International Military Report (FT) - November 2010

This report, rather then gather information from NSEconomy, I used an application from the region Texas. I find that it's much quicker, and has more features than NSEconomy. Thanks a bunch Texas! Link for their app is right here. More helpful links can be found in the stickied thread by Panzersharkcat on these forums.

Note to those of you who want me to add you to the report: PM me, and I will! Blah blah blah, don't be inactive and on my report. Not a concern at the moment. But seriously, with the increase in activity over here, you certainly may join the FT report. It's just a PM away. (I added Shakuhou without the PM. Post or PM me if you want to be removed.)

Oldest reports can be found on the old forums.
Older reports on these forums:
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010

---

Level of Military Technology

---

Tech levels are important in the military. A bunch of dudes with clubs are going to lose to the army equipped with laser pistols. 'Nuff said.

Rutianas - Future Tech + Super Weapon (X2)
Panzersharkcat - Future Tech + Super Weapon
Burnination - Future Tech + Super Weapon
Selathorn - Future Tech + Super Weapon
Shakuhou: Future Tech
Aescentia - Future Tech

Defense Spending
Defense spending is important to military strength for an obvious reason: if you're not spending any money on your army, you don't have a very well trained army, or a very well equipped army (Note that per-soldier spending is important here as well.). As far as you're concerned, remember this formula: More military spending = stronger military.

- 1) Rutianas: $120,162,366,196,376.00 (+ 10,302,630,347,485.00)
- 2) Burnination: $41,109,193,400,929.90 (+ 6,548,827,250,275.90)
- 3) Selathorn: $17,471,529,491,480.10 (- 9,421,812,293,102.50)
- 4) Panzersharkcat: $10,672,019,444,435.30 (- 186,735,291,809.50)
- 5) Shakuhou: $2,522,335,350,947.33 (+ 60,899,421,306.53)
- 6) Aescentia: $1,747,013,734,719.00 (- 274,529,029,599.00)

Economic Strength - (Relative ratings determined based on data given.)
This one was added for a little more complicated reason. Firstly, if you have a more powerful economy, your nation is better equipped to weather a prolonged war without collapsing. Also, more industries means that you can produce more weapons during a war, and may be more difficult to strategically bomb.

- 1) Panzersharkcat: GDP Per Capita $44,309.25, Trade = DEFICIT $501,600,453,145.83, Currency = $1.9593 (Economic Regress)
^ 2) Selathorn: GDP Per Capita $43,969.78, Trade = DEFICIT $54,597,554,018.42, Currency = $1.9517 (Economic Improvement)
V 3) Burnination: GDP Per Capita $38,334.88, Trade = SURPLUS $1,438,067,833,864.16, Currency = $1.8224 (Economic Improvement)
- 4) Rutianas: GDP Per Capita $34,368.52, Trade = SURPLUS $654,506,362,461.58, Currency = $1.7255 (Economic Improvement)
^ 5) Aescentia: GDP Per Capita $27,551.48, Trade = DEFICIT $214,174,811,829.72, Currency = $1.3057 (Economic Improvement!)
V 6) Shakuhou: GDP Per Capita $8,677.55, Trade = SURPLUS $64,334,126,241.51, Currency = $0.46387 (Economic Improvement)

Population; -->(IN MILLIONS)<--
This is included for another simple reason. Population matters. Nations can be powerful just on sheer numbers. Real world example: China.

- 1) Panzersharkcat: 7122
- 2) Rutianas: 5482
- 3) Burnination: 4435
- 4) Selathorn: 1964
^ 5) Aescentia: 1514
V 6) Shakuhou: 1398

---

OVERALL RANKINGS

This list is essentially my interpretation of all the previous lists. This list is debatable. Also note that this time, all ratings are relative. The most powerful country received a 10, and all nations were then scored between 0 (no military) and 10 (the most powerful nation in the region). The political stability is added as a range. In other words, at any given point, a nation's military is within the range given by the rankings.

Format:
Raw score - Modified score: Nation
Description
Raw score - Modified score: Nation
Description

10.0 - 10.0: Rutianas
Almost at twice the spending of all the other nations combined. So yeah, I'd say that's a win. Note that the economy in Rutianas is strong. Just because Selathorn and Panzersharkcat have insane economies, and Burnination has a slightly better one doesn't mean that the Rutian economy is bad. That rank 4 in that category is kind of deceptive.
8.2 - 8.2: Burnination
Spending up a bit, economy up a bit as well. Overall, small increases, but nothing really relatively.
7.8 - 7.8: Panzersharkcat
Econ, down, spend, down. How's that for an opposite.
3.55 - 3.55: Selathorn
Still moving up with that economy; watch out Panzersharkcat! Spending drop though, so I'm not convinced gross military strength increased at all over the last month.
0.85 - 0.85: Shakuhou
Up spending and economy again, if only slightly. Gross military strength increasing, but in comparison to the major powers, still not worth very much.
0.75 - 0.75: Aescentia
Enormous economic improvement! For srs! Unfortunate military spending drop though.

PROPOSED FORMULA INFO BELOW:

Work in progress: a formula for the calculation of a nation's gross military power.


By formula:
Rut: sqrt((10.9618596)*(1884.08227))=45.4456217
Burn: sqrt((6.41164514)*(1700.15193))=33.0163155
Panzer: sqrt((3.26680569)*(3155.70478))=32.1077472
Sela: sqrt((4.17989587)*(863.566479))=18.9989946

Relative rankings
Rut: 10
Burn: 7.26501572
Panzer: 7.06509144
Sela: 4.18059957

Yaaay! I'm finally not at the bottom of the economic dogpile!

ATTENTION EVERYONE: See my last post here. It's got my proposed formula for use on this, and its results for the top 4 nations. It's come out to something very close to what I rate them usually, so please post your opinions. If you all agree with my opinion, I think I will use the formula next report.

I personally like the formula, and like that it takes out the subjectivity involved when I make up the relative rankings.

I like.

Panzersharkcat wrote:

I like.

Just because your population count brings your military strength almost to mine?

Sure. That too.

Meh, I still kick everyone's ass, so of course I like.

Settled then. Barring the discovery upon my attempts to write the December report that the formula doesn't work for some reason, I'm going to use it.