Jump to content

Insurgency Rules Proposal


Markus Wilding

Recommended Posts

In #cnrp today, the topic of insurgencies and insurgency rules came up. Many things were said, stones were thrown, and glass houses were broken.

 

With that in mind, I came up with the idea to try and both come up with and test some insurgency rules for CNRP, and Lynneth and I discussed a framework for insurgency rules, and based off what we talked about we decided the following:

 

There will be a "meter" for the occupiers, which represents their will to stay in the occupied zone. The insurgents have a resource pool from which they can use to try to lower the will of the occupiers.

 

The meter for the occupiers is given a set value based on tech, population, etc. and is modified positively or negatively depending on other wars, allies, and "stability" - how long your nation has lasted as a political entity. A nation like Athens, for example, will have a higher will than Sierra Leone because Athens has existed longer as a nation, and people will see that as stability. The resource pool for insurgents is based off of infra, tech and IC soldiers, and can be modified to take into account the previous regime's military only if it can be proven through links and on a case-by-case basis. This modifier will be 1.1x. Successful insurgent operations will detract from the occupier's meter, while unsuccessful operations will deteriorate the insurgent's resource pool. Likewise, successful occupier operations will detract from the insurgent resource pool and unsuccessful operations will detract from the occupier's "will" meter.

 

Effectively, both the pool and meter are the same thing, if only with different values. The "will" meter would start around 500 or so, modified by other wars, allies, etc., while the insurgent resource pool would be in the tens or hundreds of thousands. It should be stressed that these are relative to each other, and deterioration depends on RP. Keep in mind as well that this is simply a framework to start from.

 

So, to summarize:

 

Occupiers have a meter. Insurgents have a resource pool.

Meter has a set value that can be increased or decreased with modifiers.

Resource pool is a set value, multiplied only on a case-by-case basis.

Successful operations detriment enemy meter/pool, unsuccessful ops benefit it - dependent on RP, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Eh, I prefer going by just rp for insurgencies rather than fixed formulas.

The formulas would only determine the capacity of keeping the insurgency/occupation going. It'd still be up to the players to RP operations for the insurgency or occupation to be successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, I prefer going by just rp for insurgencies rather than fixed formulas.

 

The formulas would only determine the capacity of keeping the insurgency/occupation going. It'd still be up to the players to RP operations for the insurgency or occupation to be successful.

 

Except for the fact there is no real reason to treat this as a different stage of the conflict.  Basically, how is this supposed to work, as soon as you pull down the statue of the Dear Leader the rules for combat change?  Or do people even turtle so right when the Marines hit the sand so they can go into insurgency.  Or when the first bomber takes off so they can go into an easy mode?  Its not really workable.  Further how does this work for resources.  

 

Further how do you determine effects on resources and meter, its highly subjective.  People with Ph.Ds in Political Science, Behavorial Economics, Psychology, not to mention Generals, Diplomats, IC professionals, the world over have debated the effectiveness of certain tactics at strengthening, weakening, and defeating insurgencies without result.  Who are we going to rely on?  GMs with their own political biases and little qualification for judgement?  Someone who highly opposes the US counter terrorism efforts with drones may say that a strike creates more insurgents than it kills.  In reality though those familiar with network analysis would know it may have a long term highly disruptive organizational effect on the network even if it creates a few more people with AKs but no real skill.  

 

PsyOps and hearts and minds works the same way.  Lets be honest, that's highly subject to political bias.  Say PDs a GM (I choose PD cause he just in a thread compared me [not my char] to Putin.  Someone like him is more inclined to probably believe Tianxia is not very effective in winning hearts and minds. Another GM may be biased towards it.  All without actually having any sort of objective measuring stick.  

 

The problem with this idea is that it is completely impractical, open to very deep bias more than the current imperfect system, and offers perverse incentives that alter IC RP decision making.  Keep the current system and get smarter about combining your diplomatic and military means.

 

Edit:

 

Really the best two insurgencies fought were Justinian and Mudd.  In both the decisive factor just like with brilliant insurgents IRL (I would say Mao and Ho Chi Minh hold the spots) is the center of gravity in an insurgency is political not military and that a in this political contest an insurgent must isolate an opponent abroad, win support at home, and then eventually build strength and win a conventional war.

