- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Military System; Beta Final Version | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 18 2008, 09:55 PM (497 Views) | |
| Boromir | Feb 18 2008, 09:55 PM Post #1 |
|
Administrator
|
This was the initial proposal I gave the original staff, with no complaints: "We give each army a set amount of troops. Of course, we base these original numbers numbers from the book. For example, we begin by giving Mordor 75,000 Orcs. Seems kinda dumb to do that, right? At the Pellinore Fields, it was said Mordor had more than 100,000 soldiers, and that's not including reinforcements from Easterlings and Haradrim. How do we make this more canonesque? Each group will receive more troops per week. It'll be kind a realistic number, and vary per sect. For Gondor, Rohan, Dwarves, the Elf Kingdoms, the Easterlings/Haradrim/etc., and Dale/Lake-town, they are given a set of soldiers that is relatively high. However, they grow rather slowly per week, such as Rohan gaining 25 archers, 20 foot soldiers and 10 Rohirrim. It would start strong and gradually grow, and thus, they would be required to be more strategic with their troops, as not to have their asses handed to them. Meanwhile, for Isengard and Mordor, they would start with a relatively low number. Like, Isengard would start with 80 Uruk-hai, 100 Orcs, 300 Wildmen, and 50 Warg-Riders. However, the next week, they would gain 150 Uruks, 200 Orcs, 100 Wildmen, and 50 Warg-Riders. Being that Orcs will apparently be born from pits as well as reproduction, Orcs will naturally be generated faster. It allows for a faster build-up of troops, though it may have to be increased periodically to reach realistic numbers. Mordor will have more troops than Isengard at any given time, and Dol Guldor may, in the future, work separately from this. That's all I have for now. I've already addressed the problem of cheating. Now, hierarchy. Naturally, we already have pre-set leaders of each army. Saruman, The Witch-king, followed by Khamûl and Gothmog for Mordor; Saruman, followed by some Uruk; Théoden, I don't need to tell you people this. But naturally, they're in charge of planning. This makes the RPG a bit more tricky, because if the players of these great leaders of each nation aren't competent with planning and number strength, then they'll be Fubar'd. For Mordor/Isengard, things are different-They have strength in numbers and raw power. They can afford to lose troops, but that makes them sloppy, if they don't plan their resources well. However, a big thing hurts this entire plan: How to increse or decrease forces. I think we can, for the sake of argument, address this for the Man/Elf/Dwarf factions. The more land of their own they have, the more troops they get anyway. If this increases, i.e. if Gondor gains complete control over Osgiliath and Ithilien, then they will gain more troops (this only make sense for Ithilien, as people live/lived there). The same could apply for Orc-related factions better, though, because more land=more places to put annoying little Orc-pits." Ideas elsewhere: However, to this system, people, regardless of who, may NPC a self-created character for that particular battle (or future battles). However, before each battle, there will be a sign-up sheet to guarantee we don't have an abundance of NPCs on one side (We'll try to proportion things out based on numbers, i.e. there should be more Uruk-hai than Rohirrim at Helm's Deep, if we do the book version). Thus, people are active in battles. During a battle, we will not wait for individual, slowed players. Events must happen, and they must happen actively to keep the battles going. This isn't to say we're going to have a new event every day. We're going to make it so that things are relatively active and don't require someone's activity, because we have lives to attend to. Life > Game, people. Thus, the events will be decided by planning from both sides in their respective military forums. That's why they are there. The admins, or the leaders of the militaries at that battle, will dictate what happens. The head of the Uruk-hai at Helm's Deep will dictate the bombs at the walls, the ladders, etc. Théoden will direct volleys, retreats, charges, etc. They work against one another. However, before each battle, the Admins and leaders of both sides of the conflict (if more than two sides are on it, well, we'll do that too), and a victor will be decided. Only this group will know, and if they reveal to anyone other than this group the decision, they will be banned permanently from the RPG. They will also work to make sure their side has the best possible chance of winning a battle. If the decision for a win must be appealed, it can. This decision will be decided after the battleplans have been drawn up, and decided thus-The execution of this in battle can potentially change the fate of the battle, so nothing is definite until it's over. This is basically it, and I have it all in my head. Feel free to ask me if I didn't clear anything up, and you can criticize as you will. This is the beta, and if there's no opposition to it, it'll be the definite system. Later in the week I'll draw up military forces for each of the factions and we can begin planning action. |
