Scandigrad
TNPer
This thread is incomplete, and remains a work in progress. Please PM me with questions regarding this thread or if you wish to be a consultant.
Hello! So as your glorious Deputy Minister of Culture for Roleplay, I have noticed that there is somewhat of a demand for some kind of reference for realism, and to help avoid godmodding. That's why I, in conjunction with the Ministry of Culture and various subject consultants, are currently producing this megathread as a reference for commonly asked realism issues, as well as an opportunity for you to ask about all your realism needs. If you are interested in being a consultant, please PM me with what subject area you have knowledge in, and why you are qualified. Also, if you have an idea for another part of this megathread, please PM me.
Let's knock some FAQs out of the way first, because I know there'll be plenty.
Why do we need to be realistic?
A common misconception is that RPing for realism takes any opportunity for fun out, because it feels like you're just following a textbook. That is far from what I am trying to do with this. Rather, the goal for this thread is to help make your ideas believable by following what is within the realm of possibility. Roleplay is all about making stories, and you want to make your story believable. With unrealistic and unreasonable situations, an audience is going to have a lot harder time participating in and enjoying a roleplay.
And to clarify, this is all meant to be a guideline to help make your roleplay seem more believable. You don't need to have hard statistics, but make sure your ballpark figures are within reason. We don't want an agricultural community of 4,000 people per square kilometer because that is just silly and unreasonable.
So what kind of limitations are there?
Well that's what this thread is for. You'll be able to find a good reference guide for major subject areas, as well as ask specific questions. The most important thing to keep in mind is that the North Pacific works in a Modern Tech.
Tell me about Modern Tech.
Well, modern tech means that we subscribe to the advancements and limitations of modern technology and society. Typical modern tech falls between 1980, and about five years into the future. This means that short range lasers like this one are possible, but are highly constrained by current technology. It also means that laser blasters, anti gravity, shields or cloaking devices are not possible yet.
Is realism exclusive to technology?
No, and I'm glad you asked that. Realism also extends to culture and sociology. It is important to keep this in mind, because it helps create a story. No matter what happens, there will always be dissent in a country or society, so for the most part, a measure going unopposed, or the entire populace being pleased with a decision is unrealistic. The only place this is seen is in the DPRK, and if that's happening in your country too, you are probably a dictatorship since in every free country, there's always going to be some grooup unhappy and will say something, so keep in mind civic discourse. And they're not all insane or rebels either. Legitimate grievances against the government exist too, so perhaps that is worth consideration.
You're just killing my fun.
And your fun is killing everyone elses' because they can't make a story with you. There is always a conflict, and a game that is close is way more exciting than one where one side gets steamrolled. I know everyone wants to be the best, but keep in mind even Achilles was only as strong as his heel.
But how am I supposed to know all these things?! I'm not an encyclopedia!
On the eighth day, God created Google, and he saw that it was good. You can fact check literally anything in under ten minutes. Have an idea? Google it, read the wikipedia article to see if it's feasible and what it's strengths and weaknesses are, and boom you have a more believable roleplay. Every book, every tv show, every movie you have watched or read has been researched in depth. Ten minutes on google won't kill you.
You're full of shit and you're an asshole.
Both are true, but you'll live.
All right, with that over with, let's get down to the nitty gritty. Major subjects have been spoilered, and you are free to ask any question regarding technology, realism, and sociology in this thread.
Work in progress
I want to start off with saying this is a broad topic with many moving parts, and is meant to be a brief rundown with the most common things I see. Please, by all means, ask specific questions, because I guarantee I won't cover everything.
So you want to build a military. Great! A military is a great way to defend your nation, and project your nation's will throughout the region. But it is far from mandatory. There are a few notable nations without standing militaries, or with an extremely limited military capacity, such as Costa Rica or Iceland. That doesn't mean these nations are irrelevent, but it does put them in a great position internationally since most nations won't feel threatened by them. Iceland is in a particularly strategic position, and receives it's protection from NATO. So it is possible to have a secure, well run nation without a military.
The first thing you have to ask yourself when building a military is what the primary threat is going to be to it. Will it be poised for COIN (Counter Insurgency) operations? If that's the case, you won't need aircraft carriers or bombers. They won't help. COIN ops are meant for fast response, so light and fast equipment is what you need, particularly stuff that'll work in an urban or jungle environment.
What about national defense? If your main threat is from the air, you want to protect your airspace in that way, and focus on a strong air force. If your main threat is sea borne, focus on a navy, land attack? You bet you're relying on your army.
If you are trying to build an empire, be ready for a fight, but also keep in mind that every penny you put into your military is a penny not going towards other things like education, healthcare, or infrastructure, and some aspect of your nation will suffer. That brings me to one of the biggest sins I see in military roleplaying: Force size.
There's a reason 30 million men is not a reasonable size, and it all has to do with economy. Look around the world. The largest military is the PRC with just over 2 million active duty personnel. That's a country with a 1 billion population. What's really worth looking at is the fact that no nation's military exceeds 5% of the nation's population. Nations in good economic standing don't even exceed 2%. Why? Because a military is expensive, and produces absolutely no revenue. It's expensive. There are mouths to feed. A healthy nation cannot support more than 2% of their population in the military. The United States has less than 1%, with about 1.5 million people on active duty (that's about .5% of the nation's population).
So there's economic concerns, but there are also logistic concerns.
