NationStates Jolt Archive

I've just literally signed up today and started reading a thread about a battle between upwards of six forces on one island. My question comes from the I > U contest of numbers that seemed to be going on. Are the armies you can declare some reflection of your UN standing or just what you arbitrarily decide your country has? Is there any rule stating that your weapon/vehicle choices need to be real world equivalent or can they be behind the times or conversely near future?

why I’m asking this is that by what the country text generator spat out, I would imagine that my country’s army is made mostly of vertical take off air superiority and unmanned attack/recon drones, as in I think its the predator recon air craft being used in Iraq, coupled with zealot guerilla forces that make use of the numerous choke points in the nearly impassable mountain ranges surrounding my country

Armies can be (in theory) any size, but it is general convention that 5% of your total population is ABSOLUTE maximum (e.g. You are fighting on home turf for your own soil). As for equipment, that too is up to you, but if you want to stay MT (modern technology) then don't go using all sorts of uber-weapons and such. The stickies at the top of the forum are a nice place to learn this.

UN ratings have little/nothing to do with military sizes, it is generally based on the military budget of the economic calculators/nation size.
There are a number of Technology levels people use, ranging from Past Tech(Generally Pre-WW1), WW1/2 era, Modern(Generally late 70s-Now, can also utilize stuff that can be built know, but isn't done for whatever reason), Post-Modern(Up to 20 years in future), Near Future(Space travel, but no FTL) and Future Tech(Star Trek/Wars, Babalyon 5, Warhammer 40K, Starcraft ect).

For more information, you can consult the stickies, or I'll try to answer any questions you might have.

It just depends on what you spend your defense budget on to buy in way of vehicles, weapons, armor, etc.

UN ratings have little/nothing to do with military sizes, it is generally based on the military budget of the economic calculators/nation size.
There are a number of Technology levels people use, ranging from Past Tech(Generally Pre-WW1), WW1/2 era, Modern(Generally late 70s-Now, can also utilize stuff that can be built know, but isn't done for whatever reason), Post-Modern(Up to 20 years in future), Near Future(Space travel, but no FTL) and Future Tech(Star Trek/Wars, Babalyon 5, Warhammer 40K, Starcraft ect).

For more information, you can consult the stickies, or I'll try to answer any questions you might have.

i am guessing thats a bit loose because i have never seen Near Future tech before(i has PMT going from 2010 to none FTL space)

Care to say which fight on an island it was? Generally you can make an army/navy/airforce however you want. You can usually get decent equipment pricing information from a storefront. You might want to check an economy calculator to see how much you can spend in a year.

If you're a small, MT nation, you should just get some Soviet bloc weapons.

No way USA block weapons are much better soviet weapons are nearly outdated already.

No way USA block weapons are much better soviet weapons are nearly outdated already.
First of all, it's "NATO bloc" or "Western Bloc". USA is not a bloc.

And, many Soviet weapons are actually superior to their American counterparts. The AK-47 and -74 are better than most models of the M-16, and the MiGs are usually superior to their equivalent NATO fighters.

If nothing else, these weapons are more reliable and rugged, which is necessary to a small, poor nation like this guy's.

First of all, it's "NATO bloc" or "Western Bloc". USA is not a bloc.

And, many Soviet weapons are actually superior to their American counterparts. The AK-47 and -74 are better than most models of the M-16, and the MiGs are usually superior to their equivalent NATO fighters.

If nothing else, these weapons are more reliable and rugged, which is necessary to a small, poor nation like this guy's.

While I usually do not agree with LNI on anything out of spite, I agree with him this. Soviet Bloc weapons are much more reliable for a guy in his state right now. However, I could help him militaristically if he promises to make my country's religion his official religion.

While I usually do not agree with LNI on anything out of spite
...?
You don't even know me.

hey, some of their missiles (Soviet/Russia) and associated launchers are actually pretty good

...?
You don't even know me.

I disagree.

See? Right there. Spite.

NATO fighters are better the F15 and F16 are great rugged and relible. Soviet weapons are cheeper and the AK75s are better than most modles of the m16 no way thier about the same now true they had it first but nato block weapons have caught up. As for navy Nato block subs aircraft carriers and crusiers are far supirior soviet weapons have on deck missles Nato block is below the deck and has more.

Further more we should not have this debate here make another form.

What a hell of a way to die. (MT, war, open land grab) is the title of the island page and i apologize about having to be reminded of stickies, its just that almost everywhere is go the stickies are just a review of the rules of those particular forums

Here:
NATO fighters are better. The F15 and F16 are great, rugged and reliable. Soviet weapons are cheaper and the AK75s are better than most models of the M16. No way they're about the same now. True, they had it first, but NATO bloc weapons have caught up. As for navy, NATO bloc subs, aircraft carriers, and cruisers are far superior. Soviet weapons have on deck missles, NATO block is below the deck and has more.

