|
|
Post by NetherFreek on Jun 9, 2016 17:07:08 GMT
I saw theres no tw suggestions thread so i felt like creating one. In this thread you can suggest what you like or want to see in the following tws. It can be a small change in a rule, or a brand new battle system, tech tree or whatever you like.
But note that the GM decides which rules are in his war. That you and others like your idea will NOT say thay it will be in the next war(s).
Anyways, i think that when we all give suggestions we can work on even better TWs!
|
|
|
|
Post by NetherFreek on Jun 9, 2016 17:27:45 GMT
I also have a few suggestions,
#1
Its too overpowered to do this in the current system:
1. Attack.
2. Recrute.
3. Attack again.
At first you both got for an example 200 bp. You need a 7, even when you throw a 6 you will have 80 and your enemy 120 bp. Then you recrute again and you gain like 80 bp.
The following battle it will be 120 vs 160. You only need a 6.
So its basically
Both have an army
Both armies are going down
You recrute an army
You rek the enemy
How i think im going to solve it?
*Extending troop capicity
*make a loss table
The loss table will ensure that it cant happen again.
#2 troop tactics
By now we have little troops in the tw, uselly only 2or 3 types. Theres little tactic in which troop you are going to take.
What im going to do is:
Create 10 types of troops, all with their own specialities. For example:
1 troop that can be recruted quickly with ease, but also requires a lot of storage
1 troop that can be recruted hardly, but when your storage is full of these, youll be unstoppable.
1 troop good at the beginning, first tech easy but afterwards he stinks at tech and gets rekt by others
1 troop good after researching
1 troop in between thrm
1 troop with a lot of bp, recruted hardly but requires a lot of storage
Etc....
So you can define troops skills basicelly on the following things:
Good a tech?
Many bp?
Turns to recrute?
Many storage?
If you just fill random no and yesses in the lisr above you can have a lot of troops which makes it a bit more tactical.
DISADVANTAGE:
Hard to understand, you need to have track of many troops.
How i solve the disadvantage:
After recruted, you dont need to memorize them. You just fill them in your BP and storage total and thats it. After each battle you lose bp and gain storage.
#3 generals
Every country has a list of generals that can be assigned to battles. Each general stands for an amount of BP. This BP will be added into battle. So if your regular bp was 40 and the generals bp was 20 you have 60 bp into battle
How im going to do it:
Well, it wont be in my war since my war is complicated enough. But how i would do it is:
1. Make a list of generals
2. Each general can be deployed into battle, but after deployed it cant be deployed again. Its for 1 battle only (1 turn).
Advantages:
More tactics to variate, can be decisive in battles
Disadvantages:
Much work to make
Also in the beginning countries have a less amount of BP then in the ending, so they would be OP in the beginning and crap in the ending. You can solve this by upgrading generals overtime, but it will cost even more work
|
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Jun 9, 2016 18:57:59 GMT
It would be simpler to use the 2-dice Picard system.
It completely accouts for the differential strengths of groups in BP terms. It also provides an inherent determination of how much losses are going to happen. And like you said it's easier to keep track of troop diversity in a battle if it's all BP based in losses, and so forth... the Picard system does that work for you anyway.
It goes back to this: the Picard system answers all of your concerns. I would definitely stick to this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Jun 9, 2016 19:11:31 GMT
It would be simpler to use the 2-dice Picard system. It completely accouts for the differential strengths of groups in BP terms. It also provides an inherent determination of how much losses are going to happen. And like you said it's easier to keep track of troop diversity in a battle if it's all BP based in losses, and so forth... the Picard system does that work for you anyway. It goes back to this: the Picard system answers all of your concerns. I would definitely stick to this. we need to test it for TWs though, as a few people in TWs still are new in stw (guys like me). |
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Jun 9, 2016 19:24:29 GMT
I think we have time to play STW2 out a bit before TW12 comes around. The STW1 could work if we didn't had confused with some things. It's sorta an alpha phase. And the STW2 is technically the beta phase for that battle system. TW11 is like only 1/3 through its timeline right? TW12 probably will finally start in September I think. Or maybe TW12 would yake time to set up, so that's October? Who knows?  ------------------------------------------- Different suggestion topic: I'm wondering what would people feel about a different phase style. What if the players submitted their move orders to a GM in private then the results of the phase is posted in the TW thread? This would mean no multi-zone trips for armies. They would have to march one space at a time (and the fleets move one sea space at a time too). A player wouldn't be able to take the opportunity to rekt someone by the virtue of how posts can be used in a phase. Battles would be happening at the same time, more or less. Maybe a completely different way of doing a battle to match that idea. I'm considering this style for TW15, but I am open minded for what people want. |
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck on Jun 10, 2016 1:34:20 GMT
Why don't we do it the old fashioned way and just have people describe tactics used and yadadada and use like MS paint to change the map instead of playing region based.
