Reworking the war system

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.

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

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:

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

https://worldalliance.forumotion.co.uk/t520p780-wa-international-news-network#27462