|
|
Post by Mendoza Chávez De La Hoya Card on Sept 1, 2016 18:14:00 GMT
Fair enough. The administrator just told us on skype to be more active around here. So please give on time your opinion and feedback. Speaking for myself, I need some time to think for a formula, input, numbers and variables and how to work them in it. As a basic, I am planning to use Retro's system still as the main one. David Van Rotterdam my former main account, worked out the GP's and strike things. At this moment I am thinking to have this subsystem as an independant sub system, based on the 'call of the local commanders'- ability, to call them in at the requested designation. |
|
|
|
Post by The Warzone on Sept 1, 2016 18:24:43 GMT
I would like to see a system that is easy to understand but has some strategic options. As speaking for myself, I am not an expert in the game nor in real military strategies. But I am new here. I have never had a battle before. I cannot judge from a fair point of view. Good point. The best thing would be to get involved in an unofficial battle to see how the current battle system works. Once the battle is over, you will gain some experience and will be able to give your input accordingly. The unofficial battle can take place in the training grounds. It is up to these three people who would fight against you in battle Dmitry MolchanovOr Archibald StanfordOr Mendoza Chávez De La Hoya CardAs they are the ones who are heavily involved in the making of the system. So end message is :- If you don't know how battles play out, Have an unofficial battle in the training grounds with someone Based on the experience of how the battle went, give your inputs. |
|
|
|
Post by Abdul-Al Rashid on Sept 2, 2016 10:53:35 GMT
How about boosts? It can help solve some stuff up, for example;
A battalion of men are surrounded in a small town, separated from the main army. They are commanded by (Insert Badass Commander Here) and he decided to fortify the place, it took two days before they finished preparing and just in time as a division was dispatched to destroy the said battalion. With prepared defences and Smart placement of men, they *succeeded in driving the division out.
(the bold phrase will be explained later)
So to start:
Since they made fortifications, they got a defence boost, and since we'll be using the dice roll system, and we're all talking about engagements, I suggest that there will also be a defence mechanism. This defence mechanism can help give small armies a chance to engage larger targets. So to speak, if the fortifications took _ Day(s) it will be multiplied by .5 to get the defence number. The defence number will be the subtrahend for the enemy attack dice roll.
ok to explain the bold phrase,
The bold phrase will be a hint to my second suggestion which is morale, of course, that will be another suggestion, which is another post...
Cheers, I hope ya mates like my Idea!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dmitry Molchanov on Sept 2, 2016 17:09:43 GMT
Hmm...a system for troop morale is more on the tactical level than the operational level, so I will say that, while we will keep your idea in mind, it's best to mainly keep to what we're trying to do: find the commonplace stuff to use (bonuses for certain formations, recruitment, etc.).
|
|
|
|
Post by David Van Rotterdam on Sept 2, 2016 21:23:35 GMT
hmmmm I like the idea of a bonus-over-time in case of a city occupation.
Currently, I am working on a newer version with Retro's main system as basic, but with a larger add-on to determine bonuses and such.
|
|
|
|
Post by David Van Rotterdam on Sept 3, 2016 15:49:03 GMT
Dalies and Mentlegen,  I present to you the first draft of a possible new battle system. Based on Retroliser’s system, and still being the foundation for this possible add-on, I have worked out several possibilities in the battlefield, like: LOCATIONS: What if faction A invades and Faction B garrisons a City? PAYLOADS: The main payload of that specific attack. What if one of the factions calls in a dirty division with different payloads rather than the conventional ones? SUPPLY LINES: What if you cut off your enemies forces, or uses some special treatment? Yes, watch your backs! Your soldiers need ammo, food, diesel etc…. But beware: with this current version, it is only possible to damage your opponents supply line by specialized payloads. Think about which you choose, and what the consequences could be. #Drama. PS: This is merely the DRAFT version number 1. It is still not completed, but at the request of our Admin, I will share this since this already works. Second, I know balance.. and yes it needs tweaks, and that’s where we all need to participate in IMO.  This is the main battle page. As you can see, it is a 1 division vs 1 division. You can use the LOCATION and the PAYLOAD quite easy. I made the square below as a drop-down-menu, where you can select the desired query. Automatically the correct numbers will be used for calculations. The first 3 lines is basically the Retroliser Battle System. Use the dice to determine your casualties. But as many noticed, it was too simple. Smacking 2 forces upon each other and keep dice rolling till no man stands. It is still this way, only changed part is the thing where the bonuses kicks in. Note: Bonus doesn’t always mean positive. A negative bonus is also possible.  This is the Forces tab. Here we decide some balance issues. I took the liberty to fill things in how I thought at that moment. How does it work? Well let me explain. This is seen from the ATTACKER’s position. Obviously, you need an attacker to defend. If the attacker has its forces in the Dessert and tries to attack the defenders occupied city, the number provided = -0.3 or better said: -30% (Excel is kind of dull on that within formula constructions). This means that the DEFENDER is in advantage. Easy explanation within this example is that an occupied city is hard to take, but not impossible. These numbers are being used for bonus calculations.  This is the PAYLOAD section. I use this tab to determine extra bonuses. As seen on the main page, and I already wrote it, it is a 1 division vs 1 division. 15.000 vs 15.000. But fair enough, within a division there are vehicles, artillery and such. The Payload determines extra damage bonus. Chemicals are lethal against infantry while tanks suffer less. I think it speaks for itself. But I am aware that this page also needs balancing.
