NationStates Jolt Archive

In truth, the term debate is perhaps a little generous to what's been said thus far, but I would like at least to invite it in this issue.

This thread is broadly to discuss the use of off-site calculators and particularly to defend the Beddgelen condition, which I will do in a following post.

Recently, Brystolville has been seeing his thread, McCarthyist Party Banned (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=575461), over-taken with disputes and infuriating misunderstandings about the nature of Beth Gellert's war machine.

The crux of it: several players setting their nations in opposition to my own on the matter have taken issue with Beth Gellert's military and economic set-up, though it does of course pre-date most of their accounts by some time and has never previously been much of an issue. This brought those interminable off-site economic calculators into it.

Now I'm being told by one player that I am seen as a fool by the RP community for declining to make any use of these tools. I received a telegram to that effect from Gataway, and would have just replied to him instead of bothering you all here except that he directly asked me not to. I thought that seemed a bit immature, but isn't really the issue. So, with no other recourse other than to wonder if I am a fool and the laws of logic have been utterly abandoned without my notice, I thought I'd ask for some input.

For reference, Gataway's closing opine:
I looked at your defense link more than once, nice explantion which would work except all your economic figures etc are made up by you.

Thats part of why people and 99.9% of II rpers use calculators its a third neutral party can't be manipulated to your benefit.

and after quite a few MSN and IRC convo's you're the one the rp community is seeing as a fool not me.

Be it I don't like the II norms much either but then again thats why I don't rp on II anymore.

Please don't reply to this TG I really am tired of your pathetic attempts at witty insults.

Better that someone else should make-up the budgetary stats for my nation than have me do it myself, like I did with every other aspect aside from its population?

Gataway contends that the calculators are neutral, but I am finding it hard to see how anyone can possibly believe this. Clearly they favour certain set ups, and clearly they penalise any user who has put extra thought into their RP development by taking more distinct development away from them than from people who haven't bothered to do any.

I have other accounts of similar vintage to Beth Gellert and far superior economic stats according to the calculators that I've ever used... yet none of these accounts have had as good a history of high-placing in WA economic-growth rankings. Still, BG never gains ground on them according to any of the calculators I have ever used. This alone proves that these calculators are wrong, or else that basic maths has changed. Doesn't it?

What's more, this proves that if I wanted -if any player wanted- to get brilliant economic stats out of the calculators, it could easily be done. So why bother saying that the calculators over-rule RP'd decisions?

If Gataway or any of the community -which reportedly agrees with him, though I don't believe that or I wouldn't be bothering- can tell me that, I'd be still more appreciative.

At the moment, "its [a calculator] a third neutral party can't be manipulated to your benefit" seems to me an absolute nonsense, since answering issues in a manner of my own choosing, presumably, direclty manipulates the calculator, or else what is it based upon?

Besides, as I've said, the damned things are at odds with the WA rankings. If I'm going to base my IC stats off any engine, it'll be that, rather than a random player's awkward and changing attachment to it.

Now, to be fair, it hasn't just been Gataway questioning my position, it's merely because he's the only one to have gone out of his way to attack me and/or my nation that I addressed his part first.

I'll deal with the particulars of BG's set-up in another post, shortly, because this is becoming wordy.

So, does the community think that I'm a fool because I am using RP to substitute for a calculator? God, listen to me! RP to substitute for a calculator? Is that what's it has come to? Surely others are using calculators to substitute for RP, and this is, after all, a role-play forum!

Let me begin by saying that quite obviously, I cannot RP with a tax rate of zero (as the calculator says), and so I personally RP with a tax rate of 18%. I find that in some areas, the calculators are lacking (i.e., budgetary information broken down into sections of administration, defense, etc.), but in others (GDP per capita, GDP in general, unemployment, exchange rate) they are excellent tools.

Let's remember, though, that they are tools, and as with any tool, they must be wielded correctly. When someone comes up to me wanting to fight and waves around a nation where 80% of the budget is in defense and places like education have zero funding, I just laugh. Calculators only work when players use them as guides, and not as concrete budgetary information by which to govern an RP with.

I basically ignore the numbers from any and all offsite calculators. I have yet to see them used in any fashion whatsoever except to wank.

I decide what my nation spends it's money on, not some script on a website. You should do the same. Gataway can be safely ignored in this matter.

Roleplay always got along fine before calculators; it will get along fine regardless of who uses them.

You are, btw, allowed to ask mods to remove posts in your IC threads that are off-topic/spam. Just gonna toss that out there.

On the one hand, I want to agree with you, Leistung, because you do sound even handed and compromising there.

But is it not a self-defeating position?

I mean, for anyone other than a totally clueless player who just doesn't yet know what sort of numbers apply to GDP statistics, anyway. 'It's a guide... but you ignore it when it doesn't make sense'? I just wouldn't trust so flawed a guide at any time. If it's obviously nonsense in some cases, as in your example, why do we assume that it's right when the figures look favourable to us?

For me, though, the main issue here is not whether people are allowed to use calculators, but whether it's me whom, 'the community thinks is an idiot' for not using them, and whether, dare I say it, proper RPers are going to be bullied into submission by the calc-heads.

I basically ignore the numbers from any and all offsite calculators. I have yet to see them used in any fashion whatsoever except to wank.

I decide what my nation spends it's money on, not some script on a website.

Totally biased cookie from me to you, then :)

...I spilled wine on it.

The point Gataway's trying to make is that regardless of your military budget, a third of your population in the military would murder the entire economy twenty times over.

The point Gataway's trying to make is that regardless of your military budget, a third of your population in the military would murder the entire economy twenty times over.

Having actually read BG's thread on the subject, the 40% figure actually just includes everyone in the country who's had some form of military training, kinda like third-tier reserves or something in the case of the majority. Most of them appear to be trained more or less as basic infantrymen-- I imagine that the more complex stuff is handled by career soldiers.

Is this an accurate summation of affairs, Beth Gellert?

Seriously, you guys do look silly screaming about 40% when you didn't even read his defence factbook. It's all right in there. :)

The point Gataway's trying to make is that regardless of your military budget, a third of your population in the military would murder the entire economy twenty times over.

Have you still not read my military factbook, then?

I think this was what got me a bit irritated, I have to admit, in the first place. Gataway kept banging on at me without reading what I was shoving under his nose. Finally he did read it, admitted that it made sense, and told me not to talk to him anymore.

From my Defence Factbook:

Soviet military expenditure has fluctuated greatly over the last quarter century, from highs of 11% of GDP to lows of 2%. Today, expenditure of US$2.5 trillion for every billion citizens ($30 trillion in total at time of writing) represents a sum equivalent to 5%, a figure considered towards the top end of what is sustainable in concert with strong economic growth and that is indicative of growing Soviet confidence and international ambition as represented by the rise of the Calcutta Communist Contract Organisation.

This works out as just $6,250 spent each year for every Commonwealth Guard recruit. At first glance, such funding appears appropriate for the low-priority defence forces of a developing nation, but in practice the expenditure is not spread evenly across 400 million official Guard members in every billion citizens. 2.5 million Experts take the lion's share of resources, with 5 million First Auxiliaries also taking a relatively great share compared with the remaining 392.5 million Second Auxiliaries in the Militia.

It is estimated by the Soviet Commune that the equivalent of $500,000 is spent in the Expert Corps each year for every recruit, $93,000 for each First Auxiliary, and just $2,000 for each Second Auxiliary.

In practice even this figure can be further broken down, as some Second Auxiliaries in the Militia are more active than others, who by taking no part in Guard exercises during peace-time cost the state only a small initial outlay for (usually second-hand) equipment held in reserve and, little or nothing to keep on the books, as it were. Others then may consume more than $3,000 in resources by taking part in shooting practice and driver training et cetera during their spare time. Since these are volunteers with regular jobs, salaries and benefits do not enter into the equation for defence expenditure, and this explains why so many are inactive.

I agree with your statement regarding being forced to use them (the calculators), despite having invented yourself every other national aspect. Some people even cap their populations, or RP with more, I don't care. I really don't use the calculators. I have decided how large my military is, and it's not going to get smaller or larger anymore, unless I make some big 'ol reorganization or something like that.

I really could care less what the budgets or the populations do. I RP with my homeland using the population on the NS page, but regardless of what that is, or how much money some algorithm has decided I have, my military numbers will no longer change...

Having actually read BG's thread on the subject, the 40% figure actually just includes everyone in the country who's had some form of military training, kinda like third-tier reserves or something in the case of the majority. Most of them appear to be trained more or less as basic infantrymen-- I imagine that the more complex stuff is handled by career soldiers.

Is this an accurate summation of affairs, Beth Gellert?

Seriously, you guys do look silly screaming about 40% when you didn't even read his defence factbook. It's all right in there. :)

Heh, finally!

