Main Battles Moving Forward

[Sierrien]

Battles on a roleplay site being determined based on writing ability? What blasphemy is this?!

Really like the look of this, even if it means my schedule will keep me from being in many main threads. It will make them more exciting to read if they're moving faster.. if anyone else reads battles they aren't a part of, anyways :P. I assume they will at least for main threads!

Still, much excite for the new timeline, really like everything that has been put forth so far. I really think it will make this site better/more fun, which is excellent! Looks like the think tank has put a lot of work in to it; it shows!

 

[Brandon Rhea]

The think tank actually hasn't started yet! That's our next announcement.

 

[Sierrien]

<.< Oh. Well then.. all of this has just been the admins? That is even more impressive. Lovely work, all of you! :D

 

[Brandon Rhea]

<.< Oh. Well then.. all of this has just been the admins? That is even more impressive. Lovely work, all of you! :D

Yup, just the admins.

 

[StormWolf]

So, how exactly would large-size engagements (a la Hoth, Geonosis, etc) fall under this rule? Would a battlefield be broken down in to smaller theaters by objective to reduce the clusterfuckery?

 

[Commissar Brett]

So, how exactly would large-size engagements (a la Hoth, Geonosis, etc) fall under this rule? Would a battlefield be broken down in to smaller theaters by objective to reduce the clusterfuckery?

I would imagine so, as that helped when Naboo was going on.

 

[Andrewza]

so with space battles it how i right my use of tech not just "i fire my supper homing missile)? If so that's cool it means fights are more like this.

 

[Clayton]

so with space battles it how i right my use of tech not just "i fire my supper homing missile)? If so that's cool it means fights are more like this.

Yes, but have frigates doing the exact same moves.

 

[Andrewza]

i have this vision of some sith frigate ramming a Jedi frigate with zero g duels occurring

 

[Pureblood-Sin]

i have this vision of some sith frigate ramming a Jedi frigate with zero g duels occurring

If a ship is designed for it, why not?

 

[Aurek]

How would that work, then? Will there just be a roster ahead of time listing the people who will be participating in the battle and their objectives? And if so, how many different locations will there be for said battle? Enough for everyone in the corresponding factions that wants to take part?

In case it wasn't clear, I'm speaking in reference to Stormwolf's question, not Sith jihad. :D

 

[Commissar Brett]

How would that work, then? Will there just be a roster ahead of time listing the people who will be participating in the battle and their objectives? And if so, how many different locations will there be for said battle? Enough for everyone in the corresponding factions that wants to take part?

In case it wasn't clear, I'm speaking in reference to Stormwolf's question, not Sith jihad. :D

I imagine it'd be like Naboo, where it was separated by geographical location. Threads like Theed and Royal Palace Gates divided the battle and people were able to transition between warzones and interact with the different theatres.

 

[Ser Gregor]

Here's something worth testing. I play/run pnp-rpgs a lot and some of my players really like war-campaigns. They want to be members of a military, going out on combat missions, kicking ass in the name of [BLANK]. However, and I imagine Rowan can attest to this, unless the rule-set you're using is simulation heavy with dedicated sections on troop combat, having my players fight in 'regular' battles is going to become very dull.

The solution is you make the players a team and give them missions that are specific and support the overall course of the battle. Think lighting the watchtower at the beginning of Dragon Age: Origins or, even better, think of how the story missions in the Company of Heroes games are structured; you play a single 'unit' with specific tasks to support the much larger battle. So, instead of users turning land battles in to who can rationalize the greater number of NPC soldiers, you have a couple of threads with 'closeups' of the overall battle, highlighting the struggles of a specific unit. This is exactly how battles are portrayed in The Clone Wars. Anakin and Ahsoka are briefed by the Admiral, establishing shots of the large-scale battle are shown, then the focus zooms in on Anakin's specific objective, which always ends up being the deciding factor, somehow, in the battle. Really, the massive battles shown in the show are just interesting backdrops for very personal action.