Contrary to popular belief, just under 10% of the military is actually combat arms (the people who go pew pew. Your infantrymen, your artillerymen, your armor). Those people have to be supported by logistics units. So while the United States may have about 1,500,000 active military personnel, about 150,000 are actual combat arms, with even less seeing combat. Those guys need intelligence on who to strike, someone's gotta store and bring the ordinance, and you sure as hell need water and food. I can assure you from experience that a hungry platoon is not going to be effective at doing anything, let alone shooting the bad guys.
Too much focus on combat arms is something I see all too often in military statistics when it comes to RPs. It's not surprising, because it's the side the general public gets to see. But keep in mind that that's only a small part of the military, and all those supplies have to come from somewhere.
Military RP can be a huge point for godmodding. It's no suprise, considering the well being of your nation is at risk. Godmodding in military RP can be avoided by starting the thread with an agreed outcome, and having a well thought out draft beforehand. Even with those things, it is important to keep in mind that every piece of military equipment has a weakness, and is not indestructible.
Let's look at some of the most common examples. People love tanks. They are big as shit, and blow shit up. They are a force to be reckoned with on an open battlefield. They're the reason the US steamrolled through Southern Iraq in the First Gulf War. Bad news is though, they can't handle MOUT (Maneuvering Over Urban Terrain) very well. They are also expensive, large, and slow. Good luck taking them into the mountains or into the forests. So you can't have a lot of them. The bulk of your armored force is going to be made up by armored vehicles. These include Bradleys, Strykers, BMPs, and Vodniks to name a few. They are fast, and provide great recon. They can also move troops quickly. Bad news about them though is that they don't have the firepower of a tank, and also suffer in urban terrain. Urban terrain really is best covered by infantry.
People also love aircraft carriers for some ungodly reason. If you are not a naval power, you don't need one. Simple as that. Aircraft carriers are meant for force projection, and if you don't plan on using that force projection, you don't need one. There are only a few carrier bourne nations, most only having one, maybe two aircraft carriers. Only the United States has more than two (10 in service, 2 in reserve, 3 under construction) but it makes sense considering their role in the world, and their strength as a naval power.
Last, but not least, remember you have limited ammunition, and it takes time to reload. People don't reload as quickly as the movies make it seem, and combat is a lot slower, and over a lot further distance (usually) than the movies make it seem. A typical infantryman carries 10 magazines with 30 rounds apiece. Typically they don't use full auto either. Why? It wastes ammunition because the first round will be on target, and anything after that is anyone's guess. Plus, your magazine will be empty in under three seconds. The only time you'd really want to spray and pray is when you're covering a battle buddy or switching positions. Other than that, semiautomatic fire (one round per trigger pull) is ideal.
I've tried to cover the basics in this section, but like I said, there is so much more to be covered. I could tell you all about the capabilities of a bunch of equipment, communications, doctrine, ballistics, ect ect ect, but most of you probably don't want to read all that. A few good places for reference are the Nationstates Military Realism threads, and as always, feel free to ask here.
I want to start off with saying this is a broad topic with many moving parts, and is meant to be a brief rundown with the most common things I see. Please, by all means, ask specific questions, because I guarantee I won't cover everything.
So you want to build a military. Great! A military is a great way to defend your nation, and project your nation's will throughout the region. But it is far from mandatory. There are a few notable nations without standing militaries, or with an extremely limited military capacity, such as Costa Rica or Iceland. That doesn't mean these nations are irrelevent, but it does put them in a great position internationally since most nations won't feel threatened by them. Iceland is in a particularly strategic position, and receives it's protection from NATO. So it is possible to have a secure, well run nation without a military.
The first thing you have to ask yourself when building a military is what the primary threat is going to be to it. Will it be poised for COIN (Counter Insurgency) operations? If that's the case, you won't need aircraft carriers or bombers. They won't help. COIN ops are meant for fast response, so light and fast equipment is what you need, particularly stuff that'll work in an urban or jungle environment.
What about national defense? If your main threat is from the air, you want to protect your airspace in that way, and focus on a strong air force. If your main threat is sea borne, focus on a navy, land attack? You bet you're relying on your army.
If you are trying to build an empire, be ready for a fight, but also keep in mind that every penny you put into your military is a penny not going towards other things like education, healthcare, or infrastructure, and some aspect of your nation will suffer. That brings me to one of the biggest sins I see in military roleplaying: Force size.
There's a reason 30 million men is not a reasonable size, and it all has to do with economy. Look around the world. The largest military is the PRC with just over 2 million active duty personnel. That's a country with a 1 billion population. What's really worth looking at is the fact that no nation's military exceeds 5% of the nation's population. Nations in good economic standing don't even exceed 2%. Why? Because a military is expensive, and produces absolutely no revenue. It's expensive. There are mouths to feed. A healthy nation cannot support more than 2% of their population in the military. The United States has less than 1%, with about 1.5 million people on active duty (that's about .5% of the nation's population).
So there's economic concerns, but there are also logistic concerns.
Contrary to popular belief, just under 10% of the military is actually combat arms (the people who go pew pew. Your infantrymen, your artillerymen, your armor). Those people have to be supported by logistics units. So while the United States may have about 1,500,000 active military personnel, about 150,000 are actual combat arms, with even less seeing combat. Those guys need intelligence on who to strike, someone's gotta store and bring the ordinance, and you sure as hell need water and food. I can assure you from experience that a hungry platoon is not going to be effective at doing anything, let alone shooting the bad guys.
