NationStates Jolt Archive

So I often find people which are RP'ing a war or a nation that sells weaponry post alot of military stuff with statistics and the like. But for a nation what is a realistic army to have? What I mean by that for instance is like what number of enlisted people is realistic to have, what number of tanks is realistic to have etc. Or do all these people just post.. random numbers? :eek:

Questions about roleplay belong in the roleplay forums. Towed to II.

You'll want to read the stickies, in particular the parts about logistics and storefronts.

5% of total population is generlly considered absolute wartime max military population. Anything above that would only be feasable if your nation regressed to the stone age in order to fight the invaders (Russian invasion of Afghanistan for example)

1% to .5% is normal

One tank per 10 soldiers (5 in tank) is considered "baseline maximum".
One tank per 44 soldiers (4 in tank) is considered dangerously low.

One plane per 25 soldeirs is considered "baseline maximum".

15000 logistics troops per 150 combat troops is considered RL "Norm" [1/100].
20000 logistics troops per 5000 combat troops is considered NS "Baseline maximum" (C/L troop ratio [1/4]).

*Soldiers = includes logistics

5% of total population is generlly considered absolute wartime max military population. Anything above that would only be feasable if your nation regressed to the stone age in order to fight the invaders (Russian invasion of Afghanistan for example)

1% to .5% is normal

One tank per 10 soldiers (5 in tank) is considered "baseline maximum".
One tank per 44 soldiers (4 in tank) is considered dangerously low.

One plane per 25 soldeirs is considered "baseline maximum".

15000 logistics troops per 150 combat troops is considered RL "Norm" [1/100].
20000 logistics troops per 5000 combat troops is considered NS "Baseline maximum" (C/L troop ratio [1/4]).

*Soldiers = includes logistics

On another note, remember that aircraft carriers and any other capital ships move with escorts, I've sunk many a dreadnaught and superdreadnaught that dared wander without escort.

Also, for every scout car like a Humvee or a Jeep there are at least 1 to 2 trucks (2 ton, 5 ton, etc.) behind it. A military needs trucks.

A military needs trucks.

They can walk like the germans did...
And don't forget horses and mules...

Questions about roleplay belong in the roleplay forums. Towed to II.

You'll want to read the stickies, in particular the parts about logistics and storefronts.

Ah, sorry, thought OOC posts bout roleplaying went here, or there.. since it's moved :P

I believe during WWII something like 80% of the US GDP went to the military.

You can also have a greater ratio of military than 5% but your economy will begin a slow decline, especially if you are losing.

I believe Prussia during the 1750s was about 1:26 normally (yes I know that is less than 5%).

You should run your nation according to your military wishes, it is a hard sell when your nation professes to have no military yet you RP it like it is a major power.

The ways that people come up with thier military "statistics" vary hugely at oen end of the specturm there are those who use the "percentages" method who simply rely on large block numbers to determine thier forceswhile at the other end there are those who spend lots of time looking at real life military compostions and have every single bit of thier military detailed down to well below the divisional level and take great care in figuring out exactly what each unit needs in terms of equipment and logistics support and builds thier military numbers from there.
Most people tendwards a middle ground generally more towards the percentages appraoch.

It should be pointed out that even the best percentage "redomendations" are just that, for every general trend you will find exceptions.


Oh and on that note one more (very) rough giudeline:
Naval vessels: you should have roughly 1 vessel per 10,000 heads of population within your nation if you want any kind of real "power projection" capability. This number will inlcude all of your vessels be they escorts, battle ships, dreadnaughts, carriers or supply vessels.

Hurtful Thoughts- when did the numbers of frontline troops have a ratio of 1:100 with logistics!?!

1:10 maybe? I personally believe for PMT and NS MT nations this can be significantly reduced as resupply can be left more and more to machinery and automatic systems(although of course they need to be checked and repaired), but then it really depends.

My ratios are a lot higher than that i believe :O

Hurtful Thoughts- when did the numbers of frontline troops have a ratio of 1:100 with logistics!?!

1:10 maybe? I personally believe for PMT and NS MT nations this can be significantly reduced as resupply can be left more and more to machinery and automatic systems(although of course they need to be checked and repaired), but then it really depends.

My ratios are a lot higher than that i believe :O

Since 1944...