 

What Justinian and Mudd were able to do was establish revolutionary bases outside the acceptable theatre of battle for their operations.  From these safe havens they isolated the coalition occupying them.  At the same time the coalitions occupying them began to fray.  They then gathered force from abroad through alliances and then escalated to conventional war, and the counter attack stage.  At this stage they were able to drive the occupiers clear out of their territories and in Justits case cause Nordland to collapse.  I used a similar strategy commanding your forces Markus. Gathering support from abroad I was able to force Vektor into a position where he faced collapse even if I couldn't defeat him conventionally alone.  Hell even Generalissimo was able to force Mara into a worse position, and through Mara's own actions then, he isolated her from me and broke her strength.  Generalissimo of course failed because he maintained a poor set of relations with me and thus I was ill inclined to give him Procintia back

 

Examples of unimpressive insurgencies are ones where the insurgent attempts to fight the occupier alone and even attempts to escalate the conflict.  For example when Mogar stalled responding so he could get nukes, or Rota attempted to send masses of civilians to get massacred, such was a barbaric act and thusly strengthened the resolve of the occupier, while making the insurgent appear more politically extreme and unacceptable to other onlookers who could otherwise be coopted into resisting the occupier.  This is not dissimilar to the 2006 period in Iraq.  In this period the Sunni Al Qaeda linked insurgents stepped up violence against the Shia and Sunni Iraqi Population, instituted harsh islamist laws on the Sunni Tribal regions in a way that provoked the now famous Anbar Awakening, where there would be allies in the Sunni Tribes turned on them and supported their former enemy and occupier the United States.

 

RP dynamics are not that different, it just requires creativity, skill, and most importantly keeping a cool head and whits about you.

Edited by Triyun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except for the fact there is no real reason to treat this as a different stage of the conflict.  Basically, how is this supposed to work, as soon as you pull down the statue of the Dear Leader the rules for combat change?  Or do people even turtle so right when the Marines hit the sand so they can go into insurgency.  Or when the first bomber takes off so they can go into an easy mode?  Its not really workable.  Further how does this work for resources.

A general guideline would be 'When the armed forces are defeated and the military's capability to wage was ended', or something of the sort. People would have to defend themselves with their armed forces and deplete those first before an insurgency could start.  

 

Further how do you determine effects on resources and meter, its highly subjective.  People with Ph.Ds in Political Science, Behavorial Economics, Psychology, not to mention Generals, Diplomats, IC professionals, the world over have debated the effectiveness of certain tactics at strengthening, weakening, and defeating insurgencies without result.  Who are we going to rely on?  GMs with their own political biases and little qualification for judgement?  Someone who highly opposes the US counter terrorism efforts with drones may say that a strike creates more insurgents than it kills.  In reality though those familiar with network analysis would know it may have a long term highly disruptive organizational effect on the network even if it creates a few more people with AKs but no real skill.  

PsyOps and hearts and minds works the same way. Lets be honest, that's highly subject to political bias. Say PDs a GM (I choose PD cause he just in a thread compared me [not my char] to Putin. Someone like him is more inclined to probably believe Tianxia is not very effective in winning hearts and minds. Another GM may be biased towards it. All without actually having any sort of objective measuring stick.

The problem with this idea is that it is completely impractical, open to very deep bias more than the current imperfect system, and offers perverse incentives that alter IC RP decision making. Keep the current system and get smarter about combining your diplomatic and military means.

The proposal isn't intended to mirror the Real World, Triyun, it's intended to make fighting insurgencies more viable for the defender even if they don't know the 'proper strategies' for fighting one. And yes, GMs or other arbitrators would be the ones to keep track of things. On your argument about biasedness, that is moot because even in their current duties GMs are biased in one way or another. But they can and often do make an effort to try and be neutral, and like we have to trust GMs during current play to keep to that, one will have to trust the GMs to keep their neutrality during such insurgency Roleplay (Not Rollplay, mind you).
There's also the fact that, if one doesn't agree with a strike 'creating more insurgents', they would be free to argue that point by providing articles and other proof that shows estimates from real analysts and so on.
In short: GMs are biased but try to be neutral, arguments can be made if backed up by good sources and proof.
The current system is imperfect as in there is none. There is no formal way to RP an insurgency, there are no checks and balances, there is no real possibility for supervising the whole thing. This proposal would provide people with an alternative to the current largely unsupervised method.

