Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only".

In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060


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

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
What do you think?
Armies are fine as they are 5 (38.5%)
The military could use more structure 8 (61.5%)
Total Votes: 13
Military Structure; An idea
Topic Started: Jul 16 2006, 10:41 AM (863 Views)
Nag Ehgoeg
Member Avatar
The Devil's Advocate

Over on "the board that does not exist" the mod team have been kicking arround the idea of bringing more structure to our military system. In light of a pending world war, it might be fairer to have some more structure to our nations armies.

There are three main ideas that we're toying with:

1) Leaving things as they are. This seems to be the favourite :P
2) Introducing a mathmatical system to choose an army. Paradise has come up with some interesting formulars, CE has complained he doesn't understand. This mathmatical system would be used as a guide only - taking a back seat to story but being used more often than not to ensure fairness.
3) Writing up a qualitive guide. This would basically just be expanding Patrua's How To Make A Military and getting everyone to review their military to make sure it "fits" the profile of a realistic and well balanced fighting force.

Right now we don't have anything like a complete system for mathmatically chosing an army - we want something detailed enough to be fair, but not so complicated as to make this a war game instead of a political role play. But we're working on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Catholic Europe
Member Avatar
Spammer
I like the 3rd idea.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
New Harumf
Member Avatar
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
I like 3 too!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quaon
Member Avatar
A Prince Amoung Men-Shoot First and Ask Questions Later
Nag Ehgoeg
Jul 16 2006, 10:41 AM
Over on "the board that does not exist" the mod team have been kicking arround the idea of bringing more structure to our military system. In light of a pending world war, it might be fairer to have some more structure to our nations armies.

There are three main ideas that we're toying with:

1) Leaving things as they are. This seems to be the favourite :P
2) Introducing a mathmatical system to choose an army. Paradise has come up with some interesting formulars, CE has complained he doesn't understand. This mathmatical system would be used as a guide only - taking a back seat to story but being used more often than not to ensure fairness.
3) Writing up a qualitive guide. This would basically just be expanding Patrua's How To Make A Military and getting everyone to review their military to make sure it "fits" the profile of a realistic and well balanced fighting force.

Right now we don't have anything like a complete system for mathmatically chosing an army - we want something detailed enough to be fair, but not so complicated as to make this a war game instead of a political role play. But we're working on it.

If this "mathematical military" in instated, I'm leaving.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Assassin
Member Avatar
Field Marshal
Try to be a little more open minded, Quaon.

Personally, I'm for 2 or 3. The system does need some firming up. Its kind of boring that I can have 20 million troops and pretty much just Zerg people. Once you get to a billion, its more or less who has a bigger population and more friends.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quaon
Member Avatar
A Prince Amoung Men-Shoot First and Ask Questions Later
The Assassination Army
Jul 16 2006, 01:46 PM
Try to be a little more open minded, Quaon.

Personally, I'm for 2 or 3. The system does need some firming up. Its kind of boring that I can have 20 million troops and pretty much just Zerg people. Once you get to a billion, its more or less who has a bigger population and more friends.

No, not really. I think 1-3 million should be the maximum ammount of troops feasible, eliminating the need for math. This isn't about winning, this is about telling a story. Math screws that all up.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Paradise
Member Avatar
Resident bureaucrat

The formula in question (for point 2):

Population*EconomicLevel*(NSTaxRate-0.2*NSTaxRate²)*MilitaryBudget=CPs (rounded)


There is also one that doesn't take care of the economy type (i.e. no NSTaxRate):

Population*EconomicLevel*MilitaryBudget=CPs (rounded)


Variables

Population: Your population in millions

EconomicLevel:
Code:
 
1      = Frightening
0.9333 = All-Consuming
0.8667 = Powerhouse
0.8    = Thriving
0.7333 = Very Strong
0.6667 = Strong
0.6    = Good
0.5333 = Fair
0.4667 = Reasonable
0.4    = Developing
0.3333 = Struggling
0.2667 = Weak
0.2    = Fragile
0.1333 = Basket Case
0.0667 = Imploded


NSTaxRate: Your NationStates tax rate on a scale from 0 to 1 (ex.: 5% = 0.05, 50% = 0.5, 100% = 1)

MilitaryBudget: The proportion, on a scale from 0 to 1 (ex.: 5% = 0.05, 50% = 0.5, 100% = 1), of your national budget going to Defence. This is found here: http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/nationdata.cgi/nation=X
where X is your nation's name.

