Simpler and Better GM Combat.

The Cobbler wrote: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.

Already happens

cziken20 wrote: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.

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

2: We have never at any point had any of this, but most of it can be already taken into account through pairing. Entrenchment and such is easily modeled by providing a defense bonus for infantry units (Which, guess what? Covered. My system was designed with upgrade systems in mind. You'd know this if you read the OP)

3: As I've already explained, this is entirely incorrect. It's impossible for either side to account for what the other's plans are going to be, nor is it possible for either side to predict the outcomes when two evenly matched units fight.

Yuriski wrote: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.

The vote stands at 5/5/4. Boris and Cziken have had their votes removed from the "no" side and added to the "failed to read the OP" side for not reading the OP and lying when they made their vote.

Charzy you don't get to choose whos votes are valid or not. This is not a dictatorship when a poll is up, or else this thing would have gone through long ago.

Mmm.

Boris and Czi have voted "no", after reading the Op, having found it unexplicative and not satisfactory in its explanation, and after they exposed the resons why they don't agree with this system.

So, 5/7/2. The no won, Scotland stays in the UK the system is not accepted. Hurray for democracy!

No charzy. No. Im gonig to citate:
I did read the OP:

"Tank (A) attacks first. Tank (B) is destroyed.
Tank (A) attacks first. Tank (B) is destroyed.
Tank (B) attacks first. Tank (A) is destroyed.
Tank (A) attacks first. Tank (B) is destroyed.
Tank (A) attacks first. Tank (B) is destroyed."

See? Wait.. I did read the OP. It may be that i read (B)'s and (A)'s wrong. Sorry.

But. How do i know which one strikes first? Can you please point me out where does it state so? Because their maneuver is same...

Edit: Oh.. sorry. I think you updated the OP. I have read the old OP. Indeed, my vote is invaldie and i will change my opinion, after i consider it.

Can you now only supply me with a system describing defensive position and very importan thing - tactics?

Appe96 wrote:Charzy you don't get to choose whos votes are valid or not. This is not a dictatorship when a poll is up, or else this thing would have gone through long ago.

The poll makes it pretty clear that to vote "yes" or "no", you have to have at least bothered to read the OP. By voting, you agree that you have in fact done so.
It was made clear that people who failed to read the OP would not have their votes considered. They failed to read the OP, their vote was not considered. The vote stands at 5/5/5.

borisperrons wrote:Mmm.

Boris and Czi have voted "no", after reading the Op, having found it unexplicative and not satisfactory in its explanation, and after they exposed the resons why they don't agree with this system.

So, 5/7/2. The no won, Scotland stays in the UK the system is not accepted. Hurray for democracy!

Everybody else found it pretty easy to understand, from what I can see.
Nowhere does it say that two tanks fighting will kill eachother at the same time (in fact, it says exactly the opposite), and yet both of you stated that this system would cause exactly that conclusion. If you don't have the basic level of reading skill required to read the OP, then you still failed to read it.

quote="cziken20"]No charzy. No. Im gonig to citate:
I did read the OP:

"Tank (A) attacks first. Tank (B) is destroyed.
Tank (A) attacks first. Tank (B) is destroyed.
Tank (B) attacks first. Tank (A) is destroyed.
Tank (A) attacks first. Tank (B) is destroyed.
Tank (A) attacks first. Tank (B) is destroyed."

See? Wait.. I did read the OP. It may be that i read (B)'s and (A)'s wrong. Sorry.

But. How do i know which one strikes first? Can you please point me out where does it state so? Because their maneuver is same...

Edit: Oh.. sorry. I think you updated the OP. I have read the old OP. Indeed, my vote is invaldie and i will change my opinion, after i consider it.

Can you now only supply me with a system describing defensive position and very importan thing - tactics?[/quote]


To the first question, a coinflip. As I believe I said immediately before that battle report.

To the second question,
Before and after every single round of the battle you have the opportunity to pull back units, send in different ones or indeed send in your entire force (which is probably very stupid). Consider the situation I described in which B could have won the battle with A. He could have held back most of his units, and used an artillery unit (which would probably have a trait that shows its long range, preventing units from targeting it) to attack, while defending the artillery with other units (his tanks would work best for this, some would die but A's infantry would likely be destroyed and the artillery would be safe).

For things like entrenchment, an infantry upgrade system (with Can Entrench as an upgrade) could provide a defense bonus through a trait (Can Entrench), giving it, say, +2 defense when fighting infantry. This system is pretty damn versatile, which is how it was designed.

Charzy the thing is it is only your supermind that gets to decide who has read or not. Its strange that alot of people has voiced concern about the fact that what you claim is in the OP is not in the OP. Maybe it is not the others who needs to read but you who haven't been clear or just have missed to write something.

Appe96 wrote:Charzy the thing is it is only your supermind that gets to decide who has read or not. Its strange that alot of people has voiced concern about the fact that what you claim is in the OP is not in the OP. Maybe it is not the others who needs to read but you who haven't been clear or just have missed to write something.

I also like how you chose to completely ignore czikens reply when it didn't fit your view.

You mean the reply that I was in the process of editing my post to reply to? Kay.

When somebody says something that's clearly contrary to something written in the OP, then they clearly haven't read the OP. It'd be like looking at the rocketry system and going "BUT DEVELOPMENT COSTS TEN TIMES AS MUCH AS BUILDING WHAT IS THIS". Anybody saying that clearly wouldn't have read the rocketry system at all, because that's entirely contrary to what's written there.

But if alot of people would have said that, which they don't then the author of that thread would probably have to rephrase what was said in interest to make things clear.

Charzy you are making yourself looking really really bad in this thread. Please look at your posts in the last eight pages, then tell yourself that you have completely acted like a staff member is supposed to act. If you can't tell yourself this, then please reconsider your behaviour, this is not the only thread where you have behaved below standards to be clear with you.

Or, you weren't clear. But that's obviously not true.

What already happens Charzy?

I have already posted here once to tell you guys to get back on track. Charzy, you need to start acting more responsibly as a Grand Advisor. Let me make it clear you are not a moderator. I am going to temporarily lock this thread until multiple administrative issues have been addressed.

Said "administrative issues" are pretty much done. As I said, the vote still stands at 5/5/5 because people who gave proof that they didn't read the OP went to the third option automatically. I've assumed that all other voters have read the OP, though, so there's that.

Aaand the tie is broken at 4/5/5, no vote wins, Scotland will remain in the union.