Edit: Typos Edited by Lynneth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, I prefer going by just rp for insurgencies rather than fixed formulas.

I would support this as long as the occupiers agreed to RP realistically. Citizens hate when soldiers come back in coffins, but the way that CNRP is run allows people to simply say that they don't care anymore. That and the lack of economics means that the fact that occupation costs money doesn't come into effect. 
 

Except for the fact there is no real reason to treat this as a different stage of the conflict.  Basically, how is this supposed to work, as soon as you pull down the statue of the Dear Leader the rules for combat change?  Or do people even turtle so right when the Marines hit the sand so they can go into insurgency.  Or when the first bomber takes off so they can go into an easy mode?  Its not really workable.

It's very simple. If you are on your side of the front lines, you fight a war. If you are on their side of the front lines, you fight an insurgency. Just like WWII, where both kinds of war were fought simultaneously in the Soviet Union. Once your government falls, like in Iraq in 2003, the entire thing switches modes to insurgency.
 

I choose PD cause he just in a thread compared me [not my char] to Putin.

Still don't see how that's a bad thing.

Someone like him is more inclined to probably believe Tianxia is not very effective in winning hearts and minds.

You're not.

Really the best two insurgencies fought were Justinian and Mudd.

I liked Generalissimo's.

What Justinian and Mudd were able to do was establish revolutionary bases outside the acceptable theatre of battle for their operations.  From these safe havens they isolated the coalition occupying them.  At the same time the coalitions occupying them began to fray.  They then gathered force from abroad through alliances and then escalated to conventional war, and the counter attack stage.  At this stage they were able to drive the occupiers clear out of their territories and in Justits case cause Nordland to collapse.

Yes, but most insurgencies I can imagine will be fought against you. I don't see you collapsing, and I don't see people rising up against you. The only way to win against you is that so many of your soldiers die through simple attrition that your populace gets fed up with the war and demands you pull out. In truth, that number isn't very much. Barely 4,000 soldiers died in Iraq, half that have died in Afghanistan, and you see how riled up people get.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if I'm an authoritarian state, with a state-controlled media, a militaristic society and I blame the other side for being damn liars and terrorists that are blowing up our glorious forces that are trying to establish order? Millions of Japanese died in China in a bloody war, with massive amounts of partisans, with atrocities that rival the Nazis and Soviets and there was no massive public unrest during the entire war. The last Japanese left China after the surrender, which came about due to massive bombings, two nuclear bombs, a Soviet invasion of Manchuria, Sakhalin and the Kurils and the prospect of further amphibious invasions of the mainland. And because of prospects for certain leniency for the Emperor... Where's your weariness now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with your flawed analysis Melech is that insurgents often draw equal ire, see the Sunni Awakening, people don't RP that, further the US is a full democracy, to say government in CN RP are the same is wrong.  Its also wrong to say all territory is equal.  Even democracies like Israel are clearly will to tolerate higher casualties in lands important to them such as the West Bank, much higher levels than the US in Vietnam and Iraq.  And who determines that?  It should be the player.  Beyond that its also a question of population.  In small nations war weariness hits home a lot faster as the chances of you being immediately effected increases, as does the strain on the economy of sustaining a war.  Large nations it doesn't effect so much.  So Tianxia for instance, with by far the world's biggest population is not likely to be as effected with 4000 dead as Iceland.  Its the same reason in many cases why China isn't rioting in the street when there are these massive industrial accidents but small countries in Europe are much more concerned.  So there's no good way to measure that.  