Too much focus on combat arms is something I see all too often in military statistics when it comes to RPs. It's not surprising, because it's the side the general public gets to see. But keep in mind that that's only a small part of the military, and all those supplies have to come from somewhere.
Military RP can be a huge point for godmodding. It's no suprise, considering the well being of your nation is at risk. Godmodding in military RP can be avoided by starting the thread with an agreed outcome, and having a well thought out draft beforehand. Even with those things, it is important to keep in mind that every piece of military equipment has a weakness, and is not indestructible.
Let's look at some of the most common examples. People love tanks. They are big as shit, and blow shit up. They are a force to be reckoned with on an open battlefield. They're the reason the US steamrolled through Southern Iraq in the First Gulf War. Bad news is though, they can't handle MOUT (Maneuvering Over Urban Terrain) very well. They are also expensive, large, and slow. Good luck taking them into the mountains or into the forests. So you can't have a lot of them. The bulk of your armored force is going to be made up by armored vehicles. These include Bradleys, Strykers, BMPs, and Vodniks to name a few. They are fast, and provide great recon. They can also move troops quickly. Bad news about them though is that they don't have the firepower of a tank, and also suffer in urban terrain. Urban terrain really is best covered by infantry.
People also love aircraft carriers for some ungodly reason. If you are not a naval power, you don't need one. Simple as that. Aircraft carriers are meant for force projection, and if you don't plan on using that force projection, you don't need one. There are only a few carrier bourne nations, most only having one, maybe two aircraft carriers. Only the United States has more than two (10 in service, 2 in reserve, 3 under construction) but it makes sense considering their role in the world, and their strength as a naval power.
Last, but not least, remember you have limited ammunition, and it takes time to reload. People don't reload as quickly as the movies make it seem, and combat is a lot slower, and over a lot further distance (usually) than the movies make it seem. A typical infantryman carries 10 magazines with 30 rounds apiece. Typically they don't use full auto either. Why? It wastes ammunition because the first round will be on target, and anything after that is anyone's guess. Plus, your magazine will be empty in under three seconds. The only time you'd really want to spray and pray is when you're covering a battle buddy or switching positions. Other than that, semiautomatic fire (one round per trigger pull) is ideal.
I've tried to cover the basics in this section, but like I said, there is so much more to be covered. I could tell you all about the capabilities of a bunch of equipment, communications, doctrine, ballistics, ect ect ect, but most of you probably don't want to read all that. A few good places for reference are the Nationstates Military Realism threads, and as always, feel free to ask here.
Nuclear weapons are so overabused in roleplay that I felt that it deserved it's own special tab. It is also worth noting that these weapons really draw away from any real military strategy, and are far more political weapons than anything else. This is such a broad topic that I had to spoiler it further.
So that's what a nuclear bomb is in a nutshell. Now let's consider their delivery and usage.
So why are nuclear weapons so bad? Why do people get so upset when other nations are trying to obtain nuclear weapons, or already have them? Because they can be seen as destabilizing. The development of a nuclear weapon means that they intend on delivering it, and causes the nations around the provoking nation to develop their own weapons. That is why a test is so provocative (not to mention that nuclear testing is banned IRL, I'm researching to see if it is by the WA.) Nuclear weapons are also indiscriminate. The radioactive fallout can strike anyone, regardless of nationality or affiliation. The use of nuclear weapons, particularly strategic ones, almost guarantees that civilians will be targeted, particularly considering most military bases are near population centers.
The use of nuclear weapons also opens the floodgates to other nations wanting to retaliate out of anger for the aforementioned reasons (civilian deathtoll is likely to be exceedingly high). There has been discussions of the possibility of a limited nuclear exchange, but that is open to interpretation.
There are two more things I would like to cover on this subject. First is the brutality of nuclear weapons. Contrary to what the movies show, most people who die from nuclear weapons won't be from the blast itself, but rather from the radioactive fallout. Some of these people will die within hours from radiation sickness, or they will develop cancer years down the road and be killed that way. Both ways are very slow and very painful. They are considered inhumane.
Finally, it is a common misconception about the capability of a non state actor to obtain a nuclear weapon. Should this happen, it is unlikely they will be able to use it because of the amount of safeguards imposed on it. But I'll entertain this for the sake of argument and story. As mentioned earlier, fusion weapons are extremely complex and multistaged, so it is unlikely that a non state actor would be able to create or obtain this kind of weapon in a usable form. That caps their possible yield at 500KT if they could even manage to obtain a nuclear weapon in a usable form. Next, non state actors will not have a delivery method, so it is likely to be a ground burst, stored in a truck or something. What is far more likely is the creation of a "dirty bomb". A "dirty bomb" is just taking radioactive material and strapping it to traditional explosives. The intent of this is to spread radioactive material causing all the health effects of fallout, but probably only causes localized damage.
So why have nuclear weapons? That's the real debate, and there are many positions worth researching.
Let's start by understanding exactly what a nuclear weapon is. There are two kinds: The first is a fission reaction, which was what the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were. These bombs tend to be lower yield (between 1 ton of TNT, up to 500 kilotons). A fission reaction tends to create a lot of localized destruction and fallout, but radioactivity tends to not be long term since fission radiation is short lived, meaning a large amount of fallout is likely to be minimal.
