Conventions on Military RP

[Farsun]

There is no perfect system for determining a nations military power because nations such as Dorvik would rank rather low but through RP and working relationships has been able to project itself throughout the world with limited pure capabilities. I think determining and placing a number on something is going to cause problems but I will agree it is the "fair" way it doesn't exactly equate for variances in people's RP capabilities. I think most people would determine that a nation like Indrala is relatively powerful and can project itself however when you examine Indrala's defense budget it doesn't rank all that high, I mean look at Aloria and Dundorf they have tremendous military budgets due to their national economies exchange rate. That's my idea on the thing, while yes we should have a "ranking" I dislike a hard-coded number that doesn't equate for variances in RP.

[Opakidabar]

There is no perfect system for determining a nations military power because nations such as Dorvik would rank rather low but through RP and working relationships has been able to project itself throughout the world with limited pure capabilities. I think determining and placing a number on something is going to cause problems but I will agree it is the "fair" way it doesn't exactly equate for variances in people's RP capabilities. I think most people would determine that a nation like Indrala is relatively powerful and can project itself however when you examine Indrala's defense budget it doesn't rank all that high, I mean look at Aloria and Dundorf they have tremendous military budgets due to their national economies exchange rate. That's my idea on the thing, while yes we should have a "ranking" I dislike a hard-coded number that doesn't equate for variances in RP.

If diplomacy is where the power comes from, then diplomacy is where the power comes from. Not the forces of particular nation but the forces of nations within diplomatic network. So forces of particular nation can stay low as predicted by hard numbers.

[Farsun]

There is no perfect system for determining a nations military power because nations such as Dorvik would rank rather low but through RP and working relationships has been able to project itself throughout the world with limited pure capabilities. I think determining and placing a number on something is going to cause problems but I will agree it is the "fair" way it doesn't exactly equate for variances in people's RP capabilities. I think most people would determine that a nation like Indrala is relatively powerful and can project itself however when you examine Indrala's defense budget it doesn't rank all that high, I mean look at Aloria and Dundorf they have tremendous military budgets due to their national economies exchange rate. That's my idea on the thing, while yes we should have a "ranking" I dislike a hard-coded number that doesn't equate for variances in RP.

If diplomacy is where the power comes from, then diplomacy is where the power comes from. Not the forces of particular nation but the forces of nations within diplomatic network. So forces of particular nation can stay low as predicted by hard numbers.

I'm having trouble understanding that. A nation may be powerful diplomatically but may be weak militarily, admittedly they go hand-in-hand but it's not an anomaly to see militarily weaker nations have diplomatic power. Having a hard-coded number immediately puts nations at risk for never being able to get out of that limit or that gap.

[EEL123]

The NPI does actually factor in diplomatic strength. Also, I'm not saying that it should be absolute. Obviously if one country has a score of 2000 (which would be double the average), and another had, say, 800, the latter, regardless of diplomatic activity, would have a hard time trying to exercise more influence than the former. On the other hand, if it's 1100 against 1000, then we could easily exercise some leeway there. Alternatively, if you like, I could just weight the diplomatic power score more heavily in the final equation.

[Polites]

The problem with coding diplomatic power is that it is largely based on who the player(s) running a nation is/are. You may see a nation that used to have a large influence Terra-wide suddenly lose that influence because the player who established those worldwide contacts is no longer in charge, without any accompanying RP to justify such a loss of influence. This is much harder or even outright impossible to quantify, imo.

[EEL123]

I suppose we have to make a distinction between influence and power. That said, as I've stated, it wouldn't be too difficult to extend leeway on the basis of RP, although of course too much leeway would defeat the purpose of having a numerical means of measurement and comparison.

[Opakidabar]

The NPI does actually factor in diplomatic strength. Also, I'm not saying that it should be absolute. Obviously if one country has a score of 2000 (which would be double the average), and another had, say, 800, the latter, regardless of diplomatic activity, would have a hard time trying to exercise more influence than the former. On the other hand, if it's 1100 against 1000, then we could easily exercise some leeway there. Alternatively, if you like, I could just weight the diplomatic power score more heavily in the final equation.

Well, yeah. If for some strange reason person decides to be the president/prime minister of Latvian Republic, then no matter how good her ties are with world leaders, it is doubtful that Latvia would become close to regional power. Although we had President whose voice was heard globally and now I believe Estonians have their guy who has more influence than Estonia should have.
Also guys, one can always go to nation that is coded as military superpower, if that is your cup of tea. Or if you need it for your RP goals, say establishing USSR type thing and in need for military power to back up.

[EEL123]

Well, as I said, we shouldn't be too crazy with the leeway we extend. If Latvia has a score of 500 and Lithuania has a score of 550, conceivably, if the latter had a crap Prez, PM and Foreign Minister while those of the former were good, then it could conceivably turn out that Latvia would have more influence. On the other hand, standing next to Russia with a score of 20000, you could have a super-human genius running the foreign ministry and you'd still be less powerful.

[Siggon Kristov]

The NPI does actually factor in diplomatic strength. Also, I'm not saying that it should be absolute. Obviously if one country has a score of 2000 (which would be double the average), and another had, say, 800, the latter, regardless of diplomatic activity, would have a hard time trying to exercise more influence than the former. On the other hand, if it's 1100 against 1000, then we could easily exercise some leeway there. Alternatively, if you like, I could just weight the diplomatic power score more heavily in the final equation.

Well, yeah. If for some strange reason person decides to be the president/prime minister of Latvian Republic, then no matter how good her ties are with world leaders, it is doubtful that Latvia would become close to regional power. Although we had President whose voice was heard globally and now I believe Estonians have their guy who has more influence than Estonia should have.
Also guys, one can always go to nation that is coded as military superpower, if that is your cup of tea. Or if you need it for your RP goals, say establishing USSR type thing and in need for military power to back up.

Well, as I said, we shouldn't be too crazy with the leeway we extend. If Latvia has a score of 500 and Lithuania has a score of 550, conceivably, if the latter had a crap Prez, PM and Foreign Minister while those of the former were good, then it could conceivably turn out that Latvia would have more influence. On the other hand, standing next to Russia with a score of 20000, you could have a super-human genius running the foreign ministry and you'd still be less powerful.

Yeah, these numbers are just guidelines, not saying that one nation is absolutely better than the other. I play strategy games where militaries would be ranked, and a nation can beat a slightly stronger one in an all-out war because of unmeasurable factors. I think the numbers speak more of potential than some absolute advantage thing, like EEL's case would mean Latvia is exercising their full potential while Lithuania wasn't. It's more of how well they're equipped than how they are, I guess.

Again, these are just guidelines. We aren't asking for nations to follow the numbers down to the last digit. That's the point of the subjective remarks column in my spreadsheet. The numbers aren't strict and absolute and they can be played around.

[Opakidabar]

like EEL's case would mean Latvia is exercising their full potential while Lithuania wasn't. It's more of how well they're equipped than how they are, I guess..

I suppose in the scenario above the spirit ruling Lithuania would enter into long ET (extra terrestrial) discussion as to why Lithuania wasn't since it obviously should.

edit: where can I find the MPIs? Is there a tool which automatically calculates it for any given nation? Too many parameters to calculate myself