NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, well, I'm swallowing my pride and admitting this;

I have simply no idea how on earth to calculate how big my military would be, not only that but my military, air-force and navy.

I simply don't know how to do it. I need someone to tell me a way that I can figure out the size of my various military factions that can also be applied for when my nation grows so when that does happen I won't need to ask again.

So basically, can anyone help?

(here's hoping I don't sound too much like a retard...

...C'mon I'm only an '08 and have only ever really done urban/guerrilla warfare and terrorist attacks...)

well, to start, you should have between 2 and 5 percent TOTAL in the armed forces

so 2-5% of your population into armed forces. If your looking for monetary value you can check out NS-tracker though many ignore these sites. That being said it may give you a decent yard-stick to measure against.

Yea, I know my budget, I use thirdgeek, i was just looking at the numbers of people, not money

Yea, I know my budget, I use thirdgeek, i was just looking at the numbers of people, not money

AHHH right 2-5% regular forces, .25% special forces (tops). Reserves could be around 10% population but REALLLY badly Trained and armed.

Two to five percent? Five is generally accepted as the cap, reached usually in times of national invasion or crisis. Mine's around one percent, which is about what the U.S. maintains. Generally, the lesser the percentage of population, the better-trained and equipped your forces would be.

Also, there's an (I believe) between 8 to 1 and 10 to 1 (if not higher) ratio between your logistics forces and actual combat troops. That means for every infantryman, you need eight to ten (again, if not more) supply clerks, truck drivers, cooks, etcetera that generally won't be fighting unless absolutely necessary. Armored units (tanks, APCs, etcetera) require similar logistics support, in the form of mechanics, ammunition and fuel resupplies and truck/train personnel (because it's much easier on the vehicles to move them by train or truck over long distances, rather than wearing out tracks and crews) to keep your armor moving. Aircraft have similar needs.

Making a fully thought-out, detailed army takes a great deal of time. Don't worry if you don't get it perfect. Most people on here don't have the time to even try and create, from scratch, an entire structured military.

Amen to that. I haven't properly decide how large my army is going to be, I just base it on each deployment at the time.

2% of the population in the regular military would mean massive conscription, of course.

A modern developed nation in reality may well have 0.3% of its population in the military, or some similarly little amount. Of course, NS has rather more lunatics running around with 2% of their population under arms, making it less easy to be so relaxed.

I have 0.25% of my population in the standing armed forces, and a further 0.5% as reserves, for 0.75% total professional and semi-professional military staff.

But, with over twelve and a half billion people, that's well on the way to a hundred million personnel, so you may not feel the same way about those proportions for your nation :)

I have massive popular militias, though, made possible by my nation's strong connection to its (romanticised) Celtic warrior past, tribal structures, and fanatical Communism, which mean that invaders would be faced with an epic insurgency even if my 0.75% regular and reserve military were crushed. Depending on your nation's set-up, such militias may be a good idea, or a really bad one (see Yugoslavia, where the Slovenian Territorial Defence Force turned on the national army, and others followed suit).

Basically, there's a lot of scope. You can have a little, professional military with 0.3% of your population, or you can have a big North Korean horde with AKs and a couple of rounds of live-fire training every year at 5% of the population, or something in between with a mix. Even many major Cold War militaries, though, using some conscription, were likely to have barely 1% of the population in the armed forces.

One thing I find helpful is to have a plan of my military at a set size (in my case, one billion population), then i don't have to keep updating it as my nation grows. It's just that times twelve, or however many billion people I may have. Like, in every billion people I have 20 fleet aircraft carriers, 80 destroyers, and so on... so at 12 billion people I have 240 fleet aircraft carriers and 960 destroyers.

The whole logistics thing varies wildly, actually. Some nations (Usually ones that take quantity over quality) have far fewer simply because they don't care as much about their troops, while others (Like mine) use the Crusher system to drastically reduce the amount of logistics needed.

What's the Crusher system?

I can give you a hand with suggesting a number of your population in your military along with the average pay packet and then how much you spend on them.

