|
Post by The Warzone on Aug 26, 2015 13:46:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Huan Fan on Aug 31, 2015 2:37:12 GMT
We need some more rules here. The major problem I see here is that everyone wants to win all the battles. But there can only ever be one victor, so inevitably people will feel burned by a battle result, especially if the battle involved overpowered forces. The result is that no real dramatic engagements or upsets can happen. The entire premise of this RP board hangs upon us all being very sportsmanlike with each other. In theory, it is impossible for any faction to win because doing so would require all other factions to basically lay down and accept their total defeat. That is why this board has stagnation. That is why the GLA has been so succesful, and why many factions have been mostly dormant or inactive. The vast majority of this role-play is leaders yelling at each other in the U.N., which is great but is unproductive for faction members, who can only express themselves in battles, which are hollow and somewhat pointless because of the above reason. What we need is, essentially, a dice roll system. Here's the rub: we build a system that turns every minute detail of a battle into a dice roll. Dice rolls must use a third party website where all parties can observe the roll. The dice roll will take into account unit composition, tactics, terrain, weather, and even things like ammunition and fuel all as a series of modifiers. This means that a massive column of gatling and propaganda overlords squaring off against a platoon of rebels will have huge bonuses for the overlords, but there is a chance, however small, that the rebels might pull off an incredible upset. When a dice-roll is made, both players must agree that the dice roll was made legitimately with the correct modifiers. Ideally dice rolls will be made by a neutral third party but can also be done by players. Dice roll modifiers are final and will be set in stone. It will be *VERY* clear why each modifier is there and whether it would apply. Hopefully the system would basically ammount to each player stating the composition of their force to a third party moderator, then that moderator plugging all necessary information in and rolling a 1d100 twice- one with modifiers for team 1 one with modifiers for team 2: the person who rolls lowest wins that round of combat. .
This solves the problem of people not wanting to play ROTR mp games to decide battles and should not consume much if any extra time. Honestly this probably saves time and drama that would otherwise be spent in skype chats.
Battles have multiple rounds based on scale. Small skirmishes and operations could be decided in a single roll where larger battles could take multiple rounds. Forum RP battle threads will have a preamble for both sides and an aftermath for both sides; the rest is decided soley by the dice gods.
Remember a lost dice roll does not mean death, it means that the losing side failed its objectives. Everyone on the opposing team could come out unscathed in a lost roll; it just means that the losing side did not accomplish what it desired.
Battles for an entire chunk of territory(country) would either require multiple battle threads or one very long battle thread with many phases.
Make no mistake the dice gods are a cruel bunch and we WILL get burned by them. Sometimes that platoon of rebels will defeat that company of overlord tanks, but on average things will work as they are expected to thanks to modifiers.
This does mean that yes the entire RP will hinge upon chance. That is acceptable. By having this system we can have ridiculous upsets like the SAP conquering the entire world due to sheer luck, or GLA occupying swaths of China. In short it makes things more interesting. It just needs to be set up carefully, and well.
ALSO
Faction Members need a place to RP with other faction members outside of combat. With so few of us we cannot RP internally and RPing in faction communication threads defeats their purpose. We need a peace-time RP forum or something where two generals can have a beer or run into each other or just DO SOMETHING other than fighting. Faction leaders have this in spades with diplomatic functions.
Alternatively just give faction members more things to do while not in combat. I currently have nothing to do. I want to RP but I physically can't. That's frustrating.
|
|
|
Post by Omar Al-Ghazi on Aug 31, 2015 2:56:12 GMT
While I agree to this rule, I must ask. Shouldn't it be the highest role? Lower role equals a lower numerical value towards another dice role. It's an easier way of decision, but then, what about scripted events, such as world events? I had to script the entirety of the Wrath of God scenario.
|
|
|
Post by Huan Fan on Aug 31, 2015 4:20:16 GMT
That's mostly semantics. It can be highest or lowest, either is fine. 1d100 RPG systems often go by lowest, where a 1 is a crit. Since we are just comparing numbers however higher works the same way.
BTW the way that modifiers would work would be:
BATTLE: GLA VS CHINA: Force size: Rebel Platoon vs Chinese Super Heavy Armor Division
GLA Side: +Defensive setup: 5% +Intelligence superiority: 2% +Troop Types- Rebel: Basic infantry, no benefit. +Force Size-(platoon): Force too small, no benefit.
Negatives: -Cold Climate: -1
THE GLA ROLL THEN IS: 1d100 +(or minus, depending on what = victory)6
Chinese Side: +GP Artillery Support: +5 +Troop Types- Overlord: +10 +Force Size- Division: +10 +Overwhelming Superiority (Numbers): +5 +Overwhelming Superiority (troop types): +5
Negatives: -Intelligence inferiority: -5%
THE CHINESE ROLL WILL BE: 1d100 (+/-)30
So the Chinese in this case, having a far superior force, has a 26% better chance on the roll than the GLA. But the GLA could still succeed at poisoning a well or what have you. How they go about doing this assuming they win is the joy of the RP thread!
