Smarter Military Funding
Day 1,400, 08:42
•
Published in USA 
•
by
•
by Gnilraps
Department of Creative Thought
Day 1,400 of the New World
20 September 2011
SUMMARY (tl;dr version)
Tools exist which enable MU's to determine how much a soldier's Q5 Hit has increased on a daily (or weekly or monthly) basis. Soldiers whose Q5 Hit increases at the highest rate are our most elite soldiers. Military Units should have their weekly funding adjusted (without changing the current strictures in place for accountability) to reward a highly active membership and/or to penalize an inactive membership. This type of system closely imitates the real world "sales commission" model for rewarding the activity a company desires most, sales. By implementing a sliding scale of funding for all Military Units, we would be maximizing the expenditure of our Military Budget through an incentive-based system which in turn would encourage more soldiers into greater activity, encourage Military Units to employ policies that would increase activity, and use the almighty dollar to motivate. All this to the end that the combined military strength of our fighting forces will increase in might at a more rapid rate, hopefully outpacing the rate of increased might of our enemies.
Funding Military Activity
We've been doing it all wrong.
Let me rephrase that. We've been doing it one-third wrong.
Using tax dollars to fund a Military Unit of any kind is a public trust. There is the obvious understanding that since public money is being handed over, the public's interest ought to be the primary concern of the Military Unit which receives the funds.
What are the Public's interests?
1: that Department of Defense Orders are carried out
2: that the Military Strength of the Nation increase
3: that recipients of public monies are held accountable for their expenditure
Our current system is successfully insuring that two of the three of these priorities are being carried out by the spending of dollars on Military Units.
Department of Defense Orders
In order to receive any Government assistance, a Military Unit must not only be transparent about it's fighting orders, but it must also be responsive to Department of Defense orders.
The fighting forces of the USAF are a foregone conclusion. If soldiers are found fighting contrary to policy, they are discharged.
But what about non-USAF Military Units - often referred to as "Militias"?
ST6 is a fine example of how a Military Unit can thrive with independence while still following the orders of the Department of Defense.
Quoting Maxx Johnson, "ST6 has 3 members (myself, SgtRock, and dmgctrl) with access to NSC both on the forum and on IRC at any given time. If one of us isn't in the room, it is a rarity.
...90%+ of the time we follow NSC and eUS priorities to the T. The times we do not are either because they require us to make a move which is not feasible for funding reasons, or because we are on a sponsored deployment (which are necessary because of funding reasons). In these cases we communicate this with NSC and let them know we are not available. If the target's are a high priority we can and HAVE changed our plans to accommodate the eUS over what we wanted to do that day."
...Right now "America's Dime" funds only about 23% of SEAL Team Six's daily influence (which is roughly 20,000,000+ daily)."
In other words, ST6 has found a way to make every dollar they receive from taxpayer money count, maximize it's effectiveness through attention to DoD orders, and when DoD does not need the extra damage from ST6, they farm out their damage to allied interests. This keeps them in guns and snacks.
With respect to #1, our current funding plans are working, and any Military Unit who wants to cooperate can do so with great success.
Accountability and Funding
Once again, our current system is designed well to safeguard the public's interest. In order to receive continued funding, ever Militia must comply with a few simple requests.
Easy Company (EZC) is a great example of a Militia which is run according to the strictures of the Office of Militia Support, or OMS.
EZC Commanding Officer Jacksondr5 has systems in place which track each soldier's daily work activity, their supply requests and what they've received, and he manages to supply both food and weapons on a daily basis to the fighting force known as EZC.
If he were to stop tracking these things, Michael Larson, the OMS Director who is charged with overseeing the distribution of tax money to private Militias could, would, and should cut EZC off. This has never happened. EZC carefully complies with the strictures put into place by Government policy, and despite the cuts which OMS has endured and passed down to the Militias, EZC soldiers are equipped on a daily basis with 7 Q5 tanks and up to 500 wellness to fight with.
So with respect to items #1 and #3 in the above list, our current system of funding is adequately accommodating the Public's best interest.
However, it is my contention that item #2 is being neglected under our current Military Funding strategy.
Increasing the Military Strength of our Nation's Fighting Forces
It is a bedrock Game Mechanic of eRepublik that there are two ways and two ways only to get stronger: Train and Fight.