I have a 1 billion population instead of whatever NS states so it can be realistic for me. My entire military is 14 million strong not including the militia and I manage to spend around 460k on each personal.

My military is really big. I mean like, really, really big. Page-breakingly big. It's just massive. God I love it.

...where was I? Oh, right. Listen to BG. I see the whole 2-5% in the military rule of thumb thrown around and it's just not quite realistic. I mean if I had 5% of the population in my military that would be what, 750 million people? It gets a little ridiculous once you realize there's no possible way to spend all that money and employ everyone. You get whole brigades of Trash Cleanup Infantry.

Which is fine if you're a filthy rotten communist like BG, but for most nations you do not need nor want a standing military larger than you need, or can use. Logistics problems will rise exponentially while combat strength increases mostly in a linear fashion at best and with a logarithmic, diminishing-returns curve more likely. That is why BG's Trash Cleanup Divisions are not even that good at cleaning up trash, since they produce more of it than they clean up.

The higher the percentage, the more expensive and limited the potential mechanization of a military. Between 5 millions of AK hordes and 500,000 of mechanized infantry with significant artillery and air support, the latter would probably win.

Because numbers aren't everything. I rarely focus on posting number listings in the few war stories and RPs I created or participated of because there is much more to a writing about war than "I launch x whatever, post losses". Of course I'll never reach the one percent of the level of writers like Robert Heinlein, but there is no point in RPing with competition in mind when Civilization 4 and Hearts of Iron 2 are much less time-consuming ways of competing with other people in a military-themed match. Mostly forfeiting numbers to focus on the story and consequences of war leads to the creation of much more interesting threads than the usual, and even if not, having it driven by story is always better, like oldies like A Passion Play have proved.

The Crusher system is a logistics system being tested by the US Army that replaces the men needed to actually transport the goods on land with completely autonomous robots, which have the optional feature of being checked up on by a command center far away, thanks to on-board cameras. It has sensors that detect bad terrain, so it can actually navigate away from them. It makes logistics a lot like moving RTS units. Of course, if a problem happens, a person monitoring them can plug in a steering wheel to the control console and drive the vehicle from the command post.

Essentially, it's like a UAV with auto-pilot and area avoidance and whatnot for the ground, and it can carry huge amounts of supplies. Not only that, but they can be ordered to take side routes, plow through forests, or stay far away to prevent interception. Plans are underway to even arm them, so if they come under attack, a monitor can use an on-board autocannon to protect the vehicle.

The vehicle is protected against NBC threats, too.

What's the Crusher system?

OOC: It's the magical system which completely eliminates the need for provisions, ammunition, repairs, medical attention, seasonal clothing, and of course a supply chain. Get with it, Kenvat, seriously.

Eh, I think I saw a program on that at some point...

Or something... I dunno i can't remember xD

And that's why I don't distinguish between so-called PMT and FT. They're both fantasy tech, because they require fantasy tech responses. Clearly, the way to render a military so-supplied utterly useless on day one of the war is to jam or otherwise corrupt or hijack signals, or deploy something broadly along the EMP lines, then find youself at an advantage if you've got a crossbow and a pack mule. But this is a bit of a tangent, so I might just go, now.

Also [Communises Trostia]
(Oh yeah, if I continue to not be bothered, tell EE not to hold it's breath (I'm sure it's totally on tenterhooks). I can't be arsed, it's not EE anymore, and I'm unlikely to do anything other than stop posting, this time.)

In addition to that, let's remember that a "Crusher" would only replace a truck, and since a person would still have to watch/operate and maintain it, you'd essentially be only replacing one person (or none, if your truck drivers don't get company) and adding a machine so complicated that you would need a team to repair and build it. Not to mention expenses.

Basically, unless you use trucks to operate on people, or repair vehicles, the "Crusher System" would replace a very small number of people and replace those losses with a team of people needed to maintain such an advanced vehicle (rather than just using a bloody truck like the rest of the civilized world). But hey, just my two cents--consider them before you start buying Crushers.

