|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Nov 5, 2022 23:09:35 GMT
Now according to Darth Nihilus 's rule I make my second attack. I think 1000 tanks is enough to give me a -1 for manpower. Also, if someone feels like I'm doing stuff too fast, let me know. Medium risk [dice throw] I think the speed of your attacks is fine as long as it's against neutral countries. When we inevitably get to pvp we might have to wait a bit longer between attacks. Yea, I think the 24 hour rule is good, except when the other side responds. |
|
|
|
Post by Darth Nihilus on Nov 5, 2022 23:16:45 GMT
Battle of Marijampole: This city is a vital crossroad between us and Klaipeda. If we capture it we will be able to set up guns within the range of Kaunas. Using 500 guns we establish an artillery superiority, which provides us with a +2 morale boost. The defenders are well-fortified, giving them a +1 fortification boost. 
It seems that despite destroying the forward Lithuanian units, we have not been able to completely take the city. This day has been a disaster so far. Our bombing raids will continue into the night. 
Red: Current advances Blue: What we had hoped to achieve |
|
|
|
Post by Theron of Acragas on Nov 6, 2022 4:47:08 GMT
100,000 from the Maginot line and 100,000 from Paris are moved to Annecy along with 500 tanks from Nancy and the surrounding regions. (Because I'm bored and want some battle, but don't any enemies except Italy and Lithuania.) Because the Military dictatorship of António Salazar is shamelessly assisting Franco, the troops that were supposed to go to Algiers, suddenly land on the southwestern tip of Portugal. Since the landing is a total surprise, for France hasn't sent any ultimatum to Portugal, it is faced with minimal opposition (if someone disagrees, tell me), but the Portuguese forces prepare to defend at São Marcos de Serra. A medium threat attack with similar forces, 8 to win. QssYkTeH100,000 men, 100 tanks and 500 guns (on mountain terrain guns should be about as good as tanks, when defending) are moved from Milan to support the northern border, the second army also shifts a bit closer. 100000 men with another 100 tanks, 500 guns, 200 fighters and 100 bombers move from Milan to Turin. And I really hope Germany is going to help at some point. ![]() ![]() ![]()  |
|
|
|
Post by Theron of Acragas on Nov 6, 2022 4:54:39 GMT
Also Theron of Acragas , about the situation in Albania, you really can attack if you want and I'd say that even if the first 20,000 are able to evacuate, the 10,000 remaining won't if you decide to attack. Let's say I can send a detachment of 30,000 to attach the retreating 10,000 French. Terrain bonus +2 to the defence, I'm going to claim +1 morale for the attackers, since the French are retreating after a decisive defeat. 7 + 2 mountains - 2 numbers - 1 morale = 6 to win? kj5Y5k68· |
|
|
|
Post by Theron of Acragas on Nov 6, 2022 4:58:02 GMT
Forgot to specify attack type, I guess medium risk should be the default. Embarrassingly, I still don't know the formula we're using for casualties and don't have time to look right now.
Edit: if I'm doing this right, Italy suffers 2500 casualties, France 4000, but the French hold their position and are able to complete the evacuation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Nov 6, 2022 8:10:25 GMT
Theron of Acragas, my southernmost army attacks yours facing it. I think this would probably be an 8 to win, 100 tanks giving me a -1, but I'm not quite sure how good should tanks be. Based on the number of tanks and number of soldiers I'd say something around 500:1. Anyways, medium risk. A72Go8vF·
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene V. Debs on Nov 6, 2022 8:11:47 GMT
We will launch a new medium risk attack on the Estonian forces, which is on the edge of destruction after our previous attack, against our superior forces. 7 - 3 the numbers (plus we have tanks, aircrafts etc. which Estonia doesn't have, if this doesn't count, then 2) - 1(?) our morale boost and their morale drop (both are slight+moderate) = 3 (or 4, I'm not totally sure about the previous bonuses) nyoO5_u8Also, Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov , I was going to ask the same as Theron of Acragas . You said that casualties are calculated from the average. What do you mean by average? The total size of the armies? Because (I think) I had already done so too when I tried, if I didn't miss something, which I did, I guess.  · |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene V. Debs on Nov 6, 2022 8:12:57 GMT
And the second attack.