My 2 cents.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

That's basically a really well-described and descriptive version of what we're doing. A 2v2 battle obviously isn't going to ACTUALLY determine the course of the battle, but it allows it to be more manageable. It becomes about those people, rather than how many NPCs someone has.

 

[Mr.BossMan]

Here's something worth testing. I play/run pnp-rpgs a lot and some of my players really like war-campaigns. They want to be members of a military, going out on combat missions, kicking ass in the name of [BLANK]. However, and I imagine Rowan can attest to this, unless the rule-set you're using is simulation heavy with dedicated sections on troop combat, having my players fight in 'regular' battles is going to become very dull.

The solution is you make the players a team and give them missions that are specific and support the overall course of the battle. Think lighting the watchtower at the beginning of Dragon Age: Origins or, even better, think of how the story missions in the Company of Heroes games are structured; you play a single 'unit' with specific tasks to support the much larger battle. So, instead of users turning land battles in to who can rationalize the greater number of NPC soldiers, you have a couple of threads with 'closeups' of the overall battle, highlighting the struggles of a specific unit. This is exactly how battles are portrayed in The Clone Wars. Anakin and Ahsoka are briefed by the Admiral, establishing shots of the large-scale battle are shown, then the focus zooms in on Anakin's specific objective, which always ends up being the deciding factor, somehow, in the battle. Really, the massive battles shown in the show are just interesting backdrops for very personal action.

My 2 cents.

I love that. Honestly a good analysis on your part. Bravo.

That's basically a really well-described and descriptive version of what we're doing. A 2v2 battle obviously isn't going to ACTUALLY determine the course of the battle, but it allows it to be more manageable. It becomes about those people, rather than how many NPCs someone has.

Ya I like the idea much better now that the one dude cleared it up. Ser Gregor.

But I do have a question for you though. Now I don't really know how to put my thought into words, but I'll try.

PC's are fighting for a specific objective, to change the tide of battle. That's what I got from Ser Gregor.

But you said there will still be a NPC force, which is cool.

For the sake of simplicity I'm just gonna make one set of PC's good guys and the other set of PC's bad guys.

Okay so the good guys and bad guys have to achieve the same goal to help their respective factions win the battle. Lets say bad guys beat the good guys in the PC battle. The good PC's are now dead and lost the objective.

Does that automatically mean the bad guys won? Even with all of the NPC's fighting their battle? I think realistically this won't make sense.

IMO I think just because the good guy PC's lost their personal objective, should not mean that the whole battle is lost.

Do you get what I'm puttin down? Or do I need to explain better?

 

[Jake]

That's basically a really well-described and descriptive version of what we're doing. A 2v2 battle obviously isn't going to ACTUALLY determine the course of the battle, but it allows it to be more manageable. It becomes about those people, rather than how many NPCs someone has.

Nexus' experience with that aspect of tabletop RPing mirrors my own. It would even be a good idea for some random mechanic to allow for an arbitrary third party (an RP admin, someone agreed to oversee the course of the thread?) to make an occasional post detailing how the general battle goes on as different groups of PCs pit themselves against each other.

As far as the course of the timeline itself, perhaps an element could be introduced making it resemble a strategy game a little more. That is to say, there could be key worlds on each side which are outlined along with the reason they're so important to the faction, to give opposing groups clear-cut decisions about where to attack and advance and why, etc. I think that it will be necessary to introduce an actual competitive element in this sense, or else it will be difficult to cultivate any kind of competitive edge for the timeline. Not to say that the competition will be the goal, only that it will be a feature.

@Mr.BossMan

The problem is that there's no non-random way to determine the way a battle goes otherwise, thus the easiest way to resolve it is to base it off the conclusions of the smaller conflicts that the PCs take part in.

 

[Fen Vel]

Well, if the FLs between the two sides agree on objectives and the points these objectives are worth say between 1-3 as to how important they are over all as a win or loss.

So the team that takes out the power generator, has a more important, likely harder RP than those that just skirmished outside the city. Three or four of these different threads for the battle in total will give a very good picture on how the wider battle is going outside of what the PCs are doing.