 

Also, you're outright saying "you're not" also exposes the inherent political bias here which makes the system flawed.  Its basically trying to turn things into a popularity contest to undo the leg work.  There should be an equal opportunity not equal outcomes.  The current war system as it is whatever you want to say about it gives everyone equal opportunity, you get to where you are based on the work you put in and your ability to keep your cool.  Some may want an easy button to beat the big baddies, but that's not a real thing and there are alternative paths as has been proven.

 

Further if the military phase of the conflict is abruptly ended and then has no effect on the insurgent phase, it pretty much makes no sense.  Insurgencies in Iraq were heavily aided by the debaathification of the army, failure of manpower to prevent the looting, and failure of going after the special republican guard.  The ability of the insurgency to get going would be much much lower with those three factors in place.  Thats all part of the conventional war to not view it as a continuation of the same conflict and include the factors of victory in the conflict is absurd.  

 

Lastly the idea of checks and balances is simply inappropriate here.  Its being thrown around without justification.  Warfare isn't about checks and balances.  We chose to interact in a community which is based on the measured stats as a quantitative measure, and RP as a qualitative measure.  What seems to be argued here is that neither is valid if one party wants to choose it not to be.  Instead they should get a new system.  That's fundamentally wrong and sets a dangerous precedent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if I'm an authoritarian state, with a state-controlled media, a militaristic society and I blame the other side for being damn liars and terrorists that are blowing up our glorious forces that are trying to establish order? Millions of Japanese died in China in a bloody war, with massive amounts of partisans, with atrocities that rival the Nazis and Soviets and there was no massive public unrest during the entire war. The last Japanese left China after the surrender, which came about due to massive bombings, two nuclear bombs, a Soviet invasion of Manchuria, Sakhalin and the Kurils and the prospect of further amphibious invasions of the mainland. And because of prospects for certain leniency for the Emperor... Where's your weariness now?

At what point was Japan fighting against insurgents instead of armed national forces? Nevermind that WWII was a quite different time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Further if the military phase of the conflict is abruptly ended and then has no effect on the insurgent phase, it pretty much makes no sense.  Insurgencies in Iraq were heavily aided by the debaathification of the army, failure of manpower to prevent the looting, and failure of going after the special republican guard.  The ability of the insurgency to get going would be much much lower with those three factors in place.  Thats all part of the conventional war to not view it as a continuation of the same conflict and include the factors of victory in the conflict is absurd.

Where was it said that the military phase would have no influence on the insurgent phase? Nowhere, as far as I can tell. What there would be, however: a shift from conventional warfare ('Military phase') to unconventional ('Insurgent Phase') after the conventional forces have been defeated.

 

Lastly the idea of checks and balances is simply inappropriate here.  Its being thrown around without justification.  Warfare isn't about checks and balances.  We chose to interact in a community which is based on the measured stats as a quantitative measure, and RP as a qualitative measure.  What seems to be argued here is that neither is valid if one party wants to choose it not to be.  Instead they should get a new system.  That's fundamentally wrong and sets a dangerous precedent.

Checks and balances may have been a bad choice of words, I suppose. However, choosing to interact in a community doesn't mean we can't try to improve this interaction, which is what I and Wilding are proposing here. Further, RP would continue to be a valid and qualitative measure, stats would continue to be a quantitative one. They would simply be applied in a different way. How is attempting to improve how people see insurgencies (as defensive measure) 'fundamentally wrong' and 'setting a dangerous precedent'? Because we're trying to do nothing other than make insurgencies a more viable, attractive choice for people to make. Edited by Lynneth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At what point was Japan fighting against insurgents instead of armed national forces? Nevermind that WWII was a quite different time.

Behind the frontlines? There were anti-Japanese guerillas already all the way back when Japan started occupying Manchuria 1931. And WWI might be a different era, but that just means a different mindset. And we should neither pretend that our world are now all 21st century model democracies, nor that CNRP is. And as Triyun said, certain democracies don't even care that much when it concerns territory they see as part of their national patrimony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At what point was Japan fighting against insurgents instead of armed national forces? Nevermind that WWII was a quite different time.

 

Their entire fight with the Chinese Communists for one.  

 

Where was it said that the military phase would have no influence on the insurgent phase? Nowhere, as far as I can tell. What there would be, however: a shift from conventional warfare ('Military phase') to unconventional ('Insurgent Phase') after the conventional forces have been defeated.

 
Checks and balances may have been a bad choice of words, I suppose. However, choosing to interact in a community doesn't mean we can't try to improve this interaction, which is what I and Wilding are proposing here. Further, RP would continue to be a valid and qualitative measure, stats would continue to be a quantitative one. They would simply be applied in a different way. How is attempting to improve how people see insurgencies (as defensive measure) 'fundamentally wrong' and 'setting a dangerous precedent'? Because we're trying to do nothing other than make insurgencies a more viable, attractive choice for people to make.

The Conventional and Insurgent phases aren't separate they are the same and highly linked.  At a weakest point a movement is terrorism.  It then moves to the insurgency/guerilla warfare phase, it then moves to a more intensified one where it secures revolutionary bases, it then uses these to gather strength and then move to conventional war, however in the conventional war phase the guerrilla does not cease the use of partisans to harass the enemy's rear.  And when a conventional army is retreating it may make use of partisans to deny the enemy secure lines of communication.  These are interlinked.  Artificially separating them makes no sense.  

 

Instead of saying that its too hard, you should encourage people to take the time to learn from success just as real commanders do.  It seems to me one of the biggest things in both CN RP and IRL for example is the need of a revolutionary base.  This can often be done overseas.  For example the Afghani Taliban has been getting this in Pakistan.  That is one of the reasons the US likes Drones is because its a weapon that can deny the enemy these revolutionary bases as safe havens.  That's [i]exactly[/i] what Justits did abroad, and what Mudd did abroad.  Another tactic is the focus on the population, and getting the aggressor to be seen as losing the loyalty of the population.

 

Now here is where there should be some creativity.  Rather than see a bell curve where terrorist attacks and then government overreaction (see Algeria's overthrow of the French) as a measure of population support, since population is static, focus instead on looking at CN generally.  For example if you use a nuclear weapon you're likely going to lose global support.  If you force an enemy to use extreme methods you're likely to gain global support.  However, if you yourself do something like has been mentioned of using children suicide bombers, because a child is not mentally competent to consent to being used as an instrument of war, you're likely to lose international support.  Think in terms of strategy is my point, and have respect that players can do this.  The key to all of this in my view is that people at their heart fundamentally don't want to approach war as a creative enterprise and a long game.  It needs to be.  

 

I too many time more than anything seen insurgencies defeated by one thing alone: a player's temper.  I don't believe we should structure the rules to stop hissy fits.  I think we should instead encourage players to keep their cool about simply pixels, and instead try and ask for help on making an effective strategy that thinks holistically.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In short, these rules seem... complicated.

 

Do we really want new rules when people grouse so much about the rules we have now?

 

That being said.. if there was ever a rule that needed  being put into play for insurgencies.. there should be a hard fast rule as to how moving equipment into the conflict zone is conducted. I favor a spy role followed by the applicable decent rp. On top of that there should be a limit to how long a person can claim they are fighting an insurgency off hidden stores. None of this, "I Saved up enough stuff to go for years!"

 

As for the population.. hmm.. I think the population should remain under the control of the person conducting the insurgency even if they don't control their nation. However, that being said, doing it that way limits the ability of others to conduct feasible hearts and minds operations. So if someone could come up with a really simple means of working out how that could proceed I'd support it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its also wrong to say all territory is equal.  Even democracies like Israel are clearly will to tolerate higher casualties in lands important to them such as the West Bank, much higher levels than the US in Vietnam and Iraq.

But every single war that you fight is Iraq or Vietnam. Nobody is invading China.

And who determines that?  It should be the player.

But as we've pointed out, players are unreasonable. "My people don't care that a dozen guys just got blown up by an IED because I say they don't," is the single largest reason why you can't RP an insurgency in CNRP.

