Ground warfare

[Laira Darkhold]

Invasion Objectives
Fleet Battle (X Meters)

• 
  Decided by amount of Meters lost
  
• 
  Counts as 3 Points
  

This section represents gaining access to the planet, and in most cases, Blockades are ineffective against fleets equaling your own. Unless decided upon between the participating factions it wouldn't block the ability to land. Furthermore Planetary shields take time to come on line, so they also do not have to block troops from landing. Finally the space battle is worth more than PvP because controlling the space above a planet is more effective than fighting a duel in the scheme of taking over a world.

Ground Battle (X Troops)

• 
  Decided by amount of Troops lost
  
• 
  Makes at least some of the fight is an actual warzone
  
• 
  Counts as 3 points
  

This section represents the actual war or battle that is fought over the planet. In canon most battles are massive (Hoth, Endor, Mygeeto, Kashyyyk, etc) and heroes most certainly play a part, they rarely swat aside whole armies, normally relying on their own forces. Recently (Telti comes to my mind) NPC's were decided by rank, but that seems to promote dog-piling and swarming, or at least allows it to be an issue. With decided numbers of troops it's easy to keep it equal and fair, with PC's leading divisions. This should be worth more than PvP Duels because it features large scale battles.

PvP

• 
  Fought over important sites/items/data away from the battlefield (Just like in all of canon)
  
• 
  This keeps people from getting swarmed, and gives the people who want to duel a way to impact the out come
  
• 
  Each PvP victory scores 1 point
  

This section is meant to be staged at vital points, like the mainframe of the Global Defense System, the Planetary Shield Generator, The Moff's Summer Home, etc. allowing Characters to duke it out without having to deal with the massive military each side is fielding, while still providing a story, an ability to effect the invasion, and still be able to be a deciding factor, but not the only deciding factor.

Conclusion
Victory points are easily adjustable, as are army and fleet sizes so you could theoretically pull off a ground based Druckenwell or whatever is wanted. You can add to or take away as necessary or desired using just the little template. Its not meant to be a strict law to be followed but an easy base line template providing something for everyone. Some people (Like Myself) prefers leading troops in battle rather than PvP. To me it relies more on strategy than equipment or Force Powers which is why I like it, while other prefer Fleeting (I know [member="Valiens Nantaris"] falls into this category) and finally, most people like PvP, which is intended to always be a serious part of invasions. That's why they are worth 1 per victory instead of 3 overall like the other two. Depending on the number of participants this could mean that a group could win on PvP victories alone, but it would be a serious uphill battle. It will also allow people that prefer other types of combat to be useful, without providing everyone with a swarm of NPC’s because some people don’t wanna have to bother with that. Would be cool to see actual war be meaningful to the outcome of an invasion.

Ground Troops Allotments
I had an Idea on how to make ground warfare fun and fair, and stole ideas from Valiens Terminus campaign... they are mine now.

First have each side decide on the number of troops (IE 150 Troops)
Unique (Individual NPC's, Super Special NPC Units)= 2X
Rare (Veterans)= 1.5X
Uncommon and Common (Trained and equipped troops)=1
Fodder (B1 Droids, Militia, Random Citizen with a Gun)=0.75
[ Add up all the troops in a given unit or division Rounding any fractions up because math]

150 is the actual number of individuals
Vehicles are separated into
Bikes, AT-RT style walkers, and unarmed speeders (3 Troops)
Light Vehicles (10 Troops)
Assault Vehicles, Main Battle Tanks, Artillery, etc (20 Troops)
Large Walkers, Large Tanks with multiple main Weapons, and the like (50 Troops)
Mobile Fortresses (100 Troops)

Passengers, or vehicles carried within them would still count towards the maximum allotment

you can scale it up if you like, scale it down, and i used my toys because I like my toys... Let me play with my Dinobot...


Victory points are easily adjustable, as are army and fleet sizes so you could theoretically pull off a ground based Drunckenwell (Spelling?) or whatever is wanted. You can add to or take away as necessary or desired using just the little template. Would be cool to see actual war be meaningful to the outcome of an invasion.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

[member="Draco Vereen"]
I like it. Nicely done.

 

[Laira Darkhold]

I wrote it with a write up for invasion objectives. [member="Valiens Nantaris"]

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

[member="Draco Vereen"]
Fleeting is decided by how many metres of enemy ships are destroyed.

Same could apply for ground.

 

[Laira Darkhold]

[member="Valiens Nantaris"]
Didn't know that, but seems appropriate.

 

[Gir Quee]

I like it.

I'd suggest making a "fodder", "light", or "sub-par" category too (with something like a cost of 0.5).

This could cover things like B1 battle droids (which I wouldn't even want to compare to "regular" soldiers) or things like speeder bikes.

Otherwise, we'll have three speeder bikes costing more than some tanks.

 

[Laira Darkhold]

hmm, I didn't even account for speeder bikes.

And I agree there should be something lower than standard (My Standard is pretty good) but .75 would be a good starting point for those, same as the hangars for the droid starfighters, should work for this.

 

[sabrina]

Militia = Local forces police, security guards
Regular = Standard military groups
Veteran = Groups pc have taken through a few doms and an invasion
Elite = Veteran groups, that have done really hard hitting stuff

 

[Laira Darkhold]

Updated Original post with suggestions and explanations.

 

[Camellia Swift]

There are some decent hex map makers too.

Could totally set one up before a battle and have people track their forces movements across it.

http://axiscity.hexamon.net/users/isomage/wildgen/

 

[Laira Darkhold]

[member="Camellia Swift"]
Ballin. I love it.

