4 replies to this topic

[Redcoat]

So, StateCraft's system is kind of weird for natpols, so I thought I'd explain it somewhere. That place is here.

To start, StateCraft warfare is conducted in a simultaneous turn-based manner using a units system and GM arbitration combined with dice usage. What this means is that when war starts and the armies or fleets meet, both sides issue orders to their units, using MSN, Skype, or a PM system, relaying those to the GM. The GM then decides what happens based on the compositions of both armies and the advantages afforded to both sides, and may make dice rolls to determine outcomes in cases of ambiguity (of which there will be many). Battles end when mutual agreement as to the victor has been reached or when the stated objectives are completed for one party.

Units are abstract constructions. One unit of a particular type of thing is the smallest strategically useful denomination of that thing. For instance, "units" of ships are individual ships, "units" of infantry and most other land units are regiments, "units" of planes are twelve-plane squadrons, and so on. Because we are commanding things on such a high level, orders and manoeuvres will be somewhat general, such as executing a flanking attack, advancing to a certain ridge, or digging in defensive positions at a certain location.

The orders given to units will affect GM arbitration and, in dice-rolling situations, afford modifiers if applicable. For instance, if troops are dug in heavily, a direct infantry charge against them will meet machine gun fire and probably fail. Conversely, a unit that flanks another will generally meet with greater success. Certain kinds of units are more effective than others (for instance, professional infantry will outdo conscripts), and some are better in certain situations (an armour brigade, for instance, will have much more success charging into heavy machine gun fire than infantry, but cannot manoeuvre as well, or at all, in a jungle). Some actions are literally impossible and will meet automatic failure (armour, for instance, cannot counterattack after an artillery barrage, unless they close distance first).

[Just Joe]

I actually really like this idea.

[Kamikaze_X]

Wakarimashita!

[Durandal]

I've given this some thought, and would like to propose a sort of Rock-Paper-Scissors for certain units. Feedback would be nice.

Land Scenarios -

Tanks -> APCs (Mechanized) -> Infantry <-> Artillery <-> Tanks

This one is somewhat simple. Obviously, tanks in most situations will be able to destroy APCs, therefore are effective versus mechanized infantry. Next is that Mechanized infantry will generally defeat foot infantry - the addition of vehicles and the allocated firepower makes them effective at anti-personnel work. Continuing onwards, we can agree Infantry defeat Artillery, and vice versa. Obviously, Artillery are not that effective at precision firing, however if an infantry squad is caught in its fire then they will likely take heavy casualties. However, infantry, mobile and sometimes stealthy, would be more effective at clearing out entrenched Artillery positions. Next is that Artillery beats Tanks and etc. - Evidently, tanks are not built to take artillery shells, thus are highly vulnerable to Artillery strikes, especially if pinned. Despite this, an artillery unit caught under tank fire won't last long usually.

The reason I gave Artillery such a position in the demonstration is due to Artillery being largely effective against most units on the battlefield - long range support has long been known to be fairly effective. However, Artillery is not an armored beasts, and when confronted with short-range combat WILL most likely be destroyed, especially if the enemy is a squad of tanks.

Tank Destroyer -> Heavy <-> Medium <-> Light -> Tank Destroyer

This one as well is rather simple. Tank Destroyers, being basically the shotguns and snipers of infantry, are fairly effective against heavily armored tanks. Then we progress down the types of tanks, with a little complexity. Obviously, heavies will not always beat mediums - the increased mobility and adequate firepower means that a medium tank, if properly commandeered, could in theory defeat a heavy tank under the correct circumstances. This also applies to lights and mediums. Lastly is that Light tanks will most likely defeat Tank Destroyers - this is due to light tanks being mostly scouts, and for its ability to quickly maneuver. Due to the fact a Tank Destroyer only as one main cannon centered in the front of the vehicle, this means a tank that can outmaneuver it is an absolute nightmare.

Tanks -> Anti-Air -> Aircraft -> Tanks

This one is much simpler, and a better example of a rock-paper-scissors. Tanks will obviously beat Anti-Air given the fact they are largely susceptible to Anti-Armor fire. Next is that Anti-Air will defeat Aircraft - and obvious one yet again. Finally, is that Aircraft will defeat Tanks. Whether this means a good dive bomber, or merely frightening strafing runs, a Tank will usually be vulnerable to aerial fire, and is likely to be pinned as a result, or destroyed. This gives AT Troops the opportunity to either take out the tank whilst pinned, or for them to advance.

Well, that's all for now. I'll give you some more once I return from school.

Edited by Durandal, 27 September 2011 - 07:59 AM.

[Vithar Megilaglar]

Rock-paper-scissors makes for easy balance.

Not so much more interesting role-playing.