NationStates Jolt Archive

I typed this up on my computer when I was bored, and was debating whether or not to post this rant until I saw Drexel Hillsville's rant about n00ks (http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=536948) and decided to go ahead and put this up.

OK, let me first preface this with the fact that this thread is 50% guide to war, 50% rant, and 100% open to critique and discussion. (That's CONSTRUCTIVE criticism; insults and flames will be repaid in kind.) Basically, it's a summary of my experiences with NS warfare and has links and commentary to some of the stickies and other interesting posts. I expect people to learn from this, but I also expect to learn myself; the guide portion is still something of a work in progress. Any teacher will tell you that their job is an educational experience for them, and I hope that this is as much of an educational experience for me as it is for some of the newer readers.

TOP 10 MYTHS ABOUT NS WAR

This discusses some of the key myths about NS war and how they came to be. It also explains why they are myths, and the realities behind the myths.

10. New nations can't have WMD.

Well, Israel (pop. 7 million) and North Korea (pop. 23 million) have nukes, and while Israel had a lot of help, North Korea most certainly did not. This myth originated under the assumption that a "new" nation should be more interested in focusing on conventional arms. Certainly a warlike state or one who expects to have many enemies, like Israel or NK in real life, could conceivably have a nuclear or at least a chemical arsenal. Bio and chem weapons are not that difficult to create; they were used in medieval times when people threw rotting carcasses into enemy strongholds to spread disease, when Vlad the Impaler sent agents with deadly diseases to mingle in the Ottoman camps, and when prehistoric Indians used poison arrows in battle as well as for hunting.

9. You can have 5% of your population in the military.

Well, you can. You have to be prepared for an economic collapse of unprecedented magnitude, though - North Korea's economy is so bad people are fleeing to China in droves despite strict exit bans. Israel also has a large military, but has a decent economy because its people are better educated than the average North Korean, who is so brainwashed that they literally praise Dear Leader for anything good that happens, while few dare to resent him for the far more voluminous evils that occur under the regime. The Israeli military is also much smaller than the North Korean military, so the average Israeli soldier is better trained and smarter.

This myth came into play when players attempted to set limits on how much of one's population could be in the military. While the 5% limit is fine for a purely defensive force filled with reservists, 2% should be the absolute maximum for an active-duty force, with 1/2% optimal.

8. Nukes and other WMD ruin RP's.

The nuclear weapon has been one of the greatest taboos on NationStates. I remember back in October of 2005 when I fired nuclear weapons at Shazbotdom, who opposed my interventionism in Jenrak. He went along with them, and we ended up at war, but he did at the time consider me a n00b, despite the fact that I used only a few weapons, and targeted military installations rather than spamming his nation as so many n00bs do. Those nuclear weapons ended up leading to a brief war that later ended in an amicable peace treaty, and today there are diplomatic relations between Kahanistan and Shazbotdom.

Another example is the almost constant exchange of chemical weapons between my nation and Doomingsland, my IC mortal enemy. While I generally maintain a no-first-strike policy with WMD, when I'm under invasion the gloves come off, and my enemies know this. Since we understand this, no OOC conflict arises over these chemical exchanges.

In the wrong hands, yes, nuclear weapons can ruin RP's. This is another reason that older players often try to keep smaller nations from using them at all. Rather, smaller nations' nuclear arsenals should be limited to a few dozen or hundred low-yield (Hiroshima-level or smaller) theatre ballistic missiles and one or two ICBM's. These limitations would be proportionate to a nation's size, for example, a 5 million nation with 1 million troops would be ignored (or at least have a crap economy) but a 50 million nation with the same size army would be accepted. Replace "1 million troops" with "1,000 nukes" and the same principle applies.

7. You can't have a cross-tech RP.

You hear it time and again. Modern nations ignore future nations, and past nations ignore them both. While it is true that in a war a future nation will generally curbstomp a modern nation, there is no reason that a cross-tech RP is impossible. I'll never forget the RP I had as an MT nation with FT Skgorria and Atopiana, on a prison planet that I convinced them would be a good place to train troops against the monsters that dwelled there. In my case, my nation has no cultural aversion to aliens, and most people believe in extraterrestrial life. I was able to avoid significant conflicts with my FT partners, and came out with better trained troops and a somewhat improved tactical eye.

6. You need to agree with your opponent on starting a war.

This actually has a kernel of truth to it. You can't wage a war with someone who's not agreeable to it, or attack someone out of the blue. There are, of course, legitimate provocations to war, such as blockade, attack, or human rights violations. If you commit a legitimate provocation, the NS community treats that as tacit approval to go to war. However, if you try to force a conflict with someone who adamantly ignores you, you will only breed OOC hostility.

AMF (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8855692&postcount=4) has one of the best lists of good and bad reasons to go to war. When fighting, see if your reason falls into the good or bad reasons. If you are attacked, also see if their reason falls into the good or bad - you may have a cause for ignore.

5. IC and OOC don't mix.

There are indeed situations where IC and OOC do not and should not mix. For example, one generally will not take it personally when someone throws an IC insult, at least in theory. IC enemies rarely become OOC enemies. However, if there is a significant level of OOC bad blood, it is not a good idea to RP with someone.

4. Someone who can't spell is a bad RP'er.

This myth has its origins in the fact that most n00bs cannot spell. However, NS has people from most countries, and many of those countries do not have English as an official language. Off the top of my head, we have a Chechen, an Indian, two Israelis, a Chinese, a German, a couple of Italians, and a Canadian Cree. There may be more, but many of us are not native English speakers.

Also, some NS'ers are dyslexic. Dyslexic people have problems reading and writing, but are generally of normal intelligence. Some of the best RP'ers on NationStates are dyslexic.

3. You can wage a NS war without knowing anything about tactics or hardware.

You can. You will lose HARD when you face an opponent who knows tactics and hardware. They will question you about how your equipment works, and if you can't explain it satisfactorily, they will either ignore you or take minimal losses from it. If you don't understand equipment, you will be at a severe disadvantage in any discussion. This myth got started, and some experienced people still believe it, when talk about "story-driven" rather than "tech-driven" wars took hold. However, today it seems that almost all wars are tech-driven, putting those of us who are not technophiles at a disadvantage.

2. IGNORE is unlimited.

Well, I'll divide this into three general categories:

A. Justified Ignore

This is one where there is little doubt that the ignore is justified. You generally use this against blatant godmoders who won't take criticism (most blatant godmoders fall into this category), people you have an OOC dislike towards, people of other tech levels, and people who attack out of the blue. You will generally face little or no criticism for the use of this ignore.

B. Unjustified Ignore

This is when you simply want to bow out OOCly. This is often used whenever you are losing, when you are dodging a response to a clear provocation, or when you simply want to do something else with your nation. This carries a severe reputation penalty.

C. Grey Areas

These are not clearly justified, but not clearly unjustified either. Examples include ignoring to protect a developed character or avoid a massive dogpile (provided you haven't provoked it - if you're an evil nation, you probably did provoke it.) Other examples include some players' blanket ignores of nuclear or other WMD.

1. Losing gains respect. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=428384)

This one has gotten on my nerves since my nation was about nine months old, and here is where I go into rant mode. Yes, as a new nation, being too hung up on winning will diminish your respect, and you're expected to accept a few defeats early on in your RP experience.