A fusion reaction is a multistage weapon, and is what is referred to as a "thermonuclear weapon". These create a far greater blast, and are far more complicated than a simple fission weapon. The largest bomb to be detonated was the Tzar Bomba by Russia at 50MT (originally designed to be 100MT), but weapons of this size are usually huge, extremely expensive, and not very efficient. Fusion weapons are extremely complex, and only six countries currently wield these weapons. They are also extremely expensive to develop.
A fusion reaction is a multistage weapon, and is what is referred to as a "thermonuclear weapon". These create a far greater blast, and are far more complicated than a simple fission weapon. The largest bomb to be detonated was the Tzar Bomba by Russia at 50MT (originally designed to be 100MT), but weapons of this size are usually huge, extremely expensive, and not very efficient. Fusion weapons are extremely complex, and only six countries currently wield these weapons. They are also extremely expensive to develop.
So that's what a nuclear bomb is in a nutshell. Now let's consider their delivery and usage.
First, I need to define two terms. A tactical nuclear weapon is a weapon intended to be used on the battlefield in an explicit military setting. These bombs tend to be of a small yield, and are meant to target military units or small military infrastructure (highway interchanges, bunker busting, ect). A strategic nuclear weapon is intended to strike a large area, and is meant as an area denial weapon. These would target cities, ports, missile fields, and are meant to cause widespread indiscriminate destruction.
Nuclear bombs can be delivered in a verity of methods, but most are delivered via ballistic missile, cruise missile, or aircraft. It is important to remember that each delivery method has its benefits and limitations. Bombs delivered by cruise missile or certain types of aircraft (fighter-bombers like the F-16 or F-111, specifically) tend to be tactical nuclear weapons. Strategic weapons can really only be delivered by strategic bombers (B-52, B-1B, B-2) and ballistic missiles.
There are three (maybe four?) types of bursts for nuclear weapons as well. An airburst is a nuclear explosion off the ground. This blast maximizes destruction and minimizes fallout, but has a hard time at destroying hardened or underground structures. A ground burst is a nuclear blast on the ground. This blast can be affected by the surroundings, directing the blast one way or another depending on structures and terrain. Fallout is moderate as dust particals are thrown up into the air. It is more effective at striking hardened structures, but not necessarily underground structures. A ground penetrating burst is a nuclear blast underground, and creates a massive crater. Damage is localized, but fallout is immense. This is most effective against underground infrastructure. The last one is an exoatmospheric burst (a burst outside the atmosphere), and causes no physical damage or fallout. What it does is relies on the electromagnetic pulse created from the blast, and fries any unprotected electronics within it's umbrella. The effectiveness of this type of burst is exaggerated by Call of Duty, so don't rely on that depiction. An exoatmospheric burst is unlikely to fry a power grid as depicted in Call of Duty, but it will probably fry any unprotected (unprotected from electromagnetic pulses) satellite that has a line of site with the nuclear blast.
Nuclear bombs can be delivered in a verity of methods, but most are delivered via ballistic missile, cruise missile, or aircraft. It is important to remember that each delivery method has its benefits and limitations. Bombs delivered by cruise missile or certain types of aircraft (fighter-bombers like the F-16 or F-111, specifically) tend to be tactical nuclear weapons. Strategic weapons can really only be delivered by strategic bombers (B-52, B-1B, B-2) and ballistic missiles.
There are three (maybe four?) types of bursts for nuclear weapons as well. An airburst is a nuclear explosion off the ground. This blast maximizes destruction and minimizes fallout, but has a hard time at destroying hardened or underground structures. A ground burst is a nuclear blast on the ground. This blast can be affected by the surroundings, directing the blast one way or another depending on structures and terrain. Fallout is moderate as dust particals are thrown up into the air. It is more effective at striking hardened structures, but not necessarily underground structures. A ground penetrating burst is a nuclear blast underground, and creates a massive crater. Damage is localized, but fallout is immense. This is most effective against underground infrastructure. The last one is an exoatmospheric burst (a burst outside the atmosphere), and causes no physical damage or fallout. What it does is relies on the electromagnetic pulse created from the blast, and fries any unprotected electronics within it's umbrella. The effectiveness of this type of burst is exaggerated by Call of Duty, so don't rely on that depiction. An exoatmospheric burst is unlikely to fry a power grid as depicted in Call of Duty, but it will probably fry any unprotected (unprotected from electromagnetic pulses) satellite that has a line of site with the nuclear blast.
So why are nuclear weapons so bad? Why do people get so upset when other nations are trying to obtain nuclear weapons, or already have them? Because they can be seen as destabilizing. The development of a nuclear weapon means that they intend on delivering it, and causes the nations around the provoking nation to develop their own weapons. That is why a test is so provocative (not to mention that nuclear testing is banned IRL, I'm researching to see if it is by the WA.) Nuclear weapons are also indiscriminate. The radioactive fallout can strike anyone, regardless of nationality or affiliation. The use of nuclear weapons, particularly strategic ones, almost guarantees that civilians will be targeted, particularly considering most military bases are near population centers.
The use of nuclear weapons also opens the floodgates to other nations wanting to retaliate out of anger for the aforementioned reasons (civilian deathtoll is likely to be exceedingly high). There has been discussions of the possibility of a limited nuclear exchange, but that is open to interpretation.
There are two more things I would like to cover on this subject. First is the brutality of nuclear weapons. Contrary to what the movies show, most people who die from nuclear weapons won't be from the blast itself, but rather from the radioactive fallout. Some of these people will die within hours from radiation sickness, or they will develop cancer years down the road and be killed that way. Both ways are very slow and very painful. They are considered inhumane.