1:10 is average for NS, I guess.

I took a percentage/unit at first (brought out to 12 million including police), then tried to figure out what I could cram into it with the budget I had (a weak[ish] economy).

As my nation grew, I kept expanding their equipment and training (but not the numbers until recently)

Then I recalled all the resservists and reorganized my military to better fight in a global conflict (something to do when population rounds 2 billion).

I'm expecting to give another reorganization when my population reaches 15 billion.

In the end, I worked it down to 4 and 5 man fire teams, shoved 40 troops on top of each of my 'tanks', and had a very small air force and navy.

Now I worked it down to the equipment loadout of eveery single man, and improved the size of my air force, navy, and even my armored units.

You can also have a greater ratio of military than 5% but your economy will begin a slow decline, especially if you are losing.In the years leading up to the Great War of 1914-1918, France trained ~12.5% of its population for war. Probably half of those men were employed as Territorials in 1914-1918, which meant that they were involved in rear security and/or as supplements to the police, or in labour gangs.

The only way you're going to be able to sustain that kind of force in the field is by having your women work, and that has consequences if you're not tolerant of feminism.

Technology and standards of living have a lot to do with that.

Someone mentioned C18th armies, which is all well and good if your soldiers only need some flour to powder their wigs and a musket made by one old man in a workshop. Likewise, the Great War, big warships aside, there wasn't as much to support per man, relatively. If you're happy to give your men tin hats, bolt-action rifles, a tin of corned beef, and marching orders, then you can give it to a lot more of them than if you want them moving on trucks instead of worn-out old shoes and fighting with combined arms instead of bayonets.

The issue of women working is more interesting, to me, though. It's related to what I was saying, I think. In generations past, in some societies in the west, women, by and large, didn't work except as housekeepers. Not to diminish their scrubbing and slaving over primitive stoves, they weren't directly contributing much to the economy.

Modern nations produce a lot more stuff than those old ones, and need more workers to do it. I suppose that quality of life stands to drop a lot further in the modern world should there be a war on the scale of those past, you know?

A modern tech NationState claiming to be patriarchal and to have women external to economic activity might be tempted, in time of war, to say, "Ah, I can call-up more men, because I replace them in work with women, where as your women already work, so there's nobody to replace the men you conscript for this war!" But that first nation might be forgetting that, to begin with, its work force is about half the size, and its economy probably substantially smaller than that of the second nation.

I think that some players see Powerhouse, All Consuming, or whatever it may be in their economic indicator, or big numbers on one of these off-site calculators, and may be carried-away in thinking that they can RP an all-male work-force and still call it the same size as/larger than a similar-sized nation with equal/inferior indicators but RPing an equal workforce.

Perhaps that was too much a tangent, but, I suppose, just think about what your society is, relative to everyone else's, when building its RP economy and military. Think about who is doing what, and how they feel about it.

Or, don't bother if you're not looking for realism. It's your game... until you need someone else to join-in.

Razat's official army is probably around 20% of the population. However, now that we're actually running a country instead of just overthrowing it, many of the "soldiers" are really doing the same stuff that's done by civilians in other countries. After all, someone has to build the vehicles, grow the food, and educate the next generation of soldiers.

One tank per 10 soldiers (5 in tank)
Where did you get this figure from? It seems pretty arbitary to me, and your contention that an average MBT has a fine man crew is simply rubbish. Most tanks have 4 and tanks with autoloaders have 3. Anything more is simply wasteful.

is considered "baseline maximum".
By whom? I've never heard of this before.

One tank per 44 soldiers (4 in tank) is considered dangerously low.
See above.

One plane per 25 soldeirs is considered "baseline maximum".
Err... again, where did this stat come from, and who considers it a "baseline minimum"?

15000 logistics troops per 150 combat troops is considered RL "Norm" [1/100].
20000 logistics troops per 5000 combat troops is considered NS "Baseline maximum" (C/L troop ratio [1/4]).

*Soldiers = includes logistics
This is absurd. Following these insane stats the US army alone (ignoring the national guard, navy, airforce, Etc.) should have a support tail of 120,000,000 people!

Some thoughts. Do you have conscription? Do you have the draft? Do you operate prison battalions or janissaries? How willing are you to use mercenaries? These all effect army size.

