Simpler and Better GM Combat.

Revised slightly to clear up misunderstandings. Made it clear that tactics are still a thing, also made it clear that giant tank battles no longer result in both armies being obliterated (though all that was already in the thread).

Poll reset to accommodate that.
Also, if you vote then post with something along the lines of "I read the entire OP and voted yes/no" so that it's easy to see if people actually bothered to read anything before making their decision.

The poll no longer indicates what we're actually saying yes or no to.

I read it and voted.

I am an idiot who cannot read, and my vote is therefore invalid. I feel proud to have cast my invalid vote

Crichton wrote: The poll no longer indicates what we're actually saying yes or no to.

Fair point, I've clarified it in the OP now.

Frankly, I don't see where you explained how you choose who attacks first, and no mention of tactics whatsoever. Also, this:

Charzy wrote: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.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2538780?uid=3738296&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21104857231291

As you see, there is a 3:1 ratio rule, that is widely accepted, discussed and criticized, that applies to the regards of the local superiority of an attacker on a defender to achieve the breakthrough and victory in the battle.

Ill look past all the passive aggressiveness and give some reactions to the content, along with improvements;

First off, its a false dilemma; you leave no room for third options (not even talking about a compromise here, just any other option.
Now, my principal issue with this system is the way it pairs off units. Sure, it makes for easy calculations, but it doesn't reflect real battles in the slightest! Right now, I could saturate my enemy with units and exploit the system thus taking the punch out of the enemies strongest units! Especially bombers and such come to mind, considering how easily any air attack would be stopped.
As for the tactics, Ive proposed this before but I doubt you were listening so Ill say it again; if you ensure the timespan between rounds is short enough (like, less than 30 mins), and its discussed with the two (or more) warring players, this system can easily simulate tactics in the way you feel, Charzy; by choosing which units are sent into battle. This system will not work for tactics however, if the time between plans and reports is too long, as the battles simply are too short to play an entire war off.

borisperrons wrote:Frankly, I don't see where you explained how you choose who attacks first, and no mention of tactics whatsoever.

Congratulations. You failed to read the OP and now your vote is invalid.

The Cobbler wrote:Ill look past all the passive aggressiveness and give some reactions to the content, along with improvements;

First off, its a false dilemma; you leave no room for third options (not even talking about a compromise here, just any other option.
Now, my principal issue with this system is the way it pairs off units. Sure, it makes for easy calculations, but it doesn't reflect real battles in the slightest! Right now, I could saturate my enemy with units and exploit the system thus taking the punch out of the enemies strongest units! Especially bombers and such come to mind, considering how easily any air attack would be stopped.
As for the tactics, Ive proposed this before but I doubt you were listening so Ill say it again; if you ensure the timespan between rounds is short enough (like, less than 30 mins), and its discussed with the two (or more) warring players, this system can easily simulate tactics in the way you feel, Charzy; by choosing which units are sent into battle. This system will not work for tactics however, if the time between plans and reports is too long, as the battles simply are too short to play an entire war off.

I'll tackle this thing by going through each of your points.

The Cobbler wrote:
First off, its a false dilemma; you leave no room for third options (not even talking about a compromise here, just any other option.

There's plenty of room for other options. Suggest your own system and vote "no" to this one after you've done so.

The Cobbler wrote:
Now, my principal issue with this system is the way it pairs off units. Sure, it makes for easy calculations, but it doesn't reflect real battles in the slightest! Right now, I could saturate my enemy with units and exploit the system thus taking the punch out of the enemies strongest units! Especially bombers and such come to mind, considering how easily any air attack would be stopped.

You *could* saturate your army with shitty weak units, but then it'll get overrun and destroyed by an advancing army of tanks and bombers. You can only retreat for so long before you've retreated your way out of your own country. So your principle issue with this system is just your own failure to understand how any war works.

The Cobbler wrote:
As for the tactics, Ive proposed this before but I doubt you were listening so Ill say it again; if you ensure the timespan between rounds is short enough (like, less than 30 mins), and its discussed with the two (or more) warring players, this system can easily simulate tactics in the way you feel, Charzy; by choosing which units are sent into battle. This system will not work for tactics however, if the time between plans and reports is too long, as the battles simply are too short to play an entire war off.

