Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Archenland. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Poll Only
Did You Find This Helpful?
Yes 2 (100%)
No 0 (0%)
Total Votes: 2
The COMPLETE Nationstates Guide To Roleplaying; By East Ying. It is highly reccomended!
Topic Started: Jul 12 2008, 10:36 PM (397 Views)
Mediterranean-Pacific Empire
Member Avatar
Head RPAG Administrator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
[size=7]To Find the section/subsection of this guide, use 'Ctrl+F' for PC and "Apple+F" for Mac. Thankyou, East Ying (The Mediterranean-Pacific Empire)...)[/size]






Roleplaying Tips and Suggestions!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Creating Your Own Adventures


Starting a Campaign But Don't Know Where to Begin? Here Are a Few Suggestions To Start the Creative Process.

Many people begin their journeys by running pre-written modules. It's a good way to get their feet wet, learning the skills and secrets of controlling your own RP without having to worry about creating the story as well. Too soon, however, the impulse to create their own adventures and to put their own personal spins on these worlds take over. But where should they start? These are some points to consider as you try to run your own adventure.
It is quite easy and understandable to become overwhelmed with trying to do everything at once. There are so many variables you have to account for. What you need to do is focus. Where is the best place to start? Okay, the easy part: decide what type of adventure you want to run. Usually you already know what type of system or genre you are interested in running, or what the players want. Together with your friends, you decide it would be fun to run a good old fashioned western type adventure. There is nothing like the code of the old west. Next, decide where it will take place and the basic goal of your adventure.

For this beginning adventure you have decided on a simple quest. Your players have entered a neighboring town because there have been rumors of strange things going on. The basic goal is for your fellow RP’ers to find out what is happening. Sounds pretty simple. Now you explore the plot a little further. How did they hear about this problem? Were they hired by someone or is there a personal reason to get involved with the residents of the town. What is happening in the town? Are the residents part of the plot or are they being coerced? If it's a nefarious plot who is the mastermind behind it? Who will the PCs meet on their journey, and will those people be helpful or try to stop them? Is the only possible accomplishment information gathering or can they possibly help solve the problem?

After you start to put those basic plot points together you can work at how intricate you want the adventure to be. First of all, you can work on Non-player characters (NPCs). These are the characters run by the RP-creator, who the players will meet or interact with. If you are like me, you enjoy the roleplaying aspect of gaming more than the actual fighting, so creation of these NPCs is incredibly important. Just fill in the details about this character's life.

• Is he from the town or is he visiting?
• What is this person's family like? Does he have siblings? Are his parents alive? Is he married and does he have children?
• What are his motivations and aspirations? What events brought those wants and desires into being?
• What can this character do (both for fun and for a living)?
• What are this characters goals for the future, is he working on anything specific?
• What oddities or quirks does this person have. We all take some sort of disability or Achilles Heel. What is it for this person? Is he overconfident? Does he habitually lie? Does he trust everyone and everything?
• What is the character's basic personality - Does he react to specific things?
• Appearance – What will your fellow RP’ers see when they first meet him?

I know these seem like unimportant, maybe even boring aspects for building these characters, but the richer the detail you have for the NPCs the richer will be the dialogue within the game itself. You would be surprised how much material flows naturally once you have a basic idea of an individual. And this way, you, as the RP-creator, do not have to prepare specific dialogues for each fellow RP’er, it will all come out with the interaction.

Next you can plan out general obstacles the players will meet along the way. Most important is deciding how intricate you want their experiences to be. You can make them very simple or straightforward or you can have a series of interlinking clues that build on each other. Warning: Players DO NOT always do what you think. Always have a back-up clue or key to the mystery should the players not interpret it correctly, or walk right past it. Therefore, you really need to keep track so you can lead the wandering band of fellow RP’ers back on the correct path, or at least in (mostly) the same direction.

Some RP-creators and players like to have maps and drawings to give a better idea on what is going on. Here is a big controversy. How much detail do you put into your maps. It may be a good idea to make a map that isn’t too detailed, so that if one of the characters gets lost, they’ll be able to improvise their way back to the group.

It's really all about flexibility. You can never ascertain what your players may decide to do, so you need to be ready for anything. The more playable your preparation the more adaptable and ready you will be. Sure you can prepare things like NPC interaction possibilities. But I would not write out specific conversations or speeches. Your fellow RP’ers may just not ask questions where those come out and then you are trying to force it. Believe me, having been on the receiving end, that can be so frustrating as a player. You feel stifled and forced to follow your RP-creators’ path. Better to conceive the TYPE of answer and a general idea of what they would react to. And it's not exactly thrilling to put in HOURS of work writing specific details only to have to throw it out the window.

Being flexible allows both you and your players the freedom to take the adventure on a whole different level, to interact and play off each other. Once you have the basics in place, I can almost guarantee the roleplaying will come more naturally and be more satisfying.
__________________



Be Prepared:

Do a little research – I always do my homework before I start a game. It makes for a better developed, more intriguing scenario.

Complement your scenario – Add to the mood. If you are playing in a horror campaign, bring some atmospheric music, or lower the lights. Playing by candlelight can add to the exhilaration when your players are discovering the truth about the C'thulu mythos. There are many other touches you can bring. Don't be afraid to experiment.

Be the final arbitrator – When it comes down to it, you are the final judge. Do not let the players intimidate you into changing your mind. You can definitely admit if you've made a mistake, nobody is perfect after all. But do not allow yourself to be swayed because you want everyone to like your decision. That is just not going to happen. Just make sure your decisions are fair. For example if there is a contest between Selena and Boris, both magic users. Let the roleplaying, skills, and the rolls speak for themselves. Do not give the edge to one over the other just because you like the character better. If your players see you are a fair arbiter, they will come to trust your instinct and judgment.
__________________
When you are first learning how to create your own RP, you have so many different items to keep track of, the NPCs, the flow of the story, adversaries, and many more. If you allow too many player characters into a game, it's hard to make sure that every single one is accounted for. I have found that for a good game you should have between 4 and 6 players. It's a good number and it leaves room for good interplay with rarely anyone getting lost in the shuffle. This of course leads to the next point:

Keeping your Players Interested

Other ways of keeping your players interested:

Creative NPCs – Make sure that your NPCs are not generic. Give each one a distinct possibility and roleplay those differences. Do not hesitate to go for nontraditional gender roles or other "differences." It will keep your players on their toes.

Ask your players for advice – I think this is one of the hardest. You may feel nervous about asking for advice, fearing to lose authority. But, sometimes, you run out of ideas. You have a group that can help you. It has nothing to do with your knowledge of the game. Make it clear that you are still the referee, you just want some input. It will really help your players feel a part of the creative process. And besides, they will see for themselves, its not always that easy to come up with ideas. A new respect will grow from this.

Reward Creativity
Make sure that the only answer to a solution is not being sliced by Bart's dagger. If the players are crafty, they make find a way around the problem you were stumping them with. Even if the idea had never occurred to you, if its intelligent and well thought out, let it work. Show them that roleplaying is not only beating up the bad guy. Maybe the villain is too hard to actually beat in combat so the players need to think of a new way around the problem. See how the players handle some loss and if they regroup and make the best of the situation. As you gain in experience you can give your players new and exciting challenges to deal with.

Keep it Simple
As you can see in the previous paragraph, by no means am I saying you cannot have puzzles, riddles or a couple of subplots or plot twists brewing. There is nothing more satisfying than being in a group that has just figured out the set of clues or exhilarating as a creative plot twist. But be careful. I have seen many Role-Players have so many subplots going on that the main storyline is lost. Unless players are mindreaders they may not see where this is all leading. Both players and the RP-creator can get frustrated at this point and the story get stranded. Too many red herrings makes players wary of trusting the RP-creator. Don't get carried away. And the most important issue:

Have fun with it!

Remember, that is the number one reason for roleplaying. It's a game for you and your friends. Relax, trust your instincts, and don't take things too seriously. I have seen many fights break out over unimportant issues. You need to keep this in mind.
__________________

When you are ready to design a campaign, you need to come up with what the characters are going to try to accomplish. One of the many decisions you have to make is who the ultimate foe is. We don’t mean your average villain of the week, a throwaway grunt working for someone else, but rather whom that grunt is working for.

Good villains are very rare. Many times it is assumed that a huge amount of power and bad ‘tude are all that is needed. But power and attitude are only part of what makes a villain great. When it comes to developing that character into a bonafide, believable villain, a lot is frequently overlooked. It is not true that as long as they give the hero a bad time, they are golden.

There have been in various campaigns where, as a team, a group of RP'ers are faced with a supervillain. He has tons of power, but he is basically standing in the middle of the street yelling out a challenge to the heroes. While the fight maybe good and difficult, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Why would he risk his own neck when he can have his henchmen do it for him? Why is this guy, powerful though he may be, not quite believable as a worthy opponent? To begin with, he violates most of the rules a good, solid opponent should be founded upon.

Two good examples of the ultimate enemy would be Lex Luthor and Professor Moriarty. Rather than just copy these characters verbatim, let’s look at what you should do to create a good bad guy and the opposite, what should you avoid using as your chief nemesis.


Layers of Difficulty

As I have already mentioned, the bad guy sends other people out to do the dirty work. He has minions. The true villain knows that plans go wrong. Plans fail. People get caught. But no matter what happens, it will not be him that gets caught.

Secrecy is another big part of the layers of difficulty. Players can beat up that henchman all they want, but if he doesn’t really know who the top boss is then he can’t tell. The true villain gets extra credit if the henchmen think they are working for someone else. Always frame your competition.


Resources

The big bad guy should not be easy to capture. What made Lex Luthor such an excellent foe is that he used his resources. Here was a well-respected citizen who was actually a chief mastermind behind a huge crime syndicate. Yet, because of his position in society, his support for charities, and of course his political connections no one believed it was him or if they did, proof was not forthcoming. Plus, if he was in a tight spot he used his wealth, power and his position within society to get him out of any difficulty that arose. He has teams of lawyers waiting for an opportunity to smear a hero, and he has never been afraid to use them. He also had other bad guys working for him, and many times it seemed as if the heroes themselves did his work for him.

Your villain doesn’t even have to be rich to have these kinds of resources. A villain who is really just big and strong can intimidate people into working for him, or else. If he’s good enough then he’ll have the wealth someday, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t already a growing threat today.

If your villain uses these kinds of indirect tactics then your players will not be able to just attack him head on, or if they do there will be very bad consequences. They will have to work as a team within the system to prove his misdeeds, or attack him indirectly. And sometimes, the bad guy will win. It will be very fulfilling to them when (and if) they finally accomplish the task of putting him/her out of business for good.

It’s not only wealth and popularity that can make a character a good villain. Moriarty for example was a brilliant man. And, part of that brilliance was the way he played his cards behind the scenes. He was never really noticed because no one knew who he was. He was a match for Holmes in everyway and, despite the fact that he rarely confronted Holmes directly his influence was always felt. A good villain sharpens the hero providing him a focus to prove himself, but he doesn’t have to be obvious to do it. Sherlock Holmes would not be an icon without his matching wits with Professor Moriarty.


Believability/Complexity

To be a believable character, even an evil one, has to follow a set of core values. Nobody really thinks of himself or herself as evil. Everyone follows some sort of internal guide as he/she continue through life. Take for instance, Magneto from the X-men ™. No one can deny he is the bad guy. But he truly feels he is doing the right thing. Righting the wrongs done to his people. Survival makes us do things we are not always proud of. Taken to extremes a “good act” does not always mean one that is right.

The Sheriff of Nottingham thought he was preserving order and “the way things are supposed to be” from the chaos and villainy of Robin Hood. He truly believed that some people deserved to live in luxury, and other people deserved to be downtrodden. Some people were meant to work their way to the top, and other people were there purely to be taxed. Your villains should believe just as strongly in what they are doing.

To create a truly successful evil doer, villain, or whatever you want to call him, he should earn people’s respect, and even their sympathy. This does not mean that we must like them or wish them well, but a good villain has to have something likeable and admirable about them. No one wants to be friends with Hannibal Lector, yet here is an absolute genius who can be very charming and disarming (literally I guess) at times. This is what makes him so incredibly dangerous.

To go even further, a good villain doesn’t always have to do evil things, at least not all the time. Take one of the most memorable villains of all time. Don Vito Corleone (the Godfather) was the head of a crime family. He was well capable of ordering someone murdered (or even doing it himself if he had to), having a prized animal mutilated to prove a point, and many other horrendous deeds. Yet, he was a good family man and looked out for his neighbors and friends. If there was someone causing problems in his neighborhood, they would either get an offer they couldn’t refuse or they weren’t around to consider anything anymore.

It doesn’t hurt to add some humor and compassion to your villain’s personality. Having a softer side does wonders and adds to his complexity. It also makes it a little tougher for the good guys to see the bad guys for what they are. Plus, don't forget to check out all sources. For example, catering to the discriminating villain's taste there are resources available online for all things evil.

Basically what we are advocating is the creation of a master villain who is 3-dimensional. Giving the character layers beyond just a powerful punch and mean disposition will add layers to your world and make it worth the chase. There is a whole world out there waiting to be exploited. Let’s get moving and create the ultimate foil for your team of players. They will appreciate the fight even more…
__________________
1. Create Some Competition For The Prize

You can create fantastic tension by introducing a party nemesis. A nemesis should be close to the main character in power and capabilities. And the best nemesis is an entire band of NPCs who are close duplications of the main character (i.e. an evil twin of each character--or a good twin if the characters are evil). Have the band frequently be one step ahead of the main character, getting the main character in trouble through set-ups and false rumours, and outperform the main character in every possible way.

Nemesis examples:
* A bounty hunter after the main character to bring them to justice or into the villain's hands.

* Did the main character "accidentally" commit a bad crime in the last town? Form a posse and chase 'em down!

* Another band of adventurers after the same legendary treasure.

* A rival band of NPCs hired by the main characters' employer either as assurance the quest will be completed by one of the groups, or to "take care of the main characters" so there are no loose ends once the quest is completed.

* The PCs are asked to teach some NPCs, but the NPCs turn out to be more capable than the PCs and embarrass them often by doing things better.

2. Say Something is Going to Happen Then Put It Off

The title says it all. Let the players know that the villain is quickly approaching them, or that they feel the tremors of a giant monster and the tremors are getting worse, or that the bridge they're on is breaking apart...and then make it a false alarm or give the characters a brief respite.

Drawing things out creates a lot of tension.

A great way to perform this technique is to have an NPC do the telling:
* a story
* a warning
* in song or poetry
* through a note or diary entry
* through an overheard conversation

3. Use Omens

An omen is an event or sign that gives a hint about what the future holds. Omens are tricky because if they are too subtle the players won't understand them and the effect is lost.

Another problem is cause and effect. If the players do not associate your omen with potential future happenings, or if they are too skeptical to believe, then the omen will not create tension.

The solution is to introduce an omen, make sure the players recognize it as an omen, and have the omen come true in that same game session. Do this three times and you will make a believer out of the most skeptical player.

Omens that create the most tension are bad omens: nasty things could happen to the characters in the near future. And if your omen also contains a hint about the nature of the upcoming event even more tension can be created.
__________________
This guide is designed to help people with writer's block, role-players of all levels, and people who are just interested in psychology and philosophy as it applies to fiction. Here you'll find tips, examples, suggestions, general information to aid in creating rounded fictional characters for your stories and/or RPGs, and perhaps even information useful for everyday life.

There are many aspects of character development, and your character could be nearly as deep and complete as anyone you might know in real life. However, there are basic keys to fleshing out a character that can help break through blocks and get you and your creation on their way to a great story.

♦ Being informed is a vital part of all storytelling. Know your stuff so your character and their world makes sense.

♦ Learn the importance of Point of View and Background. Seeing the world through the eyes of others, no matter how different from you they are, makes for a great writer.