Finally, it is a common misconception about the capability of a non state actor to obtain a nuclear weapon. Should this happen, it is unlikely they will be able to use it because of the amount of safeguards imposed on it. But I'll entertain this for the sake of argument and story. As mentioned earlier, fusion weapons are extremely complex and multistaged, so it is unlikely that a non state actor would be able to create or obtain this kind of weapon in a usable form. That caps their possible yield at 500KT if they could even manage to obtain a nuclear weapon in a usable form. Next, non state actors will not have a delivery method, so it is likely to be a ground burst, stored in a truck or something. What is far more likely is the creation of a "dirty bomb". A "dirty bomb" is just taking radioactive material and strapping it to traditional explosives. The intent of this is to spread radioactive material causing all the health effects of fallout, but probably only causes localized damage.
So why have nuclear weapons? That's the real debate, and there are many positions worth researching.
Work in progress
People have to live in your nation, right?
The nationstates population system is ridiculous. I would strongly advise staying away from it. The problem with the nationstates population is that it is blatently unrealistic. It makes humans seem like they reproduce like rabbits, and that is simply not the case. So besides that, why does it matter how big your nation is?
The reason the size of your population is important is because it reflects what kind of policies you can enact, as well as the likely economic situation. Let's look around the globe for a frame of reference.
Nations between 1-10 million: A good frame of reference is the Nordic nations. The good news is that heavy social policies can work well here, and socialism in it's purist form makes sense in these nations. If you do have policies like this, it is also important to keep in mind that you need a tax rate to reflect this. 10% tax with universal healthcare is just unrealistic.
10-100 million: This nation size is where most nations fall into, and allows for the most variable. All your shitty nations fall into this category, as well as the European nations. You can't really enact the same social programs you can with the smaller nations, but on the other hand, your economic influence around the region can be more significant. Downside is that you have to consider economic production. There's a good chance you will need to collaborate with other nations to compete with the larger ones. The European Union is a great example. The nations do not have the economic production on their own to produce things to compete with the United States, but because of the Union, they have been able to produce the Eurofighter and the European Space Agency. It is possible for them to have smaller programs on their own (French Rafael fighter, for example), but they won't be nearly as successful.
100 million - 1 billion: This is where the population begins to become a strain on the economy of nations. Increased stagnation among the populace can be expected. Consider the United States. It is a large nation, highly industrious, and very productive. It has major world influence, but it has to deal with a breaking entitlement system because the population is becoming too big. But here are the pros: Influence and economic production are massive. The United States, India, and China (the three biggest populations), are the most influential in the world, especially in their own regions. Just keep in mind that there are very few nations of this size in the world.
1.5 billion plus:bahahahahahaha nope. It'll be hard for a nation to really exceed one billion. There are only two in the world that do it.
Here's what you really need to consider with populations: While how many people you have is important, what really affects your nation is how close people live together. (Population density: People per square mile/kilometer). Why? Consider this: Two nations, both with 10,000,000 people. One nation has a population density of 100 people per square kilometer, the other has a population of 1000 people per square kilometer. What's the difference? One is far more developed, but chances are they lack the resources to grow their own food to sustain their population. Food is something they will need to trade for. The other nation is likely far more rural, and has a lot more agricultural production. But, in order to make money, they need to sell their food somewhere, and they need to get their equipment somewhere too. It's also important to keep in mind that the agricultural nation is also likely to be less economically prosperous, and should have an economy to reflect this move. The more dense nation should reflect that they have a stronger economy, but without a source of raw materials, they are likely to have an economic crash. Both situations set up really well for a roleplay.
Figuring out population density is easy. It is (Population/Area). Pretty straightforward. The map is 4km^2 for every pixel, so all you have to do is figure out how many pixels make up your nation, multiply by four, and you have the area of your nation. Then all you gotta do is population divided by area, and you have population per square kilometer.
The nationstates population system is ridiculous. I would strongly advise staying away from it. The problem with the nationstates population is that it is blatently unrealistic. It makes humans seem like they reproduce like rabbits, and that is simply not the case. So besides that, why does it matter how big your nation is?
The reason the size of your population is important is because it reflects what kind of policies you can enact, as well as the likely economic situation. Let's look around the globe for a frame of reference.
Nations between 1-10 million: A good frame of reference is the Nordic nations. The good news is that heavy social policies can work well here, and socialism in it's purist form makes sense in these nations. If you do have policies like this, it is also important to keep in mind that you need a tax rate to reflect this. 10% tax with universal healthcare is just unrealistic.
10-100 million: This nation size is where most nations fall into, and allows for the most variable. All your shitty nations fall into this category, as well as the European nations. You can't really enact the same social programs you can with the smaller nations, but on the other hand, your economic influence around the region can be more significant. Downside is that you have to consider economic production. There's a good chance you will need to collaborate with other nations to compete with the larger ones. The European Union is a great example. The nations do not have the economic production on their own to produce things to compete with the United States, but because of the Union, they have been able to produce the Eurofighter and the European Space Agency. It is possible for them to have smaller programs on their own (French Rafael fighter, for example), but they won't be nearly as successful.