Actually, for the most part it's not even that good. I assume that the majority of Militia Auxiliaries have never had any training, it's just that they're on the list officially -almost like we've had our own decree from the Ayatollah viz the Basij- and obliged to serve in an emergency, and a weapon has been provided for them in the community arsenal.

These weapons may be AKMs, SMLEs, RPG-7s, or bags full of Molotov cocktails, but they're right there in the community and a Master-at-Arms (who is trained to some degree) is paid a few dollars to look after the arsenal and show people how to operate them in a basic manner.

Our regular front-line miltary accounts for 0.25% of the population.

I'm being told by one player that I am seen as a fool by the RP community for declining to make any use of these tools.

I'd like to know who presumes to speak for the entire RP community on here. Whoever it is didn't consult me...

I consider calculators a guideline to help those who choose to RP more realistically. If the game is telling you that your economy is imploded and you either RP as such or you come up with plausible explanations for why your economy isn't, I'm fine with either approach.

However, if you're declaring war on every coalition in sight and you're in a constant state of war AND you don't RP as a nation that can economically withstand that AND you don't RP the consequences of your actions, then people have a right to take that into account when they decide whether or not to RP with you.

I tend to prefer realism. I more strongly prefer communication between participants in a RP. Not everything has to be perfectly realistic if you're sacrificing a smidge of that for storytelling purposes. I once RP'd my country's main stock exchange dropping 16 percent of its value in one day. Normally, safeguards would have shut it after five days. I came up with a IC reason (sabotage of the sofware) and had a OOC reason (16 percent is a dramatic number that draws attention).

I agree with your statement regarding being forced to use them (the calculators), despite having invented yourself every other national aspect. Some people even cap their populations, or RP with more, I don't care. I really don't use the calculators. I have decided how large my military is, and it's not going to get smaller or larger anymore, unless I make some big 'ol reorganization or something like that.

I really could care less what the budgets or the populations do. I RP with my homeland using the population on the NS page, but regardless of what that is, or how much money some algorithm has decided I have, my military numbers will no longer change...

Hm, fair enough. I was the same for a while, then I decided to re-write my military stats on a per-billion-people basis. So it was easy to work out a realistic military, and I just add it again every time we hit another billion. Between billions, I assume that we have lots of under-strength formations that I would make mention of were I ever in a serious war, but otherwise don't need to worry about.

[snip]
I consider calculators a guideline to help those who choose to RP more realistically. If the game is telling you that your economy is imploded and you either RP as such or you come up with plausible explanations for why your economy isn't, I'm fine with either approach.

However, if you're declaring war on every coalition in sight and you're in a constant state of war AND you don't RP as a nation that can economically withstand that AND you don't RP the consequences of your actions, then people have a right to take that into account when they decide whether or not to RP with you.


Oh, of course. But I see this as another argument against calculators, as they don't change to take account of your nation getting stomped in a war unless you choose to start answering issues to deliberately tank your economy... and even then, isn't the degree of the crash still in your control, rather than that of a 'neutral third party'?

Hm, fair enough. I was the same for a while, then I decided to re-write my military stats on a per-billion-people basis. So it was easy to work out a realistic military, and I just add it again every time we hit another billion. Between billions, I assume that we have lots of under-strength formations that I would make mention of were I ever in a serious war, but otherwise don't need to worry about.

That's actually a pretty cool idea, which I would probably adopt if I cared enough to change these things. As it is, though, I think I'm happy.

Heh, finally!

Actually, for the most part it's not even that good. I assume that the majority of Militia Auxiliaries have never had any training, it's just that they're on the list officially -almost like we've had our own decree from the Ayatollah viz the Basij- and obliged to serve in an emergency, and a weapon has been provided for them in the community arsenal.

These weapons may be AKMs, SMLEs, RPG-7s, or bags full of Molotov cocktails, but they're right there in the community and a Master-at-Arms (who is trained to some degree) is paid a few dollars to look after the arsenal and show people how to operate them in a basic manner.

Our regular front-line miltary accounts for 0.25% of the population.

That's sort of what I figured after a little thinking, but some other things made me think I was wrong. So pretty much, it's like my Civilian Militia, but the government provides guns instead of special licenses to purchase heavier firearms (Which is what my government does) and boost the economy a bit buy purchasing more stuff. However, the Civilian Militia is officially a completely separate entity, only receiving government grants for the organization as a whole (They use that to buy things like Patton tanks and occasionally an Abrams, but the government still monitors this; grants also help the members purchase CivMil uniforms and armor).

Calculators should give you a general benchmark of what your nation's budget is; This prevents people around my size from claiming stuff like 60 trillion defense budgets and whatnot, especially the ones who can snake their way around debates and stuff.

Oh, of course. But I see this as another argument against calculators, as they don't change to take account of your nation getting stomped in a war unless you choose to start answering issues to deliberately tank your economy... and even then, isn't the degree of the crash still in your control, rather than that of a 'neutral third party'?

Calculators can have their value if you don't feel comfortable with coming up with your own numbers. Or if you don't want to invest the time in developing numbers with that sort of detail.

But you don't have to be completely beholden to them.

I'm spending a lot of my daytime hours trying to find a job in a tanking RL economy. Thus, I don't have nearly the time to spend trying to develop what my NS economy looks like without going to the calculators. I can say that I've been RPing my NS economy as beginning to emerge from a deep recession, but I don't really have the time to go in and calculate all the numbers.

That's sort of what I figured after a little thinking, but some other things made me think I was wrong. So pretty much, it's like my Civilian Militia, but the government provides guns instead of special licenses to purchase heavier firearms (Which is what my government does) and boost the economy a bit buy purchasing more stuff. However, the Civilian Militia is officially a completely separate entity, only receiving government grants for the organization as a whole (They use that to buy things like Patton tanks and occasionally an Abrams, but the government still monitors this; grants also help the members purchase CivMil uniforms and armor).

This is something of a relief. I do not like all the aggro that descends on internet disputes, and was feeling uncomfortable with the dispute. Hopefully we're closer to understanding one another, anyway.

A bit on the break-down of Commonwealth Guard strength:

At population 12 billion-

Militia Expert Corps (regular army): 24 million
Air Guard Expert Corps (regular air force): 3.6 million
Oceanic Guard Expert Corps (regular navy): 2.4 million
Total Experts: 30 million (0.25%)

Militia First Auxiliary (trained army reserves): 38.4 million
Air Guard Auxiliary (trained air force reserves): 12 million
Oceanic Guard Auxiliary (trained navy reserves): 9.6 million
Total First Auxiliaries: 60 million

Further Militia Auxiliaries (some retired trained troops, most untrained): 4.71 billion

Total Guards: 4.8 billion

In the end, maybe a couple of percent of the population has had formal military training at some point, including those who have retired from active service. An unknown number of Militia Auxiliaries have had informal training in their communities, since they are provided with second-hand equipment and at least a basic shooting range in every commune. Beddgelens live in communes of around 1,600 people, and each one has a local unit of the militia, with usually only a couple of ex-regulars doing anything and the rest just on the books.

Calculators can have their value if you don't feel comfortable with coming up with your own numbers. Or if you don't want to invest the time in developing numbers with that sort of detail.

But you don't have to be completely beholden to them.

I'm spending a lot of my daytime hours trying to find a job in a tanking RL economy. Thus, I don't have nearly the time to spend trying to develop what my NS economy looks like without going to the calculators. I can say that I've been RPing my NS economy as beginning to emerge from a deep recession, but I don't really have the time to go in and calculate all the numbers.

Yes, as I say, I don't mind people using them for themselves, I just don't want to accept them forcing it on other players. If people would just understand that they're for personal use only, I don't think I'd have a problem with them. That should be a clearly defined rule, or something.

Having been on NS for a few years, I've learned more or less how to manipulate issues to affect my stats on the calculators. Hence, if I decide to bring Murra into a war, the calc users can be satisfied that it has a large military (http://nstracker.jfsoftware.com/index.php?nation=murra) (even though that kind of budget distribution is unrealistic in the extreme), and I can then use stats I made up myself without people complaining.

Of course, since I never do anything with Murra this is sort of a moot point, but I keep intending to at least set a character RP there, it's useful to note. (For a while I ran V-N according to my own views, but stopped when I realized that meant I had to think about the issues, and now just answer them randomly. I'm so lazy. XD)

So while I don't use calculators to determine my budget stats, I keep stats around to prevent OOC arguments of this nature, which are almost sillier than OOC arguments about technology or population. (It's a game, people.)

Have you still not read my military factbook, then?

I think this was what got me a bit irritated, I have to admit, in the first place. Gataway kept banging on at me without reading what I was shoving under his nose. Finally he did read it, admitted that it made sense, and told me not to talk to him anymore.

