NationStates Jolt Archive

When I started reading and posting on the NationStates fora back before the migration to Jolt, I remember reading a few threads that were devoted to the idea of superpowers. In particular, I noticed that people were trying to come up with lists of most powerful countries in the NS world. However, in a world created by free form RP, this is not an easy task.

For starters, the "world" in NationStates has over 1.2 million countries, while RL Earth may have two hundred. In the real world, certain countries have a leg up where it comes to military might or economic sway, while others hold the rest of the world hostage over natural resources they happen to have in abundance. In the NS world as it was originally conceived, there is no shortage of fossil fuels, titanium, or the like to contend with, and every NS country could RP as if they had everything they needed. However, many of the more serious RPers decided to RP trade anyway to create a sense of realism.

One of the biggest problems with the idea of "superpowers" in NS is the mistaken notion that population alone makes a country powerful. No matter how many RPers I've seen who disagree with that notion or actively campaign against that, I still see people lord their populations over other countries as if size alone is supposed to mean an automatic victory. There are plenty of RL examples of military forces who have had inferior numbers and have won their battles. There are also plenty of examples of countries that have gone into a combat situation only to find out that it was a quagmire (the United States in Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s; the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s; the United Kingdom in America in the 1770s). All of those could be termed military defeats for the "superpower" countries against vastly inferior foes.

What makes a "superpower" in NS? Roleplaying ability. This may relate somewhat to Knootoss's theory (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=369284f) on power and "wank," but the biggest determining factor is whether or not you can RP. I've seen countries that have listed thousands of warships in their navies get decimated by countries whose navies were much smaller in numbers, but were vastly superior in effect. I've seen people who have professed to have a great military who have been repeatedly embarrassed in a one-sided affair. I've seen certain countries intimidate "larger" countries into backing down. How? In those cases, the country that has won the engagement has been the better RPer. Just because you're a March 2003 country doesn't mean that a March 2004 country won't wipe the floor with you.

Related to that discussion about power is the idea of influence. People who are consistently viewed as the better RPers in NS will generally get the benefit of the doubt or will have the influence to largely get what they want without having to fire a shot. They are the countries who create threads that get people's attention. They are the countries who get people to sign their treaties or join their alliances. They're the people who have earned the respect of others in NS. Countries may choose not to attack them even if their numbers are greatly superior because they know that the country they oppose has several allies who will support them.

Ultimately, who is a superpower, a uberpower, or whatever? I'm not going to say. Just remember one thing I've seen in response to many player questions: "If you have to ask..."

tag

Well thought.
TAG

tag

Nicely done, as a slight afterthought:

Dumpsterdam, a 2.7 billion strong nation, am I a world power? Hell no, but still more powerful people backed down knowing that I have decicated allies that will go through fire for me and me for them. I do not need a large nation, or a powerful military to keep enemies at bay, a few words can do that for me.

No one would attack me when I've finished crushing the current invasion.

Actually, Feline Catfish, they just might.

Oh, and Sarzonia, color me shocked to agree with you. Your little musings were much needed on this board, as indeed some have forgotten that populations are not everything. Bueno, indeed.

Nice thread.

Well they can, but their fleet will be subject to nuclear attack. I have absolutely nil power projection capablity, but invading me is nigh-on impossible.

No one would attack me when I've finished crushing the current invasion.


No one will invade you because few people want to play with nuclear weapons, as they do ruin a lot of military RPs. Heh.

If my previous position was to be his ally because of his rights as a sovereign nation I would take a chance at invading him, but I won't be a turncoat - at least not right now... his new proclomation for 100nm of international waters, however, is a different matter.

What makes a "superpower" in NS? Roleplaying ability.

I disagree. This implies that good roleplayers are superpowers. In fact, a good roleplayer could very well be a minor power.

If it was just RPing ability, even then we have the problem of deciding what roleplaying ability even is. Let alone quantifying it and then rating everyone on a hiearchical scale... as many players are fond of doing. But how to decide that scale? Popularity? The opinions of a few? Why bother doing it at all? I've never understood why people have to have "best RPer" contests, informal and formal, off and on, always. It turns the concept of "roleplay" into a competition, which it pretty much isn't by definition.

I've seen countries that have listed thousands of warships in their navies get decimated by countries whose navies were much smaller in numbers, but were vastly superior in effect. I've seen people who have professed to have a great military who have been repeatedly embarrassed in a one-sided affair.

Yeah, but I'm not sure that embarassing a player for his lack of writing ability is the same thing as embarassing a nation for its not being military powerful. This is why I have a problem with the 'writing contest' method of rating RPs and RPers. Good enlish skills and creativity can help make a good RPer, but they are not by any means the path to true "superpower" status. At least not anything except in the gameplay sense of a player is influential, but thats not talking about the nation anymore.

I've also seen plenty of wars turn to shit because everyone spent all the time arguing about whose ships were "superior in effect" and the winners, so to speak, walk away only labelled such because they won an OOC lawyerism battle and gained popular approval.


Related to that discussion about power is the idea of influence. People who are consistently viewed as the better RPers in NS will generally get the benefit of the doubt or will have the influence to largely get what they want without having to fire a shot.

Yeah. And your mistake is thinking popularity determines "RP ability" among other things. Yes, popular players get what they want a lot of the times, and you think this is for IC reasons? It's got NOTHING to do with superpower status in my opinion. Again, unless you merge IC and OOC.


Ultimately, who is a superpower, a uberpower, or whatever? I'm not going to say. Just remember one thing I've seen in response to many player questions: "If you have to ask..."

Yeah, that right there and the rest of your article I can agree with.

But the problem is how much OOC there is in everything.

Well they can, but their fleet will be subject to nuclear attack. I have absolutely nil power projection capablity, but invading me is nigh-on impossible.And then you risk getting your country glassed when a country that's angry enough decides to retaliate.

Well they can, but their fleet will be subject to nuclear attack. I have absolutely nil power projection capablity, but invading me is nigh-on impossible.

Then all of the nations that would have rp'd with you will take their ball home (so to speak) and leave you ignored and with no one to play with. Nobody likes someone saying, "I lauch a nuke at your fleet... I win". You should actually RP a war before going crazy with nukes.


