Military Strengths

[Urban Ranger]

[Continued from another thread]

Originally posted by Drogue
UR: Please remeber this is not the place for discussion. Also, how does he pay for it: with 8.5% of his tax, and 1.7 Billion people.

How much is that in real terms?

Originally posted by Drogue
There is no such UN treaty passed since Marijuania joined. Indeed, Akiria has a weapons contract to supply the ISS, a UN initiative.

The Real UN has such a treaty. I reckon the virtual UN inherits all the treaties the real one has.

[Drogue]

UR: This UN does not inherit RL un resolutions. We choose our own. The ISS was passed ages ago, and does not affect nations entering now. Akiria won the contract to the arms for it, and that was the point.

[Whaleboy]

I think he's talking more about the weapons in space. Not only is that treaty a relic from the Cold War (although ideally I'd like to see it remain, but doesnt stop me being hypocritical in RP ), it only affects nations in the UN at the time, newer nations only have to submit to the UN charter, and the actual resolution only affected nuclear detonations and testing in space, as well as nuclear warheads being launched from space. None of which, and in the latter case, not at this stage, affects the LF.

8.5% of tax, with over 1.8 billion people, with an average economy (reasonable), means that I'm actually being rather conservative with regards to my military. Looking at Noosland, I'd suggest that you can reasonably afford a military at least 50% larger than what you have.

[Urban Ranger]

I third the opinion that all the Treaty of Griffith nations have forces way too big. Esp. military hardware. How in the world could Sheepsta have 25 aircraft carriers? Unless each carry like a couple of planes.

[Archaic]

One thing Sheep doesn't seem to consider is the fact his island has been effectivly blockaded for quite some time now. He seems to think he can smuggle all this tech into the nation, but how the hell does one smuggle in enough tech and raw materials to build fleets like what he's talking about?

[Mr. President]

It's impossible. Most of the figures in this thread and the other thread make absolutely no sense when you take more than a passing glance at them. That's why it's impossible to have wars with armies that we make up ourselves.

[Urban Ranger]

I think mine is reasonable

[Whaleboy]

I put up some reasonable figures for Sheepsta & co, but if he's been blockaded for so long, he wont have a strong military at all, other than what he initially had, and what he can produce internally, which is limited by the resources that one island has. With the military stats he has posted, it would cripple any nation and send them to the dark ages, same thing with Jackson too. Even mine are conservative!!

I think each nation has to be able to justify its military, to an independent panel of judges here, preferably those with some economic, technical and scientific knowledge, to say whether or not it is affordable in quality and quantity, technically possible to produce at this stage in their development, and scientifically possible and plausible, so its not ubertech (ooc: I learned my lesson on that one )

I've got a background in technical and scientific terms, and a some working economic knowledge, so I'd volunteer myself if people agree? We'll need other people too, perhaps two or three people in total to ensure that there are no vested interests and that they remain neutral. Obvious choice would be Drogue and UR, as their militaries seem to be well thought out and proportionate with the capabilities of that nation, and I can say that I thought mine out and tried to keep mine within the LF's capabilities.

[Whaleboy]

I think mine is reasonable

Too reasonable!! jk

You can afford more kit if you wish it, alternatively more people in army, or a bit of both. Not that one is obligated to have a military that is at its theoretical maximum for that nation.

[Jack_www]

elijah why you think my millitary is too much? I almost have 900 million people. Also my economy is all consuming.

[Jack_www]

allthough my airforce may need to be cutback

[Jack_www]

Sheep your forces are way to big for your nations you need to cut back.

[Whaleboy]

Jackson, assuming you have a great economy, your armies would be about 50% of what you stated, being generous that is, and your navy at most would be about a third. Also bare in mind that the larger your army, the worse, generally, your economy, so perhaps you shuold scale it back further in terms of personel. I decided to concentrate more on equipment, thus my entire armed forces personel is 0.3% of population. That includes army, navy, spec ops, airforce, reserves etc etc etc.

At some point, I can look over your nation and construct a draft military for you, if you wish, see how they shape up?

