| This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only". In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060 If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| What if... | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 19 2010, 03:31 PM (780 Views) | |
| Abnar | Jan 19 2010, 03:31 PM Post #1 |
|
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the lurkiest of them all?
|
I know we haven't gotten too much done war-wise, but I think I've realized, through incredible bad luck, some significant flaws in out current war system. With your guys' help and blessing, I'd like to make some changes. Before you start throwing assorted fruits and vegetables, just hear me out. This is going to be mostly a "thinking out loud" thread, and with any luck, I can come up with something that will be better than the current system, and not too complicated. It's up to you guys if any of these ideas even get implemented, and input is definitely appreciated. Basic principles: Mashup of Risk and DnD rules. Units attack like Risk - Player chooses X units from his territory to attack an enemy territory. Dice roll like DnD - Attack is represented by a d20 roll + "Attack" stat. Must be higher than the "Armor" of defending unit to inflict casualties. Remove casualties like Risk - Max number of casualties in a round is the number of attackers or number of defenders, whichever is smaller. Rounds continue until one side is depleted. Break from Risk - Cannot just stop attacking at any time. Player commits X number of units to attack, they either wipe out the defenders or are wiped out themselves. Will retain the IC system. Will retain the ability to reinforce from IC reserve on any turn. Will retain melee bonuses in a rock-paper-scissors fashion. Swords > Spears > Cavalry > Swords Possible additions: Archers lose more effectiveness against armored units. Hidden units. Could be deployed on any owned territory. Revealed if they move into enemy territory, but could move within owned territory and remain hidden. Bombardment. Siegeworks and cannon-armed ships could attack adjacent territories with a penalty (Chance of hitting friendly units?). Siegeworks would still have to be attacking a city directly in order to capture. Formations. Swordsmen or spearmen at the front of a formation would take the brunt of the casualties from an enemy charge. A volley of arrows would distribute casualties evenly. Attack order. Similar to the above, archers and siege would engage first, then cavalry, then foot soldiers. Unique units. Each country could personalize its army with a special unit, vetted by the mods. Unit list: (Updated as necessary) Basic Sword: 2 IC, 1 ATK, 11 DEF, +1 ATK Against Spears Attack Sword: 4 IC, 3 ATK, 11 DEF, +1 ATK Against Spears Defense Sword: 4 IC, 1 ATK, 13 DEF, +1 ATK Against Spears Elite Sword: 8 IC, 3 ATK, 13 DEF, +2 ATK Against Spears, Negates Cavalry Bonus Basic Spear: 2 IC, 1 ATK, 11 DEF, +1 ATK Against Cavalry Attack Spear: 4 IC, 3 ATK, 11 DEF, +1 ATK Against Cavalry Defense Spear: 4 IC, 1 ATK, 13 DEF, +1 ATK Against Cavalry Elite Spear: 8 IC, 3 ATK, 13 DEF, +2 ATK Against Cavalry, Negates Sword Bonus Basic Cavalry: 2 IC, 1 ATK, 11 DEF, +1 ATK Against Swords Attack Cavalry: 4 IC, 3 ATK, 11 DEF, +1 ATK Against Swords Defense Cavalry: 4 IC, 1 ATK, 13 DEF, +1 ATK Against Swords Elite Cavalry: 8 IC, 3 ATK, 13 DEF, +2 ATK Against Swords, Negates Spear Bonus Basic Ranged: 3 IC, 1 ATK, 11 DEF Elite Ranged: 9 IC, 3 ATK, 13 DEF **Naval Units** **Siege** Edited by Abnar, Jan 25 2010, 02:33 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Telosan | Jan 19 2010, 04:27 PM Post #2 |
![]()
The Foremost Intellectual Badass
|
Some of these ideas I had brought up before this was put into motion. Anything I don't bring up, assume I agree with.This is where I was confused. The 'armor' was never a factor, it seems. My understanding was that an attack unit's roll was added to by it's attack modifier and subtracted from by the defender's defense modifier, rather than the defense being the armor class. The bonuses should be made clearer as to what they are. In addition, a method of working out when such bonuses come into play is needed. When calculating battles before, nearly every unit was receiving a bonus (which I had assumed to be +1 to attack). I believe this was mentioned at some point, but I don't remember why it wasn't implemented. If we have hidden units, the addition of two 'scout' units may be good, one for land and one for sea. They would be weak, with the sole purpose of uncovering enemy units and would have to roll a d20 as would a player in DnD is they were making a spot check. I had mentioned this as well. I said a frigate should have an ability like a battleship in Axis and Allies does, a once per turn 'sneak attack' on land units where they could fire, but not be fired on unless there were other ships in the area. I argued vehemently for this. In fact, this is a quote from my post arguing for it. Spoiler: click to toggle
|
![]() |
|
| Abnar | Jan 19 2010, 04:55 PM Post #3 |
|
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the lurkiest of them all?
|
Risk uses two sets of dice, one for the attacker and one for the defender, which is great, because they only roll 5 at a time. This system could go as high as the number of units on the field, for faster resolution, and using an armor class rather than an opposing roll makes things simpler. The current bonus system isn't unclear, just not frequently necessary. That said, I like the idea of a +1 better. Reducing the per-unit rolls to a single die, as well as the more head-to-head approach, will see it be a lot more useful. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jan 19 2010, 06:38 PM Post #4 |
|
Deleted User
|
This is a great idea and all, its just who will play? Plus, I would rather see a battle strategy like Axis&Allies. |
|
|
| Telosan | Jan 19 2010, 08:08 PM Post #5 |
![]()
The Foremost Intellectual Badass
|
I would play. Atticus, the A&A rules were in play and have proven difficult to adapt to this. Risk and DnD are a better system. For one, Risk simplifies A&A and DnD adds a depth and a tested method for this game. I support this move. I also think the Armor Class (AC) and attack power should be variable per country. You can choose once whether you want your swordsmen to have higher attack or higher defense, with one detracting from the other. It would be assigned by the same point system I mentioned for the unique units. Then you have more personalized units. I'm on my cell now, so I'kk explain more when I'm home. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jan 19 2010, 08:12 PM Post #6 |
|
Deleted User
|
I see your point. But Me, you, Abnar, and E isn't enough. Maybe these changes will help attract more players. But I would like to see this passed by Huesca first, as this was his idea. Plus, I say we test it before we change the system. |
|
|
| Telosan | Jan 19 2010, 09:57 PM Post #7 |
![]()
The Foremost Intellectual Badass
|
Home. I'm too lazy to type it up, so please look at this. A testing phase should be done, so some volunteers for a little OOC skirmish of 200 or so IC each? If the new system passes, do we switch to it immediately and continue Pomerania with a different set of rules? Oh, yes, and there must be a plain and obvious rule in which you get combat bonuses for, I dunno, RPing the action, as this is a RP forum. |
![]() |
|
| Abnar | Jan 21 2010, 12:12 PM Post #8 |
|
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the lurkiest of them all?
|
I finished my first coding project of the new semester, so I'll do numbers for this tonight, and test combat this weekend? |
![]() |
|
| Abnar | Jan 21 2010, 12:14 PM Post #9 |
|
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the lurkiest of them all?
|
No. An RP post each turn should still be mandatory, but the war should be straight tactics. I'd like to think that our population is mostly people who will put effort into their RPs even if they don't get a quantitative benefit, anyways. |
![]() |
|
| Union | Jan 21 2010, 12:14 PM Post #10 |
![]()
Pyrenees Republic
|
If this system works, I might possibly join the game again, though in a small way, as I find myself with more time as I am not working this semester due to my rather unusual schedule of classes making such a thing impossible. |
![]() |
|
| Abnar | Jan 21 2010, 12:15 PM Post #11 |
|
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the lurkiest of them all?
|
Want to join in the test combat and try it for yourself? EDIT: Also, what to do with "heavy" variants? Should they have improved Attack, Defense, Bonuses, or a mix of the three? Should there be two "heavy" versions of each unit, one with improved attack and the other with improved defense? Should crossbows be added as a third ranged unit, below Archers? Edited by Abnar, Jan 21 2010, 12:20 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Union | Jan 21 2010, 12:27 PM Post #12 |
![]()
Pyrenees Republic
|
Sure thing, but I do not want to moderate a system I barely understand. :P |
![]() |
|
| Abnar | Jan 21 2010, 12:43 PM Post #13 |
|
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the lurkiest of them all?
|
Telo or I can moderate, depending on whether or not he wants to participate in the combat. This reminds me, we could use this new system in a turn-based manner, rather than simultaneous, to make things easier on the mods. Up to you guys, it works equally well either way. |
![]() |
|
| Telosan | Jan 21 2010, 03:21 PM Post #14 |
![]()
The Foremost Intellectual Badass
|
:P Abnar, the turns should be simultaneous, else the person who goes second each round will have an advantage. Plus, simultaneous rounds add a little realism. BTW, don't leave me out of the test run! Edited by Telosan, Jan 21 2010, 03:25 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Abnar | Jan 21 2010, 03:54 PM Post #15 |
|
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the lurkiest of them all?
|
How will they have an advantage? Combat will be simultaneous, but the moves can go in turns, is what I'm saying. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jan 21 2010, 08:49 PM Post #16 |
|
Deleted User
|
I want in. But I have to agree with the simultaneous system. |
|
|
| Telosan | Jan 21 2010, 09:09 PM Post #17 |
![]()
The Foremost Intellectual Badass
|
If the first player goes, the second player can see all of his moves before putting in his own. IRL, the armies move simultaneously most of the time. |
![]() |
|
| Abnar | Jan 21 2010, 09:26 PM Post #18 |
|
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the lurkiest of them all?
|
Are Risk and Warhammer unfair? |
![]() |
|
| Telosan | Jan 21 2010, 10:43 PM Post #19 |
![]()
The Foremost Intellectual Badass
|
I have played a few rounds of those games where whoever went first means everything. |
![]() |
|
| East Anarx | Jan 21 2010, 11:00 PM Post #20 |
|
Anarchitect
![]()
|
I've played a recent version of Risk that partially mitigated the effects of turn-based gameplay by giving the players that went later additional armies to compensate. Edited by East Anarx, Jan 21 2010, 11:00 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| New Harumf | Jan 22 2010, 12:55 PM Post #21 |
![]()
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
Anyone ever play Diplomacy? I really liked their rules for warfare. Very, very simple. Very, very real life. |
![]() |
|
| Abnar | Jan 22 2010, 03:38 PM Post #22 |
|
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the lurkiest of them all?
|
Link/explanation? |
![]() |
|
| New Harumf | Jan 22 2010, 05:11 PM Post #23 |
![]()
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
In diplomacy, all units are equal. Everyone makes deals in secret with other players in a conflict. Then all moves are passed in secret to the game master. If two people try to occupy the same space from different spaces, it is a standoff, and no one moves. If only one person tries to move in, they do. If two people order a unit into the same space from different spaces, and one of them has support for the move, either from another one of their own units, or from some allies unit, they take the space. If only one unit tries to enter a space already occupied, it is a standoff. If one unit tries to occupy a space already occupied, and they have support from one of their own units, or from an ally, they occupy the space, and the former occupier must retreat. If he has no place to retreat, the unit is lost. You can see that of you negotiate for player 2 to support you against player three, he could secretly have a deal with player three to support him against you, so you can get stabbed in the back. Oh, only one unit can occupy any space. So, each round consists of an inital move, followed by a negotiation period, followed by submitting your moves/supports, followed by the master reconciling, followed by retreats and occpations, which becomes the next round's initial move. If you don't understand this, I'll try to find my game and copy the rules. |
![]() |
|
| Telosan | Jan 22 2010, 10:15 PM Post #24 |
![]()
The Foremost Intellectual Badass
|
I think that's too simple. |
![]() |
|
| New Harumf | Jan 22 2010, 11:48 PM Post #25 |
![]()
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
Oh, you need to play Diplomacy on-line some time! Had an international game in 1979 with players from UK, Australia, France, Canada, the US and Japan (on the first international network, with a portable terminal with thermal paper) and it is still vivid in my mind! |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · 1452 General Discussion · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2










11:29 AM Jul 13