The Crusher system is a logistics system being tested by the US Army that replaces the men needed to actually transport the goods on land with completely autonomous robots, which have the optional feature of being checked up on by a command center far away, thanks to on-board cameras. It has sensors that detect bad terrain, so it can actually navigate away from them. It makes logistics a lot like moving RTS units. Of course, if a problem happens, a person monitoring them can plug in a steering wheel to the control console and drive the vehicle from the command post.

Essentially, it's like a UAV with auto-pilot and area avoidance and whatnot for the ground, and it can carry huge amounts of supplies. Not only that, but they can be ordered to take side routes, plow through forests, or stay far away to prevent interception. Plans are underway to even arm them, so if they come under attack, a monitor can use an on-board autocannon to protect the vehicle.

The vehicle is protected against NBC threats, too.

Ahhh. That's pretty advanced there, thanks GWO.

OOC: It's the magical system which completely eliminates the need for provisions, ammunition, repairs, medical attention, seasonal clothing, and of course a supply chain. Get with it, Kenvat, seriously.

Excellent! Except for being called Kenvat...

Excellent! Except for being called Kenvat...

Damn you and your misuse of vowels! :D

Damn you and your misuse of vowels! :D

Pretty much. Oh, and my official username is lowercase too - and that was actually partly intentional and partly not. So, take offense!

Pretty much. Oh, and my official username is lowercase too - and that was actually partly intentional and partly not. So, take offense!

*Takes kenavt's fence.*
Thanks man :D!

The Crusher system is a logistics system being tested by the US Army that replaces the men needed to actually transport the goods on land with completely autonomous robots, which have the optional feature of being checked up on by a command center far away, thanks to on-board cameras. It has sensors that detect bad terrain, so it can actually navigate away from them. It makes logistics a lot like moving RTS units. Of course, if a problem happens, a person monitoring them can plug in a steering wheel to the control console and drive the vehicle from the command post.

Essentially, it's like a UAV with auto-pilot and area avoidance and whatnot for the ground, and it can carry huge amounts of supplies. Not only that, but they can be ordered to take side routes, plow through forests, or stay far away to prevent interception. Plans are underway to even arm them, so if they come under attack, a monitor can use an on-board autocannon to protect the vehicle.

The vehicle is protected against NBC threats, too.

Your system is hugly impractical on many levels. For the first and most blaring, you rely on either simple automation, or long-distance remote monitoring for everything. All an attacking force needs to do is hit your relay stations and/or jam/noise any and all transmissions you might gave going and then pick apart your now isolated and support-less robots at their leisure. And if you use your more powerful communications at the local level to monitor them, then they simply pick at your troops who are now communication, intelligence, and support-less, and then your remote trucks have no use because the guys they're supporting are wiped out or captured.

Crusher relies too much on technology that is easily bypassed, messed with, or simply destroyed, without a critical-thinking human in the immediate loop. Being far away in a control centre is a bad idea. It may work against backwater militaries like the DPRK or post-invasion Iraq, but NS is not that lopsided.

The Crusher system is a logistics system being tested by the US Army that replaces the men needed to actually transport the goods on land with completely autonomous robots, which have the optional feature of being checked up on by a command center far away, thanks to on-board cameras. It has sensors that detect bad terrain, so it can actually navigate away from them. It makes logistics a lot like moving RTS units. Of course, if a problem happens, a person monitoring them can plug in a steering wheel to the control console and drive the vehicle from the command post.

Essentially, it's like a UAV with auto-pilot and area avoidance and whatnot for the ground, and it can carry huge amounts of supplies. Not only that, but they can be ordered to take side routes, plow through forests, or stay far away to prevent interception. Plans are underway to even arm them, so if they come under attack, a monitor can use an on-board autocannon to protect the vehicle.

The vehicle is protected against NBC threats, too.

