New War Idea

[Markus Wilding]

Maybe mountains should be a darker green than forests or even white, you know? Even a steel gray could work.

[Uberstein]

Lol, let me put it this way. Just reading the Op was too much work for me. I gave up about halfway through.

Here is a good note then, I do all the work.

Hmm, I hope we don't have a multi-front world wide large scale war....

[Raritan]

I'd be willing to do a non-canon war to test it.

One question though, how large is each peg (the area 1 peg covers)?

[Uberstein]

I'd be willing to do a non-canon war to test it.

One question though, how large is each peg (the area 1 peg covers)?

Smaller than each hexagon, but easy to see.

[Raritan]

Smaller than each hexagon, but easy to see.

Probably should've phrased the question differently. How much area does each hexagon cover and how many pegs fit into each hexagon?

[Uberstein]

Probably should've phrased the question differently. How much area does each hexagon cover and how many pegs fit into each hexagon?

That is a good question. And 1 peg per hexagon, but I can easily write numbers or stack them.

[Subtleknifewielder]

Cities/towns (Suburban): Gray

Capital Cities (Urban Areas): Gold

Forest: Dark Green

Hills: Yellow

Plains: Brown

Bodies of water (including streams and rivers): Blue

Mountain: Black/Purple

Snow covered areas: White

Roads/Highways: Dotted lines

[sir jesus]

I think what they are asking is, what are the physical dimensions of each hexagon? Could an entire army fit into one hex, or one divison, or one squad, etc.?

[Uberstein]

I think what they are asking is, what are the physical dimensions of each hexagon? Could an entire army fit into one hex, or one divison, or one squad, etc.?

I was thinking divisions really. Anyone want to suggest a size?

[Raritan]

1 mile sides? That would make the hexagon's area 2.598 square miles.

[LeVentNoir]

I'd love to test this. I think sides 5 km long would be right.

So, throwing out some rules.

Turns are 6 hours worth of time.

Players take alternating turns.

Some general classifications of Move speed / LOS / attack ranges.

• Infantry. 2/0/0 hexes.
  
• Tanks. 4/1/0 hex
  
• Artillery. 4/1/2-10 hex (min range 2 hexes)
  
• Fighters. (Special) Move to hex, can attack, next turn move back to landing strip /5,15/5,15,30 (Visual,radar) (missile type)
  
• Bombers. (Special) Move to hex, can attack, next turn move back to landing strip / 5,15/1 (Visual,radar)
  Ships, defenses, and special units still need to be done.
  

Now, units can only attack what they have in their own LOS, (although I'm sure you can work around that with good RP....) Also, units can generally move faster than they can see, so if you run into an enemy, you stop and fight.

SO thoughts?

Edited April 10, 2009 by LeVentNoir

[Cody Seb]

I think this is getting too complicated too fast. I'm not against people using this, but I don't want to be forced to use it later on down the road.

[Californian]

Yeah this seems like a complicated board game now lol

[Subtleknifewielder]

I was thinking divisions really. Anyone want to suggest a size?

Yeah, divisions sounds good.

I'd love to test this. I think sides 5 km long would be right.

So, throwing out some rules.

Turns are 6 hours worth of time.

Players take alternating turns.

Some general classifications of Move speed / LOS / attack ranges.

• [*]Infantry. 2/0/0 hexes.

[*]Tanks. 4/1/0 hex

[*]Artillery. 4/1/2-10 hex (min range 2 hexes)

[*]Fighters. (Special) Move to hex, can attack, next turn move back to landing strip /5,15/5,15,30 (Visual,radar) (missile type)

[*]Bombers. (Special) Move to hex, can attack, next turn move back to landing strip / 5,15/1 (Visual,radar)

Ships, defenses, and special units still need to be done.

Now, units can only attack what they have in their own LOS, (although I'm sure you can work around that with good RP....) Also, units can generally move faster than they can see, so if you run into an enemy, you stop and fight.

SO thoughts?

That's a good basic. Of course, we'd need to take into account other stuff (like camoflage hiding certain units), add more units (like APC's), and the effect terrain would have on move speed, line-of-sight, and attack range on each type of unit.

The idea of alternating turns, though...that I'm not so sure about. In battle, one side doesn't sit still while the enemy makes its move.

[LeVentNoir]

Yeah, divisions sounds good.

That's a good basic. Of course, we'd need to take into account other stuff (like camoflage hiding certain units), add more units (like APC's), and the effect terrain would have on move speed, line-of-sight, and attack range on each type of unit.

The idea of alternating turns, though...that I'm not so sure about. In battle, one side doesn't sit still while the enemy makes its move.

No, but in RP, one poster posts then the other one does. Also, having played many tactical board based wargames, alternating turns is the best way to do stuff. Really it is.

[Subtleknifewielder]

No, but in RP, one poster posts then the other one does. Also, having played many tactical board based wargames, alternating turns is the best way to do stuff. Really it is.

