Attempting to Fulfil The Plan: ISOT Edition

Universal Military Training isn't grabbing our whole levy capability and throwing them into a drill, it's about setting up an organized system for conscription and training said conscripts so that we have a better system than just press-ganging random people who look the right age from every village when the call goes out.
 
Last edited:
I feel like 4 dice on military training when we only have enough rifled muskets for a quarter of our army and bolt actions/sub machine guns for another 5ish percent is premature. Anyone we mobilize beyond our already existing militia is getting a pipe gun at best and more likely a crossbow or pike. We need to massively scale up gun and ammo production before our army expands.

Marksmanship is one of the least important skills we have to teach. Even modern US boot camp only puts recruits through about 90 hours of range time, out of the 1,000+ hours of active work. And even those 90 hours are mostly drilling different stances/technique with an empty rifle rather than actually shooting anything. The current standard is 600 rounds of actual live ammo consumed per soldier, over 13 weeks of training. For the best-funded army in human history.

Far more important is teaching people how to march, follow orders, and practice basic sanitation/foot wrapping/etc. We can drill basic skirmish tactics with sharp sticks and shouting "BANG!" if we need to. Actually hitting the target is a nice bonus, but the basics of soldiering are much more boring and can be taught with nothing more than an open field and an angry man with a loud voice.

Especially since we're working with functionally illiterate conscripts we just pulled off a Bronze Age farm that are going to get handed the world's jankiest and most inaccurate SMG, basic discipline and tactics are going to be what consumes 95% of our effort. "Point this end at the enemy and do what your sergeant says" is all we really need to get a bunch of conscripts swarming into close contact, you don't need a lot of practice to spray vaguely in the direction of a man-sized target at a few dozen meters.
 
Marksmanship is one of the least important skills we have to teach. Even modern US boot camp only puts recruits through about 90 hours of range time, out of the 1,000+ hours of active work. And even those 90 hours are mostly drilling different stances/technique with an empty rifle rather than actually shooting anything. The current standard is 600 rounds of actual live ammo consumed per soldier, over 13 weeks of training. For the best-funded army in human history.

Far more important is teaching people how to march, follow orders, and practice basic sanitation/foot wrapping/etc. We can drill basic skirmish tactics with sharp sticks and shouting "BANG!" if we need to. Actually hitting the target is a nice bonus, but the basics of soldiering are much more boring and can be taught with nothing more than an open field and an angry man with a loud voice.

Especially since we're working with functionally illiterate conscripts we just pulled off a Bronze Age farm that are going to get handed the world's jankiest and most inaccurate SMG, basic discipline and tactics are going to be what consumes 95% of our effort. "Point this end at the enemy and do what your sergeant says" is all we really need to get a bunch of conscripts swarming into close contact, you don't need a lot of practice to spray vaguely in the direction of a man-sized target at a few dozen meters.

My point wasn't about marksmanship. You say we're going to be pulling conscripts off the farm and handing them a shitty SMG, but that's wrong. We don't have enough SMG's to outfit our current troops, let alone new soldiers. I don't think you realize how bad it is. According to the status page, we have about 5000 militia and another 1500 ish modernized troops, for about 6500 soldiers to arm. Maybe if we skimp on arming artillery crews and officers we can get that down to 6000. We have 1500 black powder rifles which are on the border of obsolete, and 650 bolt actions and sub machine guns. The vast majority of our current military is using pipe guns, which are fully obselete and which we are no longer producing.

We only produce 360 bolt action rifles and smgs a turn plus 250 black powder rifles, which means it'll be years at the current rate before we can outfit our current military with modernish equipment, let alone new conscripts.

We have enough pipe guns to give maybe the first two thousand conscripts a shitty caplock gun, then the rest will be getting pikes and crossbows when they go into battle.
 