Perfect, I can see it now,

"Sir, one of the trucks seems to have gotten a flat tire. it wasn't noticed, until the tire was completely gone, and the sparks from the metal grinding against the ground, sparked a brush fire, at least we think that's what happened. We can't be sure, but the truck was attempting to accelerate, and using much more power than the rest of the convoy to maintain the same speed, then one by one the vehicles all stopped, we assume from the tires melting to the ground from the heat. Satellite photos confirm that there is a large fire where the vehicles stopped. Whoa, we just lost contact with on of the vehicles, shortly before hand, we detected a temperature spike in the oil temp. Now the trucks that were immediately in front of and behind it are gone."

Oh, if you going to say that they are tracked vehicles, good luck when one of them throws a track i the middle of nowhere, and the vehicles behind it crash into it, or each other trying to stop.

Also [Communises Trostia]
(Oh yeah, if I continue to not be bothered, tell EE not to hold it's breath (I'm sure it's totally on tenterhooks). I can't be arsed, it's not EE anymore, and I'm unlikely to do anything other than stop posting, this time.)

! That is unfortunate. But I can sorta sympathize. I don't post that much either. Not having the real option of war (since it would drag everyone in the region into it and be an unworkable mess), combined with anything less than war (ie diplomacy) not really working in the geopolitical environment these days means I don't have much to do except ponder the unrealism.

On the other hand, the other end of the specturm, AMW has an interesting bunch of players and is a good concept, but the detailed, military realism involved feels limiting. I like a good deal more wackiness to really enjoy it. Like instead of that plausible Brazil proposal... maybe a diehard, stereotypical, hardline Communist Brazil. With an insane dictator. Fun ensues!

! That is unfortunate. But I can sorta sympathize. I don't post that much either. Not having the real option of war (since it would drag everyone in the region into it and be an unworkable mess), combined with anything less than war (ie diplomacy) not really working in the geopolitical environment these days means I don't have much to do except ponder the unrealism.

On the other hand, the other end of the specturm, AMW has an interesting bunch of players and is a good concept, but the detailed, military realism involved feels limiting. I like a good deal more wackiness to really enjoy it. Like instead of that plausible Brazil proposal... maybe a diehard, stereotypical, hardline Communist Brazil. With an insane dictator. Fun ensues!

Fun only ensues, if he has a lovable brother who claims to be the world's biggest snack food consumer, and has his own brand of Snack Foods!

Fun only ensues, if he has a lovable brother who claims to be the world's biggest snack food consumer, and has his own brand of Snack Foods!

Why yes indeed! He also happens to be the Minister of Defense, and is frequently seen in commercials grinning with a thumbs-up gesture and wearing MacArthur-type sunglasses. He is rumored to have murdered thirteeen people, at least five of them underage prostitutes. He has the honor of being the heaviest man in South American government at 372 pounds.

Why yes indeed! He also happens to be the Minister of Defense, and is frequently seen in commercials grinning with a thumbs-up gesture and wearing MacArthur-type sunglasses. He is rumored to have murdered thirteeen people, at least five of them underage prostitutes. He has the honor of being the heaviest man in South American government at 372 pounds.

You forgot to mention he's married his sister, divorced here, and then married her again.

AHHH right 2-5% regular forces, .25% special forces (tops). Reserves could be around 10% population but REALLLY badly Trained and armed.

:S

No. You could do that, but 5% would rape your economy. See North Korea for example. Look at the figures of active troops here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_active_troops) Note how most of the modern forces operate with less than >1% active service personnel.

It also depends on what exactly your Military's role is, my National Police Force falls under the Military umbrella, and the General Armed Forces do assist internally(think national Guard) as well my soldiers are well paid and therefore the Military is more a career option for the long term rather then merely a brief commitment. Now this doesnt exempt from the mandatory State service--but that doesnt have to be with the Military, though it usually is, those conscripts are essentially reserves with first option to move into a full military career. Being that the military in my nation is the largest single employer I keep my military around 1% of my population--bumping up to maybe as high as 3% in the case of invasion. That being said, much like US reserves after basic training my reserves are required to get a private sector job, unemployment for a reserve is a violation of the State-Soldier contract.

