Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
MODERN ROLEPLAY NEWS: The world is good. And very quite beautiful.
New Users' Info
Cabinet & OOC News
Map Quick Links
RP Time: OST
Population: XX Nations
Technology: Post/Modern
Starter Guide Map Room MTRP Index
World Stage Ministry of Role Play OOC Discussion Databases
Announcements General Assembly Wolf's Tavern The Media
Caprecia

Founder: Dom | Prime Minister: Vacant| RP Ministers: Vacant

..:: YOUR NEWS : 16 OCT '14 ::..
***Things That Happened, Did***
Galdresia Iryiiad Syntreal
Zaroca Oracia
Specials Epicmaps Sketerra
Welcome to Caprecian Continents. 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:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
Grumpy Old Man Doesn't Know when to Stop; talkin' bout the good ol' days
Topic Started: Jan 14 2010, 04:36 AM (595 Views)
Epsilon Andromedae
Unregistered

On War

Yeah, i've been reading Clauswitz. I probably am a little bit big-headed because of it. But don't worry, this will be in line with the other Grumpy Old Man discussions.

In the book, "On War", Clauswitz describes war as a continuation of policy. In War, if you are not Constantly advancing, you are not doing anything. You don't go to war for no reason. Back then, before high technology, war was treated the way we treat nuclear technology here. Kind of.

Identify the Problem

Basically, as iv'e been reading this, i've been thinking "Wow....we got o war way too often"

War is not "Diplomacy by other means" its "Politics by other means". i know its hard to differentiate the two, but killing a diplomat does not mean "RAWR LETS GO TO WAR" it means you react proportionally.

SCENARIO TIME.

-----
Diplomacy as means for war:

Person 1: I've sent you my diplomat
Person 2: LAWLZ i sh00t y00 n00b
Person 1: RAWR LETS GO TO WAR!
-----

Here is why this is bad. 1: Going to war, what is your objective? To conquer? All because they killed a diplomat? Disproportionate response. To "invade" the definition of which is to enter, cause havoc, and leave: No, because thats the same poor response. Going to war because of killed diplomats is stupid.

The same scenario, with a proper response:

-----
Person 1: I've sent you my diplomat
Person 2: LAWLZ i sh00t y00 n00b
Person 1: I've kidnapped 200 of your citizens that are currently in my country. Give me a million dollars or they all die.
Person 2: Uh...
-----

RECALL: The Iran Hostage Crisis. If i recall correctly, we did NOT go to war because of that, we were working on ways to rescue them. They were released when Reagan became president.

Similarly, in this situation, you are using alternative means to accomplish a goal that is proportional to the initial act. And, if Person 2 were to continue this, they would run out of millions of dollars to give, or to spend on figuring out a rescue plan.

Heres another Scenario.

-----
Person 1: I don't like the stuff you're building. Cut it out.
Person 2: well *sticks out tongue* nyeh, try n stop me.
Person 1: WOAR!
-----

Neg. You all know why that is wrong. Disproportionate response.

Heres how it should go.

-----
Person 1: I don't like the stuff you're building. Cut it out.
Person 2: Well *sticks out tongue* nyeh, try n stop me.
Person 1: Cut it out or i WILL stop you.
Person 2: LALALALALALA I can't hear you!
Person 1: I've just cruise missiled a bunch of factories and powerplants, oh and by the way i cruise missiled a hospital too.
-----

THATS how it should be done. Plus or minus the hospital thing.

You don't go to war, you respond proportionately.

and note: that scenario could go a number of ways, if you do it properly. People will get angry and say "Rawr but my missile defense shot down your curise missiles/shot down the airplane that delivered them!" ((they can do that, right?))

well, no. thats BS. Missile defense doesn't work automatically, it works on preparedness. you can have a system that alerts you, and makes you more prepared. But heres how this would go down in real life.


Person 2: *ping* Huh, we got a bogey flying over.
Person 2: Base to Bogey, you are unauthorized for flight
Person 2: Hey, cut it out!
Person 2: psst, someone find out what this is and escort it to our base.

but while thats going on, Person 1's bogey would have already blown stuff up, and then the reaction would be to terminate the airplane. Thats assuming the two nations aren't already on a war footing.

The Moral of the Story
I am convinced that 90% of War-Related RP Fail comes from Godmode, which i addressed in my last rant, and Disproportionate Reaction to minor events, which i am addressing here.

Everyone understands the basic concepts: War is expensive, yes. War takes time, costs lives, is politically unpopular, yes.

But the huge misconception is the degree to which it is expensive and unpopular.

War that lasts longer than a couple months (with modern technology thats completely possible, give or take a few more months) is going to be severely draining.

Countries like Nuuk, lines, etc: They have the budget, manpower, etc, but they are at war so often that it becomes impossible to maintain. War should be a last resort to an action that persists in its Violation of Policy.

Take, for example, the Magilani GSPA (Global Space Protection Act).

The policy is clear cut. Don't send guns into space.
The options are clear. Send stuff up in secret, send it up with permission, or don't send it up at all.
The Consequences are immediate. Violation = pwn.