I think you also need to take into consideration education and public transport. Both of these are huge PT especially if your nation is the one being invaded.

Also, military focus affect power projection. A military that is dominated by the Army will by necessity be a land power but probably not able to project their military power outside their land mass very well.

I agree with Prae! Just quickly i'd say use a ratio of 1:7 for the army (frontline:Logistics personnell) although if this seems to me a bit high, so you may want to drop it, its up to you i really! As for Airforces, i know that you should have a ratio of around 1:20(pilots:Logistics) although i can't tell you for sure if that includes all aircrew, as far as i understand it does not. As for the navy i can't say, but Praetonia can probably give a rough guide (the navy is complicated, you have re-supply ships which have to have their own logistics at ports etc...:D)

Check the following threads out about logistics:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=393153
^-^ Recomended, by The Macabees, a great RPer and very experianced. Thats a quite realistic version


http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=275828
^-^ slightly more old school i believe, i used to use those exact same figures and percentages. Take your pick, but if you choose at 50:50 frontline to logistics in your army some people may not RP you because they use a different ratio or so on, just a thought.


And the ultimate thread with pretty much all the links you need to get started with:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=437653
^-^ Check the 3rd post down by Sarzonia, excellent range of threads and information its an absolute must for new RPers and great for some of us older ones too! Excellent stuff, a GOLD mine!

5% of total population is generlly considered absolute wartime max military population. Anything above that would only be feasable if your nation regressed to the stone age in order to fight the invaders (Russian invasion of Afghanistan for example)

Man people are going to hate skuzzsock. The whole population is in the military, and they live on a space station, far from the stone age.

Where did you get this figure from? It seems pretty arbitary to me, and your contention that an average MBT has a fine man crew is simply rubbish. Most tanks have 4 and tanks with autoloaders have 3. Anything more is simply wasteful.


By whom? I've never heard of this before.
Err... again, where did this stat come from, and who considers it a "baseline minimum"?

This is absurd. Following these insane stats the US army alone (ignoring the national guard, navy, airforce, Etc.) should have a support tail of 120,000,000 people!

1,200,000 troops*
100/110 are logistics/'rear end' troops [1,090,090]50 to 100 divisions
10/110 are likely to see combat [109,090] 5 to 10 divisions

*Due to the modern nature of war, even logistics troops are equiped to fght, but not as well as the specialised 'combat divisions'.

To prove these figures incorrect, all one has to do is figure out deployments, and see which ones are in action in armed conflicts. If they are incorrect (and if so, it would be news to myself).

5% is generally considered absolute wartime maximum

And just by sheer coincedence, Hotdogs2 is feeding numbers very close to the ones I gave... (except for Combast/logistics ratio, but I include the longshoremen***, dockhands***, transport pilots*, foraging parties*, mechasnics, horses**, frogmen*, spies*, vetranarians, signalmen, medics, etc...)

*Considered by many on NS to be combat
** replaced by trucks and tanks
***replaced by contract employees

To prove these figures incorrect, all one has to do is figure out deployments, and see which ones are in action in armed conflicts. If they are incorrect (and if so, it would be news to myself).
Problem is, not all combat personnel are deployed in combat zones. Most are simply stationed at various bases, sitting on their ass in case something bad happens. To get an accurate figure, you'd have to include troops deployed at overseas bases, homeland bases, embassies, etc.

Problem is, not all combat personnel are deployed in combat zones. Most are simply stationed at various bases, sitting on their ass in case something bad happens. To get an accurate figure, you'd have to include troops deployed at overseas bases, homeland bases, embassies, etc.

So therefore the line between pure logistics troops/divisions and pure combat units have blurred (due to inactivity of combat units, and the unintended activity of non-combat units due to modern warfare tactics) to thepoint that it is almost undistinguishable.

K.
Type: Qualities [Unit examples]
Logistics: Low intensity combat capabilies [Mobile/mechanized]
Basic Combat: High intensity combat capabilies [Mechanized/Armored]
Special forces: Elite, used sparingly, as they are difficult to replace [Light/mountain Divisions]

1/4 ratio for my NS nation (only including men in Hurtian BDUs, contracted locals and mercenaries not included)

So therefore the line between pure logistics troops/divisions and pure combat units have blurred (due to inactivity of combat units, and the unintended activity of non-combat units due to modern warfare tactics) to thepoint that it is almost undistinguishable.