So it depends on how your nation is organized as much as anything, but 5% and higher is just going to hurt your economy no matter what you do if your numbers stay that high for a protracted amount of time.

In addition to that, let's remember that a "Crusher" would only replace a truck, and since a person would still have to watch/operate and maintain it, you'd essentially be only replacing one person (or none, if your truck drivers don't get company) and adding a machine so complicated that you would need a team to repair and build it. Not to mention expenses.

Basically, unless you use trucks to operate on people, or repair vehicles, the "Crusher System" would replace a very small number of people and replace those losses with a team of people needed to maintain such an advanced vehicle (rather than just using a bloody truck like the rest of the civilized world). But hey, just my two cents--consider them before you start buying Crushers.
Its my understanding the Crusher system doesnt replace the Logi chain rather its the final link--it replaces combat zone logistic personel with a machine that doesnt mind not shooting, and being shoot at while it humps extra gear for troops on the move in the hot zone. If it has changed to something bigger, then it is an exceedingly stupid idea, however this system goes in line perfectly the US Military JIT Logistics move, any modern military not using JIT logistics concepts is going to be bloody damned expensive and bogged down with logistics personnel.

In addition to that, let's remember that a "Crusher" would only replace a truck, and since a person would still have to watch/operate and maintain it, you'd essentially be only replacing one person (or none, if your truck drivers don't get company) and adding a machine so complicated that you would need a team to repair and build it. Not to mention expenses.

Basically, unless you use trucks to operate on people, or repair vehicles, the "Crusher System" would replace a very small number of people and replace those losses with a team of people needed to maintain such an advanced vehicle (rather than just using a bloody truck like the rest of the civilized world). But hey, just my two cents--consider them before you start buying Crushers.

With the automation, one person can control numerous Crushers, just like a security guard monitoring cameras. Remember, these are autonomous and create their own routes to a location they're told to go. Just like an RTS unit, no?

And trucks require maintenance crews as well, so the Crusher would simply be replacing a truck crew with a Crusher crew, which, I presume, wouldn't be much different.

So, if you replaced 15 trucks, which requires 15 drivers at minimum, with 15 Crushers, which ideally can be operated by one person, you get rid of a good amount of logistics personnel.

As for EMP, trucks are vulnerable to such as well. Not only that, but trucks also can be stopped with a single bullet (Sniper > Driver), not to mention gas, radiation, et cetera. Furthermore, they are programmed to stay away from each other, so enemy raids would most likely only eliminate one Crusher. Also, one might throw in some cheaply made decoys to piss them off.

Oh yeah? Well, my self-repairing tanks (that are capable of mining for, refining, and processing heavy metals in order to keep up on ammunition supplies) save an estimated 100 personnel per tank, cost only $1 million more than regular tanks, and are invulnerable to EMP! Oh and also I have fighter planes that are submergible and my navy has 7000 aircraft carriers because nseconomy said I have a 70 trillion dollar military budget so I can afford them.

<.<

As for how large your military should be -- look at how many military personnel a real-life model has, multiply by how many times larger your nation is and tweak 'til it fits your needs. For instance, I believe the US has something like 1 million combat personnel for a 300 million population, including 7000 aircraft in the USAF and 280-something ships in the USN. Vojvodina-Nihon, therefore, might have 9 million combat personnel for a 2700 million population (or whatever it is. I can't remember now.), with an air force of 63000 planes, and a navy of 2500 ships. Of course, I don't play in MT with that population because it's patently unrealistic, but a lot of other people do.

I'd say it depends on a lot of different factors:

Principal National Defense Strategy - defensive or offensive? quality or quantity? mobile or static? land, sea, or air?

Principal Method of National Policy - diplomacy by other means or diplomacy as a last resort? trust or terror? absolute or relative? cooperative or hegemonic? despotic or democratic?

Principal National Defense Interests - near or far? big or small? ideal or pragmatic? guns or butter?

If you can answer these questions, you can better decide how large your armed force should be. As with many things, there are advantages to either one or the other, and some carry more advantages than others, but it all really depends on how your perceive your country's primary interests and how your armed forces fulfill the defense requirement.