FIX'D
You know, if you want people to take your opinion seriously, you should at least spell things right.
1) MiGs are notorious for their reliability and ruggedness, with easily replaced parts in the event that one should fail.
2) The M-16 and AK are both automatic rifles, the main differences being that M-16 has greater range, and AK is more reliable.
3) Naval power is mostly equal between the two, but Soviet ships are known for being dangerous for their crews.

What a hell of a way to die. (MT, war, open land grab) is the title of the island page and i apologize about having to be reminded of stickies, its just that almost everywhere is go the stickies are just a review of the rules of those particular forums

I thought so, somehow. There actually hasn't been much battling yet, though. Just a noob being smacked down.

I noticed the I>U number thing. I should surprise everyone and show up with an army of 10 million. I could, actually...

Your military size is generally based on your population and your military budget, although you can ignore the military budget and have a large army armed with pointy sticks, if you want to.

last comment for here NATO navel Aircraft carriers are better hold more planes. F16 and F15 are very rugged to f16 parts easy to replace to F15 not so much but their more manoverable.

NATO subs quieter and faster with boomers with more payload. Your right about the AKs and M16 although M16 are getting better and better. We can agree to disagree.

I've just literally signed up today and started reading a thread about a battle between upwards of six forces on one island. My question comes from the I > U contest of numbers that seemed to be going on.

Are the armies you can declare some reflection of your UN standing or just what you arbitrarily decide your country has?
Is there any rule stating that your weapon/vehicle choices need to be real world equivalent or can they be behind the times or conversely near future?

why I’m asking this is that by what the country text generator spat out, I would imagine that my country’s army is made mostly of vertical take off air superiority and unmanned attack/recon drones, as in I think its the predator recon air craft being used in Iraq, coupled with zealot guerilla forces that make use of the numerous choke points in the nearly impassable mountain ranges surrounding my country

No more than 5% of your population at any given time, and never under any circumstance deploy more than 1% in any given conflict unless you are defending yourself. Doing so will make you a very inviting target to invasion.
Your call...

If you choose pure MT:
Pick a specialty, if you lack funding and have masses of people, make a people's army, if you have money but lack people, go for Special forces, if lanlocked you can skip the navy and put more attention into Air force and Army (Mostly army to protect borders).

If not MT:
Good Luck

Overall:
Procure equipment and develop weapons suited to your enviroment, no Mammoth tanks in the mountains and areas of limited visability where a single man with an anti-tank weapon can jump them in an ambush.

If going for an international army (to get involved in everyone else's war or keep fighting off your soil) use stuff that is light and effective, such as fast amphibious vehicles, airborne tanks with +105 mm main guns and modular bolt on armor plating.

Much like what has already been said, if you are MT, you pretty much have two choices.

1) Huge, poorly trained, mildly equipped armed forces.

2) Small, highly trained, excellently equipped armed forces.

As said, many people consider 5% of the military the maximum for any nation. However, I would note this percentage as being probably the crappiest of militaries. I'd note that this percentage would have received simply a few pointers on what happens during war, and that's about it. Not to mention, their equipment would be well below par, if even adequately supplied period. Easy pickings, if you ask me. (Ex. Soviet Union)

Most people tend to keep their militaries around 1% of the populus. This is a pretty good size, as it allows the nation to keep a decently trained force, and a nicely supplied force with plenty of equipment. In war, this would be a formidable opponent, as they have the numbers to continuously supply fresh troops to the battlefield (citerus peribus), and a good chunk of tactical knowledge at their hands. (Ex. United States)

Then, there's the super-militaries. Most of these tend to focus almost exclusively on training and equipping their men, however small a force they may have. Most nations desiring this type military tend to keep their percentage down to no more than .1-.2% of the populatiton. These troops, while not in great supply, are more than capable of taking enemies ten or more times their size and holding their own (if not dusting them off completely). (I myself am one of these type militaries, keeping my percentage at .012% of my population.)

Much like what has already been said, if you are MT, you pretty much have two choices.

1) Huge, poorly trained, mildly equipped armed forces.

2) Small, highly trained, excellently equipped armed forces.