My point wasn't about marksmanship. You say we're going to be pulling conscripts off the farm and handing them a shitty SMG, but that's wrong. We don't have enough SMG's to outfit our current troops, let alone new soldiers. I don't think you realize how bad it is. According to the status page, we have about 5000 militia and another 1500 ish modernized troops, for about 6500 soldiers to arm. Maybe if we skimp on arming artillery crews and officers we can get that down to 6000. We have 1500 black powder rifles which are on the border of obsolete, and 650 bolt actions and sub machine guns. The vast majority of our current military is using pipe guns, which are fully obselete and which we are no longer producing.

We only produce 360 bolt action rifles and smgs a turn plus 250 black powder rifles, which means it'll be years at the current rate before we can outfit our current military with modernish equipment, let alone new conscripts.

We have enough pipe guns to give maybe the first two thousand conscripts a shitty caplock gun, then the rest will be getting pikes and crossbows when they go into battle.

Mmm, yeah it's pretty bad. We could do the whole 'Follow the man in front of you and when he falls, pick up his weapon' thing? Or, maybe the 'Wait at base doing support work until someone else is wounded, then we will give you their weapon and you will start doing missions' thing? And a lot of the training is for officers IIRC, not just basic soldiers... But 4 dice is probably still too many and we do really need more weapons, yeah.
 
Hrm. We do have the money to switch a couple training dice to weapons production instead, otherwise the resources are just sitting in the bank. Completing the next stages of SMGs/bolt actions will push our weapons production rate solidly above our training rate, and we want a deep reserve of trained conscripts on the books ready to activate.

But 4 dice on training while there's still resources in the bank is not ideal, we should probably move 2 of them to bolt actions. That would keep our training rate just moderately ahead of weapons production instead of massively.
 
Mmm, yeah it's pretty bad. We could do the whole 'Follow the man in front of you and when he falls, pick up his weapon' thing? Or, maybe the 'Wait at base doing support work until someone else is wounded, then we will give you their weapon and you will start doing missions' thing? And a lot of the training is for officers IIRC, not just basic soldiers... But 4 dice is probably still too many and we do really need more weapons, yeah.

Considering at the start of the quest we were debating between crossbows and pipe guns as our main weapon, progress in weapon tech has been incredible. We've advanced so quickly that our production lines haven't caught up with our technologies. If we had five years I'd be all for military reorg and steady expansion of weapon production. But we don't have the time. We need to increase production as quickly as possible for when the invasion happens.
 
Easy enough to do, and would make me feel less twitchy about all the money we're getting price-gouging Egypt for Asprin.

Edit: Done, 2 dice moved from Training to Bolt-Actions.
 
Last edited:
[]Bolt Action Rifle Production (Stage 3): With the new wave of American refugees coming in, our production of relatively precision weapons can more easily be expanded further. While mass production of submachine guns may be more pressing, rifles are only slightly less critical. (25 Resources per dice (5/150)) (~+300 bolt-action/turn)

[]Submachine Gun Production (Stage 2): Now that production of submachine guns at some quantity has begun, further expansion will enable them to be issued at some kind of scale, allowing the army to modernize further. (20 Resources per dice (0/125)) (~+350 submachine guns/turn)

...How do our SMG's compare to bolt action rifles? We can get more of them for cheaper, and I would think they'd be better anyway... Do they have some crippling flaw that makes the bolt actions better in most circumstances?
 
Horrifically inaccurate, much shorter ranged, and overall higher powder/nitrogen consumption for ripping off a bunch of pistol rounds vaguely in the direction of the bad guys vs. a properly trained rifleman. The plan is to give our professionals and the better-trained conscripts a bolt action for fire-and-maneuver (with a few SMGs for professional assault units), while the rest get cheap SMGs to suppress the enemy or swarm into close contact with.

Since the terrain is so rough in Greece though, we probably won't need that many bolt actions. Stopping at Stage 3 and refocusing to SMGs after that is probably smart, the SMGs are cheaper and the theoretical range/accuracy advantage of bolt actions really disappears when fighting in rough terrain or with less-than-expert marksmen. We still want a solid stockpile of bolt actions for the professionals, but I expect we will use significantly more SMGs in practice.
 
