Lord Sham de La Rock's Proposed Plan for the RP, Parte the Seconde
So, the last part dealt with regions a little. This one will focus on PCs and troops. Parte the Thirde will focus on Eventmasters, unless this needs two parts.
So, first point: - Armies more or less tied to PC (goes with smaller armies) (7 votes)
This is quite simple. This will depend on army size. Essentially, a certain number of troops will require a PC. This could be a PC per 1, 000 MWE, a PC per 500 MWE, or a PC per 100 MWE, depending on the numbers we decide. For every Battle Group (The MWE amount decided) 1 PC will be required.
Armies without PCs leading them would be in disarray, unable to do almost any formations and tactics, and generally weak in combat.
Second point: - Troops gain benefits from being in and surviving combat
(7 votes)
Slightly more complex. Basically, there would be three point systems for this. Battle Experience Points (BEPs) Siege Engine Experience Points (SEEPs) and Naval Experience Points (NEPs).
For each battle they fight on one of the fronts, an NPC gains 1 point of the suitable classification. When fighting another battle on a front, points gained from previous battles would be counted. Say 500 NPCs worth 1 MWE fight a land battle, and 200 survive. The survivors, when fighting in land battles, are counted as being worth 2 MWE. In naval battles and using siege engines, they count as worth 1.
NEPs and BEPs would work the same; points for use in combat. SEEPs would be slightly more complex. Essentially, 1 siege crewmember, who you can pay for with the siege engine, is worth 7 SEEPs. So, in order for a basic soldier who is primarily for fighting, but has been told to use a siege engine, to match a siege expert in the use of war engines, they have to first fight and survive 7 battles, gaining 7 SEEPs.
- Increasing the # of PCs one person can have (but still having some limit) (6 votes)
This is easy, and would affect point one (we would need enough PCs to control the armies). As EE said to MM, 20 is a lot. I propose at least 5, but no more than 15. This will need some discussion.
There is more to be said on this later on, but for now, over to you.
Alright, here's my more complete analysis of the above propositions. My apologies for tardiness; I've been sick the past few days (and still sort of am), and in no mood for thinking.
Point #1: Looks good, though we would have to be careful about what armies can and cannot do without a PC.
Point #2: I'm not so sure about the idea of SEEPs, partly becuase I'm still trying to understand it. My mental faculties are still not at 100%. Anyways, it seems the SEEPs are more dependent on the crew than the engine. This makes sense, but in combat, it seems, it's the engines that ultimately are kept track of, more than the crew. Additionally, I feel that the experienced gained from turning cranks would be somewhat negligible when compared to that of defeating an enemy in hand-to-hand combat. So I'm just not sure if it would be worth it, for the SEEPs.
As for the BEPs and NEPs, I think the idea works fine. My only critique is that maybe the values should be lessened. It may depend on the soldier, but I think most troops wouldn't double in value simply because they fought one battle. Maybe having 1 B/NEP = 0.5 MWE would be more realistic. Or, as was brought up earlier, we could also try to formulate a system where the amount of experience points gained depended on the actual battle. 500 cavalry would get less experience for defeating 50 orcs than 50 cavalry would get for defeating 500 orcs. But I need to think about a way to make that work out.
Also, one other thought that popped into my head. Do BEPs carry over if that unit is switched to a different kind of unit? My vote would be no, since that would be even more unrealistic than the instantaneous troop-switching already is. Besides, this would result in an increased level of thinking: do I change the unit, or keep the experience?
Point #3: Again, looks good. I'd say the number of PCs should depend on how many units each HQ has, and how many can be controlled by a PC.
Point #1: Great.
Point #2: Perhaps. I'll let go of the SEEPs if needed. However, it helps judge the accuracy of siege engines. ATm, all we know is that siege crews that are siege crews are accurate, and siege crews that are soldiers turning cranks are not.
Yeah, 0.5 MWE might be more accurate. That would be hard to do, but excellent if it could be done.
No, they wouldn't. The BEPs are placed on the troops in question, not the MWE they are made up of. If the troops were changed, the BEPs would be lost, and if the troops were smashed, the regenerated MWE would not carry the BEPs.
Lord Sham de La Rock's Proposed Plan for the RP, Parte the Seconde
So, the last part dealt with regions a little. This one will focus on PCs and troops. Parte the Thirde will focus on Eventmasters, unless this needs two parts.
So, first point: - Armies more or less tied to PC (goes with smaller armies) (7 votes)
This is quite simple. This will depend on army size. Essentially, a certain number of troops will require a PC. This could be a PC per 1, 000 MWE, a PC per 500 MWE, or a PC per 100 MWE, depending on the numbers we decide. For every Battle Group (The MWE amount decided) 1 PC will be required.
Armies without PCs leading them would be in disarray, unable to do almost any formations and tactics, and generally weak in combat.
Second point: - Troops gain benefits from being in and surviving combat
(7 votes)
Slightly more complex. Basically, there would be three point systems for this. Battle Experience Points (BEPs) Siege Engine Experience Points (SEEPs) and Naval Experience Points (NEPs).
For each battle they fight on one of the fronts, an NPC gains 1 point of the suitable classification. When fighting another battle on a front, points gained from previous battles would be counted. Say 500 NPCs worth 1 MWE fight a land battle, and 200 survive. The survivors, when fighting in land battles, are counted as being worth 2 MWE. In naval battles and using siege engines, they count as worth 1.