Both of these cost money of course.
Training takes Gold. It may be worth looking into a mild expenditure of Gold under controlled circumstances for the purpose of funding the increased Training of American soldiers. But that is not what this article is endorsing.
Instead, I want to propose an idea for adjusting our funding policy in such a way that the things we are doing well, namely #'s 1 and 3 above continue to be done well, but so that item #2 will also be done at a much higher level.
I propose that Military funding be adjusted to reward high activity, not just compliance with orders and accountability.
As I pointed out, Training and Fighting both increase a soldier's battle effectiveness. There is a limit to how much training can be done. And within reason, there is a limit also to how many times a soldier can fight. (Setting reason aside, a soldier can fight as many times in a day as he has room on his MasterCard. This also is not germaine to this article.)
Using Special Forces, the elite fighting force in the country, as an example, I'll share some statistics.
A soldier can increase his strength by approximately 161 points per week, give or take NE bonuses and Friend Bonuses. SF has 60 soldiers whose average weekly Strength gain is 100 or better. This means that 2/3 of SF soldiers are spending a significant amount of Gold each week in strength training. These are the kind of soldiers we should be especially rewarding. (Over 90 SF soldiers gain more than 35 Strength points per week, meaning almost every SF soldier is spending at least some Gold on Strength Training. This gold is their own.)
Furthermore, a soldier can fight (without spending additional Gold) as many as approximately 245 times per day. This assumes their town center and health buildings are maxed out, that they are not Working as Manager for any of their own buildings, and that they are logging on to fight 4 times/day. Soldiers who do this are truly the elite regardless of how much damage they currently do. They are elite because they are adding to their effectiveness more rapidly than other soldiers. (This is not a criticism of those for whom RL prevents more activity, it is merely an acknowledgment of those who fight A LOT.)
SF has about 20 soldiers who routinely fight more than 200 times per day. Looking down the list a bit further, SF has 70 soldiers who are fighting more than 110 times per day. The basic supply for an SF soldier is 22 tanks (110 fights) per day and no food. This means that there are 70 SF soldiers who are spending their own money on food and weapons on a daily basis. Each one of these soldiers has a Q5 Hit over 2500. These are our heaviest hitters.
Training and fighting combine to increase the single most important statistic a soldier bears, his "Influence per Q5 Hit". The SF has more than 20 soldiers who increase their Q5 Hit number by more than 100 points per week.
I run all these statistics for you to make a point. It is possible to determine, using weekly increase in Q5 Hit, which soldiers are the most dedicated trainers and fighters. Rather than measure "elite" status based on Q5 hit ONLY, which does not take into account dedicated soldiers who are outfighting and out-training those who have been playing the game longer, I am proposing that "elite" soldier status ALSO take into account GROWTH IN Q5 HIT.
Our tax dollars should be spent at a higher rate on such soldiers as these. We should have our Military Experts sit down with the budget and determine how to form a sliding scale for funding that increases the allotment for each growing soldier in an MU and funds at a decreased rate for each soldier who is stagnant in their growth in Q5 Hit. Then it is up to the Military Unit itself to determine how these funds are disseminated amongst their soldiery.
*** Added note ***
I use the above examples of ST6, EZC, and SF merely because I happen to be familiar with them. This in no way reflects a desire on my part to design a program that specifically benefits any one MU over and above any other. It is my desire to design a more efficient way of targeting those whose activity is causing them to grow at a higher rate and funding that activity.
In the real world, when a company wants to increase sales activity, it institutes commission bonuses for its sales staff, and the hardest working salesmen benefit the most.
It is time our Military Funding follow this model to the end that each week the strength gain of our combined fighting force outpaces the strength gain of our enemies.
16 Shells endorses:
Hard-working reporter portcolumbus' Meet the Press
New Publisher PencilPal and his Poor Man's Blanket
The National Broadcast System
Department of Defense Orders
The WHPR
eNPR
The Treasure Map
Positive Thinking
The Congressional Record in the Flaming Press.
Allied War Report
and getting your butt into a military unit.
You may now return to your regularly scheduled clicking
LT Gnilraps, USAF Special Forces Alpha Company 1st Platoon.
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
If your activity goes up, so does your funding.