Thats not quite right. There is definatly a clear line between those in the army who are truck drivers and are not supposed to be fighting and the actual fighting infantry lets say.

If you look at the training personell do you will find that those who are supposed to be the troops attacking/defending places then they will be much better trained and continuosly receive training.

If you look at who is going to be going to do the patrols in say faghanistan it is clearly the well trained infantry, or say who would do it if you joined the forces. Join as a para and you expect to see patrols and possible combat, join as say a weapons techy you wouldn't be expecting to be sent anywhere to go and storm a building somewhere. Thats what the combat troops do.


And to look at something as small as saying people instead of troops is ridiculous, its true that all personell are now combat trained, and have been for some time in the british military at least, but its not a major thing,

Again, if you join as an IT/Comms expert you don't expect to be heading an amphibious attack ;).

Being one of those people who has his stats down to the squad level, I can say this (fuck percentages!): what your army looks like depends entirely upon its composition. Want to be armor heavy? Then you'll have many more armored and mechanized divisions! Armor not your thing? Look into air assault and light divisions! The composition of your divisions furthermore determines the amount of active combat personel you can expect to see. With my computer being repaired... again, i'll have to use older statistics.

An armored division for me has 15,429 people in it. How many are infantry you ask? 4,120. How many are driving tanks/vehicles/helicopters? 5,307. Should a black hawk down situation occur, how many rifles can I bring to bear (including commanders[!]): only about 1,000 more. But here is the critical part: how many tanks/IFVs do I have: 836.

Lets look at a light division: 17,243, 8,720. How many tanks/ifvs? 56. Big difference. Different divisions have different capabilities, and have their strengths and weaknesses. If one of my light divisions met one of my heavy divisions in an open field, the light division would put up an admirable fight, but would most likely be crushed. Put them in the same situation, but in, say, down town manhattan, and i'll take the light division any day.

Food for thought.

1,200,000 troops*
Assuming a your stated 400:1 logistics rate, a US army of 300,000 people would result in a logistics trail of 120,000,000. This is clearly absurd. Trying to actually defend this position is even more absurd.

And you didn't answer my other questions.

one thought you could go for is using a lower number like 3 or 4 %. wiht 3 or 4 % you could have a crack military. Soldiers who because of the decreesed numbers are diligently trained and equipped with better weapons and gear.

But then again you could be like the chinese military and your military pop could be like 6 or 7 but they would have to be poorly equipped and trained, but you get more people to rush a pill box ect ect

Actually for an "Elite" army or at least one with RL western levels of training ang equipment you would be looking at well below 1% maybe even less than 0.5%

Actually for an "Elite" army or at least one with RL western levels of training ang equipment you would be looking at well below 1% maybe even less than 0.5%

Not so with the ammount of funding and NS economies that mean that if you looked at the money going into the military you could have some pretty impressive equivalents with relatively big numbers(keeping in mind you still need workers for that economy)...

Actually the better your ecomony the fewer soldiers you afford as not only will each soldier naturally be more expensive to recruit, train and equip but each individual taken out of the availble labour pool will reduce your nations economic output by a greater amount.
A good military will demand the best personel availble and the best personel just happen to be the most economically active members of the population.

Actually the better your ecomony the fewer soldiers you afford as not only will each soldier naturally be more expensive to recruit, train and equip but each individual taken out of the availble labour pool will reduce your nations economic output by a greater amount.
A good military will demand the best personel availble and the best personel just happen to be the most economically active members of the population.

Not necesserally, if you joined the army right now they wouldn't all be super workers or the such, in no way so or be the most economically active, because if they weren't in the armed forces they'd probably be HGV drivers or the such, manual labour etc. Not only that but in a highly modernised economy then your going to be using more and more machinery freeing up workers, and a highly modernised economy is generally the best way to get that good economy.

That therefore means that if your firing more and more workers as less and less of them are needed that you can therefore recruit more into the armed forces.

Also even if your citizens have higher salaries there will a) always be poor, in RL at least its always the way, and b) you've got so much being produced having less people working won't lose you so much.

