Solutions: Ground NPC Battle

[Valiens Nantaris]

[member="Gray Raxis"] [member="Rusty"] @Anyone else

It’s no secret that one of the biggest failings of Omega was the ground battle. I want to find solutions to that problem for Incursion.

The issues:

1. People are reluctant/unsure-how to take casualties. Need to explain/incentivise people on how to take casualties.
2. Factory has a wide variety of units with varied tech. Need a way to digest this easily.
3. Scale of the battle. Need to find a good balance between epic and manageable.
4. Too much work for one GM. Need to have multiple GMs running the thread.
5. Objectives need to be clear. Need to find a way to set objectives clearly.

And more, but let’s start with this.

 

[Rusty]

In no particular order.

Okay, so the easiest way to do ground battles is to have then, from our perspective, be primarily defensive in nature. Though the fleets can get away with raiding systems, trying to occupy systems is going to be a nightmare. It's a nightmare in invasions, it's a nightmare in skirmishes, and it'll be a nightmare for us.

So, when they come to us, we have a clear objective. The army is defending some sort of core, possibly with the aid of some Iron Knights. In order to be defeated, the core has to be destroyed. It's protected from bombardment, so the writers will have to use main force or subterfuge to get through. We can vary location of disposition of troops enough to keep it interesting, but so long as the core mechanic remains unchanged, I think it should remain familiar enough to not be frustrating.

In order to reduce the spread of tech brought to bear, we make it clear that a particular type of weaponry is effective. We won't really have to say anything, but if they notice we start taking hits from a particular type of tech, I have a feeling that they'll start bringing it. Thus, consistency.

As far as scale goes, I think two part battles are the way to go. The first part will consist of an assault on the facility. Part two of the battle, which will be more PVE, has teams infiltrating and seeking to destroy the core. Make it clear that landing a few million troops in one go is a quick way to lose them, but smaller, more manageable forces can slip through the defensive cracks. That should, in theory, keep conflicts small and manageable.

As far as taking damage goes, our forces will be hard to kill, but not so much that it's impossible for someone who knows what they're doing. If the other guys don't take appropriate hits, or they start whining too much, I see no reason why we can't place a little judicious boot to ass. Make it clear from the outset that fair play is not only encouraged, but mandatory. If someone decides they don't like that, ratchet up the pressure on them. If they still don't get the hit, the DM can intervene OOC before things get too heated. And if they're just bound and determined to be salty beaches, well, so long and thanks for all the fish.

Yes to multiple GMs. I'll volunteer to help with that. I'm not sure what the magic ratio will end up being, but 1 GM per X number of writers.

 

[Gray Raxis]

Alright off the bat one of the biggest issues in Omega ground battle was how overwhelming the amount of actions that needed to be addressed got for the DM of it. I experienced the effects of this first hand because a lot of my actions were getting overlooked and not properly addressed. They were not nearly as flashy as the actions of other people in the thread (tanks and huge droids certainly overshadow infantry) but them being addressed was very important to my side of the story as they were mostly attempts to turn the tide of things. To avoid that in the future we most definitely need more people DMing.

Another issue was that we need to provide a clear image of what people are fighting. Again I will address my experience for Omega. I flew in my troops on a dropship towards the fortress, which was the objective of the battle, but then on the first turn in reaction to me I was being shot down immediately by anti-air units and seemed to have run across an outpost. This outpost was not marked on the map provided before hand and if it was then it wasn't marked well enough for me to notice right away. I found myself immediately surrounded by enemies and in a desperate situation which while great for creating a story did leave a very sour taste in my mouth as I felt my first move wouldn't have mattered and I would be in that situation regardless. I feel we need to make any major outposts or defensive instillations clearly noticeable and leave ambushes for patrols or specialized camps that are very small.

The battle for the Omega event also had an issue of there was honestly only 1 real objective to take. What I mean by this was that all we had to work for was the fortress and there was not much of a staggering in defenses to address before it. I feel we need to give people more to work around by either marching through it or finding a way around it. The outposts I mentioned before can fit this role well as well as some marked patrols. If we do this we can pace out the fighting better and avoid that rush to steamroll through opposition more. It could also allow us to make smaller factions/companies feel like they can participate with the major factions better by being able to go for objectives the bigger boys are ignoring or can't get to.

