|
|
Post by Eugene V. Debs on Nov 19, 2022 18:00:12 GMT
Okay, my current suggestions for the Rp: Updated Bonus System-Basically, how this works is making all troops besides infantry specialized. They have a general bonus, but also have some sort of extra weakness and strength. Here's the current numbers (after lowering it to Kliment's standards)tank: +1 general bonus, but no extra strength. weak to gunsGuns: +.5 general bonus, +2 damage to tanks (ignores tank bonus). weak to bombers.Bombers: +.5 general bonus, +2 damage to guns (ignores gun bonus). I also feel bombers should be able to do tactical bombing runs that are capped at +3 normal attack damage, (bombers would also take much reduced casualties on said runs, unless AA is in the area, in which case damage is the same as a normal attack) as well strategic bombing runs to knock at a factory (has to be specified which one, and has to be close to the front lines) which need an 8 or higher to succeed. They are weak to AA and fightersAA: A new unit made specifically to combat aircraft. They have a +2 bonus against all aircraft, but also have a -1 affect when attacked by any unit. a factory can produce 45 of them per turn.
How these bonuses are calculated: New rules for Guns and AA: I believe that guns and AA shouldn't suffer casualties when the whole army is attacked unless it's on a +3 normal attack or higher (from the enemy, it would take a -3 or lower attack to take casualties for the person with the guns), since they are usually positioned further from the line, and therefore wouldn't be hit unless the whole army is pushed back. This is unless the attacker specifies the guns or AA, in which case they do full casualties against their target, but reduced casualties against the rest of the army (we can figure out the exact reduction later). This is also negated if the enemy has guns, in which case both sides take artillery casualties. I also believe that both should be able to form groups a certain distance from each other (the person doing this has to specify beforehand) which prevents casualties affecting the whole, and instead only affecting a certain group of Guns or AA.Selective fire for Guns: I believe that guns should have a selective fire option, where they can single out a certain troop type. They either do the same number of casualties, or slightly less (can be worked out later), and don't take casualties unless firing against other guns. To stop this from being Op, they'll have only 1 or 2 selective fires against tanks per page, and 1 selective fire against infantry or AA. Selective fire against enemy guns is unlimited since the attacker also takes casualties.And finally for this section, I believe there should be some sort of Mega bonus for dice rolls which completely shreds the enemy army. I suggested when you get a +10 victory, however we could make it higher. I think this is best because it shows complete domination of your opponent, and therefore makes sense to deal massive casualties. Kliment isn't a fan of the idea however, so we'll have to work this one out more before implementation. Research-I believe that research could further increase the tactical and strategic benefits of the previously mentioned bonuses. Every unit type besides infantry can have either their attack or defense upgraded (though they all have specific names) attack increase is on the left and defense is on the right.attack research increases their general bonusdefense research reduces their weaknessBoth increase by .5 (if attack is +.5 it becomes +1, if weakness is -2 it becomes -1.5)tank- Main cannon and armourGun- cannon and mobilitybomber- increased payload and mobilityfighter- increased fire speed and mobilityAA- higher mm (no defense increase, however it's weakness is capped at -1)to increase either attribute for any unit will take 7 pages (can be adjusted)my favorite version of the system I suggested is the one where research takes 1 factory per thing being researched. This creates an interesting balance between research and production. I also believe their should be special research (ex: firebombs and aquatic tanks). The best way I think we can include those is to ask Kliment about it and discuss whether the research is reasonable, and if so how many pages it would take to research. This could further specialize each players army, and make each one feel more unique.Recruitment-I saw that earlier in the Rp there was discussions about recruitment of infantry to the army, and I think there's an easy fix. Keep the 2% figure, 2% is drafted every 5 pages of combat and every 10 pages without combat (non-consecutive). This allows armies to grow without becoming unreasonably massive.Civilian Projects-This is my last suggestion, and isn't as fleshed out as the others. It'd just be some civilian projects you can do over a few pages. Wouldn't take a factory, would just take a while to complete. Could add small bonuses, like my railroad increasing speed. Maybe a clean water program or job program adds a slight morale boost. More for role playing purposes than anything else.
Welp that's all, let me know what yall think!
Darth Nihilus,Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov,Eugene V. Debs,Theron of Acragas,Ludwig von Mises,All of them sounds interesting imo, and I think they're worth trying, since we can't exaxtly know whether the bonuses etc. should be changed without experimenting. The only thing is, I'm just worried that all of this could be too much to calculate or to keep in mind, though we can't know without trying. |
|
|
|
Post by Warlord247 on Nov 19, 2022 18:04:32 GMT
That's a fair concern Eugene V. Debs, it would definitely take more than currently. I guess I didn't think about it because me and Nihilus both have a spreadsheet already lol. We can try it for a bit, and if it's too much for right now we can always go back to the more simplified version, and use this advanced version later for a different Rp. the main point of the changes is to add flexibility, which will in turn add more complexity. |
|
|
|
Post by Darth Nihilus on Nov 19, 2022 18:05:11 GMT
Okay, my current suggestions for the Rp: Updated Bonus System-Research-Recruitment-Civilian Projects-
Pretty good ideas. I think we'll have to try it out to see how it could be exploited, if it can be. One thing I should ask about is how are casualties gonna be calculated for mixed troop combat? Cause you said that tanks were gonna be weak to guns, etc. but let's say two armies fight with: Army A: 200k soldiers 1k tanks 2k guns Army B: 150k soldiers 2k tanks 500 guns It isn't gonna be very practical for Army B's guns to exclusively attack Army A's tanks, and I think selective fire might risk turning battles into two-front systems where infantry duke it out on one side and then guns are just blazing elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by Warlord247 on Nov 19, 2022 18:15:02 GMT
Hmm, that's a good point Darth Nihilus. Combined arms could get a bit confusing. I think the best way to handle it is to halve the damage bonus for the guns and apply it to the tanks. For example, the guns general bonus is +.5, so that's applied to everything else, but +1 is applied to the tanks. It makes selective fire still the better option for dealing with tanks, but doesn't completely invalidate combined arms. There's also the limit on selective fire specifically to prevent the wars becoming two fronts. If you're worried about guns attacking each other then we could combine them with the infantry and AA numbers. That was my initial plan, but I figured since both sides would take casualties it wouldn't matter. I didn't think about people spamming it, so thanks for brining that up. |
|
|
|
Post by Darth Nihilus on Nov 19, 2022 20:16:52 GMT
Hmm, that's a good point Darth Nihilus . Combined arms could get a bit confusing. I think the best way to handle it is to halve the damage bonus for the guns and apply it to the tanks. For example, the guns general bonus is +.5, so that's applied to everything else, but +1 is applied to the tanks. It makes selective fire still the better option for dealing with tanks, but doesn't completely invalidate combined arms. There's also the limit on selective fire specifically to prevent the wars becoming two fronts. If you're worried about guns attacking each other then we could combine them with the infantry and AA numbers. That was my initial plan, but I figured since both sides would take casualties it wouldn't matter. I didn't think about people spamming it, so thanks for brining that up. Good idea, I think that could be a way to solve the sort of separation of troop types that could occur. I'll add a simplified version of your scoring system to my google docs. |
|
|
|
Post by Darth Nihilus on Nov 19, 2022 20:31:12 GMT
Warlord247, I think infantry could have a bonus against artillery, since artillery has exceptionally poor mobility and it's pretty hard to hit troops that have dug in. I doubt any anti-artillery bonus would really nerf artillery anyway since they're a support weapon and so won't be taking many casualties unless the army in front of them gets routed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Warlord247 on Nov 19, 2022 20:35:09 GMT
Warlord247 , I think infantry could have a bonus against artillery, since artillery has exceptionally poor mobility and it's pretty hard to hit troops that have dug in. I doubt any anti-artillery bonus would really nerf artillery anyway since they're a support weapon and so won't be taking many casualties unless the army in front of them gets routed. That could work, tho probably a smaller bonus than the others, so a +1. That sound alright? |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Nov 19, 2022 20:57:29 GMT
Warlord247, I think infantry could have a bonus against artillery, since artillery has exceptionally poor mobility and it's pretty hard to hit troops that have dug in. I doubt any anti-artillery bonus would really nerf artillery anyway since they're a support weapon and so won't be taking many casualties unless the army in front of them gets routed. But on the other hand trenches are a primary target for artillery barrages. |
|
|
|
Post by Darth Nihilus on Nov 19, 2022 22:59:39 GMT
But on the other hand trenches are a primary target for artillery barrages. Well, on the other other hand, artillery barrages are a primary reason for trenches. |
|
|
|
Post by Warlord247 on Nov 20, 2022 21:50:53 GMT
Eugene V. Debs , Darth Nihilus , and Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov Nihilus raised an interesting issue which I think I have a solution for: PvP up until now, most combat has been performed against the equivalent of NPCs; you roll your dice, add the modifiers, and that's that. However PvP is quite different as there are two players. I think the best way to deal with dice rolls in pvp is for the attacker to initiate their attack, specify their target (guns, tanks, whatever) then roll. Afterwards the defender will roll their own set of dice. Both players add their buffs and debuffs (and only their own! if player 1 has +2 morale and player 2 has -1 morale then player 1 will add +2 to their roll and player 2 will add -1) to their throws, and the difference between the two is the margin of victory. Now of course there is the matter of players being offline, and for that I also have a solution. Each player can specify the number of times they are comfortable with being attacked while offline (each player gets the choice so they don't feel like they go away for a bit and come back to a decimated army) and the attacker adds the buffs and debuffs to their roll the same way they would when fighting a Non-Player nation. What do yall think?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Nov 20, 2022 22:10:21 GMT
Eugene V. Debs , Darth Nihilus , and Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov Nihilus raised an interesting issue which I think I have a solution for: PvP up until now, most combat has been performed against the equivalent of NPCs; you roll your dice, add the modifiers, and that's that. However PvP is quite different as there are two players. I think the best way to deal with dice rolls in pvp is for the attacker to initiate their attack, specify their target (guns, tanks, whatever) then roll. Afterwards the defender will roll their own set of dice. Both players add their buffs and debuffs (and only their own! if player 1 has +2 morale and player 2 has -1 morale then player 1 will add +2 to their roll and player 2 will add -1) to their throws, and the difference between the two is the margin of victory. Now of course there is the matter of players being offline, and for that I also have a solution. Each player can specify the number of times they are comfortable with being attacked while offline (each player gets the choice so they don't feel like they go away for a bit and come back to a decimated army) and the attacker adds the buffs and debuffs to their roll the same way they would when fighting a Non-Player nation. What do yall think? I'm sorry, but I fear this is making things more complicated than necessery. I had plenty of PvP combat with Theron of Acragas and then my initially proposed system where whoever attacks rolls and all factors are taken into account for that roll worked really well. Then the other player can counterattack if they want. The problems that rose were more about the pre-roll factors themselves and the aftermath (navy, army advance etc.) Also, what do you mean by specifying your target? |
|
|
|
Post by Warlord247 on Nov 20, 2022 22:23:23 GMT
Eugene V. Debs , Darth Nihilus , and Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov Nihilus raised an interesting issue which I think I have a solution for: PvP up until now, most combat has been performed against the equivalent of NPCs; you roll your dice, add the modifiers, and that's that. However PvP is quite different as there are two players. I think the best way to deal with dice rolls in pvp is for the attacker to initiate their attack, specify their target (guns, tanks, whatever) then roll. Afterwards the defender will roll their own set of dice. Both players add their buffs and debuffs (and only their own! if player 1 has +2 morale and player 2 has -1 morale then player 1 will add +2 to their roll and player 2 will add -1) to their throws, and the difference between the two is the margin of victory. Now of course there is the matter of players being offline, and for that I also have a solution. Each player can specify the number of times they are comfortable with being attacked while offline (each player gets the choice so they don't feel like they go away for a bit and come back to a decimated army) and the attacker adds the buffs and debuffs to their roll the same way they would when fighting a Non-Player nation. What do yall think? I'm sorry, but I fear this is making things more complicated than necessery. I had plenty of PvP combat with Theron of Acragas and then my initially proposed system where whoever attacks rolls and all factors are taken into account for that roll worked really well. Then the other player can counterattack if they want. The problems that rose were more about the pre-roll factors themselves and the aftermath (navy, army advance etc.) Also, what do you mean by specifying your target? Alrighty, that's fair. And the specifying your target thing was more about are you attacking the army as a whole, using selective fire with your guns, or attacking an artillery or AA battery with your infantry. Nothing beyond that |
|
|
|
Post by Warlord247 on Nov 29, 2022 19:55:26 GMT
Eugene V. Debs, Darth Nihilus, and Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov, I think my war with Yugoslavia shows that the system is pretty balanced. While it does give you an advantage on smaller countries, it shouldn't be too large as long as you apply your debuffs properly throughout the war. I didn't get any super big modifiers until the end, but that was after I had basically every single bonus possible. So all in all, I think it works. I also want to suggest a new rule to avoid someone completely dominating wars. In my last attack against Yugoslavia, I had two armies make all out attacks, which decimated their remaining forces. Such an attack should be limited. I suggest that when you attack an enemy head on you can only attack the same position once. When you attack an enemy you flanked you can use any a combination of any 2 attacks besides 2 all out attacks. And finally, when the enemy is encircled you can attack with 2 all out attacks at once. We could also add other restrictions to this, just lmk
|
|
|
|
Post by Darth Nihilus on Nov 29, 2022 22:41:55 GMT
Eugene V. Debs , Darth Nihilus , and Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov , I think my war with Yugoslavia shows that the system is pretty balanced. While it does give you an advantage on smaller countries, it shouldn't be too large as long as you apply your debuffs properly throughout the war. I didn't get any super big modifiers until the end, but that was after I had basically every single bonus possible. So all in all, I think it works. I also want to suggest a new rule to avoid someone completely dominating wars. In my last attack against Yugoslavia, I had two armies make all out attacks, which decimated their remaining forces. Such an attack should be limited. I suggest that when you attack an enemy head on you can only attack the same position once. When you attack an enemy you flanked you can use any a combination of any 2 attacks besides 2 all out attacks. And finally, when the enemy is encircled you can attack with 2 all out attacks at once. We could also add other restrictions to this, just lmk I think we could revise the attack-based point system to reflect this (I had earlier proposed spending a maximum of 4 points per day, with 4 points going to a high-risk, 2 to a medium-risk, and 1 to a low-risk attack). In terms of numerical superiority, I think the bonus should start to stagnate beyond a 3:1 ratio cause numerical superiority gives you diminishing returns once you get to really high values. Think: The Battle of the Bulge was won by the Allies cause they were able to hold off the Germans for several days while being outnumbered 10 to 1 in many cases (of course they all eventually lost but still) |
|
|
|
Post by Warlord247 on Nov 29, 2022 22:44:24 GMT
Eugene V. Debs , Darth Nihilus , and Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov , I think my war with Yugoslavia shows that the system is pretty balanced. While it does give you an advantage on smaller countries, it shouldn't be too large as long as you apply your debuffs properly throughout the war. I didn't get any super big modifiers until the end, but that was after I had basically every single bonus possible. So all in all, I think it works. I also want to suggest a new rule to avoid someone completely dominating wars. In my last attack against Yugoslavia, I had two armies make all out attacks, which decimated their remaining forces. Such an attack should be limited. I suggest that when you attack an enemy head on you can only attack the same position once. When you attack an enemy you flanked you can use any a combination of any 2 attacks besides 2 all out attacks. And finally, when the enemy is encircled you can attack with 2 all out attacks at once. We could also add other restrictions to this, just lmk I think we could revise the attack-based point system to reflect this (I had earlier proposed spending a maximum of 4 points per day, with 4 points going to a high-risk, 2 to a medium-risk, and 1 to a low-risk attack). In terms of numerical superiority, I think the bonus should start to stagnate beyond a 3:1 ratio cause numerical superiority gives you diminishing returns once you get to really high values. Think: The Battle of the Bulge was won by the Allies cause they were able to hold off the Germans for several days while being outnumbered 10 to 1 in many cases (of course they all eventually lost but still) The attack thing is a good idea, however it could slow the game down by a lot, especially if players only have a few days where they're both online as for the bonuses, I was talking about all bonuses added together, not just outnumber bonuses  |
|