100 million - 1 billion: This is where the population begins to become a strain on the economy of nations. Increased stagnation among the populace can be expected. Consider the United States. It is a large nation, highly industrious, and very productive. It has major world influence, but it has to deal with a breaking entitlement system because the population is becoming too big. But here are the pros: Influence and economic production are massive. The United States, India, and China (the three biggest populations), are the most influential in the world, especially in their own regions. Just keep in mind that there are very few nations of this size in the world.
1.5 billion plus:bahahahahahaha nope. It'll be hard for a nation to really exceed one billion. There are only two in the world that do it.
Here's what you really need to consider with populations: While how many people you have is important, what really affects your nation is how close people live together. (Population density: People per square mile/kilometer). Why? Consider this: Two nations, both with 10,000,000 people. One nation has a population density of 100 people per square kilometer, the other has a population of 1000 people per square kilometer. What's the difference? One is far more developed, but chances are they lack the resources to grow their own food to sustain their population. Food is something they will need to trade for. The other nation is likely far more rural, and has a lot more agricultural production. But, in order to make money, they need to sell their food somewhere, and they need to get their equipment somewhere too. It's also important to keep in mind that the agricultural nation is also likely to be less economically prosperous, and should have an economy to reflect this move. The more dense nation should reflect that they have a stronger economy, but without a source of raw materials, they are likely to have an economic crash. Both situations set up really well for a roleplay.
Figuring out population density is easy. It is (Population/Area). Pretty straightforward. The map is 4km^2 for every pixel, so all you have to do is figure out how many pixels make up your nation, multiply by four, and you have the area of your nation. Then all you gotta do is population divided by area, and you have population per square kilometer.
Work in progress
Work in progress
Time to learn about research and development. To start, I’m going to give a quick outline for what will be discussed here: Realism/feasibility, manpower, economic cost, timelines, testing, legality, and general project overviews. I will be going into each one with detail.
Realism/Feasibility: Before you RP anything about research and development, ensure that the event/RP is realistic. Giant death robots or “gun that kills your entire nation while simultaneously serving rum” isn’t realistic. I think this section is more or less common sense, and I will go into the details of the actual R&D realism in the further sections. If you’re unsure, and I’m going to say this a lot, DO YOUR RESEARCH. Google takes 5 seconds to search, and a 10 minute read on Wikipedia should be more than enough for some basic knowledge on things.
Manpower: Every R&D undertaken requires manpower. This comes in the form of scientists, engineers, building contractors, safety regulation agencies, government personnel, even investors. Manpower varies with the size and area of research. A space program will have more manpower than an agricultural R&D government agency. For example: More than 18,000 people work for NASA. Many more people work with the agency as government contractors. Those people are hired by companies that NASA pays to do work for it. The combined workforce represents a wide variety of jobs. For a space program the number is in the hundreds of thousands when taking it all into consideration. All companies/agencies also have men at the head of programs. Im talking about head engineer, lead of engineering design, lead scientist, lead economist, even head lawyer. More characters to RP with. Try to use your best judgment and again, do your research. Companies are one Google search away from an estimate number of employees. Lastly try to be realistic, make sure your country has the logistics and available facilities for such a large manpower.
Economic Cost: This is one of the most important, if not the most important section. Your research has to be economically feasible. For example, the Apollo missions total came to $23.9 billion, itemized as follows:
This is 1969 money, with inflation, over 100 billion dollars. Does your country have the capability of such things? Secondly you cannot have your nation put a large percentage of your GDP into R&D. Armies need to be fed; social policies looked after, the people taken care of, etc. Even with a dictatorship, you cannot afford to make the R&D over 1 or 2%. NASA right now has a budget of .5% on the US Fiscal Budget. Try to be realistic, and think: can my country afford to undertake these projects. For a space program only large, established, economically safe countries can even attempt one. Lastly, you can always RP outside investments/investors into your project to bring in extra economic aid. Again use your judgment; Bill Gates isn’t going to invest 40 billion into your project.
Timelines: Pay close attention to this one. Things take time to research and develop. I will be using NASA and Apollo repeatedly as examples as it is the best indicator for this. NASA and the Apollo Programs, at the height of aerospace R&D, investment, and the largest budget NASA has ever had, took almost 30 years for the US to put man on the Moon. To give you a smaller timeline example, my aerospace group and I have just finished and test launched one of our very own rockets to 10,000ft. (3,048 m). The project, with the making of avionics and all, took over 7 months to complete. In terms of your own timelines, the best idea is to Google projects similar to yours and sees their timelines. Almost every R&D project, except for secret gov. agenies R&D, will most likely be on Wikipedia. Be realistic: You will not get a space station in 3 weeks. You will not develop a new tank or aircraft or gun system in a couple months, you won’t cure cancer in 4 years as president.
Testing: This is more of a subgroup that didn’t fit anywhere else but is really a part of all listed above, and below. Every project undergoes testing of your results. This costs money, manpower, land and time if applicable, the correct technology level. THINGS FAIL. With high tech research, the more complex, the more prone to failure. Even the most sophisticated, safety backed up project, will at one point fail. Most projects have a safety rating of 80-90%. To have things fail is realistic, and I would encourage you to incorporate it into your RP.
Legality: Short one. Are your projects legal? Does your nation allow testing on animals (sending dogs into outer space for research, im looking at you Russia). Try to be realistic with this. Most nations and the region as a whole will probably look down on you using human test subjects on certain projects, or animals, etc. Use your best judgment.
General Project Overview: This will be a quick outline for how most projects go in terms of research and design based on my own experience and what I have observed.