[Drogue]

Jackson: Basically, there is a UN report on how much per capita a nation spends on defence. IIRC Jackson was in the top 10 in the region last time, and thus would expect it to be around the 6% of total tax revenue, and about 1% of population in the army. Thus an army of ~9 million, and a budget of 12% of tax (primary concern). With an all consuming economy you could probably have a GDP per capita of $35000 US, thus a total GDP of $29505 Billion US (35,000*843 Million pop), a total budget of $4720.8 Billion US (16% of total GDP) a total defense budget of $566.5 Billion US and a military personel of 10 Million (about 1.2% of population, extremely high). This is what I would do.

I come to these figures quite simply. Look at the level of your economy, maybe needing to take into account circumstances, like sizes of sectors, UN Reports on spending etc. to work out a GDP per capita. Then simply multiply by population, tax rate and proportion of budget spent on defence. This gives total defence budget. For military personel size, I would say 1.5% is the max (that being about 6 or 7% of men of serving age, and a huge drain on the nation. Hardly sustainable, but just IMO), anything over 1% being extremely militaristic, between 0.6 and 1% being a pretty militaristic nation, between 0.2 and 0.6% havbing some military, and bbelow 0.2% being a pacifist nation that does not wish to spend much. It should be loosely based upon the military budget per capita IMHO, which is given in a UN report and can be worked out easily. This is what I use as a base, and I think is pretty realistic. This is also how I came to my figures, and the example ones I posted for Jackson above.

This formula will give defence budget:
GDP per capita*population*tax rate/100*defence % allocation/100=total defence budget

GDP per capita - based on economy rating, sector sizes and UN Reports. $35,000 being huge (higher than US IIRC) $25,000 being ok (about Spain or Greece IIRC) $15,000 being a poor country (about Eastern Europe IIRC). Just rough figures obviously.
Pop and tax rate as stated.
Defence % allocation - I would base upon how important it is, written in UN report on each nation. I would advise "devotes most of its attentions to Defence" as about 12%, "juggles the competing demands of Defence" as about 8%, "is a secondary priority" as about 5-6%, not appearing as being between 1% and 4%, and saying "Defence receiving virtually no funds" as being 1% or less than 1%. Just rough figures obviously.

I think mine are realistic, although need updating since spending and population has incresed. Akiria has the 2nd most spending per capita on defence, which is ~8% of tax revenue. Because we come top 10 in the world in almost every single economy sector size, it is assumed that although we have a non-existant private sector, thus a bad economy, we have an enormous public sector. Thus we have a GDP per capita of $18,000 US (still very low). With a population of 1.876 Billion people and a tax rate of 99%, the overall budget is $33403 Billion US, and the military budget is therefore $2674.5 Billion US. We also have the largest arms industry in the world, so our technology is very high spec. Because much of our funding is put into R&D (far more by proportion than the US) our tech and training is slightly better, but we have fewer soldiers. Thus, even though we have the highest spending per capita on military, we probably do not have the most percentage of population in the military, at ~1.1%, which is 20.636 Million. I will update my stats on the other page to reflect this.

Please feel free to query any part you wish to see fit here, and I will try to explain. The GDP has been discussed at great length already though (mostly with GT) and so is a bit of a moot point, and I won't be changing it. It has not gone up, even though I have now become much higher in largest economic sectors in the world. However one point about it is, if I have the largest sector for almost everything in Apolyton, and most near to me have nations of ~half the size of mine, then their GDPs per capita cannot be more than twice what mine is, else their sectors would be higher. Thus since the all consuming economies generally have a GDP per capita of about $30-35000, and mine has to be bigger than half that, $18000 seems appropriate. There are many reasons why I chose that figure, but that happens to work out quite neatly, and I believe is realistic.

I have gone on way to long, but I felt like defending it. I believe it is realistic, as I believe elijah's LF and UR's Noosland also is. Sheep's definatly isn't, and Jacksons is not either IMHO.

[Jack_www]

I have an all cosumming econonmy for a long time. When i tell you the defense spending is about the one thing the government of Jackson spends money on, well education as well. Also by defense spending is only 7% of my total GNP which is in line with allmost every other nation here in nation states.