What do you guys think so far? EDIT: yes I am aware that the pictures themselve are too big. Bad luck is... I am too lazy to reshape them more properly. Grab a pair of glasses or binoculars and try again  |
|
|
|
Post by Dmitry Molchanov on Sept 4, 2016 3:21:51 GMT
While the system is interesting, I believe that there are so many factors that it becomes overly complicated and will begin to step all over itself. The amount of dice rolling that will be required, especially with a lot of formations (divisions, brigades, or battalions), would be practically astronomical. However, what I see here is a magnificent start to formulating a new battle system, but perhaps instead of focusing on the more complicated aspects of warfare (I.E. cover, environments, supplies, etc.), we should focus on the main system itself. Luckily, I have a basic system in mind that can apply to all operational formations on the field while remaining simplistic, and it is based on your GP add-on.   (IMAGES COURTESY OF DAVID VAN ROTTERDAM/MENDOZA CHAVEZ) Essentially, we list down the kinds of formations you will be using. For simplicity's sake, we will have a damage calculator for the major types of damage that can be done on the battlefield: anti-infantry, anti-vehicle/armor, and anti-air. Anti-infantry essentially damage that's done to fighting infantry and light armor (scout vehicles, supply trucks, etc.). An example of this would be a Russian Motor Rifles brigade within a Tank Division, or a Motor Rifles battalion within a brigade. These formations would be fighting the actual soldiers on the ground that aren't protected by armor, with limited anti-armor capability [fighting IFVs with a formation mainly comprised of vehicles with infantry will be a bad idea]. These formations would be more vulnerable to the debilitating effects of radiation, chemical and biological weapons, and other horrendous anti-infantry technologies (I.E. tesla, toxin, microwaves, etc.), as well as vulnerable to anti-infantry weapons that can be found on most MBTs, IFVs, and APCs. Of course, exceptions can arise, especially with anti-material rifles in use. Elite formations will also do twice the damage to a formation, including armored, due to both superior weaponry and skill on the battlefield. However, elite infantry require retraining and rearming in your home countries (country in the case of Russia and China), which will take a month to do. Anti-vehicle/armor regards damage that's done to armored vehicles, such as IFVs, APCs, MBTs, and other vehicles whose main purpose is to fight on a battlefield. While infantry-based formations will have a tougher time with dealing anti-armor damage, do not underestimate them. Infantry can turn the tide of battle, even against an armored formation, and it's generally good to have some infantry formations to deal extra damage to formations that possess armor. They are much more vulnerable to other tank formations and artillery formations, and unlike infantry formations, will typically take less damage from special units like tesla, toxin tractors, dragon tanks, or similar. However, while the crews of the tanks are not nearly as vulnerable to radiation, chemical, and biological weapons, they are still vulnerable, and will suffer an attrition effect most of the time, which increases so long as they're present in an area affected by these weapons, especially with neutron radiation.
Anti-air damage refers to the damage done by anti-air capable formations, such as Russian aerospace defense brigades, your standard infantry and tank brigades, or even other aircraft. While all formations are capable of targeting aircraft (I.E. tanks to helicopters/gunships, anti-air-specialized soldiers in a formation's infantry components, etc.), it is more reliable to have anti-aerial defense at the ready in a formation, or in a nearby formation to utilize for the defense of your forces from approaching heavy aircraft (bombers and transport aircraft) or smaller aircraft like jets and helicopter gunships. They are not nearly as vulnerable as the other formations to WMDs and SWs due to speed, but they are capable of being brought down by such means.
Now...for the complicated bits...essentially the calculator will go as such: Number of formations under the main one your using (if you have a division, you count the brigades in a division. If it's an independently functioning brigade, you count the battalions in the brigade. For Aerial forces, it's kinda tricky, given that every air force in the world possesses different functioning operational forces. For this, we'll use Russia: if it's an aviation, heavy bomber, or helicopter brigade within a combined arms division, you count the number of aerial brigades you possess in a formation and double it. If it's an independently acting aviation, heavy bomber, or helicopter brigade, you count the squadrons within it. You shouldn't have to count the forces below a squadron (I hope, please correct me if I'm wrong Archibald Stanford).