You can play with this around of course but it is just a general outline. BE REALISTIC.
Realism/Feasibility: Before you RP anything about research and development, ensure that the event/RP is realistic. Giant death robots or “gun that kills your entire nation while simultaneously serving rum” isn’t realistic. I think this section is more or less common sense, and I will go into the details of the actual R&D realism in the further sections. If you’re unsure, and I’m going to say this a lot, DO YOUR RESEARCH. Google takes 5 seconds to search, and a 10 minute read on Wikipedia should be more than enough for some basic knowledge on things.
Manpower: Every R&D undertaken requires manpower. This comes in the form of scientists, engineers, building contractors, safety regulation agencies, government personnel, even investors. Manpower varies with the size and area of research. A space program will have more manpower than an agricultural R&D government agency. For example: More than 18,000 people work for NASA. Many more people work with the agency as government contractors. Those people are hired by companies that NASA pays to do work for it. The combined workforce represents a wide variety of jobs. For a space program the number is in the hundreds of thousands when taking it all into consideration. All companies/agencies also have men at the head of programs. Im talking about head engineer, lead of engineering design, lead scientist, lead economist, even head lawyer. More characters to RP with. Try to use your best judgment and again, do your research. Companies are one Google search away from an estimate number of employees. Lastly try to be realistic, make sure your country has the logistics and available facilities for such a large manpower.
Economic Cost: This is one of the most important, if not the most important section. Your research has to be economically feasible. For example, the Apollo missions total came to $23.9 billion, itemized as follows:
- Apollo spacecraft: $7,945.0 million
- Saturn I launch vehicles: $767.1 million
- Saturn IB launch vehicles: $1,131.2 million
- Saturn V launch vehicles: $6,871.1 million
- Launch vehicle engine development: $854.2 million
- Mission support: $1,432.3 million
- Tracking and data acquisition: $664.1 million
- Ground facilities: $1,830.3 million
- Operation of installations: $2,420.6 million.
This is 1969 money, with inflation, over 100 billion dollars. Does your country have the capability of such things? Secondly you cannot have your nation put a large percentage of your GDP into R&D. Armies need to be fed; social policies looked after, the people taken care of, etc. Even with a dictatorship, you cannot afford to make the R&D over 1 or 2%. NASA right now has a budget of .5% on the US Fiscal Budget. Try to be realistic, and think: can my country afford to undertake these projects. For a space program only large, established, economically safe countries can even attempt one. Lastly, you can always RP outside investments/investors into your project to bring in extra economic aid. Again use your judgment; Bill Gates isn’t going to invest 40 billion into your project.
Timelines: Pay close attention to this one. Things take time to research and develop. I will be using NASA and Apollo repeatedly as examples as it is the best indicator for this. NASA and the Apollo Programs, at the height of aerospace R&D, investment, and the largest budget NASA has ever had, took almost 30 years for the US to put man on the Moon. To give you a smaller timeline example, my aerospace group and I have just finished and test launched one of our very own rockets to 10,000ft. (3,048 m). The project, with the making of avionics and all, took over 7 months to complete. In terms of your own timelines, the best idea is to Google projects similar to yours and sees their timelines. Almost every R&D project, except for secret gov. agenies R&D, will most likely be on Wikipedia. Be realistic: You will not get a space station in 3 weeks. You will not develop a new tank or aircraft or gun system in a couple months, you won’t cure cancer in 4 years as president.
Testing: This is more of a subgroup that didn’t fit anywhere else but is really a part of all listed above, and below. Every project undergoes testing of your results. This costs money, manpower, land and time if applicable, the correct technology level. THINGS FAIL. With high tech research, the more complex, the more prone to failure. Even the most sophisticated, safety backed up project, will at one point fail. Most projects have a safety rating of 80-90%. To have things fail is realistic, and I would encourage you to incorporate it into your RP.
Legality: Short one. Are your projects legal? Does your nation allow testing on animals (sending dogs into outer space for research, im looking at you Russia). Try to be realistic with this. Most nations and the region as a whole will probably look down on you using human test subjects on certain projects, or animals, etc. Use your best judgment.
General Project Overview: This will be a quick outline for how most projects go in terms of research and design based on my own experience and what I have observed.
- Projects begin with a project proposal. This is an outline of what the project is, what it does, who is in charge, estimate budget required, manpower estimate, why it should be researched, benefits of R&D, uses, etc.
- Project approved or rejected
- Initial manpower, land, teams, budgets, safety regulations, etc. all that apply are gotten together and the project begins.
- Timeline of how the project will be researched, what steps are taken in the research
- Project testing: Successes and failures
- Go back to design, make better, re-engineer, etc.
- More testing
- R&D successful or a failure
You can play with this around of course but it is just a general outline. BE REALISTIC.
A space program is the largest undertaking a nation can undertake. Before you even consider starting a space program, your nation has to have the capability and economy to endure such a program. I will begin with requirements for a space program depending on country size and age. I will then talk about the various tech levels/ advancements made in space programs, what components make up space programs, and end goal technologies.
Requirements:
The largest requirement is to have a capable economy. Unfortunately this excludes most small-medium size nations from have a fledgling space program. A regular Space Program, on just government budget excluding contracting companies and personnel, ranges in the hundreds of billions of dollars. The most expensive object ever constructed by mankind is the international space station, for good reason. To begin a space program a stable, strong economy with a sizable population should be in place before being attempted. Note that you can work together with other nations; European Space Agency, in order to take care of the economic cost.