♦ Motivation and Alignment: "Good" VS "Evil", what drives your character.

♦ Flaws, Merits and Details: All the little (and major) quirks that make your character more interesting.

♦ Exercises and Inspiration: The tools, games, and tricks to help you find your voice.

♦ Beyond Powergaming: A guide and explanation of role-playing for new gamers.

♦ Recommended Reading: Useful books and Guides.

The characters come before the story. Once you figure them out and set them loose, the story unfolds on its own.
__________________
Guidelines and Rules to Specific RP's
Dependent upon the type of quest you are running, you may find it useful or necessary to establish some ground rules, rules of engagement or possible penalties for rule infractions. Discuss these with the people involved with your quest. Make sure that everyone understands them. Write them out and make them available for future reference. This may prevent disaster down the road.

Types of quests

There is a variety of quest types that even the most novice roleplayer can undertake. Here are some basic examples:

Pursuits: Send players in search of objects or people.

Escorts: Have players escort a damsel in distress, a gate-shy priest or a caravan of goods from Point A to Point B.

Mysteries: Who-dunnits are an excellent roleplaying opportunity and a way to involve large casts and adventuring groups.

One-shot events: Start small and get a feel for how to do things on a larger scale. Typical one-shot events are: scavenger hunts, swap meets, market days and guild recruitment/symposiums. Though these shorter quests, you can build contact groups, gather information about what interest the people on your shard and collect ideas for future long-term quests.

These basic premises for plot ideas by Ozar were taken from the UO Interest Site:

Escort Quests:

* A caravan takes some items from Point A to Point B
* A person becomes sick and a healer is requested from another town. This healer needs an escort from that town to this one as it is not safe for him to travel alone and use of magic/gates will ruin the healing draught needed to cure the sick person.

Find the X:

* The location of someone or something is given in the form of hints or a riddle.
* An item X is needed for some reason. Players are enlisted to help retrieve/find the item.
* A group of X has taken thing Y and person Z wants it back.

Preserve the Peace:

* A person has escaped justice. Players are sought to kill/capture this person.
* A group of X is gathering near point Y. Players are sought to kill/capture the group.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------__________________

The Constitution is a radical document... it is the job of the Government to rein in people's rights." -President Bill Clinton

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. ~Benjamin Franklin

The three most important R's
Respect for One's Self / Respect for Others / Responsibility for One's Words & Actions.


Big List of RP Plots
The Net Book of Plots
Guide to a Consistent Storyline
Character Creation
GNS and Other Matters of Roleplaying Theory, Chapter 1
GNS and Other Matters of Roleplaying Theory, Chapter 2
GNS and Other Matters of Roleplaying Theory, Chapter 3
What Is a Role-Play Game?
The Name Generator
Canonical List of Famous Last Words
Random Planet Creator

Another good thread to check out:
AMF's Guide to Story Roles and Angles
_________________
Getting a Storyline Idea


Many players are looking to run their own storylines. Rather than store bought, they prefer it from their own fevered imaginations. But, where to get ideas. Some players make it seem natural picking ideas right out of the air while others constantly struggle.

Where can you get ideas? First things first: know what genre you want - a fantasy epic with dragons, elves and mighty warriors, a space-opera set in the future, a horror campaign to send a chill up your spine, or a modern day spy thriller to make your heart race with anticipation?? Once this is established you are ready to start setting up your campaign.

Are you someone who longs for a good mystery, moving from clue to clue and piecing together what happened? Or would you rather there be a definite confrontation between "right and wrong?" Whatever the case may be, plan on running that type of adventure. Essential to your players enjoying the game is that YOU have to like what you are doing, your energy and enthusiasm will affect the players.

Okay, the genre and style of campaign are decided. Where do we get ideas? Well, there are players who can make up scenarios almost as if they are pulling them out of a hat. What about someone new to the role or someone that needs a little help? The best advice I can give you is: use your experiences. Think back to those campaigns you played in. You must have some favorites. Do not take plot point for plot point, but modify and change the circumstances.

A superhero group in the middle east would have a much different agenda than one in NYC. It made for a darker, richer campaign. Even using some of the same type of villains worked differently because again, they would have a different reason for doing the vile things they do.

Another idea, is look at some modules to see what they are doing. Use what you like but put your own twist on it. Although some basic ideas will be lifted from someone elses plot, the key points and storyline will still be yours. This might be a better way to start. Doing so, you realize what type of plots intrigue you and your players and are better able to come up with other ideas on your own.

Also, borrow ideas from favorite books, movies or TV shows. Game systems do this, why can't we? Of course, be warned, the whole idea of roleplaying is not to be pigeon-holed so these ideas need to be modified to allow the players free reign to make it their own. I have seen players wanting to create movie characters. These characters are not at proper levels to participate in most games. Either the players are disappointed or a player has someone way too powerful in his group. It's a fine line that a RP-creator draws. Make sure that all players have something to do. That's an important rule to remember... But, most importantly - remember to have fun. So your players will too.
-Ying
(God I'm finally finished... Started this damn thing in early 2007...)
East Ying
Member of the Socialist Council
Member of the Gallican Communist Party
WA member
DEFCON: 3
REGION:Gallican
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Mediterranean-Pacific Empire
Member Avatar
Head RPAG Administrator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
A Guide to Making Embassies [ooc|intro for new comers]

Abstract/Preamble:

When you start role playing on NationStates, a good option for your first thread, maybe even your first post, is to make a thread where other nations can establish embassies in a major city in your nation, usually your capital but not always.

What is an embassy?

Merriam-Webster defines an embassy as:

“1: a body of diplomatic representatives; specifically : one headed by an ambassador

2 a: the function or position of an ambassador b: a mission abroad undertaken officially especially by an ambassador

3: embassage 1

4: the official residence and offices of an ambassador” [source: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/embassy]

And on NationStates embassies are usually most like the number ‘4’ definition, a building in your nation that houses an ambassador, several clerical staff, and sometimes a small security force, for relations between your nation and the nation establishing the embassy.

Establishing embassies.

The typical way embassies are established is as follows:

1.) You open embassies in your nation by making a thread about doing so
2.) You create a form asking for some specifications of the nation requesting the embassy
3.) You confirm that the other nation’s application for an embassy was accepted.
4.) You edit your first post and make a list of nations that have embassies in your nation

Why Make Embassies?

Embassies are great for spring boarding onto International Incidents. Often, conferences are hosted between nations in embassies, and it’s a good way to get noticed for the right reasons. Often nations with embassies take interest in alliance and trade. Also Embassies are a far better war to get started role playing than a war which may ravage your nation and cause your to become a colony of a larger nation, which is not good.

Mapping Your Embassies.

You need to locate your embassies, a street name in the city where the embassies are located should suffice, however, some nations make maps of where the embassies are located, but this is not required.

Introducing Your Embassies.

It is usually a good idea to give a short intro about your nation and its current economy, government, and its beliefs. It doesn’t need to be very long, just a small paragraph about your government and your people.

An Example of an Embassy Application Form.

Full Name of Nation:
Form of Government:
UN Category:
Civil Rights Rating:
Political Freedoms Rating:
Location of Embassy:
Number of Vehicles:
Total Number of Personnel:
Total Number of Security Forces:
Special Requests:

Of course this is just an example, there have been many longer and shorter than this form is just an idea.

Advertising Your Embassy.

Many nations put a link to their embassy thread in their signature, so that other nations that may whish to establish diplomatic relations through an embassy may quickly find it. To edit your signature, click ‘User CP’ at the top of the page, click edit signature. To put in your embassy thread, type Embassies in the text box that appears, highlight it, copy the URL of your embassy thread, click the ‘Insert Hyperlink’ button [it looks like a globe with a chain link on it] and paste the URL of your embassy thread into that. Click ‘Insert.’
East Ying
Member of the Socialist Council
Member of the Gallican Communist Party
WA member
DEFCON: 3
REGION:Gallican
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Mediterranean-Pacific Empire
Member Avatar
Head RPAG Administrator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
What Godmoding Is (New Version)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE: This, like all stickies, does not represent 'the rules.' If you and the people you RP with enjoy yourselves outside these rules and within the game rules, good for you. This is an attempt to compile general rules as used by the 'mainstream' RP community. In other words, if you follow these rules more people will accept your RP.

Definition of Godmoding
1) Saying what happens to other people's stuff.
2) Refusing to take any losses. Or lose. Ever.
3) Having übertech armies that are too large, etc.
4) Having your nation’s geography to your extreme advantage.

1) Example: "Okay, I just blew up 300,000 of your troops!"

Why this is Godmoding: Because in freeform role-play, it's up to the person being attacked to determine their own losses. This leads to OOC bickering which in turn, ruin the entire RP. Trust me, it’s happened many times. Don’t let it happen.

2) Example: "Oh, well, my soldiers had personal forcefields so none of them were actually hurt. "

Why this is Godmoding: This is probably where godmoding gets its name (from God Mode in Doom, where you were invincible after typing IDDQD). Naturally, if nobody ever takes a hit, the fight degenerates into "I HIT YOU!" "NO YOU DIDN'T!", etc. Remember now, roleplaying isn’t about winning or losing, it’s about telling a story. A nation who is willing to accept defeat gains a lot of respect from others, in turn. Refusing to lose could permanently damage your reputation, making not too many people not want to RP with you.

There is no device known or yet to be invented which is perfect. There is no perfect stealth, there is no perfect radar, there is no perfect acoustical protection, there is nothing which cannot be defeated.

Therefore you cannot tell someone what their results are in trying to find you! You can tell them how your system works, but you can't off and say "you can't see me nyah!".

3) Example: A 2 day old nation with a population of 6 million posts "My 6 billion man army invades u with NUKES!!!!1"

Why this is Godmoding: Okay, little guy nations, I know you're anxious to start throwing your weight around, but let's be honest; you are piddling nothings when you first start out in the world. To get specific with the logistics of your military, check this thread out: What Logistics Is
Also, check this thread out to get examples of how other nations in real life deal with their logistics: Economy, Militaries, and Invasions - More things to know

Note: Nothing stops you registering a group of nations and RPing each as a different but allied entity, or any other reasonable method of levelling the playing field you can come up with. Age should NOT bring with it arbitary RP advantage.


3.5) Example: 'Ok, I'm going after your major cities with cruise missiles.'
'Aha! My EMP defenses short out your missiles and defeat you!'
'But...Don't they destroy every electronic device in your cities, too?'
'No, because they're...Shielded. Yeah.'
'But then why couldn't I just send a spy to buy, say, a calculator or trouser press which would allow me to learn your secrets?'
[insert random swearing]

Why This is Godmoding:
EMP isn’t magic. If you're a nation which has EMP devices and uses them regularly, it'd be ridiculous to think that in all that time nobody would have come up with an effective defense. Same goes for most technology, in fact: you should at least allow for the possibility that a nation which has faced your mighty ubertech on the battlefield has gone off and built something to counter it.


4) Example: “My territory is completely surrounded by mountains, and I have every possible missile defense system that works 100%, so all of your planes will be shoot down, and all of your troops will die trying to get over the mountains!!”

Why This is Godmoding: It is possible to have terrain like this, but there are different ways of showing it. You can’t just up and say, after the war already began, that this is your nation. It also goes a little bit into the first example in that you can’t claim other peoples’ losses. Firstly, it is strongly recommended that you make a map of your nation. If you really don’t want to, then adapt the geography of a Real Life nation. Also, if you do want to RP your nation as having such a rough terrain, you need to enforce it within your nations. For example, the soil probably won't be the best in your nation if you have all rugged terrain.

Not Quite a Godmode, but...
Separate Example of Weaponry
“My tanks go 1044054650mph, and they can fire 100 missiles!!! My ships go 235436 knots, and can avoid your attacks no matter what!!

Explanation:Ultimately, no weapon is a godmode in and of itself, it may be unrealistic and therefore abuse-worthy if it's creator tries to imply it could really be built, but until you do something technology has no effect on anyone else and therefore does not qualify for the high and supreme definition of Godmode, namely:

A Godmode is an arbitary statement of superiority detrimental to good RP.

The aforementioned ridicu-tank / ship would make a difference if used as such in a military RP without any related problems RP'd [in fact I personally believe most techno-sillyness isn't that bad as long as you don't start dodging the natural drawbacks of weapon types], but having a character RP party on a million-mile-per-hour ship shouldn't be a problem because the ship's existence and performance confer no advantage to the owner in that scenario. Everything is relative; you can Godmode just as well with a T-72 as with any ridicu-tank design.

However, abusing higher tech for arbitary advantage is Godmoding. For example, using FTL cold fusion-powered spaceships with ultrashields against a modern nation would be godmoding if the modern nation did not agree to their existence beforehand; in other words, you can't force a higher tech level on another player.

__________________


**Re-edited since the creator of the thread became inactive.**

Table of Contents
1. Logistics
2. Troops and Godmoding
A. Stealth Troops
B. Invisible Troops
C. Very Fast Troops
D. Military Involvement with Nations NOT Bordering You
3. Acts of God
4. The Space Time Continuum
A. Future Tech vs. Present Tech
B. Future Tech vs. Past Tech
C. Present Tech vs. Past Tech
5. Guide to New Players Definitions and Explanations
6. Creating a New Region
7. Country Ratings
8. The Effects of War
9. Weapons In Your Nation
10. Economy vs. Military
11. Government Ideals
12. The Indefatigable Army
13. Completely Discounting an Opponent
14. Nothing is Perfect
15. Untraceable


1. Logistics
Also, everybody's happier if you pay attention to logistics. And if you don't know much about Role Playing, there are people willing to teach you.

2. Troops and Godmoding

A. Stealth Troops
"Stealth" is a cool word, but it doesn't mean "invisible". A stealth bomber is just harder to detect than an ordinary one is on radar - ditto stealth fighters. To my knowledge, there is no such thing as a "stealth tank", "stealth rocket launcher" or anything else like that.

B. Invisible Troops
The temptation with magic (of any description) is to make people and things invisible. Thus, "my invisible tank has driven into the middle of your city. HA HA."
Think about this for a minute. Invisibility only extends to sight - an "invisible tank" would still make noise, especially when it shot you. "Invisible troops" would be even harder to work with, doors would open by themselves and all those orders of the sergeants would be very audible. This doesn't mean you can't have invisible tanks / ships / planes, it just means that not being seen doesn't make you undetectable.

C. Very Fast Troops
NationStates is a big place. You might have a large army, but if it's all on one side of the world fighting in one war, it can't suddenly appear on the other side of the world fighting in another war. In other words, your battalions can only be in one place at once. Transporting troops takes time, moving ships takes time, setting up bases and moving supplies takes time.

As a random note, war threads where troops are being deployed should ideally start with troops being readied for combat rather than departing [or worse, arriving] on the first post. It gives your opponent time to prepare, spy on you, and do all those other things that happen in real-life.

D. Military Involvement with Nations NOT Bordering You
You cannot directly invade a nation that doesn’t border you. There has to be a way to get there, whether it be with transports, airdrops, or permission to march through another nations’ territory. You cannot just say that your troops arrived at their border and are invading. That, in itself, is a godmode, coinciding with the “Very Fast Troops” explanation.

3. Acts of God
The cheapest godmode tactic of them all -- invoking God. Surely there is nothing more repugnant than that, especially to those of us who -are- religious. This is a game. God has better things to do with His time than intercede in someone's RPing. This doesn't mean you can't have characters who are minor or even major Gods, it means you cannot simply say 'God smites you because he's on our side!' as a response to an attack. 'S cheesy beyond mortal comprehension.

The Space-Time Continuum and God-Moding
Just because your country zips around in flying saucers and comes from another planet doesn't mean it's invincible. Despite the fact that there are multiple techs, it is still possible to have a war between such nations. It’s going to be a lot harder than having a war with someone within your tech range, but if you can pull it off, it’ll look great.

