War Hydra
King of Monsters
Then why are all the Major Factions playing a Galaxy-Wide game of Risk?Darth Vitium said:
Star Wars Roleplay: Chaos
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
"Game-ification" of NPC Units
- Thread starter Fatty
- Start date
-
- Tags
- suggestion
B E A C O N
The contents of the threads are what separates invasions and the like from a board game. The map game is a "game" in name only. There is no dice rolling, there are no DMs, and theres no system of combat.War Hydra said:
Well-Known Member
I think everyone is blowing up the suggestion I actually submitted, out of what I intended. I regreat putting "Game-ification" into the title.
No "game" rule are being written with my suggestion. All that I suggest, is more effort be put into making NPC Units work without as much constant negotiation and headache, as we put into our starships (which would be far more work, negotiation, and headache if there were no standardization of starships). I want to standardize NPC Units in a manner that is comprehensive without limiting freedom to use them the way you wish (within the limits of fairness, obviously).
I think we can all agree that the NPC Units need a dedicated Strengths & Weaknesses section. Probably a special features area too.
What *I* think would be desirable though, would be some indicator of Unit Wide Range (maximum being the farthest reaching weapons in a unit [artillery/walkers, etc.], minimum being the shortest reaching weapons in a unit [bladed infantrymen, etc.]), and Unit Wide... Movement, for lack of a better term. An infantry squad with jump-packs is going to be markedly more mobile than an infantry squad without.
Even if these "attributes" provide nothing in an RP environment, they serve to expand our understanding of a units capabilities to a reader.
Does that make more sense?
No "game" rule are being written with my suggestion. All that I suggest, is more effort be put into making NPC Units work without as much constant negotiation and headache, as we put into our starships (which would be far more work, negotiation, and headache if there were no standardization of starships). I want to standardize NPC Units in a manner that is comprehensive without limiting freedom to use them the way you wish (within the limits of fairness, obviously).
I think we can all agree that the NPC Units need a dedicated Strengths & Weaknesses section. Probably a special features area too.
What *I* think would be desirable though, would be some indicator of Unit Wide Range (maximum being the farthest reaching weapons in a unit [artillery/walkers, etc.], minimum being the shortest reaching weapons in a unit [bladed infantrymen, etc.]), and Unit Wide... Movement, for lack of a better term. An infantry squad with jump-packs is going to be markedly more mobile than an infantry squad without.
Even if these "attributes" provide nothing in an RP environment, they serve to expand our understanding of a units capabilities to a reader.
Does that make more sense?
Valiens Nantaris
Head Admin
[member="Fatty"]
To have a movement speed you'd need a number like ships have, which is fine.
NPC units are made up of vehicles and soldiers with weapons which already have strengths and weaknesses inherently.
Plus, one can look at an infantry unit and instantly see their weaknesses based on equipment.
To have a movement speed you'd need a number like ships have, which is fine.
NPC units are made up of vehicles and soldiers with weapons which already have strengths and weaknesses inherently.
Plus, one can look at an infantry unit and instantly see their weaknesses based on equipment.
Well-Known Member
[member="Valiens Nantaris"] Instantly is stretching it a bit far. Not saying that digging through submissions linked in a submission is a bad thing, but would sure be hell of a lot easier if they had one for the submission itself.
Also, if people want to (for some reason), keep the NPC submissions sort of vague as they are now (with its lack of ratings beyond Quality), we don't necessarily require a number rating (though I personally would prefer one), similar to how Quality is dealt with. There are other alternatives (a rudimentary "slow, moderate, or fast" system comes to mind). I feel though, that using a rating similar to what we use for starships would be most beneficial.
If we can keep more templates more or less similar (with the necessary differences for what kind of submission the template is for), I see it as a victory of simplicity and understanding.
Also, if people want to (for some reason), keep the NPC submissions sort of vague as they are now (with its lack of ratings beyond Quality), we don't necessarily require a number rating (though I personally would prefer one), similar to how Quality is dealt with. There are other alternatives (a rudimentary "slow, moderate, or fast" system comes to mind). I feel though, that using a rating similar to what we use for starships would be most beneficial.
If we can keep more templates more or less similar (with the necessary differences for what kind of submission the template is for), I see it as a victory of simplicity and understanding.
B E A C O N
What about combat knowledge/skills? Equipment isn't the only defining piece of an NPC, a strength/weakness section would cover their specific training (or lack thereof) and combat/tactical experience.Valiens Nantaris said:
Valiens Nantaris
Head Admin
[member="Darth Vitium"]
This is covered by their quality and by their armament and classification. A heavy tank battalion is not going to need a weakness saying they're 'big targets' for you to know this is true.
This is covered by their quality and by their armament and classification. A heavy tank battalion is not going to need a weakness saying they're 'big targets' for you to know this is true.
B E A C O N
What about infantry that are more inclined for stealth, or troops that are trained in guerilla warfare?Valiens Nantaris said:
I get not needing it for vehicles, as vehicles in the factory already require the Strengths & Weaknesses so it'd be pretty much redundant to include it again.
Valiens Nantaris
Head Admin
[member="Darth Vitium"]
Sure, infantry forms the vast majority of NPC subs anyway.
Sure, infantry forms the vast majority of NPC subs anyway.