We do meetings on giant timescales, why not battles? A few hours between reports isn't a big deal, it just means both players have plenty of time to consider their next move. You don't need to have tiny amounts of time between each round. Battles will take months, but right now meetings take years and so does any war.

To summarise, your first point is a lie, your second is a result of you failing to understand how this system works, and the third is a failure to understand how this roleplay works.

Why do you think you need to stoop to personal insults? Wont help your systems one bit.

I'm not insulting you, I'm commenting on the fact that you've demonstrated a failure to understand how this system works or how this roleplay works.

I am sorry but I think it is you who fail to understand how this roleplay works. You don't get to say that people's votes are invalid just because you think they haven't read the OP. You don't get to throw insults left and right if no one agrees with you. This is shameful behaviour from someone who is supposed to be a Grand Advisor and should know better.

Just my two cents.

If you're unaware of the contents of something, you clearly haven't read it. On top of that, I haven't insulted anybody. Attacking their knowledge of a toic isn't attacking them as a person.

However saying that "Your opinion is invalid, change it" (not literally) might be taken as one.

Charzy wrote:Congratulations. You failed to read the OP and now your vote is invalid.

Or better, you failed to convey the message through the OP. Which is more probable, you know.

Also, I keep telling you that you should stop using this manners when relating to other people. As long as I'm concerned, I'm totally biased towards everything you say because of you speaking like a decerebrated ass.

As far as I am aware charzy, calling people idiots is an insult and I think you know this full well. Also just easily throwing out that people are lying when they don't agree with you can also be seen as a insult. You need to understand that the world is not black and white, people are entiteled to different opinions than you and should be allowed to have those opinions without being called idiots who can't read.

It may be as simple as they have read your post and

A: They read it and didn't agree with what was said.
B: They have read it but the arguments that you try to portray might not have been as clear as you wanted them to be, thus they are missunderstood.
C: You are completely right and anyone disagreeing with you can't read.

Which two of the three are the most probable?

Charzy wrote:I'm not insulting you, I'm commenting on the fact that you've demonstrated a failure to understand how this system works or how this roleplay works.

You're being a huge arse toa fellow roleplayer. Nothing more, nothing less. Dont act like its something else.

Charzy wrote:
There's plenty of room for other options. Suggest your own system and vote "no" to this one after you've done so.

Fair enough. We both know that poll is fully biased towards your standpoint, however.

Charzy wrote:You *could* saturate your army with shitty weak units, but then it'll get overrun and destroyed by an advancing army of tanks and bombers. You can only retreat for so long before you've retreated your way out of your own country. So your principle issue with this system is just your own failure to understand how any war works.

Right, I know nothing about war. Of course. You raise a fair point however. I must say, though, that this pairing off simplifies combat a bit too much IMO. Its exact strength, ease of calculation, is a weakness too, considering you can just calculate your way through any war, something thats not applicable IRL. Maybe a system using dicerolls could simulate weather/conditions/luck?

Charzy wrote:We do meetings on giant timescales, why not battles? A few hours between reports isn't a big deal, it just means both players have plenty of time to consider their next move. You don't need to have tiny amounts of time between each round. Battles will take months, but right now meetings take years and so does any war.

Seems you misunderstood what I said. What I suggest is doing multiple smaller plans per battle, to simulate tactics used int hat battle and to give both sides a chance to react while still making timely reports. Im not talking about a plan per battle, but, say, 3-5 short ones. Ones thats played out the report is made and posted for the other roleplayers to see.

Charzy wrote:To summarise, your first point is a lie, your second is a result of you failing to understand how this system works, and the third is a failure to understand how this roleplay works.

1. Nope, not a lie, just an observation. 2. If you say so it must be so, right? 3. And I dont understand roleplay after multiple years of partaking. Obviously.

EDIT: And despite what you might think, I am not against your system. Even if you fully believe so and act like I've just disrespected your entire family, way of life and country.

[quote="The Cobbler"]
You're being a huge arse toa fellow roleplayer. Nothing more, nothing less. Dont act like its something else.
[quote]
Calling me a "huge arse" for countering your arguments [i]is[/] an insult. Don't try to take the high ground here.