Last edited:
Anyway I checked through the thread and there's no mention of us using industrial fertilizer. Did I just miss it? Or are we currently lacking the resources? Or, are we being blocked for political reasons? If it's the last one, would it be possible for us to get a bureaucracy action for 'Negotiate with the agricultural anti-modernists' or something? It might well be worth sinking some resources into 'anti-industrial' agriculture pet projects or whatever if it also allows us to use fertilizers and pesticides in the short term - and in the long term, some of those pet projects might pay off. These people in India seem to be making such things work for them, at least within their circumstances. :/
 
Last edited:
Permaculture is a rich people hobby that allows you to meet like 10-20% of your actual nutritional needs at the cost of being a full-time gardener who's STILL reliant on manufactured goods, knowledge, and fuckin' FOOD from the outside world. You will notice that nobody who actually has to worry about truly feeding themselves off their land does anything like permaculture since the damn stone age, while "permaculturists" just quietly ignore all the rice and pasta they bought at the grocery store with their gasoline-powered steel car, and redirect you to the herb spiral or kitchen garden while pretending that's a complete system.

If it was so easy and productive people would be doing it for a living, instead of stalling out at the hobbyist level. "Full time" permaculturists eat pasta from the grocery store and get their gasoline money from eco-tourists and WWOOFers and customers at the farmer's market, while actual real life subsistence farmers jump at the chance to get into ANY OTHER line of work when presented with one.

Especially in our situation where every single labor-hour possible needs to get shaken out of the countryside and pushed into steel mills or coal mines or soldiering so we don't all get murdered/enslaved by Nazis, there's no room for food forests or whatever. The hippies are just going to have to deal with it, they can complain about it over the telegraph lines to each other from their concrete houses with running water and gas lighting enabled by the freed up labor if they want. Even letting them go starve in the woods before figuring out that they can't actually do anything without steel tools from the industrial steel mill is going to waste land and labor we can't spare.

There's definitely lifestylists but I don't think it's all there is. There's also historical communities that practiced something like it, though they usually had plenty of natural space to set it up which we don't really have.

No, the main issue you don't mention in your angry rant is that food forests require most of the labour up front, while a lot of their components will have to grow before they deliver on the more sustainable ecosystem, at which point you wouldn't need full time investment anymore to get benefit from it, which is the real payoff. We can't afford to wait 20+ years for a full forest ecosystem to stabilize.

I don't think the argument that people aren't doing it is any proof that it couldn't work if we had that time. The theory is that once it's stable, you don't need full time investment to benefit from it anymore, so the fact it doesn't fulfill literally every need either is fine. We just can't afford to set it up right now.
 
Last edited:
There's definitely lifestylists but I don't think it's all there is. There's also historical communities that practiced something like it, though they usually had plenty of natural space to set it up which we don't really have.

No, the main issue you don't mention in your angry rant is that food forests require most of the labour up front, while a lot of their components will have to grow before they deliver on the more sustainable ecosystem, at which point you wouldn't need full time investment anymore to get benefit from it, which is the real payoff. We can't afford to wait 20+ years for a full forest ecosystem to stabilize.

There's more to permaculture than food forests though. Check the videos I linked above - the kind of water management they do could be really useful to us, potentially. Greece has roughly the same kind of 'dry with periodic wet seasons' climate as India, right? And I went through the thread, so far as I can tell all our irrigation is dependent on dams. A system of ponds, swales, sediment traps, etc, etc, could be helpful. Would keep the sediment out of our major dams too. And that's not touching on all the other little things - composting, coppicing, ways of integrating small scale livestock, biochar, etc, etc.
 
There's more to permaculture than food forests though. Check the videos I linked above - the kind of water management they do could be really useful to us, potentially. Greece has roughly the same kind of 'dry with periodic wet seasons' climate as India, right? And I went through the thread, so far as I can tell all our irrigation is dependent on dams. A system of ponds, swales, sediment traps, etc, etc, could be helpful. Would keep the sediment out of our major dams too. And that's not touching on all the other little things - composting, coppicing, ways of integrating small scale livestock, biochar, etc, etc.