However, the rampant propagation of "losing gains respect" is bunk. Absolute BUNK! Willingness to lose gains respect. Losing occasionally gains respect. The blanket statement that "losing gains respect" is the most damnable, outrageous lie since the lie that "Hogsweat griefed" (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Hogsweat_deletion_controversy) or "The Mods don't police roleplay." (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=528525) Once you are about a year old, defeats actually DIMINISH respect, at least ICly. If you build a reputation for losing, then other nations can and will pick on you. I know this from personal experience; I've lost almost every war I've gotten into, and have next to no respect from forumgoers. This is one of the reasons I was so willing to empathise with Hataria when the cyber-bullies went after him like the pack of vultures that all cyber-bullies are.

A related rant is Praetonia's statement about people getting too OOCly attached to their nations to accept defeat. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12171858&postcount=23) This goes with Myth 5 - if it takes OOC attachment to your nation to prevent you from becoming an NS whipping child, by all means form one. I consider it one of my greatest shortcomings on NS that I never did, and am myself in the process of taking the beam out of my own eye.

SO, HOW DO I CONDUCT A WAR?
So, you want to know how to fight, with these myths in mind? Well, I can't lecture you on tactics, but I can give you the basic rundown.

1. Learn about military combat.

For this, I have two main sources for information: the Wikipedia articles on military tactics and military hardware, and NS war threads, where one can look back on and see where they went wrong.

You will also want to formulate military doctrine. Do you want an offensive or defensive military? Do you want to dominate the seas, the air, or the land? Do you want to have an impenetrable shell, an unstoppable juggernaut, or a jack-of-all-trades, master of none military?

2. Detail your military activity. Think about what your enemy will do and do whatever you can to counter it. If your enemy is using WMD, put on your NBRC suits. If they're bombing you, send your fighters to engage their bombers (or crater their runways to ground their bombers.) A gram of prevention is worth a kilogram of cure.

3. GROW AN OOC BACKBONE. This is my own weakness, and one I'm only beginning to counter. I cannot stress this enough.

GROW AN OOC BACKBONE.

While ICly my more right-wing generals and politicians blame my defeats on everything from Marxists to the international Catholic fifth column, and the leftists and moderates blame them on bad equipment or simply accept enemy superiority, OOCly I blame them on not GROWING AN OOC BACKBONE. Nice guys finish last in NS war, and that's because nice guys won't call someone on their most blatant godmodes or wank, and won't risk wanking their own weapons for fear of an OOC conflict.

Some people are weak. They have to find their inner strength by becoming TOTALLY FED UP with the status quo, fed up enough to try to change it. When this happens, they take the first step to GROWING AN OOC BACKBONE.

So, what do I mean by GROWING AN OOC BACKBONE? I mean learning to put your foot down when someone's attack becomes too wanky (or counter-wanking them - we all have penises - or vaginas - and we all like to wank them sometimes.) I mean not letting someone (or a group of someones) badger you into editing a post to increase losses to unsustainable levels. I mean not being afraid of a little confrontation.

I hope this little rant has been informative. If you have questions or concerns, feel free to post them. Due to the volume of posts that will likely take place, I may not be able to respond to all of them in detail, but I will attempt to respond to salient points.

Rantfully,
David / Kahanistan

Nice Man, I think this about says it all.

Looks very good. The examples were also nice.

*finished popcorn* *applauds*

Win!!! That was a good read.

Nice start.

Except for what is listed below, I agree with you (though it seems you have written some as agreeing with the myths, which would by definition not make them myths).

Point 6
You don't actually need to agree with your opponent on starting a war. While it may be advisable if you want a good RP or to not breed OOC hostility, it is not a necessity. If you do everything properly in preparing and conducting the initial stages of the war, whatever that may be, and your opponent ignores you, then the onus is on them.

Point 5
I'd just like to add to this statement: "For example, one generally will not take it personally when someone throws an IC insult, at least in theory." Sure, in theory that is true. However, often, in order to avoid being called on flaming, people will use their IC characters/nations to insult another RPer.

Point 4
They may not be a "bad RPer," but it is still just as annoying. I'm sorry if someone is dyslexic, but that doesn't change the fact that I hate reading a sentence that makes no sense, is missing a subject or verb, and has half the words misspelled. Even people who can't spell can use a spellchecker.

Furthermore, RPing, at least on the internet, is, effectively, just writing. Spelling and sentence formation happens to be a very large part of writing, so if you are lacking those, then writing does go down hill; by the Transitive Property of Annoyance, as goes the writing, so goes the RPing.

Point 4
They may not be a "bad RPer," but it is still just as annoying. I'm sorry if someone is dyslexic, but that doesn't change the fact that I hate reading a sentence that makes no sense, is missing a subject or verb, and has half the words misspelled. Even people who can't spell can use a spellchecker.

Furthermore, RPing, at least on the internet, is, effectively, just writing. Spelling and sentence formation happens to be a very large part of writing, so if you are lacking those, then writing does go down hill; by the Transitive Property of Annoyance, as goes the writing, so goes the RPing.

I very much agree with this. As a matter of fact, I restrain from entering RPs occasionally based on this. They may be good RPers, but at least use spellchecker. It won't fix all your grammatical errors, but you will at least get the blatant capitalization, punctuation, and spelling right.

Very nice. Although I do try to be nice AND win. :p

Pretty good overall, though I must disagree with the part that justifies ignoring a war based on the fact that you do not like the reason for the war. While I do agree with ignoring war if it was launched for OOC reasons (as AMF says), I do not believe anyone can justifiably ignore a war launched due to imperialism, or a war launched to aid an allies offensive campaign. Did Africa get to ignore Britain and France? Did Poland get to IGNORE Germany? No. They may be 'evil' reasons, but it does not mean you can justifiably ignore them. Now this is not to say there shouldn't be some sort of IC reprocussions for starting wars over imperialism or aid of allied agression, such as riots, protests and impeachments, but ignoring? Thats fighting IC with OOC... just as bad as using OOC to justify IC.

And nukes, even when used by the most ingenius of NS Rpers... do lead to one road, boring RP's. I don't care how you spin it, both of the following scenarios are the same.

RPer 1.
"I Da n00kzer!z Uuuuuu!@#$!!! Yaaaaaaza!# 100 nu0ks @ ur cApiTa1!"

Rper 2.
"After many months of war, many battles and many deaths, General Hanson had come to the final conclusion that only through a great internal strike against the enemy could victory be obtained. His advisors, his officers, his strategists... they all were behind him, they all told him what must be done. And he knew too. He knew that the collatoral damage was to be no factor, that victory was the only goal... that victory was all that mattered... that in order to win, one must over look his own beliefs. He pressed the button. Ten nuclear ICBM's were now entering the atmosphere, and would come down on the Capital in under and hour."

- Guess What? - When the nukes fly, the RP ends. It ends. Nuclear haulocost or anihalation is the only possibility. They are in limitation, in certain scenarios, believable, understandable and even expected. But what I hate is watching a 'Democratic State' nuke someone as a first option, and then not even think of RP'ing their people being displeased.