Now, each formation in each faction will have a maximum damage output of 50% under normal circumstances (can be buffed or de-buffed depending on terrain, cover, and the types of formations they're fighting, strategies that have been put into effect, etc.). You count the brigades in a division, or battalions in a brigade if it's a brigade as the main formation you're using, and you multiply that by the percentage you roll on a 50-sided die, 40-sided die, or whatever die you're using depending on the active bonuses. This determines the percentage you will multiply or divide your formations in each class of damage with. Tank against tank formation would be 50% for both sides, while tank against infantry would be, say 60-65% for the tanks against the infantry. Perhaps even a maximum of 75%. Tesla would be a special case, as that can attack at all three. Aircraft would be shot down, infantry would be burned to a crisp by the extremely high amperage, and tanks would char and burn and their equipment would fry.
Nevertheless, we could have a system like this, or similar to this for the basics, then add in the descriptive stuff (cover bonuses, faction unique attributes and how they could tie in, etc.) later. I, unfortunately, was not able to successfully make an Xcel document that wasn't too complicated or convoluted. If someone could make an example, or a list, of the basic principals behind this system that seems simple enough, that would be gladly appreciated. 
Still, Dave's system would be something to draw inspiration from in regards to the more detailed aspects of war. Right now though, we want the basics for ground and naval warfare out of the way. |
|
|
|
Post by Mendoza Chávez De La Hoya Card on Sept 4, 2016 9:02:08 GMT
I can make excel sheets work. However, no offense but I have read so much information that I am not quite sure what to do right now. Perhaps try it again, but in more easier words and a little more easier to read. Less text and or just list things down.
However, I want to correct you on 1 thing. For the main battle system, you require only Retro's dicerolls. The rest will be automaticly determined by this file.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dmitry Molchanov on Sept 4, 2016 23:22:56 GMT
I'm sorry, but I don't think there is a simpler way of explaining it. I tried my best to explain it as simply as possible, and it's a pretty big system. Nonetheless, all I need is an excel sheet of possible formations against other formations with their maximum percentage of damage that they can deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Warzone on Sept 12, 2016 16:33:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Sergei Varennikov on Sept 12, 2016 17:56:11 GMT
Why do you people still want to complicate it so much?
All those numbers, dice rolls and calculations, and all that for what? Now i don't know about you people, but i don't like math. And besides why would we bother with calculating damage, AOE and stuff if a computer can do that for you?
Unless you count doing math as having a good time, i don't see how this system is fun at all. And no matter what you do, you can not represent every situation with math. For just one example, not all covers are equaly good. Add diferent weapons to this example and it's a mess for no reason.
Again i am telling you people, if you must have a system like this, don't bother doing calculations, let the computer do that for you. Just settle battles online and let the computer do the calculating.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dmitry Molchanov on Sept 12, 2016 17:59:28 GMT
Well, how exactly do we settle battles online in a civilized manner? People will always want their side to win, and then you have too much chaos. The system that I planned on implementing was fairly simple in design. And besides, how do we settle the battles online? Do you have a suggestion?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sergei Varennikov on Sept 12, 2016 18:01:28 GMT
Well, how exactly do we settle battles online in a civilized manner? People will always want their side to win, and then you have too much chaos. The system that I planned on implementing was fairly simple in design. And besides, how do we settle the battles online? Do you have a suggestion? Just play ROTR online. Who wins has won the battle. It's simple, it's fair(ish), and it's much more fun for sure. |
|
|
|
Post by Dmitry Molchanov on Sept 12, 2016 18:09:00 GMT
And then we have the simple problem of exclusion. One, not everyone is willing to install a mod, let alone buy a game for the purpose of a roleplay based around it. Two, not everyone really cares for the game itself, and would more likely write about the battles than just play them. Three, skill: simple as that. The major gaps in skill difference would make some factions attrociously unbalanced.
Then you have the problem of unique units that, while being solved by the sub-mod of RotR designed for the Warzone, will still be a much bigger problem. If anything, a game-based battle system wold be secondary concern at best, because we need a system that EVERYONE can use and most likely WILL use the majority of the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sergei Varennikov on Sept 12, 2016 18:13:38 GMT
I get that. Now let me use my own case as an example: I don't want this settled in game. But then again i'm also against any kind of calculations. So both systems are equaly bad for me.
You will always have problems no matter what system you pick.
|
|
