Post by Makajawan on Jun 19, 2008 20:54:17 GMT -5
OMGWUTOMG!!1!1!!1!!
This is just an idea. I think it would be something that could be highly beneficial to the wars for multiple reasons. Let's start with the general overview:
This is why I call it "new." It's a reinterpretation of what is currently in the rules. You send in an action to the war moderator. The war mod writes a short blurb, maybe a couple paragraphs, describing what happens. It's the defender's turn. After each blurb, the moderator will post casualties.
Why is this helpful? A variety of reasons, I should think.
1: Moderators aren't overloaded with masses of plans. They only have to account for one action in one short update. Quick and easy, maybe 20 minutes per turn if everyone's on at the same time, if that. If not, at least one update per day.
2: It increases strategy. If you have to play out the entire battle, instead of just sending in plans and hoping for the best, it becomes more of a game. It also allows small groups to overcome large ones if the strategy is good enough.
3: It increases realism. I don't know how many times I've had entire battles come down to one decision that one officer makes in the battles I've modded. I've seen what looks like a similar situation in other battles, but I can't say for sure if that's what happened. If you have to choose what the officer does, instead of the mod, it increases your role and the fairness of the battle. This applies to other things, like timing, as well.
4: It would still end up with a complete battle. I'm not the only one who loves to read a good battle. When you compile all the updates, that's what you'd have. We'd still get all the good parts of the current system, and none of the bad.
5: It's fixable. If we try it and it sucks, there's no problem with just trying something new. We can go back to the original style. No harm done.
I'm sure there are more, but I can't think of them at the moment. Surely this is enough to convince you, am I right? It looks as if there's nothing wrong with it.
Now for particulars:
Each commanding officer would constitute one move. If I have 3 officers present, I get three moves per turn. A move could be anything from having a specific squad of troops attack a specific target to having an airship crash into the middle of the battle to having the officer attack someone his/herself.
Officers have to be present to move. No telecommunication for extra moves.
Heroes would have the ability to make moves as well, but these would be specific combat moves, not troop commands. Like, a hero could breathe fire on a swarm of troops, but couldn't command troops to do anything.
Hero/Officer fusions would have the abilities of both officers and heroes, but they would only be able to use one at a time.
Head Bandits and Mercenaries would count as Hero/Officer fusions.
Bandits and mercs would have the ability to train commanders to function similarly to officers, having a limit of five or so. Armies would not have this ability.
If someone isn't active enough for this system, or will be leaving, that person can designate someone to move for him until he says otherwise, dictating specific strategies beforehand if desired.
Anything else that needs clarification.
So, what do you think? Questions, comments? What do you like? What do you hate? This system can be adjusted to meet whatever needs you guys feel are necessary, or completely rejected if everyone hates it. I'm just throwing this out here with the hope it's accepted.
tl;dr version:
Turn-based battle system. Would solve many problems with current one. Each officer would get one move per turn. Open for adjustment.
This is just an idea. I think it would be something that could be highly beneficial to the wars for multiple reasons. Let's start with the general overview:
10) Battles are not timed, but turn based. You send in battle plans to a War Mod, and wait for a response. In an attack or defending situation, the War Moderator will determine casualties.
This is why I call it "new." It's a reinterpretation of what is currently in the rules. You send in an action to the war moderator. The war mod writes a short blurb, maybe a couple paragraphs, describing what happens. It's the defender's turn. After each blurb, the moderator will post casualties.
Why is this helpful? A variety of reasons, I should think.
1: Moderators aren't overloaded with masses of plans. They only have to account for one action in one short update. Quick and easy, maybe 20 minutes per turn if everyone's on at the same time, if that. If not, at least one update per day.
2: It increases strategy. If you have to play out the entire battle, instead of just sending in plans and hoping for the best, it becomes more of a game. It also allows small groups to overcome large ones if the strategy is good enough.
3: It increases realism. I don't know how many times I've had entire battles come down to one decision that one officer makes in the battles I've modded. I've seen what looks like a similar situation in other battles, but I can't say for sure if that's what happened. If you have to choose what the officer does, instead of the mod, it increases your role and the fairness of the battle. This applies to other things, like timing, as well.
4: It would still end up with a complete battle. I'm not the only one who loves to read a good battle. When you compile all the updates, that's what you'd have. We'd still get all the good parts of the current system, and none of the bad.
5: It's fixable. If we try it and it sucks, there's no problem with just trying something new. We can go back to the original style. No harm done.
I'm sure there are more, but I can't think of them at the moment. Surely this is enough to convince you, am I right? It looks as if there's nothing wrong with it.
Now for particulars:
Each commanding officer would constitute one move. If I have 3 officers present, I get three moves per turn. A move could be anything from having a specific squad of troops attack a specific target to having an airship crash into the middle of the battle to having the officer attack someone his/herself.
Officers have to be present to move. No telecommunication for extra moves.
Heroes would have the ability to make moves as well, but these would be specific combat moves, not troop commands. Like, a hero could breathe fire on a swarm of troops, but couldn't command troops to do anything.
Hero/Officer fusions would have the abilities of both officers and heroes, but they would only be able to use one at a time.
Head Bandits and Mercenaries would count as Hero/Officer fusions.
Bandits and mercs would have the ability to train commanders to function similarly to officers, having a limit of five or so. Armies would not have this ability.
If someone isn't active enough for this system, or will be leaving, that person can designate someone to move for him until he says otherwise, dictating specific strategies beforehand if desired.
Anything else that needs clarification.
So, what do you think? Questions, comments? What do you like? What do you hate? This system can be adjusted to meet whatever needs you guys feel are necessary, or completely rejected if everyone hates it. I'm just throwing this out here with the hope it's accepted.
tl;dr version:
Turn-based battle system. Would solve many problems with current one. Each officer would get one move per turn. Open for adjustment.
Behold Jugger, the Whimsical Robot: "Jugger's Intent: Smack-laying in the downward direction"