I may have a little too many men, but last time I counted my men it was 14 million total, and about half of them are in the reservers with only 7,000,000 which are on active duty. Also Hlf of my airforce is also resevers while only half of it is active duty. So what is wrong with that??

[Drogue]

Jack, 7 Million active duty looks fine. 7% total GDP, when you only have 16% tax seems very very high to me. The US's main aim is also defence, has a higher tax rate and does not, IIRC, give over 40% of it's budget to defence. 5 of tax revenue is a better measure than % of total GDP.

Also Jack, Akiria has a higher defence spending per capita than you have, indeed, than anyone but the Hive has, and Akiria's is ~$1450 US per capita. At 7% yours would be over $2000, which is impossible, as the UN says that mine is higher. Maybe go for 15% of tax, but any higher would be unfeasable. Some others have 7% of GDP, because they have higher tax rates. SOme have 7% of GDP because there's is unrealistic. But 7% for Jackson would put it higher than Akiria's, when it is lover according to the UN.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by elijah
Too reasonable!! jk

You can afford more kit if you wish it, alternatively more people in army, or a bit of both. Not that one is obligated to have a military that is at its theoretical maximum for that nation.

I just make the great assumption that we put the extra $ into equipment R&D and personnel training

[Urban Ranger]

Drogue and Jack,

As I demonstrated in this thread, something is really buggy about the NationStates program in terms of economy:

The Rogue Nation of Gorgeous Specimens is very similar to The Dominion of Noosland, except that it has a higher tax rate. Strangely, the former has a "Strong" economy while that latter is "Imploded."

Either his economy is one or two steps below mine, or mine is one or two above his.

[Giovanni Wine]

Originally posted by Drogue
This formula will give defence budget:
GDP per capita*population*tax rate/100*defence % allocation/100=total defence budget

GDP per capita - based on economy rating, sector sizes and UN Reports. $35,000 being huge (higher than US IIRC) $25,000 being ok (about Spain or Greece IIRC) $15,000 being a poor country (about Eastern Europe IIRC). Just rough figures obviously.

I posted some better figures some time ago in this thread:

Here they are... also I've placed Frightening above All-Consuming, but I'm not sure which one is better.

Frightening (40,000$ - more GDP; i.e. Luxemburg 44,000$)
All Consuming (35,000$-39,999$; i.e. USA 36,600$)
Powerhouse (30,000$-34,999$; i.e. Switzerland 31,700$)
Thriving (25,000$-29,999$; i.e. Germany 26,600$ or Italy 25,000$ or Great Britain 25,300$ and many other EU countries)
Very Strong (20,000$-24,999$; i.e. Spain 20,700$)
Strong (16,000$-19,999$; i.e. Portugal 18,000$)
Good (12,500$-15,999$; i.e. Czech Repubblic 15,300$
Reasonable (10,000$ -12,499$; i.e. Saudi Arabia 10,300$)
Fair (8,500$-9,999$; i.e. Russia 8,800$)
Developing (7,000$-8,499$; i.e. Brazil 7,400$ or The World 7,600$)
Weak (5,500$-6,999$; i.e. Panama 5,900$)
Fragile (4,000$-5,499$; i.e. China 4,600$)
Struggling (2,500$-3,999$; i.e. Egypt 3,700$ or India 2,540$)
Imploded (1,000$-2,499$; i.e. Bangladesh 1,750$)
Basket Case (1$-999$; i.e. Mozambique 900$)

The Real Life GDP was based on the CIA World Factbook by the way.

Saluti

[Urban Ranger]

Thanks, that's very useful

[Whaleboy]

I have an all cosumming econonmy for a long time

Which is itself an ***indication*** that you have people in work and making that economy all consuming, instead of in the army.