Let's not spend more money, let's spend our money more wisely.
Votado.
Admin please make bazooka stronger .. I hit 5025 per hit now.. They are useless..
i can increase my strength by over 130 per week. wheres my funding?
Fund AED NOW!
...
...
I just fell in love with your article.
You explained dynamic efficiency problem better than any article I've seen in the game.
i can see why you would want an increase in funding for SF, being a member of it and all, but what about the many dedicated players in the eUS military who receive NO funding?
I thought you received it secretly :/
This isn't sales, and you'd be giving even more money to units that have older players who either have an established company base that can provide them with some/all of the supplies/gold they need to fight/train, or who regularly buy gold. I'm in the gold buying category (because my companies are communes), why should I be rewarded with more tax dollars because I buy gold? Clearly those people who fall into either of these categories above are already invested in the game due to their gold purchases OR don't need to worry about money because their companies support their needs on a day to day basis.
We should be throwing money at newer players to try and retain them, not at older players who are already involved and not going anywhere. We can't do both, and the priorities in this article are skewed.
You're in Congress, yet you've never once brought anything up like this in Congress. I've not even seen a post in the Econ Council about if this is something viable given our budgetary constraint. That leads me to conclude this is either a 'rah rah SF' article, which is fine I enjoy those usually, or it's part of a very long CP campaign (which given that this ignores that new players can never match that rate of gain and won't benefit from the program shows some very odd priorities).
Oh, and you're one of those people who would benefit, proposing to give yourself more money/supplies while making it sound like you'd be doing the country a favor (and convincingly) takes balls.
@rick von ruger - join another group?
@rick. I used SF as an example.
My plan would adjust ANY MU's funding based on the three items liste😛 namely accountability, compliance, and activity level.
This has nothing to do with any particular MUCH, and the examples i chose merely reflect my familiarity with those units, not my endorsement of them over and above any others.
Very interesting read.
COST/DAMAGE = Funding.
This would be a simplistic approach to the whole ordeal. The individual influences his/her own funding by their CI or Cost per Influence.
Activity is a godsend, but like you stated in your paper: "This is not a criticism of those for whom RL prevents more activity.". In a sense, how does one accurately measure activity? One could say I am inactive if they only quote my strength growth. One could say I am inactive - because I do not participate in politics. One could say I am inactive because I do not fight every day. One could say I was active because I idle in an IRC.
The flaw in the word activity - is that it is not defined as well as other words. Sure, you can cite strength growth, damage growth etc. But, there is no way of quantitatively measure activity.
However, past my rant - this is a well-written article - and you explain your idea well (unlike this comment - which is sporadic and unorganized.)
*measuring -sigh-.
I can't believe people are turning this into a "my MU is better than yours" affair.
My point has to do with rewarding individuals based on activity, not based on membership.
People grow up.
@Henry, you've got it all wrong
"We should be throwing money at newer players to try and retain them, not at older players who are already involved and not going anywhere. We can't do both, and the priorities in this article are skewed."
this
also henry, i already moved from NG to AB
ive heard the community over at USAF sucks, otherwise i might consider it
"I can't believe people are turning this into a "my MU is better than yours" affair."
nobody has done this. now you're imagining conflict in order to discredit other people's valuable input. its a cheap trick all in all.
you should listen to what other people have to say before you jump to the conclusion that only your view is correct. such closed-mindedness will get you nowhere
No, I think you do gnil. You're advocating giving more money and resources to the people who already consume the most, and who need it least to stay engaged. You will get a small uptick in damage, but it doesn't encourage new player retention at all, which is the number one thing we should be focusing on right now. This ignores that completely, and actually works against it in that you'd be taking money away from the lower branches populated with newer players.
If you try to make the 'activity' argument (in that technically anyone can fight 240 times a day), for most new players that requires them to log in every hour (for the first week or so) or two (for the first 8 weeks or so) in order to do so. They have tiny little town centers that don't enable them to walk away for long if they want to keep their 'activity' level up. A new player can log in at all the same times and for exactly the same duration as an older player, but will do about 1/3 of the fights.
You say I have it all wrong, yet you didn't address any points I made, and you are still advocating we allocate more resources to the players already getting the most.