XLSeKwGP·
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Nov 6, 2022 8:40:04 GMT
We will launch a new medium risk attack on the Estonian forces, which is on the edge of destruction after our previous attack, against our superior forces. 7 - 3 the numbers (plus we have tanks, aircrafts etc. which Estonia doesn't have, if this doesn't count, then 2) - 1(?) our morale boost and their morale drop (both are slight+moderate) = 3 (or 4, I'm not totally sure about the previous bonuses) nyoO5_u8Also, Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov , I was going to ask the same as Theron of Acragas . You said that casualties are calculated from the average. What do you mean by average? The total size of the armies? Because (I think) I had already done so too when I tried, if I didn't miss something, which I did, I guess. ·Looking back at it, I must've misread your rolls or something and thought that you took the casualties straight from Lithuanias army. Also, for clarification, what I meant by average was the average of the two opposing armies. I'm not sure though, should the value be different. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene V. Debs on Nov 6, 2022 9:32:13 GMT
We will launch a new medium risk attack on the Estonian forces, which is on the edge of destruction after our previous attack, against our superior forces. 7 - 3 the numbers (plus we have tanks, aircrafts etc. which Estonia doesn't have, if this doesn't count, then 2) - 1(?) our morale boost and their morale drop (both are slight+moderate) = 3 (or 4, I'm not totally sure about the previous bonuses) nyoO5_u8Also, Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov , I was going to ask the same as Theron of Acragas . You said that casualties are calculated from the average. What do you mean by average? The total size of the armies? Because (I think) I had already done so too when I tried, if I didn't miss something, which I did, I guess. ·Looking back at it, I must've misread your rolls or something and thought that you took the casualties straight from Lithuanias army. Also, for clarification, what I meant by average was the average of the two opposing armies. I'm not sure though, should the value be different. No problem, I had also misplaced Estonia's casualties, the casualties Estonia's forces lost in the first attack should have been put on the second attack section, and accordingly, the second attack's casualties on Estonian side on the first attack section, I should've mixed up the order. So, then, had I calculated the casualties correctly at first, or was it still incorrect? I'll calculate again to see what I had done wrong: Forces: USSR: 300,000 Estonia: 100,000 The tie value you had proposed: 7 First attack result: 10 (I lost %2/6000 men and Estonia %7.5/7500 men) Remaining: 294,000 and 92,500 Second attack result: 12 (I lost %2/5880 and Estonia %20/18500) Total casualties according to this calculation Mine: 11,880 Estonia: 26,000 What I had calculated at first: Mine: 12,000 Estonia: 27,500 What you had proposed: Mine: 8000 Estonia: 60,800 Seemingly I had based the second attack's calculations on the first armies again (without the first attack's casualties and unharmed, as if the first attack hadn't happened), in other words, I had excluded the first attack's casualties on both armies whilst calculating the second attack's casualties on both armies, treating the second one as the first attack. In this case, have I understood the casualty calculation system correctly now? Because our calculations on total casualties are still different. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Nov 6, 2022 9:46:57 GMT
Looking back at it, I must've misread your rolls or something and thought that you took the casualties straight from Lithuanias army. Also, for clarification, what I meant by average was the average of the two opposing armies. I'm not sure though, should the value be different. No problem, I had also misplaced Estonia's casualties, the casualties Estonia's forces lost in the first attack should have been put on the second attack section, and accordingly, the second attack's casualties on Estonian side on the first attack section, I should've mixed up the order. So, then, had I calculated the casualties correctly at first, or was it still incorrect? I'll calculate again to see what I had done wrong: Forces: USSR: 300,000 Estonia: 100,000 The tie value you had proposed: 7 First attack result: 10 (I lost %2/6000 men and Estonia %7.5/7500 men) Remaining: 294,000 and 92,500 Second attack result: 12 (I lost %2/5880 and Estonia %20/18500) Total casualties according to this calculation Mine: 11,880 Estonia: 26,000 What I had calculated at first: Mine: 12,000 Estonia: 27,500 What you had proposed: Mine: 8000 Estonia: 60,800 Seemingly I had based the second attack's calculations on the first armies again (without the first attack's casualties and unharmed, as if the first attack hadn't happened), in other words, I had excluded the first attack's casualties on both armies whilst calculating the second attack's casualties on both armies, treating the second one as the first attack. In this case, have I understood the casualty calculation system correctly now? Because our calculations on total casualties are still different. It's probably the tie value. I thought the tie value would've been 5 or 6. Anyways, I think it's good that this difficulty in communicating occured now before the more decisive battles. Edit: I see where the problem is now. I calculated the casualties to both sides as a percentage from the average. So in the first attack, you would suffer 150,000 × 2% and Estonia 150,000 × 7.5%. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene V. Debs on Nov 6, 2022 10:41:55 GMT
