The brewing Russo-Sino Conflict Jan 5, 2017 9:07:12 GMT
Post by Dmitry Molchanov on Jan 5, 2017 9:07:12 GMT
The Warzone, Mendoza Chávez De La Hoya Card, Archibald Stanford, Wang Xi Jintao, Abdul-Al Rashid, Dmitry Molchanov, John Fitzgerald Kennedy II, Sergei Varennikov, Ilya Artyomovich Sokolov, Lexine Baruch, Andrey Voronov, Timothy Brown, Alejandro Silva, Viktor Orlov, Xingmin Wu
War is in the air: with the plot-line stated as going to be staying, due to the majority of the votes going to my suggestion (didn't expect it in all honesty), conflict has and will erupt between China and the Russian Federation. As a result, we're going to discuss what this will mean for the roleplay: a full-blown conflict between two of the major player nations aside from the GLA. With this in mind, let's discuss a few major points:
- State of the Warzone: With China now having acted in a way that deems it acceptable to retaliate with military force (as per the plotline, black hats attempting to gain access to the Kurmuk Tremor AGAS facility were traced back to China by counter-hackers from Russa. This is not only a gross violation of the non-aggression pact between the PRC and RF, but a threat to international security as a whole, given the AGAS' range.), and being caught for it. As a result, this will lead to a conflict where, potentially, one of the six major factions will: A, surrender to the opposing side to remain in the roleplay, but with the majority of their assets claimed by the victor; B, choose not to surrender and end up being annexed by one side or the other; or a multitude of similar outcomes. Either way, this provides an incredibly lucrative and interesting scenario for the Warzone that hasn't been seen yet.
- Battle Systems: It's clear that, with a major conflict on the rise that isn't in a state of flux — like with the GLA conflicts — we will have to understand how battles will work here. As of now, there is no particularly "standardized" battle system that we can use as of right now, but there are a variety of options to choose from and to create. We can use Retro's current system (personally, I wouldn't, given that it doesn't account for the finer details of any conflict), mine, a combination of both, or something entirely different. But the point-being is that this upcoming conflict will need to have battle systems looked at and polished for what is sure to be a nice, good, long war.
- Strategic Super Weapons & WMDs: War is nasty business. People die, soldiers suffer from PTSD, and a variety of other ailments befall those who are left behind to scrounge the wreckage. But, if there's anything that war shouldn't be, it is completely and totally illegal. Strategic super weapons are a useful tool, such as the mobile missile erector sites of China or the Tremor AGAS sites of Russia. The problem is the untold amount of destruction one of these weapons can wreak upon both soldier and civilian alike. WMDs are even worse, as we start getting into the nuclear-biological-chemical weapons territory, two of the three are illegal and the last is considered to be a grey area of warfare (nuclear weapons). Their use and their power is incredible, and certain weapons have the capacity to tear apart entire divisions or even corps of troops given the opportunity. But, such actions are incredibly frowned upon, even by tactical standards.
Give your opinions on it and let's figure out together how this conflict will go, and what these points will mean in the state of it all. Know that, despite not participating in the RP anymore, Xingmin Wu is welcome to join in the discussion and help discuss these three major points.