Those are more updates to the current activities than full time activities, so yes, we can probably roll those out easily.

A lot are also not going to be novel as much as things industrialization paved over, though. Composting is pretty traditional for example, as is small scale livestock in every rural household. But we should definitely put some thought to planning our rural industrialization in ways that integrate those benefits when they remain labour efficient, yes. Especially since those don't need as much investment to run.
 
There's definitely lifestylists but I don't think it's all there is. There's also historical communities that practiced something like it, though they usually had plenty of natural space to set it up which we don't really have.

No, the main issue you don't mention in your angry rant is that food forests require most of the labour up front, while a lot of their components will have to grow before they deliver on the more sustainable ecosystem, at which point you wouldn't need full time investment anymore to get benefit from it, which is the real payoff. We can't afford to wait 20+ years for a full forest ecosystem to stabilize.

I don't think the argument that people aren't doing it is any proof that it couldn't work if we had that time. The theory is that once it's stable, you don't need full time investment to benefit from it anymore, so the fact it doesn't fulfill literally every need either is fine. We just can't afford to set it up right now.

There's not a lot of real science on it, but what data exists seems to ballpark a mature food forest's production at about 5 million kcal per year per hectare. Just gardening, not even industrial farming, absolutely blows those yields out of the water by a factor of anywhere from 2x-5x depending on the specific crop. Add mechanization and chemicalization, and you can easily get to 10x or even better yields.

Especially once accounting for the fact that you can't mechanize harvesting in a food forest, I don't buy that it would be net labor positive even on a decades-long horizon. Generating enough surplus to feed an industrial population out of food forests doesn't add up based on all the actual numbers I can find.

If we were willing to accept a very high agricultural:urban labor ratio then maybe they could mostly support the peasants... who are forced to use more industrialized agriculture on some plots to generate surplus for the cities anyways. But that's just pointlessly kneecapping ourselves while every other state that's willing to urbanize harder leaves us in the dust on all the actual industrial labor needed to manufacture machine guns and chemistry degrees.
 
There's not a lot of real science on it, but what data exists seems to ballpark a mature food forest's production at about 5 million kcal per year per hectare. Just gardening, not even industrial farming, absolutely blows those yields out of the water by a factor of anywhere from 2x-5x depending on the specific crop. Add mechanization and chemicalization, and you can easily get to 10x or even better yields.

Especially once accounting for the fact that you can't mechanize harvesting in a food forest, I don't buy that it would be net labor positive even on a decades-long horizon. Generating enough surplus to feed an industrial population out of food forests doesn't add up based on all the actual numbers I can find.

If we were willing to accept a very high agricultural:urban labor ratio then maybe they could mostly support the peasants... who are forced to use more industrialized agriculture on some plots to generate surplus for the cities anyways. But that's just pointlessly kneecapping ourselves while every other state that's willing to urbanize harder leaves us in the dust on all the actual industrial labor needed to manufacture machine guns and chemistry degrees.

The low yield per hectare is not in fact a low yield per man-hour.

It's also worth remembering that we fail at mechanizing a lot of harvesting even today with the best tech we've ever had. A lot of fruits and vegetables we need for a more complete diet aren't very convenient to automate.

I think the error is in seeing this as your main food source for its full time operators, rather than as something you set up next to a rural community that also farms staple crops and does other rural industries. This way it can provide a lot of diversity to their diet at a fairly low labour cost once set up, without being too much of a drag on land efficiency overall by not being the main form of production. The real promise is the stability of the ecosystem if designed properly and the diversity of its produce, more than its yield.
 
There's not a lot of real science on it, but what data exists seems to ballpark a mature food forest's production at about 5 million kcal per year per hectare. Just gardening, not even industrial farming, absolutely blows those yields out of the water by a factor of anywhere from 2x-5x depending on the specific crop. Add mechanization and chemicalization, and you can easily get to 10x or even better yields.

Especially once accounting for the fact that you can't mechanize harvesting in a food forest, I don't buy that it would be net labor positive even on a decades-long horizon. Generating enough surplus to feed an industrial population out of food forests doesn't add up based on all the actual numbers I can find.