As to the author of the thread. Very nice, I smell a sticky... (if it doesnt get one it would be a damn shame)

Tag. Nice read.

Tag;

OOC:

To play the devil's advocate...

Feline Catfish probably feels the need to acquire and fire nukes at invasion fleets because of the following...

1. There are warmongering nations easily 50x his size.
2. He cannot stand up aganist invasion from large 1+ billion nation coalitions.
3. His nation might as well stop existing the minute huge warmonger nations invade him.
4. He can take down a good number of the invaders down with him into the grave via using nukes.

Japan comes to mind with their kamikaze attacks, and civilians prepared to fight aganist USA invaders. If Japan had nukes, they would have nuked the USA invasion fleet without question. Feline Catfish is in a similiar situation.

OOC:

To play the devil's advocate...

Feline Catfish probably feels the need to acquire and fire nukes at invasion fleets because of the following...

1. There are warmongering nations easily 50x his size.
2. He cannot stand up aganist invasion from large 1+ billion nation coalitions.
3. His nation might as well stop existing the minute huge warmonger nations invade him.
4. He can take down a good number of the invaders down with him into the grave.

Japan comes to mind with their kamikaze attacks, and civilians prepared to fight aganist USA invaders. If Japan had nukes, they would have nuked the USA invasion fleet without question. Feline Catfish is in a similiar situation.

OOC:

You seem confused on the matter. I suggest reading any number of threads where several nations attempted to stop the transfer of nuclear arms to FC only to have their fleets nuked by FC. Now, in all fairness he brought this on himself through arrogance.

OOC:

You seem confused on the matter. I suggest reading any number of threads where several nations attempted to stop the transfer of nuclear arms to FC only to have their fleets nuked by FC. Now, in all fairness he brought this on himself through arrogance.

Even if this is the case, there is really no need for 15+ nations of 500+ million population to bandwagon-jump aganist Feline Catfish. Just one nation would be enough to teach Feline Catfish a lesson. Even just one 3 week old nation or a March 2005 nation will be enough aganist Feline Catfish.

That aside... Feline Catfish was probably afriad that the blockade would have been a "covert" invasion of sorts, and he doesn't have much of a defense aganiost large fleets floating off his shores.

In all honesty, I believe the "blockaders" nations brought the nuke attack upon themselves because they were the ones who interfered with Feline Catfish's national sovereignty. If the blockade and subsquent dogpiling never happened, Feline Catfish wouldn't have been "forced into a corner" and used his only defense, nukes, to protect himself aganist fleets and militaries much more powerful and numerous than his.

The saying "Do not attempt to corner a wild animal, for it will savagely defend itself" comes to mind.

Even if this is the case, there is really no need for 15+ nations of 500+ million population to bandwagon-jump aganist Feline Catfish. Just one nation would be enough to teach Feline Catfish a lesson. Even just one 3 week old nation or a March 2005 nation will be enough aganist Feline Catfish.

That aside... Feline Catfish was probably afriad that the blockade would have been a "covert" invasion of sorts, and he doesn't have much of a defense aganiost large fleets floating off his shores.

In all honesty, I believe the "blockaders" nations brought the nuke attack upon themselves because they were the ones who interfered with Feline Catfish's national sovereignty. If the blockade and subsquent dogpiling never happened, Feline Catfish wouldn't have been "forced into a corner" and used his only defense, nukes, to protect himself aganist fleets and militaries much more powerful and numerous than his.

The saying "Do not attempt to corner a wild animal, for it will savagely defend itself" comes to mind.

OOC:

Ah, but at the time there were several ought 4 nations with one or two ought 3 nations that had pledged military support to FC if he was invaded. In fact, several sent him tanks, guns, troops, ships, etc. in case this ever did happen. And when someone did manage to make the beach head he was ignored while FC miraculously mobilized 2000 some odd tanks to defend the landing zone.

I agree certainly, but there is more to it, good RPing ability is not the only factor, The other factor though is harder to define and recognize but it boils down to knowledge, as with many such things, being a super power boils down to having both wisdom and knowledge, in this case wisdom is roughly equal to Rping ability and knowledge equates actual military/political knowhow. either one can be uite an advantage but it takes both to be a truly excelent NationStates player. For example, a nation with a huge military who is widely regarded as an excellent RPer could conceivably be beaten by a 'new kid' in the same way a nation wit a populatio in the billions could be defeated by a nation with barely 10 mil people, If a player is a good RPer but has no real idea how to use what he has in terms of military equipment then he is as good as dead, no amount of Rping skill can make up for bad strategy, but on the flip side of the coin a player who is an actual general or something but has no Rping skill whatsoever could just as easily be wiped out. it is a balance, but certainly RPing skill is the weightier part of this balancing act, Excelent post

After reading the posts, and thinking about this carefully, I have reached the conclusion that there is now such thing as a true superpower, Uberpower, U834power, orhowever you wish to say it. I have read a number of threads simply because they intrested me.

I have to say though, that while there are no Superpowers, there are nations that do seem more powerful than others. This is a combonation of many things:

1)RP ability. These people could novels if they really wanted to.

2)Diplomacy. This is for OOC: People who are diplomatic seem to have more persuasion.

3)Planning. They plan their RP's to such a degree that there is no room for error, or, at least very little.

4)Stats. Stats include many things:

A)Population, because how much money you can spend at any one time depends on the size of your nation, and how your government spends its money.

B)Economy. I've looked at some economies of some nations, and their economies rating is in one of the top 3 ratings/titles.

c)Corruption. Lets face, nobody is ever completly happy with any ruler. Usually government money tends to "Disappear" to make these people happy. This also includes citizens who use the government, and could really support it. Corruption takes money away from your government. Superpowers do not have a lot of Corruption.

D)Military strength. This does not mean that the person with more Army men wins. It also takes strategy, and, Gasp, dare I say it? Intellegence. I refer to the battle of Thermopolay, where 500 greek (It was greek, right?) held off one million babylonians for two weeks. (I may have my civilizations and numbers wrong, but surely somebody else out there knows what I'm talking about.) The point is, that while the Greeks still lost, the larger army meant nothing. One man does not an Army make, but neither do Hordes of Idiots.
Superpowers generally have phenominal military strength.

