Discuss: War System

OOC: Oh my God you will all destroy yourselves!!!!!

However I am now interested.

I have a question though.

I need to understand how to multiply this: 1,6
Is it a fraction? Is it something else? Its probably starring me right in the face but I can't help but not see it!

If you want to show me in laymans terms my population is 251 Million, Economic Multipliers is [1,6] Defence Multipliers is [Defence subordinate to other issues = 1,2]

In RW Europe, the comma is the period and the period is the comma.

So,

Europe: 1,2

America: 1.2

Learn using real mathematics. Dot seperates thousands and millions, comma seperates fractions

Navy and Air Forces are still way too cheap. Poor, 5 million nation can afford a heavy carrier... We should make our armies comparable to the real world, and in the real world very few countries can have powerful navies. The USA have 12 or so heavy carriers, while the Commonwealth of Malvines can easily have 3000 of them.

That's really not fair to the smaller nations. You're basically saying it should be only you and the Soviet Union that gets to have a big military, and everyone else gets a raft, a weather balloon, and a boy scout.

Thanks for the help

So I have 1.926 IC points meaning I have 1,926 IC points
[1 thousand, nine hundred, twenty six] IC points

The Soviet Union and The Commonwealth of Malvines will always have big military when compared to most other nations. A 5 million country wont get anything good from owning a heavy carrier - especially when other nations have thousands of them. Small nations usually don’t enforce their policy on the other side of the world, small nation focus on home defense -infantry and militia brigades, that is. Should prices of navy and air forces go up, it's I and Soviet Union who lose most, because we have a reason and opportunities to own it and use it. Besides we have to organize our militaries somehow. To create divisions, task forces and so on - doing this can be a bit difficult when I have over 3000 of carrier battle groups to name and deploy.

Of course, a 5 million poor-as-hell nation can afford a carrier in theory. But at what cost, have you sat and thought? It can barely afford 52.500 men if it purchases the cheapest of all units, militia, spending ALL its IC on that, and this figure does not include upkeep costs. And what are carriers useful for? They are useful for air projection, only suitable for offensive and intervening nations.

Also, on a second note: a heavy carrier does not cost "only" 30 IC, it costs 100 together with much roleplaying. Why? Because, to have a heavy carrier, you also need to purchase nuclear technology, to operate its reactors. Also, there is also a big no we can all say, when it comes to unrealism: I would never accept roleplaying with someone that fields more than 20 carriers, even if he has a nation with frightening economy at over 400 million (using the 10%) rule. It simply is tad unrealistic.

With great power comes great responsibility. A war system like this is great power, which means we are all responsible on how it works. And there is also the "no" fashion we can say if something is incredibly unrealistic. While we can tolerate a nation with millions of men and tens of thousands of aircraft of all types, this is far different from a nation with tens and dozens of carriers. And even if it is somehow credible, due to good backup, it would create problems for that nation elsewhere: carriers are impractical in large numbers, as they cost a lot to afford and maintain, while one can easily cover a big chunk of a sea.

EDIT: Also, dont forget the UPKEEP costs. Of my 51.130 currently spent IC's, 19.290 IC go to maintainance of military units alone.

So we won't make any distinction between any units? I mean if for example a nation would want to use F-15 as another might want to use Eurofighters and ect.

Well, it probably wouldn't be a big deal if we called our units whatever we wanted, as long as we specify in parentheses or something what they are on the war list.

You purchase the squadrons here. The equipment will, naturally, vary between nations: a Soviet fighter squadron could consist of 30 Sukhoi Su-37 aircraft, while a Trieran could have 30 EFA-2000 Eurofighters. But the point remains: with 10 IC, we purchase a unit of 30 aircrafts and 400 personnel.

Mind you, technology can be sensitive. Anyone can claim he already has F-15, or MiG-29, or Su-27, or F-22. This can create problems of strategic importance: for this, I propose designating some nations as "producers" of military equipment, and give other nations the option to roleplay the creation of domestic equipment.

• Former Soviet Union: Equipment produced and designed in the former Soviet Union in real life would, in this region, be designed and produced by the Soviet Union (me).
• United States: American equipment would be produced and designed in Malvines.
• France, Britain and Germany: Three different nations can also represent those: for instance, Belarum, Triera and another nation.
• European Union: Shared EU projects from real life would be represented by the equivalents of each nation. For instance, Eurofighter would be part Trieran, part Belarum, and so on.
• Purchasing equipment: To equip our militaries, we can produce our own equipment or buy them from other nations, especially if we do not start as producing countries. For reasons of realism we can agree with the producer-player to already have the specific equipment "de facto and de jure", meaning representing a purchase that took place years ago to equip our existing forces.
• Benefits: Nations can have 'sensitive technology' which they cannot or do not want to share, such as the F-22, the MiG-MFI, the F-35, the Su-37, and so on, specific ICBM systems like the R-36M "Satan" or the "Minuteman II" and so on. Players can also come to develop their onw technology: for instance, Aesop Rocks, a non-producing nation, could gradually invest to produce a copy of the M60A3 tanks its military has, designated "M63" and having domestically produced equipment in it, all copies of the standard M60A3. Or, it could invest in an all new project: "M80" could be a new tank with new weapons, armour and the like. This would give Aesop Rocks the "producer" status for at least one class of main battle tanks.

