New NESes, ideas, development, etc

[Neverwonagame3]

I don't think I know enough to say that much on the units listing, but I'll try anyway.

Firstly, at the rate of things in Iraq and Afganistan, is there not a high probability of gurellia warfare playing the largest role for the forseeable future?

Second, what sort of unit and circa what point is the Gunship air unit supposed to be?

Third, what is represented by Variable Attack?

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Regarding the unit listing, I do think that it may be more complicated than necessary or useful. However, this depends on the resolution of the NES - temporal and otherwise. In many cases, the presence of one type of unit strongly implies the presence of another. It might be a good idea to categorize such units into groups, and simply list the number of those groups that a given nation can deploy.

In any case, the listing will prove useful for my conceptual work on the more detailed main ChaNES. I can't find any glaring weaknesses or missing units.

 

[Symphony D.]

Firstly, at the rate of things in Iraq and Afganistan, is there not a high probability of gurellia warfare playing the largest role for the forseeable future?

In my estimation, no. Asymmetric warfare only takes you so far; the easiest way for a state to combat it is through technological development and training. Deploying conventional military forces to fight guerrilla style campaigns is often clumsy and brutish, and that simply provides greater incentives to devise technologies, tactics, and forces designed specifically for the purpose of eliminating guerrilla elements. In the meantime, states also continue to confront the possibility of direct action against their peers, which has been and will continue to be the major threat to their existence; a terrorist group is generally incapable of destroying a distant country, and is at most something of a random, deadly menace. A state's military is a different matter.

Second, what sort of unit and circa what point is the Gunship air unit supposed to be?

The modern sense of the word, specifically as relates to vehicles such as the AC-130 and its predecessors, and its likely descendants (a major current aim is to develop diode versions of the Airborne Laser and mount them on C-130s for ground-attack). Helicopters which have received that designation (like the Mil Mi-24 Hind) would instead be regarded as Attack Helicopters.

Third, what is represented by Variable Attack?

A larger version of a Variable Fighter, capable of carrying a larger weapons load (be it "bomb truck," "missile truck," "laser truck," and so on, or balanced) and therefore capable of heavier and more sustained action. The term "Bomber" is no longer really applicable since it's possible with the set up and the weapons loads to produce a vehicle which is capable of defending itself against other airborne threats (and attacking them) and performing similar missions as Fighters if necessary. The classifications for direct combat vehicles becomes less about survivability, mobility, and mission role and more about relative size and firepower.

Regarding the unit listing, I do think that it may be more complicated than necessary or useful. However, this depends on the resolution of the NES - temporal and otherwise.

Where, specifically? To need something of this level of detail I think you generally have to be in the realm of one year updates--lower resolution and the detail is less important, and higher resolution and you'll never progress very far along the list.

In many cases, the presence of one type of unit strongly implies the presence of another.

This is true enough, which is why I didn't bother with support and maintenance vehicles and trainers. I included transports, tankers, and eWar birds for a few particular reasons. The capabilities represented by all of them in the Space, Aerospace, and Air categories are not universal, and their development is key to being able to conduct projection of force and battlefield dominance (the United States, for example, is the power it is because it can project its force globally--it cannot do this without its Airlift and Tanker capabilities). The eWar birds provide dominant command and control capabilities that enable a much more coordinated response against foes, which can be a devastating advantage if they do not have similar such systems. Although these advantages are not directly combat related, they have a huge impact on what you can do and how well you can do it. I couldn't see not including them as a result. This helps distinguish the haves from the have nots and makes it much easier to assess one's capabilities in deployment and sustainment of missions.

Similar arguments can be made for land transports (mechanized infantry require having both the soldiers and the vehicles, like APCs and IFVs; motorized infantry should therefore have corresponding vehicles, namely converted trucks) and it doesn't make sense to include the detail in one field, but not in others.

Something I have noticed is I didn't really budget for Sea or Space Transport vessels.

It might be a good idea to categorize such units into groups, and simply list the number of those groups that a given nation can deploy.

I'm not sure I follow.

