Forum - Starting discussions of FSA military committee

Jump to: navigation, search
Overview > Collaboration > AR120 - Federal States > Starting discussions of FSA military committee

Hello everyone, starting off our military committee planning.

I've done some work to compile what we have for military facilities in the FSA, and I counted 58 major facilities for army, navy, air force, marine corps and coast guard, including camps, bases airfields, training facilities. Excluded from this list were all the army and air national guard facilities. There are also several smaller facilities that I did not tabulate, such as small, unnamed military locations, signals and radar sites,other small Dept of Defense sites, armouries, munitions facilities and arsenals, that are small enough (and needed) to not require the same level of planning as the other ones I have noted.

Also using the military tag include:

  • Langley reactor exclusion zone, not sure if it is still considered canon but the state it is mainly in is no longer owned
  • Usage of military tag for border posts and other internal FS checkpoints. I think this needs to be avoided and correctly tagged; borders are managed by border services, nonmilitary (civil unit), and other checkpoints within the country should use police if police managed or barrier:personnel when security guards or private contractors.
  • At least four historic forts in Makaska and Mennowa

So below you can see a map of everything tagged as military in the FSA (insets include present locations outside of continental FSA that are owned/managed or used by FS units)

Map of FS military facilities.png

Here is a list of the facilities, as best as I could noted what branch belongs to, for some camps I put army but it is also likely this designator may be better linked to Marine Corps.

Major FSA military facilities.png


I note a few things we can do to start to try and improve our military network. These can include:

  • Evaluating our capabilities and seeing what branches and units are best suited to what locations (strategic locations for types of units within our main branches). Examples can include, naval air along coasts, increase of coast guard on coasts, adding airlift/supply/transport units for air force, placing armored facilities. A good idea might be to list under each branch (army, navy coast guard etc) what types of units are required (naval air, mountain warfare, mechanized infantry, air surveillance etc) and assign responsibilities in that way.
  • A few facilities are being largely ignored, which include signals stations and facilities (SIGINT), radar stations to monitor for potential missile/aircraft launches, sites to track satellites and space launches, training facilities, from basic training/boot camp to trade specialization schools (submarine training, intelligence, infantry) and missile sites (silos), both for ICBMs and MRBMs and also for the defense of key cities and military facilities. Historic and decommissioned sites are also welcome, as technologies advance and the size/range and capabilities of missiles improve, less sites are needed.
  • International presence: It makes sense for the FSA to have a presence in international locations. The USA has a vast number of facilities it owns, operates or shares with and in other countries, such as air bases, barracks, naval support activities and others. While FSA is smaller than the USA we are still a global power in the OGF world and foreign military presence, at least as a deterrent makes sense. Right now most of the FSA's non-continental presence is centered on the FS territory of Arecales, and there is some air force presence in Iscu and Barzona, with the Iscu location a joint base and in Barzona sharing space in Barzona Air Force base. Not sure what is best way to go about this, if asking mappers of nations that seem like allies of FSA, or just making a post asking if anyone is interesting in hosting FS unit(s) in their countries.
  • Name standards: There seems to be many variations and inconsistencies in name standards for out facilities (ex. Naval Air Station vs Navy Air Base). We should try and use a standard for different types of facilities to keep a consistency and not have multiple variants for a single type of facility.

For now this is what I have. Thanks,


Posted by Brunanter on 25 November 2020 at 21:28.
Edited by Brunanter on 25 November 2020 at 21:39.

This is wonderful! I think you've made a lot of good points and here's my responses and opinions about the points you raised. I think a lot of problems can be at least partially solved by making an OGF:Federal States/Military page, which could cover proper tagging, base types, and naming and other standards, as well as whatever system we come up with for permissions and locations of bases.

First off, the Langley Reactor Zone: I think that it should remain in an in-between state of canon and non-canon until someone else owns the state and either keeps or deletes it, especially considering that the mapping is of good quality. I completely agree with correct border tagging. Amenity=Police is a good replacement, as it creates an appearance similar to landuse=military and seems to be the osm standard for some border crossings. And in terms of less well known facilities, I think simply compiling a list with some reference examples on osm, and then drawing attention to that list and encouraging mapping would greatly help in that regard. In terms of international bases I think it would be reasonable to first post a user diary alerting people, and then messaging users who are of particular interest. In regards to naming standards I don't have any concrete opinion on the matter, but establishing one standard should be a priority.

Finally, as for evaluating and assigning locations, I am in agreement with you on that. I do feel as though in addition to assigning various bases to general locations, we should also give mappers some freedom in mapping other military operations, with approval.

Posted by Lithium on 26 November 2020 at 14:58.

I think “critical path” right now is standardizing the names of the military branches and the naming format for individual facilities, then getting an OGF:FS/Military wiki page established where coordination can occur. I’d rather keep these discussions off of user diaries, since it’s not a useful platform for collaborative work (and the rest of the OGF world doesn’t need UD clogged up with FSA internal affairs). This is a very good start though, thanks for getting this up and running.

Posted by TheMayor on 26 November 2020 at 15:34.

The FSA military page sounds good. It will allow us to better keep track, we can set naming standards and requirements and probably would help direct our work. We just need to wait to see what the other members of committee think before proceeding.

Posted by Brunanter on 26 November 2020 at 21:48.

Langley... I don't get why it's relevant... It's civil infrastructure, not military. The reactor is implausibly mapped atop a mountain. The restriction area pays no attention to prevailing wind.

Posted by Wangi (administrator) on 27 November 2020 at 02:50.