As said, many people consider 5% of the military the maximum for any nation. However, I would note this percentage as being probably the crappiest of militaries. I'd note that this percentage would have received simply a few pointers on what happens during war, and that's about it. Not to mention, their equipment would be well below par, if even adequately supplied period. Easy pickings, if you ask me. (Ex. Soviet Union)

Most people tend to keep their militaries around 1% of the populus. This is a pretty good size, as it allows the nation to keep a decently trained force, and a nicely supplied force with plenty of equipment. In war, this would be a formidable opponent, as they have the numbers to continuously supply fresh troops to the battlefield (citerus peribus), and a good chunk of tactical knowledge at their hands. (Ex. United States)

Then, there's the super-militaries. Most of these tend to focus almost exclusively on training and equipping their men, however small a force they may have. Most nations desiring this type military tend to keep their percentage down to no more than .1-.2% of the populatiton. These troops, while not in great supply, are more than capable of taking enemies ten or more times their size and holding their own (if not dusting them off completely). (I myself am one of these type militaries, keeping my percentage at .012% of my population.)

still, based on your join date i can guess that .012% is about 300K enough to fight off what most people send on offences + the uber training

I use less than .5% of my population for my military, but I RP them as extremely well trained and equipped for desert and urban warfare, which is ideal as my coutry is very similar to Iraq in geography. I don't really have much power projection capability though.

Much like what has already been said, if you are MT, you pretty much have two choices.

1) Huge, poorly trained, mildly equipped armed forces.

2) Small, highly trained, excellently equipped armed forces.


I really don't agree on theese points, since countries who follow the number one choice (Huge, poorly trained, mildly equipped armed forces) often proved themselves quite good. If you look to Finland during the winter war - a conscript army with bad equipment (except their Suomi machine pistol) held out against a large opponent of professional soldiers (which the soviets used until beginning to draft soldiers in the defense of the moderland as the third reich invaded their soil).
And Sweden, who has compulsary military service, trained a lot of men and had decent (and sometimes superior) armament. Excercises by the swedish KJ (Kustjägare, aka Coastal jaeger) versus english or american units have showed that they most of the times outsmart the enemy and that their tactics generally makes them swift and effective. And Sweden could muster about 12% of their total population, if needed, in case of war/emergency and could also (in theory) have total air superiority for two full weeks against the soviets in the eighties.

Conclussion just is that you're army may vary from being a big cannon-fodder center, to a small professional army, just as well to being a huge army with well-motivated soldiers, average equipment - to a small and unmotivated professional army, like the warlords in Somalia.
It all has to do with tactics, budget, morale and so on, so I just think it's unfair to come with thoose two conclussions, no harm meant. Just think that there is to many issues that makes your army unique. My army for example follows a compulsary drafting system

The Razatians boast that 25% of their population is in the army. However, the vast majority of them are really in civilian occupations, and other than a fancy uniform, are not any more "combat-ready" than an average civilian. If you only count the "combat-ready" soldiers, it probably amounts to about 1 million out of a population of 70 million (I RP Razat with a lower population than the UN stats say).

Razat would be very hard to invade, since it has a fairly strong army, trained for Razat's mountain terrain. However, as a land-locked nation, it doesn't have a navy, and its air force is small and old. Razat's main strength is its skill in terrorist/guerilla warfare.

Much like what has already been said, if you are MT, you pretty much have two choices.

1) Huge, poorly trained, mildly equipped armed forces.

2) Small, highly trained, excellently equipped armed forces.



Or, If you have as much money as I do:

3)Large, well trained, very well equipped armed forces.

Of course, no realistic country would have as high a military budget (61% of gov. income) as I do.

Anyways, isn't there an inbetween route? Like: large, well trained, but poor equipment? Or just purely average?

Or, If you have as much money as I do:

3)Large, well trained, very well equipped armed forces.

Of course, no realistic country would have as high a military budget (61% of gov. income) as I do.

Anyways, isn't there an inbetween route? Like: large, well trained, but poor equipment? Or just purely average?

quite, many choises, but not for a new nation

ok first I need to backtrack and retract my "nearly impassable mountains" that's godmoding I apologize, but the way I see it the majority of Drydomina resides in glacier/narrow river valleys to a point of some even being called gorges (to those who don't know a gorge is where a valley is deeper than it is wide). Farmland is placed/carved where soil permits and most of the cities are on San Francisco-esqe slopes (making winter a real pain in the rear it not altogether hazardous). Because it's never been Drydominan policy to leave weapons behind if it’s too expensive to ship them back, there are enough guns to equip 87% of the population. Ironic given that it is illegal to own one unless you are a government employee. militarily speaking 10% of the population is under military command although only about a tenth of that are trained well enough to be in any military action, the rest are a form of MP and are about as well trained as an average US police officer if slightly better equipped. It is land-locked so no navy to speak of but travel by river is common, and small MP boats are present. as for the air force, space for an actual runway is limited and there are only one base that doesn't compete with commercial traffic so vertical take off air craft such as helicopters and harrier look-alikes are in predominance over traditional planes. also one of the favorite tactics of the military is making cheap model airplanes that feature a video camera and a block of C4 fly recon, and if there are any less defendable buildings/vehicles to fly into them and detonate.