The last thing is just making sure to address actions no matter how small they are on our part. I mentioned it before but my experience was greatly soured by feeling like nothing I did mattered. Even if its something as simple as tossing a rock at a walker we need to make sure we mention it in our post. If we do people will feel more involved and less as if we are scripting things or forcing outcomes. They will be more likely to take losses as well because they wont go into that mentality of "well if they won't take loses then neither will I." That was a big issue in the Omega event and I know this because I was hearing it a lot by other people participating in it.

Those are just my thoughts on what we can improve for this event. If I come up with more I will be sure to add them. As far as good goes from last time that I feel we should do again there is a few. The map was a great bit of fun to work with. It really got me excited planning things out and really helped me figure out where everyone else was out. The movement limits and terrain restrictions were also great additions. It really gave certain advantages or disadvantages to where you went with what and added some more depth to the planning out your moves. The point system also was fun to work with and was not one of the issues from last time. I feel like we should use it again for this one and it would really help to keep things from getting out of control. The last was starting out on the edges and moving inward for the start. That setup has a lot of potential and again worked well for balancing things out in the thread like the point system.

I hope all of this was helpful and is my thoughts on all of it. Again if I think of anything else I will add it.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

[member="Rusty"]
I'm liking where you're going with most of the above.

For Omega I did points based on the units, their availability and quality.

Now quality is gone, it wouldn't be hard to set out basic points values to give people a choice of how much they choose.
Availability will apply a multiplying effect so that rare units cost more.

However, I also want to move away from updating a big map. So maybe give people more general guidelines? I'm not sure.

One idea I did have regarding casualties is that units lose casualties in blocks of 10 or single vehicles. None of this 1 or 2 soldiers, but full blocks of 10 to keep things moving. Would that work?

As far as scale goes, I think two part battles are the way to go. The first part will consist of an assault on the facility. Part two of the battle, which will be more PVE, has teams infiltrating and seeking to destroy the core.

That's likely what part of the PVE thread is going to be, yes. But that's separate from this action.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

[member="Gray Raxis"]

Very good points.

Another issue you raise is that the DM's role ends up basically being a statistical data dump of casualties lost and attacks made. Is there any easy way to overcome this?

The biggest issue we'll have is that people just expect that they will be instantly victorious and we have to play into that a little. Hmm, any thoughts?

 

[Rusty]

It's my experience that a map, well done, can ease confusion. As was discussed in a different chat about past invasions, the biggest problems stem from different sides perceiving things like terrain and troop placement differently. Having a map, even if it's just for reference to start, eliminates a lot of confusion.

GA vs FO on Hoth is a perfect example. The GA had one idea of how things were going to work, the FO another altogether. It didn't quite take on the choose your own adventure nature of some past battles, but the confusion was enough that it soured things for everyone.

Maps also allow us to easily manage the scale. Terrain and the like can, and will, limit the available space to put troops. If you've got room for a thousand, you're not going to move in a million man army no matter how hard you try to justify it. Limit the flow of troops in and out of a sector, utilize your idea about casualties being squad level or greater, and I think the overall flow of the battle will be a lot easier to manage.

In the regards to people thinking they should be instantly victorious, the simple solution is to just say "No, you are not." We are not obliged to cater to the whims of the few bad apples. I'm fairly confident, judging by the gripes and complaints I've read concerning past battles, that the community as a whole would not mind seeing those few who consistently ruin things for everyone getting smacked down.
[member="Valiens Nantaris"]

 

[Gray Raxis]

[member="Valiens Nantaris"]

Basically we use the layout of defenses to do that. Our outer layers of defense should be used as fodder to basically give people a win and it will naturally slow people down a bit to avoid instant win. The outposts and main defenses is where we make things difficult and a challenge to tackle. We set it up in a way that promotes this as well so people know it won't be so easy. If they want to try to call BS for not instant winning then those people aren't the ones likely going to play it properly to begin with or take hits.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

[member="Gray Raxis"]
Hmm, that could work if done right. Maybe have reinforcements arrive with stronger troops once the enemy has blown through the first wave?

 

[Gray Raxis]

[member="Valiens Nantaris"]

Yeah and that would be more realistic. No army just throws everything they have out at once after all and keeps reserves just in case. We can do something similar and also use tactics such as mine fields between defensive lines. Maybe have it so ICly there is say a "friendly" marker on our NPC troops that allows them to pass through. It would also provide those creative enough to notice it an option using subtlety rather than brute force to get through the mine fields. Basically we want to put out there our defenses and design it in a way that there is no simple solution while still being do able.