This would be why many elect to refrain from RPing with him. (by the by, ESR here)

The calculators are bunk, plain and simple. The original algorithms were developed by The New Meritocracy for their offsite forums IIRC. NSEconomy (a software version of those algorithms) is therefore one of the oldest calculators out there. (and probably the most respected) NSTracker, NSDossiers, and Sunset's Calculator all use various versions of the original New Meritocracy algorithms I believe. Regardless, these algorithms function off of their worldview, which is certainly not mine or yours. (though it's been some time since I've looked at the actual equations) I do believe they reverse calculated multiple RL nations to make sure the equations were vaguely right, but don't quote me on that.





Also, hi Sarzonia! :) How goes life?

Also, hi Sarzonia! :) How goes life?

Hello there!

Eh, I'm trying to find a job, but my health has taken a turn for the better. I'm pretty much cancer-free now.

Hi there. I'm looking to get into MT and wanted to ask those in here. I really have no idea what I'm doing numbers wise (is REALLY bad with math), so how should I go about it?

For a an anarchist land without taxes or any formal government, that relies on an ideologically loaded cooperative Private Defense Agency and in associated coops and other democratically-managed private enterprises for all its military affairs rather than on an official military force, whatever is spurted by calculators would never make sense. Anyway, inserting a "free market socialism" string in one of these calculators would probably end with a "divide by zero" error.

Of course, on the other hand, the fact that the near entirety of Third Spanish States military could be classified as a mercenary force means they have no Geneva Convention insurances, irrelevant as nobody cares about it.

I'm an 05 nation, but I have a number of much 'older' friends. They have often stated that they refuse to use the calculators, as they started here without them, and developed their nations economies, militaries and such by themselves.

But then again they also talk about the days when if you lost a war you generally were expected to hand your password over to the winner.

Do as you wish. Also, wouldn't forcing someone to use the calculators be godmodding? It's your nation, do what you wish. While being realistic is expected in MT, if you can back your stats with some basic explanation, that go for it.

Disclaimer: The above is the opinion of the Beatus, and is neither fact or law. The above is offered only as an opinion, not as a rule. It is your choice whether to chose to agree with the above, or not. You are as free to make fun, or argue against the above opinion, as the Beatus is to have the above opinion.

lol, rich communist nation, realism

Those calculators are pretty worthless. It is possible to have 100% tax rate and awesome economy in NS, which is obviously nonsense. I use them only when I am making very large purchase from some storefront which uses some calculator to check that people dont buy stuff they cant afford.

lol, rich communist nation, realism

This place isn't either NSG or #d, which are more appropriate locations for such point.

It's not so much the calculators but attempting to use the NS game engine as a model. Seriously folks, am I really supposed to have a nation with 12 billion people and which spends 160 trillion dollars on the military and not a single penny on transport, education, healthcare, welfare, administration, environment, social equality? How would that even work? I can't imagine how it would work anymore. Just the 12 billion population alone is too much. Where do all the people go? I'd need a whole bloody planet to myself.

If we're using maps, and I have - say, a continent to myself. Well that's fine, and maybe there's enough room. But NS population increases steadily... constantly... forever (or as long as NS is around!). It never ever goes down or stops. Ever. So there will ALWAYS be a need for expansion, or else I'm having a population density of 10 million per square kilometer and increasing.

Not very realistic, so inevitably, any model based on it will also not be realistic. Nor will it be fair. 'Older' nations with enormous populations already have an enormous advantage - insurmountable really. Again see the 160 trillion dollar defense budget. Jesus, what would I even get with that? Bombs made out of solid gold!

In short BG, you're not an idiot and I don't think anyone worth their RP rocks can legitimately call you one.

lol, rich communist nation, realism

Enjoying the recession, are you, mate?

You're welcome to contribute to the BG-specific side of this thread when you can be bothered to work out why my economic model would be incapable of bringing prosperity, of course.

Of course Trostia's quite right, too, as per usual. At the moment I barely justify BG's population by the fact that population density is lower than some real nations, but given how much of my total territory is jungle, swamp, desert, or arctic-like mountains, I have to assume that a large part of the $50,000 per capita yearly economic activity is in terraforming of some sort and desperate environmental conservation projects.

I suppose more to the point is that I'm prepared to go along with the suspension of disbelief on population sizes so long as everyone else is doing it (of course I've got AMW for more realism). That's why I'm extremely glad to find that not everyone is using those damned calculators!

Heh, I feel your pain. I've had to shuffle most of my population into O'Niell type space colonies since I am -severely- lacking in room even with arcologies. It costs like you wouldn't believe, even considering I'm PMT x_x

It's one reason for going FT. The Trostian space agency motto: "We need more planets for our many, fat asses."

The FT version of Axis Nova is similar to the PMT version in name only. It's basically an entirely different nation.

I never get into these debates because levels of frustration usually lead to where ego rules out common sense, yet oddly I feel compelled to add my two cents worth.

I dont use calculators, I have a different approach. Since I am almost MT all the time I base my RP's on a sense of the real. Like some others have mentioned here I use purely the defence budget to legitimise spending, the rest I base on common sense.

Yes my military is woefully weak by NS standards, but it meets my criteria of a modern nation today. If I find I am in a RP with a Player who turns up with 200 million soldiers then I just pull out of the RP. I dont bother arguing or disputing his numbers, I just use my right to ignore it.
On the other hand because I am selective in my Rp's I would never got into an arguement with a player over their econmy or have had to pull out of a Rp, in other words I tend to RP with people who think along similar lines. That MT should be based on common sense not calculators or some meglomanics perception of how to stuff up a story line with 200 million troops.

Sometimes my approach means I miss out on what I have seen could be a good storyline, but I have noticed inevitably the RP collapses when other players get frustrated by players who cant write stories and just throw in bucket full of numbers to compensate.
I have seen far more Rp's collapse over the "Too many" numbers issues than I have over players using common sense and a good storyline.

Generally, most experienced players I've seen ignore most of the calculator's stats per se, except for total GDP and GDPPC. However, some have a habit of coming up with stats that are calculator-plausible. In that way, it's very helpful as a common base.


The most common use for calculators though is to put beginner wankers in their place. A way of telling them that they are not as good as they want to be and why.

I can't recall who but there was a player made "calculator" had the apperance of a spreadsheet and the like but it incorporated "socialist" economic ideals which most of the other calculators are unfairly biased against.

Depends on who you rp with, and all that.

I myself use calculators but only to an extent due to the fact that as some have already stated nations with a Frightening economy and a 0% tax rate with a population of 12 billion+ and trillions of dollars on defense/law and order and 0 dollars on education just aren't possible.

I only use the calculators when I purchase. Everything else I ignore. How can a nation run by taxing 100%?

OOC: BTW, merger of states is generally regarded as puppetwank unless both players actively RP the 'merged state'.

incorporated "socialist" economic ideals which most of the other calculators are unfairly biased against.
Unfairly or fairly? All socialist nations we've seen IRL were very poor, and they had very objective reasons for that. Mainline NS penalty of only 50% for a "100% tax rate" seems minor in comparison.


nations with a Frightening economy and a 0% tax rate with a population of 12 billion+ and trillions of dollars on defense/law and order and 0 dollars on education just aren't possible.
Yes, that's the issue. The calculators and the game regard all tax spending as equal, specifically as waste of money (effort), in economic sense. This is obviously not the case in any realistic view.

The only pure waste is defense and religion spending, even police budgets return some money to the public as savings on metal doors and security cameras. Environment also saves some money on healthcare. Social equality and welfare are income redistribution, which only waste 10-20% of themselves. But commerce spending returns entirely. And public transport actually saves money. Education spending is by no means waste, and always boosts GDP.

There's simply no way that otherwise the same nation, except spending its entire budget on education, on commerce, or on defense would have the same resulting economic strength.

A proper calculator would need to treat all spending differently, applying its effects and returns to affect the GDP. Unfortunately, it's not done. That puts gunwankers with everything-on-defense at advantage, and reasonable nations at major disadvantage, with no compensation in return for their useful spending.

A 0% tax rate could be a direct taxation issue such as income tax, in 19th Century Britain there wasn't income tax and there was still a functional government.

Regarding the puppetwanking issue

Already knew that would be an issue and took care of that problem.

Should anyone complain I call up said friend who will log on when time permits and issue an IC statement from their "merged state government" giving me permission to do whatever it is I was attempting to do that someone had an issue with.

Military careers however sometimes cause time delays and I have yet to have one issue with it.

I also TG'd several people, whom through my own observations, and through asking others' opinions seemed to be "fair" rpers and had been on II about it after about two weeks of conversation the general agreement was that it would be fine.

If someone wants to constantly whine over it then oh well. They aren't worth my time as I already have a decent size of people who will rp with me without issue.

Unfairly or fairly? All socialist nations we've seen IRL were very poor, and they had very objective reasons for that.

Not all socialist nations in NS are totalitarian police states where the Communist Party has control over everything.

As for savings, what some people try to push is that certainly, a land of illiterates and sick people is going to be a great source of strong, well-prepared soldiers and of smart tacticians and strategists.