Nukes in defense when one is under serious attack? Nukes in response to nukes? Nukes when being invaded? Good, the people will support you, and even condemn you if you dont use them.

Nukes as a first option of war? Nukes because a colony was attacked? Nukes because you're being imperialistic? Nukes over an issue your people are not to concerned about? No. You should have a revolution.

For this, I have two main sources for information: the Wikipedia articles on military tactics and military hardware, and NS war threads, where one can look back on and see where they went wrong.

I'd be leery of reccomending Wikipedia as your only source. While Wikipedia has its good points, it's also often inaccurate on some matters. I would much rather reccommend sources written by 'experts' such as;

Tips on Writing Military Sci-Fi (http://www.military-sf.com/) is wonderfully useful, (Which, while it's obviously sci-fi biased, has some of the most accessible explanations of small unit tactics and what they actually mean, that are applicable to MT as well)
Netbook of Firearms (http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Firearms/Firearms.htm) is a good resource on extant firearms, and how to realistically depict their handling.
The Federation of American Scientists (http://www.fas.org/main/home.jsp) which is a trove of information on strategic security, various military equipment, from smallarms to tanks to ballistic missile submarine. It also covers other 'hot topics' from the perspective of FAS...
Global Security.org (http://globalsecurity.org/) is essentially the same as FAS, but I've used it less, and can't speak to its usefulness as well.

*groans* Kahanistan, please. Some of this is okay. But nobody uses terms like "must". "Almost always" is what people use. There are always exceptions. So please take care with what you write.

10. New nations can't have WMD.

Well, Israel (pop. 7 million) and North Korea (pop. 23 million) have nukes, and while Israel had a lot of help, North Korea most certainly did not. This myth originated under the assumption that a "new" nation should be more interested in focusing on conventional arms. Certainly a warlike state or one who expects to have many enemies, like Israel or NK in real life, could conceivably have a nuclear or at least a chemical arsenal. Bio and chem weapons are not that difficult to create; they were used in medieval times when people threw rotting carcasses into enemy strongholds to spread disease, when Vlad the Impaler sent agents with deadly diseases to mingle in the Ottoman camps, and when prehistoric Indians used poison arrows in battle as well as for hunting.

It's not a rule. It's common sense. Most new nations (and I mean most, not all) are newer to role-playing as well, and, whatever you may say, nukes in the hands of inexperienced RP'ers raring to go is seldom a good idea. Having nuclear weapons and RP'ing well is difficult, and many experienced RP'ers, let alone newer RP'ers cannot handle it. This is simply common sense - as newer RP'ers tend to less used to RP'ing. Of course, there are those exceptions, who are those newer RP'ers who are incredible writers, and in those cases, such nations don't really need nuclear weapons or don't use them anyway. Most experienced nations with role-playing skill do the same.

Honestly, this kind of "myth" is nonsense anyway, because nuclear weapons are plot devices, but to the testosterone-filled crowds of juvenile RP'ers, the very idea of "blasting someone to Kingdom Come" is some kind of heaven. To tell the truth, many RP'ers do not deserve to have nuclear weapons and it is only once you are ready to accept that nuclear weapons are a plot device, and only then, should you truly be able to have them. But it doesn't work that way. That's what I'm saying. There is no real rule, but it is just common sense, going with the probabilities. There are always exceptions.

9. You can have 5% of your population in the military.

Well, you can. You have to be prepared for an economic collapse of unprecedented magnitude, though - North Korea's economy is so bad people are fleeing to China in droves despite strict exit bans. Israel also has a large military, but has a decent economy because its people are better educated than the average North Korean, who is so brainwashed that they literally praise Dear Leader for anything good that happens, while few dare to resent him for the far more voluminous evils that occur under the regime. The Israeli military is also much smaller than the North Korean military, so the average Israeli soldier is better trained and smarter.

This myth came into play when players attempted to set limits on how much of one's population could be in the military. While the 5% limit is fine for a purely defensive force filled with reservists, 2% should be the absolute maximum for an active-duty force, with 1/2% optimal.

Agreed. Remember to add on logistical personnel. There's a very good guide on that somewhere. And remember, the more troops you have, most likely, the worse trained they will be. Of course, there are always exceptions.

8. Nukes and other WMD ruin RP's.

The nuclear weapon has been one of the greatest taboos on NationStates. I remember back in October of 2005 when I fired nuclear weapons at Shazbotdom, who opposed my interventionism in Jenrak. He went along with them, and we ended up at war, but he did at the time consider me a n00b, despite the fact that I used only a few weapons, and targeted military installations rather than spamming his nation as so many n00bs do. Those nuclear weapons ended up leading to a brief war that later ended in an amicable peace treaty, and today there are diplomatic relations between Kahanistan and Shazbotdom.

Another example is the almost constant exchange of chemical weapons between my nation and Doomingsland, my IC mortal enemy. While I generally maintain a no-first-strike policy with WMD, when I'm under invasion the gloves come off, and my enemies know this. Since we understand this, no OOC conflict arises over these chemical exchanges.

In the wrong hands, yes, nuclear weapons can ruin RP's. This is another reason that older players often try to keep smaller nations from using them at all. Rather, smaller nations' nuclear arsenals should be limited to a few dozen or hundred low-yield (Hiroshima-level or smaller) theatre ballistic missiles and one or two ICBM's. These limitations would be proportionate to a nation's size, for example, a 5 million nation with 1 million troops would be ignored (or at least have a crap economy) but a 50 million nation with the same size army would be accepted. Replace "1 million troops" with "1,000 nukes" and the same principle applies.

As I repeat, nuclear weapons are a plot device. Please accept that. When you have skilled role-players like Doomingsland (who I respect greatly and am close friends with, despite hating each other IC'ly) involved, nuclear weapons are used as they should be - as elements in the story. Nuclear weapons are like vast mobilizations, just things that happen as the world goes around. From nuclear weapons, you can get an excellent storyline, a wonderful plot, and have a lot of fun. It is the same thing with huge ground wars. But few enough people fail to understand the basic point of nuclear weapons anyway.

However, as above, when nuclear weapons are in the hands of those who don't understand that they are simply a plot device, chaos ensues. The vast majority of II, excluding those elite role-players, just like to bash each other with swords, sticks, guns, and warheads. Fun, eh? But nuclear weapons take this whole bashing to another level and, as you say, they ruin RPs. But the point is, these are not "myths". All you are doing is showing exceptions to general common sense. Good job. It's not very difficult. But I understand - sometimes people perceive common sense as rules. That's irritating.

7. You can't have a cross-tech RP.

You hear it time and again. Modern nations ignore future nations, and past nations ignore them both. While it is true that in a war a future nation will generally curbstomp a modern nation, there is no reason that a cross-tech RP is impossible. I'll never forget the RP I had as an MT nation with FT Skgorria and Atopiana, on a prison planet that I convinced them would be a good place to train troops against the monsters that dwelled there. In my case, my nation has no cultural aversion to aliens, and most people believe in extraterrestrial life. I was able to avoid significant conflicts with my FT partners, and came out with better trained troops and a somewhat improved tactical eye.

For an RP like this, you need planning, cooperation, and maybe even a chat program or two. Very few RP'ers are willing to go to such lengths. Plus, many people have both an FT nation and an MT nation. Why have a cross-tech RP anyway? Especially, when, for them, it's "all about winning", which is wrong, anyway. I doubt this'll affect that many people, so I won't contest this much.

