Well-Known Member
So in the hopes of trying to resolve the issues present within Invasions, I am looking within myself where problems could be likely to exist.
The first thing I would like to analyze, is my tactic-less desire to Charge into combat. I hardly ever consider the defenses or how powerful my unit or character is, I typically always just jump at the chance of combat. If I get bitten, I get bitten.
This is true for me even in video games, in a game like COD for instance, I am one of those people that literally as soon as they spawn run directly to the front lines and shoot until I get killed because I'm in a strategically disadvantaged position. I don't think about it. I just do it. I feel like that I may not be the only one who looks at number and point systems as utterly daunting, and feel like its some sort of obstacle to cross, rather than a bridge between the start of the story to the end.
Stats are for responsible and intellectual writers that can relate and adhere to a code of strategy that places victory to chance and placing yourself in the most advantageous position which increases your chances.
Stats are not for writers who should likely not know the first thing about how actual military tactics works or the likelihood of how things operate in real life. Stats are a touch of realism in a medium, where realism shouldn't be dictated that way. We aren't in a video game, and the vast majority of players aren't going to have intimate knowledge of how warfare is actually conducted, similar to George Lucas, with his naval broadside battles with spaceships and sound in space and weird lasers and starfighters, or gigantic armies clashing against each other by the thousands.
Now, granted, those scenarios were created to emulate past existing conflict strategies and most of it was rule of cool, but despite all of that us the viewers, were not looking at the battlefield as:
On a vast scale.
It was:
Why can't there be a system where we have units engage, but rather than having it as a straight up play for play war of attrition over the same objective, there could be smaller objectives that are meant for PC's to interact with in order to bolster their units chance for victory. This makes the size of your force less relevant and just as likely to claim victory as one that is three times as big. It also means that the level of veterancy is also deteriorated without special considerations.
But here's the thing, who's to say that we don't just organize where all the NPC units will meet, and have the writers that are located at an Objective where they will be fighting, create their own separate objectives to focus on that drives an interactive story along, rather than a path to victory? That way each writer can design their own plot points within an Objective that wouldn't ignore the attributes of each of their forces.
Does this make any sense at all?
The first thing I would like to analyze, is my tactic-less desire to Charge into combat. I hardly ever consider the defenses or how powerful my unit or character is, I typically always just jump at the chance of combat. If I get bitten, I get bitten.
This is true for me even in video games, in a game like COD for instance, I am one of those people that literally as soon as they spawn run directly to the front lines and shoot until I get killed because I'm in a strategically disadvantaged position. I don't think about it. I just do it. I feel like that I may not be the only one who looks at number and point systems as utterly daunting, and feel like its some sort of obstacle to cross, rather than a bridge between the start of the story to the end.
Stats are for responsible and intellectual writers that can relate and adhere to a code of strategy that places victory to chance and placing yourself in the most advantageous position which increases your chances.
Stats are not for writers who should likely not know the first thing about how actual military tactics works or the likelihood of how things operate in real life. Stats are a touch of realism in a medium, where realism shouldn't be dictated that way. We aren't in a video game, and the vast majority of players aren't going to have intimate knowledge of how warfare is actually conducted, similar to George Lucas, with his naval broadside battles with spaceships and sound in space and weird lasers and starfighters, or gigantic armies clashing against each other by the thousands.
Now, granted, those scenarios were created to emulate past existing conflict strategies and most of it was rule of cool, but despite all of that us the viewers, were not looking at the battlefield as:
- Elite Unit 1 (Numbers=100) engages Common Enemy Unit 1 (Numbers=500) with a roll of 6 to produce 60% damage, and a roll of 4 to protect from 40% of damage. Elite Unit 1 uses three mobility points to circle around the Common Enemy Unit 1, and then expends another action point to call in an orbital strike.
On a vast scale.
It was:
- Gigantic Army 1 bumrushes into battle with Enemy Gigantic Army 1, lots of casualties everywhere. Screen pans to main character to explain the importance of victory here, and/or the consequences of failure. Que action sequence where main character looks like a bad ass as he/she tries to accomplish a goal that will help his/her army achieve victory.
Why can't there be a system where we have units engage, but rather than having it as a straight up play for play war of attrition over the same objective, there could be smaller objectives that are meant for PC's to interact with in order to bolster their units chance for victory. This makes the size of your force less relevant and just as likely to claim victory as one that is three times as big. It also means that the level of veterancy is also deteriorated without special considerations.
But here's the thing, who's to say that we don't just organize where all the NPC units will meet, and have the writers that are located at an Objective where they will be fighting, create their own separate objectives to focus on that drives an interactive story along, rather than a path to victory? That way each writer can design their own plot points within an Objective that wouldn't ignore the attributes of each of their forces.
What I am proposing here, is that we create a NPC Unit Convention, where PC's will outline plot-points (or sub-objectives) in an engagement with another NPC Unit, that take into consideration how they see their units operating without explicitly dictating "how much stronger their unit is compared to the enemy" with stats.
Does this make any sense at all?