Again the hard part here is laying down the modifiers.
|
|
|
Post by Huan Fan on Aug 31, 2015 4:26:05 GMT
There is an obvious problem of course of players stacking their force sizes. How we go about fixing that is perhaps via intelligence: the larger the group of troops the more likely and more often the opponent may use their own intelligence to figure out how much the enemy is brining to the table. Opponents who can figure out force composition can either choose to back out of the battle or reinforce themselves up to the number of troops the enemy is fielding.
Alternatively, we can use a tabletop esque point-buy system, where larger battles demand more points to purchase larger forces. I kind of like this as well since all it requires is a little bit of calculator work and pre-planning for players. In this case intelligence would just be a modifier.
|
|
|
Post by The Warzone on Aug 31, 2015 10:40:20 GMT
We need some more rules here. The major problem I see here is that everyone wants to win all the battles. But there can only ever be one victor, so inevitably people will feel burned by a battle result, especially if the battle involved overpowered forces. The result is that no real dramatic engagements or upsets can happen. The entire premise of this RP board hangs upon us all being very sportsmanlike with each other. In theory, it is impossible for any faction to win because doing so would require all other factions to basically lay down and accept their total defeat. That is why this board has stagnation. That is why the GLA has been so succesful, and why many factions have been mostly dormant or inactive. The vast majority of this role-play is leaders yelling at each other in the U.N., which is great but is unproductive for faction members, who can only express themselves in battles, which are hollow and somewhat pointless because of the above reason. What we need is, essentially, a dice roll system. Here's the rub: we build a system that turns every minute detail of a battle into a dice roll. Dice rolls must use a third party website where all parties can observe the roll. The dice roll will take into account unit composition, tactics, terrain, weather, and even things like ammunition and fuel all as a series of modifiers. This means that a massive column of gatling and propaganda overlords squaring off against a platoon of rebels will have huge bonuses for the overlords, but there is a chance, however small, that the rebels might pull off an incredible upset. When a dice-roll is made, both players must agree that the dice roll was made legitimately with the correct modifiers. Ideally dice rolls will be made by a neutral third party but can also be done by players. Dice roll modifiers are final and will be set in stone. It will be *VERY* clear why each modifier is there and whether it would apply. Hopefully the system would basically ammount to each player stating the composition of their force to a third party moderator, then that moderator plugging all necessary information in and rolling a 1d100 twice- one with modifiers for team 1 one with modifiers for team 2: the person who rolls lowest wins that round of combat. .
This solves the problem of people not wanting to play ROTR mp games to decide battles and should not consume much if any extra time. Honestly this probably saves time and drama that would otherwise be spent in skype chats.
Battles have multiple rounds based on scale. Small skirmishes and operations could be decided in a single roll where larger battles could take multiple rounds. Forum RP battle threads will have a preamble for both sides and an aftermath for both sides; the rest is decided soley by the dice gods.
Remember a lost dice roll does not mean death, it means that the losing side failed its objectives. Everyone on the opposing team could come out unscathed in a lost roll; it just means that the losing side did not accomplish what it desired.
Battles for an entire chunk of territory(country) would either require multiple battle threads or one very long battle thread with many phases.
Make no mistake the dice gods are a cruel bunch and we WILL get burned by them. Sometimes that platoon of rebels will defeat that company of overlord tanks, but on average things will work as they are expected to thanks to modifiers.
This does mean that yes the entire RP will hinge upon chance. That is acceptable. By having this system we can have ridiculous upsets like the SAP conquering the entire world due to sheer luck, or GLA occupying swaths of China. In short it makes things more interesting. It just needs to be set up carefully, and well.
There was a thread made by GPU Leadership on the dice system or something similar ? : rotrwarzone.boards.net/thread/631/numbers-gameI like this idea. Care to explain what you will do in this board ?
|
|
|
Post by Nikola Pasic on Aug 31, 2015 12:37:36 GMT
This is the first roleplay i actualy tried to do for more than a month. I tried something similar before, but it was just too much work for something i didn't care that much about so i stopped. Now i'm roleplaying on two diferent forums, so i can see how diferent this roleplay is at least from one more perspective. This roleplay is all about winning, because let's face it, nobody plays a game to lose. True, the main goal is to have fun, but nobody is going to play to lose. This is a problem i think we effecively fixed with "backup posts". That makes sure nobody can simply teleport a million tanks from one side of the planet to another the momment he sees something is going on(somewhat excluding "special units" that can't actualy win a battle on their own), or start counter-protests in a neighbouring country without preparing. When it comes to the numbers, like i said before, math can't solve most of our problems here because there is no way we can include every factor in it. And even if we could, there is no way to objectively determain their value. Not to mention that the human factor is to some degree predictable only if we have enough information on it, which we can't.