@rick - some people say that because there aren't as many private jokes and other such things in the USAF that come from time (and having a separate community), but in the Ultramarines (I've never been in any other USAF branch), I've not once gotten a complaint about our community or people not having someone to talk/kill time with. Our private room is more active than any other channel I idle in...and I'm in about 40.
"You're advocating giving more money and resources to the people who already consume the most, and who need it least to stay engaged... you are still advocating we allocate more resources to the players already getting the most."
Make the strong get stronger and the newbs all die...
Pretty much hits the nail on the head when it comes to the 'elitist' strategy. I have to say i'm on Henry's side on this one. This game is about people. More people = more win, imo.
Rick, I apologize. I was reacting to Pizza, and what sounded like a few (you and Henry) who were inaccurately assuming I was advocating for increased funding for me and SF.
And Henry, while you are right that I didn't address your points, I must say I felt the same way about your post. You made too many assumptions about what I was saying.
Nowhere in my article is a proposal. It is a call for conversation.
I AM NOT advocating that players whose Q5 hit rate is highest get more money. I am advocating that a system be put into place which rewards their MILITARY UNIT for their increased activity. I quite clearly stated, "Then it is up to the Military Unit itself to determine how these funds are disseminated amongst their soldiery." I can only assume you did not read carefully enough to see this when you accuse me of advocating more money for myself or those like me.
The system I am proposing is specifically designed to do exactly what you say, Henry, and to do it better than the current system. I also want to reward the most promising young players, to assist their growth rate with public money.
Our current system rewards paperwork, not activity. Paperwork is ABSOLUTELY important. So is activity.
To each his own, Henry 🙂
I wouldn't be willing to leave longstanding friendships behind just for a few extra tanks each day
This wouldn't reward new players because (with the exception of SEALS and UM) no group that has players who are serious tanks and can compete for this extra funding take new players, and even then those newer players would skew the numbers down considerably.
You say your system helps new players, but I don't see how...
'The system I am proposing is specifically designed to do exactly what you say, Henry, and to do it better than the current system. I also want to reward the most promising young players, to assist their growth rate with public money.'
Where do you explain this? Is it just assumed that you have a plan to do it? You don't outline it here. This would NEVER, in any way help a new player...unless they are a regular and significant gold buyer, in which case, they don't really need the money.
I read the entire thing, and I never made a single assumption. I made conclusions based on what is in the article, and nowhere do you address new players. You simply advocate a system that helps the strong get stronger...which they're already doing anyway.
@rick - and that's totally cool, I'm just saying that you were making a generalization which isn't really applicable across the board. Feel free to ask some of the former AB guys who landed in UM, we have a solid group, and our system is set up to require the type of activity that builds a community.
"Then it is up to the Military Unit itself to determine how these funds are disseminated amongst their soldiery."
So whats to stop them from giving it all to one person, or embezzling it somehow? Keep in mind that 'paperwork' can be faked.
And honestly, i more or less skimmed the article. I wasn't a fan of the excessive use of bold print.
Furthermore, i've done a LOT of game mechanics breakdown, calculation and analysis in order to determine the absolute most cost effective means of increasing influence per fight, based on current strength and rank stats. For most higher level players, this is spending gold to increase strength. Using funding to do so would both reduce the amount of gold in our economy (driving up prices even higher) and not contribute to actual damage done. Government funding should not be allotted according to strength gain, because it encourages spending on training rather than fights. Fights win battles. Gold boosting just strokes your ePeen.
"Rather than measure "elite" status based on Q5 hit ONLY, which does not take into account dedicated soldiers who are outfighting and out-training those who have been playing the game longer, I am proposing that "elite" soldier status ALSO take into account GROWTH IN Q5 HIT."
"Soldiers who do this (train and fight a lot) are truly the elite regardless of how much damage they currently do. They are elite because they are adding to their effectiveness more rapidly than other soldiers"
The ideal target of an activity-rewards-based program is that soldier who is doing all he can do to increase his battle effectiveness but who does not qualify for such an elite unit as SF.
Here's a poster boy for this idea: http://egov4you.info/citizen/view/4174738
Zlatko fights far more than he is being supplied. Yet his Q5 hit prevents him from being supplied as he deserves. He is outworking 20 or so soldiers in SF who qualify for 22 Tanks per day because they have a high Q5 hit but whose activity is such that they are not growing at anywhere NEAR the rate of Zlatko.