I use the calculator to monitor government spending, as in NSTracker and stuff. Mainly I keep track of the economy, to either downgrade troop and ship numbers or maintain them. But that's basically it, besides checking other nations and their economic capability for warfare.

ADDITIONAL

In all honesty I go by two things in RP's: 1) How well the other player expresses his nation in the RP (I.E. Character interaction with world and Warfare Tactics) and 2) How well they accept a single defeat, be it the death of an important character or asset.

Economic Calculators come second, in the strategic phase of warfare, to determine whether I need allies or not. It could come down that another 03 nation could wankfest the entire thing, and calculators would be needed to set the dang bastage in the right. I see them as two-fold good and evil, for without them people would wankfest everything to such a degree it ruins NS, and the fact that there are Economic Nazi's that refuse to allow leeway and will spam you until you either surrender or your head explodes due to their math equations.

But in all reality, its the RP that matters more. Maintain a good balance between RP and Economic Stats and things should be alright. There's always a way around people who are Nazi with calculators, like nuking them to high hell and back for fun!

A 0% tax rate could be a direct taxation issue such as income tax, in 19th Century Britain there wasn't income tax and there was still a functional government.

Indeed. I ignore the income tax setting (I've got other accounts with frightening economies and 0% tax, BG with frightening and 100%, and others in between, so I dismiss criticism on that out of hand, typically- obviously I can do it however I like, so I don't bother anymore).

BG has no need of it. We have a Fixed Value Tax on capital goods, which are owned by the state and sort of 'rented' by industrial Soviets which pay FVT per 'unit' of capital, encouraging efficient use of the nation's available resources (because the less capital you have, the less tax you have to pay).

The only other taxes are import duties on goods from non-Igovian* Socialist states.

*Igovian being our particular system, name derived from its father, Graeme Igo. Other Igovian economies -there have been three or four, but I'm not sure if any persist!- have total free-trade rights with the Commonwealth, non-Socialist economies are totally banned from importing anything, but we'll still export to those that allow it.

Hello there!

Eh, I'm trying to find a job, but my health has taken a turn for the better. I'm pretty much cancer-free now.
YAY! That's good! (No Endorse under cover <.< >.>) Good to hear you're better, I knew you were ill for a while, but never knew what exactly it was.

Enjoying the recession, are you, mate?
.... let's not get started on this topic.... Clandonia, Praetonia, I, and a fair number of others lurking on #draftroom are Austrians, and would just love to really get into a debate, but that's for another time.



Regardless, RP as you RP. I'm easy, most others are, those who jerk off to calculators are deluding themselves. We have freeform RP for a reason. Sure my economy sucks, but there's a reason for that: I'm trying to build the most well intentioned but dysfunctional nation possible. Calculators can't understand the nuances that actually keep the economy from totally crumbling and forcing people to resort to bartering.

A 0% tax rate could be a direct taxation issue such as income tax, in 19th Century Britain there wasn't income tax and there was still a functional government.
I presume it still applies to overall tax. Otherwise it wouldn't make any sense.

RL-wise, I don't understand why are we even bothering with non-self-employed individuals filing tax reports (potentially risking jail for a mistake) and paying income taxes. This should be done automatically at employer side, where the majority of taxes is collected anyway. Income tax is just the tip of the iceberg.

My guess it's exactly because of the last bit, to create an illusion that "Hey, the tax is only 28%, and even just 15% if you're poor!". Or maybe for some other obscure reason. Not for practical ones surely.



Not all socialist nations in NS are totalitarian police states where the Communist Party has control over everything.
The issue is not totalitarianism, but rather socialism itself. Under socialism, there's much less incentive to work. You surely won't be overtiming, for instance, or working your ass off. No need to, if that's even permitted. Now it's half the issue for a regular worker, but it's also done by the management.

Capitalism has its negative sides, too, but it excels at doing exactly what it's designed to do - maximizing the GDP. A socialist system doesn't have to be hellish, but it won't beat capitalism on its turf, GDP race. So it will always be at an economic disadvantage.


As for savings, what some people try to push is that certainly, a land of illiterates and sick people is going to be a great source of strong, well-prepared soldiers and of smart tacticians and strategists.
That's the secondary issue, with the players.

The issue with calculators is that if you have a "frightening" economy, and tax it 50% with it all going to the military, next year your economy's condition will only frighten your own people (who will start running away). On the other hand, if you put that 50% to good use (education, commerce), you'll have your economy grow (and immigrants line up).
None of that is taken into account by the game engine or the calculators. Your spending doesn't harm or help your economy, and nothing you do changes the population growth rate, even when the issue says it should.

First, not everyone has the same income in the Confederacy, although everyone earns what is considered fair and without taking the profits from the labor of others in their view. Thus if everyone having and earning the same is a mandatory requirement for an economic system to be called socialism, then Third Spanish States isn't either capitalist or socialist. And if the fact that unlike with fixed wage systems, the profit of a cooperative is 100% related with everyone's daily earnings and even the slight increase in it will immediately benefit equally everyone isn't enough motivation for everyone to work harder, but in cooperation rather than competition, then I don't know what could be.

In Third Spanish States there is a distinction between the "laid back" and "hard-working" cooperatives. In the meaning that in the more labor-centric ones, people tend to have a much higher average income(average because there are no wages as wage labor is essentially nonexistent), and logically, as membership is decided democratically, equally, the loss of membership can be decided by democratic vote. The only difference to corporate-rule capitalism is related to the way wealth and administrative powers are distributed inside the businesses. De facto, Third Spanish States is a free market, after all. But it is one where the suppliers and consumers are ideologically loaded.

The issue is not totalitarianism, but rather socialism itself. Under socialism, there's much less incentive to work. You surely won't be overtiming, for instance, or working your ass off. No need to, if that's even permitted. Now it's half the issue for a regular worker, but it's also done by the management.

Capitalism has its negative sides, too, but it excels at doing exactly what it's designed to do - maximizing the GDP. A socialist system doesn't have to be hellish, but it won't beat capitalism on its turf, GDP race. So it will always be at an economic disadvantage.

Oh noes! Strawmens! Can I has fire?

Heh, no, sorry, excuse that.

If what you were saying held water, though, recouperated businesses in Argentina wouldn't have increased profits against those of the former capitalist enterprises. The Second Yugoslavia wouldn't have maintained one of the fastest-growing economies over several decades until particular-nationalists invited capitalist reforms and whatever happened to Yugoslavia happened to Yugoslavia. Spanish co-operative enterprises wouldn't have gone multi-national.

Really, though, since this is a thread defined by me, I can finally put this to everyone without going off topic... wonderful!

In Beth Gellert/Beddgelert, the economy functions as such:

Capital is owned by the state, and as such standardised.

So, there are no capitalists.

Soviets (communal, military, or in this case industrial councils/co-operatives) acquire capital from the state by agreeing to pay Fixed Value Tax on it.

This means that if they can turn a profit on X amount of capital outlay by the state, they pay Y amount of tax. If, however, the Soviet is lazy or poorly run and fails to turn a profit on X capital, they can acquire a second unit of said capital. Inherent to this is a 100% increase on the prior tax rate. Thus, efficient use of national resources is encouraged. If you're lazy or stupid, you pay more tax.

Soviets are popular organisations. Raised from the community, they elect managers, and have the right of democratic recall over them. If a manager if failing to meet standards, he can be voted out and replaced by a worthy worker sufficiently respected by the rest to be able to win the vote. After a bit of trial and error, people won't vote for the popular guy over the one who is going to help them turn a profit.

Why? Because proft-sharing is in effect. There are no wages. If an enterprise turns a profit, everyone takes a share. The proportions are decided democratically. Currently, in the capitalist way, managers may 'earn' tens of times more than workers, and capitalists may 'earn' thousands of times more. Under the Beddgelen model, those thousands of wage packets are spread across thousands of workers, and ordinary pay increases radically. Less private jets are bought, but more highstreet shopping is done.

Profit shares are democratically managed by the Soviet in question. Workers know who does what, how hard it is, and how dangerous, and they vote shares accordingly. Sometimes, a majority of slackers vote themselves a bigger share. Since they slack, profits fall, and their shares are worth less than when hard workers were rewarded and encouraged. They soon stop doing that.

Besides, the next Soviet down the road wasn't so stupid, and has murdered them in the market.

In the workplace, co-operation. In the marketplace, competition.

That's Socialism in Beddgelert.

Destroys Marxism-Leninism in competition, and destroys capitalism in equality and civility.

...if everyone having and earning the same is a mandatory requirement for an economic system to be called socialism, then Third Spanish States isn't either capitalist or socialist.
.

Let's admit it, even though I am not -and BG is not- Marxist, it isn't even basic Marxism. It'd be 'levelling-down' which Marx specifically derided. That is anti-Communist/Socialist black propaganda, same as the idea that Germans eat Belgian babies, and not a jot more realistic. Yet, much as that sent thousands of young Britons to die at Flanders, this keeps millions of global citizens spend-happy and conservative.

