Reworking the war system

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Reworking the war system

Post  Apepistan on Wed Feb 25, 2015 11:50 pm

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.
avatar
Apepistan
Regional Power

Posts : 439
Join date : 2014-09-27
Location : Budapest, Hungary

Back to top Go down

Re: Reworking the war system

Post  UnitedStatesOfScouting on Wed Feb 25, 2015 11:54 pm

I like the ideas proposed here. Do you think you could come up with a system to fit these ideas?
avatar
UnitedStatesOfScouting
Emerging Power

Posts : 970
Join date : 2014-11-03

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=scouting

Back to top Go down

Re: Reworking the war system

Post  Apepistan on Thu Feb 26, 2015 5:42 pm

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.

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

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


Overall:
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!
avatar
Apepistan
Regional Power

Posts : 439
Join date : 2014-09-27
Location : Budapest, Hungary

Back to top Go down

Re: Reworking the war system

Post  Xolox on Thu Feb 26, 2015 10:48 pm

A resounding YES! from me! My only suggestion is just to base battle results on these scores without the interpretation of an arbitrator. An arbitrator would only be required if someone was interpreting it incorrectly.

We could set up a losses:points ratio or something to help determining battle losses.
avatar
Xolox
Regional Power

Posts : 470
Join date : 2014-09-04
Age : 19
Location : Florida

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=xolox

Back to top Go down

Re: Reworking the war system

Post  Apepistan on Thu Feb 26, 2015 10:57 pm

Xolox wrote:A resounding YES! from me! My only suggestion is just to base battle results on these scores without the interpretation of an arbitrator. An arbitrator would only be required if someone was interpreting it incorrectly.

We could set up a losses:points ratio or something to help determining battle losses.

The main idea was to set fixed guidelines for arbitration, not to get precise results for a battle; that wouldn't be too interesting if you already knew the outcome of a battle before it'd happen.

Another solution would be that the fighting sides do the calculations, and a War Moderator neutral to the conflict would decide the outcome. In that case, wars would get their separate threads just like peace summits and other events do, instead of taking place in the international news report.
avatar
Apepistan
Regional Power

Posts : 439
Join date : 2014-09-27
Location : Budapest, Hungary

Back to top Go down

Re: Reworking the war system

Post  Shockwave on Thu Feb 26, 2015 11:13 pm

Apepistan wrote:
Xolox wrote:A resounding YES! from me! My only suggestion is just to base battle results on these scores without the interpretation of an arbitrator. An arbitrator would only be required if someone was interpreting it incorrectly.

We could set up a losses:points ratio or something to help determining battle losses.

The main idea was to set fixed guidelines for arbitration, not to get precise results for a battle; that wouldn't be too interesting if you already knew the outcome of a battle before it'd happen.

Another solution would be that the fighting sides do the calculations, and a War Moderator neutral to the conflict would decide the outcome. In that case, wars would get their separate threads just like peace summits and other events do, instead of taking place in the international news report.
That would actually really work, you could post your move on the war thread and then when the outcome is decided you can then post on the news thread.
avatar
Shockwave
Potential World Power

Posts : 527
Join date : 2014-12-02

Back to top Go down

Re: Reworking the war system

Post  Apepistan on Thu Feb 26, 2015 11:22 pm

Wirbanskia wrote:
That would actually really work, you could post your move on the war thread and then when the outcome is decided you can then post on the news thread.

It would also prevent people from making moves before the opponent could reply.
avatar
Apepistan
Regional Power

Posts : 439
Join date : 2014-09-27
Location : Budapest, Hungary

Back to top Go down

Re: Reworking the war system

Post  Shockwave on Thu Feb 26, 2015 11:24 pm

Apepistan wrote:
Wirbanskia wrote:
That would actually really work, you could post your move on the war thread and then when the outcome is decided you can then post on the news thread.

It would also prevent people from making moves before the opponent could reply.
And god-modding, I suggest New Rhodinia as the War mod.
avatar
Shockwave
Potential World Power

Posts : 527
Join date : 2014-12-02

Back to top Go down

Re: Reworking the war system

Post  Apepistan on Thu Feb 26, 2015 11:28 pm

Wirbanskia wrote:
And god-modding, I suggest New Rhodinia as the War mod.