6. You need to agree with your opponent on starting a war.

This actually has a kernel of truth to it. You can't wage a war with someone who's not agreeable to it, or attack someone out of the blue. There are, of course, legitimate provocations to war, such as blockade, attack, or human rights violations. If you commit a legitimate provocation, the NS community treats that as tacit approval to go to war. However, if you try to force a conflict with someone who adamantly ignores you, you will only breed OOC hostility.

AMF has one of the best lists of good and bad reasons to go to war. When fighting, see if your reason falls into the good or bad reasons. If you are attacked, also see if their reason falls into the good or bad - you may have a cause for ignore.

No, you don't need to agree with your opponent, but anyone who wants to have a good RP should. It's just a good idea. When you are in communication with another person, your war RP goes more smoothly and neither side is trying too hard to "defeat" the opponent, or so hard that it results in OOC hurt. That happens. When someone just goes to war with anyother person through IC matters, they can end up having a war, and end up hurting each other. They can even become OOC enemies, and start sabotaging other people's threads. That's bad RP etiquette and should never be done.

I'm a big fan of planning for RP's ahead of time, however. When you have a chat program like MSN, AIM or you use IRC (or you even contact each other via telegram), you can talk to them iron out any difficulties, and, most of all, make sure that you both are fine Out Of Character. This allows for future interaction. Plus, a planned RP is just more fun. I, and I know others, can support that claim with evidence.

5. IC and OOC don't mix.

There are indeed situations where IC and OOC do not and should not mix. For example, one generally will not take it personally when someone throws an IC insult, at least in theory. IC enemies rarely become OOC enemies. However, if there is a significant level of OOC bad blood, it is not a good idea to RP with someone.

IC and OOC should never mix. Period. I don't know what you were thinking when you wrote that. OOC bad blood leads to bad things, for everyone involved. OOC good blood has good results. Be friends with those you RP with, no matter whether they are your enemies or allies. It will be more fun and you will come out the better for it.

4. Someone who can't spell is a bad RP'er.

This myth has its origins in the fact that most n00bs cannot spell. However, NS has people from most countries, and many of those countries do not have English as an official language. Off the top of my head, we have a Chechen, an Indian, two Israelis, a Chinese, a German, a couple of Italians, and a Canadian Cree. There may be more, but many of us are not native English speakers.

Also, some NS'ers are dyslexic. Dyslexic people have problems reading and writing, but are generally of normal intelligence. Some of the best RP'ers on NationStates are dyslexic.

Agreed. People need to stop categorizing people based on grammar. A bad RP'er godmods, not spells badly (though they often go hand in hand). However, I think this is another "common sense one". Most bad speller tend to be RP'ers. But we shouldn't categorize, as there are always exceptions.

<IGNORE stuff, snipped>

Sarzonia's guide on this. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=407062) It's all been said before.

<losing, snipped>

What is "respect", Kahanistan? Do you really play NS for "popularity"? Please. Losing makes a good RP. You gain your own respect in this world, by being who you are. What's "respect" on II worth? I'm not "respected", but I'm happy with who I am, and I have a lot of friends here and have fun RPs. Hate to say it, Kahanistan, but this is nonsense.

------

I hope you take no bad blood away from this. Ultimately, you and I have the same goal - making RP better and more fun for all of us. I have different opinions from you. Let's not let this carry over, okay? ;)

Attempting to be constructive i apologize if I seem snide sometimes it creeps out online...the impersonal nature of the whole thing.


10: Isreal when first formed did not have Nuclear weapons... Isreal did not immediately obtain nuclear weapons. Isreal continues to deny having Nuclear Weapon(we know its a lie, but they do indeed deny it). When NK was formed they did not have Nuclear weapons. Your real life examples are examples of NEW Nations NOT having Nukes. As far as comparing tossing a rotting carcass over a wall to developing Sarin or VX...you really must be joking right. I mean do you have the vauguest notion of what is needed to develope in sufficient quantaties for military use VX or Sarin or the myriad of other deadly CBWs? Rotting carcass indeed.
New nations on NS dont get WMDs not because of populations but because it takes time to get WMDs that is a reality in real Life and it is a recognized ROLEPLAY COURTESY on NS.

9. The Isreali ability to sustain a military has nothing to do with the IQ of its common citizen. The Massive Trade embargos on NK have more to do with its bad economy then anything...but there is that pesky reality thing again.

This Truth came about when people pointed to the unrealistic nature of having 5% or more of your pop in the active military not contributing to the economy. You know...an effort towards economic realism.

8. I agree 100% People ruin RPs, props dont.

7. The anecdote used seems a bit trite---however Roleplay is by nature fantasy so if two people of different techs agree to roleplay then yes--that is all that is required for a cross-tech roleplay the only thing hindering such a thing is the imagination of the players.
We agree--or at least it seems that way to me.

6. Far more then Kernal of Truth--its called courtesy. This is a roleplay game, free form...my citizen dont die unless I say so.
So yes you must agree, however by taking you military action you have essentially agreed military action is acceptable.

5. I agree 100%

4. I see no reason to believe new players cant spell. As a matter of FACT I challenge you to prove that new players to NS are indeed bad spellers and that somehow this shithole is where people get better at spelling. You do indeed say "in the fact that most n00bs cannot spell" no it isnt a FACT most new players cant spell its your opinion, and that is all it is.
That being said--Roleplay involves imagination and spelling is not required---however to roleplay with others you need to be able to commincate effectively...since this is a forum where the game is based completely on text spelling indeed is a required skill to be good ...because if you are bad at getting your ideas across it doesnt matter how great the ideas are...does it?

3. I agree, and disagree. Being a technophile will not win you a war...just like in reality the prettiest machines dont win wars.
But knowing strategy and tactics is imperative if you want to actually WIN...if you want to win and you havnt put the effort to study military strategies and tactics the way others have then you dont deserve to WIN...so RP your loss gracefully and get the respect you earn from doing that, and learn from the encounter. My best RP was a loss..

2. I suppose, I would put it more as people who abuse the ignore option and people who dont.
I mean if someone RPs a trade Nation and has made it clear they will never engage in an intense war--as in an invasion of their land or them invading another land and they will only accept light conflicts over trading routes and some one tries to invade them then I would say their ignore is justified though by your list it would be unjustified...this is after all our nations to do with as we see fit.

1. Pointless, anytone who needs to be told the difference between being willing to lose or just giving up is too stupid to get online anyway...or I would assume they are.
Your level of respect might have less to do with IC losses then you realize.

Was there any need for this thread? It pretty much pointed out the obvious in a rant form.

*groans* Kahanistan, please. Some of this is okay. But nobody uses terms like "must". "Almost always" is what people use. There are always exceptions. So please take care with what you write.

Not sure I used that word, but whatever.

It's not a rule. It's common sense. Most new nations (and I mean most, not all) are newer to role-playing as well, and, whatever you may say, nukes in the hands of inexperienced RP'ers raring to go is seldom a good idea. Having nuclear weapons and RP'ing well is difficult, and many experienced RP'ers, let alone newer RP'ers cannot handle it. This is simply common sense - as newer RP'ers tend to less used to RP'ing. Of course, there are those exceptions, who are those newer RP'ers who are incredible writers, and in those cases, such nations don't really need nuclear weapons or don't use them anyway. Most experienced nations with role-playing skill do the same.