You'll also note that the Magilani are not always engaged in war. They are prepared, but not engaged. Thats how its done. You use military power to influence policy and politics, NOT to influence diplomacy and international affairs. You do not open talks with "if you do X then we'll invade" because invasion is stupid. Invasion is the worst kind of war, the dumbest kind of war, and by god if you invade you better invade fast, because prolonged invasion is severe in its consequences.

But EA, how can we solve this?!

My advice would be to get the RP ministry to set up a War Review board or a checklist or something so that when people go to war, they can make sure its alright, or if a war is causing alot of problems, the RP minister can intervene.

I'm not saying everything should be reviewed, just whenever theres a war that causes people to shout until their veins burst.

Final Note

My apologies to nations i have singled out in this post, i try to avoid it but i needed better examples. Nuuk, Lines, Magilan, i apologize. Please find it in your hearts to forgive me :P
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ubiquisque
Member Avatar
Large State
[ *  *  *  * ]
While I agree with EA's comments on war generally I am less in agreement with the solution he proposes. I am loathe to create even further bureaucracy around the place.

The real problem seems to me to be that there is no meaningful consequence to a decision to go to war. Because the way we calculate statistics, armed forces, economy etc are all derived from raw NS data (which takes no account of recent conflict) there is no natural disincentive to warfare.

In RL, the severe disruption to industry, commerce, agriculture and population as factories are retooled, peoples relocated, trade lanes are lost and economies redirected on a war footing is a colossal disruption to the state not easily undone. Moreover, the loss of armament and materiel as well as skilled and experience personnel in conflict impedes the ability of a state to re-enter an armed conflict immediately.

For me, the ideal solution is a temporary penalty to stats following armed conflict. I leave it to those more mathematically inclined to settle how best to capture that RL disruption that war causes. Perhaps something like a stat penalty of 5% per day of conflict and then, following the end of hostilities, it regrows at 5% per day until it is back to 100%.

Thus were I to declare war on Levil (and I AM watching your encroachments!!!), on Day 1 of the conflict i would have full use of all my NS stats as currently calculated but only 95% of those on Day 2 and so on. If it lasted a week, I would be down to 65%. If peace were then declared, I have 70% the next day, 75% the following and so on.

No committee required, provides a disincentive to constant warmongering, provides a reason to make wars as brief as possible and, I believe, makes things a little more realistic- as well as addressing the concerns of the Grumpy Old Man.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Glorious Empire
Member Avatar
The Helghan Empire
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
More good Commentary EA, though I think its worth mentioning that some of these proportionate actions can lead to war.

For example. say Someone launches cruise missiles at something in side me. Id respond by attacking the Ships that the Cruise Missiles where launched from, and from there the country that did that would respond by attacking something else in my country (Most likely the airbases that the Strikes against the Ships where launched from) and i would respond in turn, a classic spiral that would lead to war. And that I think is a good RP, since it kinda blurs responsibility, and can lead from International Dogpiling

I also would like to thank you for stating that ABMs take time to be active, though I'm sure that your going to have several countries who are going to state that their ABMs are always on high alert. So I think its worth mentioning that, keeping ABMs on High alert constantly is very expensive, and means for the most part that your going to Shoot down a Passenger Plane that didn't relay its coordinates properly
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Epsilon Andromedae
Unregistered

@ Ubi: I agree, more bureaucracy = bad. Definitely. This is just something available for people to cross reference their RP. and if a conflict arises, there should be a resolution process, which a review thing and check list would help facilitate, thats all i was advocating for there.

And again, you're absolutely right-we're dealing with imaginary people, economies etc, there are no consequences. I think a better resolution should be morale. we can have an arbitrary morale meter, and when it reaches zero the troops are routing and the war is ending.

say, everyone begins at 100% morale. Presumably, people are RPing properly with Intended action, response, action, consequence.

Intended Action: The missile was warming up on the pad
Response: The War raged on
Action: The missile was launched at X
consequence: Missile Defense Systems, occupied by other things, failed to see the missile and the presidential palace was destroyed. -10% morale.

^^Something like that would probably be a good arbitrary indicator. Stat penalties are harder to figure out, but morale is impossible to debate, plus its easier to detect Godmdoe.

it can also go the other way.

"Our people captured the hill! +5% morale!" something like that.

@TGE: You are also correct, proportional reactions CAN lead to war, but whether or not war would be cost effective, worth while, politically intelligent is another thing all together.

Take your scenario modified slightly. You launch the cruise missiles from the ships, intending to achieve, say, the freeing of your hostages.

If you were attacking a large country, the spiral you describe could certainly lead to war. A smaller nation might be more willing to give you back your hostages and steer clear of you for the rest of their history.

and other options exist there as well. but the point being, the gut reaction, the involuntary spasm, should not be war. There are many diplomatic crises that are sufficient alternatives to war.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Glorious Empire
Member Avatar
The Helghan Empire
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I like the Moral Idea, but there are ways to make troops fight without raising moral, such as creating a Commissar Corps. In World War II, that certainly didnt raise the moral of Soviet Troops, but certainly got them to fight.