 

[Neverwonagame3]

First, I don't understand what you mean by "direct action against their peers". I assume this references wars of conquest, but there are problems. Democratic politicians, especially after Iraq, will have trouble starting agressive wars, and more importantly a lack of desire to.

And until a counter for the nuclear weapon is developed, major v.s major wars will not happen.

 

[Symphony D.]

First, I don't understand what you mean by "direct action against their peers". I assume this references wars of conquest, but there are problems. Democratic politicians, especially after Iraq, will have trouble starting agressive wars. And until a counter for the nuclear weapon is developed, major v.s major wars will not happen.

Wars of conquest are for the foreseeable future, impossible. Wars for resources which escalate into direct confrontations, wars for useful territory beyond Earth, and wars of "regime change" are however quite possible. Nobody tends to declare war anymore at all; there are "police actions," "incidents," "operations," and so on. It doesn't change the fact that countries deploy their militaries to secure their objectives.

It's also quite easy to develop a confrontation between even nuclear powers which do not involve the release of nuclear weapons: if one side starts a conventional conflict against another without using nuclear weapons, that other side will be hesitant to deploy their nukes. Under the threat of MAD, neither side is going to fire unless they start to lose the conventional conflict, and possibly not even then (it changes "defeat" to "total loss" at that stage). The Soviet Union was for a time considering doing this in 1983-1984.

 

[Neverwonagame3]

Between dictatorships is understandable, but can a war for resources happen between democratic powers? Neither an idealistic nor a pragmatic politician would be likely to do it, a pragmatic one because it would lose votes, and an idealistic one because most idealists nowadays consider agressive war morally wrong.

You're probably right about nuclear weapons, but it means there are limits to what can be achieved militarily. Most powers in a posistion to fight a war of reigme change, genuine motive or not, are democratic, however- and so fall into the problem of politician's motives.

 

[Symphony D.]

The trope of democracies never fighting democracies has so far only been proven in circumstances where entities other than democracies exist--they have had bigger things to worry about than possibly fighting each other. Even if this is assumed to be a truism, that's a purely political concern--it has had no effect upon weapons development, which even in "low security risk" areas like the European Union following the fall of the Soviet Union, has proceeded more or less unimpeded.

The question of if war can and will occur in a given circumstance must be discussed in both the scenario at hand, and the political circumstances in the countries which might participate, both of which are beyond the matter of military hardware. That the armaments industry will continue to exist, will continue to have clients, and will continue to produce such hardware is however (short of some sort of all-encompassing unrejectable breakthrough in logic or communication espousing peace) a certainty.

 

[Neverwonagame3]

First, depending on goals logic may dictate war or peace. Second, the less war happens the more likely democratic politicans are to use defence cuts as a policy, slowing the rate of weapons research (in the E.U in particular).

Second, what factors in a hypothetical world where democracy (though, to be fair, the common people aren't really in control in the "democratic" system) is triumphant would lead to war, that would not run into the factors I pointed out?

 

[Symphony D.]

First, depending on goals logic may dictate war or peace. Second, the less war happens the more likely democratic politicans are to use defence cuts as a policy, slowing the rate of weapons research (in the E.U in particular).

Given human proclivity toward violence, as well as the notion of national sovereignty, even if no wars were to occur whatsoever for any reason for an extended period of time, I find it unlikely many nations would surrender their military capabilities, particularly as even under such circumstances it cannot be proven they will never again be required.

Most Americans will never have to use firearms to defend themselves. That doesn't prevent gun-owners from vehemently defending their rights to their weapons. Military-Industrial Complexes have vastly more clout than gun lobbies, and vastly more money. Your conjecture is basically assumptive of a perfect end-state which will never occur, much like say, Communism or Anarchy. As long as people are people there will be conflicts and conflicts will require weapons.

That is also outside the scope of a unit table. I could just as easily postulate that for every universe which winds up as a perfectly harmonious international coalition of democracies, there will be one in which democracy totally collapses and there is instead endless conflict between despotic regimes. Such discussion is more or less pointless to the drafting of a table of units because it concerns other factors.