Edit: Actually, this is getting a bit General Forum, isn' it? Ah well, my previous post was pure NS!

Enjoying the recession, are you, mate?
My IRL country's GDPPC has temporarily plateaued at $36,000, NK's has been plateaued at ~$2,000 since 1950. Yes, Beth Gellert, the recession is simply terrible not living under central planning. Of course, that is, if you can count the collapse of the state-enmeshed banking as anything whatever to do with 'capitalism'.

You're welcome to contribute to the BG-specific side of this thread when you can be bothered to work out why my economic model would be incapable of bringing prosperity, of course.
On the contrary, you are making an extraordinary claim for its effectiveness that is not only unsupported but flatly contradicted by reality. The burden lies with you to demonstrate that it can 'work'.

I do agree with you about calculators - but not the end to which you seem to be rejecting them (to get a better economy than the evidence would imply you should have).

EDIT: Having read your detailed description, I have to stand by what I said. Fundamentally it differs from a capitalist system in that you have:

1. A monopoly, nationalised bank.

2. A fixed number of companies, in which each of their workers is an equal shareholder.

Both of these things will result in significantly reduced productivity.

The nationalised monopoly bank has the same problems as other nationalised businesses - ie. it does not need to do a good job in order to continue to get paid - and all the same problems of monopolies - ie. it is not subject to competitors who could offer a better service.

The arrangement of the companies does introduce perverse incentives, although admittedly not as bad as equal pay. You claim people would ignore them, because they want the business to be successful. Maybe. But the potential personal benefits can outweigh the personal losses. If 51% of the workforce form a union and vote not to turn up, but continue to be paid a salary, they are getting something for nothing. Even though the business loses more overall, most of this loss falls on the people who are still working. If you think people won't vote for this, why do you think they vote for unemployment benefits, which are essentially the same thing? For that matter, why do you think people won't be greedy even when they know they're destroying the business? That is what the Big Three unions have done, and it is what happened to multiple companies (including nationalised ones) in the UK in the 70s and 80s. Will the government bail them out? It seems hard to imagine that it won't (since if it didn't, it would have to relocate them to a new Soviet and give them new start-up capital anyway, which is essentially the same thing), and as all of these people are 'shareholders' despite not having invested any money in the business, the principal loss falls on the rest of society, who gave them the capital in the first place.

You've created a system in which, essentially, profits are partially privatised but all losses are nationalised. The most a worker can ever lose is a partial cut in his salary. And, of course, this has nothing to do with his actual use to the company, but rather on everyone elses' perception of how useful (or 'deserving', however that is defined) he is, or else on the internal politics of the Soviet (far more likely).

The Soviet Union &c. did not become totalitarian because totalitarianism was a value they held, per se, but it was the only way to make the system 'work' (even though that ultimately failed anyway). The government monopoly nationalised bank cannot 'lend blind' to enterprises that will waste the money. There has to be a politburo that de-facto plans the economy by deciding to whom to loan, how much, and for what purpose. This has all of the manifold problems of planning that I imagine you, as you have chosen to reject Marxism and more overt planning, are well aware of. Then, as the state is also holding all the liability for the venture failing, it must require enduring control in perpetuity. If the Soviet runs itself as the state wants, then maybe it will be left alone, but if people start forming private unions and acting in a manner the state considers disruptive, the only way it can safeguard its investment, on behalf of the People as a whole, is to mandate that people work, and certain hours, and control how much of a share of the income people receive. The Soviets will have to be kept in line either by violence, or the threat of it.

So what you've essentially created is a country in which there is only one monopoly capitalist, who also has all the powers of government coercion. It does not differ in fundamentals from Marxism-Leninism - only if the state capitalist takes no role in managing the investments it makes, either before or after the fact, does it differ in substance. And that would quite clearly be an absurd position for it to take.

Calculators are BS. End of. The only thing that should be looked at from the feeds in regards to roleplay is population.

As for savings, what some people try to push is that certainly, a land of illiterates and sick people is going to be a great source of strong, well-prepared soldiers and of smart tacticians and strategists. 19th C Britain had some of the best soldiers, sailors, and tacticians; some of the best captains of industry, innovators, engineers, and scientists. The USSR had the same. Both were a land of illiterates and sick people, although one was a hundred years after the other (:rolleyes:), so, really... its possible under any system for a country to have a good officer corps and intelligentsia, its just the method of their appointment that you may contend. Perhaps it was unfair for the ruling elite in Britain to have been given education and the poor not; perhaps it was unfair for those who could manipulate the popularity politics of the USSR to have been given elite status. That's mostly personal morals, what is objectively true is that the standards of living of the general population do not necessarily reflect on the strength of the military nor the strength of the higher educational establishments of a country, regardless of who has access to them.

19th C Britain had some of the best soldiers, sailors, and tacticians; some of the best captains of industry, innovators, engineers, and scientists. The USSR had the same. Both were a land of illiterates and sick people, although one was a hundred years after the other (:rolleyes:), so, really... its possible under any system for a country to have a good officer corps and intelligentsia, its just the method of their appointment that you may contend. Perhaps it was unfair for the ruling elite in Britain to have been given education and the poor not; perhaps it was unfair for those who could manipulate the popularity politics of the USSR to have been given elite status. That's mostly personal morals, what is objectively true is that the standards of living of the general population do not necessarily reflect on the strength of the military nor the strength of the higher educational establishments of a country, regardless of who has access to them.

Surely it's a matter of how far you go, though. I think that TSS is addressing those who go to some fairly extreme length in using calculator-based stats that suggest it's possible to have a $40,000 per capita GDP while investing in almost nothing but the military. And would you really call a typical soldier of the [shudders at the misuse of the term] 'Soviet' Army one of the best trained, or consider a pilot getting notably fewer flying hours than his adversary to be up to scratch? If Britain had been sinking half of her GDP into the armed forces, would the economy really have been what it was?

That's more basic than I planned it to sound. Damn. Sorry about that.

Surely it's a matter of how far you go, though. I think that TSS is addressing those who go to some fairly extreme length in using calculator-based stats that suggest it's possible to have a $40,000 per capita GDP while investing in almost nothing but the military. And would you really call a typical soldier of the [shudders at the misuse of the term] 'Soviet' Army one of the best trained, or consider a pilot getting notably fewer flying hours than his adversary to be up to scratch? If Britain had been sinking half of her GDP into the armed forces, would the economy really have been what it was?

That's more basic than I planned it to sound. Damn. Sorry about that. Soldiers, not necessarily; but it cannot be denied that the USSR had a formidable military.

What I interpreted TSS as saying is that the scientific, technological, and military base of a country depends on its literacy and its health. I don't think that is at all true. It's entirely possible to detach them, although a literate and healthy country will be more likely to have those things, it doesn't mean that a country that lacks those things cannot have a strong scientific, technological, and military base.

Soldiers, not necessarily; but it cannot be denied that the USSR had a formidable military.

What I interpreted TSS as saying is that the scientific, technological, and military base of a country depends on its literacy and its health. I don't think that is at all true. It's entirely possible to detach them, although a literate and healthy country will be more likely to have those things, it doesn't mean that a country that lacks those things cannot have a strong scientific, technological, and military base.

Hard to argue, much as I may want to. Even the DPRK can build ballistic missiles that have some chance of leaving the ground.

It comes when there is a distinction between wealth and literacy/health. A country can be desperately poor and literate - Cuba - or extremely wealthy but with problems in literacy and health - USA. That is, of course, without analysing the causes of prosperity and literacy (certainly the USA > Cuba in wealth more than Cuba > USA in literacy.)

As for the distinction, having both wealth, education and healthcare together as a country is a sizeable long-term goal.

Hard to argue, much as I may want to. Even the DPRK can build ballistic missiles that have some chance of leaving the ground.

Comparing a DPRK ballistic missile with one of Third Spanish States is like comparing a truck technical with a slapped 88mm gun with a main battle tank, and they haven't really developed them, but taken most of the basis for them from the former Soviet Union.

For example, if Mannstein was an illiterate, would he ever have a chance? What I mean is that with high levels of education, the likelihood of talents being wasted because they weren't born rich or noble, for example, is much smaller, and likewise, a healthier country not only will have more people able to fight, but also suffer less casualties from the non-combatant threats(mud, infection, cold, etc.) as superior civilian healthcare will likely influence in how battlefield medicine works.

I'm going to throw in with most of my fellow 2003's here and take it a step further, by saying this:

Nationstates is freeform RP.
You are free to do whatever the hell you want with your nation.
If that means you want a nation of foot-tall pink elephants who are all addicted to meth and cotton candy, then by ALL MEANS, make it. If you want a nation composed entirely of super intelligent shades of the color blue, may the ghost of Douglas Adams be with you.
If you, god forbid, want a nation with a population larger than you have listed on Nationstates.net, bloody well go for it.