E)Tech/Medicine. While I'm not saying one tech has the advantage over another, generally more advanced Technology has the advantage, due to more capabilities and availible Medicine. But, I must refer to the Quote from the Godmod sticky that even a catapult can damage a spaceship.
Most superpowers know their Tech and know it well. Sometimes this gets mistaken for Wanking.

5) Allies. Sometimes you just can't win that war by yourself. That's when you Dial 1-800 Allies and get your allies to come help you. superpowers generally have a fair number of Allies on their side.

6) finally, there is the aspect of Time. How much time do you have on NS? This is a tricky one, because really, you only need a few seconds to copy and paste a post from MS word into Jolt. Great actions can happen in the space of seconds, often with one or two posts. But then again, if you can't read the rest of the thread, how can you know what to post? While you don't need to spend hours on end on NS, you should spend enough time to read up on what's happening. Perhaps an Hour or two on at minimum, to allow for reading and RP'ing. This isn't to say that superpowers cannot take longer either. sometimes it takes a long time for great things to happen. I mean, look at modern civilization. We may not be perfect yet, but we're working on it, and we are much Greater than say 2,000 years ago. Although I admit that this is merely opinion.

So, is this all that makes a Superpower on NS? Maybe, maybe not. This is simply how I judge the strength of someone's powers. Did I miss something? Maybe. Did I overlook a detail? It's possible. Did I get something wrong, or include an unnecessary detail? I'm open to the possibility. I simply think that this would be a good way to judge power.

Please, tell me your opinion on the subject.

D)Military strength. This does not mean that the person with more Army men wins. It also takes strategy, and, Gasp, dare I say it? Intellegence. I refer to the battle of Thermopolay, where 500 greek (It was greek, right?) held off one million babylonians for two weeks. (I may have my civilizations and numbers wrong, but surely somebody else out there knows what I'm talking about.) The point is, that while the Greeks still lost, the larger army meant nothing. One man does not an Army make, but neither do Hordes of Idiots.
Superpowers generally have phenominal military strength.

[OOC history Nazi, hope you don't mind :D ]

Spelling correction: Thermopylae.

The Greeks (more specifically, a Greek coalition consisting mostly of Spartans) held off the Persians, not the Babylonians. Your numbers are about right, though the Greeks may have had slightly more resources than you indicate (definitely not more than 1,500 men at Thermopylae Pass, though).

It should be noted that the Greeks took heavy advantage of geography, taking advantage of a bottleneck in a mountain pass that the Persian army had to march through. What good is a million man army if the column can only be fifty men wide? The Greeks drove the Persians off because they planned such that they only had to fight a small portion of the enemy at a time. Had the battle been on an open field, the Greeks would have been slaughtered.

That said, I agree with the OP to a point; if a five million pop nation is stupid enough to engage a large nation head-on, that nation will get pwned. Small nations need to give more weight to tactical considerations such as the above if they are to prevail against a superior force. I am by no means saying that it can't be done, just that new nations have to be a bit more careful with how they deploy/use their militaries.

[/end history Nazi]

[OOC history Nazi, hope you don't mind :D ]

Spelling correction: Thermopylae.

The Greeks (more specifically, a Greek coalition consisting mostly of Spartans) held off the Persians, not the Babylonians. Your numbers are about right, though the Greeks may have had slightly more resources than you indicate (definitely not more than 1,500 men at Thermopylae Pass, though).

It should be noted that the Greeks took heavy advantage of geography, taking advantage of a bottleneck in a mountain pass that the Persian army had to march through. What good is a million man army if the column can only be fifty men wide? The Greeks drove the Persians off because they planned such that they only had to fight a small portion of the enemy at a time. Had the battle been on an open field, the Greeks would have been slaughtered.

That said, I agree with the OP to a point; if a five million pop nation is stupid enough to engage a large nation head-on, that nation will get pwned. Small nations need to give more weight to tactical considerations such as the above if they are to prevail against a superior force. I am by no means saying that it can't be done, just that new nations have to be a bit more careful with how they deploy/use their militaries.

[/end history Nazi]
Thank you for clearing that point up. The Battle at Thermopylae is a good point about army size not meaning that much. Our points are similar. I agree, younger nations should be careful.

One of the biggest problems with the idea of "superpowers" in NS is the mistaken notion that population alone makes a country powerful. No matter how many RPers I've seen who disagree with that notion or actively campaign against that, I still see people lord their populations over other countries as if size alone is supposed to mean an automatic victory. There are plenty of RL examples of military forces who have had inferior numbers and have won their battles. There are also plenty of examples of countries that have gone into a combat situation only to find out that it was a quagmire (the United States in Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s; the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s; the United Kingdom in America in the 1770s). All of those could be termed military defeats for the "superpower" countries against vastly inferior foes.


The United states was winning the war on the military level, but had to withdraw because of a deteriorating opinion with its population at home(I dont think Saddam had to pay attention to things like that). The Soviets were not defeated in Afghanistan, militarily they were the stronger and although they may have had a dip in 1987, their overall combat record was excellent (the main reasons for their withdrawal were 'mines, being casualtyshy and the public opinion) and the United Kingdom was infact being "attacked" by half the world (French, Dutch etc etc).
If you really want to use examples use good ones like the Finnish winter war or the Israeli wars.

Then all of the nations that would have rp'd with you will take their ball home (so to speak) and leave you ignored and with no one to play with. Nobody likes someone saying, "I lauch a nuke at your fleet... I win". You should actually RP a war before going crazy with nukes.
Ah yes... Im so sorry for not RPing a "proper" war... ie one where I deliberately deprive myself of weapons so that whichever nation with the highest population (ie everyone but me) auto-wins. Err... no thanks. I dont find that fun. At all.

Very well done.

Props.

Ah yes... Im so sorry for not RPing a "proper" war... ie one where I deliberately deprive myself of weapons so that whichever nation with the highest population (ie everyone but me) auto-wins. Err... no thanks. I dont find that fun. At all.No, that's not what he means at all.