Not even in the slightest. The poll demands that people bother to read the OP, because some people (Boris, Cziken) can't be bothered to do so.



Every battle has a degree of randomness because units with the same manoeuvrability have a coin flip to determine which attacks first, and also because it's impossible to predict what tactics or plans your opponent will put into place.



You mean rounds? Which are already a thing?




1: A false observation, yes.
2: Don't try to take the high ground here, as I've said.
3: Not understanding the timescales that we operate one would entirely constitute that. I've been here a hell of a lot longer than you. It seems I was wrong, however, seeing as I misunderstood what you were trying to say.

I guess you are really the greatest ass around. Said that, do what the heck you want to, since we obviously are too stupid to understand that the wonderful system you put up has completely no flaw and is going to solve all the problems of every roleplayer in the whole world forever, because such a level of perfection is unmatchable. Too bad we are limited in our perception of wordly things and we canot grasp the simple magnificency of it.

Really, too bad.

If you have an actual argument other than "your an ass", feel free. Otherwise, stop posting.

I voted yes on the proposal, but only because I hardly ever join in a war anyways. I think there are a couple of things, though:

1. For equal matchings (tank vs tank, for example) it might be better to flip a coin or use random.org rather than having both destroyed. This makes more sense, in my opinion, because generally a fight between two evenly matched opponents will still end with one 'winning' and the other 'losing', rather than both of them simultaneously destroying each other. Alternatively, there could be an idea of 'damaged' units: When a unit faces a coin-flip and wins, the enemy is destroyed and the 'winner' is damaged. Damaged units are out of the battle but repaired afterwards, or else you could pay 1/2 of the unit price to repair it.

2. I think some basic user input might be nice. What if I want, for some reason (Maybe I'm a really dumb commander), to send out my infantry ahead of my tanks, or my tanks before the planes?

3. There should be some randomization involved. What if it just rained and the battlefield is muddy? Or we didn't bring enough ammo? Maybe there could be a 1-10 dice roll or random.org that determines additions to unit strength. If I roll a 5, my units are normal strength; a 10, they're double; 1, they're half. Both sides would roll and their first waves would fight, then roll again when the next units fight, then roll again for the third, etc.

EDIT: I read through all the pointless bickering and saw that the coinflip has already been acknowledged. Picking what units to send out is stated in the OP but also kind-of contradicted (One of the spoilers just says that the highest maneuverability stuff will always go first).

Way I see it is that everyone needs to calm down, take a couple of steps back. If you have a good idea for merging the two systems, or for making the current one work, or for improving on this one, post it in a new thread so that this one doesn't continue to devolve into:

"You're a meanie for insulting me!"
"You're insulting me by calling me a meanie, meanie!"
"Don't insult me!"
ad infinitum.

DeltaV wrote:
"You're a meanie for insulting me!"
"You're insulting me by calling me a meanie, meanie!"
"Don't insult me!"
ad infinitum.

Pointing out fallacies? Meanie...

All other things aside, Charzy, what Im asking for is that we do the rounds in succession, with new plans every round and both players actively participating. It means saving units make sense and tactics can be simulated simply by choosing which units to send. This wouldnt work on a larger timescale since people would just blob their armies in that case.

"Thise roleplay shall twist the minds of mortal men.."

Ok, Charzy thats it. I read the OP. Want me to give a reason to my NO vote?

1. When a tank battles a tank it always destorys the other in this. Do you iamgine irl that if 200 tanks fought 200 tanks, there would be not a single damn one left? Show me one xample of a tank battle when all of the fighting tanks were completely and utterly destroyed.

2. This system does not include things like good or bad deffensive postiion, the fact that troops were taken in a surprise attack, are getting attacked on two sides at the same time, nor i have seen anything there about attacking an army which is already dug-in with an army that is very possibly afetr a long walk, tired and exhausted by its own blitzkreig.

3. This system simplifies it to the point where its more like a casual logic game where you jsut add numbers rather than an actual thrilling war. IRL you cant jsut 'calculate' the 'defense and offense stats' before a battle and see the EXACT result of the battle before it even takes place.

It appears the "no" party has won the vote twice now: both parties here need to stop flinging wild insults at each other. Although the thread is beginning to regain its purpose, keep the thread firmly on the rails or else I will lock the topic.