 

[Gir Quee]

Looks pretty good to me.

I might think about making a general "light" category for points to include the recon walkers, speeder bikes, etc, and I would include APCs in there as well, such as the Vector LAV or Myrmidon.

Yes, they are armed, but neither of them is remotely equivalent to a similarly-sized battle tank or anti-vehicle. Hence if they cost the same, no-one is going to take them into battle, as their main strength (the ability to cost people) would cost even more.

So in other words, a single Vector LAV loaded with troops would currently cost the equivalent of 41 points, or the equivalent of about 5 Redeemer Main Battle Tanks. Alternatively, a single Myrmidon(without any troops) costs about as much as a single Redeemer MBT. It just doesn't seem very equivalent to me right now.

 

[Laira Darkhold]

[member="Gir Quee"]
You seem to be right. In the most recent invasions they have been making light vehicles 10, and heavy vehicles 20. perhaps something similar would be comparable.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

Hexographer, which is used to generate the one Sabrina posted, is the best hex mapper I've encountered.

 

[Darth Avida]

I like the notion of costing less for the background noise, like fodder droids and troops for example.

On the other hand I never really liked the idea of using a standardized cost for everyone, as some factions might be heavily invested in ground forces and not so much in air warfare and thus have more access to troops, tanks, and so on that other groups might not. Clearly this isn't "fair" in the sense of everyone getting the same thing, but that gives them the advantage on the ground and not the air.

 

[Ali Hadrix]

I like the idea of battle systems like this. However, my experience had taught me that they fall through on too many fronts to ever satisfy RP as a whole, like a blanket solution for something that varies far to much.

I feel our focus should be in WRITING warfare better, and there are several key factors in developing that skill in our writers.

First, I'm not a believer in set force allotments. This doesn't not account for the typical asymmetry of warfare, and generally spurs on the trend of working longer designing your forces to standard than actually fielding them (which is the only way to gain more experience wiring warfare).
Instead, I would recommend writers be given a DETAILED brief on the battlefield terrain and scenario, then be given free reign. All forces will then be posted and concerns raised BEFORE the battle begins.
As an additional point, it will be necessary to enforce a more strict set of weaknesses to the various types of soldiers and vehicles / weapons. As long as we hold each other accountable, writers will have to be smart and balanced about their force designs. This does not mean a limit on forces shouldn't be put in place, but there is a bigger picture to be concerned with.

Next, I mentioned terrain briefs and the like. It is simply unacceptable for certain forces to operate in certain environments without suffering serious reductions in efficiency and power. Footsoldiers running across an open plain, for example, are open for slaughter, there's no fighting back against a tank or any sort of defensible position.
HeX maps are great, and we need those every bit as much as we need detailed descriptions of their contents.
Spatial reasoning us also crucial, as too often I've seen people pack an entire line of tanks in a single small area and expect to be able to win due to their firepower (this only makes for a gift-wrapped air support target).

Lastly, what we're replicating here folks, is reality. We can't do that with math, or a system of any kind on its own.
I believe our focus ought to be on our openness to criticism and our willingness to change things in the moment. If I'm briefed that the battlefield is all gulleys and ravines, I can't bring tanks and expect to be effective. If I continue writing as if I AM, someone needs to call me out.

Collaboration doesn't end just because rules aren't being broken.

 

[Ali Hadrix]

Forgive my typos I'm on a phone.

 

[sabrina]

[member="Camellia Swift"] I like it a lot
but I have one serrious question when did the best fleeter on the republic join the sith?

 

[Camellia Swift]

[member="sabrina"]

When did Stahlmann join the Sith?

In all joking aside though, I got captured IC months ago when they dominioned Rendili during the event.

Been waiting for rescue, as well as trying to finish aspects of her capture and experimentation, since.

Plus felt bad to have the Pub tags when I'm stuck in Sith space until further notice.

 

[Gir Quee]

[member="Ali Hadrix"], I really agree with the general idea of what you are saying, but I do think that such a system potentially has a place here. I would fully endorse everything that you said if I had found Chaos to be more interested in the story and the quality of writing rather than winning.

But personally, I haven't found that to be the case in my experience. I have found that Chaos is a very competitive environment, especially during invasions. Not everyone plays "nice" or on the same level. What is acceptable and logical to one person is not for the other.

This is where I see the system being useful, because it helps define expectations and boundaries between players. And when people are writing from the same expectations and boundaries, everything becomes smoother.

If you can do that without having to resort to a system like this, that's great and I will envy you for doing so. That is something I would like to do with every opponent I write with, but oftentimes that is not the case. In my experience, writers come to the table with different expectations.

But for writing and invasion with a writer you don't know or who doesn't share the same sense of sportsmanship, I think systems like this are a godsend. In my experience, they keep the drama down, allowing me to have more fun and write a better story rather than worrying on how to counter the endless hordes of AT-ATs falling from the sky with my squad of rock-armed squad of Ewoks (Ok, so that was a slight exaggeration ). I would agree that having exactly or close to even sides isn't realistic, but it keeps the drama down when there are stakes attached to a battle's outcome.

I would definitely agree that assymetry in warfare is something that isn't something that we typically see at Chaos, and yes, in most real life cases these days, warfare is assymetrical (especially in terms of strength and equipment). I would like to see some more of that here, but aside from a few skirmishes, I have not seen that really played out well in a manner that was enjoyable for both sides.