Even if we assume a reality in which conflict is significantly decreased, which is about the best that can be hoped for, all that does is slow the demand for military technologies, not eliminate them. Under the rule system I am devising, new weapons systems require development periods--presumably, if such a situation exists, opposition groups within government will lobby that such money could be better spent elsewhere. That does nothing to prevent the potential of its development however.

Second, what factors in a hypothetical world where democracy (though, to be fair, the common people aren't really in control in the "democratic" system) is triumphant would lead to war, that would not run into the factors I pointed out?

The same situations. Democracies stick together because they perceive there to be worse things than each other in existence (like dictatorships or the extremist group of the bi-decade: Fascists, Communists, Theocracies, Terrorists, whatever). Remove those things and they are still left looking out for their own interests--if that requires taking military action, so be it. Political pressure from anti-war groups can be overcome and international censure is only so effective unless the other democracies are willing to conduct military measures to stop the aggressor.

War cannot be eliminated, it can only be contained.

Lastly, this is NESing; peace is never going to triumph.

 

[Neverwonagame3]

First- I concede this has little stuff relevance to a unit table, but after your thread about intellectual participation I felt I should comment on something.

Second- I don't have any examples off hand, but later on I can find for you some examples of how much modern nations cut back on their defence budget.

 

[Abaddon]

Just so you know ~ I didn't comment on the list as I am a complete novice at units.. and I doubt spending time checking it on wiki serves any purpose, also, how often does a NES last long enough to pass through even the most limited evolution of units.

 

[zxcvbnm]

I'd really rather not have an infinite amount of other dimensions here - or do you just mean holy places?

They'd be for flavour only. Nothing would actually be going on there.

Thread here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=274483

 

[Symphony D.]

also, how often does a NES last long enough to pass through even the most limited evolution of units.

The failings of others are not my concern.

 

[Dachs]

Comment, Supermath: the Hatay shouldn't belong to Turkey. It's part of the French Mandate of Syria and appears in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

I don't have much time here, so I'm going to have to limit comments. Sorry.

The modern sense of the word, specifically as relates to vehicles such as the AC-130 and its predecessors, and its likely descendants (a major current aim is to develop diode versions of the Airborne Laser and mount them on C-130s for ground-attack).

Since the Specter doesn't really have any equivalent in other modern militaries (that I can think of off the top of my head - by "equivalent" I mean attack plane with the ability to loiter and provide sustained CAS), would it be appropriate to make its ilk an entire separate unit class?

The eWar birds provide dominant command and control capabilities that enable a much more coordinated response against foes, which can be a devastating advantage if they do not have similar such systems.

The E-3 and the EA-6B have radically different missions yet are included in the same class here. If one only has Prowlers or EF-111 Ravens, you don't know where the Bad Guys are, although they have a lower likelihood of knowing where you are; an AWACS like the Mainstay or the Sentry provides both capabilities, but more so the former. Would that be sufficient to designate them as separate unit classes, or is that simply a different unit quality?

Between dictatorships is understandable, but can a war for resources happen between democratic powers? Neither an idealistic nor a pragmatic politician would be likely to do it, a pragmatic one because it would lose votes, and an idealistic one because most idealists nowadays consider agressive war morally wrong.

If there is sufficient impetus for such a resource war from the electorate, anything can happen. Though it's probably a poor economic example, if gas prices quintuple or something like that, and the acquisition of oil wells by that government would reduce those prices, the electorate may support a resource war to seize said oil wells.

The fact that both countries were democracies has not stopped wars in previous times, as in classical Greece, for example...but that's already been addressed.

 

[Symphony D.]

Since the Specter doesn't really have any equivalent in other modern militaries (that I can think of off the top of my head - by "equivalent" I mean attack plane with the ability to loiter and provide sustained CAS), would it be appropriate to make its ilk an entire separate unit class?

No, because it's the only thing which is definitively a Gunship. All instances of helicopters which have been called that roll back comfortably to Attack Helicopters, and nothing else using the title that is not a boat exists.

