Simpler and Better GM Combat.

Charzy wrote:I've explained, in detail, why they aren't faults. It's not that I'm not listening to you, it's just that you're wrong.

Im sure Im wrong in your eyes. Seems most of the forum thinks you are wrong, however.

What will you do after the vote?

After the vote I'll laugh because people are idiots, and wait until they see sense.

If you have any actual arguments to make, I'd be happy to hear them. Right now, though, you're not actually saying anything useful.

Charzy wrote:After the vote I'll laugh because people are idiots, and wait until they see sense.

If you have any actual arguments to make, I'd be happy to hear them. Right now, though, you're not actually saying anything useful.

I could say the same to you

Charzy wrote:I've explained, in detail, why they aren't faults. It's not that I'm not listening to you, it's just that you're wrong.

Yes, right, we're stupid, you're clever. I told you before that you should show respect for other people here. You are no superman.

The Cobbler wrote:

I could say the same to you

I've made all of my arguments, and I've countered those arguments that were against me. You have contributed literally nothing to this thread apart from "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE GOLDEN MEAN?!"

borisperrons wrote:Yes, right, we're stupid, you're clever. I told you before that you should show respect for other people here. You are no superman.

Repeating what I've already said without refuting it really doesn't add much to your credibility.

Charzy, I have tried talking sense into you, but I will refrain from that for the moment.

I stand by my proposal, and have not seen any valid arguments against it put forward you.

My argument against it is that the golden mean is an idiotic fallacy and you're still falling for it.
Your proposal is to merge this system with the current one, somehow having units combat values change based on a player's strategy. This defeats the entire point of this idea, which is to make combat objective, unbiased and fast.
Your proposal would not only add the time required to consider a player's strategy and somehow turn that into a set of modifiers for their units, but it also opens up the door for the moderator's own biases to take effect, removing one advantage of this system and actually reversing the other.

Charzy wrote:My argument against it is that the golden mean is an idiotic fallacy and you're still falling for it.
Your proposal is to merge this system with the current one, somehow having units combat values change based on a player's strategy. This defeats the entire point of this idea, which is to make combat objective, unbiased and fast.
Your proposal would not only add the time required to consider a player's strategy and somehow turn that into a set of modifiers for their units, but it also opens up the door for the moderator's own biases to take effect, removing one advantage of this system and actually reversing the other.

Seems you failed to read what I proposed. Let me show you.

The Cobbler wrote:So why not use these numbers as a base which cannot be ignored but can be changed based on the strategies and plans used, and thus combines the merits of both proposals? Mods and players have actual numbers to base their plans and reports on, yet can still move freely using strategies!

What I mean by this is, we use the calculations for the battles, but instead of treating them like infallible gods we use them as a basis for the reports we write.
You do the base calculations, see which side would win, then look at the plan and change the results should they conflict with the strategies used.
(EG, sending infantry into the sewer means they have a chance to ambush another infantry unit and thus lose very few troops, rather than getting
annihilated because of a calculation that did not take this into account.)

I agree that in huge, hectic battles, calculations make more sense (and speed things up), and in those cases we can just leave the numbers as they are and write the report based largely on them.
There are also many other cases, in which this simply doesnt reflect reality, however, and in those cases, the golden mean would offer an agreeable solution.

So in other words you do the entire thing and then you go ahead and change the results to suit your own ideas of what you think should have happened. Because that's totally not going to allow bias of any sort, right?
Battle plans can already be used to affect duel pairings and force compositions, your idea is both unnecessary and, as I've already explained, adds both bias and time to the system.

With this as it is now, you could conceivably have a regular player doing a battle report on their own without any issue. It's as good as it's possible to get.

If a mod is biased, he shouldnt have been a mod in the first place.

Charzy wrote:So in other words you do the entire thing and then you go ahead and change the results to suit your own ideas of what you think should have happened. Because that's totally not going to allow bias of any sort, right?
Battle plans can already be used to affect duel pairings and force compositions, your idea is both unnecessary and, as I've already explained, adds both bias and time to the system.

With this as it is now, you could conceivably have a regular player doing a battle report on their own without any issue. It's as good as it's possible to get.

Suppose we just differ at the stem then. In any case it'd be superior to what we have now.

It'd be slightly better than what we have now, and far worse than my original proposal.

Charzy wrote:It'd be slightly better than what we have now, and far worse than my original proposal.

In your eyes Im sure it is.

Its dumb. I dont imagine 100000 tanks fighting 100000 tanks and after it ends theres 0 tanks and 0 tanks. Because thats jsut how you said it in the post.

The Cobbler wrote:
In your eyes Im sure it is.

If you could fuck off with the whole attacking me instead of my arguments thing, that'd be great.

cziken20 wrote:Its dumb. I dont imagine 100000 tanks fighting 100000 tanks and after it ends theres 0 tanks and 0 tanks. Because thats jsut how you said it in the post.

Which is why, on the very first page (if you'd bothered to read the entire thread), I said that it'd probably be better if two units with the same maneuver had a coinflip to determine first attacker. Which means that every single tank-tank battle (ignoring modifiers) will be a 50/50 chance.

you hold a poll and it turns out most people want to not use this system and then you get mad ok lel

Considering that a lot of the people voting haven't even bothered to read the fucking thread (Exhibit A: Cziken), yes. I'm annoyed.

The Cobbler wrote:In your eyes Im sure it is.

Charzy wrote:If you could fuck off with the whole attacking me instead of my arguments thing, that'd be great.

I apologise if you took that as a personal attack. In truth, thats not what it was meant as, and it was just a continuation of what Id said before:

The Cobbler wrote:Suppose we just differ at the stem then.

This has just dawned on me. Your system doesn't take into account the defense advantage in any way.

borisperrons wrote:This has just dawned on me. Your system doesn't take into account the defense advantage in any way.

The defender having a huge advantage above the "you don't need to deploy your troops to defend" is an idiotic concept anyway.

Good point. We ought tochange deployment anyway

The defender should have a huge advantage..

Why? They already don't have to have their military deployed. Requiring a huge alliance to conquer one nation is a bad thing.

Because in real life you need a 3 to 1 ratio to successfully pull out an attack?
If the deployment mechanics are nerfed, then the defense advantage can be modeled.

As I pointed out outside of the thread, that's pretty much entirely incorrect. You don't need to outnumber an army 3:1 to defeat it in its home territory.