CPs: Stands for "Command points" and would be used to buy a fixed number of troops/vehicles/planes/ships.


Fixed values
The 0.0667 modifier for EconomicLevel is equal to 1/15 (there are 15 economic strenghts on NationStates). It would be possible to make the modifier harsher by replacing the numerator with a number > 1.

The first formula includes inefficiency from collecting a too high proportion of taxes. For 100% income taxes, you effectively collect 80% (1-0.2). By changing "0.2" to a value X, we can add inefficiency (X>0.2) or remove some inefficiency (X<0.2).

Those values are arguable...


Examples using both formulas

Paradise
1st formula:
7778*1*(1-0.2*1²)*0.53 = 3298 CPs
2nd formula:
7778*1*0.53 = 4122 CPs

Nag Ehgoeg
1st formula:
7811*0.8667*(0.06-0.2*0.06²)*0.29 = 116 CPs
2nd formula
7811*0.8667*0.29 = 1963 CPs

Catholic Europe
1st formula:
7698*1*(1-0.2*1²)*0.21 = 1293 CPs
2nd formula:
7698*1*0.21 = 1617 CPs
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The CNNP
Member Avatar
Enforcer
Well, I am open to it; but I am not doing the math :wacko: , at least not without a tutor. :cry:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Paradise
Member Avatar
Resident bureaucrat

Quaon
Jul 16 2006, 02:55 PM
The Assassination Army
Jul 16 2006, 01:46 PM
Try to be a little more open minded, Quaon.

Personally, I'm for 2 or 3. The system does need some firming up. Its kind of boring that I can have 20 million troops and pretty much just Zerg people. Once you get to a billion, its more or less who has a bigger population and more friends.

No, not really. I think 1-3 million should be the maximum ammount of troops feasible, eliminating the need for math. This isn't about winning, this is about telling a story. Math screws that all up.

I like the idea of a mathematical formula, but then again, I'm economist. I'm completely biased :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Catholic Europe
Member Avatar
Spammer
The CNNP
Jul 16 2006, 02:02 PM
Well, I am open to it; but I am not doing the math :wacko: , at least not without a tutor. :cry:

Same here.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Noriega
Member Avatar
Resident Hobbit
I got the math down already from the other forum, so I know I can do it...but it still looks so intimidating. I am not a fan of putting a cap on the "maximum ammount of troops feasible". That's too much. Therefore I'll go with three, but I definately don't mind if we go with 2. Just don't tell me I can only have a million troops, or you'll end up on the recieving end of a tirade at least: thats if I can't find you to beat your brains in. :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Assassin
Member Avatar
Field Marshal
Basically, here's my thoughts...

I'm willing to try anything once. If I dont like it, I'll go back to the way things were. Its not like we can't do that here. I just want to try it to see how it works out.

And yes, its not about winning. There really is no winning in this game. I agree it is all about the story. But to make the stories have some more realism... the new military style will give it a definate way of showing who has the upperhand and such... throwing in some extra drama if your on the losing side, or some gloating and bragging rights if your winning.

Plus, theres always terrain and weather to account for as well. You may have more/better troops... but if they arent used to the area... they might as well be useless.

All this could be used to enhance the roleplaying here.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nag Ehgoeg
Member Avatar
The Devil's Advocate

Personally, I also favour option 3.

And I dislike both military formulars. In one of them Nag Ehgoeg is WAY too strong (not a problem, as I'll just volentarily make myself weaker - but it is a problem for nations like mine). In the other it's far to weak. But if we can tweak it to find a midpoint... that'd be great.

And I think the AA raises a very good point, whereas Quaon is throwing a CE.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quaon
Member Avatar
A Prince Amoung Men-Shoot First and Ask Questions Later
Nag Ehgoeg
Jul 16 2006, 02:46 PM
Personally, I also favour option 3.

And I dislike both military formulars. In one of them Nag Ehgoeg is WAY too strong (not a problem, as I'll just volentarily make myself weaker - but it is a problem for nations like mine). In the other it's far to weak. But if we can tweak it to find a midpoint... that'd be great.

And I think the AA raises a very good point, whereas Quaon is throwing a CE.

I'm not really going to leave if this is passed. I like option 3, but not option 2. It just adds unneed complexicty to the game.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Assassin
Member Avatar
Field Marshal
^_^ I try Nag, I try. Though Q has a good point as well, it is kind of complex to figure out.