With the automation, one person can control numerous Crushers, just like a security guard monitoring cameras. Remember, these are autonomous and create their own routes to a location they're told to go. Just like an RTS unit, no?
Except an RTS unit already knows exactly what the entire world looks and feels like. Real trucks don't have that luxury, and are quite often foiled by it. Even the DARPA challenge is obscenely easy compared to an actual real-world scenario.

And trucks require maintenance crews as well, so the Crusher would simply be replacing a truck crew with a Crusher crew, which, I presume, wouldn't be much different.
You're kidding, right? You get to keep the nice big maintenance crew of a normal truck, and throw on a few dozen IT guys to figure out why it keeps running into walls after that near miss with the IED. I'm also very leery of trying to monitor 15 vehicles with one person. It's far more likely that each single one will still have its own individual operator.
As for EMP, trucks are vulnerable to such as well. Not only that, but trucks also can be stopped with a single bullet (Sniper > Driver), not to mention gas, radiation, et cetera.
If you're armoring your trucks properly, there's not much a sniper is going to do to a deuce and a half, and a soldier in MOPP 4 (let alone a sealed truck) is going to shrug off anything you can throw at him. Against an automated vehicle which is too stupid to drive in anything but a straight line, one guy with an RPG is going to turn it into very expensive scrap metal. Hell, a guy with an AK can blow off an antenna, camera, or whatever you're using to navigate, and watch it crash into a wall. And that's not even considering jamming.

Furthermore, they are programmed to stay away from each other, so enemy raids would most likely only eliminate one Crusher.
Ah, the wonderful world of radiation seeking missiles... The only way to avoid each other (barring preprogrammed individual routes) would be to broadcast their location loud and clear to anything that has the proper ears. Things with the proper ears also tend to be either very well armed or carrying 500 pound warheads. Guess who wins?

Mind you, the Crusher program has its advantages. Against a poorly armed and poorly trained insurgency like the US will face for the next twenty years, it's great and helps protect human lives. Against anyone with a modicum of skill and state of the art weapons, it just paints the things (and their controllers) with a nice big "SHOOT ME" sign.

This is as far as I would go with automation:

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13768712&postcount=22

Except an RTS

tends to have twin-barreled Loltanks and Zerging instead of real tactics.

A good place to have your total military at (considering tax-rate, stated GDP and amount given to military) is around 1% of your population or at some arbritrary division-cap (there are only so many designations you can give before it gets very complicated). At this degree of militarization, pay is pretty much shit compared to the civillian market, but better than minimum wage.

This comes out to a 4-million man 'Army'...
Which is more likely to be a 2-million man army (~1,000 divisions /w/ ~70% being resservists so your regulars get issued more than a rifle and ammo), with a million issued to your air-force and navy respectively.

On the other hand, you'd have roughly 8 million additional land-locked para-militaries (police), also not contributing to your economy, and thus causing strain equal to possesing a mil-ratio of 3%, which is fairly well militarized.

NS-history on youtube is... interesting...

tends to have twin-barreled Loltanks and Zerging instead of real tactics.

Yet (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PaHcZUHI00)another (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaEfcjl9BTI&feature=related)egotistical (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHojwo_KSBc&feature=related)swipe. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdtG-T5tCL4&feature=related)It's really (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU3SRkNIbCE&feature=channel)lulzy indeed. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPZddoqQ9fA&feature=related)

I have a spreadsheet set up that allows me to adjust my current enrollment level, actually it goes a bit further than that, first it roughly breaks up my population into age categories (by percentage) and then it takes a percentage of the "military aged" citizens, (18-50) and gives me my military population... I go further and split that number up into infantry, naval, and air force but I won't get into it right now because I'm freaking myself out at how geeky I am just reading this post.

Right now since we're not involved in anything and patriotism is pretty much at it's normal level .35% of my population that is military age is enrolled (about 6.5 Million)

Take a look at Yanitaria's military calculator.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=568551&highlight=Yanitaria