Though I do think that sometimes, NPCs as lesser enemies to beat are a good thing in missions. How this all works would require more detailed thought.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

But you said there will still be a NPC force, which is cool.

That's not what I meant. Obviously there's a larger battle going on around the characters, but the NPCs are unusable. Outcomes are determined solely by PCs.

Okay so the good guys and bad guys have to achieve the same goal to help their respective factions win the battle. Lets say bad guys beat the good guys in the PC battle. The good PC's are now dead and lost the objective.

Does that automatically mean the bad guys won? Even with all of the NPC's fighting their battle? I think realistically this won't make sense.

IMO I think just because the good guy PC's lost their personal objective, should not mean that the whole battle is lost.

Do you get what I'm puttin down? Or do I need to explain better?

Yes, it means they lost. The way we do it is to typically have multiple settings in the battle. For example in Manaan they had Ahto City, shipyards, underwater, etc. So let's say there are 3 battlegrounds in a space battle. Whoever wins 2 out of 3 of those battlegrounds wins the overall battle.

That emphasizes the importance of PCs and takes away the need to just throw NPC numbers at each other. It becomes about what the players themselves can accomplish as characters, and that has worked really effectively so far.

Nexus' experience with that aspect of tabletop RPing mirrors my own. It would even be a good idea for some random mechanic to allow for an arbitrary third party (an RP admin, someone agreed to oversee the course of the thread?) to make an occasional post detailing how the general battle goes on as different groups of PCs pit themselves against each other.

As far as the course of the timeline itself, perhaps an element could be introduced making it resemble a strategy game a little more. That is to say, there could be key worlds on each side which are outlined along with the reason they're so important to the faction, to give opposing groups clear-cut decisions about where to attack and advance and why, etc. I think that it will be necessary to introduce an actual competitive element in this sense, or else it will be difficult to cultivate any kind of competitive edge for the timeline. Not to say that the competition will be the goal, only that it will be a feature.

That's part of what we want to do with faction goals (re: the "Moraband and Faction Goals" thread) so it's not just aimless wandering throughout the galaxy in the hopes that you'll stumble into a victory somehow.

 

[Jake]

That's part of what we want to do with faction goals (re: the "Moraband and Faction Goals" thread) so it's not just aimless wandering throughout the galaxy in the hopes that you'll stumble into a victory somehow.

Right, but that looks like more of an endgame. What I'm suggesting is more a way of setting up paths to that endgame. Say you cut the galaxy into whatever parts ruled by whatever factions, with certain key worlds representing swathes of space (otherwise there would be way way too many planets). These critical points could provide different paths to the final objective of each faction, with different ways of crippling/debilitating one another and whatnot. Since there's no way that write-ups could be made for all of the key worlds, there could also be a method of suggesting prime targets within a faction.

More than anything, it's just a progression of your same line of thought.

Also, on a tangentially related note. What with the advent of people having to "choose a side" so to speak, do you think that each faction will get its own private forum to discuss its planning and whatnot? The only problem would be the potential to metagame, but no system is perfect I suppose.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Right, but that looks like more of an endgame. What I'm suggesting is more a way of setting up paths to that endgame. Say you cut the galaxy into whatever parts ruled by whatever factions, with certain key worlds representing swathes of space (otherwise there would be way way too many planets). These critical points could provide different paths to the final objective of each faction, with different ways of crippling/debilitating one another and whatnot. Since there's no way that write-ups could be made for all of the key worlds, there could also be a method of suggesting prime targets within a faction.

More than anything, it's just a progression of your same line of thought.

Also, on a tangentially related note. What with the advent of people having to "choose a side" so to speak, do you think that each faction will get its own private forum to discuss its planning and whatnot? The only problem would be the potential to metagame, but no system is perfect I suppose.

The type of strategy you're talking about is what we envision pushing towards those endgame goals, yeah.

As for private forums? We haven't discussed it. Who knows!