I've read that citizens cannot be armed...why is this? It doesn't make sense.

Doesn't it make sense that people can, well, own guns and decide to use em during wartime?

I realize that some would like to keep this from happening because then people would try to recruit their entire population and use them as army. But even if the people are armed, have some kevlar and a helmet, there's many reasons why this wouldn't work.

Firstly, lets assume that a nation exists which provides all its people with the basic things. Kevlar vest, helmet, one assault rifle, some ammo. Even if let's say 90% of the people have this, there are many issues. The most obvious one is training.

This can easily be overcome, however, it isn't entirely desireable to do so. Let us say people will get weekly training, for example. This takes resources, lots of them, as facilities are required for the training. It also requires, well, instructors, and requires many people in the army to be there to provide order, so the army would be most vulnerable during the training.

This kind of training also does take a long time. Basically, one entire day would be taken up by it. This is one day of either work or rest that the people will NOT have. Not all are willing to "waste" one weekend day, and this would lead to stress. Or if during a week day, well, the economic consequences would be no good. Either way it makes things needlessly complicated and expensive too.

Next point. Even if all of this is done, there's the supply issue. People can't readily act as soldiers without proper supplies. Military supplies for an ENTIRE country? I don't think so, unless it's an extremely tiny fellow with 500 infra or less, being supplied by a larger guy. Either way if people can get food for free, that's got to be bad for the food industries elsewhere as well as restaurants to some extend...

What am I missing. Hmm. Oh, right. 2 or 3 clips aren't enough for war. People would need to have a ton of ammo each...and there's grenades too, do we really want ammo, grenades and other explosive materials in every home? Any casual fire would end up making buildings explode. (lol)

Still, even if we do all that...they can't still act as an army. They'd need communication devices, being able to spontaneously assemble combat units with a common plan, and they would require mobility. Cars aren't good enough. Even if they had APCs and the such, it's not like they have a plan, and they'd get taken out anyway.

They have two realistic uses only. Assembling tiny groups to serve as a sort of guerilla, groups independent from one another is one of them. This is actually a good use, however it can't be expected to stop an entire army. It can certainly be expected to inflict major casualties over time, but it cannot be used "by itself." It needs support of Professional Army Elements. If such "militia" groups have the support of the army, they actually can become quite deadly (Volkssturm, Vietnam...Irak). It should not be underestimated, but without the support and companionship of proper army units, all they can do is plant some bombs here and there, snipe the enemy soldiers, and so forth. But they cannot work as one big Battlegroup.

The other use is being able to more easily replenish your professional army's ranks. That is, being able to obtain reinforcements more easily by recruiting these already somewhat-trained fellows to the proper armed forces. This is a very nice use. But then they don't count as civilians anymore, don't they?

So, the thing is, this should be allowed, why? Because it CAN be done. However, is it really desireable to do this? If people do such a thing, they need to very clearly understand which are the consequences, and the difference between these guys and the REAL army. People should have to RP this well, RP its consequences and understand that this is no way to magically obtain a super large army. I expect a country that works like this will be somewhat like the Soviet Union, with a rather bad economy due to spending so much on military. We all know that if it weren't due to the nukes, it'd have easily wasted the West. But in the end its strength was its downfall.

Also, this could well backfire and make the people decide to get rid of its current government, or more unthinkable issues. What do you guys think?

Civilians have good morale, at first, but after combat if they aren't running for the hills, or more likely dead, they are to shocked and unprepared for what just happened to them. You can't toss a thousand civilians into a battle zone and expect them to even stop a single company of actual trained and conditioned military soldiers.

Arming every citizen takes massive resources, and giving out guns and bullets like its a sale item at Walmart is a good way to make a extremely strong organized crime system develop. Also, how do you handle a riot of people you've armed with sub machine guns and grenades?



The only people that have had large groups of armed civilians, and that I remember off the top of my head, (and I don't mean resistance, thats a whole different kettle of fish) were the Germans of ww2 (Didn't seem to slow the Russians down any) , the VC of Vietnam (not many survived the Tet offensive. Basically the VC were no longer a fighting force after that. Good thing it was a political win.), Afghanistan against the Russians, (they were completely getting their butts kicked until they got weapons from America), The Balkans, and nations in Africa that wage constant civil war against each other.

Well, even soldiers are shocked badly by war anyway...

The crime system would indeed be a problem. The riots too, but it can be argued that there won't be riots unless the government is retarded...but still, what if someone gets too drunk? It's too dangerous.

The Volkssturm was actually able to kill a large number of Russians, but only in the defensive of course (Berlin). As I said, they lack mobility, so they're only suitable for defensive purposes. In Vietnam, well, lets admit it, the defenders did extremely well considering that they were fighting USA. Afghanistan...yeah. Well, one can't fight without weapons.

But one thing is true, their losses are always FAR higher than actual army losses.

Because if you have 20,000 soldiers in-game you can only use 200,000 in RP.

That's why.

The VC only did well because they had a consistant supply from the Russians and we didn't bomb anything worth bombing. Had we bombed the shipyards and trainyards, the VC would have not lasted very long.

Correct me if I am wrong, but in Switzerland is it not mandatory for every citizen to be armed? And similarly in Israel where everyone has gone through military draft so everyone is in fact a reserve and thus can carry arms. If Israel and Switzerland can do it, why not us in RP? Of course the formations like that would only be less effective reserves or more better militia for civil purposes.

Yes, true, but if you have to use the aircraft to deal with the militia, I'd say the militia is somewhat relevant. Even if they get pwned afterwards.



Also, shh trollgun.

No. Most of us have pretty much agreed that military and armed troops are based on your in-game troop counts (albeit often modified by multiples - something I don't agree with).

Let's be real here: exactly HOW MANY soldiers does someone need for RP? After all, the in-game mechanics already allow for an absurdly high ratio of soldiers to civilians. Why do some people think they need more?

I don't know of any nation that can fight a war with more than a third of their population in the armed forces like CN lets us. That is even beyond the means of North Korea which is arguable the most militarised nation in RL.

I think once Botha says something, the entire discussion is over.

As I talked with Mael about this due to his arming of his citizens this is very tricky ground to navigate on, because we need to be able to draw the line somewhere before this turns into a game of Risk where nations are lobbing millions upon millions of people at each other during war. Now I understand that many countries have large armies and are extremely vast, however this does not apply to every nation on Earth, as such an extensive recruitment would cripple a nations economy. As with Mael, he is able to arm his citizens and they of course must go through a rigorous training program to even begin to reach the equivalent of regular soldiers on the battlefield, so yes while the Swiss are all armed, if someone could inform me if they go through the same training program that say a US soldier would go through then that would have to be RPed in depth and even then it would have to be subject to debate between nations that chose to conduct their internal policy that I think would be considered 'Spartan' as of course there would be harsh political and aesthetic repercussions for said acts.

In addition to this, under NO CIRCUMSTANCES may a nations army number more than what you have in game. This has always been a rule with CNRP and it will remain a rule, so while I think you can arm your citizens, train them, and as troops die you may RP them perhaps being drafted or entering into a National Guard, you may not exceed your amount of troops, tanks, air force, navy, IG.

I'm up for options, but not options that differ from the rule of IG and RP troops are in multipliers of each other.

Militias, maybe, but you'd have to define what a militia is further.

If you want to RP armed citizens as having an impact on the outcome, discount it from your standing army.

I agree with this. I just don't feel that people should be able to RP a trained civilian population force with the hopes of overcoming a bigger army or something. And that's what was abused before and would be probably be used again.

Until there is some sort of fixed method for calculating population which can be applied fairly across all nations, CNRP will not RP armed citizens fighting against hostile armies.

Really??? Can someone please explain that to Mrs. Botha?



This. Any militias or armed civilians that can impact a battle or war should be considered as part of your total military troop numbers.

So what about the French resistance are we not allowed to RP some of our citizens being like them? Its perfectly normal to happen in RL. I mean if I decide to RP maybe 5% of my population taking up arms and resisting any invaders I bloody will do so. Of course ther eis no way I would RP all of my civilians taking up arms.

Then you use your IG soldier amount for that, as it has been stated several times. The French's standing army was depleted, and so for CNRP it would make sense that the "player" would use "their" cybernation's soldier amount.

IC-wise, if I am to be rolled Diberia would op for Guerilla warfare-style and make the soldiers dissolve into the population.

EDIT: I echo this:

Very well then. Considering my IG soldier count never goes down unless il suffer IG losses I guess I will have an infinite amount of soldiers to do as I please.

And this is why I don't do RP wars. Doesn't matter how many rules there are on the table, someone will always be looking for a loophole to give them an edge.

As for resistances, the Boere have a history of taking up arms when invaded - however when I got invaded IG, I got no resistance to RP out as my troop count was at zero (0).

Besides, if we are looking at IG troop numbers to indicate RP troops strengths, keep in mind an attacker IG does not commit all his troops to offensive ground strikes. Some of them are obviously deployed for home defensive duties, but one could also assume that a portion of those 'defensive' troops will be pulling occupation duty as well.

Resistances and partisan groups in WW2 did tie down troops but their overall effectness in creating troops losses can be debatable. Most of their success when it was actual organised combat was against competing local resistance groups or against retreating troops throwing in the towel (i.e. Yugoslavia and Albania in both examples).

So I think we should just assume any resistance movements out there areZ: 1) incapable of launching offensive attacks against regular troops unless part of that nation's troop count, or: 2) they are simply engaged with a nation's undeployed defensive troops tying them down and thus have no damage effect on offensively deployed troops.

And, folks... remember: keep it simple.