No problem, I had also misplaced Estonia's casualties, the casualties Estonia's forces lost in the first attack should have been put on the second attack section, and accordingly, the second attack's casualties on Estonian side on the first attack section, I should've mixed up the order. So, then, had I calculated the casualties correctly at first, or was it still incorrect? I'll calculate again to see what I had done wrong: Forces: USSR: 300,000 Estonia: 100,000 The tie value you had proposed: 7 First attack result: 10 (I lost %2/6000 men and Estonia %7.5/7500 men) Remaining: 294,000 and 92,500 Second attack result: 12 (I lost %2/5880 and Estonia %20/18500) Total casualties according to this calculation Mine: 11,880 Estonia: 26,000 What I had calculated at first: Mine: 12,000 Estonia: 27,500 What you had proposed: Mine: 8000 Estonia: 60,800 Seemingly I had based the second attack's calculations on the first armies again (without the first attack's casualties and unharmed, as if the first attack hadn't happened), in other words, I had excluded the first attack's casualties on both armies whilst calculating the second attack's casualties on both armies, treating the second one as the first attack. In this case, have I understood the casualty calculation system correctly now? Because our calculations on total casualties are still different. It's probably the tie value. I thought the tie value would've been 5 or 6. Anyways, I think it's good that this difficulty in communicating occured now before the more decisive battles. Edit: I see where the problem is now. I calculated the casualties to both sides as a percentage from the average. So in the first attack, you would suffer 150,000 × 2% and Estonia 150,000 × 7.5%. Oh, I see. I had based the value on this: Eugene V. Debs , so in this case you'd need 8+1(trench)-2(numbers)=7 to win. And if you'd roll these (just an example not an actual result)... Edit: The battle would be a tie. kvXDlBbE· Also, we are still in the experimenting phase for this system after all (like the beta phase of a game) as we have never used this before, so we need some problems to solve in order to improve the system and get the best game experience we can get at the end when everything is ready, don't we? And there may be some victims during this period (in this case, me. Just joking ). And this one isn't a big problem or something at all anyway, and plus, such problems does nothing but improving the gameplay as well as helping to solve the possible problems beforehand, which are good (and, naturally, neccessary in an experimenting phase) for the game, and since this isn't a problem for us and plus it is helpful and good for the future of the RP, what more could we ask for?  |
|
|
|
Post by Theron of Acragas on Nov 6, 2022 11:57:50 GMT
We will launch a new medium risk attack on the Estonian forces, which is on the edge of destruction after our previous attack, against our superior forces. 7 - 3 the numbers (plus we have tanks, aircrafts etc. which Estonia doesn't have, if this doesn't count, then 2) - 1(?) our morale boost and their morale drop (both are slight+moderate) = 3 (or 4, I'm not totally sure about the previous bonuses) nyoO5_u8Also, Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov , I was going to ask the same as Theron of Acragas . You said that casualties are calculated from the average. What do you mean by average? The total size of the armies? Because (I think) I had already done so too when I tried, if I didn't miss something, which I did, I guess. ·How I calculated in Albania was as a percentage of the smaller force. If it's the average of the two, then double the casualties for both sides. Incidentally, I just realized that I accidentally multiplied the casualties by 10. The revised casualties then should be 800 French, 500 Italian. Unless I'm stupid. Which is likely. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Nov 6, 2022 15:27:46 GMT
The French expeditionary force makes a new attack towards Kaunas attempting to split Lithuania in half.
About 175,000 against 80,000. 8 to win, medium risk.
Blw|iPfu·
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Nov 6, 2022 15:33:29 GMT
The French expeditionary force makes a new attack towards Kaunas attempting to split Lithuania in half. About 175,000 against 80,000. 8 to win, medium risk. Blw|iPfuThe Lithuanians are pushed to Kaunas and their morale is weakening. Victory by 3: 2 % and 7.5 %, loser pushed back, slight morale boost and drop accordingly French: 2550 dead Lithuania: 9563 dead Second attack to completely capture Kaunas. 7 to win. DRSHCQMB· |
|
·
