The Strategic Layer

[Ali Hadrix]

[member="Valiens Nantaris"]: I have to be honest, when I was typing your name, I misspelled it "Valium" on accident, but I caught my mistake and changed it. But then I realised what I'd written and it made me laugh...

...so I changed it back to Valium.

[member="Cyrus Tregessar"]: I love Gir's idea of running 4 on each side. What I like even more than that would be fleet writers taking command of their fleets AND the respective armies they're attached to.
We can shuffle 4 writers on each side across a variety of different play aspects, and I think we should for now. We're really just toying around and trying to get things right, we don't need less experienced with the ideas we've been sharing mucking it all up. Let's make sure we know it ourselves before we try to teach it to anybody, so to speak.

 

[Camellia Swift]

[member="Ali Hadrix"] [member="Cyrus Tregessar"] [member="Valiens Nantaris"] [member="Gir Quee"]

I did mean that yeah. I just meant by build that they put the ships in their fleet to start with and they're consistent, unless they build others to replace one or swap another out for a more effective model.

The reason why I want to insist us having 10 people in a battlegroup is this.

It shows we aren;t restricting this to just fleeters/warmongers.

Jedi and Sith love to be in invasions and they still can and individuals still get their stories they want with no harm done. So I want to get those people who normally play in invasios and have them come into this and see its no different to the rp, but on a map scale it adds a lot more fun and depth.

They'll run around and be heroes in the threads but have more direction and focus because it won't be cluttered by anyone and everyone and the battles will read like actual battles. If you made them movie scenes they'd look badass I mean.

If we end up with only 4-5 to a side we can test the income/production sure, but I'm afraid people would point out how its just the warmongers and it changes rps fso they have fun and no one else, which is untrue and what I want to show. I'm pretty sure if you count Gir Quee and Ali for the Republic Fleeter/NFU General, you can convince maybe a Jedi Knight or 2 to show up, even if its the Essions? Not to mention there has to be a few NFUs floating around waiting for a lot of fights right?

I know the Sith have FLeeters abundant right now, and they have stormtroopers and a few Imperial Officers to throw groundside.

Although Cyrus I think 25k is too big for a single battlegroup. 15k?

I'm fairly interested to see ground tanks and artillery used. And I'd still rather see rp damaged rped fairly which I would hope could be done.

Artillery Shells fall around a Sith Infantry advance? Rp Squads rushing through the open ground toward the enemy as their comrades are thrown through the air, rushing for the cover and to engage the Republic Forces in close combat. All a distraction as a Sith Tank Brigade comes over a ridge from the right flank and fires onto Artillery Units.

Sith writer acknowledges lost infatry, Republic acknowledes their artillery is being destroyed.

I am pumped like you said for no insta teleport ground battle on post one.

Ready to see landers and invasion craft!

 

[Ali Hadrix]

[member="Camellia Swift"]: My worry is that if we open this to the general public before we're really ready, and it becomes a confusing mess that takes forever to wrap up, that people will be turned off of the idea entirely.
I didn't want to run a public board, I figured we should keep it internal for a first run; we could do it here, then expand once we've worked out the kinks.

These are the systems we need to develop:

--Economy (Income, Production Costs, Time constraints on reinforcements produced)

--Travel (between Systems, Planets, etc)

--Spatial Maneuvering (We need a solid X, Y, Z grid system laid out. I've seen them before, they're pretty easy)

--Spatial Damage system

--Ground Maneuvering (with 2D reference Hex overlay maps)

--Ground Damage system

Give me those and I'm set for open registration.

 

[Camellia Swift]

[member="Ali Hadrix"]

Income depends on if we go with planets or hexes. (Either way I think its fair because sometimes the quality of tech matters more than if they can just spam out new ones all the time). I can make a system with that knowledge and be fair once I know. With a small testing ground no one should run out of credits to replace damaged units anyway, only one battlegroup wouldn't be much.

Was figuring for ships it would be a credit a meter. 1.5x for minor/elite warships. 2x for new unique class. Starfighter Squadrons costing 50 credits for simplicity sake, 100 for elite.

Time restraints I have done. I'm basing them off the assumptions of times between invasions typically. along with how squadron counts work in the factory.

Tier I: 3 Squadrons or 1 Corvette takes 1 day. Frigates take 4 days. Cruisers take a week. (While building frigates or cruisers a Tier 1 may only produce 1 starfighter squadron a day as well).

Tier II: 4 Squadrons or 2 Corvettes takes 1 day. Frigates take 3 days. Cruisers take 5 days. Heavy Cruisers take a week. (while building frigates or cruisers a Tier 2 may only produce 2 squadrons a day as well)

Tier III: 5 Squadrons or 3 Corvettes or 1 Frigate take a day. Cruisers take 4 days. Heavy Cruisers take 5 days. Destroyers take a week. (while constructing Cruisers-Destroyers a Tier III can build 2 Fighter Squadrons or 1 Corvette a day as well)

Tier IV: 5 Squadrons or 3 Corvettes or 1 Frigate take a day. Cruisers take 4 days. Heavy Cruisers take 5 days. Destroyers take a week. Command Ships take 1 week and 4 days. (while constructing Cruisers-Command ships a Tier IV can build 3 Squadrons or 1 Corvettes a day as well)

Tier V: 5 Squadrons or 3 Corvettes or 1 Frigate take a day. Cruisers take 3 days. Heavy Cruisers take 5 days. Destroyers take a week. Command Ships take 1 week and 3 days. May now build flagships if hired. (While constructing cruisers-command ships can build 4 Squadrons or 2 Corvettes a day as well)

Tier VI: 5 Squadrons or 3 Corvettes or 1 Frigate take a day. Cruisers take 3 days. Heavy Cruisers take 4 days. Destroyers take 6 days. Command Ships take 1 week and 2 days. May build flagships if hired. (While constructing cruisers-command ships can build 4 Squadrons or 2 Corvettes a day as well)

I have things done for ground combat, however, I can't do the production side until we figure out say what a light vehicle (speeder bikes, drones), vehicle (tanks/APCs) and heavy vehicles (AT-AT, AT-TE, etc) brigade count is.

Do they come in clusters of 4 or 8 or what?

As for ground damage, I still think just going by sense and rp should be best. Or preferred?

 

[Ali Hadrix]

Why would income change based on a Hex system? Even with a hex system we should have planets, and those would provide the income. The hexes provided a basis for movement, that's all, am I right?

As for time constraints, I think we should avoid using RL time. A post count would work well enough, making it more turn based, which is a passage of time that is even across the entire thread. If we go with RL time progression, then we have an upset in RP as some ships will be done in the passage of one post just because people haven't been able to write in five days.

 

[Camellia Swift]

[member="Ali Hadrix"]

I completely disagree. Because you have some people who can crank out a post count in a night and it would be boring to roleplay constructing the same type of ship over and over. Meanwhile you'll have a company that can't. Plus then post counts have to discriminate by ship class, which does take more RL time to finish, making it EVEN HARDER for the people who are already slow or don't like dev threads.

The RL times are very fair markers, and are based off the difficulty to destroy, difficulty to make, size of company, how often invasions occur, etc.

Its not like a single fleet would be in battle right away. There will be time between invasions usually, and if there isn't then perhaps the other battlegroups take their turns as I've explained before. So in reality, it disrupts nothing since there is likely time between invasions anyway for the ships to be replaced, and if you don't have an entire fleet of destroyers, which you shouldn't, it should be fine. I think you're worrying about nothing there.

As for the income. It does change because there's fewer hexes than planets. You'd have to account for that. Plus we don't have every planet on the map, so factions own some planets they aren't even aware of sometimes.

Plus you want to account for income either daily or weekly. Either works, but if its daily you give a faction less per day than if you had them go weekly (though they should equal the same in the end 7 days income would have to equal the weekly income)

 

[Gir Quee]

I didn't want to run a public board, I figured we should keep it internal for a first run; we could do it here, then expand once we've worked out the kinks.

This. If we're going to have any hope of the public adopting it, we're going to have to have something that's well-polished when they meet it, and fairly simple to run and understand. I think that if we have a super-lengthy rule set, as attractive as it may be for some of us, it's going to be a turn-off for others.
It's one of those KISS things.

I think the Terminus campaign rulesets are about the right complexity level (see here and here that we'll get with good board participation and enough precision.


For ground units, I'd go with the Terminus Campaign point system. Given the relatively small size of ground vehicles and the sophisticated manufacturing base that most systems have, I wouldn't bother with having specific factory tiers to produce ground units. Just a number of points.

All base units cost 10 points, multiplied by 3 for unique units, 2 for rare and 1.5 for limited. No more than 3 rare and 5 limited units can be used per writer.

• Infantry Company (80 infantry)
• Mechanised Infantry Company (40 infantry in 4 transports)
• Artillery Battery (10 guns)
• Anti-Air Battery (10 guns)
• Light Armour/Walker Company (20 vehicles)
• Heavy Armour/Walker Company (10 vehicles)

I'd recommend simplifying the shipyard rules somewhat, though I really do like the build modifiers for the minor and unique vessels. It's a very solid idea.

Perhaps have certain size yards (or tier levels) that can make a certain number of meters in a strategic turn.

For example, a medium-sized shipyard could build 600 meters a turn. That could be 4 Corellian Corvettes or a Strike Cruiser + a Corellian Corvette, etc.

I need to think about more about "strategic turns" before I comment on that part. I think regardless though, we'll likely be ending up with a flawed solution.

 

[Camellia Swift]

[member="Gir Quee"]

The meters per turn is cool, but I feel its too vague.

Also yeah I get that vehicles are quick to build which is more why I wanted to track it so you know its not all ONE company doing it, and also so that time modifers could be added.

No tier restriction like you said but still. A Heavy Company could take a whole day, while gathering infantry (basically making their armor, guns, supplies, and ammo) could be done while also making a few light vehicles.

I feel like we could make those deployments bigger because most ground battles were definitely large because it was about coverage than eliminating an enemy force entirely. Hoth, Kashyyyk, Coruscant, Muunilist, Mygeeto, Utapu are good examples. Especially when RL military company is larger than 80.

 

[Ali Hadrix]

[member="Camellia Swift"]: "Because you have some people who can crank out a post count in a night and it would be boring to roleplay constructing the same type of ship over and over. Meanwhile you'll have a company that can't. Plus then post counts have to discriminate by ship class, which does take more RL time to finish, making it EVEN HARDER for the people who are already slow or don't like dev threads."

I didn't mean specific posts that account for the construction. Just post counts in the RP thread itself.

--Post #20: Someone's ISD gets destroyed.

--As long as funds are available, construction on a new one can begin immediately. A note is made on Post #20 (the destruction post) that construction will begin on with post #21 (whomever that ends up being). If funds are not available, then a note is made on the first post in which funds are available that construction has begun.​

​

--Post #21: Construction begins.

--Ten posts later​

​

--Post #31: Construction complete, ISD is put into service.


The importance is that time progression is linked to the RP itself, not something abstract from it, like RL time. If we go by RL time, then when I destroy someone's ISD on Day 1, and they're not able to post again until Day 5, they're already able to replace it, even though the battle has not progressed at all.

That's why it's crucial.


"As for the income. It does change because there's fewer hexes than planets. You'd have to account for that."

Maybe I missed an explanation on this at another time, but I still don't understand how hexes directly translate to income. I was under the impression that the importance of a planet determined how much income you received for it (as in SW: EaW).

[member="Gir Quee"]: Meters per turn works for me. It's the simplest way to track progression on a vehicle and it's something everyone can understand.

I think it's important that "post turn" is a term that should apply to everyone's posts, not just the writer's own. Again, making sure our abstract concept of "Time" is connected with our accounting of it is important. We can only get that by going post-by-post, as that is the only way the RP as a whole progresses.

Also Gir, to maintain smaller army sizes should we adjust that points system? One team on the Terminus Facility RP has fielded 70 artillery vehicles. SEVENTY.

On a battlefield that size, you'd use something like four or six. Not seventy. lol We need balance, not extremes.

 

[Camellia Swift]

[member="Ali Hadrix"]

Then do you wanna be the person keeping track of every planet in a faction and note which losts are lost during cloudbreaks?


Or just track by hex and add/subtract if they major planets in them. That's the problem with it when you try to sell it to the whole site.

I also want to add a modifer for the number of company HQs are in a faction. Bonus modifers for the HQs of agricultural or purely merchantile companies. but that's neither here or there.

You'll still have to explain to me what you mean by this post business because it still sounds incredibly cheap or unbalanced and doesn't add time as a factor at all. You could then in theory have the same people in every invasion with no downtime because they never need to wait for their ships to be replaced so long as they have money, and I thought we were also trying to address how invasions are too cluttered and repeat the same issues. Or are we not attempting the battle group idea? I guess I'm a little confused on how this post system works and how its supposed to generate the weight of a lost ship having to be waited for to be replace.

 

[Ali Hadrix]

[member="Camellia Swift"]: Factions can track their own numbers. I'm still not sure how counting hexes on a galactic map is easier than tracking the number of planets. There are bound to be more hexes than planets, ere go more objects to account for and calculate.
I'll need to be referred to a more in-depth description of what your idea is, I feel like I'm missing something.

I think one of the issues at this moment is prepping this system for site-wide use. I believe we need to start with smaller goals first and work our way up. I get the impression you've come to the table with a full set of ideas and desires, but what we need is fluidity and malleability in order to form a solid foundation.