I think there should be multiple War Mods, and they can only decide battles if they are completely neutral to the conflict.

Though this is a discussion for later, for now let us focus on the whole system of arbitation guidelines.
avatar
Apepistan
Regional Power

Posts : 439
Join date : 2014-09-27
Location : Budapest, Hungary

Back to top Go down

Re: Reworking the war system

Post  Great Eurussia on Sat Feb 28, 2015 9:59 pm

I am against the idea of having 'WAR MODS' in all sense of it. Since, I don't like other regions to see the World Alliance having a War Moderator other than Roleplay Moderator making us look like as if we contradict our aspirations of peace and even promote chaos and wars. This is just plain unacceptable and degrading to the integrity of the World Alliance.

On the other hand, going back to the issue at hand, with the recent series of wars I have seen and based on my experience of witnessing several wars throughout the history of the WA, I am disappointed that our roleplay standards have not yet improved. It became much, much worse to my own disappointment as I, together with Xolox, have authored the very foundation of roleplaying in the region which is the WA Roleplaying Act. Although I would wish everyone to please excuse me since I do not also want to be seen or act as if I am the best roleplayer here, but I do hope you get my point if I give the examples below.

1) It is good to see that the statistical formula of the WA Roleplaying Act is perfectly followed and observed. However, I am not expecting it be used like this way. For example, a war I intended to invade my little neighbor Frog. (I have a 15 million army while he has none. I have a population of only 500 million+ while has a 2 billion+ population). This will not be the kinds of news I would wish to see.
Eurussia declares invasion of Frog

The Eurussian military deployed 5 million troops to Frog with no military at all. The government is expecting that invasion will be finished because Frog has no military and Eurussia is a very scientifically advanced and influential nation in the world. Eurussia is a very very big country will Frog is just like a tiny dot in the map. 

(use of pictures of armies and so on)

2) In a general perspective, Eurussian invasion of Frog is a one-sided situation and cannot be won over by Frog. However, in a detailed perspective, it could turn out differently and I would instead prefer to see my news for number 1 to be like this instead.
Eurussia declares invasion of Frog

The Eurussian Empire has surprisingly declared a war on its little neighboring Frog who is known to have no military forces at all. Eurussia has an estimated 15 million army and is expected to use 5 million to invade Frog, however, logistically moving them would be a financial nightmare for the Defense Ministry, hence, it is reported that at least 1 million is stationed in the regions surrounding Frog. Despite Eurussia's overwhelming capability, Frog is known to have the highest ratio of population per square kilometer due to its growing 2 billion population squeezed in a small country whose cities have lots of skyscrapers. It is also a country divided by a massive mountain range and geographically divided into three geographic portions.




Please note all the factors I used not just the military numbers. And the map!!!

3) Then, assuming Frog responded, my next turn wouldn't be like this, although I have done this before, but since experience taught be to be better, I would hate to go back to this kind of roleplaying.
Eurussia enters Frog through armed offensive

The Eurussia military's 5 million forces started bombing major cities of Frog and its seaports and bases and facilities. It caused millions of death and have captured half of the country. (I did not take into consideration the explosive population of the country and its geography)




4) Instead, I would prefer to make my response like this after Frog's response whatever it may be.
Eurussia enters Frog through armed offensive

With Eurussia's three contingents, the north, east, and west continent composed of 3,000 men each, with 5,000 men on stand by, Eurussia made its first offensive via its north contingent successfully defeating its small border force in the area securing three towns in the northern portion of Frog however facing heavy resistance from Frog citizens. Thus, still awaiting for further reinforcements to protect the remaining 2,987 troops who are already scattered and fought on foot only. 13 troops were killed in the offensive. (believable? I just cut it short lol)

Knowing nothing how Frog's citizens will react to the invasion, the east and west contingents remain on standby awaiting the developments by the offensive of the northern contingent. There are also three naval fleets surrounding Frog, one is in the east and two are in the west scaring away merchant vessels but not attacking them. Thus, limiting trade of the Frog nation.