Re-read what I wrote at the very beginning of this thread. Size and "military power" don't mean that any country "auto-wins" a war. If you're skillful enough, you can engage in guerilla warfare campaigns, overtly or covertly sabotage the enemy's war efforts, and take out their supply lines with special operations attacks.

If you wanted to develop this as a real RP, what you could have done is selected two of the players "against" your developing weapons and two of the players supporting your soverignty, closing the RP, and starting to see what happens from there. Or use the power of the telegram to contact one of the more reasonable-seeming players about planning what a war between you and a particular country would be.

If you had a good enough story idea and you did a good enough job of pitching it to one of the better players out there, I'm sure you could have gotten one of them to agree to a limited war where the "enemy's" objective would be merely to prevent you from obtaining nuclear weapons. But it looks like the whole thread has exploded into a mega dogpile with a lot of OOC shouting that has taken much of the promise out of the RP.

The United states was winning the war on the military level, but had to withdraw because of a deteriorating opinion with its population at home(I dont think Saddam had to pay attention to things like that). The Soviets were not defeated in Afghanistan, militarily they were the stronger and although they may have had a dip in 1987, their overall combat record was excellent (the main reasons for their withdrawal were 'mines, being casualtyshy and the public opinion) and the United Kingdom was infact being "attacked" by half the world (French, Dutch etc etc).
If you really want to use examples use good ones like the Finnish winter war or the Israeli wars.
Vietnam: The French lost it, despite having been the colonial power and while receiving American help due partially to incompetent leadership and dwindling public support. The United States lost it (South Vietnam was abandoned to its eventual destruction by the North) because of failure to define its war aims, failure to follow those war aims, micromanagement, mismanagement, failing to fight the war with the means necessary to win it, an ally that wasn't altogether willing to give it it's all (very different from UN and South Korea vs. North Korea, PR of China, and the USSR), dwindling public support at home, dwindling/lack of support in country, etc.

Afghanistan: The Soviets, like the British and many other imperial powers before them, lost it because the Afghan tribes and people are a cantankerous lot, that their soldiers were being lost to drugs (same as with the US forces in Vietnam in later stages), failure to define war aims, failure to fight the war in the proper manner (although having fought it with greater vigour and less concern for public opinion than the Americans had -- owing to political necessity -- in Vietnam), loss of confidence in the State, no local confidence, long supply requirements, etc.

Kingdom of Great Britain in the Americas: Having won the majority of the east coast of the North American continent from the French, though desirous to lose the northern bit for the more lucrative island of Guadaloupe (with its slaves and sugar plantations), having to defend both Quebec, as it then was, and the Thirteen Colonies against increasingly outraged Native Americans and the Spanish, having failed to upkeep the fleet due to the corruption of the First Lord of the Admiralty, the French having lost several wars against the British and desirous to give them a bloody nose (thus improving the status and quality of the French Royal Navy), the British unwisely engaging in the same policies that worked "so well" in Ireland (billeting regulars with the locals), and having a king and cabinet who weren't exactly understanding of colonial concerns despite the advice given by such people as Benjamin Franklin.

A quick comment if I may on Nationstates military power and how it's percieved and achieved in these forums. There are many nations on both the International Incidents forum and the Nationstates Forum who concider themselves to have exceptional military prowess and are confident both ICly and OOCly that their nations are very hard to defeat in most war scenarios, when I think about it I would concider myself among them as I couldn't imagine Iuthia ever being sucessfully invaded by another nation...

Afterall, the facts are simple: Firstly, Iuthia is a large nation. Alone this doesn't mean much as being big doesn't mean you are powerful, never the less being large still means something... to ignore it completely would be foolish. The real issue is that Iuthia isn't really all that close to those who may wish it harm and that Iuthia has a strong (though hardly superior) military dedicated to keeping Iuthian safe. Iuthia also has a costly social engineering program which goes come length to further fortifying Iuthia.

But nevermind, all of that is actually fairly unimportant in the end. To me, it's important because it defines my nations society and their way of thinking, but when you concider that almost every nation in Nationstates has a "Strong" military largely dedicated to their defence as well as complusory military service and obcene economies to support them, it's only a matter of numbers to overwhelm them... Iuthia could be invaded by a determined coalition of nations and ulimately it wouldn't be able to withstand the onslaught. This is true of most nations, assuming one thing: that they are on their own.

As we all know, it's very rare that a nation is on it's lonesome... there are alliances, well wishing nations, enemies of you're invaders and the good ol' international community to concider. Nothing is as simple as "me vs you" in this environment... if it is then either no one cares about the event (or the nations involved) or it has been fought hard for in order to get those conditions. The real problem comes down to the fact that you can't really judge a nation by it's physical assets alone... Iuthia will (in my mind) never be invaded unless it loses alot of friends and allies, invasion is hard enough with numbers on your side as you have to project alot of force in a nation far away while all they have to do is project their force inside their own land, a land they know better and had a chance to fortify... add in the fact they are fighting for their homeland and that NS militaries are usually all well equipped and trained and it becomes almost impossible without having to concider their friends are helping them out.

Of course, most of the time you aren't looking at an invasion, but more of a short fight between two nations, a minor land grab perhaps or something which doesn't require every ounce of strength you have, leaving you open for counter attack.


Let me get on to the main reason I'm ranting on about this... when it comes down to military prowess in Nationstates, it's not about how much technology you know or how long your lists are... it's down to how much respect you get from others and how you view yourself.

A military conflict in Nationstates is usually conducted in one of two ways:

You can either play it out with your opponent, generally each having an idea of your strengths and weaknesses and then basically roleplaying in responce to one anothers actions until one is clearly the victor. Usually this starts with a minor incident, perhaps a small border clash will occur, or an international incident will set the two off... this grows into a conflict which is then played out until one side starts to RP it's decline into the eventual defeat. Occasionally it's pre-planned and as such both players are content when it fizzles out at what stings the loser, but doesn't harm him too much in the long run. Other times the winner may not get the hint and push for a complete win, at which point the loser may step up again with added resistance and then maybe end at a draw... eitherway this is the prefered ideal of roleplaying war. Two sides reacting to one anothers story until a conclusion is found. Unfortunatly, this isn't always common.

