Sumeragi Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 The current rule helps define one soliders, with Max IG Soldiers x 10 being the rule. However, some nations RP mandatory military service and militas, straining the rules at times. Let's discuss the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 mandatory military service = soldiers There is nothing else to get. I RP mandatory service, but I do not RP having millions upon millions of drafted soldiers. I added a militia rule. A militia is not powerful or close to powerful. This is just lulzy. *The term militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service. Keeping in the spirit of a militia, the formula:(max in-game soldier efficiency - max in-game soldier count = militia) A militia will not have the same strength as a regular army. A 100,000 militia army (which is absurd) would have the strength of a 10,000 soldier army - militia is more powerful when spread out as an insurgency. Keep in mind that militias will be taken on as a case-by-case basis if there are issues and there is no blanket ruling other than the formula. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Kevz Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 I do have a question my nation is heavily military based and whilst I dont have many citzens they could take to the defense of their lands if needed though they would have to be supplied by the army and so how do I do this as an able person could take up arms as they have all been trained in basic weapons training. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justinian the Mighty Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 (edited) Let me just get this straight, because I've been confused by this rule once before. It's how many soldiers you can buy, not how many soldiers you currently have on hand, and that number is multiplied by 10. Right? Edited March 4, 2009 by Justinian the Mighty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sumeragi Posted March 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 Let me just get this straight, because I've been confused by this rule once before. It's how many soldiers you can buy, not how many soldiers you currently have on hand, and that number is multiplied by 10. Right? [How many soldiers you can have if you maxed out on soldiers] x 10. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 Let me just get this straight, because I've been confused by this rule once before. It's how many soldiers you can buy, not how many soldiers you currently have on hand, and that number is multiplied by 10. Right? Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justinian the Mighty Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 cool, that means I have 800,000 active troops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Kevz Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 cool, that means I have 800,000 active troops. Wow!!! Im going to stick with what I have x10 I prefer it that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberstein Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 I've always liked how many soilders you currently have ingame, if you're not willing to put up with the cost, you don't get the soilders. Our CNRP nations are based off our ingame nations in other places, why not there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sumeragi Posted March 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 I've always liked how many soilders you currently have ingame, if you're not willing to put up with the cost, you don't get the soilders. Our CNRP nations are based off our ingame nations in other places, why not there? Because of the "Your population is scared of too many soldiers" problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberstein Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 (edited) Because of the "Your population is scared of too many soldiers" problem. Well, if someone wars with me, I will play to the standard of Ingame soldiers x10. If they don't want to put up with the costs of an army, they don't get one. I've been playing that way since February of 2007, I'm not going to change now because some people are lazy. Edited March 4, 2009 by BaronUberstein Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tahsir Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 I'm on ubie's side with this one. I just RP what my IG troop levels are x10. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerreyRough Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 Same, with Ubie on this one as well. Its not that much money to have some troops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vasili Markov Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 I would go with the idea that you only can use 10x your actual IG soldiers offensively. The remainder as up to your maximum possible IG amount x 10 can only be deployed as a militia on your home territory. militia will be less effective than regular soldiers in conventional combat but they will have an advantage if they fight a guerrilla war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerreyRough Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 I would go with the idea that you only can use 10x your actual IG soldiers offensively.The remainder as up to your maximum possible IG amount x 10 can only be deployed as a militia on your home territory. militia will be less effective than regular soldiers in conventional combat but they will have an advantage if they fight a guerrilla war. Thats better. Now I just wonder what happens when you have a complete army trained for jsut guerrilla warfare... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 (edited) I am following my alliance's peacetime development guidelines by having minimum troops to maximize income. Max troops x 10 is something everyone can abide by and is equitably fair based on the national strength and development of the underlying stats of your nation. I will not change this. This is how I've counted them since I joined July of last year. As for militia, I RP them, but do not count them as having any serious effect against actual troop actions. Edited March 4, 2009 by Maelstrom Vortex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberstein Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 I am following my alliance's peacetime development guidelines by having minimum troops to maximize income. Max troops x 10 is something everyone can abide by and is equitably fair based on the national strength and development of the underlying stats of your nation. I will not change this. This is how I've counted them since I joined July of last year.As for militia, I RP them, but do not count them as having any serious effect against actual troop actions. And if you ever declare war on me or vise versa, I will only recognize your in game troops x 10. I will not change the way I've RP'd for 2 years because some people don't want to spend the insignificant amount of imaginary cash to have troops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeVentNoir Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 I get 500,000 militia? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vasili Markov Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 (edited) I have one thing to say to people who think militias & guerrillas are ineffective at defence. The vietcong were a guerrilla force of peasants and they fought the US army a vastly larger and more technologically advanced army to a standstill. The Mujahideen, a similar guerrilla force fought the Soviet Union for years in Afghanistan. Correctly played a guerrilla army can tie up a larger & more technologically advanced army for years. They may not be able to win against them but they can make the cost of an occupation excessive. Edited March 4, 2009 by Vasili Markov Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 Correctly played a guerrilla army can tie up a larger & more technologically advanced army for years. They may not be able to win against them but they can make the cost of an occupation excessive. Assuming a guerrilla army is correctly played. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MercyFallout Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 I've always liked how many soilders you currently have ingame, if you're not willing to put up with the cost, you don't get the soilders. Our CNRP nations are based off our ingame nations in other places, why not there? I generally use the difference between my max soldier count and my current soldier count as my reserves. Makes sense yanno. Don't pay nearly as much for 'em but you can call 'em up when needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberstein Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 (edited) I have one thing to say to people who think militias & guerrillas are ineffective at defence.The vietcong were a guerrilla force of peasants and they fought the US army a vastly larger and more technologically advanced army to a standstill. The Mujahideen, a similar guerrilla force fought the Soviet Union for years in Afghanistan. Correctly played a guerrilla army can tie up a larger & more technologically advanced army for years. They may not be able to win against them but they can make the cost of an occupation excessive. We would have won in Vietnam but the politicians threw it away. They came to the table to surrender, we gave them the country. The Muiahideen were getting slaughtered until they were supplied by the US. Edited March 4, 2009 by BaronUberstein Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefano Palmieri Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 I split my Bracketed number of troops between special Ops and Reservists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tahsir Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 (edited) I am following my alliance's peacetime development guidelines by having minimum troops to maximize income. Max troops x 10 is something everyone can abide by and is equitably fair based on the national strength and development of the underlying stats of your nation. I will not change this. This is how I've counted them since I joined July of last year.As for militia, I RP them, but do not count them as having any serious effect against actual troop actions. RL nations that cut back military spending to earn more money don't keep their huge armies though. If you cut back for economic reasons its reasonable to say your army strenght dropped as you cut funding. Honestly I don't see how it matters to everyone since wars seem to be "I bomb you" "No I bomb you harder" "Unf HARDER" or "My 10k troops > your 9999 troops because its bigger" Ninja Edit: As for the vietcong argument for militas. There were also almost a million dead in vietnam compared to less than 30k dead for americans. Thats not counting wounded. Besides, after the Tet offensive so many vietcong were dead they ceased to even be a marginally effective fighting force that they had been. Politics lost that war. Edited March 5, 2009 by Tahsir Re Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.