"You'll still have to explain to me what you mean by this post business because it still sounds incredibly cheap or unbalanced and doesn't add time as a factor at all. You could then in theory have the same people in every invasion with no downtime because they never need to wait for their ships to be replaced so long as they have money, and I thought we were also trying to address how invasions are too cluttered and repeat the same issues. Or are we not attempting the battle group idea? I guess I'm a little confused on how this post system works and how its supposed to generate the weight of a lost ship having to be waited for to be replace."

I think we're talking about two separate things right now. I'm talking about a specified RP conflict event, you're talking about day-to-day operations.
In this case, both systems work for their respective intentions. What I originally thought this thread was about was making a test run of a conflict event, thus, ships lost would be replaced during the event.

When an event ends and we're back in the inbetweens of threads/dominions/invasions, then an RL time system works because we're concerned with the time space between events.

My post-based idea is for in-game events only, which is what I thought the focus was.

I'm seeing you're thinking bigger picture, which is great, but I firmly believe we need to start smaller than that. We need test runs that solidify all of the respective aspects of this system: Economy, ground warfare, spatial combat, transportation/logistics, etc.

But we need to also know when to trim, and I believe the core list I suggested earlier is our best chance to start. We don't need a system that governs non-thread-related topics, such as day-to-day operations of a company. Let's keep that simple and RP-based only.

Only things relating to conflict between characters and factions should be our concern atm.

 

[Camellia Swift]

[member="Ali Hadrix"]

Ok now I'm on the same page.

Yes I was thinking bigger, since Gir Quee mentioned me and I came in I've been referencing my ideas from what he was referring to me about.

I agree that would work better for an event. And we certainly would like it to show a closed system. I was concerned then how do you sell the site size system if we don't actually use that.

Planets work better for the event too. Its just that I was concerned again, you can't do the depth of planet income at a site level since its too complicated with some planets not shown on the map and trying to track all of their gains and losses. Which is why a standardized hex system works best there.

And then you of course have seen my opinion of the Tier effects on production. As well as my concepts on price.

My Battlegroup concept was that invasions be limited to Battlegroups and Battlegroups be limited to areas. That way everyone in a faction still has even chances to get into invasions and such, but the threads aren't cluttered, they aren't a repeat of every faction just trying to throw all their masters in when available, etc. Each battlegroup would fight when applicable, be swapped out while undergoing repairs and replacements, and generally, as [member="Gir Quee"] got into, create stories and reputations for each battlegroup based on their performances.

Think like Sector Fleets. Like the Imperial Sector Fleet over Coruscant, and the guys named Black Sword, Azure Hammer, or Iron lance.

 

[Ali Hadrix]

Great, I'll keep that system in my back pocket for events.

Okay, so explain this Hex system to me. You take the Galactic map and split it up by sector then, with several planets falling into one Hex?

I like the Battlegroup idea, I'm sick to death of oversaturated military conflicts with more forces than are either 1) Necessary or 2) Even feasible given the battle space typically provided.

 

[Camellia Swift]

[member="Ali Hadrix"]

Ah you might not need to. I might be the one wrong here, or we're suppose to be figuring out a mini system for this closed test event that we can quickly swap out for a full sized one for the site in which case we need both.

Also the site map already has hexes on it already, idk if it matches any sectors up with canon but it might. . . it probably doesn't though since our map is skewed. Its crooked compared to the grid map used by wookieepedia. Our Southwest is more like true Southeast since everything was turned to the right a little.

I was just thinking Hexes with a Capital are worth extra credits, as are those (to a lesser degree) that have company HQs. Agricultural/Civilian Companies (Not warship/tank/gun makers) give extra income (to give them more value to factions besides just everyone owns the biggest shipyard). Would be cool to then base extra income off those companies Tiers. See some people do some financial backing of factions.

Imagine a Banking Clan under that sort of climate!

And yeah that's what I want Battlegroups to be. Ways to promote more invasions, to make them more real and less cluttered, and to still give everyone a chance to fight by getting them into battlegroups of 10-15 people apiece. (I doubt we have enough active people to make more than 2-3 Battlegroups a faction really anyway.)

Plus under a site system skirmishes and raids would mean more if production could be stopped by raiding a factory or shipyard and stopping construction, setting a faction back or destroying the new asset altogether and costing them credits.

Plus if ships/soldiers/vehicles could be lost in skirmishes and need credit/time replacement then that can also effect entire war efforts.

But again this could be supposed to be just for events in which case I'm way off base, or we're supposed to think of both so we can flaunt the test and then have the system for the site ready if everyone likes the test.