Beyond that its also a question of population.  In small nations war weariness hits home a lot faster as the chances of you being immediately effected increases, as does the strain on the economy of sustaining a war.  Large nations it doesn't effect so much.  So Tianxia for instance, with by far the world's biggest population is not likely to be as effected with 4000 dead as Iceland.

The time you are at war matters more. You are constantly waging brushfire wars around the world, so Tianxia should be more apt to war weariness than any other country here.

Also, you're outright saying "you're not" also exposes the inherent political bias here which makes the system flawed.

You aren't. You're an imperialist, and imperialists need to try damn hard to win hearts and minds, something you don't do. Rome conquered places and brought infrastructure, culture, technology, and vast amounts of wealth, even respected the local religion and society, and yet provinces still rebelled. Why? Because people don't like being conquered, simple as that. You can't put a price on national self-determination.

Some may want an easy button to beat the big baddies, but that's not a real thing and there are alternative paths as has been proven.

Insurgencies are that easy button. There is a reason why the US hasn't blown Iran and North Korea to kingdom come, and that is because the losses from both the war and the resulting insurgency are simply not acceptable to the general public. They haven't hurt us personally, and that is why we don't commit to war, and that is frankly how you should treat war. None of the countries you constantly invade actually do anything to you, and as such public opinion should generally be against invasion.
 

Further if the military phase of the conflict is abruptly ended and then has no effect on the insurgent phase, it pretty much makes no sense.  Insurgencies in Iraq were heavily aided by the debaathification of the army, failure of manpower to prevent the looting, and failure of going after the special republican guard.  The ability of the insurgency to get going would be much much lower with those three factors in place.  Thats all part of the conventional war to not view it as a continuation of the same conflict and include the factors of victory in the conflict is absurd.

Again, you are an imperialist, and as such you do that. You disband the armed forces of the countries you conquer, giving a ready supply of trained local leaders for the insurgents, unless you execute every member of that nation's army.
 

It then moves to the insurgency/guerilla warfare phase, it then moves to a more intensified one where it secures revolutionary bases, it then uses these to gather strength and then move to conventional war, however in the conventional war phase the guerrilla does not cease the use of partisans to harass the enemy's rear.

Insurgency movements use other countries as training ans supply grounds. The Taliban uses Pakistan, the Viet Cong used Laos and North Vietnam. This requires either lawless states or states hostile to a superpower, neither of which exist in CNRP. 
 

Instead of saying that its too hard, you should encourage people to take the time to learn from success just as real commanders do.

Again, these insurgencies will most likely be used against you, and you never let anyone win. Ever.


If you force an enemy to use extreme methods you're likely to gain global support.

Again, these insurgencies will most likely be used against you, and nobody stands up to you. Ever.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, in short, we are making a ruleset, just because we aren't able to beat Triyun in a war, nor are we able to beat him in an insurgency. Because Triyun has more skill in military affairs and he has one of the largest ressource pools in CNRP. But inventing special rules won't change that. In the end, short of a coalition to curb or destroy Tianxia (ICly, not just trying to wipe it from the map), there won't be much that will beat Triyun. How about people either just get along with the system, learn how to actually efficiently fight and do diplomacy to build a coalition or just oppose in silence?

 

This whole thing is absurd, unnecessary and apart from TBMs point of clarifying how to RP supply lines and such for rebels, there isn't much worthwhile here. It just reminds me of Putin, who also thinks Russia ought to be a block of its own and an international standing as rival power to the entire "West", when it should actually be clear that Russia is not able to compete on an equal standing and that the current erratic behaviour won't earn him much foreign-policy wise. If Russia would integrate itself as a democratic and liberal country, it would have tons of potential, but well... would include sacking Putin, so no.

 

Also, the last people that got rolled by Triyun were Zephyr, lkhft and Aggron. Aggron refused the simple request to disarm his nuclear arsenal, lkhft could just have stopped throwing oil into the fire and Zephyr declared war on us, after he realised he can't claim the whole continent. Each of them was rolled for a pretty legit reason, each of them rerolled without any greater deal of opposition, each of these cases could have been avoided if people weren't complete dumb with their politics. I acknowledge, not everyone wants to invest time to learn military. Fair. But then either don't RP something that is just openly antagonistic or have a foreign policy that covers your back. Foreign and security policy is a vital aspect of a nation and I would expect someone in a nation RP to at least put some effort into that part. It is not that hard to for once not just provide someone a reason to invade on silver platter. I do agree, in the past, there were some wars that were not entirely justified and pretty crappy, but that was like a year or two ago. The political climate has changed...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In short, these rules seem... complicated.