Anybody who attempts to impose their own rules on you is an arrogant prick who clearly has failed to understand the basis of NationStates. Having been on the site in various forms for...oh, five or so years now, I can honestly say that sticking entirely to the rules, while it produces fewer arguments, is also drastically less fun.

Essentially the only limit you should put on your nation is 'is this godmodding?', IE: Will people ignore it.

That should be the limit of other peoples influence (OOCly) on your nation. If somebody REALLY doesn't like the fact that you have (from what I gather) a very large militia force for use in extreme situations, they're free to ignore you. I've made this argument in the FT realm over and over.

NationStates is freeform. So you're free to ignore whoever you like and play with whoever you want.

Calculators are BS. End of. The only thing that should be looked at from the feeds in regards to roleplay is population.

Why population, given how unfair and unrealistic that is? It's every bit as much as any calculator.

I've capped Third Spanish States population at 300 million, and the sum of population from Third Spanish States and anarchist communes allied with the Confederacy at ~1.2 billion. Anything more wouldn't make sense for an Earth-like world unless I managed to sweep half of the "Earth" Third Spanish States belongs to into anarchism.

Trostia: Because landmass on NS Earth is assumed to be infinite. If I recall, Haven and Gholgoth (two of the larger RP blocs) would have to occupy very large tracts of a planet the size of Jupiter. Because the space for these people is infinite (we "mindwank," which is to say we just don't think about it or give some off the cuff answer as to how it's done, save for a few who insist on arcologies, huge apartment blocks, and so on) we don't worry about having 12.1 billion populations.

It serves an important gameplay dynamic. I wouldn't say it's unfair: When you just start out, if they gave you 800mil people, you'd have some severe rookie behaviour. As your skills improve (hopefully) your population grows and you're able to do more. Unfortunately that rarely happens because people incapable of creative thought or decent writing insist on joining a text-based RP site, but that's a different subject entirely.

Trostia: Because landmass on NS Earth is assumed to be infinite.

I think this assumption is not shared by all.


It serves an important gameplay dynamic. I wouldn't say it's unfair: When you just start out, if they gave you 800mil people, you'd have some severe rookie behaviour. As your skills improve (hopefully) your population grows and you're able to do more. Unfortunately that rarely happens because people incapable of creative thought or decent writing insist on joining a text-based RP site, but that's a different subject entirely.

It's completely unfair. I get 12 billion people on the basis that my friend introduced me to the game in 2003 instead of later.

It sets up a permanent, unalterable hierarchy based on completely metagame factors - players that came to the game after I did will NEVER surpass me in population. And when there's a gap of *billions* of people, that translates to an insurmountable advantage. Even if their RP skills improve, there's only so much a nation of millions of people can do against a nation with 12 billion.

But then again if there's infinite landmass, there's no reason to fight since there's infinite resources and such too. :)

No Endorse here, too lazy to switch accounts.

Haven was, last I checked, larger than the surface area of the earth. Both dimensions approach or exceed the circumference of the planet IIRC, and it's a rectangular map. I haven't measured Gholgoth, the Med, Greater Dienstad, Continentia, Antarchon, Capricorn Wastes, or any of the other regions whose maps (or lack of maps) I know about, nor have I looked at any regions I don't really know about. (obviously) However, I'd be willing to guess we'd go a long way towards filling a Dyson Sphere at this point (or at least a ringworld)

o/o/o/o/o/o/o/
o/o/o/o/o/o/o/
o/o/o/o/o/o/o/
to DGNT.

But then again if there's infinite landmass, there's no reason to fight since there's infinite resources and such too. :)

But we can still kill each other for religious/political/moral reasons...Right? :p

No Endorse, /o?

tis a fist pump, see? o/ Like a head and an arm.

anyways....

19th C Britain had some of the best soldiers, sailors, and tacticians; some of the best captains of industry, innovators, engineers, and scientists. The USSR had the same. Both were a land of illiterates and sick people, although one was a hundred years after the other (:rolleyes:), so, really...
USSR had 15 Nobel prize winners, US about 250. Of course there has been a large amount of bias in Cold War, but there's still a gap.

Also, USSR was a land of illiterates and sick only in its very early stages. The Cold War times USSR had a literacy rate of 99.7%, higher than US, UK or most other countries, and comprehensive, though not top-notch, healthcare.

I think this assumption is not shared by all.

It's completely unfair. I get 12 billion people on the basis that my friend introduced me to the game in 2003 instead of later.

It sets up a permanent, unalterable hierarchy based on completely metagame factors - players that came to the game after I did will NEVER surpass me in population. And when there's a gap of *billions* of people, that translates to an insurmountable advantage. Even if their RP skills improve, there's only so much a nation of millions of people can do against a nation with 12 billion.

But then again if there's infinite landmass, there's no reason to fight since there's infinite resources and such too. :)

There is only finite space in areas where it is agreed that there is finite space: in other words, a region where players agree on the basic shape of a map. Even then, many regions constantly adapt that map to add new continent-sized landmasses to accomodate new players or expansionism.

Distances are "plot deviced." If I were to invade the Third Spanish State, for example, I would simply set sail and then an indeterminate amount of time later (unless there was some OOC chatter regarding relative distances and so on) appear within striking range of his bases.

Edit: Noting that TSS and I are not on the same regional map, where presumably there would be a scale to use.

Attempts to determine distance often end up with a "plot device it" consensus. I think the closest we have to something like that is an agreement that - if I recall correctly - the distance between Gholgoth and Haven is massive, I think it was 30,000km or something like that. That's assuming that agreement hasn't been changed.

And your hierarchy only applies where people choose to make it apply. Many senior players, again using TSS as an example, have capped their populations. I cap my population for RP within the SFR region but I don't when working outside the SFR. There was a "Realistic Scenario" initiative some time ago, and many of the Earths involve capping their populations. Finally, there will always be an advantage to seniority, in anything you do.

I think this assumption is not shared by all.



It's completely unfair. I get 12 billion people on the basis that my friend introduced me to the game in 2003 instead of later.

It sets up a permanent, unalterable hierarchy based on completely metagame factors - players that came to the game after I did will NEVER surpass me in population. And when there's a gap of *billions* of people, that translates to an insurmountable advantage. Even if their RP skills improve, there's only so much a nation of millions of people can do against a nation with 12 billion.

But then again if there's infinite landmass, there's no reason to fight since there's infinite resources and such too. :)


NS2 is a wonderful thing, population rises or falls based on your decisions.

I always thought the whole "I have more people than you so I squash you" ideology was retarded myself

USSR had 15 Nobel prize winners, US about 250. Of course there has been a large amount of bias in Cold War, but there's still a gap.

Also, USSR was a land of illiterates and sick only in its very early stages. The Cold War times USSR had a literacy rate of 99.7%, higher than US, UK or most other countries, and comprehensive, though not top-notch, healthcare.

Don't forget the corrective eye surgery!

Also NSearth...isn't earth. *probably* not even the same solar system (this is a work in progress here folks). Although I dispute NE with regards to ringworlds, etc. NS can be nicely envisioned with a supramundane planet or something of that nature.

NS2 is a wonderful thing, population rises or falls based on your decisions.

I always thought the whole "I have more people than you so I squash you" ideology was retarded myself

While I wouldn't consider it mentally impaired, I would agree that the fact that I have a mere 1 billion (almost) citizens and will automatically be quashed by anyone with a greater population than me, who, incidentally, are the only people I would RP with (almost everyone who speaks proper English joined in 2007 or earlier), is extremely frustrating.

What's even more frustrating is when I'm trying to RP with someone much larger than me and they write entirely in non-sequiturs while I at least try to maintain realism. In that case, I am left with my hands tied, as I cannot attack and have to fear being attacked simply because I joined three years later than them.

I'm happy with suspension of disbelief on that.

I assume that NS earth is, basically, earth. I have in my head a basic world map that has, at any given time, a number of extra bits, and different civilisations where others ought to be. But this changes depending upon with whom I am interacting.

An example would be the conflicts of the First Commonwealth in BG. We were based on the Indian sub-continent. After the Communist revolution, the Principality retreated to Ceylon and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The Communists were preparing to take the fight across the Tamil Strait and finish the Royalists off, and Prince Llewellyn appealed for help.

Iansisle answered, and dispatched a fleet. Iansisle was situated on a fictional land mass in the North Pacific, so that fitted fine for me. Hadn't been on my mental map before, despite existing in NS, but for this RP, there he was. And he knew that he had to get to the Indian Ocean, and set off towards the South China Sea.

However, Iansisle had an empire that included territory in what he called Gallaga, which was India by another name. For this RP, suddenly Gallaga appeared immediately east of India, the Indian and Gallagan Oceans flowing into one another. The Iansislians took on coal at one of their Gallagan stations, and steamed on to a disastrous military encounter in the Bay of Bengal, east of India and west of Gallaga, off Ceylon, which Llewellyn had renamed Salvador.