It's a small and poor economy that needs all the workers it can get IMO, if you have everything set up correctly then taking in say engineers from the good schooling system your nation would hopefully have from all the taxes you have would be making from high earnings won't create a problem as if anything you would have too many of them in civillian life doing nothing or very little.

Mer Der pretty much gets it...

Using percentages, etc, isn't all that great. It can work, but there's little point in having those kinds of numbers except for wars of saying "I invade with 2m men" "I have 5400 tanks and 3100 artillery pieces to defend with"

This isn't risk.

The best way to do it, at least until you get really large, is to do it with divisions. Lets say you are a 50m strong nation, and you want a 2% standing military.

Lets make 600,000 go into the army, 200,000 in the navy, 150,000 airforce, 50,000 others(spies, spec ops, what have you)

So you have 600,000 in the army. Lets say every division has 14,000 people in it, though each type of division, and each division, will vary in reality, this is theoretical.

42 divisions of these would be 588,000 men. The rest can be considered in various units, etc, for the sake of this post.

So you have 42 divisions. Like Mer Der said, what do you want? Are you in a very open, plains and grassland nation? You would probably want a good number of heavy armour divisions, some light armoured ones, a good number of mechanized infantry, a couple paratrooper ones, etc.

Mountain country? Light armour, plenty of mechanized infantry, good number of paratroopers, and probably mountain infantry divisions with lots of artillery brigades backing them up.

Figure out what divisions you want, and in how many numbers. A heavy armour division will probably have a few hundred MBT's, a few hundred IFV's, and a decent number of APC's. Maybe a little artillery. Light armour, less MBT's, more APC's. Mechanized infantry, less MBT's and IFV's, more APC's and more mobile artillery.

I'll post in a bit on airforces.

Not necesserally, if you joined the army right now they wouldn't all be super workers or the such, in no way so or be the most economically active, because if they weren't in the armed forces they'd probably be HGV drivers or the such, manual labour etc. Not only that but in a highly modernised economy then your going to be using more and more machinery freeing up workers, and a highly modernised economy is generally the best way to get that good economy.

That therefore means that if your firing more and more workers as less and less of them are needed that you can therefore recruit more into the armed forces.

Also even if your citizens have higher salaries there will a) always be poor, in RL at least its always the way, and b) you've got so much being produced having less people working won't lose you so much.

It's a small and poor economy that needs all the workers it can get IMO, if you have everything set up correctly then taking in say engineers from the good schooling system your nation would hopefully have from all the taxes you have would be making from high earnings won't create a problem as if anything you would have too many of them in civillian life doing nothing or very little.

A good way to get around this is to have mandatory service. Every able-bodied person has to, in chellis, serve for two and a half years. They have from 18 to 21 to go in. This way, they are young, and really aren't contributing much to the economy at this age. They are also used in government projects alot, etc, as we don't get in wars often, and we have a well-sized permanent core of the military that gets sent out before the conscripts ever do, so they rarely(havn't yet) go to war. They help the economy, are there if anything drastic occurs, and will have that training for life. They are also encouraged, though not coerced in any way, to stay in, with great benefits, etc.

A good way to get around this is to have mandatory service. Every able-bodied person has to, in chellis, serve for two and a half years. They have from 18 to 21 to go in. This way, they are young, and really aren't contributing much to the economy at this age. They are also used in government projects alot, etc, as we don't get in wars often, and we have a well-sized permanent core of the military that gets sent out before the conscripts ever do, so they rarely(havn't yet) go to war. They help the economy, are there if anything drastic occurs, and will have that training for life. They are also encouraged, though not coerced in any way, to stay in, with great benefits, etc.

I'd agree with that, it works well although i would suggest that having them helping the economy all the time isn't so healthy for their training ;). However what it does give you is a force more capable and better trained and equiped than reserves which should be primarily used for defence.

In my opinion i'd also agree with your theory on Divisions, it really depends on what you want to do, although a few hundred tanks for an armoured division with 14,000 personell doesn't seem like much to me ;).

Its also suprising how many trucks you'l be using to transport troops with, becuase its not really possible to have everyone transported in APC's or a viable option in all cases.

I would say a good range is the best option for your military but remember, at the end of the day its your nations security that counts, so go for a military biased for operations in your own nation but still very capable for any other operations.