On the other hand, the war may instead be started by one side to be trusted onto the other, the antagonist pushing for a war perhaps using a incident to make their move or creating one. Eitherway what would likely happen here is that one side will be unwilling to lose because they feel that it is unlikely to happen... instead of roleplaying to a conclusion it actually becomes more of an arguement about why one side should win, and the other should lose. In these cases it will either end with one side conceeding defeat, or one side being ignored for not conceeding at all. This is the more common disliked method of war.

In the first example you generally win by being a good roleplayer, following a story idea and going with the flow of the roleplay... they don't always end nicely and could degenerate into an arguement if they don't agree with the direction the flow of the RP is taking, though in that case I would think of it more like the second example. In the second example you are more likely to win by being a good arguer and generally convincing others (not nessicarily you're opponent) that you have won.

Personally, if and when I get into a military conflict I would like it to be like the first example... hell, we all do because win or lose you both come out looking pretty good in a OOC sense.


Back to the issue of power... well, it comes down to respect and respect is earned in Nationstates by working hard on your roleplay and even more importantly, being respectful to others. Being one of those tools who claim instant power because they argued some kids down into admitted lose doesn't really make you out to be a powerful nation. Show a bit of respect and work at it and you may eventually be concidered a power...

Me, I don't think I'm really much of a power in NS, my military has no real history of wins or loses, having being without war for over a century. Iuthia has some respect with some nations for it's diplomatic efforts and it's overall friendly nature... personally I feel Iuthia has respect from all the people we want it from and that to me is empowering enough, that I can influence those who we most prefer to deal with. I'm no power, but I'm happy with where I am.

*Applauds Sarzonia*

I have been trying to make that point for my entire time on NS. However, noone I RP with seems to think that way. It's good to read things like that.

-------

All in favor of a sticky, say 'I'!

*"I!!!"*

All opposed?

*crickets chirp*

D)Military strength. This does not mean that the person with more Army men wins. It also takes strategy, and, Gasp, dare I say it? Intellegence. I refer to the battle of Thermopolay, where 500 greek (It was greek, right?) held off one million babylonians for two weeks. (I may have my civilizations and numbers wrong, but surely somebody else out there knows what I'm talking about.) The point is, that while the Greeks still lost, the larger army meant nothing. One man does not an Army make, but neither do Hordes of Idiots.

OOC: EWT got it mostly right :D , but I'm t3h uber history Nazi. Sorry.

It was 11,000 Greeks (8,000 Athenians, 300 Spartans, and the rest were from various allied city-states) against 250,000 Persians. The end casualties were around 1500 Greeks (including all the Spartans; their king, Leonidas, had sent the rest of the Greeks home to defend Athens two days before the battle ended, and kept his Spartan contingent at the pass to cover their retreat) and 20,000 Persians.

The Greek casualties may have been a little higher, but I think that's basically right.

OOC: EWT got it mostly right :D , but I'm t3h uber history Nazi. Sorry.

OOC: LOL. :D I must have been thinking of the last few days of the battle.

OOC: Well, to be fair the Cold War was a showdown between two Superpowers; the USA and the Soviet Union....creating what is commonly described as the 'bipolar world'

Just a reminder that this whole thread is OOC, so there's no need to tag your posts as such. It's assumed that the player behind the country is talking here.

Also, I don't think this should be a sticky since the moderators are rightfully trying to consolidate the stickies. I definitely think this thread has a place as a link in the Emporium of Helpful Threads or in another similiar thread.

No, that's not what he means at all.

Re-read what I wrote at the very beginning of this thread. Size and "military power" don't mean that any country "auto-wins" a war. If you're skillful enough, you can engage in guerilla warfare campaigns, overtly or covertly sabotage the enemy's war efforts, and take out their supply lines with special operations attacks.

If you wanted to develop this as a real RP, what you could have done is selected two of the players "against" your developing weapons and two of the players supporting your soverignty, closing the RP, and starting to see what happens from there. Or use the power of the telegram to contact one of the more reasonable-seeming players about planning what a war between you and a particular country would be.

If you had a good enough story idea and you did a good enough job of pitching it to one of the better players out there, I'm sure you could have gotten one of them to agree to a limited war where the "enemy's" objective would be merely to prevent you from obtaining nuclear weapons. But it looks like the whole thread has exploded into a mega dogpile with a lot of OOC shouting that has taken much of the promise out of the RP.

??? Again why should I let myself get invaded when I have a perfectly sound tactical nuclear defence strategy in place. And why would I "close the RP". I'm sure Iraq wanted to do that... we'll let Romania and Micronesia into the war and then close it... sorry, the world doesn't work like that. I'm trying to RP a realistic nation. Did you all know that Churchill was planning to use anthrax on German cities if the war went on much longer without American entry? Did you know the US dropped atom bombs on Japan? Presumably not.

Your point about RL wars is irrelevant. This is a game and people have the right to play or choose not to play depending on whatever's going on IRL or what they feel like RPing. This is NOT real life! This is NS.

I didn't say you should *let* people invade, but I was making the point that you could have other options besides an "auto-loss" even if people did invade you.

It was 11,000 Greeks (8,000 Athenians, 300 Spartans, and the rest were from various allied city-states) against 250,000 Persians. The end casualties were around 1500 Greeks (including all the Spartans; their king, Leonidas, had sent the rest of the Greeks home to defend Athens two days before the battle ended, and kept his Spartan contingent at the pass to cover their retreat) and 20,000 Persians.


Being a history Nazi myself I'll have to interject here.

According to the only 'official' source we have, which would be Herodotus, the Greeks numbered around 11,000 yes, with three hundred Spartans and a thousand allied infantry left when the Athenians and their allies left. The Athenians weren't sent south to defend Athens proper, instead they were to form another defensive posture south since Thermopylae had been compromised by a Greek traitor.

According to Herodotus the Persians numbered around three million, and of course this number is highly questionable, but given the fact that there are no other sources present to counter it, then we'll have to go with it. I don't doubt it was over a million however. The warring states of China were able to mobilize hundreds of thousands of men in times of war, and an Empire as large as draconic as the Persian Empire said numbers are not too high.

