Simpler and Better GM Combat.

by **Charzy** Fri Dec 05, 2014 7:12 pm

The current system for combat in the RP is, frankly, idiotic. You submit battle plans to a GM who when muddles through all of each side's made-up units and then fumbles their way through writing a battle report, the gist of which is always “I think this side looks better so they win”. This is heavily prone to bias, even putting aside how imprecise it is.

So, I went ahead and with some help from Yuri developed a much simpler, better system for handling battles.

Each unit is given three values, Attack, Defence and Manoeuvrability. In addition to this they may have one or two traits which affect the way they work, perhaps by giving bonuses against certain unit types.

So, let's give a few examples. A tank unit might look like this:

Spoiler:

Note that the attack and defence are the same in this case. You would expect, in this case, that both tanks would destroy each other simultaneously. To avoid situations where equally matched forces will simply leave no survivors, when the manoeuvrability of two units is the same a coin is tossed to determine which attacks first.

A plane, on the other hand, might look like this:

Spoiler:

Its stats are very low when fighting flying units, but bombers excel when used to fight ground units that don't have AA capability. It has very high manoeuvrability, like all planes. This means that planes will fight first in combat most of the time.

That covers the basics of it. Next, we need to address how the fighting is handled. Units are paired off with priority based on their manoeuvrability stat. It's easier to demonstrate.

Spoiler:

This looks long, but that's because I had to explain every single step fully. Doing it without that takes very little time.
Tactics are still very useful, and deciding what units to send against the enemy is very important, as is having a viable battle plan. Having artillery far away from other units would have been extremely useful to either side in the previous example, so long as they protected it.
GMs will still have to think a little bit, and people will still lose if they act idiotically. However, everything is now backed by numbers.

Of course, we can still have upgrade systems. It's entirely possible to assign more traits or bonuses to units which should only add a little extra effort to the person calculating the battle result (which is basic subtraction and takes a few minutes to do), though people who don't actually mention that their units' bonuses in a concise fashion when they list their army can probably expect to have their units ignored.

A vote for YES is taken to mean that you want this system to replace the old one.
A vote for NO is taken to mean that you want the old system to remain in place.
A vote which is INVALID is taken to mean that you are an idiot who can't read.

by **Yuriski** Fri Dec 05, 2014 7:18 pm

I like this system. Using it, I could actually be a competent moderator Razz

by cziken20 Fri Dec 05, 2014 7:25 pm

So a tank fighting a tank always disappears magically? Well thats bullshit.

by **Charzy** Fri Dec 05, 2014 7:47 pm

They don't magically disappear so much as get blown to pieces because they're both giant tin cans that spit fire.

by cziken20 Fri Dec 05, 2014 7:55 pm

Yes but at least noe must survive. its not like a tank shoots a tank at the same time as he is being shot by the tank and they both get destroyed and theres no left.

by borisperrons Fri Dec 05, 2014 7:59 pm

I don't like it.

I like using my brain to outsmart the enemy and win over it. This system will put us in a situation where the only tactical opportunity would be "CHARGE AND FIGHT TO DEATH". Like in the only other battle I had while role playing, where my strategic maneuvers and tactical geniality was flattened into "CHARGE AND FIGHT TO DEATH".

by **Yuriski** Fri Dec 05, 2014 8:02 pm

This is the only way the customization system will actually have a thought out effect. Also, battles will be written up much faster.

by **Charzy** Fri Dec 05, 2014 8:02 pm

Could always have a coinflip instead of simultaneous attack if both units in a duel have the same manoeuvrability.

borisperrons wrote:
I don't like it.
I like using my brain to outsmart the enemy and win over it. This system will put us in a situation where the only tactical opportunity would be "CHARGE AND FIGHT TO DEATH". Like in the only other battle I had while role playing, where my strategic maneuvers and tactical geniality was flattened into "CHARGE AND FIGHT TO DEATH".

The current system is just "yeah these battle plans will do stuff yeah okay so yeah this guy wins because his units look stronger/I'm biased". Besides, you still have the option to decide whether or not to pull units back and you can have reserves and stuff waiting and able to move in between rounds if you want.

by borisperrons Fri Dec 05, 2014 8:18 pm

The current system is "I'm a person with a knowledge of military matters and historical precedents, I read two warplans and understood what they meant, plan A calls for this, plan B calls for that, plan B has a more solid contruction and counterds better the plan A moves, it wins."

The proposed system is "LOOK MAMA I CAN DO MATHS".

What if the defender wats to pull an ambush? What if the attacker has a diamond solid plan to lure the defender into abandoning his positions? All of this will be lost in the unimaginative and dull world of numbers.

If you really want to flatten combat that much, better eliminate the whole military aspect from the RP.

by **MysticPing** Fri Dec 05, 2014 8:41 pm

Boris what we used to have was this but more advanced. I like this and it still works with strategy. It does not state your combined armies clash, but rather a way of solving combat.

by **Charzy** Fri Dec 05, 2014 8:42 pm

How do you expect an ambush to work on the scales we have here? We're talking about battles involving hundreds of vehicles and thousands of people.