NEPs and BEPs would work the same; points for use in combat. SEEPs would be slightly more complex. Essentially, 1 siege crewmember, who you can pay for with the siege engine, is worth 7 SEEPs. So, in order for a basic soldier who is primarily for fighting, but has been told to use a siege engine, to match a siege expert in the use of war engines, they have to first fight and survive 7 battles, gaining 7 SEEPs.
- Increasing the # of PCs one person can have (but still having some limit) (6 votes)
This is easy, and would affect point one (we would need enough PCs to control the armies). As EE said to MM, 20 is a lot. I propose at least 5, but no more than 15. This will need some discussion.
There is more to be said on this later on, but for now, over to you.
Alright, here's my more complete analysis of the above propositions. My apologies for tardiness; I've been sick the past few days (and still sort of am), and in no mood for thinking.
Point #1: Looks good, though we would have to be careful about what armies can and cannot do without a PC.
Point #2: I'm not so sure about the idea of SEEPs, partly becuase I'm still trying to understand it. My mental faculties are still not at 100%. Anyways, it seems the SEEPs are more dependent on the crew than the engine. This makes sense, but in combat, it seems, it's the engines that ultimately are kept track of, more than the crew. Additionally, I feel that the experienced gained from turning cranks would be somewhat negligible when compared to that of defeating an enemy in hand-to-hand combat. So I'm just not sure if it would be worth it, for the SEEPs.
As for the BEPs and NEPs, I think the idea works fine. My only critique is that maybe the values should be lessened. It may depend on the soldier, but I think most troops wouldn't double in value simply because they fought one battle. Maybe having 1 B/NEP = 0.5 MWE would be more realistic. Or, as was brought up earlier, we could also try to formulate a system where the amount of experience points gained depended on the actual battle. 500 cavalry would get less experience for defeating 50 orcs than 50 cavalry would get for defeating 500 orcs. But I need to think about a way to make that work out.
Also, one other thought that popped into my head. Do BEPs carry over if that unit is switched to a different kind of unit? My vote would be no, since that would be even more unrealistic than the instantaneous troop-switching already is. Besides, this would result in an increased level of thinking: do I change the unit, or keep the experience?
Point #3: Again, looks good. I'd say the number of PCs should depend on how many units each HQ has, and how many can be controlled by a PC.
Point #1: Great.
Point #2: Perhaps. I'll let go of the SEEPs if needed. However, it helps judge the accuracy of siege engines. ATm, all we know is that siege crews that are siege crews are accurate, and siege crews that are soldiers turning cranks are not.
Yeah, 0.5 MWE might be more accurate. That would be hard to do, but excellent if it could be done.
No, they wouldn't. The BEPs are placed on the troops in question, not the MWE they are made up of. If the troops were changed, the BEPs would be lost, and if the troops were smashed, the regenerated MWE would not carry the BEPs.
Point #3: Agreed.
#2A: I would say the race and status of the siege weapon operator would also somewhat determine accuracy. A dwarf would have better accuracy than a hobbit; a Gondorian soldier would have better accuracy than a farmer from Bree. Anyways, we can see what others say about the SEEPs.
#2B: Agreed
#2C: Alright, that's what I was thinking as well, glad we're on the same page.
#4A: I'll try to respond to you in the 3rd Age RP within a day or two.
The day of prosperity makes one forget adversity; The day of adversity makes one forget prosperity.
Point #2: Perhaps. I'll let go of the SEEPs if needed. However, it helps judge the accuracy of siege engines. ATm, all we know is that siege crews that are siege crews are accurate, and siege crews that are soldiers turning cranks are not.
Yeah, 0.5 MWE might be more accurate. That would be hard to do, but excellent if it could be done.
No, they wouldn't. The BEPs are placed on the troops in question, not the MWE they are made up of. If the troops were changed, the BEPs would be lost, and if the troops were smashed, the regenerated MWE would not carry the BEPs.
Point #3: Agreed.
#2A: I would say the race and status of the siege weapon operator would also somewhat determine accuracy. A dwarf would have better accuracy than a hobbit; a Gondorian soldier would have better accuracy than a farmer from Bree. Anyways, we can see what others say about the SEEPs.
#2B: Agreed
#2C: Alright, that's what I was thinking as well, glad we're on the same page.
#4A: I'll try to respond to you in the 3rd Age RP within a day or two.
#2A: Yes, that's something to take into consideration.
-last edited on Jul 29, 2017 19:45:33 GMT by emeraldeddie
Post by emeraldeddie on Jul 29, 2017 19:45:06 GMT
Heyo all,
Y'know, sometimes life is like an airlock. You gotta close the door behind you before you open the one in front of you.
In preparing to open the door to college (for which I leave in about 3 weeks) and all that it will bring, I seems I must close some of the doors behind me. My activity is already a bit sketchy, at best. And college may very well bring about my retirement from the MBEs, or at least semi-retirement. So, to put it simply, the time has come to pass on the the Rep position in this Roleplay.
As the deputy rep, Bobbywan is next in line for the position. However, if Bobby would rather not take the job, then I'm thinking we can hold a vote. Or I can just choose someone else.
Anyways, I'm going to be backpacking in Spain for the next week and a half, so y'all have some time to think about it. Talk to y'all then!
The day of prosperity makes one forget adversity; The day of adversity makes one forget prosperity.