The Spartans were smashed in a brutal battle and in the end the Persians stormed through... but this wasn't really necessary.

Being a history nazi as well - and having read Herodatus at 12 - I beg to interfere.

Though you speak mainly the truth, the one fact you forgot were the thousands of Greek slaves, who also existed there and were slaughtered with their master.

Just a point, don't kill me.

Slaves wouldnt fight though, so they dont really count for comparison. They would just have been killed.

Slaves wouldnt fight though, so they dont really count for comparison. They would just have been killed.

Not completely true, the janissaries were technically slaves, and they are amonst the most infamous of Turkish soldiers.

Not completely true, the janissaries were technically slaves, and they are amonst the most infamous of Turkish soldiers.
Greek slaves wouldn't fight, especially Athenian slaves (since the Athenians viewed their freedom as a privelage for which they were required to fight in defence of the state). Getting slaves to fight would set a dangerous precedent.

Not completely true, the janissaries were technically slaves, and they are amonst the most infamous of Turkish soldiers.

Alot of them were given by their families or raised to be janissaries from when they were little though.

Greek slaves wouldn't fight, especially Athenian slaves (since the Athenians viewed their freedom as a privelage for which they were required to fight in defence of the state). Getting slaves to fight would set a dangerous precedent.

However, the Spartan slaves WERE trained fiaghters, (and were the most numerous). Also, slaves were essential for prapring for a battle, so without them...

<insert history smackdown>

Ah...I concede. I haven't read anything about Thermopylae in a while, so my memory is probably a little off.

However, the Spartan slaves WERE trained fiaghters, (and were the most numerous). Also, slaves were essential for prapring for a battle, so without them...
I'm not saying they were useless, I'm just saying that they shouldnt be included in the numbers comparison as they werent useful soldiers.

*bump*

I don't think I've posted in this yet, so count this as my approval TAG.

I'll make a point I made in one of the old threads about what constituted a "superpower." I think one also needs to consider the various RP groups, taking into account allies, IC accepted enemies, ignores, etc. Tyhere are definately superpowers within these groups, even if one cannot determine who is a superpower in the entirety of the NS world. For example, in general RP, I consider myself and Sarzonia rival superpowers, however, I don't factor in nations such as AMF and some of the nationstates forum RPers who may dwarf both of our nations in size and respect. Still, it is helpful to have a basis on which to determine power, so therefore reducing things to a local level is quite useful.

The people who have realized the meaning of what has been said in this thread......are already gone...

Myself? Disappeared.

The classic definition of superpower is "Any nation which is significantly more powerful than any other nation in the world." No nation on NS fits this. If you use a different definition of a superpower, for example: "The most powerful nation in the world by GDP / military expenditure / political influence / whatever." then there will be at least 1 superpower, because given a finite number of nations possessing different levels of power, one will always be "the highest". The difference between the definitions is that there is every likelihood that "the most powerful nation in the world" will not be significantly more powerful than the next few most powerful nations to be able to exert any special influence.

There are nations, AMF included, that wield a great deal of power and influence, but I wouldnt call any of them superpowers. They're much more like the "Great Powers" of the 19th century, where there were 5 great nations (Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Ottoman Empire and in some cases a sixth, being the US) which all exerted considerably more power and influence than all the other nations in the world, but no one state was powerful enough to overcome all the others, or even one of the others without significant economic and military expenditure. NS is considerably more like 19th century Europe in many, many ways but people persist in trying to equate it to the present day or to the Cold War just because the technology is similar.

I was originally going to create another thread devoted to the discussion of superpowers in the NS world, but I remembered that I had a thread I started a while ago. The reason for my posting thoughts on superpower status in the game is different from the reason I started this thread a long time ago, but one thing has become even more apparent than it was when I wrote the words that became the first post to this thread.

Praetonia's post in the Automagfreek OOC thread touches upon what I think of when I think of the superpower situation in NS. As of now, there have been more than 1.5 million nations created, and there are over 100,000 nations currently in the game. Of these, perhaps 1,000 or so might be roleplaying, and there may be a few hundred players who control those RPing nations.

It's well-established that no one nation can successfully take on the military might of the NS world and expect to win. To suggest that there is one nation that is head and shoulders above any other in this RP environment is to be mistaken. There are certain nations who may be local superpowers, as Generic Empire put it, or there may be nations who might be considered superpowers in certain limited spheres such as economic superpowers or diplomatic superpowers or naval superpowers or sporting superpowers. There's no one nation that can be the superpower of the NS world.

There are so many elements of being a power that it's too simplistic to declare anything as the be all and end all factor that determines it. That's sort of a repudiation of my earlier statement that RP ability means more than anything. There are a lot of factors, of which RP ability is one. Perhaps a grasp of military strategy or tactics works in there, perhaps established ability to wank with just enough believability to make things work can be part of the mix.

Even if you have a perfect storm of events converging to make yourself a superpower in one aspect, there's always going to be someone in the food chain who's more powerful than you are. And there's no storm perfect enough to prevent that.

Well thought out with a lot of good points, Size does count for somthing (Eg. You could be the greatest roleplayer the world has ever seen but if your country has 5 million pop and your agressor has a 6 billion pop your pritty muched fucked.) Millitary strenght also counts, AMF would thrash several nations with the same pop and roleplaying abilitys-but no army.

There is no Superpower on NS, there is a dominant core of about 10/20 nations, (Automagfreek, Guffingford, Sarzonia, Pretoria, The Macabees, myself, Meklor Unchained) that few nations would mess with, but unless those nations banded together, which is highly unlikley, then there is no way that NS could be concored as such. IF those nations did band together then they might win the war through sheer strength and experience, but they could hold onto there conquests. It would never happen anyways, such an allince wouldn't hold firm-the time of the great allinces, GODAD, RWC, NATO, LoD has passed and there is no allince on allince poltics now. NS has become far more fragmented-it is no longer a case of being a member of a huge allince but of having a few close freinds.