Just a thought
|
|
|
|
Post by NetherFreek on Jun 10, 2016 5:59:35 GMT
Why don't we do it the old fashioned way and just have people describe tactics used and yadadada and use like MS paint to change the map instead of playing region based. Just a thought Salt, nothing more |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Jun 10, 2016 6:40:09 GMT
Why don't we do it the old fashioned way and just have people describe tactics used and yadadada and use like MS paint to change the map instead of playing region based. Just a thought RP will become living hell, trust me, I've played all wars till now and 1-6 were SERIOUSLY problems. |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Jun 10, 2016 6:46:35 GMT
Objection
What if the players submitted their move orders to a GM in private then the results of the phase is posted in the TW thread? This would mean no multi-zone trips for armies. They would have to march one space at a time (and the fleets move one sea space at a time too).
But posting turns to GM and then GM compiling all the turns and then checking who won who lost is going to be a tough one, no one I think will have time for this much editing.
About the troop transport, I agree as we are wasting quite many useful turns in just moving troops to the front, these turns can be used in R&D if we find out the proper method to move the troops.
|
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Jun 10, 2016 7:20:33 GMT
Objection What if the players submitted their move orders to a GM in private then the results of the phase is posted in the TW thread? This would mean no multi-zone trips for armies. They would have to march one space at a time (and the fleets move one sea space at a time too). But posting turns to GM and then GM compiling all the turns and then checking who won who lost is going to be a tough one, no one I think will have time for this much editing. About the troop transport, I agree as we are wasting quite many useful turns in just moving troops to the front, these turns can be used in R&D if we find out the proper method to move the troops. Well it depends heavily on what sort of battle system is going to be used. Either it's complicated or it's simple. I personally liked the simplicity of Diplomacy the best, but not all people like the simplicity of chess (which is also so flexible in strategy). Many people tend to prefer the dice from Risk the board game instead. And then there's the crazy complicated stuff out there on the Internet lol. |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Jun 10, 2016 7:22:12 GMT
Objection What if the players submitted their move orders to a GM in private then the results of the phase is posted in the TW thread? This would mean no multi-zone trips for armies. They would have to march one space at a time (and the fleets move one sea space at a time too). But posting turns to GM and then GM compiling all the turns and then checking who won who lost is going to be a tough one, no one I think will have time for this much editing. About the troop transport, I agree as we are wasting quite many useful turns in just moving troops to the front, these turns can be used in R&D if we find out the proper method to move the troops. Well it depends heavily on what sort of battle system is going to be used. Either it's complicated or it's simple. I personally liked the simplicity of Diplomacy the best, but not all people like the simplicity of chess (which is also so flexible in strategy). Many people tend to prefer the dice from Risk the board game instead. And then there's the crazy complicated stuff out there on the Internet lol. A simple battle system having accuracy and not killing half your men in one battle is needed, and since we have none like that iys time to get to the drawing board. |
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Jun 10, 2016 7:25:35 GMT
Well it depends heavily on what sort of battle system is going to be used. Either it's complicated or it's simple. I personally liked the simplicity of Diplomacy the best, but not all people like the simplicity of chess (which is also so flexible in strategy). Many people tend to prefer the dice from Risk the board game instead. And then there's the crazy complicated stuff out there on the Internet lol. A simple battle system having accuracy and not killing half your men in one battle is needed, and since we have none like that iys time to get to the drawing board. *mumble to myself* should I try to explain how Diplomacy works and see what people think? |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Jun 10, 2016 7:26:52 GMT
A simple battle system having accuracy and not killing half your men in one battle is needed, and since we have none like that iys time to get to the drawing board. *mumble to myself* should I try to explain how Diplomacy works and see what people think? do it, for the sake of preciseness and conciseness!!! |
|
|
|
Post by NetherFreek on Jun 10, 2016 7:31:35 GMT
I agree with Napoleon Bonaparte that its weird to lose half of your units after each battle. We can redraw the formula to this 25+5*amount of dices thrown to low So when 7 is your number itll be this 12 - you lose 0% procent of your BP 11 - you lose 5% procent of your BP 10 - you lose 10% procent of your BP 9 - 15% 8 - 20% 7 - 25% 6 - 30% 5 - 35% 4 - 40% 3 - 45% 2 - 50% The enemy loses: 50-%bp you lose |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Jun 10, 2016 7:33:41 GMT
I agree with Napoleon Bonaparte that its weird to lose half of your units after each battle. We can redraw the formula to this 25+5*amount of dices thrown to low So when 7 is your number itll be this 12 - you lose 0% procent of your BP 11 - you lose 5% procent of your BP 10 - you lose 10% procent of your BP 9 - 15% 8 - 20% 7 - 25% 6 - 30% 5 - 35% 4 - 40% 3 - 45% 2 - 50% The enemy loses: 50-%bp you lose well have to test it to see if it works. But yeah throwing a two and getting half rekt is better than throwing a 8-9 and losing half. |
|