![]() |
|
| Sauron | Feb 19 2008, 03:16 AM Post #2 |
![]()
Dark Lord of Middle-earth
|
That makes no sense. I think you mean: "However, before each battle, the admins and leaders of both sides of the conflict will meet before the battle and a victor will be decided." I just wanted to clarify that. Also, for revealing it outside of the leaders/chiefs, the ban from the RPG seems overly harsh. I think it would be better to revoke their commanding character(s) and allow them to play lessers. We cannot be so harsh on people. Also, second chances must be allowed, such as accidents and such (depending on unique situations). I know it may not be appropriate, at this time, but we don't have enough members to be strict with. Just my thoughts. Also, how are specific battles to be decided? Are they designed by the chiefs or do we play by ear. By specific I mean the battalion vs. battalion warfare. We can't just say, Team A has defeated Team B in sector E6. I'd like to know how we will decide how a flank will collapse or gain ground. Do the chiefs converse behind "closed threads"? A side point to that is that how do we define when and how volleys/retreats/charges and when are they decided upon? In private military boards, I suppose (during the battle?)? I just wanted to be clear. Otherwise, I'd propose we have a map, if possible, of each battle and the position of troops. It need not be a specific one with amazing graphics of epic proportions. I mean a map for each territory under question of conflict that indicates the forces of either sides and their starting points and any major updates, such as gaining a foothold in an important or battle-changing point. Other than these points I bring up, it seems like an ideal style. This is all I have for now. Hopefully not too much. Thank you for reading and for the system's nice structure. -Sauron |
![]() |
|
| Boromir | Feb 19 2008, 05:37 AM Post #3 |
|
Administrator
|
On the topic of the banning, that's official and final, as far as I'm concerned. Member number is of no consequence, though there will be minor circumstances that vary from case to case. If we reveal the winner of a battle before its conclusion, then motivation from one side to the next will be down or up. It's to discourage things "slipping," and as far as I'm concerned, that's omega. The rules apply to battalion and skirmish warfare. Leaders can go from a supreme commander to the head of a small group of warriors. However this rank system is set up will be decided by their respective military heads and ranks assigned accordingly. As for battles with multiple parts, they will be discussed in full-length based on the tactics of both groups. Strategy will be key, as will planning, characteristics of leaders and individual soldiers on the battlefield, and other things. As for drawing out maps, I think that will be unnecessary, but it would help an idea of what's going on. And yes, to the direction. The military forums exist for that very purpose. Any more opinions? Military numbers will go up this week, and increases will begin the week after they go up, when we decide on a uniform day (likely a Saturday) |
![]() |
|
| Witch-king of Angmar | Feb 19 2008, 01:12 PM Post #4 |
|
Lord of the Nazgûl
|
Looks awesome to me. A map of some sorts would indeed be nice, I've always been a fan of maps. And just from preventing my subconcious affecting my battle plans, I don't think I'm going to get any characters from the good side. Or if I am, nobody who is responsible of military actions. I am famous for forgetting where I heard stuff and blurting out things that aren't supposed to be heard among my friends. :p |
![]() |
|
| Sauron | Feb 19 2008, 05:15 PM Post #5 |
![]()
Dark Lord of Middle-earth
|
I meant, what of that is discussed with both sides together beforehand? Just the outcome? And aside from that, not all losses = complete failure. There are situations with surviving numbers or a retreat. How will surviving numbers of a force be decided? I'm guessing before, but is it for the chiefs to discuss before (both sides)? Just need to clear every point. -Sauron |
![]() |
|
| Elrohir Peredhil | Feb 20 2008, 01:20 AM Post #6 |
|
Sauron is making some good points, though I think it would be best if we play most of this stuff by ear. Too many intricacies to the system can be daunting and intimidating. People may not enjoy playing with such a system, and the primary focus of EVERY RPG is to have fun. Personally, I think the system is too much for me, and I'll be honest when I say that I don't look forward to working with it. Celeborn, being a leader, will obviously have some influence over these battles, but I think for the most part I'll leave the directing to Haldir, if a willing participant plays him. I'm not much of a strategist, see. ![]() Other than that, it looks fine. I think you battle-types will enjoy it greatly. |
![]() |
|
| Sauron | Feb 20 2008, 01:35 AM Post #7 |
![]()
Dark Lord of Middle-earth
|
I agree with Elrohir. It's a bit much at first sight. Not everyone is as dedicated as me. ![]() But a problem is retreats, losses, and left-overs. Like, if the chiefs meet before and decide the victor based on the obvious and not-so-obvious concepts, one side can actually rip-off the other side if they don't clear up how much is left. Like at the Battle of the Fords of Isen, Rohan may lose, but can play out the battle and kill all but 2 Uruk troops... I know that's an extreme example, but you get my point? How is it decided how many can live on both sides? We can't have it so that you can slaughter the enemy and "lose" while they go off with several troops. There are many variables that need attention. The system you made is nice, but it should stay beta, for now. Elrohir; I love war and strategy. I play WarCraft III and Battle for Middle-earth. I love warring, but I'm not all that good, due to my lack of skill in exploiting the game imbalances. XD I hope more people come forward with ideas. Don't be shy ![]() -Sauron |
![]() |
|
| Legolas | Feb 20 2008, 05:56 AM Post #8 |
|
I know Greg touched on this before when he said that there would be more Orcs as they reproduce fairly quickly, but I think that regardless of how much land a faction has, when designating how many troops each military faction is allocated race should probably be a factor as well. For example, the Elves should probably always have the smallest armies in that they probably don't reproduce like Hobbits and many are departing Middle Earth for the Grey Havens at this point in the game. But yes, other than that point, I like the system very much and it seems a very fair way to play out the many battles that will be taking place. |
![]() |
|
| Sauron | Feb 20 2008, 07:03 AM Post #9 |
![]()
Dark Lord of Middle-earth
|
Yooouuu betcha. But I think land should be too much of a factor with reproduction other than for Orcs. Elves should have less, but they should be so kick that they make you scared in your sleep. Also, another important point is the responsibility and competence of leaders/chiefs to play into the strategies of their races, like Orcs are somewhat disorganized, rabble, and blood-lusting. Gondorians, on the other hand, are quite organized, respectful of the chain of command, and proud. These stats should be taken into account by leaders and they should take note of the tendencies of their soldiers, story-wise. I will, for certain. I've studied much of warfare in Middle-earth. Another thing that has come to mind, how will ranks work, for overall soldiers, depending on race? Kinds of troops, as well. Archers/Crossbows, Cavalry/Warg-riders, Uruk Blademasters/Fountain Guards, Elvish Marksmen/Olog-hai, etc... How is this to be defined, in numbers? This is where it gets difficult. When Archers>Infantry>Pikes>Cavalry>Infantry/Archers and such we need to take this into attention and how they react, regardless of number. Morale, as well. The leaders are capable of defining that in a realistic way themselves, I'm certain... But these are all points that require thought and contemplation. I'm sorry if I'm going overboard, Greg. I want this to work out, so I'm trying to locate bugs and things that need attention so we don't run into problems later. Thank you. -Evix Jhredmo |
![]() |
|
| Boromir | Feb 20 2008, 10:57 PM Post #10 |
|
Administrator
|
On the topic of losses in battle, that will depend on how the battle is played out, and will not be decided beforehand. There's a loophole in the system I build specifically for this, but I won't go about telling what that loophole is. And of course, not all battles will have complete destruction of a force. That would be silly and completely unrealistic, in a fantasy and real sense (kind of a rhetorical statement). But anyway, the losses will depend on a lot of factors going into the battle-Forces, morale, sheer number, skill of forces (see below), terrain and who has what in terrain, a grand number of things, as well as how they are commanded. It's a bit complicated, and I don't want to pull out the Risk die, nor do I want to pull out my AOE II stuff-I have the Art of War sitting above