For Example in the old days I had 60+ allies through the RWC and the members of NATO had 60+ allies. Now I have about 5 or 6 nations I can rely upon to help me. So basically my thought is that there where never any Superpowers on NS, if you don't count the allicnes, and that now there is an even less chance of there ever eing one.

Did any of that make sense?

You guys are wrong on a few points.

1) janissaries where not persian slaves, nor in the same time frame. They were the Elite House Troops of the Ottoman Emperor's for over two hundred years. They spearheaded the caliphs forces, acting as stormtroopers. They were some of the most feared warriors in the world during the time.(1400-1600+A.D.)

2) The Spartan's are recorded as having, at their zenith, no more than 2,500 soldiers, true spartan soldiers. The rest of their army was made of allies who they had bullied into joining them.

3) Slave never fought, nor cared to fight for their masters (unless under pain of death maybe) and the Spartans would certainly never let their slaves fight for them. Yafor you need to go back to History 101. The helots were simple slaves who did manual labor and harvested the food that fed Sparta. Through several generations some slaves were entrusted to join the army, but never as well armed as the Spartan elite, nor even counted in battle.

4) At Thermopylae there were indeed 300 spartans and 1000 allied soldiers (all ill trained and most likely forced to be there) against what my sources say about 1 million persians. I would say it was more around 500,000-700,000 men ( my own opinion). And it went as Macabees said.

AMF would thrash several nations with the same pop and roleplaying abilitys-but no army.


Soooo...you're saying that only way I could take several nations with my size and abilties is if they had no army? Perhaps you stated this wrong, because this is most certainly false.

This is one thing I've been holding my tongue about for the past several weeks, people spouting off and blatently underestimating me, talking about how 'I ain't shit' and how 'they know how to beat me' and that they 'can beat me' (granted, people running up into a RP screaming 'ZOMGF UR FUKED!!111 is equally annoying).

Regardless of how well I diversify my military, I guess I'll always be known as being capable of nothing but a 'human wave' tactic. It's annoying because I do know how to RP a navy and air force well, and I've shown that over the past few months (even though I did so for 6 months before I thought up Damien). But what bothers me most is the underestimation (and sometimes, the disrespect). I change up styles constantly and am an ever evolving roleplayer, and I have a habit of being able to pull aces out of midair, which I take pride in.

If someone wants to fight me and think that I'm the same AMF from the last war I was in, then they're making a mistake.

Soooo...you're saying that only way I could take several nations with my size and abilties is if they had no army? Perhaps you stated this wrong, because this is most certainly false.

This is one thing I've been holding my tongue about for the past several weeks, people spouting off and blatently underestimating me, talking about how 'I ain't shit' and how 'they know how to beat me' and that they 'can beat me' (granted, people running up into a RP screaming 'ZOMGF UR FUKED!!111 is equally annoying).

Regardless of how well I diversify my military, I guess I'll always be known as being capable of nothing but a 'human wave' tactic. It's annoying because I do know how to RP a navy and air force well, and I've shown that over the past few months (even though I did so for 6 months before I thought up Damien). But what bothers me most is the underestimation (and sometimes, the disrespect). I change up styles constantly and am an ever evolving roleplayer, and I have a habit of being able to pull aces out of midair, which I take pride in.

If someone wants to fight me and think that I'm the same AMF from the last war I was in, then they're making a mistake.
No my point is that a army does matter, no doubt you could beat a nation with the same size armed forces, (You've proved it before) but you could easly thrash a nation with the same or better roleplaying abilitys than you, and a larger pop-if they had no army.

My point was that army size matters in war, not just RPing ability.

My point was that army size matters in war, not just RPing ability.

I disagree.

When Forumwalker invaded Russian Forces back in '03, I deployed maybe 1,500 spec ops to Russia to assist in its defense. I beat back Forumwalker's entire army with special forces only (RF was fighting other invaders and I was left to fend off FW), proving that a smaller and better trained force can defeat numbers if you know what you're doing.

Ah, power.

Power was always a nice thing to have in NS. It was usually defined by how many people you pwned, the complicated names of your weapons, and your population. And to this day it seems to continue. It's a sad state really, also as I have noticed lately, wars don't seem to finish. Well, at least not the RAWR WARS OF DOOM (i.e. AMF vrs. Hoggy, Prae, etc.) that we all want.

Usually this is because of pride. Pride in our superiority! Granted I've been guilty of this, I was always proud of my rifles. My sexy rifles... eh? Whatever, the point is, I miss the ole days of NATO vrs. RWC. The ole days when RP was good.

Heck I think I even miss DA/VE.

But now? It's a cesspool, one giant cesspool... but I still love this forum! Blah! I love you all! :fluffle:

Also strategy and tactics have seemed to been simplified, WWI simplified. But we all aren't five star generals now are we? Because if we were, I wouldn't be writing here now would I? But eh, props to you who say now it's a group. Actually, all of the experienced (Green Sun to AMF) are superpowers in their special way.

But especially that Island of Rose, man I love him!

(This is TIOR by the way. Oh and if anybody wants to RP with me, TG me!)

Anywho... I hope I kept on track, somehow.

Diiigging in the grave, just diiiigging in the grave, dadadiii-da-diadiidaa... :p

I won't call myself a superpower, because really I'm not as well known and feared as I'd like. I'm more of a power with connections.

I could fight a massive war and destroy nations if I wanted, but I just don't really. Being a military superpower brings about all the little nations coming up and challenging.

Diiigging in the grave, just diiiigging in the grave, dadadiii-da-diadiidaa... :pIf you're talking about this particular thread, I decided to simply bring this thread back up since I talked about some of the same issues in the past, but I had new thoughts to add to it. I chose that route instead of creating a new thread because I figured there was no need for me to create two threads to discuss essentially the same topic.

I won't call myself a superpower, because really I'm not as well known and feared as I'd like. I'm more of a power with connections.

I could fight a massive war and destroy nations if I wanted, but I just don't really. Being a military superpower brings about all the little nations coming up and challenging.

Sigma, you'll always be second best... just like me -_-

I still love you though!

Before I start, ill just say this. Ive seen a nation of 4.5billion roll over like a domino to the might of a nation boasting less than 500million.

