|
|
Post by NetherFreek on Apr 17, 2016 18:20:32 GMT
Yes, im a bit active for someome that said he wont be active the comming 2 weeks  But maybe i got an idea to fairen the battles up for a bit, since it happens to often that peoples use 6es against stronger enemies. So what is the plan? 1. Each tw player got to state their bp after their turns. In this way people (should) know how big the enemy army is which they attack. Because now, when people are attacking, 90% of the time you simply dont know how big the army is which you are attacking and you may use 6es while the enemy armie is stronger. 2. Before a battle people got to state their and the enemy bp. They should look it up before anyways, so simply stating this will take 2 seconds. This may look dumb. But its the only way to take down the smugling in wars. When people state both bps, and then see the enemy bp is higher, he simply cant say he uses a 6. So it would look like this: Poland: 1-2 random turns 3. Attack preußen A, enemy 56 bp me 30 bp (15 inf), need an 8 Dices are 9 I lose 2 inf, same as enemy 4-? Rest of the turns I have 26 bp. (13 inf) As you can see these changes dont take long, only a few secconds. But i think it would make the wars a lot fairer |
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Apr 17, 2016 18:38:17 GMT
Also perhaps casualties should also be more limited for the larger army on their side. The percentages favors the smaller army right now, while the larger army tends to require more work to raise it than the smaller army (tend, not always).
The percentage for casualties could be replaced by simple subtraction (aka Risk) based on BP. Why not do that way?
|
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Apr 17, 2016 19:03:28 GMT
Stronger enemy = more BP/more men
But I too went for 6 when doing Sweden, the thing was to increase as much losses as possible since at that time Baltic states and Russia were having more men than an anyone else
But yeah, I get your point, a simple line as "x country has x BP" can change the game .
|
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Apr 17, 2016 19:04:17 GMT
I think this should be a rule in the next war for early implementation and evaluation
|
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Apr 17, 2016 19:18:33 GMT
What if in TWs, you're restricted in movements per phase as Diplomacy would have it?
You could only move one providence or sea space per phase, so it would give the defendant a more fair chance to respond? Overnight blitzkriegs seems to trigger plenty of salt occasionally.
We still could move multiple groups of units but they each are restricted to one move each for a whole phase.
|
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Apr 17, 2016 20:16:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by General William T. Sherman on Apr 17, 2016 20:54:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by best75 on Apr 17, 2016 20:57:47 GMT
People keeping track of their armies is the most important thing they need to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Apr 18, 2016 4:48:44 GMT
I think this should be a rule in the next war for early implementation and evaluation I flat-out used a BP-based Algorithm in STW1. We should do that |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2016 12:57:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Apr 18, 2016 15:15:55 GMT
A floating board of some kind?
|
|
|
|
Post by NetherFreek on Apr 18, 2016 15:20:14 GMT
Oh, i tried it before but it failed.
You mean this i think?
There comes a thread in which every tw player gets one post, and one post only. In this post he keeps track of his nations, he edit it every time when he does a thing in the tw.
The post will look like
Random nation:
Tech: garrison, inf upgr 1, inf upgr 2
Army: 20 inf + 5 tanks
Bp: 70 (20×3+5×2)
|
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Apr 18, 2016 16:13:49 GMT
Oh, i tried it before but it failed. You mean this i think? There comes a thread in which every tw player gets one post, and one post only. In this post he keeps track of his nations, he edit it every time when he does a thing in the tw. The post will look like Random nation: Tech: garrison, inf upgr 1, inf upgr 2 Army: 20 inf + 5 tanks Bp: 70 (20×3+5×2) I like this and we need one or two more men to help the GM in all matters, especially telling who's getting OP, they won't participate, but they'll tell whose going "not so good" |
|
|
|
Post by saltin on Apr 18, 2016 18:58:54 GMT
I'll look into trying to find a solution for this,in the mean time how about something like a seperate thread called for example [Player status for TW10] with only the current info is displayed in posts that are dated and old post removed or just edited?
How many lines of text are we talking about? We need something like what Ver Hull wrote or much more?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2016 7:01:43 GMT
I'll look into trying to find a solution for this,in the mean time how about something like a seperate thread called for example [Player status for TW10] with only the current info is displayed in posts that are dated and old post removed or just edited? How many lines of text are we talking about? We need something like what Ver Hull wrote or much more? Maybe we would need positions, but basically it's enough with ver huells planning, but it didn't fail just that game didn't go further than phase one |
|