We need a calculator for us math impaired. :lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
New Harumf
Member Avatar
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
The Assassination Army
Jul 16 2006, 03:03 PM
^_^ I try Nag, I try. Though Q has a good point as well, it is kind of complex to figure out.

We need a calculator for us math impaired. :lol:

You are typing on a GD computer, for god's sake! Can't someone just write a program to spit this out??
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nag Ehgoeg
Member Avatar
The Devil's Advocate

Actually this would make a great subject for my first ever GM script... but I'm too lazy. Instead I'll do the math for anyone who can't work it out for themselves. And I'm sure some other people would volenteer.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Assassin
Member Avatar
Field Marshal
I dont know a darn thing about programming. Though I may know a few tweaks who do. I'll reasearch it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Paradise
Member Avatar
Resident bureaucrat

Nag Ehgoeg
Jul 16 2006, 03:46 PM
And I dislike both military formulars. In one of them Nag Ehgoeg is WAY too strong (not a problem, as I'll just volentarily make myself weaker - but it is a problem for nations like mine). In the other it's far to weak. But if we can tweak it to find a midpoint... that'd be great.

Let's try increasing inefficiency to 0.3 .

Paradise
For 0.2:
7778*1*(1-0.2*1²)*0.53 = 3298 CPs
For 0.3:
7778*1*(1-0.3*1²)*0.53 = 2886 CPs
Difference (absolute) = -412
Difference (relative) = -12%

Nag Ehgoeg
For 0.2:
7811*0.8667*(0.06-0.2*0.06²)*0.29 = 116 CPs
For 0.3:
7811*0.8667*(0.06-0.3*0.06²)*0.29 = 116 CPs
Difference (absolute) = 0
Difference (relative) = 0%

Catholic Europe
For 0.2:
7698*1*(1-0.2*1²)*0.21 = 1293 CPs
For 0.3:
7698*1*(1-0.3*1²)*0.21 = 1132 CPs
Difference (absolute) = -161
Difference (relative) = -12%

Increasing inefficiency may be a way to increase (indirectly) the power of low-taxing countries. But what should it be to be a fair compromise? 0.3? 0.4? 0.5!? (shouldn't be higher than 0.5 though).

If we try to use a harsher modifier for the EconomicLevel, you (Nag Ehgoeg) are sure to lose even more CPs because your economy is actually at "Powerhouse" while ours (me and CE) are at Frightening.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

I love the formula system. But then, I'm a math Major, lol.

I was suggesting that one of us who is willing to do the formulas should keep a database of all the active nations. It would be easy to do with a spreadsheet. That way, less math-inclined players wouldn't have to be burdened with the calculations.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Paradise
Member Avatar
Resident bureaucrat

A database updated each 1st of the month!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Assassin
Member Avatar
Field Marshal
1st of the months sounds like a great idea. ^_^
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

Yeah, sounds good to me too. I'd be willing to do the spreadsheet and keep a topic with the numbers, Paradise et. al. finalize the formula.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
East Anarx
Member Avatar
Anarchitect

I'm for the math system all the way. Only problem I have is that if a country has no taxes, like Esternarx for instance, wants an army, how do they get one? Can you use the formula for a large corporation that is responsible for a certain portion of the economy or something like that?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Paradise
Member Avatar
Resident bureaucrat

I just thought about this... Maybe we could have two formulas: one for peace time and one for war time.

In peace time, the correct formula would be this one:
Population*EconomicLevel*(NSTaxRate-0.2*NSTaxRate²)*MilitaryBudget = PeaceCPs

PeaceCPs would be Ğ professionnal ğ CPs, that means they are used to sustain a professional army / navy / air force.

In war time, it is clear that any government can raise the taxes and allocate a higher proportion of the budget into Defence... So I was thinking, maybe they should be able increase both their tax rates and Defence budget proportion. This formula would calculate the WarCPs:

Population*EconomicLevel*(WarTaxRate-0.2*WarTaxRate²)*WarBudget - PeaceCPs = WarCPs

where WarTaxRate and WarBudget are arbitrarily chosen by the player.

That means, all CPs exceeding PeaceCPs would be WarCPs and could be used for conscript units only. Of course, you could buy conscript units with PeaceCPs, but it would cost you less than with WarCPs. In other other words, a PeaceCP would worth more than a WarCP. For example: 1 PeaceCP = 2 WarCPs for a fixed price of conscript unit.

What do you guys think?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply