Great Patriotic War Event

[Triyun]

An idea that I've been mulling over is how to address opportunities for mobilization and standing armies vs draft armies.  Something I've considered is a nation's ability to mobilize reserves and drafted armies based on level of threat.  Obviously if Tianxia could draft an army, it'd be super gamey in most circumstances.  What I would like to propose as sort of a balancer in fact is the right to mobilize (assuming you have time to do the mobilization, you do have to RP it out) based on the threat you face.

 

Some basic idea I had regarding this would be the following:

x1.2 times forces at War

x1.5 times forces at war with opponent at least 75% your NS+ allies

x3 Country 'x' has GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR EVENT!  Attacked by at least 150% your NS +allies 

 

Some caveats to drafted forces:

-Nations must build up forces that are drafted at a realistic rate, this means infantry can come very fast, large technologically complex systems like nuclear submarines, warheads themselves, advanced bombers may take a very long time.  

-Drafted forces cannot be insta-trained to the quality of standing armies.  

-Common sense effects of drafting must be RPed out.

 

thoughts?

[PresidentDavid]

Interesting to say the least. 

 

There are many wars that move so fast, however, that make me wonder if this could still be effective for the defending party? I know a defending party could use all the help they could get but I think "realistic rate" needs to better be defined. A very interesting idea indeed. 

[Triyun]

You'd need to not insta surrender yes.

[Zoot Zoot]

No.

[iKrolm]

Sounds resonable for a WWII roleplay, but training new soldiers takes months. How likely is it for a nation to last that long in a war versus a modern CNRP army?

[Triyun]

Yes there are tactics against this.  Nothing is an instant win.  I don't see your point.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

I'm a bit meh on this, because people already have quite sizeable armies mostly being oversized for their country.

 

Does +allies mean that coalitions are factored in on both sides?

[Triyun]

Yes so for instance if 4 40k nations were fighting a single 140k nation, they would not get the bonus, but a single 40k vs. a 140k nation would.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

One 40k vs two 30k?

[Triyun]

The 40k would get 3x  30k would both get 1.5x

[Mogar]

I don't really see how this would change anything, using my current war as an example, it is not as though I would be able to build more aircraft, a navy, or anything else besides perhaps throwing some civilians guns and flak jackets and letting them pop off a few rounds before telling them to go out and fight. If anything this would merely benefit those who pursue aggressive actions against those who can not harm the aggressors homeland.

[Triyun]

20% vs. 300% bonus.  In the words of Bill Clinton, Arithmetic.

[Mogar]

It simply adds manufacturing to the list of targets, you bomb their shipbuilding and plane building facilities and suddenly the 300% doesn't actually matter, you seem to be forgetting the defender would be multiplying by zero within a half hour IC time.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

I don't really see how this would change anything, using my current war as an example, it is not as though I would be able to build more aircraft, a navy, or anything else besides perhaps throwing some civilians guns and flak jackets and letting them pop off a few rounds before telling them to go out and fight. If anything this would merely benefit those who pursue aggressive actions against those who can not harm the aggressors homeland.

Well, I'd not think it benefits the aggressor that much. Rather, it allows for a person that got attacked to draw on some reserves and be a bit more dynamic about drafting people, instead of instant mobilisation.

 

It simply adds manufacturing to the list of targets, you bomb their shipbuilding and plane building facilities and suddenly the 300% doesn't actually matter, you seem to be forgetting the defender would be multiplying by zero within a half hour IC time.

In half an hour IC time, noone builds a ship or plane. Not even with functional production facilities. But I think this is more of an issue to keep industries related to the war effort survivable, which people should look at in the first place. If your supply and industry dies qith a couple missiles fired at them, then you shouldn't expect to survive much.

[Lynneth]

Personally, I'm not sure how this would benefit the RP. I'm against it.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

I see some benefit in it, allowing for some kind of total war effort. I'm undecided overall though.

[Triyun]

Blitzkrieg is always going to be successful if you don't prepare for war.  Air and Navy is still tough, some of its doable, but still tough but if proper preparations are made ground forces can be made much more survivable by this.  It also incentivizes larger countries with more strategic depth, rather than pocket size nations surrounded by white space that's had no owner for 6 years.

[Mogar]

Which kinda proves my point it benefits larger nations, and there are many other advantages larger nations already have.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

Well, it's the Great Patriotic War. Not the German occupation of Luxembourg...

 

I would hope that this strength is still convertable, given that a nation that has prioritised land-based or sea-based assets might not really profit all too much from being able to arm the opposite. More for land-based though, as decent-sized ships would realistically take years to construct (for those who go Arsenal of Democracy style and build tons of ships to dominate the seas, compared to a short-term submarine surge a la Dönitz, which could be finished maybe in a bit less time).

[Triyun]

No try again, strategic depth isn't at all reserved for Tianxia and Russia.  

 

If you assume a rate of overrun equal to the US March to Baghdad, so pretty rapid, plenty of countries have some decent strategic depth, excluding a few of the coastal ones in Africa, who could easily have requested more land I'm assuming.

 

Edit:  Its also worth noting the same time applies to both powers.  So I don't even see how you would even argue it would help me take Iceland, as I would have to train people all the way back at minimum in South America, then move them across the Atlantic Ocean, while at the same time saying I can overrun Iceland in 4 days.  If that war was so fast it wouldn't matter for either side, and I'd have to decom those units as soon as the war ended, and they'd be my worst units, so why would I even use them?   The 'help big guy' argument doesn't have any real logic unless you're talking about a home front war which your first argument was, it would benefit people with a secure home front, and therefore that makes no sense either.

Edited May 6, 2014 by Triyun

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

Using NS as a guide raises a few problems.  Not all NS is equal.  NS gained through infrastructure or military raises military capabilities in RP by allowing more IG troops, while NS gained through land or tech does not.  Also, not everyone RPs their full NS, or does so very well.  Also, I demand that Russia gets double the multipliers because we invented the term.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

Using NS as a guide raises a few problems.  Not all NS is equal.  NS gained through infrastructure or military raises military capabilities in RP by allowing more IG troops, while NS gained through land or tech does not.  Also, not everyone RPs their full NS, or does so very well.  Also, I demand that Russia gets double the multipliers because we invented the term.

First, if you gain NS ingame by buying tanks, that's adding nothing at all to your IC abilities. A couple other military assets work similar, so having a lot of ingame military really doesn't boost your IC capabilities. Meanwhile, tech moves you along the tech scale and determines pretty much whether you can be late cold-war tech or whether you actually can use stuff from the 21st century. So, you are wrong twice there.

 

Lastly, you shouldn't get double the multipliers, because you already mismanage your current numbers horribly. The Soviet motherland would be ashamed of you and Stalin would put you into a Gulag near Magadan for the way you are handling wars.

[Triyun]

If your stats are tech heavy you get better units, but fewer of them, I fail to see the problem.  

[Uberstein]

Technically one has lesser returns than the other, as tech caps ~2020. Infrastructure-based NS does not cap in terms of number of soldiers one can have.

 

At the higher tiers, it once against becomes a numbers game, because tech is technically equal. I don't really see what this rule would do besides compound the problem of larger nations only being able to be fought via coalitions, since the larger nation would suddenly have bonuses to troop numbers the moment a coalition is formed against it.

 

So I don't really see this as a rule we need.

Edited May 7, 2014 by Uberstein

[Evangeline Anovilis]

Honestly, there's two things to note here:

 

Tech caps at 2024. This means, at some point, it indeed will become meaningless NS. However, that point is mostly reached by not even a handful big players at 10,000 or so tech, it is hardly a concern for smaller people.

 

Also, large people most of the time would get a 1.2 multiplier for their troops, nothing more. Might get 1.5, if they fight on somewhat equal footing, which would see both sides elevated to that. The prerequisite of a person like Triyun getting a times 3 multiplier is that a coalition is arranged against him that has at least 1.5 times the NS of him. Unless Cent and Shammy or the Russians come at him, I don't see a way that such an overpowering edge would ever be possible, nor does it give Triyun an immediate surge in numbers. He'd have to RP them as conscripts and newly-built vehicles, former which would be pretty much like the Peple's Liberation Army Militia, not elite specops (though they still would be tough in skilled hands, but so is everything) and latter which needs a ton of time. A decent coalition can still try to wreck him, they can use early strength to overpower him and then try to keep his conscripts down. It's not easy to take out his war industry, depots, barracks and whatever else may be needed to get those conscripts armed and trained to a basic standard. In China it might be impossible to most of us. But it'd also not be easy to make up an early hit purely on conscripts.

 

Most of the time, you'll see that GPW multiplier activated by smaller nations, not by the great powers. Everytime they get attacked by a great power and don't just surrender. And to say that it just helps the big guy is not entirely true, given that in order to activate the full multiplier, they will have to be outnumbered in the first place, by at least 150% of their NS. It's a rule that does not make big guys a great deal stronger and it doesn't give big guys an edge over smaller fry. What it actually does is prolong conflicts and allow for a recovery and turn of the tide, if you can actually hold on.

 

Also, Uber. You can already today only fight a great power if you are a great power yourself or if you have an at least semi-competent coalition. This doesn't change much. But if you are so concerned about it, try reach a level of 130% the enemy NS, which means both sides go 1.5 times, most likely in the coalitions favour (130 to 100 becomes 195 to 150).