|
|
Post by Frederick the Great on Apr 22, 2016 4:47:02 GMT
I am completely against what NetherFreek said about only having U-Boats and transports. Navies play an important part in many wars and are some times nessasary in a war. In my opinion there should be something like this for navy: Submarines: extra damage to battleships, cheap to build, cannot bombard land units (maybe add something to make them hard to find) Destroyers: extra damage to submarines, medium cost, normal damage to other ships, can can bombard land units, fastest naval unit Battleships: can bombard other ships from a distance, can bombard land units, expensive to build, slow, high health Carriers: weak against other ships but can launch planes to attack land and sea targets I have ideas for other types of naval units too such as patrol boats, tankers, light carriers, mine layers, torpedo boats and some others I also have ideas for ships from age of sail which I may post later if people are interested |
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Apr 22, 2016 5:09:26 GMT
I am completely against what NetherFreek said about only having U-Boats and transports. Navies play an important part in many wars and are some times nessasary in a war. In my opinion there should be something like this for navy: Submarines: extra damage to battleships, cheap to build, cannot bombard land units (maybe add something to make them hard to find) Destroyers: extra damage to submarines, medium cost, normal damage to other ships, can can bombard land units, fastest naval unit Battleships: can bombard other ships from a distance, can bombard land units, expensive to build, slow, high health Carriers: weak against other ships but can launch planes to attack land and sea targets I have ideas for other types of naval units too such as patrol boats, tankers, light carriers, mine layers, torpedo boats and some others I also have ideas for ships from age of sail which I may post later if people are interested Do you realize that normally in a TW, there's only two or three types of land forces for sake of simplicity? The navies should be simpler as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Frederick the Great on Apr 22, 2016 5:12:15 GMT
I know but I really think there should be proper naval units that are useful and make a difference. Also I personally think there should be something like infantry/frontline foot soldiers, cavalry/tanks, artillery/catapults for land units
|
|
|
|
Post by António Salazar on Apr 22, 2016 5:19:23 GMT
I will look at this thing soon. BTW: New name, new profile pic.
For those who are confused: Talleyrand=Juan Perón= Me
|
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Apr 22, 2016 5:28:08 GMT
For 10 i would suggest what Desophaeus mentioned, a country can lose an x amount of provinces per phase as the max. The only problem i see on this is that he doesnt get gangbanged in 1 turn, but in multiple turns I was thinking more of a country cannot take more than 2 provinces from an enemy, however the question of being dogpiled is a seperate one. Should it be considered as an acceptable tactic? If alliances may be made and broke, then I suppose a player might have some (not much) luck in persuade one of the attackers to turn onto his former allies and disrupt the old alliance. However, it seems some people don't like to be an independent player creating his own alliances based on his position on the map. Lord Palmerston said this "Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests." This is what I would ascribe to, as well. A player should maintain a realistic view of things based on the actual positions on the map, not by a personal preference. |
|
|
|
Post by Frederick the Great on Apr 22, 2016 5:29:01 GMT
Why does everyone keep shapeshifting? It's anoying
|
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Apr 22, 2016 5:31:04 GMT
Why does everyone keep shapeshifting? It's anoying *shurgs* Guess it's just like teenager girls switching flashy colored phone covers for their iPhones every 2 weeks. Same thing right?  |
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Apr 22, 2016 5:36:54 GMT
To add onto the discussion on attacking a player or a NPC, I nominate the formula that Picard introduced into his STW1 Dice: You roll 10 dice. The base number is 35+(((defenderBP-attackerBP)/attackerBP)*30), rounded up. This is the lowest roll needed to win. At the base number, each side has 50% casualties among their forces' BP (Spacedocks/stations/Academies are not counted in casualties). For every 1 point above the base number that the roll is, the attacker takes 2% less casualties and the defender takes 2% more (Casualties are rounded down when below 0.5 unit and rounded up when AT OR ABOVE 0.5 unit off from being a round BP value. Any surviving defeated attackers are were they were before and surviving defeated defenders go deeper (will explain later). Note that when calculating defender casualties in a battle involving ODFs (Orbital Defense Platforms), the ODFs are considered to have been "killed" first. The whole thing is heavily favored to the larger BP army and the casualties are predetermined based on BP values of the armies. So a tank doesn't just die quickly by casualty even though it has vastly superior BP quality to infantry for example. |
|
|
|
Post by best75 on Apr 22, 2016 6:07:53 GMT
