mykep Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 I saw the deal with GNR and Uberstein over how many planes were destroyed and I ask a few rules to be put into play. Not everyone RPs the greatest amount in military, but if you hit a target with only a bombing run, those AA are still up and going to beat you down. This is only in an RPed defensive position. If not, then we do it like a suprise attack. Defensive position: 2/5 ratio with variables Suprise Attack: 1/5 with variables Naval attacks are kind of terrible considering they do coastable bombardment, destory planes, give planes, etc. Make it simple, we use game mechanics. Navies can do three things, Blockades, Battle Support, or Naval Attack. Blockades will be a mix of the other two. Giving them the same funtions with out the risk of a bad hit ratio. Battle Support will be planes, artillery, dropping off soldiers Naval Attack will be engaging with another Navy. Now there are ways to hit a navy. Shore artillery, Missiles, Planes, and another navy. If you are in blockade mode: Shore artillery 1:10 (for every ship sunk, 10 artillery holdins will be demolished) Missiles: 1:10 (for every ship sunk, 10 missiles must hit it for it being a moving position) Planes: 1:10 (for every 10 planes downed, 1 ship) Navy 1.5:1 (you will recieve 1 sunk and 1 damaged for every navy in attack mode) A mix of any two or more defensive attacks on the attacking navy can combine ratios or we can leave it up to the users If you are in battle support mode: Shore artillery 1:20 (for every ship sunk, 20 artillery holdins will be demolished) Missiles: 1:5 (for every ship sunk, 5 missiles must hit it for it being a sitting position) Planes: 1:10 (for every 10 planes downed, 1 ship) Navy 2:1 (you will recieve 1 sunk and 1 damaged for every navy in attack mode) If you are in naval attack mode: Shore artillery 0:0 (does not apply) Missiles: 1:20 (for every ship sunk, 20 missiles must hit it for it being a moving position) Planes: 1:10 (for every 10 planes downed, 1 ship) Navy 1:1 (you will recieve 1 sunk and 1 damaged for every navy in attack mode) These are only guidelines, not rules to be inforced. If liked, I'll do infrantry, tanks, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Confederation Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 It's an interesting concept that should be considered when figuring things out with those you're RPing against, however it's a bit too strict and mathy for my tastes. RPing only ridged numbers makes me cry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykep Posted June 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 It's an interesting concept that should be considered when figuring things out with those you're RPing against, however it's a bit too strict and mathy for my tastes. RPing only ridged numbers makes me cry Its up to the RPers to decide if they want to in a battle. I'm just offering a suggestion rather than, "Uhh I lost 2." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tahsir Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 No. Because then the battle just becomes a big game of risk with a lot more dice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justinian the Mighty Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 I agree with BR about the math. To be honest I stopped reading after the numbers started popping up. X_x Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkantos Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Keep it the way it is. Things won't be damaged exactly the same way every time. Make the people think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacingOutMan Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Meh, the only thing is that people tend to undercut their losses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Meh, the only thing is that people tend to undercut their losses. Naturally. People don't want to admit the possibility of defeat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykep Posted June 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Naturally. People don't want to admit the possibility of defeat. Which is exatly my point. Of course this isnt going to give the same outcome each time. I'm saying use this as a guide, not a rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Which is exatly my point. Of course this isnt going to give the same outcome each time. I'm saying use this as a guide, not a rule. So don't use the exact figures, but use the figures as a guide to what might be reasonable. Is that what you are saying? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 I think this could be usedful, for those who wish to use it. I'd probably give it a try in a war of small scale, if I ever fight a war at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykep Posted June 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 So don't use the exact figures, but use the figures as a guide to what might be reasonable. Is that what you are saying? Exactly. Rather then just guess and have OOC BS for the next couple of pages. Really dont want to see the next big war become a huge OOC whine fest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 I think this could be usedful, for those who wish to use it. I'd probably give it a try in a war of small scale, if I ever fight a war at all.If you're planning on RP'ing out the wargames with Lavo, you could use them... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerreyRough Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 I'm for a "no" on this one. On the non-OP subtopic of this topic, indeed some people need to accept defeat and retreat. Retreating isn't as bad as people think it is. Additionally when a country is getting "rolled", the attackers need to slow down (no actual war is over fast, and the RP-days/RL-day(s) should be noted). Most conflicts are over in 1-4 RP months and that is not realistic at all, even with modern weapons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeVentNoir Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 I vote no, as people need to realise no matter who they are fighting, they will take damage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McBride Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 Yeah, I'm voting no on this as well. Frankly, I've never had a problem taking losses. I try and figure out what my enemy will do before they do it and have contingencies in place, but if I am truly surprised and something I didn't expect comes up, my losses will be higher than planned. After every battle post, before the person even responds, I write down a number of everything I just sent in that I think will be destroyed/killed/wounded based on what I just did and what I expect their response to be. If they don't live up to that response, my numbers are lower. If they surpass my expectations, my numbers are higher. More numbers just make the game less fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykep Posted June 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 It...was...a guide... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberstein Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 (edited) I'm for a "no" on this one.On the non-OP subtopic of this topic, indeed some people need to accept defeat and retreat. Retreating isn't as bad as people think it is. Additionally when a country is getting "rolled", the attackers need to slow down (no actual war is over fast, and the RP-days/RL-day(s) should be noted). Most conflicts are over in 1-4 RP months and that is not realistic at all, even with modern weapons. I have to agree, tactical retreating can be very useful. In my HoI2 game as Italy, I had much less troops than France, so I had to go into a multiple step, strategic retreat to a line I could actually hold. It meant my armies didn't become disorganized and were able to dig in while the French had to take over the territory I retreated out of and were slowed down by Calvary attacks. Now this is a very specific example, but let's role with it anyway. On war speed, my HoI2 game comes into play again, non-motorized infantry march at roughly 4 mph IRL, and that's if you're making good time. Meanwhile, we have our tanks going 60 mph. That means if you don't have the motorized infantry to back it up, your tanks will be surging forward, run out of fuel, be cut off, and your infantry are still trying to catch up while the enemy has captured your entire tank force. This almost happened with me in my game in Africa, and it was only because I stopped advancing for about 10 days that it didn't happen. In Europe, it DID happen, but luckily I had recently saved the game and I didn't have to lose 1/4 of my tanks to a tactical blunder. Logistics is something people forget. The united states right now is actually having logistics problems with our war in the middle east because our air force barely has the capacity to keep it going. Every division you have, that's another 10,000-15,000 people you need to feed, house, and keep organized. Let's not forget that supply lines have to run on civilian railways and roads, meaning that something as simple as a civilian traffic jam can keep your vital supply trucks from moving. It isn't a hive mind, people are given orders and try to fill them out, and usually that gets in the way of someone else. Any questions? Edited June 21, 2009 by BaronUberstein Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McBride Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 It...was...a guide... I...still...say...no... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerreyRough Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 (edited) Baron, I agree with you 100%. Something that I've attempted to explain (but not as well as you) for a couple months. In addition, it costs plently of money for a war. Terrain should be considered in war as well; you arn't going to traverse 100km of rain forest as well as 100km of plains. However, I think people shouldn't have to make an additional 3 paragraphs of RP for simple things like this, but rather change their RP to accommodate for it. Edited June 21, 2009 by JerreyRough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberstein Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 Baron, I agree with you 100%. Something that I've attempted to explain (but not as well as you) for a couple months. In addition, it costs plently of money for a war. Terrain should be considered in war as well; you arn't going to traverse 100km of rain forest as well as 100km of plains.However, I think people shouldn't have to make an additional 3 paragraphs of RP for simple things like this, but rather change their RP to accommodate for it. Terrain is a major example. To cite the most recent war, Martens drove into a river and didn't even know it. I looked at a map of the area the fighting was happening on, and the entire boarder was covered by a river, it seems he didn't bother to look that up. That is an example of a tactical blunder that can have bad effects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.