Honestly, this kind of "myth" is nonsense anyway, because nuclear weapons are plot devices, but to the testosterone-filled crowds of juvenile RP'ers, the very idea of "blasting someone to Kingdom Come" is some kind of heaven. To tell the truth, many RP'ers do not deserve to have nuclear weapons and it is only once you are ready to accept that nuclear weapons are a plot device, and only then, should you truly be able to have them. But it doesn't work that way. That's what I'm saying. There is no real rule, but it is just common sense, going with the probabilities. There are always exceptions.

I've never seen them as plot devices, but I know some players do, for example, AMF in Operation Hellfire. I generally only even consider the use of nuclear weapons if the enemy is invading and appears to be intent on mass murder, or as a response to an enemy attack.

Agreed. Remember to add on logistical personnel. There's a very good guide on that somewhere. And remember, the more troops you have, most likely, the worse trained they will be. Of course, there are always exceptions.

I'm not terribly versed in that guide, though I've seen it around. I think I once deployed a formation of 100,000 troops of whom only 10,000 were combat troops and was told the logistical train was too high. In the navy, on the other hand, I tend to keep the logistics to a minimum, as I don't use the navy for offensive operations.

For an RP like this, you need planning, cooperation, and maybe even a chat program or two. Very few RP'ers are willing to go to such lengths. Plus, many people have both an FT nation and an MT nation. Why have a cross-tech RP anyway? Especially, when, for them, it's "all about winning", which is wrong, anyway. I doubt this'll affect that many people, so I won't contest this much.

Damn. I never had one, just exposed some people to monsters and blasted them. I don't even like to go on chat when I'm in an MT war. (I'm MT, 2007-2015 tech.) I find that there's just too much criticism at a time when I'm more interested in having fun than in listening to why assailing the enemy with an armoured division won't work.

No, you don't need to agree with your opponent, but anyone who wants to have a good RP should. It's just a good idea. When you are in communication with another person, your war RP goes more smoothly and neither side is trying too hard to "defeat" the opponent, or so hard that it results in OOC hurt. That happens. When someone just goes to war with any other person through IC matters, they can end up having a war, and end up hurting each other. They can even become OOC enemies, and start sabotaging other people's threads. That's bad RP etiquette and should never be done.

Maybe I've been listening too much to the Havenites, but basically I've been conditioned to accept whatever someone declares against me, unless it falls into one of the "BAD REASONS FOR WAR" in AMF's guide.

I know all about OOC enemies; even though I don't have many myself, I remember how much of a pain it is to get involved in OOC conflicts, and find that OOC threads tend to degenerate into debates over whether X tech, Y weapon, or Z tactic is feasible.

I'm a big fan of planning for RP's ahead of time, however. When you have a chat program like MSN, AIM or you use IRC (or you even contact each other via telegram), you can talk to them iron out any difficulties, and, most of all, make sure that you both are fine Out Of Character. This allows for future interaction. Plus, a planned RP is just more fun. I, and I know others, can support that claim with evidence.

I don't like planning RP at all. It's a matter of preference, I guess. While if someone has a plan I will likely go along with it unless there's a reason not to, in general I like to face an opponent with my own skills rather than planning out the outcome. In fact, most threads I start don't have a planned outcome at all - I just let events guide me.

IC and OOC should never mix. Period. I don't know what you were thinking when you wrote that. OOC bad blood leads to bad things, for everyone involved. OOC good blood has good results. Be friends with those you RP with, no matter whether they are your enemies or allies. It will be more fun and you will come out the better for it.

Would you RP with someone who called you names OOC in every other thread? I don't think so. But wouldn't that be mixing IC with OOC?

What is "respect", Kahanistan? Do you really play NS for "popularity"? Please. Losing makes a good RP. You gain your own respect in this world, by being who you are. What's "respect" on II worth? I'm not "respected", but I'm happy with who I am, and I have a lot of friends here and have fun RPs. Hate to say it, Kahanistan, but this is nonsense.

I have fun RP too. Does anyone play for popularity? No. We play to have fun. Can one really have fun if everything they get involved with leads to either a reboot or massive calls of "G-DMODE!"?

Respect in II is not about popularity. It's about not being ostracised, like Hataria, for example. It's about being able to RP with someone without constant criticism OOC.

I hope you take no bad blood away from this. Ultimately, you and I have the same goal - making RP better and more fun for all of us. I have different opinions from you. Let's not let this carry over, okay? ;)

Let's not.

That was an interesting read. However, I have to disagree with your position on noobs using nukes.

I agree that it is possible for real life small nations to build nukes. However, I don't think it is good idea to allow people to create a new nation, then use it right away to nuke someone. I think this rule exists not because it is impossible for small nations to build nukes, but because it improves roleplay.

Was there any need for this thread? It pretty much pointed out the obvious in a rant form.
Yeah he needed to rant. There is the need you required.

Not sure I used that word, but whatever.

You didn't. You used words like "can" and "can't", which indicate absolutes. I used "must" as an example of an "absolute" word.

I've never seen them as plot devices, but I know some players do, for example, AMF in Operation Hellfire. I generally only even consider the use of nuclear weapons if the enemy is invading and appears to be intent on mass murder, or as a response to an enemy attack.

Your examples that you gave (Shazbotdom, Doomingsland) are what I mean by "plot devices". Essentially, when it is used to continue the story. Not to "win". If you can get what I mean. Or maybe I just read what you were saying incorrectly. That's entirely possible and very likely, too. I agree, though - nukes are a last resort. (oh, a good example of a "plot device" is in the War of Golden Succession, where it ends with The Macabees nuking the Stevidian fleet. It ended the war with a bang and was well RP'ed and kept the OOC bad blood out).

I'm not terribly versed in that guide, though I've seen it around. I think I once deployed a formation of 100,000 troops of whom only 10,000 were combat troops and was told the logistical train was too high. In the navy, on the other hand, I tend to keep the logistics to a minimum, as I don't use the navy for offensive operations.

That's your own choice, of course. I tend to like a lot of troops for logistics, though. The guide (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=275828) by The Evil Overlord explain what logistics is is a good read. This guide (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=393153) by The Macabees is very good as well.

Damn. I never had one, just exposed some people to monsters and blasted them. I don't even like to go on chat when I'm in an MT war. (I'm MT, 2007-2015 tech.) I find that there's just too much criticism at a time when I'm more interested in having fun than in listening to why assailing the enemy with an armoured division won't work.

Yeah, communication can be very irritating at times. But I find, especially if you and the other person work well together, it can be very useful. I know that in my war with Generic Empire, it was a great help, whenever one of us was confused with what the other wrote.

Maybe I've been listening too much to the Havenites, but basically I've been conditioned to accept whatever someone declares against me, unless it falls into one of the "BAD REASONS FOR WAR" in AMF's guide.

I pick and choose my RPs, so I wouldn't know much about that. I enjoy what I do, though. It's all your choice.