But there are also a few things that could cause moral to go either way. For example the massacre of a Village could increase enemy Moral or decrease it, depending on the situation
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Epsilon Andromedae
Unregistered

perhaps having two things:

Morale, describing the state of mind, the outlook of a soldier.
100%= positive morale, 0% = no morale

and contrasting that with Resolve, describing a soldiers perception of the urgency of combat.

that should start at 50.

So if resolve drops, the soldier does not feel that he needs to put his best effort into fighting. If morale drops, he does not feel that continued fighting will change the outcome.

If resolve increases, the soldier feels that he must fight harder in order to achieve victory. if morale increases, he feels that victory is imminent, and the end is near at hand.


so 100 point scales for both. i guess we could start 'em both at 50.

and when they both get below 20, troops start to route.

and that would be easy enough to incorporate into RP, people just have to mention how their troops are doing, in response to things and not godmode, which is easily monitorable.

and going into battle, morale and resolve can be at different levels, but it should probably be constant just so godmoding initial troop morale/resolve advantages are mitigated.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Glorious Empire
Member Avatar
The Helghan Empire
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
That could work well, though a third arty would be needed to properly ensure that people deduct and increase moral properly. I'm sure that we'll have a few nations that refuse to drop their moral at all
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lucava
Member Avatar
The Lucavan Union
Good points EA, again it's good to see you maturing where rp is concerned.

As an addition to this, it has been interesting to see people's reactions to Complete Breakdown. LE and I were commenting on how so many people have assumed that there will be Civil War, completely discounting the possibility (possibility) of a non military solution. It just goes to show how overly war obsessed said members are here.

As for the RP Min's duties, I'd prefer a mere exercising of the powers, rather than reiterating what's already there with useless bureaucracy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lucavan Emirates
Member Avatar
Uraartu: ready to take the world by storm...
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Lucava
Jan 13 2010, 07:10 PM
Good points EA, again it's good to see you maturing where rp is concerned.

Patronising or what? :P

*pats EA on head*
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lucava
Member Avatar
The Lucavan Union
Lucavan Emirates
Jan 13 2010, 08:09 PM
Lucava
Jan 13 2010, 07:10 PM
Good points EA, again it's good to see you maturing where rp is concerned.

Patronising or what? :P

*pats EA on head*

Well I can't say I agree with him without giving a reason :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Epsilon Andromedae
Unregistered

war has just become another fact of life here. my aim, if people take this ranting seriously, is for people to think twice, and explore other opportunities. I'm not discounting war as an option, i think if it were rarer it would be a much better RP than the abundant wars we have today.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Demonland
Member Avatar
Large State
[ *  *  *  * ]
Most of the reason you don't see me more active around here is because I've decided to avoid war RP's, more or less for that reason: there's so goddamn many of them, and I just don't buy the reasons for most of them. I restarted my nation to explore other possibilities of RP. So far the best I've come up with is converting to hydrogen-powered vehicles, but I suppose I have to start somewhere. :P

I guess I'm just more interested in using RP to explore the philosophical and ethical sides of conflicts, rather than the "Wow I get to blow stuff up now!" side. Because really, the graphics of a text-based RPG are pretty wanting for that sort of thing. :lol: So if anyone comes up with better ideas in that vein, feel free to give me a shout. I'll keep thinking in the meantime.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Glorious Empire
Member Avatar
The Helghan Empire
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Epsilon Andromedae
Jan 13 2010, 03:36 PM
war has just become another fact of life here. my aim, if people take this ranting seriously, is for people to think twice, and explore other opportunities. I'm not discounting war as an option, i think if it were rarer it would be a much better RP than the abundant wars we have today.

Agreed EA, there are far to many massive armed conflicts. I think we might also want to try having economic penalties after a war ends (since wars usually come with massive increases of government spending, when they end there is usually some kind of recession)

Though this would kinda require a bit more advanced economic system then the one we have now

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nuuk
Member Avatar
Deleted
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Countries like Nuuk, lines, etc: They have the budget, manpower, etc, but they are at war so often that it becomes impossible to maintain. War should be a last resort to an action that persists in its Violation of Policy


I would protest against that. I appear to be at war constantly only because of delayed RPs like my thread with kamo. The only recent wars I've had were with LUN and now Koponia. With Koponia, I'm not even using that much.

My wars with Koponia and LUN were easy to fight. I didn't draft soldiers, I didn't call a war economy; I just sent my airforce to bomb them until they surrendered. Other nations have been providing the soldiers.

--------

I've also repeated over and over again any harm inflicted upon a Koslov citizen (who is innocent) will not be taken lightly by the Koslov Union. It's even worse if the said citizen is a Foreign Ambassador (which the guy sent to Arlington was).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lucavan Emirates
Member Avatar
Uraartu: ready to take the world by storm...
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I think if the RP Minister were to just set certain time limits where their economy would always be under review - i.e. if they attempt more wars or big building projects the RP Minister would issue a personal judgement on how the war is affecting them. I imagine the RP Minister would also urge people to RP the impact of the war.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Wolf's Tavern · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4



edge created by tiptopolive of ifsz