Reworking the war system (copy)

Go down

Reworking the war system (copy) Empty Reworking the war system (copy)

Post by Lockdownn on Fri Dec 04, 2015 8:13 am

@Apepistan wrote:Greetings!

This is the forum discussion for the RMB idea of reworking, or more like, making more exact rules for the RP rules concerning war. Why do we need this? Because currently the only way to decide a war-rp event is via arbitation - but this has no rules on how to do it. War is a really important aspect of a nations life (stating the obvious here), so I think there should be fair rules on how to deal with it. While the currently existing rules do provide some solid guidelines, they can only serve as the basics.

War and battles are said to be unpredictable, but their outcome can be vaguely defined by a series of factors, resulting in a more accurate decision of an arbitation.

These, most important factors would be the following:

- supply of the troops (could be determined via the the arms manufacturing + agricultural aspect of the nations, plus the distance from their nearest secured position)

- number of the troops (the number of troops deployed in the action)

- technological level of the troops (via the scientific advancement + arms manufacturing of the nations)

- geographical position of the attacker/defender (via battle location and directions illustrated on the world map)

- morale of the troops (could be calculated and numerized via war exhaustion of the nations [time passed since latest war + number of casualties in it + effect on homeland] + the overall power differences of the armies [all the aspects above combined]

Now, these all need to be numerized and balanced, in order to prodive an equation-like result. I'm saying equation like, because what I have in mind still keeps the "luck" factor (which is, as lots of generals say, the most important part of a battle). How would this look?

numbers + supply + technology + morale + geography = battle score

Both the attacker and the defender has a battle score. The battle score would not instantly determine the outcome of a battle/conflict, but would provide a % of chance for the outcome of the battle, which would help the arbitation decide.

The tricky part is giving numerical values to all 5 factors, while keeping a balance in between them. Note that this isn't a proposal but a discussion, any ideas or constructive criticism is welcome.
@Apepistan wrote:I'll be using an example here, with statistics of me and Scouting, because both our nations are developed but in different aspects. The equation is:

The statistics for the battle score are the following:

Arms manufacturing (NS tracker)
Apepistan: 13
Scouting: 4

Agriculture: (NS tracker)
Apepistan: 4
Scouting: -1

Scientific advancement: (NS tracker/50)
Apepistan: 309/50 = 6
Scouting: 108/50 = 2

Number of troops:  (Thousands)
Apepistan: 20.000 = 20
Scouting: 40.000 = 40

Geographical Position:
Apepistan: attacking from flat terrain = 0
Scouting: defending on forest-hill terrain = 5

Terrain equation:

Attacking from:
Landing: -10
Mountain: -10
River crossing: -5
Hills/forests: -5
Desert: -5
Flatlands: 0

Defending on:
Mountain: +10
Hills/forests: +5
Flatlands: 0
Desert: -5
City: +5

Note: River crossing and landing modifiers only apply to attackers, while city only applies to defender. I've tried to use terrain types that are present on the WA map.

The equation is: arms manufacturingx2 + number of troops/1000 + agriculture + scientific advancement/50 + terrain.

13x2 + 20 + 4 + 6 + 0 = 56

4x2 + 40 - 1 + 2 + 5 = 54

Apepistan: 56
Scouting: 54

So in this scenario, 20.000 troops from Apepistan are attacking 40.000 troops of Scouting who are defending on a heavily forested hill-area. Even though Apepistan has the upper hand in supply and technology, the numbers and the position of Scouting balance the scales. The arbiter could check the numbers, and then decide. Since the number are pretty balanced, the following results would be logical to choose from:

-Apepistan wins with huge losses
-Scouting wins with huge losses
-Both sides suffer huge losses but the battle has no decisive results

Also a little modification:

I scratched morale out of the equation because determining war exhaustion and the mindset of soldiers deployed is almost impossible. I believe it would be more fair if morale would be the following:

Number of battles lost = negative points to morale
Number of battles won = positive morale

So if you had 3 won and 5 lost battles in a war, it'd be a -2 morale to your troops.

Let me know what you think!

Posts : 539
Join date : 2015-03-22
Location : Some place...cold!

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum