulls tactics out of 1792 again.

What stage would we be in now? Multiple Earth stage? Violating Human Rights?But I think youre right in saying NS goes through waves. But I would like to see, instead of everyone following the most popular idea, like the Human rights thing which I would give Communist Mississippi and Parthians credit for really making big (Im sure someone is gonna jump on me for saying that, and yes I know Decisive Action is either CM, or a really good copy of him).

If we are going to get into another good period, I think I would like to see more good character rps, being its what im best at. But if it is, I suppose it would lose some of its luster though.

I prefer the approach of a large army, most of it as conscripts with basic training, but a small section of elite super-duper soldier people who sneak in while everybody else is busy and kill the enemies high command :P
And I have a few uber-battleships...mostly just for fun. I mean, there are more effective ways for me to blow planets up. Dessicators...hehe..say bye bye to your water...including the water inside you now :P
Impossible tanks...well, meh. Theyre impossible by modern standerds, but we have happy super recoil thingies which Im too lazy to explain O_O

What stage would we be in now? Multiple Earth stage? Violating Human Rights?But I think youre right in saying NS goes through waves. But I would like to see, instead of everyone following the most popular idea, like the Human rights thing which I would give Communist Mississippi and Parthians credit for really making big (Im sure someone is gonna jump on me for saying that, and yes I know Decisive Action is either CM, or a really good copy of him).

If we are going to get into another good period, I think I would like to see more good character rps, being its what im best at. But if it is, I suppose it would lose some of its luster though.

Oh. DA is CM. He was deleted. He's been deleted again, and now is VoteEarly.

Multiple earth stage is over... you must have missed the worst of it. Right now we're in a period of transition (with a lot of human rights abuses)... and I forsee a major trend coming soon... I just hope it's RPing logistics in wars =)

Pfff, RPing logistics is boring maybe we will go back to people caring about human rights violations and getting some interesting wars.

Oh. DA is CM. He was deleted. He's been deleted again, and now is VoteEarly.

Multiple earth stage is over... you must have missed the worst of it. Right now we're in a period of transition (with a lot of human rights abuses)... and I forsee a major trend coming soon... I just hope it's RPing logistics in wars =)

Unfortunatly I did not miss the bulk of the Multi Earth stage, I quit playing in November and that was about when I think earth five or six, maybe seven was gettin started.

A Few Rich People: Sure roleplaying logistics is boring, its why next to no one does it, and Im not saying that it should be role played out to the extent of battle parts, but I think a little bit of it being incorporated into the war role plays should be more of a common sight. Like if someone roleplayed an attack on a supply convoy or something, that way you would know that the troops were getting supplied instead of just assuming it. Plus the human rights violations role plays have gotten so rediculously played out I really couldnt care any more. There are only so many ways you can do it ya know. Though, I dont think I have seen a mass drowning yet.

While it's hard to stealth a dreadnaught, it's rather easy to make it low observable. Conduct commiunications within the fleet with lasers, turn off your radar, and maintain radio silence. So loing as no one focuses an active scan on you, you're safe. And if someone does go active, you'll know about it well before they can see you.

Are you sure? I think something 1km long can be seen almost from space.

1km isnt much longer than a mile is it? If so I think the only way you could even begin to see it was if it were 1km tall, and that would still require a telescope I think.

1km isnt much longer than a mile is it? If so I think the only way you could even begin to see it was if it were 1km tall, and that would still require a telescope I think.

Its about 0.6 of a mile. And as for satellites, assuming you let them remain intact, will still have to know where to look.

They could look for the wakes?

A Few Rich People: Sure roleplaying logistics is boring, its why next to no one does it, and Im not saying that it should be role played out to the extent of battle parts, but I think a little bit of it being incorporated into the war role plays should be more of a common sight. Like if someone roleplayed an attack on a supply convoy or something, that way you would know that the troops were getting supplied instead of just assuming it.

Its just that war here in NS is really more of a "front lines" war than anything else, the two forces beat the snot out of each other till one wins. Supplies are just what allow them to do that.

Though I agree something like that would be interesting, but require alot more planning between the two parties than just a frontline war.

I have to laugh when I see people who claim something like 500 battleships or huge numbers of super dreadnaughts in their fleets because it sounds to me like they're trying to bring back the Battle of Jutland or a "modernised" version of Trafalgar. I have a small number of SDs in my navy, preferring instead to build a large overall number of ships with balance being a key. For me, SDs are best used to show the flag, serve as flagships, or be instruments of intimidation. On the rare occasion when I actually use one in battle, it's to provide coastal bombardment from a very survivable platform.

As far as army or air force RPing are concerned, once my war against R-B and GE finally ends, the report I released (I don't have the link on me at the moment) will set a series of events into motion that set up my army as being smallish but professional rather than large and poorly-trained. I RP my country as living on its navy to the point where navy rejects end up going to the army. That's going to change, but it's not going to be an uber large army. As for my air force, it's RP'd as being small but effective.

;)

Yes, definitely.

The SD was created as a counter to the "I launch 3000 Yakhont 5s at your fleet" tactic.

And I myself have created tactics to neutralise the advantage of the stealth aircraft that everyone seems to have.

Next step: create a low cost counter to the Mach 4 fighters that lurk somewhere.

Aerial mines.

Aditionally, ships can carry far more shells than missiles, so for extended engagements, guns are preferable. Consider the amount of punisment the bismark took before it went under... damaging a BB isn't the issue (even though the soviets were terrified of Iowa class battleships because they didn't have a missile that could penitrate the armor), you need to hit it and keep hitting it again and again to put it under.


Actually a P-350 Bazalt 4K-77 probably could deal significant damage to the Iowa, that was, to be precise, a one tonne warhead and travelled at Mach 2.5. Yeah it was bloody enormous, and you couldn't put many on a ship, but you could hit targets at 550 km as opposed to about 40 for a cannon. Even if it didn't sink it the explosion would blow up all those fragile things like the radars and targeters, effectively making the Battleship a sitting duck.
It's probably fair to assume Warsaw pact equipment was better than what the media in the west liked to make out. I have seen old books touting how higher profile vehicles are better than low profile 'Commie tanks'.
An active radar sweep will in all probability pick up a target at 70 nautical miles, still well outside of cannon range.

Also I'll point out that saying 'people didn't have the resouces to build Battleships IRL' is ignoring the fact that in the period running from about 1900 to 1940 they were building Battleships like crazy. Then they suddenly stopped and started building carriers instead.

I don't know. I'd contest that statement. A 15 inch gun throws a shell that's about 2/3 of a ton at mach 1.8. Admitedly, this is smaller and slower than the Bazalt or Granat, but battleships tended to shrug off such hits. As I said, you'd be able to hurt a BB with a large missile, but you'd need to hit it about 50 times to actually put it under. For example, in the first engagement, the Prince of Wales was hit by 5 15 inch shells and 4 8 inch shells and suffered (relatively) minor damage, succeeding in breaking off the engagement. Bismark herself was hit by three 15 inch shells and she merely started listing a little, leaked a bit of fuel, and had her speed reduced to 28 knots. Hardly a 'sitting duck'.

In fact, it took 74 minuites of concentrated bombardment from 4 large ships to put her down. Estimated total firing was 1400 shells 8" and larger, and it is thought that many of them hit. And even that didn't sink her, it took a large torpedo salvo to finally sink the Bismark.

Now, in NS people have much larger ships, with much heavier armor... no missile that exists IRL would have a chance of seriously inconveniencing a NS BB.

The reason everyone was building carriers was that at the time, there was no real defence against aircraft other than aircraft. Now, with massive SAM cruisers, it's suicidal for a divebomber to drill a bomb into the deck of a battleship. SInce by the time effective SAMs were developed, ship design seemed to be on a 'eggshells armed with sledgehammer' bent, battleships with their heavy gun armaments were too expencive and gaudy. IN NS, this isn't so.

In fact, what you say is quite the opposite, the west had a tendancy to overestimate the effectiveness and readiness of warsaw pact equipment. And higher profile tanks are a tradeoff... while you're easier to hit, there's less chance that a hit will actually cause critical damage.

While an active radar sweep may pick up a BB at 70nm, the battleship would have gotten you on passive far earlier. Also, given the advances in stealth technology, it is now possible for a, admittedly small, warship to close within 8km of a target before being detected by powerful active systems. While I don't pretend that battleships can be as effectively hidden, it should be possible to use a combination of stealth, decoys, and defencive ECM to close to 40 km before missile armed ships could target it.

I'd have to side with VA on this particular issue. Common anti-ship missiles are built to penetrate the skins of ships with no more than a half inch of armour at most, and they can only penetrate about 3 1/2 inches to 4 inches of a good steel composite armour at best (roughly 100 mm). An Iowa was built to withstand fire from 16 inch shells which would mean much thicker sides, so most of today's ASMs would have little to no effect. Add to it a good structure of hardened crossbeams and reinforced steel and a modern build battleship would be very difficult to bring down by today's navies.

Besides that, if the U.S. used the Iowa in a manner like the way I use super dreadnaughts, they would be able to intimidate foes like no other ships today can. The battleship still carries a certain cachet that can't be matched and it's nigh on impossible to shoot down those 16 inch shells, while it is possible to shoot down missiles or decoy them off course.

Yes, but I still hold that it would be fairly simple to upgrade an anti-shipping missile if it needed to penetrate dense armour. For instance you can knock out a tank with something like a TOW, javelin or some other portable manpac missile. That's punching through 300 mm of armour or more. There is no reason a larger missile should not be able to emulate this performance.

I can't find exact statistics for modern weapons offhand, but in WWII the German Rotkäppchen, a 15cm wire guided missile could penetrate 206 mm that's roughly 8 inches.

Oh, I have no doubt you could. Punching through the armor isn't the problem, really, even though modern composites could double the effective thickness of BB armor. THe problem is that the missile needs to penetrate, then explode in order to do any signifigant damage. TOWs and other ATGMs detonate on the surface of the tank and send a very thin jet of superheated metal into the vehicle. Such a jet would be ignored by any moderately sized vessel. Any missile that could kinetically penetrate 1m of armor and then detonate inside would do damage, but it would be so large that no vessel could carry enough to kill a battleship. The things are just too damn big.

If you want a real shipkilling weapon, use a moidified Subroc or Asroc... basically rocket launched torpedos. If you make one big enough, you should be able to damage a BB below the waterline and force it to take on water and leak fuel. Posisbly you could even score a hit on the vulnerable machinery on the stern or crumple the bow.

In any case, this isn't a thread about BB effectiveness in NS. Again, /hjack

The whole millions upon millions of troops with uber-equipment thing is pretty annoying, and relegated me to the sidelines of NS until a group of us started up A MODERN WORLD, which is a closed RP groups that only allows modern tech and RL world-based land claims. That means RL land-mass, RL populations. Only the culture and style of government is different. That means that one has to work within the confines of a particular set of nations, whithout it turning into a land-grab like any number of the "Earths" and that you don't have to justify why Britian has a population of 3.345 billion people. It also has a somewhat strict new members thread that only allows a perone in if they have previous RPing experience and can provide examples of their threads, and gets approved by two current members.
This also has the side-effect of having nations athat are involved police eachother, as no one wants a Godmodder involved.

WWJD
Amen.

I smell a plug. haha

Large, well equipped armies isn't completely unrealistic. You have to fund everything, but if you work it all out, you can make it work. Not everyone can pull it off though. America is a nation with a relativly large military in real life, and well equipped too. Its also the strongest economy in the world. Nations that don't have a great economy should expect to collapse. Chellis had a small, well funded army for a long time, and had very bad civil conditions. Then the middle class grew, jobs became more technical, and women were much more integrated into the work process. Now, it has a great GDPPC, and many people in the military.

Use a system myself that allows for keeping the work force strong and maintaining a military (though this is a expensive route).

Keep the military a more or less seperate population (stole idea from Farscape's Peacekeepers). Though it is annoying to lose chunks of your trained forces to pregnacy... can be overcome with artificial incubation chambers and what what. However it allows for a large well trained force molded into what you need.