If you think that any moderator is going to read two battle plans and somehow mesh them into one thing (because battle plans stop working the second your opponent does something you don't expect), then that's because you haven't GMed a battle and don't know what you're talking about.

by twinky827 Fri Dec 05, 2014 9:16 pm

I'm on Boris' side here. Too many numbers already in the RP, the current system works well. Why break it?

by **Charzy** Fri Dec 05, 2014 9:22 pm

Because the current system takes more time, gives less accurate results and is more prone to bias. The numbers here are basic arithmetic, and this system not only cuts down on the time and effort it takes do to battle reports (which, in turn, lets wars go by much more easily), but it also removes any moderator bias (so moderators can take part in wars and still potentially GM them) and allows the bonus systems (which do *nothing* right now, much as people might pretend they do) to work.

by twinky827 Fri Dec 05, 2014 9:23 pm

But then what about custom tanks? Custom aircraft? Etc.

by **MysticPing** Fri Dec 05, 2014 9:23 pm

Hell i'm pretty sure i or someone else could write a python script to do the battles using this system, as long as the army is written up in a file. That ways the only thing the mods would need to do is split up the battle into smaller battles.

by **MysticPing** Fri Dec 05, 2014 9:24 pm

Twinky easy, they get special bonuses or simply better stats

by **Charzy** Fri Dec 05, 2014 9:30 pm

twinky827 wrote:But then what about custom tanks? Custom aircraft? Etc.

As I said. Right now they do literally nothing. With this, they could actually confer bonuses to units, making upgrades a useful part of warfare.

by borisperrons Fri Dec 05, 2014 9:51 pm

Still, this way wars will be won by the guy with more tanks. Also, the customization system will go in a way that everyone develops the tank with better stats, that is just one design, and it will void all the benefits. That will go for planes, ships, you name it.

Why GM the wars in the first place? The winner will invariably be the guy with more stuff.

by **Charzy** Fri Dec 05, 2014 9:57 pm

No, the winner will be the guy who looked at his opponent's army and considered how to best use its weaknesses to their own advantage.

by borisperrons Fri Dec 05, 2014 10:03 pm

And then he'll realize that those weaknesses are voided by the sheer amount of stuff he can throw at him. Even if you manage to create the right mix of forces, who cares? They'll have their point subtracted duel after duel until the numerical advantage on the other side makes its work.

Plus, as czi said, really, a battle results in THE WHOLE army being crushed and the winner being left with an half dead regiment out of an army of a gillion tanks? Even in the Iran-Irak war those things never happened, and god knows both sides put some effort in having their guys killed.

by The Cobbler Fri Dec 05, 2014 10:53 pm

So recap. Team A wants their proposal to replace the current GM system with rigid calculation based battles, which will be more objective, and Team B wants to keep the thought-steered, subjective modding system that allows for more creativity.

I can see pro's and cons in both cases, and can definitely vouch current GM modding can be very case-specific. 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!

by borisperrons Fri Dec 05, 2014 11:19 pm

Maybe putting plan-induced modificators to the points, you mean?

Could work, like how accuracy is calculated in wargame.

by twinky827 Sat Dec 06, 2014 12:25 am

Charzy wrote:

As I said. Right now they do literally nothing. With this, they could actually confer bonuses to units, making upgrades a useful part of warfare.

Actually they do. The mods see "Oh, that tank is better" and then it wins.

by Mobius Sat Dec 06, 2014 12:37 am

Twinky is right. That's how Jaydee's Overlord tanks pretty much ran over and crushed Dragon's stock tanks nearly every battle.

by Hellorp Sat Dec 06, 2014 12:58 am

MysticPing wrote:Hell i'm pretty sure i or someone else could write a python script to do the battles using this system, as long as the army is written up in a file. That ways the only thing the mods would need to do is split up the battle into smaller battles.

We do not need this forum to become even more simplified. It's bad enough already without removing any sort of tactics from the equation.

by Sponsored content

Simpler and Better GM Combat.

Yes or no?

Simpler and Better GM Combat.

Re: Simpler and Better GM Combat.

Re: Simpler and Better GM Combat.

Re: Simpler and Better GM Combat.

Re: Simpler and Better GM Combat.

Re: Simpler and Better GM Combat.

Re: Simpler and Better GM Combat.

Re: Simpler and Better GM Combat.

Re: Simpler and Better GM Combat.

Re: Simpler and Better GM Combat.

Re: Simpler and Better GM Combat.

Re: Simpler and Better GM Combat.

Re: Simpler and Better GM Combat.

Re: Simpler and Better GM Combat.

Re: Simpler and Better GM Combat.

Re: Simpler and Better GM Combat.

Re: Simpler and Better GM Combat.

Re: Simpler and Better GM Combat.

Re: Simpler and Better GM Combat.

Re: Simpler and Better GM Combat.

Re: Simpler and Better GM Combat.

Re: Simpler and Better GM Combat.

Re: Simpler and Better GM Combat.

Re: Simpler and Better GM Combat.

Re: Simpler and Better GM Combat.

Re: Simpler and Better GM Combat.