The fun part here is that there are many human factors that can mess in your plans, so again, ultimately the one who's better prepared has an objectively bigger chance to win. The roleplay is about moving units around to use them effectively, and i think that should be the only thing to determain the winner. The RNG should sometimes be an option, but only when all involved sides agree to it(pressuring shouldn't be tolerated). The reason why i think RNG won't be as helpful as you think is because as far as i saw, we rarely use numbers. So what if you lose ten soldiers in a battle, you have an unspecified number of it that can replace them almost instantly. Now, if we turned this into a numbers game i also don't think this would be fun. And it certainly won't be a big competition if you don't plan in advance, and if it's not a competition, i don't see the fun in it.
About generals socialising, i think that's a very good idea. I expanded the story of both of my characters without bringing military into it(Varennikov's daughter is married to Pasic, while she is also the chief researcher of cloaking tech of the Balkan Federation). And i have to admit, i am kinda sad this is still limited to battles(both military and political). Those things can be frustrating, so taking a focus out of it might actualy be a good idea. I'd even make a rule that each faction can open a fixed number of battle threads per week, just to stop everyone for staying focused on it.
|
|
|
Post by Huan Fan on Aug 31, 2015 13:37:03 GMT
"The fun part here is that there are many human factors that can mess in your plans, so again, ultimately the one who's better prepared has an objectively bigger chance to win. The roleplay is about moving units around to use them effectively, and i think that should be the only thing to determain the winner. The RNG should sometimes be an option, but only when all involved sides agree to it(pressuring shouldn't be tolerated). The reason why i think RNG won't be as helpful as you think is because as far as i saw, we rarely use numbers. So what if you lose ten soldiers in a battle, you have an unspecified number of it that can replace them almost instantly. Now, if we turned this into a numbers game i also don't think this would be fun. And it certainly won't be a big competition if you don't plan in advance, and if it's not a competition, i don't see the fun in it." Read more: rotrwarzone.boards.net/thread/642/roleplay-rules-discussion?page=1#ixzz3kOmyRtLJYet there is very little objective about current battles. Realistically you can win or lose a battle based entirely on the charachter of the enemy player. Far too often I see battles where both sides have 'just one more trick...' up their sleeves. The side that plays realistically and fairly is in a hugely disadvantageous position, and as for force composition, that is entirely up to good sportsmanship. Thankfully so far no one has quite yet made a huge doomstack of forces that is unbeatable, but it has come close. We also solve battles via deus ex machinae; the sudden arrival of the very, very in universe powerful Rosalinda, or the deployment of hither-to unmentioned and unknown GLA fear gas, to name two. I would be a lot more okay if those were just modifiers on a dice roll rather than unstoppable measures that cannot be countered against (seriously if Rosalinda decides to engage you in battle find and excuse to get your force out of combat asap- you already lost). All the battles on this board are subjective, and as you say, this RP is about winning. There is no subjectivity in winning; there are clear winners and clear losers. THAT is where this RP has its great flaw. That is why I made this post. ... "There was a thread made by Markus Oswald Kane on the dice system or something similar ? : rotrwarzone.boards.net/thread/631/numbers-game Read more: rotrwarzone.boards.net/thread/642/roleplay-rules-discussion?page=1#ixzz3kOonJj3X" I hadn't seen it, sorry. "I like this idea. Care to explain what you will do in this board ? Read more: rotrwarzone.boards.net/thread/642/roleplay-rules-discussion?page=1#ixzz3kOovMExZ" That board exists for character stuff. It would be where your character would go to interact with others or even just have adventures on their own, that everyone else could see. It would not really be for planning or battles or anything like that, but rather a series of interactions, conversations, and that sort of thing. These interactions do not need to be pleasant; if you decide OOC you want the GLA to capture and brutally interrogate your charachter that happens here. Its a non-combat version of the battles forum. Importantly posts in this forum will not contribute to military battles victories or territories gained/lost. It's just a place to role-play in a neutral setting and something to do in-character in between combats.
|
|
|
Post by The Warzone on Aug 31, 2015 14:17:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Xingmin Wu on Aug 31, 2015 15:58:39 GMT
Call it something like "General Roleplay"?
Description: Any sort of non-combat roleplaying between characters
|
|
|
Post by Huan Fan on Sept 2, 2015 23:12:10 GMT
Read that post by Markus Oswald Kane by the way, Our ideas are similar but critically different. Kane suggests this for small scale individual unit vs unit engagements. This would take too long. I am suggesting this for entire battles.
|
|
|
Post by Hamilton House on Sept 27, 2015 19:19:44 GMT
Why don't we just to live battles on RotR it would be more realistic and easier.
|
|
|
Post by Omar Al-Ghazi on Sept 28, 2015 1:23:52 GMT
Because no one is as good as everyone else. In fact, some people don't even have the game. That's the big problem. That's why we have the rules of battle here on the forum for you to look at.
|
|
|
Post by Xingmin Wu on Sept 28, 2015 2:47:30 GMT
Because I suck balls at actual ROTR. If we solved all our battles ingame, China wouldn't exist anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Omar Al-Ghazi on Sept 28, 2015 2:50:54 GMT
I already stated that, Cell. Nations would either not exist or rage quit.
|
|