A related note would be in that Beddgelert records the Battle of Salvador as happening on the 10th of October, 1984, which Iansisle remembers it happening in the early years of the C20th, if I'm not horribly mistaken (which probably explains why our clapped-out torpedo bombers came as something of a nasty surprise to their pre-dreadnought battleships, but never mind that!).

Now, usually, I assume my eastern borders meet NPC Myanmar, and the Commonwealth Guard's border troops, the Gelert Sentinels, exchange sporradic fire with the Tatmadaw, but this is largely because Iansisle doesn't get much RP time these days, so far as I'm aware, and it doesn't mean that I won't end up with more permanent player-controlled neighbours who push Gallaga further away in future.

That was good, happened years ago in real time, and is still part of our history, so that method works for me.

While I wouldn't consider it mentally impaired, I would agree that the fact that I have a mere 1 billion (almost) citizens and will automatically be quashed by anyone with a greater population than me, who, incidentally, are the only people I would RP with (almost everyone who speaks proper English joined in 2007 or earlier), is extremely frustrating.

What's even more frustrating is when I'm trying to RP with someone much larger than me and they write entirely in non-sequiturs while I at least try to maintain realism. In that case, I am left with my hands tied, as I cannot attack and have to fear being attacked simply because I joined three years later than them.

Well, if we were ever to have a war, I'd be happy to have one of the Soviet States that forms the Commonwealth break ranks with the rest of the nation and go it alone, to even things up. Well, if you ever feel like provoking, pff, say... Sindh and the Punjab, for some reason :)

While I wouldn't consider it mentally impaired, I would agree that the fact that I have a mere 1 billion (almost) citizens and will automatically be quashed by anyone with a greater population than me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War

Now, should you resort only to NS-grade "tactics" of missile spammage and mirror Red Alert 2 and Starcraft "strategy" for ground warfare, then that would be true. People who seek to win purely by numbers aren't good tacticians as well, and that can be taken advantage of, even with numerically inferior forces at an strategic level.

I know it's not NS, but as an example, once in Hearts of Iron 2 scenario Barbarossa, I managed to encircle and force the surrender of a "zerg" of 150 Soviet Divisions( 1.5 million soldiers according to HoI2 divisions) with a total of divisions in the front lines more than three times numerically inferior to such, and in an offensive rather than defensive action.

Likewise, nations with humongous populations also have humongous borders they need to defend, and much more to lose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
Likewise, nations with humongous populations also have humongous borders they need to defend, and much more to lose.

"God made all men, Samuel Colt made them equal."

Of course, we are talking about much nastier stuff then revolvers.

Nations with giant populations don't neccesarily have a correspondingly large land area.

Also, TSS, that's not exactly representative since you can easily cut off and destroy any number of enemy units through a number of exploits in the sorry excuse for an AI's behaviour in that game.

I think the closest we have to something like that is an agreement that - if I recall correctly - the distance between Gholgoth and Haven is massive, I think it was 30,000km or something like that. That's assuming that agreement hasn't been changed.
The agreement changed, for many folks it's now "infinity to the infinity times seven." Let's not get into why, but yes, the distance agreement is both possible and feasible, when the regions in question get along with each other well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War

Now, should you resort only to NS-grade "tactics" of missile spammage and mirror Red Alert 2 and Starcraft "strategy" for ground warfare, then that would be true. People who seek to win purely by numbers aren't good tacticians as well, and that can be taken advantage of, even with numerically inferior forces at an strategic level.

I know it's not NS, but as an example, once in Hearts of Iron 2 scenario Barbarossa, I managed to encircle and force the surrender of a "zerg" of 150 Soviet Divisions( 1.5 million soldiers according to HoI2 divisions) with a total of divisions in the front lines more than three times numerically inferior to such, and in an offensive rather than defensive action.

Likewise, nations with humongous populations also have humongous borders they need to defend, and much more to lose.


That's not always the case.

I've seen nations of 10+ billion with island nations.

Most of the large forces simply employ a massive and unrealistic amount of missile strikes, followed with impossible amounts of aircraft which in turn conduct their own insane missile barrage and then end it with a human wave offensive.

If you try to bring up any type of tactic or strategic argument the majority of the time the argument is "Nothing could have survived all those missiles"

Ok, I just scanned a couple pages on here... and I beg the question: what's the fuss about?

There are different opinions on these different things. If you don't like how someone else RP's - or are willing to try out a RP with someone having a different view, assuming it fits the RP - when why worry? Don't RP with them or do RP with them, it's really not rocket science. ;) They call this free flowing RP for a reason.

As for me... my thought on the original question of the calculators... I personally don't really care. I tend not to use them except as maybe a little bit of a guideline at most, I'm more concerned with yay/nay on godmod and quality and the enjoyment factor of the RP.

For me on land mass: I pretty much don't care... as long as the person I'm RPing with don't have the exact same location as me, then why should I? My "earth" or "world" changes slightly depending on who I'm RPing with, leaving the door open to RPing with pretty much anyone I please. My world includes both RL and made-up lands.

That's not always the case.

I've seen nations of 10+ billion with island nations.

Most of the large forces simply employ a massive and unrealistic amount of missile strikes, followed with impossible amounts of aircraft which in turn conduct their own insane missile barrage and then end it with a human wave offensive.

If you try to bring up any type of tactic or strategic argument the majority of the time the argument is "Nothing could have survived all those missiles"

You see, for this, you use the argument of underground tunnels, and reinforced bunkers. The missiles explode harmlessly on the surface, and then your troops come out to fight. Also, for missile spam, an interesting thing is, that if you think about it, that many missiles, in a confined space, say an area of engagement, would be very close together, and in theory, a well placed missile of your own, could cause one missile to detonate, and create a chain reaction. You see, the issue with Missile spams are, that you need to launch a lot of missiles in a generally confined area for it to be effective. Same thing with all those aircraft, and troops. That's how you get them.

While I wouldn't consider it mentally impaired, I would agree that the fact that I have a mere 1 billion (almost) citizens and will automatically be quashed by anyone with a greater population than me, who, incidentally, are the only people I would RP with (almost everyone who speaks proper English joined in 2007 or earlier), is extremely frustrating.

It's called fagging (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fagging).



Such systems are very stable and entrenched, and absolutely steady when supported by the official mechanics.

itt the explanation why I'm really selective in my RPs.

I've seen nations of 10+ billion with island nations.

Not only unrealistic depending on how large such "island"(it would have to be a continent) or archipelago would be, but for a ridiculously absurd population in a too small territory for it, a bunch of well placed submarine-launched nukes would wipe out such island before they could even react. As for a realistically sized island, the amount of shores to defend and patrol would not be small either, unless one comes to wank ridiculous geography and claim 99% of his shores are impassable.

Most of the large forces simply employ a massive and unrealistic amount of missile strikes, followed with impossible amounts of aircraft which in turn conduct their own insane missile barrage and then end it with a human wave offensive.

My only answer to unrealistic and wanked deployments is the green sign for use of tactical nukes as standard-issue. And as for prolonged uber-wanking of the "I CAN NEVER LOSE A SINGLE BATTLE BECAUSE I AM 10 BILLIONS!!!!111one" sort, I am very trigger-happy with the IGNORE Cannon no matter OOC reputation or anything, and would not hesitate to resort to it to avoid the people whose choices depend nearly exclusively of their OOC ego into their IC NationState whenever RPing a war or conflict and therefore unable to accept defeat.

For real, if I knew NS by 2002, I would have certainly registered, even if only to have a NS Page and never RP at all by such time.

If you try to bring up any type of tactic or strategic argument the majority of the time the argument is "Nothing could have survived all those missiles"

I'd rather write one-author stories than to RP with people who only use NS to inflate their personal egos. Being a selective prick when choosing who join and who doesn't in your RPs(all the RPs I started were either semi-closed or closed) won't gain you popularity, but will save you from potential frustrations and from OOC threads becoming bitchfests. Also, from a RP-wise point, such "strategy" is something I can't stand to read, and that's why I rarely read most war threads in II(except for a few gems like "A Passion Play"). Of course, for people who care only about massaging their egos, creating a RP that is actually entertaining for everyone, both participants and readers, isn't considered at all.

It's called fagging.

Such systems are very stable and entrenched, and absolutely steady when supported by the official mechanics.

If someone is here just for it, this one should go to a number-based game with an engine rather than to a Play-by-post Roleplaying game. Just like everyone not willing to get past writing ORBATS and one-liners about missile spams.

snip
So basically, you self-impose a restriction but still expect to be on par with everyone else who doesn't? :rolleyes:

While I wouldn't consider it mentally impaired, I would agree that the fact that I have a mere 1 billion (almost) citizens and will automatically be quashed by anyone with a greater population than me, who, incidentally, are the only people I would RP with (almost everyone who speaks proper English joined in 2007 or earlier), is extremely frustrating.