My idea would be to award Zlatko's MU in hopes that Zlatko can receive the kind of supply he deserves.
This is NOT INCREASED FUNDING for military. This is ACTIVITY BASED FUNDING for military, taking into account compliance, accountability, and activity.
Certain MU's such as SF should perhaps be considered at their ceiling in terms of funding.
But nothing increases performance quite as well as competition. And if MU's had to compete for funding by activity, I believe that our overall damage output as a Nation would GO UP, and not just on any given day, but it would increase at a FASTER RATE meaning that our effectiveness versus our enemies would increase over time.
And Rick - you don't get funding because your leadership refuses funding due to a few small requirements.
I'm torn here. I wish there was a better way to distribute money, but I don't know if gnil's way is the best. Giving borderline active people less money won't make them more active. Most would probably be apathetic, and we'd get less damage.
In regards to Gnil's idea about measuring strength gain. Its nigh on impossible for a new player to match an older player's growth UNLESS they buy gold. So this would be rewarding gold buyers who can buy their own supplies with purchased gold. Older players can get gold in-game through companies and battle hero medals, as well as buying.
Finally, in regards to Rick's comments about communities. SF has a growing community, I feel it is fairly strong. UM has a great community. Army's is improving. I know Ghost Killah was very disappointed in the community there, but it takes time, and I feel it is actually improving.
henry i think those who ive talked to were SF, not UM, so i cant really talk about UM particularly... but those who i talked to did mention that the SF community sucked compared to their previous military affiliations. im happy where im at anyway, funding or not.
I just thought it was a well written article which would educate a lot of people. Voted. Nice work, fair conversation. This is constructive thought here.
You could accomodate both your ideas, gnilraps, and Henry's contention that government monies are better spent on newer players by factoring in some sort of scale for the rewarding of units based on the age of the player. Something along the lines of a lower absolute strength increase for lower level players (which would take into account the difficulties of being active at that level, hampered by small town centers and low initial strength) that would increase with level. It would be more complicated to do, but not so much based on your pre-existing tracking tools. Then every player, regardless of level, would be eligible to increase their unit's funding.
Your point about certain units like the SF having reached a theoretical ceiling is also well made.
Very thoughtful article and comments (save a few).
"And Rick - you don't get funding because your leadership refuses funding due to a few small requirements."
Im not going to get into the politics behind this... but as a soldier i do no less than follow orders. If every RL soldier in the usa quit because they didn't like Obama or some other president's decisions, we would have a pretty shitty mil imo. Yes i know there are rare cases where people have done that, but as a whole they arent so fickle.
Do i agree with the decisions to not accept funding? Not really.
Do i have the power or authority to reverse those decisions? No.
Do i quit just because i don't get my way how i want it when i want it? Nope.
ded-i-ca-tion noun /ˌdediˈkāSHən/
The quality of being dedicated or committed to a task or purpose
- his dedication to his duties
Gnil - You've cited on example in a unit which (according to the same source you use) where each active person (they list 10 dead people) has each person about 95-100 hits a day. Within that group there is a clear break in who is doing 100+ and who is doing a single round of fights. So, assuming they somehow qualify for this extra money, they'd have to then decide that Zlatko should get more than an even share of it, otherwise the benefit to him is about 10% of what you imply here (using that 10 of 20 number to assume they'd only supply those people doing multiple rounds of fights a day).
Unless you're going to go person by person, eliminate the goldbeasts, and THEN put in a modifier to doubly reward new players, you're still ignoring the issue that new players should be getting any additional funding we can pull out of our ass.
Sidebar - HOLY SHIT CANDOR
Everyone's arguments have merit this way or that way. We are arguing over magnitudes, not directions.
I propose we model it down.
Gnilraps, Flufer is always right, resistance is futile.
What Kemal said
Rick, I just don't get your arguement.
Your leaders refuse to cooperate with the President and Congress. So by your line:
Im not going to get into the politics behind this... but as a soldier i do no less than follow orders. If every RL soldier in the usa quit because they didn't like Obama or some other president's decisions, we would have a pretty shitty mil imo. Yes i know there are rare cases where people have done that, but as a whole they arent so fickle.
You aren't following the President's decision.
Anyhow, like Pfeiffer is saying, you have to take goldbeasts out. I don't deserve extra funding. Someone like Kell Draygo, does.
OK, let me phrase it this way: Here is a method by which we can identify those newer players on whom we should spend the extra money we are pulling out of our asses.
i love newspapers they just find ways to bring us all together
on a serious note you could always break it down into strength groups individually and those who excel against there peers get rewarded
@vanek
RL president == commander in chief
eRep CJCS == commander in chief (of those in the eUS mil)
eRep PotUS != (RL potus || eRep CJCS)
you failed to see the analagy, im sorry i didnt make it more clear.
What's funny is the little explanation you gave applied even when the JCS themselves said that the President was Commander in Chief.
I personally love how this devolved to that topic.
the point i was trying to make was that i dont feel one should quit primarily because they disagree with their leadership.
not trying to detract from the conversation at hand, lets try to keep comments on topic?
You're the one to go off topic, I was just having a laugh.
For once can you guys not detour and take the chance to take shots at us? Thank you.
One of yours took it off topic, starry. Get off of your high horse.
Actually, reading his posts he asked fair questions as a soldier himself. His questions did not need to prompt the shots that then got taken at us.
And I'm not on a high horse, so don't start attacking me too. I'm making a simple and civilized request.
Cstar: "For once can you guys not detour and take the chance to take shots at us? Thank you. "
Rick's comment: "henry i think those who ive talked to were SF, not UM, so i cant really talk about UM particularly... but those who i talked to did mention that the SF community sucked compared to their previous military affiliations. im happy where im at anyway, funding or not. "
Cstar, how is this not a shot towards the SF? ...no SF representative has made a negative comment towards any group at this point. A shot was fired on Rick's end towards SF.
-Rick, I'm going to take the high road and say SF relations with every group have been at the top. Taking cheap shots gets nowhere.
It's sad to see such a thoughtful article get derailed by negative comments.
didn't read comments but what I got out of it is that you want to reward activity which is great. But for past 3/4 months? we have been giving weapons only to a select few, 70 sf soldiers. We have been focusing on making the rich richer. I'm pretty sure if you can hit 3k with a q5 you would most likely be somewhat rich. now lets say we spread tanks out and give it to hundreds. the hundreds will rank up faster not just a select few who can already do a buttload of damage.
Pdeb, because Rick is not in my branch so it would be wrong of me to jump his ass in public. That is not how to properly handle situations like this... Doing so would be degrading and disrespectful and I'm not willing to do that to one of our soldiers. Surely you can agree with that. I'm sure that the officers of AB will handle it appropiatly and ask him to not take cheap shots at SF while expressing his opinions.
I believe what Gnilraps is saying is that it should be based on activity and number of hits, rather than on Q5 damage, total influence gained, or mere membership numbers. If this is the case then I totally agree with this philosophy. We should be rewarding effort, not popularity.
While I do not think that giving tanks to someone with a 300 Q5 hit is cost effective, It would be wise to adjust the food ratio. This would also counter the problem of members of MU's selling their daily rations instead of using them to further eUS interests.
"Meow!"
"Arf! Arf!"
That's what most of the comments sound like. (Just skimmed them.)
Both points of view are mutually exclusive.
What I did read boils down to:
> Help the best fighters, the ones gaining the most strength the fastest, get better so that the country is stronger and better defended.
> Help with n00b retention and make things fair for all the little guys that fight everyday because they are patriotic. This includes the JCS military that refused funding from the eUS because, to quote Brad Reala, "We don't need your money!". (I left out a few words.)
No wonder you guys can't get anything done. Back-biting, accusations, finger pointing! Anyhow, job well done Gnilraps. The article is spot on and accurate (as best I can tell). Thank you for pointing out the obvious to those in charge.
Alternative conclusion: I can't believe we are suggesting that we give extra funding to elitist usurpers. What about all the grunts in the true eMilitary who served so long and hard to protect this country? What about all the new players who will get frustrated and leave? They deserve a bigger piece of the pie than anyone because we need them! Congratulations Henry for yet again changing horses in the middle of the stream. Now you are in favor of the little guy? And Rick, I would expect no less from you. Did HisAirness send you, or did you come on your own?