You can, like Mer des Ennuis pretty much has done, start from the bottom and work your way up. Create an armoured division, the battalions within it and possibly even down to companies and platoons or even squads, and then see how many of each type you need, but i would say basing it on division sized models would be best(like Chellis stated, thats a good way to work out how many troops are doing what etc) and the higher the numbers the easier to keep track of.

e.g. having 8battalions all mixed up for what they do is complicated, having one division all trained and equiped for the same thing is easier to play around with and can still be split into battalions etc.

Pick a percentage/ratio as max/min limits of a proportional military composition you wish to recive (be it 5%, 15% 1% 0.5% etc overall /w/ or w/o a set ratios for logistical boundries 1:1, 1:10, 1:7 1:4 or even 1:100)

Then start with squads.
Work it down to what ech man carries and does, you may encounter the idea of specialist troops that will only show up in larger special units.

Work from squad to division.

Repeat for each type of division you have.

Now mix and match how many of what divisions you want and can afford until within the self imposed limits set in step one are reached.

Percentages are just for limits, not for what amount of troops you actually use.

Generally keep over half your men to defend yourself.

Advanced: Work up t battalions, and mix battalions into a self contained combat unit capable of self sustained operations. The lower down you do tis, the more diffucult it gets, it also lowers your instant Combat effectiveness after awhile, however, being able to send a single recon platoon into a conflict and not have to worry about their logistics is a plus worth considering.
=========
Chellis's recruitment system sounds like mine...
but things have gotten drastic and I'm starting to deploy my 'Army resserve'.

In order to presserve my well trained corps.

PROHT: the problem with what you are describing is that you'll end up with, basically, a big mass of unorganized squads. Trust me, I've done it before, it just don't work. This was to be illustrated in my "idiots guide to designing a competent land force" which has been hampered due to lack of the textbook I used (from the US Army Staff College, none the less) and the fact my usual laptop has spent the last month getting repairs. That being said, I like to divide my divisions down into 5 components; Divisional assets, Combat Units, Divisional Artillery, Aviation Assetts, and Divisional Support; most of which is impossible to compose from the squad side up, since, say, an armored batallion will have, in additon to its tanks (64 for me per batallion) an HQ company, and various platoons (scout, mortar, support, communications, maintenance, and medical).

Regretably, I don't have time to go in depth, but i'll do that when I get back later tonight.

I did state that you should consider units that only appear attached to larger units... Such as HQ, special weapons squads, organic artillery batteries etc.

You want to sart with the smallest unit you can and work up, develop you 'special units' such as Delta companies and divisional HQ battalions seprately.

This way you know what each man has in the event of a 4 on 11 small unit ambush.

Example:
Regular Fire team:
4 men
Grenadier
Machine gunner
Rifleman/Assistant MGer
Fire team leader

Regular Section: 11 men
2 fire teams
3 man command component (2 Jr gr NCOs, 1 Sr. NCO)

Platoon:
48 men
3 regular Sections
1 special weapons section
4 man command unit

Special weapons section:
11 men
3 HMGs/Rocket launchers/Automatic grenade launchers/mortars
manned by 9 men (3 per gun)
2 man command unit

I'd say if your really bothered work out what your platoons have, squads can always be mixed and matched and in real life you work in your platoon primarily.

I personally use RL sizes for my platoons, e.g. around 25troops.

However my preference is to work out batallions and then i can easily work out how many tanks a platoon has etc, and vary sizes of platoons to fit in easily with my larger numbers, because after all, deploying a platoon of 25men isn't going to be your priorety in an RP, seeing as its NS and a lot of conflicts seem to have millions of troops and thousands of aircraft involved...

However my preference is to work out batallions and then i can easily work out how many tanks a platoon has etc, and vary sizes of platoons to fit in easily with my larger numbers, because after all, deploying a platoon of 25men isn't going to be your priorety in an RP, seeing as its NS and a lot of conflicts seem to have millions of troops and thousands of aircraft involved...

I'll just imagine I didn't see that...
I had a well thought out platoon beat the snot out of a half RPed other half use your imagination para brigade...

And that proves what? A man with an AK can beat a tank if he gets lucky, but just because he did doesn't mean it's going to happen every time. Throwing inferior forces at an enemy is going to result in your losing 99.9% of the time.

Otagia's right, theres nothing to stop you RPing platoons, but even in real life when your the commander of a several thousand strong force(say a division) then a single platoon isn't a big deal to you. What is a big deal is kicked the enemies arses.

I'd take that Para Brigade over your well thought out platoon any day, even if they had rubbish weapons, in this case sheer numbers would probably win, but as their Paras, they should be well trained and well equiped...

And that proves what? A man with an AK can beat a tank if he gets lucky, but just because he did doesn't mean it's going to happen every time. Throwing inferior forces at an enemy is going to result in your losing 99.9% of the time.

Which is why equipment matters a lot. From your infantry's last weapon, to the most powerful weapon you want, you want compatability, ease of use, and to a lesser extent, compatability with enemy equipment.

From what I've seen of HT's weaponry, it's mostly existing weapons modified to be cheaper to produce, hardly making their armament superior in any way, further proving my point.

I'd agree with that, it works well although i would suggest that having them helping the economy all the time isn't so healthy for their training ;). However what it does give you is a force more capable and better trained and equiped than reserves which should be primarily used for defence.

In my opinion i'd also agree with your theory on Divisions, it really depends on what you want to do, although a few hundred tanks for an armoured division with 14,000 personell doesn't seem like much to me ;).

Its also suprising how many trucks you'l be using to transport troops with, becuase its not really possible to have everyone transported in APC's or a viable option in all cases.

I would say a good range is the best option for your military but remember, at the end of the day its your nations security that counts, so go for a military biased for operations in your own nation but still very capable for any other operations.

You can, like Mer des Ennuis pretty much has done, start from the bottom and work your way up. Create an armoured division, the battalions within it and possibly even down to companies and platoons or even squads, and then see how many of each type you need, but i would say basing it on division sized models would be best(like Chellis stated, thats a good way to work out how many troops are doing what etc) and the higher the numbers the easier to keep track of.

e.g. having 8battalions all mixed up for what they do is complicated, having one division all trained and equiped for the same thing is easier to play around with and can still be split into battalions etc.


Well, about my "conscripts", its more of a national service than anything. They learn how to be a soldier, they learn vital all-around skills not in school, and they do public works. They would only be called up in a quite large war, and many wouldl probably get more detailed training before being sent into the field anyways.

As for the armour numbers, small for NS, yes. An american armoured division will usually have about 300 abrams, 300 bradleys, then trucks, other APC's, etc. Consider that having 14,000 troops on a 1/10 ratio gives you 1,400 troops that are regular combat soldiers. Armour divisions are usually larger, and you might expect to actually have about 2,000 or so combat troops. That would be 1,200 in the abrams, and 900 in the bradleys alone. The numbers are likely 1/8 or so in those types of divisions.

From what I've seen of HT's weaponry, it's mostly existing weapons modified to be cheaper to produce, hardly making their armament superior in any way, further proving my point.

Otagia's right, theres nothing to stop you RPing platoons, but even in real life when your the commander of a several thousand strong force(say a division) then a single platoon isn't a big deal to you. What is a big deal is kicked the enemies arses.

I'd take that Para Brigade over your well thought out platoon any day, even if they had rubbish weapons, in this case sheer numbers would probably win, but as their Paras, they should be well trained and well equiped...

Yes, the paras did win (after calling in massive carpet bombing, in which even a single fire squad could mop up what was left), and no, my equipment compared to theirs was rubbish (the 5.56 mm ammo I was using at the time bounced at all but point blank from their class IV body Armor), but he suffed a staggering 2,500 dead (of 5,000) and lost 250 of his 500 tanks. Compared to the total loss of my platoon (2 tanks and 48 troops [including tankers])

True, normally it isn't normal to expect those small units to do much, except this was repeated 4 times in the same RP, mostly by using eqipment in ways unintended.

Another odity was the killing of aproximately 100 pudites with leaflets...

The stories of such stiff defense from my small units even convinced 50 Pudite divisions to retreat from a single Hutrian Platoon.

Ah. Incompetant commander syndrome. That explains it quite nicely.

Ah. Incompetant commander syndrome. That explains it quite nicely.

Exactly, ICS.

Isn't that a given when you use rough details only during deployments?