If we were willing to accept a very high agricultural:urban labor ratio then maybe they could mostly support the peasants... who are forced to use more industrialized agriculture on some plots to generate surplus for the cities anyways. But that's just pointlessly kneecapping ourselves while every other state that's willing to urbanize harder leaves us in the dust on all the actual industrial labor needed to manufacture machine guns and chemistry degrees.

Again though, there's a lot more to permaculture than food forests. And when it comes to the food forests, they can still have their uses - you can put a food forest in places you can't put a wheat field, and you use different resources to do it. And then once it's set up, it gives different returns to the wheat field anyway, so it's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison.

Edit: Or maybe I should say, an apples and oranges to wheat comparison. :/

Edit: That's also assuming we don't find any way to improve upon said food forests - I suspect the numbers you cite are low because the food forests in question were made by people who were more interested in the forests than the food. Our peasants will presumably not have that problem, and I wouldn't be surprised if they find ways to make improvements.
 
Last edited:
The low yield per hectare is not in fact a low yield per man-hour.

I found some numbers for that too! Again, not a whole lot exists, but based off the one study I found it's about 3.5 labor-days per year to maintain a hectare of "mature" 10 year old food forest (much steeper up front costs, of course). A hectare of wheat is about 10-12 labor days per year. So a ratio of over 3:1 for labor inputs, which looks solid... until you account for the fact that the wheat still yields about 3-5x more calories. The break even point on calories-per-hour will never be reached with these numbers, and even if you fudge them in favor of the forest it's an entire human lifetime to pay back the up front labor costs. If you use potatoes instead of wheat there's no chance the forest ever comes close.

Our most precious resource right now is labor, and more specifically educated industrial labor to carry on uptime knowledge as our Americans die out. Every single person that we can get into the cities making babies and sending them to school is critical. Every single minute of labor that can be squeezed out of the rural population and moved to a city contributes to that. I don't really care about biodiversity or a complete nutritional profile, we need to get the most calories for the least labor and worry about that stuff after we've had an industrial revolution. Otherwise a bunch of slavers and theocrats are going to beat us to the punch, and all the healthy peasants in the world won't stand up to a single machine gun.

Yeah, it's terrible for the biosphere and lots of indicators that aren't just raw calories per hour/hectare. But that's the industrial revolution in a nutshell, and I see no reason to exempt the countryside from all the ravages we're subjecting the cities to. Their consolation prize is literacy, antibiotics, and an end to famine, which I'm pretty sure the overwhelming majority of our subjects would happily take.
 
Last edited:
I found some numbers for that too! Again, not a whole lot exists, but based off the one study I found it's about 3.5 labor-days per year-hectare to maintain a 10 year old food forest (much steeper up front costs, of course). A hectare of wheat is about 10-12 labor days per year. So a ratio of over 3:1 for labor inputs, which looks solid... until you account for the fact that the wheat still yields about 3-5x more calories. The break even point on calories-per-hour will never be reached with these numbers, and even if you fudge them in favor of the forest it's an entire human lifetime to pay back the up front labor costs.

Our most precious resource right now is labor, and more specifically educated industrial labor to carry on uptime knowledge as our Americans die out. Every single person that we can get into the cities making babies and sending them to school is critical. Every single minute of labor that can be squeezed out of the rural population and moved to a city contributes to that. I don't really care about biodiversity or a complete nutritional profile, we need to get the most calories for the least labor and worry about that stuff after we've had an industrial revolution. Otherwise a bunch of slavers and theocrats are going to beat us to the punch, and all the healthy peasants in the world won't stand up to a single machine gun.

Yeah, it's terrible for the biosphere and lots of indicators that aren't just raw calories per hour/hectare. But that's the industrial revolution in a nutshell, and I see no reason to exempt the countryside from all the ravages we're subjecting the cities to. Their consolation prize is literacy, antibiotics, and an end to famine, which I'm pretty sure the overwhelming majority of our subjects would happily take.