Most people take it to be a even mix of population, technology and RP ability. Others emphasize on RP ability, others on population. The reason a bad RPer will not defeat a small, good RPer, is simple. He will beat himself. A bad RPer will not take logisitics into consideration, for if he did, he could not be truly considered a bad RPer. The stereotypical bad RPer will overextend himself, never post about supply line defences, never delve into the specifics of what exactly he is doing. He will not properly supply his massive army (Ive seen people attempt to raise armies of 1.5billion) and will watch it starve in the field. Unfortunatly, it is there the bad RPer will get overly frustrated with the logic you present, and either quit, or nuke you. A bad RPer is incapable of RPing a long and reasonable war. He will simply attempt to crush you in a minute, launching, and I quote, "...150 Million 200lb artillery shells at your army..."

He was firing at a group of 2,000 men. The bad RPer will not consider the side effects of firing 150million artillery shells in one barrage at a small detachment of men. He will not realise that for the next several months of fighting, he has no more artillery. The bad RPer will use tanks as his main weapon when invading South East Asia. He will not pay attention to the swamps, marshes and terrain that make it immpossible. Bad RPers beat themselves with their lack of ability. The opposing nation, no matter how small, will just be a slight obstacle which adds to their inevitable collapse.

When the good RPer is beaten in battle, he says, "What did I do wrong?"
When the bad RPer is beaten in battle, he says, "I need more men."

Soooo...you're saying that only way I could take several nations with my size and abilties is if they had no army? Perhaps you stated this wrong, because this is most certainly false.

This is one thing I've been holding my tongue about for the past several weeks, people spouting off and blatently underestimating me, talking about how 'I ain't shit' and how 'they know how to beat me' and that they 'can beat me' (granted, people running up into a RP screaming 'ZOMGF UR FUKED!!111 is equally annoying).

Regardless of how well I diversify my military, I guess I'll always be known as being capable of nothing but a 'human wave' tactic. It's annoying because I do know how to RP a navy and air force well, and I've shown that over the past few months (even though I did so for 6 months before I thought up Damien). But what bothers me most is the underestimation (and sometimes, the disrespect). I change up styles constantly and am an ever evolving roleplayer, and I have a habit of being able to pull aces out of midair, which I take pride in.

If someone wants to fight me and think that I'm the same AMF from the last war I was in, then they're making a mistake.

Well for one thing, I have the Upmost respect for your nation AMF, its a very colourfull and vibrant nation and your characters are described like they are real people, something I admire about your nation,

As for underestimating your nation, I don't and have not, I see your nation as a respectable military power, which is why i used you as a "Military Chainsaw"

OOC, it wasn't something I wanted to do, as I wanted to interact more with your nation on a freindly term However IC'ly the Corporation is Inherintly evil and it would have been OOC for me not do so, I.E. Concremo, I was allied with them for years, when I suddenly turned on them and Occupied their nation, It was only a matter of time before The Corporation made its move on AMF, unfortunatly, Azrael forced my hand sooner than I had anticipated.

As for the Superpower Article, I see my nation as a Nation with some form of power as many nations have rallied behind automagfreek with the sole purpose of utterly destroying the Corporation, there are many scientists trying to unlock the Secrets of the Capitol Police and the Sardaukar, So people must veiw me as some form of Threat, I don't know, I would like to hear others peoples opinions on this though.

Kahanistan had a hand in that as well hehe.

Size does play an important factor though, after all though no offence to AMF but if he armed his forces with weapons from the 1940's and used half of all his armed forces then Kahanistan would still have been defeated, it would have taken more time but it would still have happened. Size does matter in some cases, it makes for interesting RP to see what you know is a desperate battle even though you know that the general outcome is fairly certain.

There is a Balance, to all things. This, is a known fact, yet it is not exactly science. Sperpower does not depend on any one thing, all of its aspects, must be, in Balance with each other. I could have an Army of barbarians if i so chose, each one a fearsome nearly unbeatable force of nature. Yet they would lack brains. A good Bio weapon would then be able to wipe me out in seconds.

Then, is it Brains, no. I could know everything, yet what good is knowledge, without the physical might to back it up?

There's more to it then that though. It also requires wisdom, and experience. Take two soldiers in the feild. One saw an opening and charged, only to be mowed down by a spray of bullets. The other saw an opening, and did not charge, knowing that it was a trap.
The diffrence between the two, was that the one who charged, had no experience with war, and did not listen to his own instincts. The one who did not charge, had experience with war before, and although the enemies were not the same, he still learned from previous experiences, to lidten to his gut, and to recognise a trap when he saw it.

Then, there is Courage, the willingness to back up what you say, and believe.
The cowardly man is safe, as long as no one challenges his word. The man who has the spirit of Courage, is safe no matter what, for even when challenged, he will still back up his word and beliefs.

Yet is that all it takes? no. It would take far more than a few NS threads to strike the proper balance, and have the nearly perfect Military. Heck The world governments have been trying for ages. Yet all things must soon come to an end, and so does this post. I admit I am not that great with Military matters, and there are several people within NS that could easily stomp me, yet I also know that my words ring with truth, and thus must be shared.

I end by saying that there is no one way to find out what makes a true superpower, we all have strengths, we all have weaknesses, we must find our own Balance, and only then, will we be able to call ourselves, Superpower.

I don't really see the point in trying to 'win' in II, because it's all about what you say, and you can say pretty much anything you want. The only protection for nations is the MT/PMT/FT divide, and PMT regularly disguises itself as MT in II.

Words mean nothing unless you can back them up.

Words mean nothing unless you can back them up.

...With more words and stats?

...With more words and stats?With actions.

You can call yourself a greater power than AMF, but unless you beat him on the battlefield, it doesn't mean squat.

With actions.

You can call yourself a greater power than AMF, but unless you beat him on the battlefield, it doesn't mean squat.
But the only situation a player could beat another is when they both agree to it. Therefore I pretty much think the words mean everything. The one who is better with them has the upper hand, and just like has been said several times now on this thread, the size and cash spent to military, =the things that count IRL (plus the morale and motivation of troops, but that factor doesn't exist in NS), don't mean much when it comes to "RP skills", which means just more words.