Simpler and Better GM Combat.

But it would stop mods procastinating

MysticPing wrote:But it would stop mods procastinating

That's like killing poor people to eradicate poorness.

You're all complaining about the numbers like you would be the ones calculating them. I can see two clear options here: Charzy's simple to calculate system which results in less interesting however much faster conflicts (and also takes the customisation into account), or the system which allows some degree of planning but takes the mod team longer to write up, resulting in more drawn out wars, and to which the customisation system has barely any effect.

Or the combined system...?

I don't see how it could work, without giving people a few options instead of the full availability of planning which they want.

Its easy, you just base your plans on the calculations...

yeah id accept cobblers idea

A "combined" system doesn't work though, because it still ends up making every battle amount to "this is better so they win meh".
I would challenge any moderator's claim that they have actually taken battle plans into consideration apart from "theirs is cooler so they win".

Besides all of this, this isn't War RP. It's KSPRP. War is and should be a small part of what we do, not a giant thing that takes weeks to get anywhere and prevents anybody from doing anything interesting. With this, the person with the better units and plans (And keep in mind you'd be choosing what units you shove into battle as well as having to organise retreats and surrenders. Catching a unit of purely tanks being transported with a group of anti-tank infantry would be a clever and powerful strategy.) wins, not the person who the moderator thinks will win based off of some arbitrary "they look better".

I no get it anymor

Currently, the way battles work is you send in stuff to the mod, and he goes "yeah this looks better they win".

With this, you send in stuff, the mod is able to easily take into account everything (like unit upgrades) without bias, and then can go through a short series of simple subtractions to determine the victor of the first part of the battle.
Then everybody gets a chance to send in reinforcements or retreat or change plans or whatever.
Then the second part of the battle happens and it repeats until everybody on one side is dead or retreated or surrendered.

People's strategies will be even more relevant than before, unit upgrades will be actually relevant (and will be done with numbers, as opposed to "this makes it better somehow but I dunno how so it just does") and both players have more control of their forces during the battle.
In addition to this, each phase takes maybe five minutes at absolute most to calculate and then write a report (in story form, like always) so moderators will be much more inclined to get it done, and every battle will go by much more quickly.


This system is better in every single way.

I guess you have a very little opinion of a moderator if you think he'll just go "Ok this is cooler he wins now where's my heroin".

I know it's a demanding task, but since as I understand it we have people willing to do it, why not go with it? And again, the combined system will surely sped up the process, while keeping a degree of mindwork in it.

borisperrons wrote:I guess you have a very little opinion of a moderator if you think he'll just go "Ok this is cooler he wins now where's my heroin".

I know it's a demanding task, but since as I understand it we have people willing to do it, why not go with it? And again, the combined system will surely sped up the process, while keeping a degree of mindwork in it.

You're looking for the golden mean here. A combined system will not have the best of both systems.
A combined system will slow everything down even more than it is currently, because they have to go to the trouble of trying to merge both systems through some convoluted process, then do everything required for each one.
A combined system would be worse than either.

And no, we have people who will be semi-willing to do it, but will hate every second they have to spend on it because it's boring and awful and everybody hates doing battle reports. This new system would make them take minutes, and people might actually even want to do them then.

I've added a poll. It'll run for three days.

And, of course, if you're going to vote no, then you should be posting what you think is wrong with this and how you think it could be done better.

Charzy wrote:I've added a poll. It'll run for three days.

And, of course, if you're going to vote no, then you should be posting what you think is wrong with this and how you think it could be done better.

Why give us a false dilemma though? This poll is useless; there should be other options too. For example, you are now forcing me to vote for the old system, even though I too recognise it can be changed for the better!

Then vote no and suggest a different system when this poll is done. However, this is the best system right now. Trying to combine it with the current one gives you the worst parts of both.
Simply put, the current system is terrible and this is probably as good as it's possible to make warfare in the RP.
Also, five no votes without a single person saying why. Good job giving yourself credibility.

Dude, if you only force the people against your plan to speak against it and not those for it to speak up in favour of it, it becomes less of a vote and more of a democratic necessity for you to push your plan through.

There seems to be significant opposition (because even a third against would warrant a change) clearly indicating this system needs augmenting should it be implemented. You can keep saying change is impossible or take another look at the system (which indeed is a very good basis for a new system.

Explain to me though, why combining is so impossible. Something more than a vague "takes the worst of both", which to be honest could be applied to any combination ever if you provide no proof. I feel like a combination would really work and will not have it dismissed so easily.

All that's good about it has already been explained, which is why you don't need to say more if you're going to vote for this.
And I went over earlier why a combination would be awful. The gist is that the golden mean fallacy is a thing and combining them would make GMing take even longer.

The faults the proposed system have already been shown as well.
Dont force opponents of your plan to do more work just because. It wont work.

In any case I suggest redesigning the proposal; even if it makes it the margin just isnt enough.

Perceived faults were shown. I pointed out why they weren't faults. People ignored that because people don't change their opinions here.

If you cant look at other viewpoints and simply dismiss every counterargument presented, then yes, I can understand why people would not be pumped to tell you why they vote no.

Also we already said why we disagree with you, and I guess the others have nothing more to add.

I've gone through every argument with a valid counterpoint. People just tend to refuse to take things like that into account her.

Or maybe your "valid counterpoints" weren't valid to them. I'm pretty sure the Communist Party of America always had valid counterpoints, but still you don't have that many communists that have accessed the seat of President of the United States.

Charzy you've got to drop the black-white viewpoint. It is damaging your credibility and your plan.
You literally stated ''this system is better than the old one in every way". You say your systems faults arent faults.
You say People ignored that because people don't change their opinions here'' even though you yourself won't change your opinion on other systems either

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.