What's even more frustrating is when I'm trying to RP with someone much larger than me and they write entirely in non-sequiturs while I at least try to maintain realism. In that case, I am left with my hands tied, as I cannot attack and have to fear being attacked simply because I joined three years later than them.

Depends purely on distances. I may be 3-4 times bigger than you, but if I am far away(like in other region), then army that I can deploy to invade you may easily be smaller than the army that you can field for defending your homeland. Its simple logistics.

Calculators are BS. End of. The only thing that should be looked at from the feeds in regards to roleplay is population.

The roleplay population is BS. RL nations don't grow 6 million in one day.

Some players have resorted to capping their RP populations at much smaller figures than their NS feed tells them. I can't say I haven't considered that myself. A country based on ex pats from another country leaving because they hated the president in 2000 is not going to have over 8 billion people eight years later. It's likely not even going to reach 8 million in that span, let alone become an independent country capable of self defence and taking care of its own people.

The calculators are at least based on how you answer issues, which leads to what your government is expected to do in economic situations. That gets factored into the countries that have Frightening or Basket Case economies. That's why I use the calculators for a general guide. I don't make it hard and fast because if I answer an issue to lower the tax burden on my population, I'm not going to turn around and spend none of my money on defence no matter how I answer that particular issue.

In short, I use calculators for some structure, but if someone who ignores calculators can give me plausible numbers based on their own RP, I'm not going to hold that against him or her.

In support of the "capped" populations and more reasoned-out (to avoid using the term "planned") economies, I've always found it odd that we'd try to have seriously minded RP and stress realism when the game engine is so ridiculous. Massive daily population growth figures and issues that were obviously come up with for a shits and giggles factor kind of preclude using the game engine for anything at all. Like TSS I'm selective in who I choose to RP with, and most of those RPs are small scale things. One of the longer running ones is a company/battalion sized RP between myself and Aequatio. I've noticed that many players seem to be aiming towards these small scale scenarios in order to progress a storyline and flesh out their nation more, sometimes explicitly asking not to see invasion fleets or similar sailing over the horizon.

Shameless Self-Serving Tangent

Well, this seems like a good place to plug A Modern World [linky] (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=559386). Hey, it's my thread ;)

We're looking for someone to fill some space in China. We have AMW_China (_Taiwan, or whatever else he's gone by) in the extreme south, playing a China closely associated with the British, and we have the People's Republic of Spyr in the northeast and part of Russia, but there's a big void in the middle that is getting in the way. There has been talk of it becoming NPC PR China or partially under AMW_China's management, but I for one don't want that, and would like to see someone who wants to play their own country there.

Fujian, Guangzhou, Guangxi, Hainan, Macau, and Hong Kong, I think, comprise our China-like nation thus far, while I don't have to hand a precise breakdown of Spyr but this image (http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/7679/spyramwnewbm3.gif) will give a rough idea of its extent. It incorporates 221 million people and I'm sure Spyr can tell you the specifics of his claim.

So, the rest of China is open to one or more players who would be interested in having a 'realistic' (kinda) nation in there. In AMW, Beddgelert lies in Europe (over Romania, Hungary, and Bulgaria), and is nearly totally isolated politically, so I'd love to see some more communists. We've also nothing doing in the Middle East, leaving Moorish 'Portugal' similarly lonely, and Africa is virtually bare. AMW uses RL geography (including resources and climate et cetera) and population sizes (I think we've taken to using the CIA factbook unless a more precise regional break-down is needed: I know the CIA get it wrong mossst of the time, but if we stick to it then it's basically 'fair'), but not economic stats or anything like that. Folk just have to be reasonable. Beddgelert's per capita GDP is around US$20,000 in PPP terms, and we have a few 'great powers' in Spyr, the British and Roman empires, the United States of Quinntonia, so aren't really quite looking for a superpower, but there's room for some more significant powers. Dra-pol, seen on Spyr's map, is a founding member with 47 million people and US$2,500 per capita, so there's plenty of scope for struggling states to have fun in AMW.

Anyway, sorry about that, drop by and talk to the chaps, if you fancy.

Well, I can't use the calculators, because they will never be able to give an accurate example of my economic system. There is no income tax in my nation, however, that does not mean that my government does not collect income. There are other taxes. An income tax creates a drain on the economy, whereas, other taxes are less of a drain. Therefore, my nation would both collect taxes, while it's GDP would continue to grow at a good rate. However, the calculators will say I spend no money on certain things, however, I can't answer questions to spend money on them, because then the income tax goes up, and the GDP suffers. You see, there is not enough information in the game engine to accurately depict my nations socioeconomic system, and government budgets.

So basically, you self-impose a restriction but still expect to be on par with everyone else who doesn't? :rolleyes:

If not trying to always win through tech-wank coupled with pulling logistically impossible operations is also to self-impose a restriction, then I am glad to automatically avoid RPing with anyone who doesn't. Like I have mentioned, I have a low tolerance threshold for people who never accept any loss and claim to be able to feed dozens of millions of invading forces out of blue, dozens of thousands of kilometers away from their mainland.

First, I don't like to claim ownership over territories out of nowhere just as an excuse for the already absurd NS-page population. What I currently consider the total population of the International Anarchist Confederation is a result of events in South America and Africa related to two land-grabbing RPs I joined. Thus, I only increase(or decrease depending on what happens) the population I RP based on the RPs I participate of rather than on what comes out of the NS page.

The point of NS isn't to compare penis sizes in the first place. I could easily claim I own an entire planet once my NS page pop reaches 6+ billion, but what would be the point in using it exclusively to match others? I RP for fun, not for "LOOK I AM SUPERIOR TO YOU". Actually I could consider fun the ide, to have a fictional Solar System with 3 relatively close-by human-inhabitable planets, each dominated by 3 6+ billion large Modern Tech NationStates, for it could be a very interesting MT scenario, although it would also require some development of space tactics, strategies and interplanetary diplomacy that would never occur in RL solar system.

I'm not trying to become on par or superior to others. I have enough self-esteem to consider pointless any attempt to manifest a personal pride in a virtual environment. As for my selectiveness, I wouldn't mind RPing with a 10-billion large NS that RPs properly and knows that NS isn't a board wargame where the ultimate goal is to annex all others into one's territory.

I prefer to develop a psychological overview of a battle, scenes from operational level, the stresses of an individual soldier, over providing ORBATS and just describing the movements as a whole. I consider such way of telling about a conflict more interesting, even though it prevents me from giving details of all tactical moves in the front as I tend to use the POV of a single character to describe a battle. Anyway most don't even detail their tactical moves at all. My primary RP is large-scale, at divisional and even Army sizes, the difference being I always add a bit of character RP amidst the conflict and detail the battle instead of going only "I LAUNCH 1000 MISSLES!!!"

The roleplay population is BS. RL nations don't grow 6 million in one day.
While that's true, the timeline doesn't advance at 1day/1RLday either.

TSS: I don't think anyone approves of not taking losses, but the deployment of large (million man) armies far from home &c. are simply not godmoding (since they have happened in the RL past). People in NS actually tend not to scale their armies in line with the increased capability population gives them. But even if they did, I still don't see how you have a leg to stand on - you say you would nuke, because you don't want to RP losing (but also, that you hate people who care about winning!), when the only reason you're at a disadvantage in the first place is self-imposed. How is that better than people who missile-spam? I would say it is a lot worse.

You seem to want everything your way while complaining bitterly that everyone else does too.

Praetonia, could you please stop making misassumptions? I would resort to tactical nukes because that would be seen as the only way to stop such hordes Third Spanish States Navy would have no chance against in a conventional engagement. Also, you are completely wrong in the fact I don't want to accept loss. Due to IC cultural factors, most of Third Spanish States would rather die than see their lands annexed by a fascist, stalinist or capitalist power, which does mean it's unlikely for them to surrender easily, but not for them to be wiped out from planet should a wrong foreign relations choice be made, or an enemy be made beyond their capabilities. In fact, just like I would not hesitate to go at strategic nukes as a last resort, neither I would pretend to have a magical uber SDI no missile can pass through. If a RP went to that point, just like I would expect the other RPer to show some decency and consider the effects of the nuclear engagement for a long time, I would likely cut my RPed population to less than 10% of it before the nuclear war and self-impose serious limitations from the fact much of my lands became radioactive wastelands, provided that such RP wouldn't end in a retconning fest. Such is my way, whenever I RP I consider IC factors, accept the drastic consequences that might come from a conflict without magically rebuilding Third Spanish States from ashes in a few months after it, should it be destroyed by an exchange of WMDs.

As for million-strong amphibious assaults, even if feasible, are them worth the cost? How vulnerable and how many escorts would be needed for the logistical tenders of such massive fleet? Of course, that jumps into a question directly related to this thread, the fact that in II, very few consider realistic economic factors when taking decisions for warfare, land-purchase or even in some cases, procurement in storefronts.