Jump to content

Insurgency Rules Proposal


Markus Wilding

Recommended Posts

Does one get to command the grand strategic decision making level of NATO, (i.e. not invade Iraq and deploy more troops and foreign aid to Afghanistan)?  Also if so, better have someone from Pakistan too, cause I'm coming for you!

Edited by Triyun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Not really.  The US would be both, since we are the commander of the ISAF along with a large part of the forces there.  On the other hand, countries like Germany and France had large troop numbers there, and were responsible for security in large sections of the country, but still had their roles fairly localized and followed their own rules.  Perhaps it would be better if more than one person RPed as NATO to reflect this.  We don't really need Pakistan, since all they do is have an on-again/off-again conflict with the Taliban in the Northwest.

Edited by KaiserMelech Mikhail
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really.  The US would be both, since we are the commander of the ISAF along with a large part of the forces there.  On the other hand, countries like Germany and France had large troop numbers there, and were responsible for security in large sections of the country, but still had their roles fairly localized and followed their own rules.  Perhaps it would be better if more than one person RPed as NATO to reflect this.  We don't really need Pakistan, since all they do is have an on-again/off-again conflict with the Taliban in the Northwest.

Then this should maybe be RPed as select larger contributing NATO countries, not by seperating between normal and HC. If this is to be conducted as a test for the system, there's no real reason to seperate the overall coordination from the coordination in the field, given that every coalition in CNRP proper will have its members participating in both, though at times one player might dominate decision-making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the difference between NATO and NATO HC in this RP?

NATO high command is split because of this post:

 

 

Does one get to command the grand strategic decision making level of NATO, (i.e. not invade Iraq and deploy more troops and foreign aid to Afghanistan)?  Also if so, better have someone from Pakistan too, cause I'm coming for you!

 

Therefore, for the purposes of this RP, NATO represents the commanders and soldiers on the ground while NATO HC represents the higher-level strategic decision makers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then don't confuse me by making posts like that :v

 

In that case then the list is as follows:

 

(Keep in mind this is 2003 Afghanistan we are talking about here)

 

Taliban

Afghan Government

NATO

Pakistan

 

Afghan Gov't, NATO and possibly Pakistan will use a meter to represent the following:

Willingness to stay in the country (NATO)

Willingness to fight with the Taliban (Afghan Gov't)

Willingness to continue funding the Taliban (Pakistan)

 

Alternatively, Pakistan can also use a resource pool just like the Taliban, although inflated to account for the fact that Pakistan was an established nation at that time and logically will have more resources to pull from. I don't know which one it should use, so I'll let the GMs for this RP/the RPers themselves to come up with the decision on that.

 

Anyone who wishes to RP in this test or be a GM, make a post in here or let me know on IRC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then don't confuse me by making posts like that :v

As far as I understood it, the post inquires on how far NATO can go, not whether or not to split it up. As pointed out, it is utter nonsense to split it and really, even if someone sugested it, why would you agree with it, given it makes no sense whatsoever, if this is to simulate a CNRP insurgency...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I understood it, the post inquires on how far NATO can go, not whether or not to split it up. As pointed out, it is utter nonsense to split it and really, even if someone sugested it, why would you agree with it, given it makes no sense whatsoever, if this is to simulate a CNRP insurgency...

How about instead of railing me for a mistake I made when I was tired and in the middle of writing two research papers, you try and help myself, and others, work out a set of agreeable, fair rules for insurgency RP?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's nonsense.   If you want to simulate things actually do not break them in two.  NATO should be one command, under someone who knows how NATO and its militaries work.

Except different countries had different ways of doing things.  An example was how Italy dealt with the Taliban and the warlords.  They literally bribed them not to attack anything in their security area.  Of course, it came time for the Italians to leave and the French to take over that region.  Well, the Italians never bothered to tell the French these things, and when the payments stopped, a half dozen French troops died in mass attacks.  NATO is not as unified or uniform as you may think.
 
http://www.france24.com/en/20091015-french-troops-died-after-italy-stopped-bribing-local-taliban-times-reports/
 

Alternatively, Pakistan can also use a resource pool just like the Taliban, although inflated to account for the fact that Pakistan was an established nation at that time and logically will have more resources to pull from.

Pakistan and the Taliban have a complicated relationship.  It deals largely with how little the Taliban fuck with Pakistanis, since too much fighting leads the Pakistani army to attack Taliban militants in their northwest.  Saying that they get to use the resources of the established nation of Pakistan is just wrong.  They use the frontier provinces as semi-save ground for training camps and weapons smuggling routes, and that's about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about instead of railing me for a mistake I made when I was tired and in the middle of writing two research papers, you try and help myself, and others, work out a set of agreeable, fair rules for insurgency RP?

 

 

That's not how it works bro. She's got a vested interest in making sure this doesn't work.

 

I'd suggest just setting up a hypothetical cnrp nation, fight it out that way. Too many nitpicky posts about trivial details here over whether the Pakistanis have bigger dongs than the Rug Merchants of Kabul.

 

1) Make this hypothetical nation.. give it a few details for color..

 

2) skip ahead to the occupation.

 

3) fight it out.

 

It's a test of the insurgency rules you devised, not the nitpicky details of who what and where in Afghanistan. Don''t let people side track you with their nonsense.

Edited by Tidy Bowl Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about instead of railing me for a mistake I made when I was tired and in the middle of writing two research papers, you try and help myself, and others, work out a set of agreeable, fair rules for insurgency RP?

You might have noted that I've been opposed to the whole idea from the very beginning, so, no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, since this has gone nowhere in the past few days, may as well try to revitalize it. I decided to change the scenario to a fictional CNRP nation, as outlined below.