Please note the number of troops and the economic aspect of the war. (please neglect other arrows lol)

5) Then, I went to target the capital city since the entire Frog country could now be aware that its giant neighbor started invading the military less nation. Usually, I see news like this.
Eurussia attacks capital city of Frog

Eurussia sent 2,000 ships to block the coast line of Frog and stop all trade. Eurussia made a naval blockade in the country. It's air force also sent 3,000 fighter jets and 500 tanks to enter the capital city.



Is this realistic? Yes we know Eurussia has 15 million army but does it equate that it also possess 2,000 ships? at all? How about its other naval patrols? So Eurussia has 6,000 ships then? Furthermore, does its army size equate to have an air force with 3,000 jets to be used in just this war? So Eurussia has 10,000 jets more or less in total? And didn't Eurussia even thought of how many bases will it dedicate just for this war to get the jets to Frog who's capital city is thousands of kilometers away from the nearest border in Eurussia? (using the map scale!!!) And assuming for the sake of argument, no need for land bases, how many aircraft carriers will Eurussia need to get its 3,000 jets near the capital city of Frog? How many airbases do Eurussia need to keep that huge amount of jets? Not to mention the bombers, helicopters and so on! And how about 500 tanks in just one attack? Is this logistically realistic? 

6) I would prefer to do this for number 5.

Eurussia attacks capital city of Frog

Eurussia used one of its western naval fleet with one aircraft carrier to send 3 fighter jets and replaced by another 3 jets rotationally for three hours to bomb the skycrapers in the capital city of Frog and bring the city in a rain of fire. 2 bombers have been sent from eastern border of Frog in a Eurussian airbase to bomb major population centers from the coast all the way to the Frog's capital city. Then, an amphibious landing ship group has landed in the coastal town southwest of Frog capital city carrying 10 tanks, 5 rocket launchers and initial 500 troops regiment. This expeditionary forces traveled 123 kilometers to reach the capital city although they were forced to withdraw due to heavy resistance from local police and armed citizens. Thus, a reinforcement is being await to reach the capital. The attacks on the capital city could have reached other parts of the country sending fears to the entire nation that Frog will lose the war.




Please take note the factors I have used on this news.


7) This is the kind of roleplay I was expecting the result from the WA RP Act, much to my disappointment though. But I think this would require a lot of improvement from all but is achievable with thorough cooperation from players and mods alike!


8) I forgot to include in the WA Roleplaying Act that Maps should be mandatory.

9) I think for a real roleplay war to be effective, nations involve should agree first OOC.

10) I think it is also necessary that international lands, or those lands that are not yet claimed should not be used in wars. I think?


Hence, I would wish to hear your views and opinions on my observations and expectations.
avatar
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

Re: Reworking the war system

Post  Apepistan on Wed Mar 11, 2015 12:54 am

I was expecting the same kind of roleplay, but obviously it is not working... Just like how the act about non WASC members posting in WASC threads was made, I feel like reworking the war system is nessesary. I'd like to hear more opinion on the system I made beforr turning it into an actual proposal first, as it got a bit derailed to another direction with the discussion above.
avatar
Apepistan
Regional Power

Posts : 439
Join date : 2014-09-27
Location : Budapest, Hungary

Back to top Go down

Re: Reworking the war system

Post  Great Eurussia on Wed Mar 11, 2015 7:28 am

Apepistan wrote:I was expecting the same kind of roleplay, but obviously it is not working... Just like how the act about non WASC members posting in WASC threads was made, I feel like reworking the war system is nessesary. I'd like to hear more opinion on the system I made beforr turning it into an actual proposal first, as it got a bit derailed to another direction with the discussion above.


I am not saying that I am very good at roleplaying but this post of Wirbanskia is a good start, beginning from the use of pictures. But this requires more details.

http://worldalliance.postalboard.com/t520p780-wa-international-news-network#27462
avatar
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

Re: Reworking the war system

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

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