I know all about OOC enemies; even though I don't have many myself, I remember how much of a pain it is to get involved in OOC conflicts, and find that OOC threads tend to degenerate into debates over whether X tech, Y weapon, or Z tactic is feasible.

Indeed.

I don't like planning RP at all. It's a matter of preference, I guess. While if someone has a plan I will likely go along with it unless there's a reason not to, in general I like to face an opponent with my own skills rather than planning out the outcome. In fact, most threads I start don't have a planned outcome at all - I just let events guide me.

Oh, it is totally your own preference. I like planning, say, the beginning of the RP, the initial incident, then letting it go as it will. It gets rid of the anger that often accompanies an opening - and plus, if you are in contact, you can solve problems that might pop up later.

Would you RP with someone who called you names OOC in every other thread? I don't think so. But wouldn't that be mixing IC with OOC?

No, that would be avoiding mixing IC with OOC. I guess you could call it that, but I'm simply avoiding the scenario. Plus, as I've said, I tend to pick and choose my RPs. The people I RP with would much more likely post a good reply than call me names (I hope). Plus, with most nations like that, I doubt my nation would get involved IC'ly anyway.

I have fun RP too. Does anyone play for popularity? No. We play to have fun. Can one really have fun if everything they get involved with leads to either a reboot or massive calls of "G-DMODE!"?

Respect in II is not about popularity. It's about not being ostracised, like Hataria, for example. It's about being able to RP with someone without constant criticism OOC.

Just ignore the criticism, man! Take it that they are jealous or something. Just don't care if people criticize you. I agree with what you say, but that has nothing to do with "losing doesn't earn respect".

Let's not.

Good. If you are ever in the market for an RP and I'm not busy, I'm open.

Ok, may ask a question about general RP, or is this just for war?

Ok, may ask a question about general RP, or is this just for war?

Mainly a war rant, but ask away.

I think this is awesome.

Also, a point for Yafor:


Losing makes a good RP.

No, losing does not make a good RP. Writing well and having good characters makes a good RP, no matter if you win or lose.

Mainly a war rant, but ask away.

hey, I made some RPs, notably Divided US, my question is how do I keep a thread from dying. What happened was that everyone was claiming land, and it jus bacame a conversation betweeen me and VDB, I want to revive it, but how do I do that. while keeeping the RP acrive?

No, losing does not make a good RP. Writing well and having good characters makes a good RP, no matter if you win or lose.

True. I guess you got me, there.

I think this is awesome.

Also, a point for Yafor:




No, losing does not make a good RP. Writing well and having good characters makes a good RP, no matter if you win or lose.

QFT! In one of my early RPs, I got my butt kicked by someone who, on paper, wasn't as strong as I because I was overextended. I thought it was a decent RP, though naturally I would have preferred to win.

It also set the stage for a later character-based RP, which I thought was very good. Technically I lost that one too, since the other guy's spies achieved their mission, but we had a lot of fun in the process.

10. New nations can't have WMD.


Its not so much the population as the fact that a nation with 5 million was JUST founded and would have concerns other than WMDs like forming a working government.

9. You can have 5% of your population in the military.

That entirely depends on your economy and budget. I can spend something like 71 trillion dollars a year on my military, so while 400 million would be entirely too large it could be done.


8. Nukes and other WMD ruin RP's.

My problem is that some nations could afford so many that any hope of survival of a smaller nation would be non-existant. But in certain situations, especially in FT wars, they're perfectly fine in my mind.

7. You can't have a cross-tech RP.

Agreed.

6. You need to agree with your opponent on starting a war.

Well if the other doesn't want to RP a war, then you have a problem.

4. Someone who can't spell is a bad RP'er.

However, they are usually poor writers.

3. You can wage a NS war without knowing anything about tactics or hardware.

Not all war RPs are based entirely around tactics. Some prefer to focus more on the story aspect of the war, rather than focus on technology and calculating losses. Some wars are entirely planned out via IRC.

2. IGNORE is unlimited.

Technically it is. If you don't want to RP with someone, you certainly don't have to. However, IGNORing for the wrong reasons is obnoxious and such people usually run out of folks to RP with.

1. Losing gains respect. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=428384)

Again, if you are focusing more on the story than the tactics, you don't have to try to win. And if two folks are dead set on winning it usually turns into a flame fest. Someone has to loose after all.

Pretty good overall, though I must disagree with the part that justifies ignoring a war based on the fact that you do not like the reason for the war. While I do agree with ignoring war if it was launched for OOC reasons (as AMF says), I do not believe anyone can justifiably ignore a war launched due to imperialism, or a war launched to aid an allies offensive campaign. Did Africa get to ignore Britain and France? Did Poland get to IGNORE Germany? No. They may be 'evil' reasons, but it does not mean you can justifiably ignore them. Now this is not to say there shouldn't be some sort of IC reprocussions for starting wars over imperialism or aid of allied agression, such as riots, protests and impeachments, but ignoring? Thats fighting IC with OOC... just as bad as using OOC to justify IC.

Very true. I consider it plain stupid to ignore someone invading you just because their evil and feel like it (so long as that 'feel like it' part dosn't stem from OOC). Some of the best war RP's i've been in or read were over blatant and unjustified conquests.

hey, I made some RPs, notably Divided US, my question is how do I keep a thread from dying. What happened was that everyone was claiming land, and it jus bacame a conversation betweeen me and VDB, I want to revive it, but how do I do that. while keeeping the RP acrive?

I'd have to see your thread to give you deeper advice on that. First, though, is there still land to claim? If that's the case, you might want to try to start a war in unclaimed lands, maybe with some NPC terror group wanting to drive out the settlers. You might also TG other members of the thread once you've decided what to do.

If there isn't any to claim, then assuming you have land, you might arrange with one of the other thread members to wage some kind of land-grabbing conflict.

Note that AMF's sticky I link to says imperialism is a "bad reason for war." However, he does say that

4. I feel like it, because I'm bored

Again, generally considered idiotic, and warmongering, UNLESS, of course it's a couple of friends RPing out a conflict for fun, in which case you shouldn't interfere. If two people can come together OOCly and work out an IC conflict, then this reason is acceptable, BUT declaring war on a random nation just for the hell of it is generally not considered acceptable.

I'd have to see your thread to give you deeper advice on that. First, though, is there still land to claim? If that's the case, you might want to try to start a war in unclaimed lands, maybe with some NPC terror group wanting to drive out the settlers. You might also TG other members of the thread once you've decided what to do.

If there isn't any to claim, then assuming you have land, you might arrange with one of the other thread members to wage some kind of land-grabbing conflict.

Note that AMF's sticky I link to says imperialism is a "bad reason for war." However, he does say that

OK, it is dead, I want to do a similar thread, how do I make people stay on this one?

Well, you don't need to be a technophile to win against one. Just use political strength rather than physical.

Its not so much the population as the fact that a nation with 5 million was JUST founded and would have concerns other than WMDs like forming a working government.

I considered Adygea to have a small amount of nukes squirrelled away from day one, simply because I didn't start my history at the moment when I joined—rather, I had an idea for a nation-state that had been on its own since the breakup of the Soviet Union, and thus already had a working government, economy, military, etcetera, in spite of the game's five million population floor—which is another thing I don't like, because there are many sovereign nations with far less than that number, and many with far more than that number. Granted, I suppose the floor keeps idiots from having a huge army when they're still new and want to wage war with everyone, but I honestly don't think it would matter: we'd ignore bullshit like that like we do everything else that smacks of idiocy (or at any rate the more mature of us would, leaving those not so gifted to play in their own little world, while we excise them from ours via the grand IGNORE cannon).

I have never enjoyed the idea of declaring states and then attempting to justify their existence with a bent-up history, because it rings false, and there's no basis. It's as if nothing was there before and there it was, somehow. Certainly declaring independence can be done to start a new nation, but independence from what? For what reason? Not all new nations should be assumed to have unstable and new politicians in power.

I would recommend new players think of these things before they sign up, but no one ever checks the forums before they join (myself included), so it's a bit of a moot point.

Again, if you are focusing more on the story than the tactics, you don't have to try to win. And if two folks are dead set on winning it usually turns into a flame fest. Someone has to loose after all.

Yes, willingness to lose breeds respect. Losing constantly either means you're incompetent or you're letting people walk all over you because you don't want to seem like you're using godmodium when trying to win, both which will actually make you lose respect. The latter might get you known as a masochistic underdog, but those who can pick on you still will do so at every opportunity.

I typed this up on my computer when I was bored, and was debating whether or not to post this rant until I saw Drexel Hillsville's rant about n00ks (http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=536948) and decided to go ahead and put this up.

OK, let me first preface this with the fact that this thread is 50% guide to war, 50% rant, and 100% open to critique and discussion. (That's CONSTRUCTIVE criticism; insults and flames will be repaid in kind.) Basically, it's a summary of my experiences with NS warfare and has links and commentary to some of the stickies and other interesting posts. I expect people to learn from this, but I also expect to learn myself; the guide portion is still something of a work in progress. Any teacher will tell you that their job is an educational experience for them, and I hope that this is as much of an educational experience for me as it is for some of the newer readers.

TOP 10 MYTHS ABOUT NS WAR

This discusses some of the key myths about NS war and how they came to be. It also explains why they are myths, and the realities behind the myths.

10. New nations can't have WMD.

Well, Israel (pop. 7 million) and North Korea (pop. 23 million) have nukes, and while Israel had a lot of help, North Korea most certainly did not. This myth originated under the assumption that a "new" nation should be more interested in focusing on conventional arms. Certainly a warlike state or one who expects to have many enemies, like Israel or NK in real life, could conceivably have a nuclear or at least a chemical arsenal. Bio and chem weapons are not that difficult to create; they were used in medieval times when people threw rotting carcasses into enemy strongholds to spread disease, when Vlad the Impaler sent agents with deadly diseases to mingle in the Ottoman camps, and when prehistoric Indians used poison arrows in battle as well as for hunting.

9. You can have 5% of your population in the military.

Well, you can. You have to be prepared for an economic collapse of unprecedented magnitude, though - North Korea's economy is so bad people are fleeing to China in droves despite strict exit bans. Israel also has a large military, but has a decent economy because its people are better educated than the average North Korean, who is so brainwashed that they literally praise Dear Leader for anything good that happens, while few dare to resent him for the far more voluminous evils that occur under the regime. The Israeli military is also much smaller than the North Korean military, so the average Israeli soldier is better trained and smarter.

This myth came into play when players attempted to set limits on how much of one's population could be in the military. While the 5% limit is fine for a purely defensive force filled with reservists, 2% should be the absolute maximum for an active-duty force, with 1/2% optimal.

8. Nukes and other WMD ruin RP's.

The nuclear weapon has been one of the greatest taboos on NationStates. I remember back in October of 2005 when I fired nuclear weapons at Shazbotdom, who opposed my interventionism in Jenrak. He went along with them, and we ended up at war, but he did at the time consider me a n00b, despite the fact that I used only a few weapons, and targeted military installations rather than spamming his nation as so many n00bs do. Those nuclear weapons ended up leading to a brief war that later ended in an amicable peace treaty, and today there are diplomatic relations between Kahanistan and Shazbotdom.

Another example is the almost constant exchange of chemical weapons between my nation and Doomingsland, my IC mortal enemy. While I generally maintain a no-first-strike policy with WMD, when I'm under invasion the gloves come off, and my enemies know this. Since we understand this, no OOC conflict arises over these chemical exchanges.

In the wrong hands, yes, nuclear weapons can ruin RP's. This is another reason that older players often try to keep smaller nations from using them at all. Rather, smaller nations' nuclear arsenals should be limited to a few dozen or hundred low-yield (Hiroshima-level or smaller) theatre ballistic missiles and one or two ICBM's. These limitations would be proportionate to a nation's size, for example, a 5 million nation with 1 million troops would be ignored (or at least have a crap economy) but a 50 million nation with the same size army would be accepted. Replace "1 million troops" with "1,000 nukes" and the same principle applies.

7. You can't have a cross-tech RP.

You hear it time and again. Modern nations ignore future nations, and past nations ignore them both. While it is true that in a war a future nation will generally curbstomp a modern nation, there is no reason that a cross-tech RP is impossible. I'll never forget the RP I had as an MT nation with FT Skgorria and Atopiana, on a prison planet that I convinced them would be a good place to train troops against the monsters that dwelled there. In my case, my nation has no cultural aversion to aliens, and most people believe in extraterrestrial life. I was able to avoid significant conflicts with my FT partners, and came out with better trained troops and a somewhat improved tactical eye.

6. You need to agree with your opponent on starting a war.

This actually has a kernel of truth to it. You can't wage a war with someone who's not agreeable to it, or attack someone out of the blue. There are, of course, legitimate provocations to war, such as blockade, attack, or human rights violations. If you commit a legitimate provocation, the NS community treats that as tacit approval to go to war. However, if you try to force a conflict with someone who adamantly ignores you, you will only breed OOC hostility.

AMF (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8855692&postcount=4) has one of the best lists of good and bad reasons to go to war. When fighting, see if your reason falls into the good or bad reasons. If you are attacked, also see if their reason falls into the good or bad - you may have a cause for ignore.

5. IC and OOC don't mix.

There are indeed situations where IC and OOC do not and should not mix. For example, one generally will not take it personally when someone throws an IC insult, at least in theory. IC enemies rarely become OOC enemies. However, if there is a significant level of OOC bad blood, it is not a good idea to RP with someone.

4. Someone who can't spell is a bad RP'er.

This myth has its origins in the fact that most n00bs cannot spell. However, NS has people from most countries, and many of those countries do not have English as an official language. Off the top of my head, we have a Chechen, an Indian, two Israelis, a Chinese, a German, a couple of Italians, and a Canadian Cree. There may be more, but many of us are not native English speakers.

Also, some NS'ers are dyslexic. Dyslexic people have problems reading and writing, but are generally of normal intelligence. Some of the best RP'ers on NationStates are dyslexic.

3. You can wage a NS war without knowing anything about tactics or hardware.

You can. You will lose HARD when you face an opponent who knows tactics and hardware. They will question you about how your equipment works, and if you can't explain it satisfactorily, they will either ignore you or take minimal losses from it. If you don't understand equipment, you will be at a severe disadvantage in any discussion. This myth got started, and some experienced people still believe it, when talk about "story-driven" rather than "tech-driven" wars took hold. However, today it seems that almost all wars are tech-driven, putting those of us who are not technophiles at a disadvantage.

2. IGNORE is unlimited.

Well, I'll divide this into three general categories:

A. Justified Ignore

This is one where there is little doubt that the ignore is justified. You generally use this against blatant godmoders who won't take criticism (most blatant godmoders fall into this category), people you have an OOC dislike towards, people of other tech levels, and people who attack out of the blue. You will generally face little or no criticism for the use of this ignore.

B. Unjustified Ignore

This is when you simply want to bow out OOCly. This is often used whenever you are losing, when you are dodging a response to a clear provocation, or when you simply want to do something else with your nation. This carries a severe reputation penalty.

C. Grey Areas

These are not clearly justified, but not clearly unjustified either. Examples include ignoring to protect a developed character or avoid a massive dogpile (provided you haven't provoked it - if you're an evil nation, you probably did provoke it.) Other examples include some players' blanket ignores of nuclear or other WMD.

1. Losing gains respect. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=428384)

This one has gotten on my nerves since my nation was about nine months old, and here is where I go into rant mode. Yes, as a new nation, being too hung up on winning will diminish your respect, and you're expected to accept a few defeats early on in your RP experience.

However, the rampant propagation of "losing gains respect" is bunk. Absolute BUNK! Willingness to lose gains respect. Losing occasionally gains respect. The blanket statement that "losing gains respect" is the most damnable, outrageous lie since the lie that "Hogsweat griefed" (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Hogsweat_deletion_controversy) or "The Mods don't police roleplay." (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=528525) Once you are about a year old, defeats actually DIMINISH respect, at least ICly. If you build a reputation for losing, then other nations can and will pick on you. I know this from personal experience; I've lost almost every war I've gotten into, and have next to no respect from forumgoers. This is one of the reasons I was so willing to empathise with Hataria when the cyber-bullies went after him like the pack of vultures that all cyber-bullies are.

A related rant is Praetonia's statement about people getting too OOCly attached to their nations to accept defeat. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12171858&postcount=23) This goes with Myth 5 - if it takes OOC attachment to your nation to prevent you from becoming an NS whipping child, by all means form one. I consider it one of my greatest shortcomings on NS that I never did, and am myself in the process of taking the beam out of my own eye.

SO, HOW DO I CONDUCT A WAR?
So, you want to know how to fight, with these myths in mind? Well, I can't lecture you on tactics, but I can give you the basic rundown.

1. Learn about military combat.

For this, I have two main sources for information: the Wikipedia articles on military tactics and military hardware, and NS war threads, where one can look back on and see where they went wrong.

You will also want to formulate military doctrine. Do you want an offensive or defensive military? Do you want to dominate the seas, the air, or the land? Do you want to have an impenetrable shell, an unstoppable juggernaut, or a jack-of-all-trades, master of none military?

2. Detail your military activity. Think about what your enemy will do and do whatever you can to counter it. If your enemy is using WMD, put on your NBRC suits. If they're bombing you, send your fighters to engage their bombers (or crater their runways to ground their bombers.) A gram of prevention is worth a kilogram of cure.

3. GROW AN OOC BACKBONE. This is my own weakness, and one I'm only beginning to counter. I cannot stress this enough.

GROW AN OOC BACKBONE.

While ICly my more right-wing generals and politicians blame my defeats on everything from Marxists to the international Catholic fifth column, and the leftists and moderates blame them on bad equipment or simply accept enemy superiority, OOCly I blame them on not GROWING AN OOC BACKBONE. Nice guys finish last in NS war, and that's because nice guys won't call someone on their most blatant godmodes or wank, and won't risk wanking their own weapons for fear of an OOC conflict.

Some people are weak. They have to find their inner strength by becoming TOTALLY FED UP with the status quo, fed up enough to try to change it. When this happens, they take the first step to GROWING AN OOC BACKBONE.

So, what do I mean by GROWING AN OOC BACKBONE? I mean learning to put your foot down when someone's attack becomes too wanky (or counter-wanking them - we all have penises - or vaginas - and we all like to wank them sometimes.) I mean not letting someone (or a group of someones) badger you into editing a post to increase losses to unsustainable levels. I mean not being afraid of a little confrontation.

I hope this little rant has been informative. If you have questions or concerns, feel free to post them. Due to the volume of posts that will likely take place, I may not be able to respond to all of them in detail, but I will attempt to respond to salient points.

Rantfully,
David / Kahanistan
Well said. However, cross-tech role-playing heavily depends on player consent. I for example, would disagree with that, since I can't exactly suspend disbelief as easily in my plots. If they were willing to tone it down to an extent, then I would be more willing. You can find the older players on the Other Side of the Role-Playing Forum, they're more likely candidates to do a cross-tech role-play. Skgorria and Atopiana, I guess, were one of the rarer candidates. And of course an OOC backbone is neccessary, everyone has to stand up for one-self. But judgment, is the final say. Hence why I tend not to get involved in war for reasons. The explanation for why I asked The Kraven Corporation to drop the ax, for the conflict was inevitable, and I OOCly needed to sharpen my sword.

There are reasons for why I act, and the way I act. As an example, if Yallak decided to crash the party for a role-play plan of mine with military action "just cos' [he] felt like it", I wouldn't tolerate it especially not if I had an organized structure and plan for my role-play. I'd simply ignore his action, like I have done to a couple of others.

In all, not bad an essay, though there are things I'd disagree with, e.g., ignores. The limit to IGNORE is if you over-use it, or if your reputation has been severel tainted it doesn't stop them.

Very true. I consider it plain stupid to ignore someone invading you just because their evil and feel like it (so long as that 'feel like it' part dosn't stem from OOC). Some of the best war RP's i've been in or read were over blatant and unjustified conquests.

There are reasons for why I act, and the way I act. As an example, if Yallak decided to crash the party for a role-play plan of mine with military action "just cos' [he] felt like it", I wouldn't tolerate it especially not if I had an organized structure and plan for my role-play. I'd simply ignore his action, like I have done to a couple of others.


Good point. Amend that to my previous statement. Obviously I wouldn't have a problem with anyone ignoring a 'just cos' inference if it was a pre-planned RP or was supposed to have a specific outcome.

Of course if possible you could always intergrate the new comer into the story or whatever, allow them in so long as they conform to the organized plan for the RP.

Good point. Amend that to my previous statement. Obviously I wouldn't have a problem with anyone ignoring a 'just cos' inference if it was a pre-planned RP or was supposed to have a specific outcome.

Of course if possible you could always intergrate the new comer into the story or whatever, allow them in so long as they conform to the organized plan for the RP.

I think this is the best attitude. If it's pre-structured (a la my Succession Wars, SEA's and Kraven's Campaign of Absolute Unification, etc), it's rude to burst in uninvited, but if you go through channels, they might find a way to work you in. If it's not pre-structured, go ahead. I have every right to invade, say, Clandonia Prime right now, and expect him to go with it unless he had OOC concerns. This is the issue we had with The Last Good War last summer, which had the potential to be the best RP on II of its time, but got killed by people saying "OMG NO I WASNT READY, IGNORE IGNORE IGNORE"