Future-tech vs. Present-tech
What's to stop an M-16, well-aimed, from knocking out all sorts of important bits of androids?

Future-tech vs Past-tech
Even a catapult could do some sort of damage. Ditto a crossbow bolt - they're still effective murder weapons today.

Present-tech vs Past-tech
If your castle's being shelled by tanks, try to tip some boiling oil over them. Crude, and only successful if the tank is charging your castle, but hey, you gotta do what you gotta do. Again, bow and arrows on the castle walls is very effective, although, the armor that present-tech may have could probably stop majority of the shots. Just aim for the head *wink*. It’s still very possible though, especially when it comes to close combat.

Guide to New Players

Definitions and Explanations
There are many many terms in Nation States that may look confusing, as if we made up our own language of some sort. Well…we did, and here’s a link to it. Sirocco did an amazing job in creating it. It wouldn’t feel right copying and pasting, because I’d feel like I’m taking all of that work as mine, so here’s the link:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=281050



Creating a New Region
To create a new region, log in to your nation and go the current region page. Near the top of this page it says "Tired of life in [region]? Move [nation] to a new region today." or something to that effect. Click that link. This will take you to a new page, with two fill in boxes. The first is for finding an existing region to move to. In the second, you type the name for your region you wish to create, and hit the create the region button. The region will be created and your nation will be moved to it. For more on regional play, see the 'Gameplay' forum.

Country Ratings
These are intended as a guide so you know about where your country stands, as far as its laws are concerned, in relation to other countries only.

UN Categories

Left-Wing Utopia
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise
Iron Fist Socialists
Civil Rights Lovefest
Left-Leaning College State
Liberal Democratic Socialists
Libertarian Police State
Democratic Socialists
Corrupt Dictatorship
Anarchy
Capitalizt
New York Times Democracy
Benevolent Dictatorship
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy
Tyranny By Majority
Father Knows Best State
Authoritarian Democracy
Psychotic Dictatorship
Corporate Bordello
Capitalist Paradise
Conservative Democracy
Compulsory Consumerist State
Moralistic Democracy
Iron Fist Consumerists
Free Market Paradise
Right-Wing Utopia
Corporate Police State

(RT)Economic -----------Political Freedoms----Civil Rights(-- )
(15)Frightening---------Corrupted------------Widely Abused
(14)All-Consuming-----Widely Abused-------Frightening
(13)Powerhouse-------Excessive -------------Excessive
(12)Thriving-------------World Benchmark----World Benchmark
(11)Very Strong--------Superb-----------------Superb
(10)Strong--------------Excellent---------------Excellent
(09)Good----------------Very good-------------Very Good
(08)Fair------------------Good-------------------Good
(07)Reasonable--------Average---------------Average
(06)Developing---------Below Average------Below Average
(05)Struggling----------Some------------------Some
(04)Weak----------------Few--------------------Few
(03)Fragile---------------Rare-------------------Rare
(02)Basket Case-------Unheard Of-----------Unheard Of
(01)Imploded-----------Outlawed-------------Outlawed

The Effects of War
Wars on your soil damage your infrastructure and economy in ways not quantified by the game in NS1. Wars abroad typically cost lots of money. Keep that in mind, for those of you who are frequent warmongers. Mobilizing troops, tanks, artillery, planes, etc, takes a surprising amount of money each time you do it. Be careful about how you do it as well, especially for you younger nations out there. Your first action being a mobilization, is definitely not recommended. Other things that’ll cost you money is keeping your mechanized military up-to-date, and refurbished. You can’t just let it sit in the shop, its gotta be checked every now and then for problems, and tested out. Don’t forget the amount of supplies each soldier will need too. They’ll obviously need food, water, and for those of you out there who take things safe, gas masks, and things like that [do not mistake this for needing to KNOW the exact amounts].


Weapons in Your Nation
When selling/inventing weapons... keep the specs reasonable, as well as the cost.

Example: If you claim you can sell a fighter jet for around $1M USD at any sort of profit, it obviously can't be a topline modern fighter... small old fighters like the F-5 Eagle come to mind.


If your equipment is 'cutting edge' - ie it's at the very top of whatever tech bracket you place yourself in - then you need to boost how much it costs you. Also note that how much the contracting costs your government will vary according to the cost of labor in your country; the rate at which you can build new weapons will vary according to how much industry your country has. For some countries, particularly a number that have no close real world equivalent and few factories, manufacturing may be largely done by humans, or sometimes even individual craftsmen; in others, it is entirely mechanized. The most efficient method varies wildly from state to state.

When buying weapons... remember the above, and additionally remember that the manufacturer may be over-reporting the specs slightly. That top speed of 700mph for your new bomber may have been clocked relative to the ground with a hurricane strength tail wind, and only the pilot and a quarter tank of fuel on board - no cargo, no payload, no copilot, no guns, etc. In other words, feel free to scale down other people's ludicrous specs when you buy their equipment if you're not happy using it 'as-is.'

When selling supplies try to keep in mind real world prices. You may be able to undersell this by a significant amount, or oversell to gullible or desperate countries, but it's a good marker to look at.

Even if they gave it to you... it still costs money to maintain. It may be dirt cheap to man it if you're a communist state, and easy to find skilled operators if you're well educated, but the nuclear subs won't work if you don't have a source of uranium, which is expensive. So is new ordinance to replace the stuff you fired off during the last war on Tuesday.

Stealth matters: the F-22 is much less visible to other aircraft, BUT IT IS STILL VISIBLE ON RADAR, much like the way the B-52 Stratofortress is very visible but a B-1 Lancer is LESS visible.

The F-117A is slow (sub-Mach 1), carries no gun, has no radar (it can only pick up fighters with IR sensors maybe 5 miles away), and carries maybe two reasonable-sized laser-guided bombs.

The F-22 is nowhere near as stealthy. For one, it has that massive heat signatures from the engines- the F-117A has cooling jets to reduce the signature. It has a radar and gives off a big electromagnetic signature, and enemies can know there's an F-22 around from the radar signature. The shape, while stealthy, is not perfect at all and is only moderately stealthy to radar. And it carries just 8 missiles.



Economy vs. Military
Sometimes, a lousy economy is entirely due to too much military spending. When in doubt, refer to (if possible) a nation's per capita military spending ranking. Poorer nations often have armies that are more effective for their money, but typically less potent in absolute terms. This means you cannot simply say 'I have a bigger economy, so my army should be bigger than yours.'

As an extreme example, an entire population could have cheap assault rifles, have no permanent home, and exist as nomadic raiders. In which case, you don't have much of an infrastructure to manufacture stuff with.

Try to stay in line with your government type. A democracy would be allowed to do a war every week, but don't expect that candidate to be elected when the next elections come. A oppressive psychotic dictatorship would not have its citizens willingly marching into someone else's country with AK-47's just because the Grand Poobah said so. An anarchist government would not even have an organized military, seeing as there isn't anyone to oversee it. It would be composed of militias, created by the people themselves.


Government Ideals
Democracy- Form of government in which government officials are elected by the people.
PROS: Tends to have high evils of political freedoms, good but privately owned infrastructure, moderate sized volunteer armies.
CONS: The people can remove people they don't like from office. People tend to be leery of war and grow ever more dissenting the longer the country is in a state of war.

EX: United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Japan, ect.

Theocracy- Government by the religious institutions of the country.
PRO: Populace tend to have fanatical dedication to the government, large military force.
CONS: Tend to be monarchies or puppet democracies. Secular governemnts tend to frown upon them as terrorist or irresponsible states..

EX: Israel, Saudi Arabia, Syrian Arab Republic, Kuwait, Iraq, ect...

Dictatorship: The people are ruled by a single person or group of persons. Is often the most versatile form of government as it can include elements from any other forms of government. Can have elected dictators ((think of Naboo from SW:TPM)) or a dictator which appoints a council to aide him, ect.
PROS: Can have high levels of population support [unlikely for non-benevolent dictatorships], low to no unemployment, Huge militaries (you're a dictator, the people do what you say or else.. mwhaha.. anyway percents vary here depending on the size of your country, economic and infrastructure base, and amount of populace in the acceptable age range.
CONS: Can have low levels of population support. Can have bad infrastructure and high crime ((depending on how well the populace like you)).


Of course that is simplified but most of the governments ((except anarchy)) are some form of those three or a combination of them. Notes on why I gave the percents for fighting force:

Democracy: Military is volunteer based and populace grows disconcerted at huge numbers of military. Although, if the large force still consists of all volunteer forces, it isn't likely that the populace will get upset. It's when a draft is instated, that the people get uneasy.

Theocracy: military is both volunteer AND forced, people however are fanatically devoted to cause and are often willing to declare holy war against their enemies. However, the belief in holy blessing for their cause may lead to poor tactics in combat, since their Generals may believe they will win regardless of what they do or that their enemy are weak from corruption and will fall easily.

Dictatorship: Military is forced or selected so it's at will, populace can either be fanatically devoted or not or somewhere in between. What really counts here is how much importance you place in other areas and you could put the leftovers into military ((note the term military THROUGHOUT this post is defined as: combat troops, offices, pilots, naval officers/crew, support personnel, relevant government officials, anyone employed in the sole manufacture, storage, or transport of military goods, an anyone working for the military as defined.)) and then use real word statistics to figure out the individual areas so overall combat troops might only be like 4-9% depending.


Again, the key to not godmoding is to be consistent, think about your form of government AND use your country (give it a history where it came from ect..). Your country is an advantage. If you mix fantasy with role-playing and say your populace JRR Tolkiens' Elves then your military numbers could get a boost (Tolkiens; elves can't die or be affected by disease or old age) and effectiveness increases because of their natural abilities. Just remember to be consistent and within the bounds of the RW or the world you set your nation in. Some people will ignore anything out of the ordinary, but that's something you'll have to live with.

Deploying huge fleets at a moment's notice is one of the more bizarre feats of wankery a player can do, because it involves assuming that your fleet is at DEFCON 1 at all times. Care to say how long the economy of a developed nation could stand up to that?

The Indefatigable Army.
Ok, so you've just conscripted your huge (but not too huge) army from your reservists. You've sent them to fight, they arrive in reasonable time, and then you go and screw it up by having them all act like Space Marines. Think about it: how much of your army is career soldiers and how much is petrified civil servants who just want to go home? Your army will start to lose hope if they're being absolutely hammered in some foreign land for reasons they can barely remember. Writing from their perspective makes RP more interesting to read.

Completely Discounting an Opponent
'I attack you. You're small, I'm big. I win.'
'That was fun...'

Ok, with superior numbers and weaponry you'll probably have a fairly one-sided fight, but you shouldn't just assume your enemy will be a walkover. Remember, you're on your enemy's home turf and they're fighting for their homes and families. They won't roll over and die just like that. SPR is not real and you can't beat an enemy by throwing troops at his machine gun nests in the hope he'll eventually run out of ammunition. Anything can happen really, when it comes to role playing. A smaller nation can drive out a larger nation through superior tactics, and overall superior role playing. It's difficult and horribly costly, but it can be done.

Nothing is Perfect
That goes for your tanks that never break down, your troops that never give up, your NMD that never misses. Adding in things like this during a battle/war would make it much more realistic.

Not Looking Before You Leap
Ex: 'I send a fleet to your nation.'
'Err...The only port we have comes in bottles...'

ASK. If you're going to war with someone, ask for a basic breakdown of their nation's appearance, size and military strength. It is understandable for a nation to have classified information when it comes to military, but all of it shouldn't be. One thing that needs to be stressed is the fact that in order to set up an aggressive war with someone, both nations need to know the other nations’ terrain [or the area of operations if the war isn't fought on either country's home soil]. Without that, then how will you know where to invade?

Untraceable (Terrorist Nation/Group)
It’s one thing to make your nation into an organized terrorist organization, and have cells around the world that are hard to detect [assuming that the nations the cells are in agree to the presence of your terror cells beforehand], but when it’s a nation itself that is hosting this terror org, it’s not impossible to see.
East Ying
Member of the Socialist Council
Member of the Gallican Communist Party
WA member
DEFCON: 3
REGION:Gallican
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Mediterranean-Pacific Empire
Member Avatar
Head RPAG Administrator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The Ultimate Guide to War

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OOC: I have noticed that there isn't a really thorough guide to warfare, so being II's resident warmonger ( ), I've decided to go through it step by step for not only the new RPers, but everyone.

Alrighty, here it is.....

East Ying presents,

The Ultimate Guide toWAR


+++++++++++++++++

Q: Um...where is the 'declare war' button?

A: There isn't. War on NationStates is entirely role play, there is no actual game engine that makes war. What is that you may ask? Make believe story telling, plain and simple. NS war can be fought in a few ways, and many NSers have their own style they like to use:

1. War based on story

There are some RPers out there (myself included) who choose to fight wars based almost entirely on story, IE: the sights, the sounds, the taste, and the touch of battle. There are the people who sometimes enjoy going into great length to paint the picture of a battle scene, and technical stats of weapons are not a big concern.

2. War based on tech/stats

There are other RPers who enjoy fighting wars based on technical specs and stats of their weapons, and sometimes enjoy going into great detail to make sure their weapons (and how they employ them) are as realistic as possible. Focus on the story is still there, but tactics and stats are of more importance to these RPers.

Which style is the best style? That is for you to decide. Not everyone plays on the same level (IE: Modern tech, future tech, fantasy, and so on), so it is important to 'scout out' a potential opponent before fighting them, this way you know what you will be facing.

Q How do I make a military?

A: Simple. While there is no fixed number as to what size your military can be, generally it is around .5% to 5% of your population. There is no 'create army' button you press.

Generally most armies don't have more than a few million men total, including reserves, support, medics, ground pounders, etc. This number can depend on how strong your economy is and how big your population is

Simply take your population and divide it by the percentage you want. Remember, a military cannot function soley with infantry. You need mechanics, medics, support, officers, etc. Just like in real life (even though NS is NOT real life).

Q: Ok, I want to go to war! What do I do?

A: Well, first off you have to get a few things down before you rush off to battle. Some things you should think of before you attack another nation are:

Why are you attacking that nation? What did they do to warrant a strike by your military?
Do you have any sort of military to even strike anybody?

Let us examine the first question, why are you attacking?

GOOD REASONS FOR WAR

1. Attack on your nation/territory

Naturally this is grounds for war. If a hostile fleet moves into your waters or if (for example) a missile is launched or bombs are dropped into your territory, you may want to use diplomatic pressure or some other means first. This will may sway others to your banner if you make an honest effort to avoid war.

However, depending on how you want to play you may handle it differently. Some people would make an effort to avoid a potentially costly and devastating war, others would jump at the first chance to deal a little death. In the end it's all up to how you play.

2. Attack on an ally

This is cause #2 for war. Because of vast friendships on NationStates, war for this reason is very common. As an ally of a nation, you may feel obligated to defend them, and that is understandable. But you do not need to make all of your allies business your business. You have a nation to run as well, you can't alway rush off to protect your 4 dozen allies (or how ever many you have). But that's not to say you can't aid your allies. Sending weapons, ammo, money, equipment can be just as effective as sending your own soldiers.

Political and moral support can acutally avert an entire war, and I should know because I've done it myself. Experiment and find a style that suits you.


3. Human rights violations

This is International Incident's favorite past time. Mass murder, genocide, enslavement, and other such things all fall under this category. While many nations in I.I love to frequently abuse human rights, there are still a few 'good' nations out there who are willing to risk it all to defend the innocent.

Declaring war for a human rights violation is a delicate thing. Most of the time with enough political pressure and some light to moderate threat of force, you can usually stop human rights violations.

4. WMD possession

This reason is slightly exaggerated. A nation has the right to possess WMD, and use it when neccessary. BUT, if they go around gassing neighbor nations for giggles, then there may be a problem (but again, DIPLOMACY FIRST). Simply possessing, buying, or selling WMD is not sufficiant grounds for war...BUT abuse may be. Each situation is unique.