Secondly, you must have the available technology level and personnel. Space takes technology from every other field and condenses it together. You will require university graduates with knowledge of all these systems which include: Propulsion, ground structures, physics, orbital mechanics, avionic, aerodynamics, testing, quality control, and the list goes on. These are very advanced topics with a small niche of people being experts on. You must ask yourself if your nation has the personnel to work on these programs. Are you capable of importing expertise?
Lastly do you have the materials required for a space program? Space related vehicles use the latest technology on Earth. This sometimes involves rare materials, as well as large quantities of other materials not easily found. These include: carbon fiber, steel, aluminum, other various metals, oxygen, argon, helium, and hydrogen gases, other polymers, lead, and various electronic equipment. All of these must be of the highest grade. Does your country have these resources, or the capability to import them? They are also the largest drain on the budget/economy.
Timeline of a Space Program:
Tech level 1:
•Unmanned: Prototype rockets, low altitude flights, prototype flight control avionics
•Takes 4-5 years after starting the program to perfect tech level 1
Tech level 2:
•Unmanned: More powerful rockets, higher altitude flights, low-earth orbit attempts, flight control perfected
•Manned: Orbit attempts, prototype space planes capable of faster than sound flight up to mach 2.5
•10-20 years after program start
Tech level 3:
•Unmanned: Launch vehicles (Saturn V as an example), high altitude flights, easily achieving any range of orbit, perfected flight control, first satellites/communication arrays
•Manned: orbit flights, space planes (Space Shuttle), prototype landers for other world landings (moon landings).
•30-40 years after program start.
Tech level 4:
•Unmanned: perfected launch vehicles, any altitude flights or orbits, advanced satellite technology and capabilities
•Manned: perfected space planes, advanced lander capabilities
•50-75 years after program start
Tech level 5: Future tech
•This is all experimental technology in terms of avionics, propulsion, nuclear technology. Involves orbits of other planets and colonization. Will occur roughly 80-100 years after program start.
All tech levels require heavy testing and researching hence the long timeline
Tech level limit based on country size:
Small size (1-10 million population) or new nations are restricted to tech level 2 until they advance in size and expertise.
Medium size (10-100 million) are restricted to tech level 3.5. This means they are capable of certain tech level 4 technologies but have not perfected it for frequent use. See European Space Agency as an example.
Large size (100 million +) not restricted to any tech although tech 5 should be incredibly difficult to achieve. See USA space programs as an example.
Requirements:
The largest requirement is to have a capable economy. Unfortunately this excludes most small-medium size nations from have a fledgling space program. A regular Space Program, on just government budget excluding contracting companies and personnel, ranges in the hundreds of billions of dollars. The most expensive object ever constructed by mankind is the international space station, for good reason. To begin a space program a stable, strong economy with a sizable population should be in place before being attempted. Note that you can work together with other nations; European Space Agency, in order to take care of the economic cost.
Secondly, you must have the available technology level and personnel. Space takes technology from every other field and condenses it together. You will require university graduates with knowledge of all these systems which include: Propulsion, ground structures, physics, orbital mechanics, avionic, aerodynamics, testing, quality control, and the list goes on. These are very advanced topics with a small niche of people being experts on. You must ask yourself if your nation has the personnel to work on these programs. Are you capable of importing expertise?
Lastly do you have the materials required for a space program? Space related vehicles use the latest technology on Earth. This sometimes involves rare materials, as well as large quantities of other materials not easily found. These include: carbon fiber, steel, aluminum, other various metals, oxygen, argon, helium, and hydrogen gases, other polymers, lead, and various electronic equipment. All of these must be of the highest grade. Does your country have these resources, or the capability to import them? They are also the largest drain on the budget/economy.
Timeline of a Space Program:
Tech level 1:
•Unmanned: Prototype rockets, low altitude flights, prototype flight control avionics
•Takes 4-5 years after starting the program to perfect tech level 1
Tech level 2:
•Unmanned: More powerful rockets, higher altitude flights, low-earth orbit attempts, flight control perfected
•Manned: Orbit attempts, prototype space planes capable of faster than sound flight up to mach 2.5
•10-20 years after program start
Tech level 3:
•Unmanned: Launch vehicles (Saturn V as an example), high altitude flights, easily achieving any range of orbit, perfected flight control, first satellites/communication arrays
•Manned: orbit flights, space planes (Space Shuttle), prototype landers for other world landings (moon landings).
•30-40 years after program start.
Tech level 4:
•Unmanned: perfected launch vehicles, any altitude flights or orbits, advanced satellite technology and capabilities
•Manned: perfected space planes, advanced lander capabilities
•50-75 years after program start
Tech level 5: Future tech
•This is all experimental technology in terms of avionics, propulsion, nuclear technology. Involves orbits of other planets and colonization. Will occur roughly 80-100 years after program start.
All tech levels require heavy testing and researching hence the long timeline
Tech level limit based on country size:
Small size (1-10 million population) or new nations are restricted to tech level 2 until they advance in size and expertise.
Medium size (10-100 million) are restricted to tech level 3.5. This means they are capable of certain tech level 4 technologies but have not perfected it for frequent use. See European Space Agency as an example.
Large size (100 million +) not restricted to any tech although tech 5 should be incredibly difficult to achieve. See USA space programs as an example.