As I said, the real issue is the up front costs. If you're worried about labour costs, that should be all the arguments you need, rather than this anti environmental manifesto and appeal to fear.

It's worth remembering that we don't have the best agricultural land in the first place, and if we ruin it a bit too hard squeezing short term gains out of it, we could easily have troubles down the line. If you go for the worst excesses of industrializing agriculture, it doesn't take very long for that to take effect either so it's not just a far off concern. As mentioned above, there's also other lessons of permaculture that can be applied much earlier and will keep our rural areas healthier over time without costing as much up front investment.

A lot of our territory is also unsuitable to large scale wheat cultivation because it's too hilly or the soil is too poor, so I'm not sure how good of a comparison point that is anyway. As we reduce the rural population in favour of cities, some of the marginal land they were subsisting on will fall to less intense agricultural applications. It's not going to be the best wheat land getting replaced by any permaculture proposal. It's going to be the places where we'd want vegetation anyway to hold the soil or renew it.
 
I feel like 4 dice on military training when we only have enough rifled muskets for a quarter of our army and bolt actions/sub machine guns for another 5ish percent is premature. Anyone we mobilize beyond our already existing militia is getting a pipe gun at best and more likely a crossbow or pike. We need to massively scale up gun and ammo production before our army expands.
Training is several orders of magnitude more important then cranking out small arms of all things. Depth of conscription and depth of reserve is key for any army and we are only going to be able to train personel so quickly. We need to train every year group for three years just to have a reasonable base of conscription, and even that assumes we pull litterally everyone 16-19. Equipment to an extent is secondary to being able to fight in a reasonable formation and be able to maneuver as a unit.

We can always crank out more rifles, we cannot build up conscription age brackets without litteral months of training. We are moving from line to skirmish and with that comes massive issues. Infantry is not simple and we at best have a three year lead time for training, if not four. Id even argue for going to five dice of training rather then four as we need to build up reserves fairly desperately and we are going to be stuck doing basic/advanced basic longer because our conscription age groups are illiterate.
 
Training is several orders of magnitude more important then cranking out small arms of all things. Depth of conscription and depth of reserve is key for any army and we are only going to be able to train personel so quickly. We need to train every year group for three years just to have a reasonable base of conscription, and even that assumes we pull litterally everyone 16-19. Equipment to an extent is secondary to being able to fight in a reasonable formation and be able to maneuver as a unit.

We can always crank out more rifles, we cannot build up conscription age brackets without litteral months of training. We are moving from line to skirmish and with that comes massive issues. Infantry is not simple and we at best have a three year lead time for training, if not four. Id even argue for going to five dice of training rather then four as we need to build up reserves fairly desperately and we are going to be stuck doing basic/advanced basic longer because our conscription age groups are illiterate.

All of this is true, but we don't have enough rifles and SMGs for our current under arms standing force, which is going to make it much harder to train more conscripts.

Don't get me wrong, once we at least have a production rate of a couple thousand weapons a turn that stops mattering and training more people for depth of reserve becomes critical. But right now in order to have Range Time for our class of a few hundred conscripts we would need to strip half our standing force of their issued weapons. That's not an ok situation, and throwing resources at the production problem now means that in two turns we will have something approaching appropriate production numbers going into the war against the Pirates.

Remember that the Pirate war will be a naval action and the infantry forces involved will be constricted by naval transport capacity and logistics capacity. A raw numbers force isn't going to work there, but a much smaller WW1ish force of bolt action rifles, SMGs and Artillery will do a lot to help us against the Pirates. Right now we need like 4000 more rifles and another 500+ SMGs for that force, let alone whatever we need for their ammo consumption.

I also don't think you understand that we are going into this war in two turns. At our current rate of production we will be sending over half our Regiment sized expeditionary force into battle with pipe guns that have been obsolete and discontinued for what, like 2 years? But if we make sure to boost our production numbers now we can actually get that force fully equipped and have much more of an impact on the upcoming war, while also using that production to expand the pace at which we can raise and train units.
 