my bed along with The Prince and Fredrick II's Letters to His Generals, so for a good idea of how that's going to work, I suggest reading at least the Art. On the topic of systems: I abhor systems. They make me say all kinds of words I don't exactly regret later but don't feel too good about. I hate them, especially in free-form RPGs. This system may seem tight-ended as it is, but it is going to be loosened as we adjust to actually using it. We're not here to play Axis and Allies, we're here to role-play our characters, dammit, and that is my goal. However, as much as I hate systems, this is the only way I can think of for a battle to go without absolute batshit going on. The militarily-minded and those who like intricate planning will appreciate this as well as leaders of nations. As for people like us, Elrohir.... I can't say Boromir or Elrond look forward to fights near as much as Sauron appears to be, and about as much as you do as Celeborn =/ But, I made the system, so yea (I guess that means I'm a cheater for knowing the finer details of everything, including my loopholes.... *Bans self* But as I addressed how losses are going to be computed, it's a number of things. Aside from the factors going into it aside from this, number of forces and skill plays a big part. As Legolas mention, the Elves shouldn't really grow much at all. But, they have one thing to their advantage-Tremendous amounts of skill. Let's have a scenario. 200 Elves of Thranduil against 2000 Orcs of Dul Guldur. Naturally, the Orcs seem to have the advantage of numbers. But, the Elves know the terrain, know how to utilize it, and in a combat situation, we can simply say that they kick a hell of a lot more ass than an Orc does. Let's say for every Elf that dies, 25 Orcs die. While not the best of numbers in the end, the terrain plays a great part of it (The terrain is Mirkwood, BTW). Thus, the odds are increased greatly for the side of the Elves. This can be seen in various battles in Rhonovanion in the War of the Ring-The Battle of Dale (Or would that be the Battle of the Lonely Mountain? I've completely forgotten) shows us that, despite the sheer number, because the Dwarves had a better grasp on the terrain, they and the Men of Lake-town and Dale had an advatage (I mean, anyone who has a mountain has an advantage, fo' sho'). Sometimes terrain will play a big part of things. Sometimes they won't at all. Like, pour example, a plain. Dagorlad, let's go with that. A big angry plain like Dagorlad, with Orcs, Elves, and Men on the battlefield (Any similarities?), on the plain itself, there will be no advantage save numbers and skills. Men are about equal, and Orcs are almost on the same level. Elves are more skilled than either, and thus, have a loss rate that will be lower. Oh, and before this question comes up, individual characters, such as the Witch-king or Éomer, will be counted in the forces. I've covered most of what you've brought up in your last post by what I've been answering, but as to things like Archer > Pikeman etc., it will depend on a lot of levels, to the point of disturbing complication. For example, Uruk-hai of Isengard, the non-Beserks, are very well armored, have a small range, etc. As such, normal, Rohirrim archers, won't be much good against them. It requires a lot of skill to fire under the arm or the neck-Aimming precisely, in a realistic way. We want realistic warfare (As realistic as a seemingly immortal wraith figure on a large, winged dragon can be, in fact). Thus, while Men Archers won't be as good against Uruks, Elven archers will be. Spearmen will be excellent, but some forces won't have spearmen in quantity, if at all. Wargs are also going to be more beneficial in a battlefield situation due to their actually being an opponent all unto themselves. Horses, unless you are Alexander the Great, normally don't run around chomping heads off. And don't get me started on individual traits like Eagles, Fell Beasts, etc. In otherwords, beta was not used lightly. However, as for ranks in the sense of "Captain," "General," "Commander," etc., that is up to the individuals of all the militaries and their subsects. Pour example, Prince Imrahil has more command and control over his knights than does Boromir, and both are equals technically in battle-Gondor is united, and Denethor is the Command-in-Chief, but Boromir leads the forces of Minas Tirith and Osgiliath, plus or minus a few Rangers depending on Faramir's hastened return to Minas Tirith. Alrighty. I hope that clears as much as I looked over. I'm sure I missed something. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Militaries · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2










A map of some sorts would indeed be nice, I've always been a fan of maps. 

7:29 PM Jul 11