[Drogue]

Wine: There are far more things that affect GDP per capita thann just economy. That system is far to rigid, as it does not take into account public sectors, the size of sectors, and UN Reports. For example, Alecrast has an almost as large sector for IT and many many other things (most indeed), while having about half the population. Considering we have very similar sector sizes for almost everything, and thus very similar economy sizes. That would mean that his GDP is about twice what mine is. According to Wine's thing, my GDP per capita would be about 20 times less than Alecrast, which would be inconsistant with the sizes of our industries. Therefore, although the economy measure is a good guide, not only is it flawed as UR has stated, it is also not always consistent with other UN reports. Thus you should look at the whole picture. Obviously you will never find a Basket Case economy nation having a GDP of $30,000, but $10-15,000 might be possible in extreme cases.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by elijah


Which is itself an ***indication*** that you have people in work and making that economy all consuming, instead of in the army.

I already said half of my army is in reserves, thus they have jobs that they work at while being in reserves. Only half of my army is active duty.

[GeneralTacticus]

I posted some better figures some time ago in this thread:

Here they are... also I've placed Frightening above All-Consuming, but I'm not sure which one is better.

Frightening (40,000$ - more GDP; i.e. Luxemburg 44,000$)
All Consuming (35,000$-39,999$; i.e. USA 36,600$)
Powerhouse (30,000$-34,999$; i.e. Switzerland 31,700$)
Thriving (25,000$-29,999$; i.e. Germany 26,600$ or Italy 25,000$ or Great Britain 25,300$ and many other EU countries)
Very Strong (20,000$-24,999$; i.e. Spain 20,700$)
Strong (16,000$-19,999$; i.e. Portugal 18,000$)
Good (12,500$-15,999$; i.e. Czech Repubblic 15,300$
Reasonable (10,000$ -12,499$; i.e. Saudi Arabia 10,300$)
Fair (8,500$-9,999$; i.e. Russia 8,800$)
Developing (7,000$-8,499$; i.e. Brazil 7,400$ or The World 7,600$)
Weak (5,500$-6,999$; i.e. Panama 5,900$)
Fragile (4,000$-5,499$; i.e. China 4,600$)
Struggling (2,500$-3,999$; i.e. Egypt 3,700$ or India 2,540$)
Imploded (1,000$-2,499$; i.e. Bangladesh 1,750$)
Basket Case (1$-999$; i.e. Mozambique 900$)

The Real Life GDP was based on the CIA World Factbook by the way.

Saluti

Just a minor note: Imploded is worse than Basket-Case.

[Archaic]

And just to confirm, Frightening is above All Consuming, just like you thought Wine.

[Giovanni Wine]

Originally posted by Drogue
Wine: There are far more things that affect GDP per capita thann just economy. That system is far to rigid, as it does not take into account public sectors, the size of sectors, and UN Reports.

Well, that's more of a weakness in the NS Systems rather than in my list

Saluti

[Whaleboy]

Perhaps we should start a thread on the accepted failings of NS that we can RP around, like I said before, we shouldnt slavishly stick to a flawed economic model, for no real reason, especially when it would make a better game if we were somewhat more flexible.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Giovanni Wine
Well, that's more of a weakness in the NS Systems rather than in my list

Partly, but what I meant is that the economy rating is not a GDP measure. NS never claimed it was. Therefore for GDP, you have to look at other things, such as size of sectors, apparent money for investment and other things, UN Reports etc.

I don't think we need to RP round anything, simply take it all a little liberally. Remember we are playing NS, and so abide by those rules. You don't play civ but change the rules because it's more realistic. If we ignore NS, then this ceases to be NS. Accept what it says liberally, but accept what it says.

[Whaleboy]

What I mean is that NS gives us certain figures for our nation, with which we build up a nation in RP.

Some of those figures may and can be inconsistent with each other, so we could be liberal in which of these figures we take, and how we take them, for example, hypothetically, if it gives us the tax rate of 28%, we could take that to mean perhaps 25%-30%, or something along those lines, that example may be too much.

Perhaps, if we are given by NS a range of figures or information, and something is inconsistent, we replace it with something that is consistent.

Just a thought, but certainly, we should be loose and liberal (thats the way ) with NS.

[Urban Ranger]

Okay, sounds good. What is the "economy rating" though if it doesn't bear any semblence to GDP per capita?