 

The Kingdom of Seeon, a relatively unimportant Central African nation, was brought to the attention of the world stage via a violent military coup. This coup forced an international response in the form of an invasion by Netterheim, a strongarm nation hailing from Central Europe known for its martial skill. After a month-long campaign, Netterheim's military was successful in toppling the military-led government of Seeon, but now has to deal with the various militia groups that arose after the illegitimate government's destruction. Further complicating the situation is the pledge from Netterheim's politicians to establish a democratic government, leading to a large peacekeeping force in a country dominated by jungles, both natural and concrete. Therefore, it is the purpose of the militias (defined as "insurgents" in Netterheim military documents) to remove the Netterheim troops from their soil and restore their own government, whatever that may be. Netterheim's military must keep itself motivated enough to stay in-country and carry out its pledge of a democratic society.

 

Obviously, Netterheim will use a meter as outlined before, and the insurgents will use a resource pool. For the purposes of this RP, there are no other players other than the two RPing Netterheim's military and the militias. Since I like the number, 3 GMs will be appointed from whoever wants to be them. If there's not enough for all three, so be it.

 

I'll figure out specifics on how strong Netterheim is, how large the militias are, and other details at a later time. Anyone who wants to sign up to test these, go for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So after some time thinking, I've come to a conclusion as to how strong each faction is relative to each other.

 

Netterheim has a meter of 500 points, modified by zero due to no allies and no other wars. A stability bonus has been ignored for this. 500 points in this case means the home front has given it's full support to staying in country.

 

 

Following discussions with Lynneth, meters for all nations are hereby set at 500 and modified via the following ways:

Allies: +25

Other wars: -25

 

These modifiers are lessened the more there are, i.e the first ally is +25, two is +24, and so on and so on, with the opposite of course being the case for active wars.

A stability bonus is still being considered and worked with.

 

The Seeon insurgents have a pool of 65.67. This number is given by using log_e(population) times log_e(tech) multiplied by 10. So essentially (NUMBERS THAT FOLLOW ARE NOT THE ONES I USED), log_e(120,000)*log_e(200)=a number*10

 

And now for flavor and other bits!

 

The goal of the Seeon insurgents is to restore their kingdom, and they are already in control of one armory which has given them access to standard weapons of the former Seeon Army (AK-47 and variants).

While highly experienced in force-on-force warfare, the Netterheim Army's officers are not well-versed in irregular warfare, but do have modern equipment (2005-era equipment, any nation).

The Netterheim Army controls the capital, which is in the center of the nation.

The Seeon insurgents control the northern and eastern fringe parts of the nation, with several small pockets in the jungles of the west. All else is controlled by Netterheim's Army.

The Seeon player will have control over the population but must give leeway to allow the Netterheim player to engage in a hearts and minds program or PsyOps should they wish.

The Seeon player has the option to smuggle weapons into the country, but must conduct a spyroll with low odds (30%).

For a hearts and minds or psyops campaign there must be at least 3 posts of preparation with more content than a few vague lines of text. The success of these campaigns will also have a roll attached with odds of 35%.

 

Any questions or suggestions, feel free to ask.

Edited by Markus Wilding
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Following discussions with Lynneth, meters for all nations are hereby set at 500 and modified via the following ways:
Allies: +25
Other wars: -25
 
These modifiers are lessened the more there are, i.e the first ally is +25, two is +24, and so on and so on, with the opposite of course being the case for active wars.

I feel like the increases/decreases with more allies/wars should be more drastic:

What about halving the bonus for each extra ally, and doubling the malus for each additional war?

The Seeon insurgents have a pool of 65.67. This number is given by using log_e(population) times log_e(tech) multiplied by 10. So essentially (NUMBERS THAT FOLLOW ARE NOT THE ONES I USED), log_e(120,000)*log_e(200)=a number*10


Do you mean:

log_e(population) * log_e(tech) * 10 = a number
or
log_e(population) * log_e(tech) / 10 = a number
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like the increases/decreases with more allies/wars should be more drastic:

What about halving the bonus for each extra ally, and doubling the malus for each additional war?

That might actually be more sensible, yes. Maybe not quite double per war though, that can get out of hand very quickly. We'll have to see how it goes before the final 'product', I suppose, but for now I'd try your suggestion instead of mine.

Do you mean:

log_e(population) * log_e(tech) * 10 = a number
or
log_e(population) * log_e(tech) / 10 = a number

The former. Multiply with ten, not divide by.
 

Too much math, will give it a pass.

Wilding was supposed to provide an online logarithm calculator, he just forgot.
Using this here: Click Me
With that it's just a matter of putting the right base in (e), putting the number in and using Windows' integrated calculator to multiply that with the other log result and then multiply -that- by ten.
That's as simple as you can possibly make it, so unless you have a better, less math-intensive yet similarly fair solution, please do not whine about the math required - which is really just multiplication.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other wars and allies doesn't make any sense.  Not all nations are created equal.  We had exactly 0 resources devoted to fighting he Bulgarian Front in WW II and nor would they take much but the US was a war with them.  Versus the Italian Front and the French front(s) all had resources devoted against on powers.  Its poorly concieved.  So is allies.  Allies have different utility and can be a strain or a burden.  The War in Libya showed how the US had to divert resources to supply the Europeans who were unable to sustain their own operations.   The atrocities by the Republic of Vietnam only undermined the legitimacy of the war effort in the US during Vietnam.  Giving all a quantifiable flat number thereby makes zero sense.  Nor should it even be based on stats as we know people RP their nations to a variety of competencies and in compliance with different moral values which cannot be measured in a DOW or a MDP.  Nor should one get penalized for declaring if that front is no an active one.

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...