Unit vs Unit Battle System

[Ricochet]

I was wondering about how to make good old military tussles simplistic after a few invasions and a current thread with Wolves of Lothal made me think of something. It is bare bones but have a look.

Why not super impose the framework of PvP on military NPC combat. I call it the UnitvUnit system.

As an example:

How would it work is the unit would be incorporated as an arm of the PC who is engaging another NPC. The same fashion the lightsaber is the extension of the PC when incorporating in PvP against another force-user.

So take the scenario of Ricochet and her 501st in a confrontation with perhaps [member="Weiss"] and his Republican Commando Company.

The actual crux of the fight would act as a traditional PvP - i.e. Richet vs Weiss. But, not only their personal weapons - but, their mastery of the various components of their respective military units are also personal weapons. In a way Ricochet and Weiss are "hero units" within a larger military unit.

Victory would depend on which of the heroes is knocked out first. And it would be at the discretion of the combatants to delegate damage to their military units. So tactically, they can use each other's military units to knock the other Hero Unit out - but as a rule PCs are harder to take out. Or PCs duke it out in PvP, but all command the larger strategic fight between their military units.

Also if said units have PC members, then it becomes a series of PvPs set within a larger Military Unit v Military Unit

 

[Ellie Mors]

@Ricochet
I have always felt in agreement with this. Tabletop-style NPC combat is outdated and outmoded.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

Surely this would only work for small scale battles...and only ones including close range?

With that in mind...isn't this what happens now anyway?

@Ricochet

 

[TK-2387]

@Ricochet
[member="Braith Achlys"]

Totes. I totes agree with this, since its how I play out unit-based firefights, anyways.

 

[Ricochet]

[member="Valiens Nantaris"]

I was thinking for large NPC Battle Components of Invasions you break them down into smaller PC Miitary Unit Duels.

For long range warfare, such as air-support, missiles etc. That can be a background NPC environmental element that faction Admins manage, like they do now. IN a sense the Opposing Faction Admins are GMs, while the PC Units are the participators of the setting the Admins have established for the invasion.

 

[Ellie Mors]

[member="Valiens Nantaris"]
It currently is literal unit vs unit, where each individual NPC performs an action.

 

[Ricochet]

My version is less.... 300 commandos assault this and do that and more.... Ricochet moves and fires at PC A while she turns to tell her lieutenant to etc etc at PC A's NPC B. Its more integrated into an actual narrative RP rather than a NPC Chess match, which is messy and detached from the actual narrative of the invasion.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

To each their own I guess.

As someone who likes strategy games and battles I'd rather things be larger scale.

But it's up to the parties in an invasion to test this if they want it.

 

[Ricochet]

[member="Valiens Nantaris"]
You can do both I think. My suggestion is just a component for smaller scale UnitvUnit. I think the current grand strategy NPC conflicts can continue as they are.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

I'd be interested to see how it turns out.

 

[Weiss]

[member="ricochet"]

We can always agree to personal rules in a duel.
What you need is to threaten Republic interest and Weiss will be there.

 

[Rusty]

If I'm reading this correctly, what's you're basically doing is taking unit on unit combat and turning it into a duel, where the NPCs are basically just weapons. If that's the case, I see no reason why this couldn't work on the small scale, but I can see it breaking down on a larger battlefield.

 

[Ashin Varanin]

To further what [member="Rusty"] said, I could see anything larger than 2vs2 running into the exact same coordination problems as complex, multiple-participant PVP. I've done 3-vs-1 or higher on occasion, just because it gets easy to play people off against their allies. Same opportunities for well-coordinated teams to wreck face, though.

 

[Rusty]

Now that I've thought about it, there is a way to implement this on a large scale, but it requires some work.

You start with a map, with every PC and their associated units on a spot. Each side has a base with any fixed units such as artillery or the like stationed there. The overall goal is to destroy the enemy base or capture their commander. Both sides have a fixed number of troops, no reinforcements. How they array their troops is up to them. Commanders will tell folks where to go, and also keep track of the map.

Those with close range units like infantry engage opposing PCs on a 1v1 basis. Once a firefight has been one, the victor takes his troops to engage another enemy PC. If they're able to move towards the base unopposed, they're free to do that as well. The commander can order someone to withdraw from an engagement to support, bring in their reserve, whatever.

Things like artillery and air support are controlled by the overall commander each side assigns, or whoever they delegate control to. It's not likely that there are too many people like myself who would be perfectly content to sit back and exchange cannon fire the entirety of the battle, so a simplified control scheme here is probably best. Each artillery unit consists of X amount of guns and can attack one target per turn. They cannot attack the enemy base directly, because of shields or something. Air support will operate in the same manner.

Once a base has been attacked, the commander and their personal unit defends as long as possible, either until the enemy has been fought off, they've been captured, or someone else manages to break off and give them a hand.

This allows for a few things that were notably absent on Contruum and Balmorra. Firstly, by having a centralized commander for each side, there might actually be something approaching coordination. Also, by breaking engagements down to unit on unit, rather than having to wait for five hundred different people to post, each firefight plays out more like a duel, with individuals posting rather than waiting for the whole long mess to cycle back around. Also, by giving both sides clear conditions for victory and defeat, we can avoid situations where one side holes up in a cave, sticks their tongues out, and refuses to acknowledge damage for the rest of the fight in order to claim victory.

 

[Jacen Voidstalker]

The problem I see with NPC battles is that taking damage isn't as straightforward to write out as simple PvP.

Someone swings a blade at my arm, I know what to write out for that one.

Someone has two tanks firing at a group of spread out soldiers from a km away. Erm...?

What I generally see in NPC battles is a reticence to actually suffer significant casualties.


Has anyone on the board ever seen a large scale NPC battle written out to conclusion where one side surrenders or leaves the field due to suffering casualties?

 

[Jack Mirrikh]

[member="Ricochet"]

Here. I have dice you can use. Take 'em.

*Throws dice at screen*

On a more serious note, I say we use coins. Flip a coin. Heads, you lose. Tails, I win. Then, both sides can write their posts as they work out the results of the coin toss.