BAD REASONS FOR WAR

1. His leader insulted mine!

So what? If you rush off to war for this reason, you need to grow a thicker skin. As absurd as it seems, I've seen war erupt for this reason. Insults happen, don't take it personally. Remember "sticks and stones"? Declaring war because challenges are being issued is one thing, but declaring war because his leader called your leader a mean name is another.

2. I want his land!

Being imperialistic is generally frowned upon. Unless justified and well RPed, simply "wanting" somebody else's territory will generally land you in the Smackdown Hotel. Frequent imperialism may also be viewed as warmongering.

Warmongering: One who advocates or attempts to stir up war.


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

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

4. I want to rule teh world!!!1111Shift+1

For one thing, you can't. NationStates has over 130,000 nations. Do you think your military, even your ENTIRE population for that matter, can conquer that many people? It is entirely impossible.

Also, you can't declare war on the Jolt forums, the moderators or the UN*, sorry.

* The UN is a game function, and is NOT an actual organized alliance.

5. He said my mom was fat!

NEVER, EVER DECLARE WAR FOR OOC (Out Of Character) REASONS!!! I don't care if your friend was being a jerk at school, that's not a good reason to declare war, forget about it. This is one of the things that kills good war RPs, when Out Of Character and In Character feels mix together.

If you plan on being taken seriously in NS, DO NOT allow IC and OOC feelings and attitudes to cross.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Q: Ok, I have a good and valid reason to declare war, what do I do now?

A:: This is where it gets tricky. I will walk through this as best as I can.

Create a thread stating your case OR moving your troops into position. This depends on whether or not you want your attack to be a 'surprise' or not. Good writing is essential to your cause, not just 'OMFG LOLZ!!11 I declare war on j00!'
In this thread, describe what you will be using to engage your enemy and where it is going. It is GODMODDING to have your troops magically appear inside your opponents territory.
When you actually begin to fight, make sure you take your fair share of losses. Nobody wants to 'lose' to anyone, but if your troops are being pounded by artillery, you're probably going to lose more than 1.
Tactics are a big help no matter if you choose to RP using just story or tech elements. If your troops are being slaughtered by the enemy, try falling back and pulling up reserves. Although NationStates is NOT real life by any means, real life logic and tactics can help you in a pinch.
If it looks like you will end up victorious, begin to close out the RP. If your foe wants to surrender, begin to work out the exact terms. If your opponent wants to fight to the death, then continue fighting until nobody is left to stand in your way.
Once you have won, you may either pull out or occupy your newly conquered territory. Again, some sort of collaboration with the other party helps a lot, because there is NO such thing as 'losing' in NationStates, and nobody wants to be occupied by a foreign army forever.
If it looks like you might lose, you need to decide how far you are willing to go before you finally call it a day. Do you want to surrender early and spare extreme damage to your country and economy, or do you want to fight to the death? This, again, is your choice.

Here are some example posts on how to RP a war.

Pantera:

As the first wave of Reavers hit the shoreline, the smoking forests beyond came alive with machine gun fire. The turrets aboard the transports began a thick covering fire, burt were forced to cease as their men gained the top of the bank and began the scramble through briar and branch.

An artillery shell slammed into the bank just as the Evenstar's transport slid onto the sand. The jolt lifted one side of his transport and tossed it a full quarter turn. Men screamed and cursed as the doors slid open and allowed a gushing torrent of water into the hold. Dayne himself screamed for them to abandon ship and dove headlong into the sea. The water was deep and the weight of armor, rifle and sword pulled many down, but a fair number reached the shore, among them the Evenstar, soaked but raging for blood.

At least two thousand of his men were ashore, half of them already plunging into the shadows of the forest. Bursts of firing sliced down many of the advancing force, but soon these halted, and the beachead was gained.

Firing a flair to rally his force, the Evenstar made to push deeper into the forest. Sending out seven advance parties of sixty men each, he formed his men up into a marching vanguard, and set off into a four mile stretch of forest, before tree and bush thinned into the plain of the island interior.

Two Hours Later...

By the time the Evenstar's force emerged fromt he forests, the guerilla raiding of the rebels had taken its toll, and he was raging mad. Before him stretched the plain of Teralus, a large black streak that was the highway snaking through the green of the grasses, a few thickets dotting the landscape that doubtless held a unit of rebels or a mortar crew.

Some six miles distant was the airport. Even from this distance he could see a few planes landing and taking off, refuelling after a patrol. However, none seemed to be eager to attack them, obviously afraid to lose their only air power.

The thought of aircraft took his thoughts to Azrael, and his fortunes with the AA installations. So far he had fierce resistance, but not the full force of the rebels. Five hundred of his men were dead, at least twice that on the rebel side. Hopefully Azrael was doing as well. He ached to call in his bombers aboard the carriers, sitting along the shoreline and waiting for his order. However, he would wait for word from Azrael. Radio silence would be preserved until the boy's confirmation that the installations had been destroyed or taken.


East Ying:
The sound of battle could be heard at Azrael's LZ, and he noticed that Reaver entrenchments along the shore began shifting somewhat towards the initial fighting. This ended however as the covering fire from the Panteran fleets rained in. Azrael looked nervous, but the men around him helped calm his nerves. Simply looking at their stone cold faces was assurance enough that he would be just fine. Alright men, stay with me. We need to take this beach and kill their AA batteries. Let's squash these vermin once and for all. Azrael shifted to the head of the transport, and as the gate fell Azrael rushed out with his gun blazing. He immediatly took a round to his left arm and went down as the Reavers and his Sentinel entourage stormed the beach. Azrael was disappointed in himself, for he had been hit before the battle even began. He felt his face turning red, and his jet black eyes began steaming. He stood back to his feet and charged as fast as his body could carry him. The Reavers hit the beach with great ferocity and began rapidly pouring he heat onto the heathens entrenched near the beach. A nearby explosion forced Azrael into a trench alonside a few of his Sentinels and a massive gang of Reavers.

He looked to his left and noticed that his two Death Dealers were standing straight up firing their .50 cals like madmen, and flinching not when they took hits. 7 hits he counted on one of the Death Dealers, but still the creature did not flinch. Azrael stood to his feet and threw a grenade in front of him and then ordered his Reavers out of the trenches. They gave him a questioning eye, but Azrael did not have time to wait. Climbing above the trenchline Azrael raced towards the enemy's line, firing his weapon in all directions. The Reavers that followed him were brutally cut down by the hail of gunfire, but followed Azrael regardless.

The landing was somewhat successful, although the landing Reavers took many losses, and hundreds of bodies lay lifeless on the sands. Azrael had been too headstrong, and now his forces were depleated. His Death Dealers were fine, and 3 of his Sentinels lay dead. The Sentinel Stalkers were fine though, although one of them took a small hit to the leg. Azrael dove into another trench and found an enemy Reaver struggling to clear his jammed weapon. Azrael fired a 3 round burst into his side, but then discovered that his weapon was empty. He discarded it and drew out his sword, sending it's sharp blade into the chest of the Reaver. He howled in pain as Azrael contined stabbing and chopping until the screams subsided, but he remained unrelenting. Azrael screamed and howled as he continued to chop and dice the now obviously dead Reaver, and it took 4 of his own Sentinels to pry his off the carcass. Nothing but chooped meat and broken bone lay in a very bloody pile, and Azrael himself was quite drenched int he crimson fluid as well.

He gathered himself, not taking time to wipe the massive amount of blood that covered his entire body. Form up, we need to hit their AA installations fast. The Reavers were unsure what to think of the lad.

Pantera:

From a small rise a mile or so off, the Evenstar watched a fist of his Reavers swarm a dense thicket of trees, a few tumbling and not rising as a stream of small arms fire bursts from inside the thicket. The mortar crew hidden in the trees had been giving him grief the past hour, and he had finally ordered it taken.

When his Reavers fired a flare to show they had successfully swept the thicket, the Evenstar ordered his men forward. Half an hour before he had been blessed and had overtaken a small convoy enroute to Dregon, the main city of the island. Along with several tankers of fuel, the Evenstar siezed three mobile SAM sites and a large flatbed trailer filled with mortars, making a rough, lumbering mobile platform. This he destroyed, but he brought the mobile SAM's along with him, and these kept the enemy aircraft at a safe distance.

Still, though, he was forced to wait on his airstrike.

What the fuck is that welp up to?

East Ying:

Azrael was stunned after receiving the gunshot wound, but he had somehow managed to lead his battered unit across the beach head. Although the skirmish had been won, the battle was far from over. He glanced down at his watch and noticted that he was running dreadfully late, and Dayne was probably expecting the damn fight to be over by now. Azrael raised his bloodied sword above his head and rallied his Reavers to his side. His face was veiled in a deep crimson mask, and his jet black eyes steamed as he looked about his ranks and examined his numbers. At least a thousand were dead, and probably half of that were wounded. Regardless of taking heavily losses and undaunted by the chirps of sporadic gunfire, Azrael captured some nearby artillery pieces and ordered the Reavers to begin shelling the location of the AA guns. The bores of the guns exploded to life, and Azrael gathered his battle torn forces and pressed on. The AA site was near, and smoke began rising from it's location as the Reaver's new toys began unleashing upon the heathen defenders.

Along the road Azrael encountered several small pockets of heavy machine guns supported by pairs of snipers. Azrael knew the best strategy was to simply pour on more heat and continue on, and that he did. As more of his Reavers were cut down by enemy fire, Azrael continued his perilous advance. The AA pieces were now in sight, and Azrael radioed new coordinated to the Reaver artillery crews. Under suppressive fire the Reavers decended onto the defensive positions around the AA as raging waves decend on a beach. Azrael's Reavers began raining mortar and MGL (multiple grenade launcher) fire on the nearest defensive pockets, then began gradually walking the fire backwards. With the artillery pieces firing at the rear of the entrenched position and Azrael hitting the front, soon the center of the enemy Reaver defenses would be surrounded by lots and lots of dead bodies.

The raid went successful, and in typical AMF and Panteran fashion, the assault was finalized by a massive charge. Azrael employed a Sentinel battle tactic whereas three quarters of the rushing force pass their ammo to their back men, and the back men would lay down massive covering fire. With artillery and mortar support, the enemy Reavers had no choice but to hide their heads, and upon doing so Azrael ordered a charge. With his Reavers charging onward with intense fire support from their back men, the Reavers were able to swiftly and somewhat easily overrun the enemy's position.....in mere minutes. Azrael then wasted no time in placing satchel charges on the AA site and detonating them, a sign to Dayne that his task was accomplished.




Q: Thanks, are there any alternatives to war?

A: Of course.

OPTIONS IN PLACE OF WAR

Diplomacy: The art or practice of conducting international relations, as in negotiating alliances, treaties, and agreements... Tact and skill in dealing with people.
Compromise: A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions. (I'll back down if you will)
Sanctions: A coercive measure adopted usually by several nations acting together against a nation violating international law. (If you launch another nuke, there will be problems)
Compliance: (Alright, I'll cut back on my VX, just don't attack me)
Threat of force: (Look, if you invade, the ABCDE Alliance will step in. )
Sever all ties with the nation (You know what, I'm not trading nor interacting with your naton again. Good Day.)

CONSEQUENCES OF WAR

War can have serious consequences, which for the most part are generally ignored on NS. Every time you attack someone, you make yourself more vulnerable to attack yourself. If you fight frequently, your troops are going to get tired and disgruntled. If your economy is bad, it's probably going to get worse.

Face it, setbacks do happen, and frequent or long wars can be a strain on any nation. I don't care if you're the most powerful one around, if you attack a different nation every single day, your country is going down the gutter.

Warring with certain nations can also have different consequences. Fighting a nation that's larger, better equiped, more experienced, etc, may effect your troops morale. Also, remember that defenders tend to fight harder, for it is their homes they are fighting for (Although a lot of the time civilians tend to leave areas that are about to be attacked. Not everyone is willing to die). Also, remember that supplies are crucial to your war effort.

You don't honestly think your tanks can drive without gas, do you? Can your troops shoot without ammo? Can your trucks drive with no tires? ALOT of people forget about these things, so you need to rememeber that supplies are critical. If your supply lines are attacked, then your troops will be in trouble. Granted, you don't really have to RP EVERY single supply you send, but every once in awhile casually indicate that more shipments to your bases and or troops are being made.

Also, war can have diplomatic consequences as well. Some nations may frown upon you for frequently choosing the sword over the pen. Expect this to happen if you go off to war too frequently and for the wrong reasons.
East Ying
Member of the Socialist Council
Member of the Gallican Communist Party
WA member
DEFCON: 3
REGION:Gallican
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Mediterranean-Pacific Empire
Member Avatar
Head RPAG Administrator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
[size=7]DO NOT POST[/size]
East Ying
Member of the Socialist Council
Member of the Gallican Communist Party
WA member
DEFCON: 3
REGION:Gallican
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Mediterranean-Pacific Empire
Member Avatar
Head RPAG Administrator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Throughout history logistics has been the driving force behind all armies, great and small, famous and infamous. Alexander the Great could not have conquered the known world without logistics, and Napoleon couldn't have terrorized Europe without logistics, and consequently, just as is impacts the real world logistics, and the problems that are attached to it, concern the World at War just as much. So, this text is offered to all world at war players in order to explain, as best as possible, what logistics are in a fully professional manner.

Napoleon is quoted to say, "An army marches on its stomach," and he is not far from the truth. Every single person who marches with your army, wether a front line soldier, a combat engineer or a measly cook must be fed, at the very least a single meal a day. For those that wish for one hundred percent combat effectiveness this number rises to just around three meals a day. Just as humans eat food vehicles eat gasoline, and so they too must be periodically resupplied with the essentials to run. So, it becomes an early realization that an uninturrupted stream of essential supplies is absolutely necessary during both peace and war. Failure to do so will seal the fate of your army, and doom its success. A list of essential needs of an army are: Rations, water, petroleum, spare parts to armaments, new uniforms, pay, etc, etc.

So, the next question is obvious. How do you ensure this constant flow of goods and services? Well, good luck finding the answer - the geniuses of war throughout history have spent their lives looking for it, and failed. However, their are ways to improve it and give it just about 97% effeciency. For example, when Alexander the Great was returning from the Indus Valley he used naval vessels to run along the coast, port to port, supplying his army by sea - although it didn't work too well as he lost the majority of his army crossing the desert - during the past two thousand years human beings have improved on ship designs and such an idea would most likely succeed nowadays. The most straightforward way of making sure your army does not suffer shortages during combat is to make sure your rear is always clear and open. To ensure this you must be able to always keep your lines closed, or else an enemy armored, or mechanized, force could easily roll into the rear echelon and ruin your front line's day. You also want to make sure that when you're in enemy territory to keep a security force to supress any attempted raids, ambushes, or general insurrections against your logistical highways. Other ways is to armor your logistical trucks and other vehicles and arm the men on them so they can defend themselves - however, this is both expensive and excessive. Furthermore, you need to make sure you use good roads, and you must have alternative routes, such as railways or by air. All of them suffer their own disadvantages, but a coalition of all of them might just work.

Now, realistically, taking in mind logistical problems, what's a realistic number for your military? Well, in times of total war, meaning a complete draft - as in you're about to get your ass kicked and you need men fast - 5% is the absolute maximum you should go - anything else you'll have so many men in the military your economy won't be able to supply them even in total war. For anything other than that it's pretty much of to you and how much money you want to spend for your war. Most nations use 1% to 2% of their total population for peace time/normal war circumstances.

Now, 2% of your population doesn't mean that all of those are front line troops. Included in that percentage are logistical personnel - meaning, engineers, cooks, janitors, drivers, etc - and realistically the front line personnel to logistical personnel ratio is anywhere from 1:7 to 1:11, however, for all intents and purposes on this RolePlay a ratio is 1:7 is sufficient and is advised - most of the better RolePlayers use this as their logistical ratio. Some claim that the United States has a ratio of 1:4. Until Agnosticium personally tells me that number is correct I won't buy it, so don't count on passing with that.

