|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Oct 30, 2022 21:31:34 GMT
As for the different levels of engagement, here's a rough outline that can be definitely improved. These aren't by any means the final values, just something to build up from. Also it is important to notice that engagements can happen multiple times in the same place so if 10% casualties for an all out attack feels little, you can do it 5 times. The percentages would be of the average size of the sides' armies. 1. Skirmish Draw: 1% casualties for both sides Victory by 1: 1% for the winner and 2% for the loser, neither forced to retreat, little to no effect on morale Victory by 2: 0.8 % for the winner and 2.5% for the loser, neither forced to retreat, little to no effect on morale Victory by 3: 0.8 % for the winner and 3.5% for the loser, neither forced to retreat, slight morale boost for the winner Victory by 4: 0.8 % for the winner and 4.5% for the loser, loser forced to retreat very little, slight morale boost for the winner Victory by 5: 0.5% for the winner and 7 % for the loser, loser forced to retreat a little, moderate morale boost for the winner, slight morale drop for the loser 2. Attack; causes slight fatigue Draw: 3% casualties for both sides Victory by 1: 2.5 % and 4 %, neither forced to retreat, slight morale boost for the winners Victory by 2: 2.5 % and 6%, loser pushed back a little, slight morale boost and drop accordingly Victory by 3: 2 % and 7.5 %, loser pushed back, slight morale boost and drop accordingly Victory by 4: 2 % and 12%, loser pushed back, moderate morale boost and drop accordingly Victory by 5: 2 % and 20 %, loser pushed back by a lot, moderate morale boost and drop accordingly 3. All out attack; results in significant fatigue for both sides Draw: 10% casualties for both Victory by 1: 10 % and 15 %, loser pushed back, slight morale boost and drop accordingly Victory by 2: 10% and 20 %, loser pushed back by a lot, moderate morale boost and drop accordingly Victory by 3: 8 % and 27.5 %, loser collapses into chaos and routs, significant morale boost and drop accordingly Victory by 4: 8 % and 40 %, same effects as above (out of space) --> Victory by 5: 5% and 60 %, chaotic rout, significant morale boost and huge morale drop Another thought - if casualties are percentage-based, there has to be some kind of overrun rule for when forces are significantly different. Because otherwise if you come at me with an army of 10,000, you bet I'm going to go full Jihad with 100-man suicide bomber teams. Yeah absolutely. But I think that can be solved by a rule that the average would be calculated from all defenders in the area. Also, if you only have 100 in the region, I can always go against you with 300 and leave the others in the back. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Oct 30, 2022 21:33:08 GMT
Here's a rough idea how the value needed for winning could be calculated. I'm happy to hear ideas for improvement. -1 means the "tie value" decreases, so better for the attacker and +1 means better for the defender. 1. Armies I was thinking there would be some sort of a quality factor for armies, but that has to be discussed further. Anyways I'll determine the army factor by giving them both an amount of points. If quality won't have any effect, then the points are just manpower, except for tanks and arrillery of course. So each side's army's ability is determined by points. I'd determine the effect on the battle by their relative difference. So if either side has 1.3 - 2.0 times as many points as the other they'll get the tie value better for them by one. If the side has more than 2.0 to 3.0 or more the value will change by 2. 2. Defences Simple trench +1 Moderate natural barrier (dence forest or small mountains) +1 Large mountains +2 Fortifications +2 (as Darth Nihilus said these won't be possible to build in a page for all your borders) Heavy fortifications (like Maginot line, very hard to build) +2/3 3. Morale We'll have to finish the morale system, but it would probably have an impact from 1 to 3 (only for really badly collapsed morale) 4. Fatigue Probably +-1 after long marches or battles expect maybe +-2 in extreme situations. 5. Retreating A defending army in fast retreat will give the attacker -1 and a chaotic rout -2
Alright, let's make an example scenario to see how this works, starting from 6: An army of 22 000 attack a series of fortifications (+2) defended by 8000 men of similar quality (-2). Both sides get 2 points so we're still at 6. However the attacking army is fatigued after long battles (+1) - but the defenders are severely demoralised being cut off of their supply lines and by seeing their line break (-2). So, the attackers would need to roll a 6 for a narrow victory, dealing casualties, but not being able to overrun and a 7 to force a retreat. , Darth Nihilus, have you taken a look at these? I'd love to hear some ideas for improvement in case these values will be used. |
|
|
|
Post by Darth Nihilus on Oct 30, 2022 22:11:18 GMT
I slightly disagree with some of the player choices on page 1. 1. "Bets"; You said both would have to make a minimum bet of 10%. How would this work? I thought the attacker could commit as much as he wants and all of the defenders would engage, unless some retreat. 2. If I didn't misunderstand, you said the players could choose different strategies that would change the outcome. I think players shouldn't be forced to choose a named strategy (for example pincer attack). It hasn't been a problem to perform them manually and as troop movement would be limited they would be possible to resolve objectively. The two pincers would roll seperately. 1. The way I wanted to implement bets was basically just so the player could launch small high-risk attacks or use their whole army but for a conservative attack, among other things. It's really optional and in a lower-complexity RP bets probably wouldn't happen at all, it would just be full army vs full army. But as for how the enemy's bet would be decided, you have a good point cause idk how that would simultaneously be done by both players. So maybe I'll get rid of enemy_bet entirely and just have a player bet. 2. The blitzkrieg/pincer/Alexandrian strategy game is just an example I listed, in, say, an RP where players want a simple and static way to decide outcomes. In reality there's gonna be a ton of different ways to produce them, including having no strategy at all and entirely RNG, or entirely strategy and having just some RNG. |
|
|
|
Post by Darth Nihilus on Oct 30, 2022 22:17:06 GMT
Some thoughts: "Bets" are the amount of troops committed to an attack, right? I'd like to see a little bit more fine-tuning in the formula. 10v10 is not the same as 19v10, and 20v10 is not the same as 40v10. It doesn't have to be super fine-grained, but I'd like to see some reward at least at 150% of the enemy force, 200% and every additional 100. If casualties are calculated as a percentage of the total force, then I don't really see a need for the risk factor. Your risk is determined by the number of troops you commit to the battle, your reward for risking is a higher success chance. About the number of troops - if you attack, you can choose (and both sides should be able to attack). If you defend, all your troops take part, unless you choose to retreat some. If you you retreat your entire force, the enemy should be able to attack as you retreat, with a significant advantage, but if you defend (or even attack) with a reasonable force, then the rest of your army retreats undisturbed. 1. Yeah, I haven't thought of what bonus to implement specifically, but there's going to be one (eg. in the docs I put that if you outnumber your enemy 2 to 1 then you get to roll slightly higher). The bonus is probably gonna be gradual so that a 19v10 isn't gonna miss out on a 20v10 bonus. 2. I kind of wanted to put risk so that the player could launch low-risk, high manpower attacks and high-risk, low manpower attacks, but you're right, it is kinda redundant. I'll remove it 3. For attacking, I think the player and the opponent will simultaneously be able to choose, so that either side can attack or defend. I haven't figured out how that's gonna happen in a post-based forum but it'll happen somehow. Also partial retreats are a great idea, I'll add that as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Oct 30, 2022 22:23:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Darth Nihilus on Oct 30, 2022 22:26:28 GMT
Probably 2 d6, cause that's a classic dice system that also reduces the amount of outliers (2 and 12 are rare so routs won't happen that often). It's also relatively simple to add bonuses and penalties. I removed the risk factor cause you and Theron of Acragas rightfully pointed out that having both bets and risk was redundant. Also I looked at your theorized damage system. It looks good, but I think we'll have to actually try it out in an RP to see how people would exploit or get confused by anything. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Oct 30, 2022 22:28:25 GMT
Probably 2 d6, cause that's a classic dice system that also reduces the amount of outliers (2 and 12 are rare so routs won't happen that often). It's also relatively simple to add bonuses and penalties. I removed the risk factor cause you and @theoronofacragas rightfully pointed out that having both bets and risk was redundant. Also I looked at your theorized damage system. It looks good, but I think we'll have to actually try it out in an RP to see how people would exploit or get confused by anything. Yeah, absolutely agree. We'll have to see what elements work best and make best use of them. Edit: I actually liked the option of doing low risk attacks with a big army, I just thought the "bets" meant some sort of battle where both choose an army to fight or something. |
|
|
|
Post by Darth Nihilus on Oct 30, 2022 22:42:20 GMT
Yeah, absolutely agree. We'll have to see what elements work best and make best use of them. Edit: I actually liked the option of doing low risk attacks with a big army, I just thought the "bets" meant some sort of battle where both choose an army to fight or something. I just realized that doing a low risk attack with a large force would probably have the same result as doing a medium or high risk attack with a small force lol. Eg. if you have 20 000 soldiers, sending 10 000 of them to kill and lose 20% would have the same results as sending 2 500 soldiers and kill or lose 75%. And yeah, bets only determine how much of your army you're sending to fight, not which army. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Oct 30, 2022 22:46:05 GMT
Yeah, absolutely agree. We'll have to see what elements work best and make best use of them. Edit: I actually liked the option of doing low risk attacks with a big army, I just thought the "bets" meant some sort of battle where both choose an army to fight or something. I just realized that doing a low risk attack with a large force would probably have the same result as doing a medium or high risk attack with a small force lol. Eg. if you have 20 000 soldiers, sending 10 000 of them to kill and lose 20% would have the same results as sending 2 500 soldiers and kill or lose 75%. And yeah, bets only determine how much of your army you're sending to fight, not which army. Yeah, but the 20 000 will have a much higher chance of victory and achieving something strategically. |
|
|
|
Post by Darth Nihilus on Oct 30, 2022 23:40:20 GMT
Yeah, but the 20 000 will have a much higher chance of victory and achieving something strategically. Hmm... Ok, I'll keep risk in, then, and then for each RP we can decide at that time whether or not we want to include it. |
|
|
|
Post by Theron of Acragas on Oct 31, 2022 4:00:29 GMT
I just realized that doing a low risk attack with a large force would probably have the same result as doing a medium or high risk attack with a small force lol. Eg. if you have 20 000 soldiers, sending 10 000 of them to kill and lose 20% would have the same results as sending 2 500 soldiers and kill or lose 75%. And yeah, bets only determine how much of your army you're sending to fight, not which army. Yeah, but the 20 000 will have a much higher chance of victory and achieving something strategically. In that case, why would you ever go high risk? |
|
|
|
Post by Theron of Acragas on Oct 31, 2022 4:11:58 GMT
Here's a rough idea how the value needed for winning could be calculated. I'm happy to hear ideas for improvement. -1 means the "tie value" decreases, so better for the attacker and +1 means better for the defender. 1. Armies I was thinking there would be some sort of a quality factor for armies, but that has to be discussed further. Anyways I'll determine the army factor by giving them both an amount of points. If quality won't have any effect, then the points are just manpower, except for tanks and arrillery of course. So each side's army's ability is determined by points. I'd determine the effect on the battle by their relative difference. So if either side has 1.3 - 2.0 times as many points as the other they'll get the tie value better for them by one. If the side has more than 2.0 to 3.0 or more the value will change by 2. 2. Defences Simple trench +1 Moderate natural barrier (dence forest or small mountains) +1 Large mountains +2 Fortifications +2 (as Darth Nihilus said these won't be possible to build in a page for all your borders) Heavy fortifications (like Maginot line, very hard to build) +2/3 3. Morale We'll have to finish the morale system, but it would probably have an impact from 1 to 3 (only for really badly collapsed morale) 4. Fatigue Probably +-1 after long marches or battles expect maybe +-2 in extreme situations. 5. Retreating A defending army in fast retreat will give the attacker -1 and a chaotic rout -2
Alright, let's make an example scenario to see how this works, starting from 6: An army of 22 000 attack a series of fortifications (+2) defended by 8000 men of similar quality (-2). Both sides get 2 points so we're still at 6. However the attacking army is fatigued after long battles (+1) - but the defenders are severely demoralised being cut off of their supply lines and by seeing their line break (-2). So, the attackers would need to roll a 6 for a narrow victory, dealing casualties, but not being able to overrun and a 7 to force a retreat. , Darth Nihilus, have you taken a look at these? I'd love to hear some ideas for improvement in case these values will be used. I like the way this is looking. One thought - if *all* the negative modifiers stack up, then the tie value could in theory go as low as -2. And it's not even that far-fetched - an army in a chaotic rout probably does have terrible morale and is fatigued and outnumbered. Are we OK with that, or should there be a cap? In those circumstances I don't mind a guaranteed victory with a high chance of annihilation, but I lean towards flooring the tie value at 1. |
|
|
|
Post by Theron of Acragas on Oct 31, 2022 4:19:31 GMT
But as for how the enemy's bet would be decided, you have a good point cause idk how that would simultaneously be done by both players. So maybe I'll get rid of enemy_bet entirely and just have a player bet. This seems like a simple question to resolve. You just need an RP moderator, and then your bets and any other factors are submitted by DM to the mod. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Oct 31, 2022 6:36:58 GMT
Yeah, but the 20 000 will have a much higher chance of victory and achieving something strategically. In that case, why would you ever go high risk? If you've got a numerical superiority in that area and want to exploit it as soon as possible. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Oct 31, 2022 6:37:53 GMT
I like the way this is looking. One thought - if *all* the negative modifiers stack up, then the tie value could in theory go as low as -2. And it's not even that far-fetched - an army in a chaotic rout probably does have terrible morale and is fatigued and outnumbered. Are we OK with that, or should there be a cap? In those circumstances I don't mind a guaranteed victory with a high chance of annihilation, but I lean towards flooring the tie value at 1. Yeah, good point. Edit: Besides capping, I think a rule that when retreating you'll take less casualties. |
|