All nation references are examples. This will definitely prevent all armies from owning fleets of F-22, Nimitz-class carriers and M1A2 MBT's, or MiG-MFI, Ulyanovsk carriers and T-95 tanks. This, in turn, translates to the word "order": no nation can godmode the existance of an ubermilitary its economy, or even logic cannot support. It will promote roleplaying between nations, as there will be the need for nations to invest money either in their own industry, or buy weapons from other powers, hence increasing the friendship and trust relations between those nations. It will all be a matter of roleplaying.

For producer countries, I insist we name the most militant, at least in the past or even the present. Me and Malvines definitely meet all prerequisites to play USSR and America respectively: aside from the name ( ) we both have massive economies, massive nations, and massive militaries, directly provoking direct opposition between us, to appear sooner or later. More roleplaying! Woohoo!

Also, it would be amusing if me and Malvines somehow managed to always get elected to the SC but that is another topic... I guess, a real political battle will pop out when the next SC elections come!

That is a good idea Soviet Union, but may I give a suggestion? What about the post-communist states that have something to offer like the Twardy tanks of the Polish Army or Isreali tanks? Or would it be easier to just stick to the major countries?

In many cases, equipment produced by several states (such as the Yugoslav M80 or the Iraqi 'Lion of the Babylon' tanks) is simply a licensed or not copy of equipment by major states - in both cases, these two tanks I referred to are variants of the Soviet T-72. In such a case, we have the major states playing a role as well: in case we have to face the need for yet another producer, I am sure we can cover the need by either finding one, or referring to our current ones.

Ok, lets do a quick simulation of my little armed forces:
[4343*3+250]+2,2*1,7 = 49663
For the role-playing sake I'll buy all technologies, even if I don't have any use for chemical or biological weapon. So we have:
49663 - [760 + 160{upkeep}] = 48743
Not a big hit for my overall IC.
Now for a modest nuclear deterrent, something as humble as 5,000 missiles will do the trick:
48743 - [250*50 + 250*60 + 110*10] = 20143
That was something, I must admit. More than a half of my IC, but still a decent price for capability of destroying the whole world if necessary:> Maybe price for superpower-size strategic forces can keep rest of our armies sane in numbers, let's see.
Land armed forces:
Presumptions:
A) A division consists of three to four brigades.
B) As far as I remember contemporary USA have something around 9 divisions.
C) The Commonwealth of Malvines is an island nation and doesn’t have land forces comparable to the Soviet Union.
D) Remembering about point "C" we should be aware that "not comparable" probably still means "second largest in the region";)
I'll go for 10 divisions, 4 of them armored + well-developed special and air forces:
20143 - [6*[6+6+8]{mechanized infantry divisions}+4*[8+8+8]{armored divisions}+5*10{spec-ops}+10*8{airborne}+450{upkeep}] = 19347
Conclusion: Land forces are cheap. Either I expand them to 20 times this size, or we agree that no nation can significantly exceed this limit due to manpower reasons.
Navy: Rule the Waves! Let's go for twice the size of the US Navy.
26 heavy carriers + upkeep = 1040
44 heavy cruisers + upkeep = 1144
96 destroyers + upkeep = 1920
60 frigates + upkeep = 1200
24 landing ship + upkeep = 960
110 attack submarines, nuclear + upkeep = 3080
28 ballistic missile submarine, nuclear + upkeep = 1680
8 guided missile submarine, nuclear + upkeep = 256
Total - 11280
19347 - 11280 = 8067
All right that was another "something";) It appears that quite to the contrary of my original belief - current prices are enough to keep even nations like my own or Soviet Union from creating too big armies. [Too big for global superpowers, that is;)] My remaining 8000 IC's are just as much as I need for Air forces comparable to the USAF, with their 100 fighter squadrons, AWACS, tankers, bombers etc... So, generally speaking, I withdraw my objections on prices.

Commentary: Amazing indeed. You do exceed my current upkeep in weapons of mass destruction, you zany you, yet I find you... uh... outnumbered circa 14 to 1 with your 10 divisions. Army alone. Your navy has more heavy ships than mine, literally insane numbers (I operate 4 light carriers, 8 heavy, 26 cruisers of all types, 425 patrol craft, 200 corvettes, 32 frigates, 42 destroyers, 65 SSK, 64 SSN, 72 SSGN, 63 SSBN, 50 transport and 35 landing ship) but I guess I outnumber you in practical craft After all, it doesn't take the Soviets a big ship to stuff big missiles on it... *hides Tarantul pics*

My air force, blah... Some 9000 aircraft alltogether. All my numbers are strictly real life data transferred in the war system, except when it comes to nukes (I couldn't find missile numbers so I was creative, with 1400 missiles of all types). I also was creative with transport ships and aircraft carriers but that's it. GlobalSecurity can help those who want to imitate real-world countries. Ah, and 1400 missiles aint few. Using MIRV, I can hit up to 14000 different cities with those, so our MAD is indeed MAD.

Mind you, my total military counts almost 4.2 million troops, of them circa 1.2 millions being non-combat, construction battalion personnel. I guess we two can do pretty well: an excessively nuclear-armed capitalist with low military numbers, and a reasonably nuclear-armed communist with massive land, air, navy, air defence and strategic rocket forces. (Assuming 10 divisions are 100 000 men, my rocket force exceeds your land army by 187 000 troops and this is my smallest military branch )

WOULD DO! (And, for security reasons, I an not announcing my remaining IC, though I am sure if you are threatening enough you can calculate them yourself)

Ah, and we need to finalize "producers". Who's Britain, Germany and France for a start? Any more suggestions for producing equivalents? Please post.