I am thinking we have an outer patrol on the edge of the first mine field. They hit them up and maybe we can retreat our patrols that survive back through the fields to reveal the first hint at another option to brute force. Then we get to our outposts line of defense. We put up some AA weaponry and at the main base so people don't feel the need to just use ships to bypass the mine field. We could even put up a shield that stretches just far enough to protect the outposts and the main base. This will also keep them from just relying on artillery to do all of the work for them. Once they pass the outposts its the second mine field then the base. The base is the final goal and we can set it up so inside the base you have say 3 objectives: shield generator, command center, and armory/barracks. The attackers get a benefit from what they take out as well. Barracks/armory is fewer NPC enemies later on, shield generator means artillery is finally able to be used or orbital bombardment, and command center shuts down the AA weaponry as well as makes it so our forces can't coordinate anymore.

That is just a rough idea and lay out for the ground battle. It will be tough but do able. It also hinders any instant winning by overwhelming force in a very clear way that we are revealing to them upfront.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

[member="Gray Raxis"] [member="Rusty"]

The other issue we have now is that NPC units are not required to give numerical strengths anymore, just Mass, Minor and Limited.

How do we factor this in when asking people to take hits?

 

[Gray Raxis]

[member="Valiens Nantaris"] [member="Rusty"]

As I see it it is a practicality sort of issue. People just need to be realistic to the situation. In Castamere I lost half my forces and my infantry was designed to take a hell of a beating before going down. They did that but I took hits because it was not realistic not to lose people during the event. And not realistic for it not to be a good amount of them either. We should just make it clear we ask people to be realistic and work with us on loses as we will be doing that for them. We provide an example of proper conduct and maintain it and most should follow suit. If they don't then we do as Rusty has mentioned and just turn up the pressure on them to the point they can't justify dodging loses.

Another thing we can do is mention that in deciding rewards, assuming we are doing that, that story is biggest factor of it. This also falls in line with how we handle invasions and rebellions so it makes sense. We directly mention that refusal to take appropriate loses is a big minus to the story factor as well. This will discourage trying to play the objective game and just avoid loses in hopes of gain rewards at the end. I feel a kill count is something we should avoid as well in determining awards as it will probably encourage more bad habits than good ones.

If we do both of these I believe we can mitigate a lot of the more bad habits people have of trying to win by refusing to take a hit. They also work hand in hand together as we show them what we want from them and mention how following suit will get them rewards. People are motivated by greed after all pretty well so why not use that to our advantage here along with some mild hand holding?

 

[Ria Misrani]

[member="Valiens Nantaris"]

Definitely a lot for one GM, I recall Omega and how much work you put into it. So what we could do is maybe make the battles smaller a little more controlled with multiple GMs and since we're now less focused on numbers per the new factory/codex. And have a few uh Commanders/Generals in the field (NPC with NPC controllers) coordinating with the GMs, maybe?

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

[member="Ria Misrani"] [member="Gray Raxis"] [member="Rusty"]

I'm thinking we dump numbers of vehicles etc entirely, and even a full on hex map with exact movement and focus more on the tactics and the story where possible.

 

[Gray Raxis]

[member="Valiens Nantaris"]

Yeah numbers will bog things down a bit, but we also need some way of curbing people's desires to zurg the hell out of us. We could do that with some hard caps on the total number of units being brought in general without the point system or we could do it by making defenses on the map that counter act zerging and maybe punish it a bit. Mine fields for instance screw up massive numbers (just wants there to be mines).

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

[member="Gray Raxis"]
A relatively narrow field of advance could be a good way to do this.

If the various sides can only rank up certain units in one go it would influence their choices.

 

[Rusty]

Terrain and defenses can organically limit the number of troops practical for an assault.

 

[Ria Misrani]

[member="Valiens Nantaris"]

Sounds good to me, we can play lots of Sabaton.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

[member="Ria Misrani"]
Winged Hussars.....

 

[Rusty]

*bursts through the wall*

WHEN THE WINGED HUSSARS ARRIVED

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

[member="Rusty"]
Coming down they turned the tide!