The Problems of a National Military
Day 2,043, 18:15
•
Published in USA 
•
by
•
by Israel Stevens
I’ve been mulling over the idea behind a National Military for a while now, but recent events have helped me to put my ideas together into more of a cohesive article.
The Problems of a National Military
The idea behind a National Military is pretty simple. Take tax money from the citizens, and use it to fund weapons and food for a group of soldiers that fight where the President wants them to.
The major problem behind that idea however, is that the government doesn’t own any of the infrastructure that is necessary to have an efficient fighting force. The government can certainly help pay for them, or even buy them outright. But the companies must always be on a citizen’s account.
This can potentially lead to problems, as it allows the MU Commander to hold the actual power. They may not have the CP Buttons, but they control the damage.
If a CP can’t deliver damage in key battles, then they are useless.
Having a National Military, requires the military and the government to be on the same page, or at the very least, friendly with each other. If the MU commanders don’t agree with the decisions made by the government, then they can hold them hostage by refusing to deliver damage when the President wants it.
The problem of company ownership also affects how the MU commanders view their role in a National Military.
Often times, the communes that a MU use are funded by a private citizen, usually the commander. This leads the Commander to believe that the MU is his, despite the fact that the MU is technically under the control of the government.
Even though the MU commander knew that the MU was under the control of the government, when they joined, it still leads to a sense of entitlement when you add in real life money. It is a completely understandable feeling, despite the fact that these players knew what they were getting into when they joined up.
This point is illustrated by the two officer defections that we have had in our history. These players knew that they were joining a government MU. A MU that was under the control of the President and by extension the Secretary of Defense. But they became so attached to their MU that they felt the need to resign en masse.
We have likely not seen our last defection by a National MU.
A minor problem of the government funded MU, is apathy. These MUs are receiving money for free, so they don’t have to recruit hard, or make sure they are as lean as possible.
The one benefit of this, is that they don’t have to merc out their damage in order to make ends meet.
But unfortunately, the apathy expands into the entire MU, and not just the officer corps.
Would this be different if the MU had to work for their money? Or didn’t have a steady stream of recruits? Theoretically, yes it would.
Can a National Military work?
I firmly believe the answer is yes. But it has to be set up correctly, and be set up within the current game mechanics and the current game atmosphere.
The game is designed around people buying gold. It isn’t built around a group of people building a community. It’s built around a handful of people buying gold, and spreading that wealth around in the form of weapons and food.
What do you think, can a National Military be successful?
😑_
😑_
😑_
😑_
😑_
😑_
😑_
😑_
😑_
😑_
😑_
😑_
😑_
😑_
😑_
😑_
😑_
😑_
😑_
😑_
😑_
😑_
😑_
😑_
😑_
😑_-
Do your part to fight the PTO! Join the American Military Party! Click the banner to go to our forums!
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
One problem is the Gov't making military campaign decisions. Bad moves are just bad.
Are you really suggesting the commander-in-chief has no say in who/how the eUS fight? The alternative being what, give command over to some unelected cabal of self-appointed experts? Military strategists in this game need to know one thing: the dropped-border strategy, that's about as complex as the military mod gets. The rest is primarily biggest-spender-wins.
No NFM I am not saying the CiC has no say. This cabal you speak of deployed more, fought on time, and obeyed orders. (Minus the one time Canadian war issue) when I was CO of ST6 for 18 months.
I am saying that the MU leadership is more stable than the Gov't, thus having much to offer the Gov't. It was my experience that this was an untapped resource. The Gov't made it clear to me that we would have no say due to the JCS experiment.
I stepped down as CO as I could no longer work in a system that was inefficient, lazy, and don't get me started on the nepotism. My biggest mistake in those 18 months was suggesting we stay on after the Q7s came out. My second was not pushing ST6 to me more political active.
NFM you've been a long time friend of mine. I enjoy our differing opinions but you are right about the drop border strategy. Well said. This should be a class a new POTUS has to take when they take office.
Ah, I thought you meant something like a return to a JCS-style set up replacing the CiC/SoD directing wars, not the senior COs of the big US MUs, my mistake. I agree though, any administration that’s running roughshod over its senior COs doesn’t know what its doing. The disaster that was the eUS attack against eRoC, when eRoC dropped the border countless times is proof (if it were needed) of the importance of getting input from players experienced in the war mod.
I remember stating on more than one occasion on the ST6 thread that ST6 should’ve been seeking political representation, it’s a shame it never happened.
That's a really stupid thing to say. MU Commanders' main job is organization and being confident that their MU can deliver substantial damage. Strategy can be done by anyone, even politicians.