I don't suppose anyone would be willing to put a dice into the normal rifles? Modernization aside we don't have enough guns for our current troops without using shitty pipe muskets and while we can get bolt action production up toatch training, I'd like to have decent weapons for all our troops and an extra 500 a turn should let us phase out the older weapons.
 
All of this is true, but we don't have enough rifles and SMGs for our current under arms standing force, which is going to make it much harder to train more conscripts.

Don't get me wrong, once we at least have a production rate of a couple thousand weapons a turn that stops mattering and training more people for depth of reserve becomes critical. But right now in order to have Range Time for our class of a few hundred conscripts we would need to strip half our standing force of their issued weapons. That's not an ok situation, and throwing resources at the production problem now means that in two turns we will have something approaching appropriate production numbers going into the war against the Pirates.

Remember that the Pirate war will be a naval action and the infantry forces involved will be constricted by naval transport capacity and logistics capacity. A raw numbers force isn't going to work there, but a much smaller WW1ish force of bolt action rifles, SMGs and Artillery will do a lot to help us against the Pirates. Right now we need like 4000 more rifles and another 500+ SMGs for that force, let alone whatever we need for their ammo consumption.

I also don't think you understand that we are going into this war in two turns. At our current rate of production we will be sending over half our Regiment sized expeditionary force into battle with pipe guns that have been obsolete and discontinued for what, like 2 years? But if we make sure to boost our production numbers now we can actually get that force fully equipped and have much more of an impact on the upcoming war, while also using that production to expand the pace at which we can raise and train units.
The pirate war is a secondary and to us not existential theater? its going to be us sending a battalion at most due to sea lift limitations and only professional troops anyways? neither gun nor training pipelines matter significantly for it. Its not the large war we are arming for or even remotely existential for us. We can loose every man we send and the strategic balance will not change. Also, range time is a tiny sub 10% proportion of training??? for literally every remotely modern armed force, the far bigger thing is that we are transitioning to skirmish infantry and need a trained cadre of reservists for that rather then some guy we give two weeks of training to and send off to die unproductively.

What we are arming for is an inevitable conflict with West com and the air-force in general especially if their territorial ambitions in Anatolia do not end, and that is on a several year timescale rather then the small anti pirate bush-fire. We do not remotely have the sea-lift for sustaining large operations in the pirate war, and we already have the production of equipment to equip whatever we send. Our entire scheme of mobilization is for the upcoming war of national survival, not a small secondary policing action that is going to be fought at the end of Crete's naval guns.

Assuming that two stages of universal training are enough for us to over the course of a year train the entire 16 year old age bracket which I'll do a generalist assumption and say is 5k men over the course of a year. That then leaves us with 5k guns to produce in that year. Even this year we are already producing weapons at a rate of 260 bolt actions and 100 SMG's a turn, plus 30 60mm mortars, each of which need a six man crew assuming we are using US ww2 ish orbats/going light. That is enough weapons for 540 men a turn even before this one, so 1600 men a year. Assuming the original variation of the plan finishes SMG production, that is another 350 a turn and thus 950 a year(2550 total). Giving us enough weapons to arm half of our incoming conscription wave before we even start training the conscripts. Assuming next turn we get SMG 3(assuming 500 guns) and Bolt 3 that then gets us another 800 weapons a turn(4950 total per annum). This then leads to us literally next turn filling out or entire conscription base in terms of production and keeping pace. Assuming we maintain strong investments by 15 AE3 we will be out running our production of trained manpower with the production of equipment.

We are not in a weapons shortage given how fast and easy weapons are to produce, we are in a shortage of conscripts for the upcoming existential war with the airforce where every bit of quality matters and we cannot afford to get our forces brushed aside like shitty militias. The pirates are more of a distraction then anything.
 
Last edited:
At this point in history, is anyone capable of producing appliances or hardware?

No? We have the best industry in the world (in that no one else has anything I would use the term for, barring maybe Crete). and we barely have working electricity, let alone something like even a primitive 1950s clothes washer.