Ever played Diplomacy? Since it in effect has a GM, it can be done. All sides detail their moves, and the GM makes the moves for them.

Edited April 10, 2009 by Subtleknifewielder

[Sargun II]

Ever played Diplomacy? Since it in effect has a GM, it can be done. All sides detail their moves, and the GM makes the moves for them.

Oh yeah, because "mod bias" hasn't been yelled enough on these boards..

[Subtleknifewielder]

Oh yeah, because "mod bias" hasn't been yelled enough on these boards..

Yeah, but in your case, they shouldn't have, since you were technically fighting on their side, yet you made a ruling against them.

[Sargun II]

Yeah, but in your case, they shouldn't have, since you were technically fighting on their side, yet you made a ruling against them.

Doesn't matter who does it, they'll scream it always.

[Subtleknifewielder]

Doesn't matter who does it, they'll scream it always.

True...unless they can agree on a party they both believe to be neutral enough.

[Markus Wilding]

It's basically getting to be like Axis and Allies now...

I like it.

[freakwars]

Perhaps the roads should give a movement bonus?

[V The King]

I'm not sure how to feel about this one. On one side, it will give a much more orderly sense to wars and battles can me role played in a more proper manner. On the other, there are several problems with the system itself:

-For every battle, there would have to be a whole new map, because each area has its unique features (unless it's a flat plain in the middle of nowhere).

-Each country's units are unique in their own way, that's it, not only they could be of different types (e.g. regular troops, anti-tank infantry, etc.), but the technology employed, most of the times, is wholly different. It would be a complete pain when it comes to determining how powerful each specific unit is against another and how casualties would be measured, in addition to having to measure range, speed of units, etc.

-Some settings do not exist in RL, or where heavily modified by the RP'er himself - ergo, the defending individual would be the one that would have to explain how the "battle field" looks like. That can easily be abused in the sense that, if there is to be defensive structures, then most players would obviously opt for the area having a plethora of them, or if the area is to have limited access, then make it almost uncrossable beforehand. In short, the defending party has a great advantage here in several cases because he'll be the one determining how the battlefield will look like, most of the times.

Those are just a few concerns that would invariably have to be addressed if a system like this one was to be implemented in CNRP. I'm still thinking whether if it is an improvement or not to the current vague nature of battles.

[Uberstein]

I'd love to test this. I think sides 5 km long would be right.

So, throwing out some rules.

Turns are 6 hours worth of time.

Players take alternating turns.

Some general classifications of Move speed / LOS / attack ranges.

• Infantry. 2/0/0 hexes.
  
• Tanks. 4/1/0 hex
  
• Artillery. 4/1/2-10 hex (min range 2 hexes)
  
• Fighters. (Special) Move to hex, can attack, next turn move back to landing strip /5,15/5,15,30 (Visual,radar) (missile type)
  
• Bombers. (Special) Move to hex, can attack, next turn move back to landing strip / 5,15/1 (Visual,radar)
  Ships, defenses, and special units still need to be done.
  

Now, units can only attack what they have in their own LOS, (although I'm sure you can work around that with good RP....) Also, units can generally move faster than they can see, so if you run into an enemy, you stop and fight.

SO thoughts?

I like it. Mind if I use this for the actual game I'm making?

Oh yeah, because "mod bias" hasn't been yelled enough on these boards..

That is why I would be running this system, and I would take an oath where if I showed one side the enemy's positions I get a warn raise.

I'm not sure how to feel about this one. On one side, it will give a much more orderly sense to wars and battles can me role played in a more proper manner. On the other, there are several problems with the system itself:

-For every battle, there would have to be a whole new map, because each area has its unique features (unless it's a flat plain in the middle of nowhere).

-Each country's units are unique in their own way, that's it, not only they could be of different types (e.g. regular troops, anti-tank infantry, etc.), but the technology employed, most of the times, is wholly different. It would be a complete pain when it comes to determining how powerful each specific unit is against another and how casualties would be measured, in addition to having to measure range, speed of units, etc.

-Some settings do not exist in RL, or where heavily modified by the RP'er himself - ergo, the defending individual would be the one that would have to explain how the "battle field" looks like. That can easily be abused in the sense that, if there is to be defensive structures, then most players would obviously opt for the area having a plethora of them, or if the area is to have limited access, then make it almost uncrossable beforehand. In short, the defending party has a great advantage here in several cases because he'll be the one determining how the battlefield will look like, most of the times.

Those are just a few concerns that would invariably have to be addressed if a system like this one was to be implemented in CNRP. I'm still thinking whether if it is an improvement or not to the current vague nature of battles.

I am willing to make a new map. The battles themselves are RP'd, this is just a "movement and organization" system really. Your units will be based off your arms page. Defences will be based off what you have RP'd before. Aka, you just need to throw me a few links when I set it up.

[Bacharth]

Sargun is right, people cry bias no matter what. You can't get by it. I'm either for complete regulation, to make it almost like a strategy game, or no regulation at all. We can't sit on the fence like this.