Now, just as important, your logistical personnel require logistics too. Yea, it's a pain in the butt having so much logistics - logistics, logistics, logistics - but, if you plan to have any sort of success you better count on logistics. So, in short, those truck drivers also require some kibbles and bits, so take that into account also. Additionally, the trucks you use to supply your armies require gasoline also, so that's also a major concern for logistics.

If you want to look truly proffessional in your writings always include logistics with utmost precision and the most accurate degree of detail in order to make sure your enemy knows you mean business and have a legitimate logistical system to get you to his capital. Meaning, if you fire two thousand missiles explain why and how - this saves later confusion and a lot of unecessary out of character bickering. So, solve the problem before it comes up.

Important logistical cases that some people tend not to pay attention to are amphibious landings, offensive operations into enemy territory, and aerial operations. All of these require a bit more than normal combat operations and this must be explained in detail.

Amphibious Operations
At a certain point in a war you may want to assault an enemy coastline, as it is your only offensive option at the given time, and consequently you're provided with a stretch of beach, and some landing craft. In all respects amphibious operations require you to ship your soldiers to sea and to the general area, which provide you with two logistical situations, the resupply at sea, and the twofold complication of supplying your men on land. Both of these will be dealt with in the following paragraphs in as much detail as my poor brain can stand - I do get tired of writing these you know.

Supply at sea is not as easy as you think. It's not as simple as driving to the line and dropping off some crates or having a big jumbo military jet paradrop boxes full of equipment and supplies. What is required are supply ships, which should not have to shuffle between your fleet in a continous stream, less they suffer horrible casualties at the hands of enemy raiders. It does require, though, that your fleet starts out from port with sufficient logistical vessels to carry what you're going to need for the upcoming operations, and to guestimate that you're going to need to actually sit down and plan out your strategy instead of typing it out of your ass - meaning, you're going to have to measure the distance between you and your enemy, the number of days you think your fleet will be in combat operations before enemy ports are captured, and the number of ships and men your fleet contains. All of these are relatively easy and should be dealt with in a hefty explenation in your first post. Sometimes, though, plans go awry and you're forced to swifty change to plan B. When plan B comes up you're probably going to need to organize large shipping convoys that sail in groups to your fleet with the resources necessary, and this may mean that you're going to have to set up multiple convoys and that convoys are going to have to sail back and forth as fast as possible. To ensure this the same basic rules as in ground operations apply, you want to keep your rear open, and you want to assign security forces to your convoys - that's why they sail in convoys.

Now, once your men start landing on the beaches you're presented with two different logistical scenarios - the fleet logistics and the ground logistics. Once your men are in combat operations they're going to need up to two or ten times the amount of goods as before, as they're going to be moving around quite frequently, even if you're not exactly advancing. Shuffling forces from one side of the front to the other requires fuel and food, and that fuel and food don't grow on trees - well the food does, but I doubt there are a lot of cherry trees on a beach. Additionally, your men don't secure sporadic supply dumbs when they first land like in Battlefield 1942 - those simply don't exist because I guess one day a general said, "Hmph, every time they land on the beach they take that damn supply dumb." Yea, damn that general, I know. Because of him you're forced to ferries supplies from the fleet to the beach - so the same rules apply... keep your rear open and assign security forces - again, men eat food - or if you're really, really, lucky your men will eat dirt.

Offensive Operations
When you enter enemy territory the enemy population rarely welcomes you as their new king, and gives you a golden crown hoping that they can give you a lap dance and return home without further ado. They normally raise arms and fire a couple of thousand shells into your army until you kill them. So, quickly put, when your army occupies towns and cities you're going to get a lot of insurrection and partisan action, which is going to danger your logistical supply routes, perhaps mortally.

For example, Soviet partisans were the main reason why the Werhmacht was unable to made quick advances along long axis, and was one of the major causes for the eventual German defeat. Tanks without spare parts aren't happy tanks, and unhappy tanks don't win wars.

That's pretty much it for this topic. Ah yes, one more thing. Roads in enemy countries aren't your roads, and sometimes your roads might be better than theirs - meaning, your trucks are accostumed to run on concrete, not on concrete with potholes, or sometimes concrete with big mines in it, and other times just mud and dirt. So, keep that in mind.

Aerial Operations
Look guys an aircraft with a ten thousand mile range doesn't mean it can go ten thousand miles straight, it means it can go five thousand miles, and then turn back. So keep that in mind when you go launch planes to bomb halfway accross the world. Also, aircraft require to be refueled, pilots also eat and planes also get pretty banged up. So that's that.

Maintaining Forces
I've noticed that nations have a tendency to have batches of different classes of ordnance for the same type - such as having an Arleigh Burke AEGIS Cruiser and also having a Russian class Cruiser, or an older American class Cruiser. I severely suggest against this, as this forces said nation to provide spare parts for all three different type of weapons - meaning, there's going to be mix ups most likely and you're going to be wasting money trying to produce three things, when you're much better off simply mass producing one. Therefore, I sugggest you standardize your equipment - as in, have one type of MBT, not five, have one type of carrier. That way, when you have to deliver spare parts your logistical personnel in the back only have to worry about one type, so it makes things easier for them, and consequently, makes logistics faster and much more fluid.

If you have trouble standardizing your equipment because you're afraid that only having one type of battleship means that its weaknesses aren't going to be made up by another then make your own equipment incorporated the strengths of both kinds - although the idea of such a thing is plain silly. Nonetheless, choose one, if you don't like either make your own.
East Ying
Member of the Socialist Council
Member of the Gallican Communist Party
WA member
DEFCON: 3
REGION:Gallican
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Mediterranean-Pacific Empire
Member Avatar
Head RPAG Administrator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The Art of Losing

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey everyone, I just wanted to try my hand at a help-thread, and figured this one might be good for everyone. It was probably done before but hasn't been updated or something like that. So here we go


The Art of Losing
As weird as this sounds, yes losing is an art of role play. In order to gain certain things, including respect here you have to role play pretty good, and in order to do that you are bound by NS destiny to lose. We all hate it, sometimes the consequences of losing are so great we don't want to give up, but you will have to eventually or your battleship will be sunk by the mighty I.G.N.O.R.E. cannon. But when there is no hope, here are some tips.

-Make it epic.
Everyone loves a good story, and there is nothing better then a great ending! Not only will this entertain people, but it will gain you respect here.

-Characters are more important then tech
Form a story, let the emotions of the dying overpower the tech and number wanking. In other words, develop characters; go into detail about how the populace feels and such. The more you go into it the more entertaining it is.

-Do the unexpected
When you are about to lose, do the unexpected also known as a plot twist. People always hope for a surprise in a story, and its always best to follow customer orders. Do something like surrender, form a resistance, even nuke yourself (Done that one myself, not recommended however).

Now What?
So what happens then, when your country becomes a colony or whatever there are several things you can do.
-Restart your History
Many nations have done this, however there are better alternatives. It basically means you are to start over.

-Role play the occupation
No nation in RL or in NS, will have the people fly towards the occupiers. There will be resistance, role play it. You never know you might win back your country. If this is the choice it always better to plan things out with the occupier. Find a way to contact him/her.

-Have a good old revolution. Similiar to a resistance movement, the revolution however would take time to occur and organize. This would also include contacting the invading nation on instant messaging asa good ide.

-Develop a way to free your nation, such as a 10 year treaty that will allow you to be a free nation in ten NS years of course if the occupying nation fails to comply with that after "signing" the treaty go to the last two ideas.

Continue to role play
Sure you’ve been taken control of but there are plenty of things you can do. Such as
-Role play like a protectorate, these are nations that are basically self governed colonies. They pay tribute and are the property of the occupying nation. This is though very limiting

-Create a new nation. Some nations do this, but most always have a back-up

-Develop an interesting plot line with the occupying nation. Say something along the lines of the breaking of the former leader, war trials, and stuff like that

Helpful tips on what not to do
-When you lose you lose, there is no denying that. Don’t go back in time, or try god modling your way out of it.
-Don’t get noobish, and launch thousands of nooks at the invading country.
-However don’t just give up, follow the tips and advice displayed here.
-Don’t go tech wanking and expect to win, same thing with dog piling and number wanking. I’ve seen a hundred million pop. take on a coalition that numbered 10 times it’s size.
East Ying
Member of the Socialist Council
Member of the Gallican Communist Party
WA member
DEFCON: 3
REGION:Gallican
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Mediterranean-Pacific Empire
Member Avatar
Head RPAG Administrator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Many nations, sometimes older and more often new, have difficulties correctly estimating the cost of nuclear program and its affordability for them.
Here are some quotes with official figures for the US nuclear program, with my commentary for how to apply them to yours.



Quote:
Since the birth of the atomic weapons program in 1940, a total of $5.5 trillion was spent through 1996, the Washington think tank reports. That is 29 percent of all U.S. military spending and almost 11 percent of all government spending through the 52 years. Total spending with dismantling counts as $5.8 trillion.

- These are, of course, non-adjusted dollars, but the 29% figure works out fine. So both building and maintaining the arsenal of US scale, growing to 30,000 warheads/17 gigatons once, and falling to 10,000, with mean of 16,000 warheads, took about 29% of US budget. Since the budget was mostly constant in spending power, for current dollars, it's $166B/yr, complete with delivery systems, production and maintenance, up to dismantling. Pure maintenance is lower today, but only a fraction is left and new aren't being procured.
Out of GDP of $13 trillion, the budget is $3T, so the nuclear weapon production would be 2.5% of US GDP.

[ Note that GDP is not money, it includes intermediate services and equipment. If you buy $1000 of metal, cut it in shape and resell for $2000, and the buyer welds it into $3000 box, the GDP contribution is $5000 despite only $2000 worth of work done. So you can't just spend GDP like money even with 100% tax. The figure is for reference. ]




Quote:
Making the warheads was relatively inexpensive. Firing, storing and handling them was extremely costly. The 70,000 warheads cost $409.4 billion, only about 7 percent of the total. But thousands of aircraft, submarines, ships, missiles, and a large network of factories, bases and personnel cost $3.241 trillion.

- So average $6 million per warhead procurement. That's a fraction of total cost. Let's keep this figure in mind for the future.
Not all of these are strategic, many are tactical.



Quote:
Submarines took: $320.5 billion for the ballistic-missile submarine program, plus $97 billion for the missiles; $46 billion for the submarine share of naval nuclear propulsion research, development, testing, production, and operations; and $220 billion for attack submarine construction, weapons, and related systems.

...US maintaining 18 medium boomers, used to have 40 small instead. It's for quite hefty cost of 375 billion alone, or 470 with missiles (w/o warheads), so keep that in mind when deciding on platform. That's also why your very best warheads will go to the subs. These subs for US carry up to approx. 3200 small warheads, totaling around $160M/warhead, twice the average cost. Submarines are the most expensive way to base the missiles, costlier than even bomber (except for stealth one), but the most reliable as well.

To protect them, there's $220 billion for a hundred of attack boats, but note that figure is from another source describing procurement (maintenance is separate), and not included in the $5.8T US nuclear program cost.



Quote:
Some 6,135 strategic ballistic missiles were purchased at a cost of $266 billion, as well as 4,680 strategic bombers since World War II at a cost of $227 billion.

- $44M per missile average, $48M per bomber.

Totaling, we got ~$1000B in equipment procurement and $4800B in other costs, like maintenance, R&D, et cetera. The former figure doesn't include bases, equipment only. These will likely add another $1000B.
If, as common for NS, you want to throw together a force in five years (don't hope for less even with foreign help) and forget until needed, then just keep in mind that US-sized program will cost you $2000B one-time investment and $100B from your military budget permanently dedicated to it. Or $500B for five years with $100B in the future.

Considering that US has done quite a bit of waste, the program, if not dismantling anything and cutting off unnecessary projects, would perhaps afford an arsenal of 25,000 warheads, about evenly split between strategic and tactical. Primarily the costs depend on delivery systems.
This variant will include, very roughly, about 5000 warheads on SLBM (20-25 of them), 5000 on ICBM (most MIRV), 5000 bombs complete with bombers, plus 10,000 tactical warheads. All with bases and support, long-term maintenance and resupply of the aging warheads and delivery systems.


Average cost of weapons with delivery systems (complete nuclear force) is therefore $80M per warhead for procurement and $4M/year maintenance and replacement. Note these numbers will only scale well upwards, not downwards.


Postscriptum.

Quote:
Thirteen major U.S. facilities - including Washington state's Bangor submarine base - handle and maintain nuclear weapons, and cover an area larger than Delaware, Rhode Island and the District of Columbia combined.
By one measure, an estimated 700,000 to 800,000 people worldwide have died or will die prematurely from a fatal cancer attributable to fallout from U.S. atmospheric testing.
In the U.S. today, vast areas of land remain severely contaminated. Where cleanup can be accomplished at all, it would require hundreds of billions of dollars and extend to 2070 and beyond.

Quote:
Map of contamination of US by Iodine-135 from nuclear testing at Nevada - for just the primary one of the contaminating isotopes and one of the test sites. Most of US shouldn't worry about X-ray scans in comparison, as one delivers just 0.02 rad. There's no lower threshold for risks increases, though. In Nagasaki and Hiroshima, fetal exposure of over 12 rads was associated with severe mental retardation, with general severity and frequency proportional to the dose, starting from just 1 rad. There are significant areas in US which reach over 10 rads.

Not all costs are monetary. If you aren't prepared to take these costs, don't start the program on your own. Find an ally who will share his program with you.

Don't rush to the other extreme either, buying from random "nooks for noobs" storefront. These things aren't done that way. Only 25% of cost is procurement of all systems, and 75% is their support and maintenance. "Nook shop" won't do it for you. If you don't have your own full-scale program, you need a long-term ally who will assist you, be it on political or commercial basis.
East Ying
Member of the Socialist Council
Member of the Gallican Communist Party
WA member
DEFCON: 3
REGION:Gallican
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Mediterranean-Pacific Empire
Member Avatar
Head RPAG Administrator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
What is Genocide?

'Genocide,’ consisting of the Greek ‘genos’ (race or tribe) plus the Latin ‘cide’ (killing). Many of these definitions assume some level of moral baggage, attempting to widen the definition to cover as many human-made horrors as possible. The word ‘genocide’ in common usage certainly does carry with it a special moral revulsion; but the purpose of different words is to denote fundamentally different phenomena, a purpose defeated at the expense of understanding if a word represents too wide a variety of meanings. Even on the moral front, a definition limited by theory rather than anger helps to illuminate the many facets of evil in the world: after all, is genocide really necessarily more morally reprehensible than mass killing of other types? Although more people are generally killed in a genocide than in another type of massacre, numbers should not inform morality.

The United Nations Genocide Convention, adopted in 1948, defines genocide as any of a list of specific ‘acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such.’ These acts include outright killing and infliction on the group of ‘serious bodily or mental harm [or] conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part,’ as well as the imposition of ‘measures intended to prevent births within the group’ or the forced transfer of group children to other groups.

Let's face it, genocide and mass murder occur in Nationstates very often, more often occuring in International Incidents, seeing as such an event would classify as an "International Incident". One thing that a lot of the people who actually commit is the serious side-effects of the population when a genocide occurs within their nations. In this thread, I'll go over exactly what happens during a genocide, as well as life after the horrible event that happened.

Why Do Genocides Occur?

(Note: I'm not looking for a debate over the specifics of these genocides, only trying to present a point on why they occur)
There are many reasons why genocides occur. I'll use some RL examples. For example, in Germany, the government blamed the economic state of the nation on the Jewish population, and proceeded to take it out on them. Hitler himself had a strong hatred for Jews. The Germans also executed political opponents such as Communists, and went as far as executing gypsies and homosexual men and women. They felt that the Aryan race was destined to be the superior race and they did all that they could to prevent political opponents from taking over.