>implying erep strat is diffcultz
The government made it clear to you that you would have no say? That's news to me! I do remember that MU commanders were never given the last word, or final call, on military decisions. Has to be that way, though, or its the JCS all over again.
it's back to the president leadership to lead the national military unit...if not well he's got him self a coup d'etat..
**These MUs are receiving money for free, so they don’t have to recruit hard, or make sure they are as lean as possible **
... I would disagree with this.
I'll end here: It is a win win relationship. The Gov't assists with the purchases of WRMs while the MU's are making and fighting with quality weapons.
Israel, you are my friend.
But in my opinion, no, it can't.
Common soldiers join an MU, learn the game, and rank and strength up.
After months and even years of this bonding who do they come to trust? The officers who taught them, and the soldiers who fight beside them. There is nothing in the game mechanics to force them to rotate to different MU's, or periodically elect a new officer corps.
So, when a dispute arises, who does the common soldier trust? The professional military, to whom they are often indebted in terms of material help, military training and often emotional bonding?
Or whoever happens to have been elected POTUS or to Congress this month?
The POTUS may have military experience, and a great knowledge of game mechanics. The POTUS may have his or her finger precisely on the pulse of what the American public wants to do, and try his or her best to carry it out.
Or not. It's subject to change every month, and we've had some stunningly incompetent and/or ego-driven Presidents. Congressional debate (at least before the RGR PTO-- I hope it's different now) primarily consisted of trolls who had been there forever grinding age-old personal vendettas in the form of childish, personal invective. If Congress ever opened their debates to the public (which they do not) the American public would never stop throwing up.
As a result, many Americans (and I'd venture to say) most soldiers avoid politics as much as possible.
So, when it comes down to a choice of who to follow, such as when the JCS military left, who does the soldier trust? Some guy I never heard of last month, or the guys I've fought alongside for three years?
Well, you obviously know what choice I made.
This is not like the RL US. No one asks you to take an oath to support and defend the Constitution and obey the orders of those appointed over you (eg, the President).
>fight alongside
>professional military
>soldier
>politicians
I could keep going, but you seem to be treating this like it IS real life, and not a game. You aren't a soldier, I'm not a politician. Nobody here is. We're people sitting at a keyboard playing a game. Get that through your head or you're missing the point. Your 'generals' aren't officers, they're the favorite of the person they took over for...and our 'Presidents' aren't anything more than the most popular kid this month.
There have been times when the 'best' person to lead has been primarily active in the military (Harlot and Goalie are the two I'd point out), and there have been times when the 'best' person to lead has been primarily active in politics (Nave, Dish, scrabman, HR, Gaius, Jewitt, Choc, Krems...could keep going).
The simple fact is that the political realm has historically produced these people more often, for the simple reason that it's the one part of the game that directly affects them all (or was, the game is fairly one dimensional now). People who have straddled the divide like Publius and Hamilton (and to a lesser extent Goalie) are rare. Being able to tap into the larger game and having a firm grasp on mechanics was required to advance politically...so people put the time in to learn the mechanics, dive into media, and make the money needed to show understanding of economics.
Now, all that's needed to succeed in the military is a credit card (or bot farms to produce your supplies), and all that's needed to succeed politically is a desire to put the sheer number of hours in to check all the right boxes.
Until the admins give us a proper sandbox game back, articles like this and posts like yours are pointless. The person with the most money wins, you can't strategize your way to a win over Romper when he's decided he's taking a battle.
Everything else is moot.
I believe I acknowledged that I understand the difference between this game and real life. In RL, I did serve in the US military, and it's not like this.
And, by the way, you were by far the most obnoxious person I ever had to deal with in Congress if not this game. I guess it's easy to be a total jerk when you don't have to confront people face to face.
You missed out on some fun terms then, looks like.
My point was that you seem to think that the people you've chosen to follow are any more suitable for leadership, and your support for that statement is...that you follow them? Why? Cause they got to you first? Cause that is what it reads like.
Simple fact is that the two dimensional nature of the game has eliminated the challenge that motivated our best players to be their best. So now we have people who are bright, have the time and desire to put in, but don't have a sandbox to play in.
Pfeiffer? We actually agree on some things.
The game is almost completely money-driven now. Four years ago, that was not true. You had to put in your time and learn and earn.
Now, you can be a superhero by pulling out a credit card. Soon, it will be the only way to do it, no matter how long you've been here.
Why do I trust my current in game military leadership? I shopped around. I dealt with MU's who were incompetent or greedy or stupid before I arrived where I am now. With players who have proven it to me by promises made, and promises kept.
Sooner rather than later, this game will either 1) go bankrupt or 2) make it so clear that those of us who play without paying RL money are irrelevant.