EDITTED FOR BADS SPEELING

I essentially agree with KM; that is why I think the present system which allows you to utilize the population as a source for new soldiers is acceptable. It allows people to run longterm guerrilla campaigns while ensuring there is a relative cap on the total amount of combatants you can control. Another reason why this "loop hole" shouldn't be eliminated.

I agree with KM, but I realize people would abuse the system. If militias are ever introduced into CNRP, there should be restrictions, such as...

1. Militias can only be 5% of population MAX
2. Must RP economic side effects
3. Cannot use militia in offensive attacks
4. Militia aren't well trained. Their casualties will have to be X percent higher than professional military


etc., etc. That's somewhat common sense.

The percentage--I assume that's supposed to be of ingame population? If that's the case, i propose a higher percentage--like 20%.

That's fairly realistic, I should think.

I have not posted in a RP thread for months, but this is a topic I had a particular interest in. When I was here I did try to use civilian militias, but I did consider them part of my regular army totals. I think V the King is right on that point. The Swiss model or something like it should work, you just have to RP both the positive & negative aspects of it. If it is still there my post on how I was planning on using them should be somewhere in the RP section. One of the problems I thought we had in handling the troops in RP is almost no one ever kept any troops for defense, whatever total they had they just sent the lot over to invade whoever they were fighting. I was sorely tempted to invade one or two people who did that just to teach them a lesson. I'm not that mean though.

Yeah, after all, only a percentage of the population is healthy enough to be somewhat-proper militia and soldiers. Little kids and grandpas won't help much, so there should be a % for the maximum that can be used.

If we are using pop in CNRP for militias, then we should stick to the 100x multiplier of IG pop for IC population.

Mirreille? Long time no see! Glad tio see you still drop by.

I was thinking of the actual population. 5% of 10,000 is...what, 500? That's not even worth having.

But that would only work if we could agree on a universal multiplier.

We don't have to have a population multiplier for all things. We could just do this.



So, take my population, for example.

.2(50,996*100)
.2(5,099,600) = 1,019,920

1 million may be high by some standards, so the 20% (.2) could be changed to a 10% or 15%.

Or even the 5% you suggested originally.

In any case, that sounds fair to me. I could go for that.

I assumed that you would have more militia than military. At 5%, militia would be roughly half of what your military is.

no RL nation has ever had 5% of the civilian population rise up as a milita/resistance/insurgance

Bringing us back to the debate whether CNRP is more CN or more RP...Throwing in all these formulas will only make this game more complicated to an already complicated game at times. We have always done IG troops, plus a few multipliers to equal your military. I do like what Botha and V said about taking troops out of your regular army to use them as a militia, but as to creating formulas to deal with IG civilians and transforming them into a military force, I don't agree with it. People have armies already of half a million, three-quarters of a million, sometimes over a million men. That is a extremely large amount of soldiers to begin with, plus I don't think I've ever seen a war here that wasn't fought by multiple nations bringing troop strength to another ungodly number. If we begin to place IG civilians into the formula, it will quickly be abused, whether by people adding numbers, or nations not RPing the negative effects of the raising of massive militias, because lets be honest as Mirelle said, most people take their entire army out of their nation and home front RP is rare, if at all my many. Not all, some of you do do it, but some of you don't and that's where the abuse will start.

I would say no, if so many countries want to take the Swiss route we can talk further, however the Swiss population is 7,739,100. I know for a fact that no one except for probably Botha-Mode players have a population of 7,739,100, instead there are populations of 50 million or above. 50 million armed citizens? No, this is still a game, and there still has to be the ability to lose.

No one is saying these are likely to win the war...in fact, all by themselves, they can do nothing except prove to be a small thorn.

I could not agree more. I honestly don't know how all of you are able to keep track of all these rules and modifiers?



Actually, my civilian population is just over 50,000... yes, fifty-thousand. Include the Krygsmagte into the mix and you're looking 94,000 tops as Transvaal's population.

And provide an interesting RP concept; more accurate guerrilla warfare!

That's the idea!

Just make sure that Guerrillas and regular forces still equal your IG army total with the multipliers

Exactly. KISS. Keep It Simple Sweety (I don't want to be rude )

Well...I've never heard it put THAT way before...

So what do YOU do for population and troop counts?

I have a population of less than 3 million. Am I the exception?


My thoughts on the militas: Make total possible militas about twice your military force, but put their power at around 1/5.

This kind of training also does take a long time. Basically, one entire day would be taken up by it. This is one day of either work or rest that the people will NOT have. Not all are willing to "waste" one weekend day, and this would lead to stress. Or if during a week day, well, the economic consequences would be no good. Either way it makes things needlessly complicated and expensive too.

I think they can be armed, but nothing heavier than light submachine guns, pump-action shot guns and ordinary pistols. Even so, they won't make a noticeable dent in the enemy's heavily armed and trained military force.