To add onto the discussion on attacking a player or a NPC, I nominate the formula that Picard introduced into his STW1 Dice: You roll 10 dice. The base number is 35+(((defenderBP-attackerBP)/attackerBP)*30), rounded up. This is the lowest roll needed to win. At the base number, each side has 50% casualties among their forces' BP (Spacedocks/stations/Academies are not counted in casualties). For every 1 point above the base number that the roll is, the attacker takes 2% less casualties and the defender takes 2% more (Casualties are rounded down when below 0.5 unit and rounded up when AT OR ABOVE 0.5 unit off from being a round BP value. Any surviving defeated attackers are were they were before and surviving defeated defenders go deeper (will explain later). Note that when calculating defender casualties in a battle involving ODFs (Orbital Defense Platforms), the ODFs are considered to have been "killed" first. The whole thing is heavily favored to the larger BP army and the casualties are predetermined based on BP values of the armies. So a tank doesn't just die quickly by casualty even though it has vastly superior BP quality to infantry for example. This formula sounds like it will take too much time to do. I am not entirely opposed to this but I don't think it will work since in TW we can have like 6 battles a player can do in a single turn and more if they have more than a country turn. |
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Apr 22, 2016 6:22:42 GMT
To add onto the discussion on attacking a player or a NPC, I nominate the formula that Picard introduced into his STW1 The whole thing is heavily favored to the larger BP army and the casualties are predetermined based on BP values of the armies. So a tank doesn't just die quickly by casualty even though it has vastly superior BP quality to infantry for example. This formula sounds like it will take too much time to do. I am not entirely opposed to this but I don't think it will work since in TW we can have like 6 battles a player can do in a single turn and more if they have more than a country turn. I made a google doc tool, and the larger army (reflected by higher BP) usually wins. We can have some form of a system by which a unit operates at part capacity instead of rounding in attacks. |
|
|
|
Post by NetherFreek on Apr 22, 2016 6:30:28 GMT
I think that GM's should choose whether to have sides. And when there aren't sides, people should learn to expect that Ribbentrop-Molotoving will happen eventually. The NPC's shouldn't have that advantage. You should be able to overpower them with forces. Having NPC's a little stronger would work. We can have the NPC have in each province a number of troops equal to the average troops per province for normal players. In Real life, gang-banging of Nations happens (France in 1812-1814, Nazi Germany in 1941-1945, etc) That npc idea is great actually, so if i understand it correctly, the gm telld each phase how big the army of a npc is per province. So a npc with 3 provinces is 3 times stronger thab a npc with 1 province. And that the gm has to chose sides is just what i said. So ofc im pro that. But i think when one breaks an alliance, he has to wait 1 or 2 phases for attacking for desalting. |
|
|
|
Post by NetherFreek on Apr 22, 2016 6:33:28 GMT
I am completely against what NetherFreek said about only having U-Boats and transports. Navies play an important part in many wars and are some times nessasary in a war. In my opinion there should be something like this for navy: Submarines: extra damage to battleships, cheap to build, cannot bombard land units (maybe add something to make them hard to find) Destroyers: extra damage to submarines, medium cost, normal damage to other ships, can can bombard land units, fastest naval unit Battleships: can bombard other ships from a distance, can bombard land units, expensive to build, slow, high health Carriers: weak against other ships but can launch planes to attack land and sea targets I have ideas for other types of naval units too such as patrol boats, tankers, light carriers, mine layers, torpedo boats and some others I also have ideas for ships from age of sail which I may post later if people are interested And how would you bombard land troops? There needs some proper rules about that. |
|
|
|
Post by Frederick the Great on Apr 22, 2016 7:03:02 GMT
Add a combat bonus to land troops when there are naval units nearby?
|
|
|
|
Post by NetherFreek on Apr 22, 2016 7:09:46 GMT
Too unclear, and unclearness leads to salt.
How about:
Coastal provinces gets a bonus of 1 when attacking enemy while X naval units are on the sea it bordera to.
Or bombing
Every ship can bombard an X (5 this case) amount of infantert or an x (3 this case) amount of tanks when they are in a sea that borders the enemy country.
With a 12 they destroy 5 inf or 3 tanks
With a 11 they destroy 4 inf or 3 tanks
With a 10 they destroy 3 inf or 2 tanks
With a 9 they destroy 2 inf or 1 tank
With an 8 they destroy 1 inf
2-7 they dont destroy a daim
|
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Apr 22, 2016 7:18:08 GMT
Refer to the Trek War rules thread. I made some damn clear rules about navy, dice, etc.
NPCs having the average strength per province of the players sounds fair, even if it does involve math.
And if you know that a stab will come, you won't be as salty.
I do think we need to denote what troops are in what Province
|
|