Is that a good view so far?

ok first I need to backtrack and retract my "nearly impassable mountains" that's godmoding I apologize, but the way I see it the majority of Drydomina resides in glacier/narrow river valleys to a point of some even being called gorges (to those who don't know a gorge is where a valley is deeper than it is wide). Farmland is placed/carved where soil permits and most of the cities are on San Francisco-esqe slopes (making winter a real pain in the rear it not altogether hazardous). Because it's never been Drydominan policy to leave weapons behind if it’s too expensive to ship them back, there are enough guns to equip 87% of the population. Ironic given that it is illegal to own one unless you are a government employee. militarily speaking 10% of the population is under military command although only about a tenth of that are trained well enough to be in any military action, the rest are a form of MP and are about as well trained as an average US police officer if slightly better equipped. It is land-locked so no navy to speak of but travel by river is common, and small MP boats are present. as for the air force, space for an actual runway is limited and there are only one base that doesn't compete with commercial traffic so vertical take off air craft such as helicopters and harrier look-alikes are in predominance over traditional planes. also one of the favorite tactics of the military is making cheap model airplanes that feature a video camera and a block of C4 fly recon, and if there are any less defendable buildings/vehicles to fly into them and detonate.

Is that a good view so far?


Basically you're Switzerland then?

10% looks like this: 0.10
1% looks like this: 0.01
0.1% looks like this: 0.001

Just to clarify because some seem to be misplacing the decimal point. As well, just because a person has 5% of their population in the military (a very high number) don't forget that the majority of your military will be taken up by logistics, etc... A 1% military doesn't mean that they are all front-line combat trooops. Most people think they are. At least 10 support staff for every one soldier is a good guidleline.

well I supose but I personally have any real nuetrality complex

and as far as .1 of my population being millitary I stated that only about .1 of that is actualy well trained. the point that I was making is that cilvian peace keepers don't exist, that "beat cops" are in fact an arm of that millitary. Drydomina has an everpresent police force and I just kind of though that .9 is pretty everpresent

and as for well trained i mean almost spy movie black ops-ish snipers and infiltrators decimating comand chains more than rambo comandos

or are those numbers still startelingly high?

still, based on your join date i can guess that .012% is about 300K enough to fight off what most people send on offences + the uber training

Of course, if you'd look at my signature, you'd see I was founded in February, 2003, and that .012% of my nation would equal right at around 5,000,000 troops.

Nah, with a good economy and over 10% GDP spent on military, it is capable. 90% of your (civillian/benchwarmer) military is a good estimate. Chances are these guys are (reletive to other regular militaries) lightly trained and armed, while 10% of your 'military' (1% population = 00.9% logistics 00.1% combat = [Per theater <feasably>] 00.18% logistics and 00.02% combat) Is actually used like a military arm.

As for your U(C)AVs, PROHT has used something similar (MMP-1), it hasn't really caught on, although Roman Republic (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10450463&highlight=MMP-1#post10450463)used a few of them once in a field exercise.

In stores Now! (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=476754)

It all depends on your country's political system. A psychotic dictatorship or a totalitarian state will most likely have a small but powerful defensive force so that they are more adept at fighting in their own environment against possible rebels. A more democratic nation might have a larger voluntary military that could be more used for force projection to nearby nations as a means of aid or skirmishes.

It all depends on your country's political system. A psychotic dictatorship or a totalitarian state will most likely have a small but powerful defensive force so that they are more adept at fighting in their own environment against possible rebels. A more democratic nation might have a larger voluntary military that could be more used for force projection to nearby nations as a means of aid or skirmishes.

I don't think it all depends on your political system, but also things such as geography, doctrine, who surrounds you, etc...

Look at North Korea. They are probably the closest example to psychotic dictatorship but I don't think they have a small defense force. Their whole way of thinking is to reunify the Korean pennisula by force - which means they have a massive amount of troops (poorly equipped though).

I'm not trying to knock you down here, Jenrak, for I'm sure you know what I'm getting at. I just think that it's a bit hard to simplify things. I mean, you could have a more democratic style nation like Ancient Greece (I'm thinking the city states getting together with Athens and Sparta being the key cities) set in modern times.

Drydomina, I wasn't aiming my comments at you, but at those who think they can field zillions of troops with minimal to zero support. I use 1% for my military and 0.5% for reserves during peacetime. And out of that, 1 front line soldier has about 10 support.