 

That being said.. if there was ever a rule that needed  being put into play for insurgencies.. there should be a hard fast rule as to how moving equipment into the conflict zone is conducted. I favor a spy role followed by the applicable decent rp. On top of that there should be a limit to how long a person can claim they are fighting an insurgency off hidden stores. None of this, "I Saved up enough stuff to go for years!"

 

As for the population.. hmm.. I think the population should remain under the control of the person conducting the insurgency even if they don't control their nation. However, that being said, doing it that way limits the ability of others to conduct feasible hearts and minds operations. So if someone could come up with a really simple means of working out how that could proceed I'd support it.

I will agree that they are a little complicated. That certainly is a flaw in my opinion.

 

As to equipment saving, that's why Lynneth and I advocate a case-by-case multiplier basis. Even with said multiplier it shouldn't inflate the number extremely high.

 

Population is also a bit of a problem too. As I said many times on IRC, I invite people to come up with ideas to work this out.

 

You know, in short, we are making a ruleset, just because we aren't able to beat Triyun in a war, nor are we able to beat him in an insurgency. Because Triyun has more skill in military affairs and he has one of the largest ressource pools in CNRP. But inventing special rules won't change that.

 

I didn't start this thread and ruleset because I can't beat Triyun. I started this thread and started thinking about this ruleset because I'm tired of seeing potential insurgencies get squashed by one-liner drone attacks. I want to foster more interesting RP, and right now the current nonexistant system paralyzes the idea of insurgencies except in closed or planned RP. Again, as I've said many times on IRC, I'm just trying to create SOME sort of system. If I fail in that endeavor, so be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will agree that they are a little complicated. That certainly is a flaw in my opinion.

 

As to equipment saving, that's why Lynneth and I advocate a case-by-case multiplier basis. Even with said multiplier it shouldn't inflate the number extremely high.

 

Population is also a bit of a problem too. As I said many times on IRC, I invite people to come up with ideas to work this out.

 

 

I didn't start this thread and ruleset because I can't beat Triyun. I started this thread and started thinking about this ruleset because I'm tired of seeing potential insurgencies get squashed by one-liner drone attacks. I want to foster more interesting RP, and right now the current nonexistant system paralyzes the idea of insurgencies except in closed or planned RP. Again, as I've said many times on IRC, I'm just trying to create SOME sort of system. If I fail in that endeavor, so be it.

 

Winning over a population should be made intentionally difficult for the occupying power. I'd suggest a roll of some sort that has low odds of success. I mean really, invaders tend not to be favored unless they are liberating the country from a bunch of lunatics. Further, this rp should be accompanied by more than just a few sentences of rp.

I would encourage a 3 post prep for the roll. Meaning, you have to show over 3 posts of rp the effort put into winning over the population. Not just one liners either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't start this thread and ruleset because I can't beat Triyun. I started this thread and started thinking about this ruleset because I'm tired of seeing potential insurgencies get squashed by one-liner drone attacks. I want to foster more interesting RP, and right now the current nonexistant system paralyzes the idea of insurgencies except in closed or planned RP. Again, as I've said many times on IRC, I'm just trying to create SOME sort of system. If I fail in that endeavor, so be it.

If your insurgency can be ended with one dronestrike, it's a crappy one to begin with. A decapitation strike is neither that easy, nor is it going to end a whole insurgency, if you haven't set it up to fail to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funnily enough, I actually was toying around with the idea of testing these rules by having an RP set in 2003 Afghanistan, right as the Taliban began their serious insurgency warfare. Basically, 3 RPers would be needed to represent the Taliban, Afghan government and NATO. If anyone wants to do that, then let me know and we can set up some GMs to preside over it to test these rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...