 

[Ali Hadrix]

"Plus under a site system skirmishes and raids would mean more if production could be stopped by raiding a factory or shipyard and stopping construction, setting a faction back or destroying the new asset altogether and costing them credits."

That's the way things are already supposed to be, but no one enforces it. If you lose your planet in an Invasion, you lose your production (unless your facilities are located elsewhere).

We may want to consider limiting how many production sites factions can designate for reinforcement production. Everything else would be committed to NPC/excess sales etc.

I have to impress, however, that I think we need to stay away from anything too complex financially. I RP to get away from my bills, not to take on more for fun.
Maybe token rewards that can be spent on replacement ships, repairs, and new fortifications for a newly won territory. These could be rewarded for completing dominions, winning invasions, etc.

Tokens could be the currency used, simplifying everything for everyone. Empty hexes are 0, minor hexes 1, major hexes 2, etc.

I must caution against complexity, and keep the focus on conduct that affects faction-to-faction relations (dominions, invasions, skirmishes) first and foremost.

 

[Camellia Swift]

[member="Ali Hadrix"]

to me this does. It makes them more fluid. You should really go read the thread I made that Gir Quee linked in his first post I think.

Essentially this does enforce the production rule for factions, and it keeps invasions more fluid and thoughtful rather than hurr hurr the Sith or someone have the most Masters and can be in every thread and since invasions are 1v1 between factions they just win no matter which faction they face.

IE like back when the OP, Mandos, AND Republic tried to fight the Sith. They had to take turns, and the Sith lost no power between battle. And the 3 ganged up on the Sith because they thought it would.

Under this sort of system no faction can just steamroll over everyone else. Sith have a stronger dom/invasion? Ok, but if they fight the Pubs in one battle and win, and fight the mandos in another battle and win, they can't turn around and just fight the Pubs and Mandos again since they have to replace lost forces by spending some credits and waiting some time. And maybe they do a raid with their PCs to keep the Republic or Mandos from using another Battlegroup they have that isn't damaged to attack them in the meantime.

You mentioned travel time too which would also be a cool factor to implement as well.

Basically it also keeps the map changing since politics and planning become more important than just throwing everyone at an invasion or dom anytime one comes up. So maps changes occur based on shifting tides of war. Fleet is damaged too much and can't fight properly once? Maybe a faction has to work harder ground side in an invasion or they lose a planet before they're caught up recuperating after losing badly a while. At which point maybe their allies step in and get heat off them.

 

[Ali Hadrix]

My confusion was only in the application of ideas on a specific playing field. I did read over it, but it was super dense, which is my main concern. That's why I suggested trimming down to a core set of foci.

 

[Camellia Swift]

[member="Ali Hadrix"]

Ok, what would you suggest then?

 

[Cyrus Tregessar]

I'll be honest, when I first suggested this I hadn't even imagined extrapolating it to the Galactic map as a whole. I was imagining something like Valen (hopefully more successful) as a self-contained event type thing in a submitted cluster (that would appear as a single dot on the galactic map).

Hence why it would focus on mostly static force sizes with only limited reinforcements. Rather than being a whole new way to wage war, it would simply focus on this one cluster of planets (which for whatever reason the opposing sides are unwilling to go all-out over). Things like rules governing spatial movement didn't even factor, I figured the actual battles would be RP'd the old fashioned way, the main focus was on resource management (in the way of persistent forces and damage and such) and strategic movement.

In keeping with the topic title, the goal is to keep the basics the same, just add a strategic layer to the cake, if you will. Now, I'm just as interested in what you two are discussing, but it's a bit larger in scope than I had originally intended things to go for now.

[member="Camellia Swift"] | [member="Ali Hadrix"]

 

[Camellia Swift]

[member="Cyrus Tregessar"]

Ahh well that was the only scope I had been talking about, I made the wrong assumptions but that's what my recent threads have discussed so I guess I thought that was what this was when I got the tag from you and saw you linked those threads in the first post.

Events are too contained and don't effect the map enough, excluding ones like Akala, so I don't think I see the point when invasions and fighting for territory don't happen as often in them as much as they do give a reward at the end.

I'd personally rather change how war is conducted site-wide. Since that's what happens the most with the most invasions and where most of the complaints are. Since I've seen at least Gir Quee and Ali both mention how invasions tend to have way too many people involved that would sensibly be there, and I've felt we needed to make it so that production and lost units have impact, I made a lot of assumptions that was where this was going.

I'm sorry if I derailed what was an entirely different subject to begin with.

X_X