The E-3 and the EA-6B have radically different missions yet are included in the same class here. If one only has Prowlers or EF-111 Ravens, you don't know where the Bad Guys are, although they have a lower likelihood of knowing where you are; an AWACS like the Mainstay or the Sentry provides both capabilities, but more so the former. Would that be sufficient to designate them as separate unit classes, or is that simply a different unit quality?

Doesn't work that way. They either have to be separate unit types or it can be reduced to second order distinction as a design feature. Machines are relatively little impacted by quality compared to infantry, given the cost of training a crew is often vastly less than the cost of the machine and, when crew skill levels are roughly similar, the machine will decide the outcome.

 

[das]

Comment, Supermath: the Hatay shouldn't belong to Turkey.

This is 1946, Dachs. It should.

 

[LittleBoots]

If there is sufficient impetus for such a resource war from the electorate, anything can happen. Though it's probably a poor economic example, if gas prices quintuple or something like that, and the acquisition of oil wells by that government would reduce those prices, the electorate may support a resource war to seize said oil wells.

The fact that both countries were democracies has not stopped wars in previous times, as in classical Greece, for example...but that's already been addressed.

I'd like to echo this. The belief that worldwide democracy will somehow bring world peace is about as cute as the idea that human reason and technological progress would do the same, an idea very prevalent in Europe and America right up until the 1st World War, after which it mysteriously disappeared, only to resurface in fairly recent times.

Admittedly, ancient Greece had a different idea of mankind and the rights "due" an individual, but there is A) no guarantee that the nebulous concept of "natural rights" will survive indefinitely, and, B) no guarantee that, even in that atmosphere, sufficient demand for X resource will not warrant war. Oil is a good example, and if there is a crisis, a responsible government will take steps to ensure the wellbeing of her people. And, given the slightest upset, people can become quite bestial. In America, a hurricane destroying a city can result in some pretty shocking anarchy. In Europe, it may only take a soccer match

I also question the belief that democracy will be accepted worldwide without changes in culture, as it is based on certain values held in the West that may or may not be held elsewhere, with the result being that what a democracy provides may not be in demand in certain cultures.

Of course, this is all rather tangential to the thread.... my bad.

 

[das]

I also question the belief that democracy will be accepted worldwide without changes in culture, as it is based on certain values held in the West that may or may not be held elsewhere, with the result being that what a democracy provides may not be in demand in certain cultures.

There's also the fact that while the Western definition of democracy (at least they bother to specify that it's "liberal democracy" or possibly "American democracy" sometimes) has grown more and more specific and lofty, the cruder earlier version tends to be more well-received and understood elsewhere, leading to a certain degree of confusion. For example, though I sort of understand the idea behind this now, I still don't truly associate the more specific, political concept of "democracy" with the broader and not necessarily overlapping concept of "human rights". There are other such issues as well.

Although this is probably even more tangential. Anyway: as long as humanity remains humanity there will be war, and as long as there is war it will be fought with something that could be classed as "weapons", and for the foreseeable future the main direction of innovation in the field of weapons would likely be a technological one. There the relevance of military technology in general. Socio-politico-economical structures are obviously important, but ultimately they do not override the above.

 

[Supermath]

This is 1946, Dachs. It should.

But in 1923 it shouldn't.

Anyway, map fixed.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Where, specifically? To need something of this level of detail I think you generally have to be in the realm of one year updates--lower resolution and the detail is less important, and higher resolution and you'll never progress very far along the list.

You actually satisfied my worries on this subject with your commentary later in the quoted post - there is justification for keeping the complexity of the unit listing at its current level. However, I would like to note that I think that half-year updates would work fine in an approximately modern setting.

Something I have noticed is I didn't really budget for Sea or Space Transport vessels.

It might be a good idea to include those, yes, but what do you think about space carriers fulfilling that role? Perhaps a smaller boarding craft would be a good inclusion.

I'm not sure I follow.

This isn't CIV, where you send a stack of helicopters at an enemy city. Complimentary unit types might be grouped together into a single "unit," and a military's strength might be listed in terms of those units. However, your previous arguments have pretty much explained why you don't think that'd be a good idea, so I'm just explaining it here so you can see what my train of thought was.