In the meantime, I munch popcorn and watch the eWorld spin apart.
Says the biggest American Traitor in our history, anything this citizen says you can rest assured it will benefit himself and no one else; this is the citizen who tanked for the UK while receiving money from the Office of Militia Support...
GTFO of American Politics Redcoat....
"all that's needed to succeed in the military is a credit card (or bot farms to produce your supplies)"
...or in Fluffer's case BOTH!
'Fluffer' has bragged more than once about his bot farms....
We've had some stunningly incompetent military leadership, as well. Your comparison only comes out in MU leadership favor when it assumes that they are good at not only their jobs (managing a group of people, getting supplies out, recruiting, etc.) but also determining national strategy. Unfortunately, history shows they are often poor at both. So between someone who is elected and someone who isn't, I choose to vote for my national leadership.
I would agree if we didn't have Unity Primaries.....
Sorry for the wall of text. But game mechanics make it very difficult for the common soldier to trust the government. So, yes, you have a military which may or may not do what the President says.
Jon you are right in what you are saying. It is funny how the same problems arise year after year. I remember when the Joint Chief and POTUS were at odds some time ago. eHistory keeps repeating.
eHistory doesnt keep repeating because of the way the game is set up. There is a commonality between the two situations, and that is how the political-sphere behaves and the mentality they take toward the game. Until they realize that the mechanics of the game do not give them total control of everything, despite what they seem to believe, the issues will continue.
I think you make some good points about who people feel more comfortable with, and who they trust.
😁😁😁😁😁😁
So maybe the game is, after all, " built around a group of people building a community". Increasingly, over the last 1-2 years, players have shifted principle allegiance to their MU community. A national military can exist and be an important force multiplier if it recognizes that, in this game, players respond better to top down persuasion than to top down command. The lever of persuasion for politicians used to be money. Something different needs now to be found ..... transparency, competence, integrity??
The whys of the first "defection", the eUS Mil, you know better than I.
The two USAF "defections" were over decisions about organizational structure, unilateral decisions from the POTUS/commander-in-chief. Perhaps the completely voluntary investment of time, money, ego and hands-on experience of being officers should be taken into account when making those sorts of changes. Perhaps the officers were not doing a good job, in which case they should have been fired. The results would have been the same, but the POTUS wouldn't look like a pointy-haired boss ala Dilbert making changes for change's sake.
\o/
I think a national military is possible, and helps present plenty of solid propaganda opportunities.
It does, something which the USAF does not take advantage of enough.
My allegiance is/has been/always will be with ST6. Whoever happens to have the eGold to get into office on any given month has no bearing on my decisions. I trust and follow the people I have fought beside for years.
RAWR
RAWR
RAWR
The entire eUS population has now defected from the government that you imposed upon us.
The entire? Really? Everyone? 100%? That shit cray.
Go back to neglecting your duties.
Omg I'm such a rebel youdon'tevenknow
It speaks!
Just where the F have you been since being elected...?
*brings out the popcorn, gets comfy..." xD
This is the first time I've ever seen you speak.
The entirety of the tax income should just be spent purchasing weapons and distributing them for damage.
It currently costs $80 in WRM (at 0% VAT) to employ one commune worker. You are also paying that commune worker $1, so for $81 you get 10 Q7 tanks for your MU.
Take that same $80 and purchase 10.6 Q7 tanks from the marketplace. You've supplied 6 more fight clicks with the same expenditure, PLUS you've collected $3.81 back in taxes, which buys you another 5 fight clicks (.5 a Q7 tank).
In other words, instead of giving our USAF MU's $80 to spend on WRM so they can justify having their commune worker who produces 10 Q7 tanks for the unit, just take the same cash, buy 11 tanks, and give them out to whomever is willing to fight where you want damage.
The above example is based on current market conditions and national bonuses.
what bonuses
Some of our MUs actually just buy tanks instead of wasting money on WRM, and some of us are just hoarding work clicks right now until we have actual bonuses.
This is correct. Communes have been unprofitable since a year now.
you mean about the time Phiffer decided we should drop our 100/100 bonus? ya don't say.
It has nothing to do with the bonuses, it is a global event...
Poland and Serbia don't seem to be having issues with this "global event" oh, they have full bonuses, that's right.
They have the same problem. Everyone has the same problem. You are just ill-informed and cocky despite this.
*shakes head*
Idea: have a single MU(call it "United States Armed Forces") with the CURRENT CP as commander(the CP would pass the Commandership over to the next CP when he/she leaves office) that way the MU cannot be hijacked by rogue officers....organized the different "branches" into the different regiments........Just an idea *shrugs*