In the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin wanted the Ukraine to remain a part of the nation, so he developed methods of keeping the country at bay:


Quote:
To Stalin, the burgeoning national revival movement and continuing loss of Soviet influence in the Ukraine was completely unacceptable. To crush the people's free spirit, he began to employ the same methods he had successfully used within the Soviet Union. Thus, beginning in 1929, over 5,000 Ukrainian scholars, scientists, cultural and religious leaders were arrested after being falsely accused of plotting an armed revolt. Those arrested were either shot without a trial or deported to prison camps in remote areas of Russia.

Stalin also imposed the Soviet system of land management known as collectivization. This resulted in the seizure of all privately owned farmlands and livestock, in a country where 80 percent of the people were traditional village farmers.

By mid 1932, nearly 75 percent of the farms in the Ukraine had been forcibly collectivized. On Stalin's orders, mandatory quotas of foodstuffs to be shipped out to the Soviet Union were drastically increased in August, October and again in January 1933, until there was simply no food remaining to feed the people of the Ukraine.

By the spring of 1933, the height of the famine, an estimated 25,000 persons died every day in the Ukraine. Entire villages were perishing. In Europe, America and Canada, persons of Ukrainian descent and others responded to news reports of the famine by sending in food supplies. But Soviet authorities halted all food shipments at the border. It was the official policy of the Soviet Union to deny the existence of a famine and thus to refuse any outside assistance. Anyone claiming that there was in fact a famine was accused of spreading anti-Soviet propaganda. Inside the Soviet Union, a person could be arrested for even using the word 'famine' or 'hunger' or 'starvation' in a sentence.

By the end of 1933, nearly 25 percent of the population of the Ukraine, including three million children, had perished. The Kulaks as a class were destroyed and an entire nation of village farmers had been laid low. With his immediate objectives now achieved, Stalin allowed food distribution to resume inside the Ukraine and the famine subsided. However, political persecutions and further round-ups of 'enemies' continued unchecked in the years following the famine, interrupted only in June 1941 when Nazi troops stormed into the country. Hitler's troops, like all previous invaders, arrived in the Ukraine to rob the breadbasket of Europe and simply replaced one reign of terror with another.

As you can see, the Soviet Union covered it all up, using political schemes to maintain their geographic borders, and thus, the Ukrainian farms which is called the Breadbasket of Europe. Joseph Stalin did anything in his power to maintain as many resources as he possibly could.

The Effects of Genocide on a Populace

The Trauma that the population goes through during and after a genocide is immense. The fact of the matter is that genocide brings fear to every humans' heart, seeing as a group is trying to systematically wipe an entire race/people off of the planet. The psychological effects it has on your brain is enough to completely alter the way a person thinks and the way that they live life, for the rest of their time on Earth. The effects of a genocide, especially after it has occurred is of massive distrust, especially between those who committed the crimes, those who were the targets, as well as those who are citizens of that country. If there is no trust within a specific area, between two groups of people, then clashes are almost inevitable, especially if each is always suspicious of the other group. For example, the Armenians and the Turks still have a large distrust of each other after the genocide that occured. Political relations between Armenia and Turkey have remained cold.

Bringing This into the Nationstates Perspective

Many nations within International Incidents have committed mass murder, along with genocide in their own nations, and continue on as if nothing happened. In Ukraine, the people revolted even more, after the actions of the Soviet Union began taking their effect upon the population. In the event of such a thing occuring within your nation, it is highly unlikely that your entire population will remain calm, and obey their leader. There is bound to be some sort of minority, as well as some sort of political activist group that would protest against such a thing, which has occured in every instance of genocide. The country itself would probably fall into a more unstable setting than before the event, depending on how serious it is.

The roleplaying of genocide within ones' nation is often not taken too seriously. One expects to 'execute/crucify/murder' a small group of the population and not have any sort of retaliation, whether it be political or militarily, as well as the stability of the nation to remain the same. I would prefer not to use specific examples, but there is one nation that I know of, whom has committed mass murders/execution on its own population more than ten times. These type of actions would more or less send the entire country into revolt, seeing as multiple targets have been picked. A distrust between the nation and its people has grown to unsurmountable proportions. A massive conflict is almost inevitable, if the population doesn't want its specific group to be the next executed.
__________________
East Ying
Member of the Socialist Council
Member of the Gallican Communist Party
WA member
DEFCON: 3
REGION:Gallican
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Mediterranean-Pacific Empire
Member Avatar
Head RPAG Administrator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
A Primer on Naval Strategy

Introduction

As the NationStates world becomes more and more ultra-modern with the Doujin-class still being considered a benchmark that all other ship classes that follow are compared with and with later ships that make the Doujin as out of date as a wooden sailing frigate, why should we bother writing about naval strategy? The simple answer is that no ship or no number of ships, no matter how impressive-sounding a country’s naval complement is, can mask a country that doesn’t know how to use its navy. While there are threads devoted toward overcoming nearly-impossible odds when you’re on the battlefields with your main battle tanks and your artillery pieces, there isn’t a similar thread regarding naval battles that I am aware of. This thread, co-written with Praetonia, is an attempt to begin the dialogue regarding naval combat. While I don’t claim to be the greatest admiral afloat; in fact, I readily admit I wouldn’t even be a seaman in most navies; I have had some success as a naval combat RPer. Praetonia is also a highly-accomplished naval RPer and the combination of our skills and knowledge may help even more experienced naval RPers ply their craft more skillfully.

Naval Organisation

The first thing you must do when you get ready to establish your naval presence on NS is to determine what kind of country you are. As basic as this sounds, you need to figure out if you’re going to RP as an island country or as a country with a limited coastline. If you’re a landlocked country, there’s no sense in even reading this far. But if you have a significant coastline or you’re an island, a powerful navy is absolutely essential. Notice that I didn’t say a large navy was essential. I’m not suggesting that you take a page out of the United States in 1807 by drydocking all but a handful of ships. But pure numbers alone do not make you a great naval RPer.

What’s the difference between a large navy and a powerful navy? A large navy can be anywhere from 5,000 ships or more (this is not establishing an arbitrary figure; this is just giving you an example), but if most of the ships are small patrol ships or are poorly-designed or underarmed, a well-balanced navy with 1,000 well-built ships is going to have a field day with it. More to the point, a 5,000 ship navy that is poorly-conceived going against a well-balanced and well-organised navy is going to be a paper tiger. Know the saying “the bigger you are the harder you fall?” That’s what will happen.

The second thing to keep in mind when it comes to organising your navy is to consider what you want your fleet to accomplish. If you want your fleet to defend your coastline against a would-be threat, you will need a different type of navy from one that is intended to project power throughout the world. For instance, a nuclear power attack submarine is often the boat of choice for many attack missions, but a diesel-electric boat is actually quieter than a nuclear powered submarine. Not only that, but Dutch diesel-electric boats often penetrated American ASW screens and “hit” aircraft carriers during combat exercises. As a result, if you’re planning littoral warfare operations, you will likely need diesel-electric boats. Not only that, but the surface ships you would need for those operations will have to have low draughts (or drafts for any Americans who read this) since littoral combat takes place in shallow waters by definition.

Aircraft Carriers

If you’re planning to establish naval and air presence in a particular region, you’ll most likely need to have aircraft carriers for the task. They are the modern-day capital ships in most of the RL world’s predominant navies. They can project your country’s air power like no other ship and are often the vanguards of any country’s fleet. As such, they are the most important ships in your fleet and any navy commander realises that he must keep his aircraft carriers afloat at all cost. However, most aircraft carriers are built with very limited self-defence weaponry, and sometimes they only have CIWS (Close In Weapon Systems) for last-ditch defense in the event a missile gets past its escort squadron. As a result, the aircraft carrier is very vulnerable and an escort is essential. The Soviet Union had converted cruisers serving as aircraft carriers and they often carried a strong independent armament, so escorts were usually a good idea, but not nearly as essential as they were for American or allied carriers.

Battleships

Arguably the most controversial ship class when discussing the modern navy, the battleship is either admired as a harbinger of immediate doom for any enemy with its large, fearsome guns or is reviled by many so-called modern navy aficionados who argue that the battleship is obsolete in today’s “modern navy.” Does the battleship need an escort? Yes. Battleships are known for having limited or poor AA defences and would need to be modified with new ASW systems to face today’s submerged threats. However, as I mentioned earlier, the aircraft carrier also needs an escort. In addition, one half hour bombardment by a refit Iowa-class battleship actually costs about the same amount as two aerial strikes from an aircraft carrier’s jets. A modern-build battleship is estimated to cost about $3 billion U.S., approximately the price of a light aircraft carrier. Also, no ship in today’s navies and no ship currently in the plans for future navies carries the cachet of a battleship. Anti-surface missiles including ASuW missiles can be shot down and missiles such as the commonly-used Harpoon are often designed to penetrate no more than approximately four inches of steel armour (approximately 104 mm) before their explosive effects cause their damage. Built to withstand the 16” shells it fires, the Iowa-class battleship can shrug off a “modern” anti-shipping missile.

Escorts

What kind of escorts does an aircraft carrier or a battleship need, you ask? Bear in mind the various roles that ships are expected to play. If you want a ship that can deal with general threats or focus on ASuW combat, a GP (general purpose) destroyer or a cruiser may be your best option. To protect your aircraft carrier against attacks from enemy fighters or bombers, you will need AA destroyers or cruisers (the U.S. Navy’s Ticonderoga-class cruisers or the Royal Navy’s upcoming Daring-class destroyers are two good RL examples of ships devoted to AA combat). For ASW warfare, most modern navies use frigates to deal with those submerged threats. They would often carry towed sensor arrays and passive or active sonar to detect enemy submarines. If you put together a good combat squadron, you would likely need at least two or three ASuW cruisers, five AA destroyers, and 8-10 frigates. If you’re sending a squadron into an area where you expect mines, mine hunters and minesweepers are an important part of your naval arsenal.

Littoral Warfare Operations

There's been some request for a more in-depth discussion of littoral warfare operations in this thread, as the first two posts mostly dealt with so-called blue water naval operations. There are some major differences with so-called brown water navies that I'm going to address with this post.

Number one, those uber large SDs you built or bought are worthless in a littoral combat situation. In fact, many of your battleships, cruisers, destroyers and even some frigates aren't going to be able to handle the shallow depths where littoral warfare takes place. They may be able to provide longer-range coastal bombardment, though anything smaller than a heavy cruiser would get into range of many RL weapons batteries.

Thus, you're going to need ships that are built specifically for littoral warfare. What kind of brown water navy do you need? There are specific vessels that have been built for riverine operations that are either intended to get special forces onto land so they can go do their jobs or provide covering fire against insurgents. Examples of RL river gunboats include one made by aircraft manufacturer Sikorsky that carried a 105 mm howitzer as its main armament and was built to get where it needed to go fast and it was intended to provide gun support for troops in a river environment.

Another example of river vessels used in Vietnam included the return of the monitor. That's right, the monitor. We're not talking about the monitors of the post U.S. Civil War period that were designed to serve as coastal defence vessels, though you can see the lineage if you look at a picture closely enough. Those monitors were conceived to serve as "battleships" of a brown water fleet. Their role was to bombard enemy armies and fortified positions. They were built when the U.S. Navy determined they didn't have adequate fire support that could get into the shallow waters near Vietnam.

Logistics

I know The Evil Overlord might have “talked your cyber ear” off about logistics as it pertains to ground combat, and perhaps The Macabees did the same, but naval battles fought without logistics are lost battles. You will need to have fuel, food, ammunition, uniforms, and other stores made available to you, particularly in combat situations. That’s where fleet replenishment ships, tankers, submarine tenders, and other non-combatants play a vital role. If you suffer heavy losses, you’ll need a hospital ship for those times when standard shipboard medical facilities (“sickbays”) are overtaxed. The hospital ship is the floating hospital that can help nurse your own wounded or another country’s injured back to health.
NationStates has, almost since its conception, been in a constant state of Cold War. Whether this is through the mighty power blocs, or in a more unilateral sense by developing new weapons, every nation in the world is, consciously or not, preparing for a future great war of epic proportions. Whether or not this war will ever occur, I do not know; what I will do, however, is attempt to paint a portrait of the naval side of this hypothetical Great War.

Despite the numerous naval combats and conflicts that have occurred in NationStates, since the rise of the Super Dreadnaught and mass-market NS-designed vessels, there has not been a major naval battle between two great fleets both employing Super Dreadnaughts and a large number of NS-designed vessels. NationStates naval combat has reached an important turning point at which the technology has, to some extent, eclipsed the knowledge of strategy. The last major naval conflict in real life was World War II, and the thinking that was successful then has endured even to the present day and has been ported in NationStates warfare. As I will explain later, I do not believe that this will result in success.

6:00

Huge battlefleets, each consisting of at least 2,500 advanced vessels, several full airwings and super dreadnaughts are the order of the day. In this hypothetical war, two face off against each other across the vast expance of ocean necessary to keep each safe from the weapons of the other. Satellite-based attacks would most likely be launched against both fleets, although in this war we can only assume that the majority of the satellite capability of both sides has been destroyed by massed ASAT attack, and each fleet is blundering towards the other through a haze of ship and aircraft based radar.

Both sides are confident of victory and both want a quick, decisive battle which will wrest them control of the waves and, hence, the war. Both fleets, upon receiving positive contacts, make their way towards each other at the maximum sustainable speed. Within a few hours, limited attacks are made using ballistic or semi-ballistic missiles aimed at super dreadnaughts and carriers. These, firing at such long range against prepared SAAM defences, are unlikely to achieve a great deal. A few lucky hits may be scored, but this will neither provide a decisive victory early on, nor will it deter either side.

10:00

The two fleets are getting considerably closer. Both will inevitably be forced to launch aerial raids against the enemy fleets whilst they are not able to strike with guns or missiles. Tactics in NationStates has leaning increasingly towards massed swarms, and this is what we see our two adversaries do. A vicious aerial battle will take place some way between the two fleets, and bombing raids will inflict damage against the enemy, although at a horrendous cost.

Long since the days of the supremacy of the aircraft, vessels filled to the brim with SAMs and SAAMs spell the end, in my opinion, to the massed fighter attack. Such attacks are possible, and will undoubtedly cause damage to their targets, but they will sustain terrible casualties in doing so. Our fleets have air-defence fighters of their own, backed up by ship-borne SAMs, and enemy casualties are likely to be heaviest within the first few minutes of the short battle.

Survivors, I am sure, will limp back to their fleets as soon as they have dropped their payloads. If the aircraft are successful in their efforts, then the enemy vessels will also take heavy casualties, but the defending fleet has a clear advantage that was never the case before. Still no decisive outcome has been reached, and it is likely that the most important vessels (as I will go on to explain) – the battleships and cruisers – will have sustained the least damage of any other class.

12:00

As the two fleets are beginning to close, super dreadnaught artillery will open up at long range, followed by that of battleships. This fire is likely to be inaccurate, but devastating. Unless one side has a significant advantage in numbers of SD guns to bring to bear, most of the super dreadnaught fire will be concentrated on the enemy super dreadnaughts, and the enemy fleets will not yet begin to feel the pinch.

15:00

The two fleets have now closed to general use SSM range. This is where the true horror of the battle will begin to become apparent. Both fleets will launch thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of missiles at each other in an attempt to destroy the enemy fleet outright. All battleship and super dreadnaught fire will also be in play by this point and with ever increasing accuracy.