Now, I actually could see us making something like that pretty easily. It wouldn't be totally automated (a rotary switch timer is definitely beyond us right now), and would likely require manual filling and draining of water. But a simple electrical motor isn't very hard. It's actually pretty easy, especially since internally the insulation requirements are minimal as long as you don't touch the windings inside it and are ok with hand starting the thing so you can avoid needing a start capacitor or a start winding.

And we already have simple plumbing, so the water supply is solved. Making it so instead of a small army of clothes washers they can dump the laundry into a few washing machines with a bit of soap, fill the tubs with water from the plumbing network, then flip a switch and hand start the motor for agitation? Isn't a bad idea, actually. I could build a simple one of these IRL in like a day from salvage, and an electric motor isn't that different from a generator physically, the windings are basically the same from a physical standpoint. The hardest part is preventing it from leaking everywhere with no rubber supply, but unlike modern ones we don't need it to be in the people's homes. We can put a big machine in a small concrete box of a room for a communal laundry where one person does the laundry of multiple apartment complexes.
 
The pirate war is a secondary and to us not existential theater? its going to be us sending a battalion at most due to sea lift limitations and only professional troops anyways?

I'm envisioning us using the fleet of smaller merchant shipping we have been steadily and explicitly building in part for this task, coordinated to move multiple battalion scale units. Those ships can definitely move a platoon of infantry, artillery or supplies for same, and we have what, a few dozen of them by the time the war starts? Not to mention the 3? Monitors that we will have finished in the next two turns, which could also move at least a platoon each, plus whatever shipping we continue to crank out for both trade and military transport purposes. That is at least two Battalions, and with it going to be at least in part an island hopping campaign that requires us to deploy multiple units to take and hold territory.

We are going to be deploying way more than just those two battalions to the island hopping campaign.

And that's not even including the Zeroth Reich area to the west, which is not a small island we can take with just a single battalion covered by a Monitor. That is likely going to need to be a full Regiment scale deployment, possibly more, and it was the payment we were promised by Crete for our aid in the war. And since it isn't an island we can surround to deny naval access, we have the strong possibility of skilled and well armed combatants retreating into the west, so we have to heavily garrison it to boot.

As for Westcom, while I agree that they are a much larger threat in the long term, they also have their own problems and are not a threat in the short term. They need to win their current wars decisively, then invade their neighbors to the south, win that decisively, and only then can they come for us. That is at least a year of work, even if they have absolutely crushing victories, and we can help delay that further if we have any resources to spare.

Meanwhile we have the pirates, who I'm honestly surprised haven't raided our coasts yet. They are known for taking a city for several days, shipping off the population in chains, then burning whatever they cannot take. And while we can put up a fight they will likely have local superiority in both quantity and quality to any garrison forces present, while it would take us days to form up and get an adequate response to the location. You are correct the pirates are not an existential threat like Westcom is, but you are incorrect about the comparative lack of threat they pose.

It's only a matter of time until we lose some villages to them, and possibly even a larger city. I'm honestly surprised we have not already had such a thing happen, and likely the only reason is the pirates are going for easier targets first. That will cut into our labor pool, our production of trade ships, our trade income, our prestige, our political capital and so on. It won't kill us, but a couple times of that will certainly hurt us and make fighting Westcom much harder, not to mention bolstering our internal opposition. But attacking the Pirates home territory will force them on the defensive and help prevent that from happening.... if we can put enough force behind it.
 
The pirates are interesting because they lack a big advantage that irl pirates had which is being more annoying than a real threat to actual states and being able to hide where they're based. Naval combat before radar and radio was an exercise in two near sighted peoples trying to find eachother in an extremely large field so to really eliminate pirates you have to find out where their ports are and then muster enough strength to take it over or burn it down.

Unfortunately for the Nazis they lack that as even with the air force on the move they're still major enough to draw the full attention of both us and Crete and we know exactly where they're based so instead of playing grabass with pirate ships out in the med we can just skip straight to dropping wp shells on their shipyards before sending in the armed bastards, and aside from the Italy colony they're all on islands so it's not like they can melt into the countryside either
 
Back
Top