Still, the dominance of the missile, too, is overrated. With modern SAAM systems looking at an intercept rate of 95%, a 1,000 missile strike would yield a mere 50 breakthroughs, 45 hits and, against armoured NS ships, kills in single figures. To gain a hit for each ship in our hypothetical fleet taking the strength to be the bottom figure of 2,500, a total of 50,000 missiles would have to be fired. This, still, is unlikely to yield many hits on capital ships, which will be located at the center of the air defence networks and any hits which are scored are unlikely to do considerable damage.

By this point, the outer submarine picket is likely to be completely annihilated, and the second ring of ships also taking heavy casualties. These casualties, however, are against escorts which, as I will explain later, are not the most important in the battle to come and mostly used to defend against threats which are not immediately present or have already passed.

16:15

The missile attacks have come and gone and both fleets are still very much in the game. With each fleet having taken equally horrendous damage to escorts and at so close a range, neither are likely to attempt an escape, even if their commanders thought it possible. Now is the time for the gun to come into its own.

At relatively close range and with the now long-running battleship and super dreadnaught duels coming to a conclusion, heavy gunfire will be withering. The result of the final stages of the battle, between heavily armed and armoured capital ships, has partly been decided, but will also rely on the specific circumstances and tactical ability of the commanders.

It is also at this point that any remaining aircraft, refueled in the intervening time, will be deployed to try to tip the balance. At relatively close and decreasing range and with the missile arsenals of many vessels spent, the aircraft will become much more confident to move in against the capital ships.

18:00

The battle has been going, in one way or another, for 12 hours now. The sea is littered with debris and stained by oil as far as the eye can see. Neither side dares stop or risk further men and aircraft attempting to rescue survivors and their chances are limited. Aircraft, gunfire and torpedo attacks are finally beginning to take their toll on the capital ships, with their escorts more or less obliterated. The battle is as good as decided, and the defeated fleet will either attempt to flee under gunfire or surrender. This is very much up to the nation involved, with different nations responding in different ways, but the chances of escape are, I believe, not all that bad.

The enemy are also exhausted and beginning to run out of ammunition. The long range missiles are gone and many of the super dreadnaughts with their large caliber guns, pounded by multiple vessels as high-priority targets, will be nothing more than blazing wrecks above the waterline. The battle has been bloody and neither side wish it to continue. Nevertheless, the victors will have a massive advantage of naval superiority, and the defeated party will have lost too many ships to recover from this devastating blow any time in the foreseeable future.

Conclusion

I see this type of battle in Napoleonic terms. Large missiles and heavy, large caliber guns are akin to cannon – large, slow and inaccurate from range, but devastating close-in where the enemy doesn’t have a chance to react. Regular SSMs are most definitely muskets. Commonly mistaken for the largest source of casualties, these weapons are extremely effective against a poor or ill-disciplined navy, but against a well trained, well equipped navy will not provide victory on their own, merely thin the enemy numbers.

Guns are bayonets, and musket butts. Widely viewed as inferior weapons of a by-gone era, these are instead the primary cause of enemy casualties and at the close ranges required. The gun-battle will be relatively short, and devastating for both sides. Fighters are cavalry. When used in massive swarms against a well prepared enemy, as is so often the fashion in NationStates, they will be easily beaten off with horrific casualties whilst causing a small amount of damage most certainly not justifying their high cost to build. Used, however, against a broken or exhausted foe in small, fast squadrons, they can be deadly and perhaps even decisive.

As I said in the Introduction, this may or may not be an accurate picture of the battle that has not yet occurred, but I believe it is a very probably one, and just as the way WWI pitted armies with new and largely untested equipment against each other, will be horrific in its destructive power and will most likely provide an unwelcome conclusion to both sides, although a slightly more unwelcome conclusion to one.
East Ying
Member of the Socialist Council
Member of the Gallican Communist Party
WA member
DEFCON: 3
REGION:Gallican
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Mediterranean-Pacific Empire
Member Avatar
Head RPAG Administrator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Different Definitions of Governments


Capitalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism#Notes
http://www.capitalism.org/
1. A socio-economic system characterized by private initiative and the private ownership of factors of production. In such a system individuals have the right to own and use wealth to earn income and to sell and purchase labor for wages. Furthermore, capitalism is predicated on a relative absence of governmental control of the economy. The function of regulating the economy is achieved largely through the operation of market forces, whereby the price mechanism acts as a signalling system which determines the allocation of resources and their uses. www.indiana.edu/~ipe/glossry.html
2. An economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production. The market determines the type, quantity, and price of goods. The government is to avoid interfering in the economy. The United States has a capitalistic system. members.tripod.com/~tutor_me/book/glossary.htm
3. a system of production of goods and services for market exchange in order to make a profit. In a capitalist system of production the means of production are owned privately, by the capitalist class (bourgeoisie). The working class (proletariat) sells their labour power to the owners of the means of production. Capitalism thus represents both an economic and a social system based on different social classes. www.trentu.ca/ids/glossary.html

Socialism/Marxism:
http://www.newyouth.com/archives/the...is_marxism.asp
1. An economic and political system in which private property is abolished and the means of production (i.e., capital and land) are collectively owned and operated by the community as a whole in order to advance the interests of all. In Marxist ideology, socialism is considered an intermediate stage in the inevitable transformation of capitalism into communism. A socialist society is envisioned as being characterized by the dictatorship of the proletariat; the existence of a high degree of cooperation and equality; and the absence of discrimination, poverty, exploitation, and war. With the non-existence of private ownership, the private profit motive is eliminated from economic life. Consequently, market forces do not play a role in organizing the process of production. Instead, large-scale government planning is employed to ensure the harmonious operation of the process of production. www.indiana.edu/~ipe/glossry.html
2. A term covering many belief systems that oppose the concentration of wealth and power that is a natural part of capitalism. Whereas capitalists emphasize freedom for the individual to possess private property, socialists emphasize the well-being of the community. They strive to achieve this through many methods, including public ownership, regulation, and state-sponsored social programs. Socialism has taken on many different forms throughout the world, with varying degrees of success. Some socialists favor a gradual move away from unrestricted capitalism and the maintenance of a democratic society; others favor force to overthrow capitalism and distribute wealth. www.heritage.nf.ca/confederation/glossary.html

Communism:
1. Ideology centered on eliminating class inequality via collective ownership of means of production; form of one-party government controlling economy and society in name of such ideology. Rooted in work of Karl Marx and other nineteenth-century critics of industrial capitalism. After heyday in mid-twentieth century, influence declined with demise of Soviet Union and other Communist regimes (1989-91). www.emory.edu/SOC/globalization/glossary.html
2. a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production with the professed aim of establishing a stateless society. www.imuna.org/manual/app_a.html
3. An economic system in which the means of production are owned and operated for the public by the government. The government determines the type, quantity, and price of goods produced. Communism promises to provide for everyone's needs and to have no social classes. Ideally government would not be necessary. members.tripod.com/~tutor_me/book/glossary.htm

Monarchy:
1. an autocracy governed by a monarch who usually inherits the authority
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
2. In the U.K the Monarchy is represented by the Queen. She does not make any major decisions although the Queen is required to agree Acts of Parliament before they become law. The Queen is head of the church of England. The Monarchy used to run the country but now we live in a Democracy and can vote for who we want to be in charge (govern)
http://www.citizenz.org/public_html/...ion-terms.html
3. A political system in which power resides in one person or family and is passed from generation to generation through lines of inheritance.
http://www.sociologyessentials-2nded...glossary4.html

Constitutional Monarchy
1. a system of government which includes both a monarch (King or Queen) and an elected legislature. Macronational examples include Great Britain and Holland.
www.geocities.com/morovianinfo/introgloss.htm
2. system of government in which there is a king or queen, but actual power rests in a legislature.
web.isp.cz/jcrane/Glossary.html
3. a country which has a monarch, whose powers are limited by a constitution
www.aph.gov.au/find/glossary.htm

Theocracy: (not necessarily the same thing as Fundamentalist)
1. –– literally "the rule of God," however this is thought to be expressed (e.g., by His revealed principles, by His chosen leaders, by Himself in the person of the Son, etc.); the word is variously used by writers for different intended conceptions, some using it as a code word for uniqueness of Old Testament Israel, others using it for any social system where the church rules the state (or is not separated from it), and still others for a civil government which strives to submit to the socio-political standing laws revealed by God (in Old or New Testaments)
reformed-theology.org/html/dictiona.htm

2. Theocracy is derived from the two Greek words Qeo/j(Theos) meaning "God" and kra/tein (cratein) meaning "to rule." Theocracy is the civil rule of God. The government of the people of Israel until the inauguration of Saul is termed a theocracy.
www.two-age.org/glossary.htm

3. -a political unit governed by a deity (or by officials thought to be divinely guided)
-the belief in government by divine guidance
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

Dictatorship:
1. a system of government in which one person has absolute authority, including complete domination of the citizens’ lives; the most basic of citizens’ rights are taken away in order to guarantee the leader’s hold on power
highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0809222299/student_view0/glossary.html
2. a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.)
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
3. A system of government in which the power is with the elite and the rights of the citizens are not guaranteed.
http://www.cbe.ab.ca/b836/curriculum...cialgloss.html

Triumvirate:
1. The term triumvirate (Latin for "rule by three men") or troika in Russian, is commonly used to describe an alliance between three equally powerful political or military leaders. These alliances seldom hold very long. The term can also be used to describe a state with three different military leaders who all declare to be the sole leader of the state.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumvirate
2. Any member of a three person body (a triumvirate) was known as a triumvir. These groups were formed for any number of reasons. The most important triumvirate of note was the one formed by Mark Antony, Octavian, and Aemilius Lepidus. Lepidus was a commander under Caesar, but he vanishes from the story. This triumvirate was first formed in 43 BC, and was legally sanctioned by the Senate. Another ruling triumvirate had existed before, in 60 BC, which included Caesar, Pompey, and Marcus Crassus. However, this previous triumvirate was not sanctioned.
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~f...ac61vocab.html
3. a group of three men responsible for public administration or civil authority.
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

Anarchy:
1. a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government)
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
2. The condition of having no central or dominant authority. Often used to characterize the world order where no one government or state or institution (e.g., the UN) rules.
http://www.bothell.washington.edu/fa...2/glossary.htm
3. Lawlessness; condition of no government or ruling power. S. 548.
https://www.mises.org/easier/A.asp

Fundamentalist:
1. Worldview or movement centered on restoring religious tradition or sacred text as guiding force in society, usually in opposition to ideas or practices considered modern. Term originates with American Protestant conservatives in early twentieth century; since used for type of evangelicalism. Commonly applied to efforts of Islamist groups or regimes favoring conservative morality and strict application of Islamic law. Appeal partly attributed to dislocations due to globalization; in turn influences global debate about process. Exemplified by policies of Islamic Republic of Iran (1979-).
www.emory.edu/SOC/globalization/glossary.html
2. Conservative religious authoritarianism in all faiths. It is marked by a literal interpretation of scriptures and favors a strict adherence to traditional doctrines and practices.
http://www.knowconflict.com/Impact_o.../glossary.html
3. Religious traditionalism and values incorporated into secular political activities.
highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072828048/student_view0/glossary.html

Oligarchy:
1. a political system governed by a few people
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
2. the ruling class. Usually a small group of wealthy individuals.
oregonstate.edu/dept/anthropology/glossary2.htm
3. – a government controlled by a small group to serve their own purposes.
http://www.whitehall.k12.mi.us/curri...aryofterms.htm
Fascism:
1. An extreme form of nationalism that played on fears of communism and rejected individual freedom, liberal individualism, democracy, and limitations on the state.
www.nelson.com/nelson/polisci/glossary.html
2. centralized authority regimenting commerce and people; citizens are allowed to hold a piece of paper (land title, business license, central bank note, birth certificate) fooling them into thinking they have property ownership, then the "owners" are heavily regulated and taxed.
www.stormy.org/defin.htm
3. Political philosophy that became predominant in Italy and then Germany during the 1920s and 1930s; attacked weakness of democracy, corruption of capitalism; promised vigorous foreign and military programs; undertook state control of economy to reduce social friction. (p. 870)
occawlonline.pearsoned.com/bookbind/pubbooks/stearns_awl/medialib/glossary/gloss_F.html

Technocracy:
1. a form of government in which scientists and technical experts are in control. www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
East Ying
Member of the Socialist Council
Member of the Gallican Communist Party
WA member
DEFCON: 3
REGION:Gallican
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Mediterranean-Pacific Empire
Member Avatar
Head RPAG Administrator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
DEMOCRACIES:
Multiparty Democracy
The first question that most people ask about a government is whether it's democratic -- that is, whether its leaders are chosen by means of fair, competitive elections, and whether its citizens are allowed basic civil rights. Therefore, my very first cut divides the world into democratic and non-democratic nations. As far as this category is concerned, it doesn't matter whether the ultimate head of state is a monarch or president as long as the day-to-day policy decisions are in the hands of elected representatives.
FAQ: These aren't "democracies"; they're "republics". By strict high school government class definition, the citizens of a "democracy" exercise power directly, whereas the citizens of a "republic" delegate power to elected representatives. This, of course, is easily the stupidest thing that we were taught in high school. They've taken a perfectly fine word like democracy and defined it so narrowly that it applies to absolutely no working government whatsoever. All they've left us is the word republic, which they've defined so broadly that it encompasses such diverse nations as the US, France, China and Iran -- and yet is still too narrow to include constitutional monarchies like Japan and Sweden. In any case, since there is no mandatory authority on the meaning of English words, I've chosen to use the common meaning of democracy: any government which derives it's power through the consent of the governed, regardless of how that power is structured.
ALTERNATIVE NAMES: Some scholars prefer calling these governments "polyarchic" or "parliamentary". The first term, however, isn't even in the dictionary, while the second term implies that the English legislature is the archetype -- which is a bit ironic considering that the English parliament was generally opposed to the liberal revolutions in American and France. If we're going to label these governments after some specific legislature, lets call them Congressional or Assemblytarian or somesuch.

Limited Democracy
These are governments which come close to being full democracies, but they fall short in one critical field. For my purposes, it doesn't really matter how they fall short. It usually varies from country to country. Some have freely elected legislatures subject to the veto power of a military junta, a monarch or a strong president . Others are provisional governments run by coalitions pending new elections. Many are fully tolerant democracies which disenfranchise a substantial percentage of their adult population -- especially women early in the century.

Republic
Originally, any form of government not headed by an hereditary monarch. In modern American usage, the term usually refers more specifically to a form of government (a.k.a. "representative democracy") in which ultimate political power is theoretically vested in the people but in which popular control is exercised only intermittently and indirectly through the popular election of government officials and/or delegates to a legislative assembly rather than directly through frequent mass assemblies or legislation by referendum.

COMMUNIST STATES
The economy of these nations is centrally planned and operated by fiat. All industry is owned by the state. Power is monopolized by a centrally organized party which supports its legitimacy by quoting Marxist dogma.
FAQ: Communism is not the opposite of democracy. The proper dichotomy is communism vs. capitalism. Yes, technically, Communism is an economic system rather than a political system, but we just can't escape the fact that the 20th Century has seen this big block of countries that have had a lot in common with one another and less in common with the rest of the world. In fact, this block has been one of the century's most distinctive cluster of countries, so it seems rather evasive to not set up a category to cover them.
FAQ: These countries are not at all what Marx envisioned, so they aren't really Communist. Maybe not, but a lot of what passes for Christianity nowadays has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus, and a lot of what passes for constitutional has nothing to do with Madison. Ideologies evolve, and I'd call any government Communist if it supports its arguments by quoting chapter and verse from Marx (just as I'd call any government Christian if it supports its arguments by quoting the Bible) regardless of whether they quote correctly.
ALTERNATIVE NAMES: Some scholars prefer to call them "socialist republics" or "people's republics", but the first alternative can sully the good name of real socialists, while the second is just silly.

AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES
These are regimes which severely limit who may participate in politics and stifle dissent with varying degrees of brutality. I've split these into three distinct categories, but they have so many similarities that I've used similar colors to indicate them.
Military Junta
-The regime came into power through force of arms, and policies are set by one or more career military officers.
Single Party State
-Power is restricted to a single faction with a unified goal.

Autocracy
-A single leader rules by decree.
ALTERNATIVE NAMES: dictatorship, despotism, tyranny

TRADITIONAL MONARCHY
The state is considered the private estate of a single family. It is ruled at the discretion of the monarch and passed down from father to son, from mother to daughter, or just to the first heir, throughout eternity.
NOTE: Often the monarch himself is not the real ruler. Instead, power may be in the hands of courtiers, ministers, regents and chamberlains, and allocated by means of palace intrigues. This sometime makes it difficult to decide whether a nation with a personally weak (but legally strong) monarch -- like, say, Willhelmine Germany or Imperial Japan -- is an absolute monarchy or junta or limited democracy or what.
FAQ: Monarchy is not the opposite of democracy. The proper dichotomy is monarchy vs. republic. In my system of classification, the first cut is between democratic and non-democratic, but many political scientists would make the first cut between monarchy and republic, and then make a four-fold cut into democratic and non-democratic monarchies, democratic and non-democratic republics. While this might have been the best way to classify governments in the 19th Century -- when all the monarchs of Europe were cousins who tended to stick together, and republics were an aberration -- it would be a bit anachronistic to retain this system much past the First World War. Nowadays the monarchies are the aberration, and democracies tend to stick together.

Elected Monarchy
An elective monarchy is a monarchy whose reigning king or queen is elected in some form.
Currently, the world's only truly "elective monarchies" are Vatican City, where the Pope is elected to a life term by (and usually from) the College of Cardinals, and the Kingdom of Cambodia, in which kings are chosen for a life term by The Royal Council of the Throne from candidates of royal blood. Some may argue that the remaining communist regimes are also "elective monarchies", as successors are often chosen within the communist party. In North Korea, Kim Jong Il succeeded his father Kim Il Sung as leader. These regimes, though they possess many features of absolutism, are not officially proclaimed as monarchies.

UNCLASSIFIED
There are three categories for regimes which don't really have a classifiable government:
-No Self-Government
-The region is under the authority of an alien and geographically detached nation.
ALTERNATIVE NAMES: colonies, dependencies.
-No Government
Because of widespread civil war, the authority of the central government does not reach throughout the nation. Policy decisions are determined by firepower.
ALTERNATIVE NAMES: anarchy, feudalism, tribalism.
Category Uncertain
East Ying
Member of the Socialist Council
Member of the Gallican Communist Party
WA member
DEFCON: 3
REGION:Gallican
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Mediterranean-Pacific Empire
Member Avatar
Head RPAG Administrator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Constitutional Monarchy
Classical political theory would divide the world something like this:

Code:
Rule of Law Rule by Whim
Monarchy Constitutional Monarchy Absolute Monarchy
Republic Democratic Republic TyrantThis classification scheme was probably at its most valid between the American and Russian Revolutions, 1776-1917. Before that period, there were too few republics and constitutions to bother with, but after that period, monarchies went into precipitous decline. Also, during much of the twentieth century, a single category of tyranny is just too restrictive, ignoring as it does the way that oppressive republican governments exploded into a rich variety of fascists, communists, juntas, kleptocrats and sharia theocracies.

Totalitarianism
During the heyday of the Communist menace, 1917-1991, political theory tended to divide governments this way:

In American political discourse of that era, it was generally agree that, yes, free market democracy was good and totalitarianism was bad, but the middle ground was not nearly as clear. The debate over which regimes were the second greatest threat to civilization seemed to snag on the importance of property rights. The right wing - the "haves" - considered both types of rights to be equal, bringing socialism and authoritarianism into moral equilibrium. Thus, a case like Chile, where a dictator overthrew a socialist in 1973, was seen as a lateral move rather than a step backward. On the other hand, the left wing -- the "have-nots" -- judged regimes more purely on personal rights, which meant that socialism was morally equal to democracy, and the difference between totalitarian and authoritarian dictators was negligible. Therefore, supporting capitalist dictators like Batista, Somoza and Thiêu as the antidote to communist rebels like Castro, Ortega and Ho made no moral sense whatsoever.

In any case, it has always struck me as rather artificial to bundle Communism and Fascism into a single category called "Totalitarianism" -- rather like bundling birds and bats into the category of "flying creatures". Despite a few superficial similarities, they have very different origins, histories, structures and goals. I have chosen to map communism as distinctly different from fascism.

Fascism
• Pure fascism is rather rare. In fact, many scholars would call only Mussolini, Hitler and a few of their contemporary satellites fascist. In this case, it seems rather pointless to set up a whole category for a narrow subset of autocratic regimes which existed in a handful of countries for less than a single generation.
• On the other hand, metaphorical fascism is quite common -- so common, in fact, that I've heard just about every regime in history denounced as "fascist" at one time or another. In this case, it's almost meaningless.

Technocracy
Put simply, Technocracy is a form of government unlike any other. It is so different, in fact, that even comparing it to other forms of government we know of today is difficult. People often have many misconceptions about Technocracy and for many reasons.

First of all, whereas all other forms of government have their roots in political ideology, philosophy, and opinion, Technocracy has its roots in science. It is, in fact, more of a technology than a political idea (more on this here). It was developed by scientists, engineers, and other specialists seeking to understand the role of high-energy technology in our society (such as electrical generators, large earth movers, manufacturing plants, and fast, motorized transportation). This study, which encompassed over 10 years, divulged important information about how technology was affecting our society, and where these trends would take us. In short form, their conclusions were as follows:

The first is that there exists on the North American Continent a physical potential in resources to produce a high standard of goods and services for all citizens, and that the high-speed technology for converting these resources to use-forms in sufficient volume is already installed, and that the skilled personnel for operating it are present and available. Yet we have unprecedented insecurity, extensive poverty and rampant crime.

The second conclusion of Technocracy is that our current economic and political model, (called the Price System) can no longer function adequately as a method of production and distribution of goods. The invention of power machinery has made it possible to produce a plethora of goods with a relatively small amount of human labor. As machines displace men and women, however, purchasing power is destroyed, for if people cannot work for wages and salaries, they cannot buy goods. We find ourselves, then, in this paradoxical situation: the more we produce, the less we are able to consume. (more on this here)

The final basic conclusion is that a new distributive system must be instituted that is designed to satisfy the special needs of an environment of technological adequacy, and that this system must not in any way be associated with the extent of an individual's functional contribution to society.

The upshot of all this is that the scarcity model of the Price System worked well when there existed a natural scarcity. However, now that technology and rich natural resources have eliminated scarcity, an entirely new economic model is required. We have changed our methods of production from an argrarian model to a technological one, thus we must also change our method of distribution from an agrarian model to a technological one.

So what are the attributes of a Technocratic society?
There are many, but a few can be summarized here:

-A thoroughly scientific method of control of the technology of our continent.
-Democratic controls for all non-technical issues and decisions.
-Removal of methods of scarcity such as money, debt, value, and interest.
-Replacement of these methods with an empirical accounting of all physical resources, products, and services (called Energy Accounting).
-Productive capacity many orders of magnitude higher than currently possible, without requiring any new equipment.
-Decrease in human labor required to produce these amounts through proper use of automation.
-Higher standard of living for ALL citizens in terms of income, housing, health care, education, and leisure.
-Elimination or vast reduction of various social ills, such as poverty, crime, pollution, insecurity, and disease.

Theocracy
Theocracy, derived from two Greek words meaning "rule by the deity," is the name given to political regimes that claim to represent the Divine on earth both directly and immediately. The idea of direct and immediate representation is important for two reasons.

First, most governments throughout history and across cultures have claimed to be following their gods' designs or to be legitimated by a divine mandate. An example is the notion that kings rule by divine right. (This theory, which had been important in European politics in the sixteenth century, lost ground after the "Glorious Revolution" in England in 1688.) But governments in which the ruling and the priestly roles are separate are not considered to be theocracies. Second, the divine mandate must be interpreted by human beings in specific political contexts, such as wars or floods or famines. In theocracies the interpreters--who explain what these events mean--are the rulers. A number of ancient civilizations worshipped their kings as gods on earth, so the problem of interpretation was somewhat different. By definition, the king could not be wrong.

In theory, there is no reason why a theocracy and a democratic form of government are incompatible--vox populi, vox dei ("the voice of the people is the voice of God")--but historically those nations regarded as theocracies have been ruled by a theologically trained elite. This may be a council of clerics, or a charismatic leader may claim a special call from God and gain office by force of arms. The office might later become hereditary. The primary effort of government in a theocracy is to implement and enforce divine laws.

Juris Naturialism
The belief that there is a natural law that determines that results of human conduct and this law is higher than any government’s law. [Also, the belief in Higher Law – God]
East Ying
Member of the Socialist Council
Member of the Gallican Communist Party
WA member
DEFCON: 3
REGION:Gallican
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Mediterranean-Pacific Empire
Member Avatar
Head RPAG Administrator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
What does the Economy mean?
Economics is not a word that many kids understand. To put it simply, economics is the study of how goods and services get produced (made) and how they are divided up and given to people. By goods and services, economists mean anything that can be bought and sold. Economists study how the things people need and want are made and brought to them. They also study how people and countries choose the things they buy from the many things they want. Economists also study the economic relations between nations.
Countries depend on other nations for good and services. Economists study these relationships. They look for ways to increase trade and help poor countries improve their economic condition. Nations trade with each other because no nation has all the things it needs for its population. Nations are afraid to produce only the things they can naturally produce well. This is because they do not want to be dependent on other countries in case of war with the other countries. Then trade would be cut off.

Nations restrict trade through tariffs and quotas. Tariffs are taxes placed on goods one nation trades with another. Quotas are limits put on the number of items allowed into a country. Some nations engage in free trade. Free trade is trade with no taxes or tariffs.

Trade within a country is only with one type of money, but if you trade with other countries, you will have to use different types of money. When this happens, businesses use an international banking system to exchange the money. If you are paid in foreign money, it is called a foreign bill of exchange. You then have to take the money to a bank or money exchange dealer and convert the money into what you need.
Until the 1970's, countries decided what their money was worth. Countries would lower the value of their money to increase foreign sales. In the early 1970's, some nations adopted a system called a floating exchange. Under this system, a nation's money value is based on demand for it.

Nations keep records of their financial dealings with other countries. If a country pays out more money than it receives, it has a deficit. If it receives more than it spends, it has a surplus. The United States suffers from huge trade deficits today because it has been unable to sell as much as it needs to buy abroad.
Three fourths of the world's population live in developing countries. Africa, Asia and Latin America have some of the worst areas of poverty. Developing countries are poor, and the people barely have enough to eat. Many live in shacks and have very few possessions. They are usually farmers but do not have good equipment for farming. People in these countries lack many of the resources needed for a comfortable life. They generally use what they have just to survive.
Wealthier nations give to poor countries to help them improve their economies. For example, the United States gives billions of dollars to needy nations in the form of loans and gifts. They also offer technical assistance to help train and educate other people. Some nations have experienced fast economic growth through their own efforts. The economies of Brazil, South Korea, Mexico and Singapore are some of the fastest growing economies in the world.

GDP
GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is defined as the total value of all goods and services produced within that territory during a specified period (most commonly, per year). GDP differs from gross national product in excluding inter-country income transfers, in effect attributing to a territory the product generated within it rather than the incomes received in it.

Whereas nominal GDP refers to the total amount of money spent on GDP, real GDP refers to an effort to correct this number for the effects of inflation in order to estimate the sum of the actual quantity of goods and services making up GDP. The former is sometimes called "money GDP," while the latter is termed "constant-price" or "inflation-corrected" GDP -- or "GDP in base-year prices" (where the base year is chosen arbitrarily). See real vs. nominal in economics.

A common equation for GDP is:

GDP = consumption + investment + exports - imports

Economists will give a more complete definition of GDP to be a sum of four very important parts:

GDP = consumption + investment + government + net exports
(or simply GDP = C + I + G + NX)

where net exports = gross exports - gross imports

It is important to understand the meaning of each part:

C is consumption (or Consumer expenditures) in the economy.
I is defined as business investments in infrastructure. This is not to be confused with speculative investment in stock and bond markets.
G is the sum of all government expenditures. The relationship of this to that of GDP as a whole describes the theory of crowding out.
NX is the sum "net exports" in the economy (exports - imports).


Aggregate expenditures are calculated in a similar way, although the aggregate expenditures formula does not account for unplanned investment (left over inventory at the end of the reporting cycle) and is more commonly used by economic theorists.

List of countries by GDP

GNP
Gross National Product (GNP) is the total value of final goods and services produced in a year by domestically owned factors of production.

Final goods are goods that are ultimately consumed rather than used in the production of another good. For example, a car sold to a consumer is a final good; the components such as tires sold to the car manufacturer are not; they are intermediate goods used to make the final good. The same tires, if sold to a consumer, would be a final good. Only final goods are included when measuring national income. If intermediate goods were included too, this would lead to double counting; for example, the value of the tires would be counted once when they are sold to the car manufacturer, and again when the car is sold to the consumer.

Only newly produced goods are counted. Transactions in existing goods, such as second-hand cars, are not included, as these do not involve the production of new goods.

Income is counted as part of GNP according to who owns the factors of production rather than where the production takes place. For example, in the case of a German-owned car factory operating in the US, the profits from the factory would be counted as part of German GNP rather than US GNP because the capital used in production (the factory, machinery, etc.) is German owned. The wages of the American workers would be part of US GNP, while the wages of any German workers on the site would be part of German GNP.
East Ying
Member of the Socialist Council
Member of the Gallican Communist Party
WA member
DEFCON: 3
REGION:Gallican
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Mediterranean-Pacific Empire
Member Avatar
Head RPAG Administrator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Types of World Economies

There are many different kinds of economies around the world, but they all fall into two basic categories. One category is the command economy which is also called central planning. It has strong government control. The other type is the free market economy which is also called capitalism. In this type of economy, there is very little government control. Currently, all real economies combine parts of capitalism with those of central planning. Each country around the world differs from one another in the amount they use the two systems. For example, the United States and Canada have economic systems that use very little government control so they are usually described as capitalistic.

Command economies have strong government control. So if you wanted to start your own business, you would have to get permission from the government. In a command economy, the government owns most of the industries and companies. One type of command economy is communism. True communism is a type of economic system that doesn't allow ownership of private property. Most of the command economies that existed in the world had strong central governments. These governments dictated how much was made and what was made by industry. The communists believed that life is a class struggle between workers and the owners of a industry or factory. In a communistic economy, goods were distributed on an as-needed-basis. In the command economy, the government makes the decisions as to what goods to supply to the people. The Soviet Union was an example of a communistic command economy. Many people think China is still a communist country. But they, and other countries like them, have given control over some of their economic activities back to the people.

The other basic type of economy is the free market or capitalistic economy. It is an economy that has very little government control. So if you wanted to start your own business, you would not have to get permission from the government. In a free market economy, the consumer decides what they want to buy. A consumer is a customer. The law of supply and demand is what drives the free market economy. Supply and demand is what sets the prices of goods and services in the free market economy. As supply goes up the prices go down. When the demand goes up the prices go up. Due to low government control, people are free to spend their money the way they want to. People can take the risk of starting their own business and losing money or starting their own business and making lots of money. People like James Ford Bell and Will Kellogg took risks in starting their own breakfast cereal businesses. Some examples of countries with a free market economy are The United States of America, Germany, and England.

In the world today free market economies have social programs such as the Social Security System in The United States. Command economies like China are introducing free market economies into their economy. With the information age upon us, only time will tell where the world economies are headed.
East Ying
Member of the Socialist Council
Member of the Gallican Communist Party
WA member
DEFCON: 3
REGION:Gallican
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Role Playing · Next Topic »
Poll Only