Making Invasions...Invasions

[Darth Ferus]

Make it a module. I like the idea, and there were several others in this thread who did. So it wouldn't be required, but it could be an option from the list.

I mean, people can just do it anyway, but why not add it to the list?

 

[Tefka]

I did, "multi-stage invasions". I've been grabbing all the module ideas from this thread.

 

[Sarge Potteiger]

As much fun as the idea sounds, let's be honest - everyone hates the posts in an invasion that are standing around on a ship waiting for things to happen. There's no amount of "realism" that will make refueling a dropship "fun."

 

[Darth Ferus]

It could be fun! Just cause peanut butter bacon and bananas sounds weird doesn't mean it tastes awful.

 

[Tefka]

Peanut butter bacon and bananas sounds amazing, actually.

But Sarge is right. That's what I classify as background noise. It doesn't make for good roleplay because it doesn't make for good storytelling.

 

[Darth Ferus]

Give it a chance. It could add major back story that would be lost if people went just to the fight.

 

[Darth Kentarch]

@[member="Akala"] the problem of some of the modules is that they simply start the invasion in medias res and won't change their nature at all.

 

[Sarge Potteiger]

Peanut butter bacon and bananas sounds amazing, actually.

But Sarge is right. That's what I classify as background noise. It doesn't make for good roleplay because it doesn't make for good storytelling.

And background noise is pretty much what marshaling soldiers is in the aspect of war. I will say a list of defenses is a good idea, however, just so people can add flavor to their posts and potentially give them obstacles to try and work around (while working to give defenders the advantage of course.)

 

[Jonathon Patches]

@[member="Darth Kentarch"]
War...in and of itself...is PvP. The "non-PvP" stuff suggested, like Patches's slicing and scouting concepts are still supplementing PvP, they're still aggressive actions, they're still combat actions even if they aren't firing a rifle, it's just adding more depth to the conflict.

Aggressive actions? Yes, but as it stands now, in the current system, these "aggressive" actions have no bearing at all on the success or failure of an invasion, because it always comes down to the lightsaber battle on the ground, or the ship battle in the air, or the duel by the console that has some mystical button that will end the war. The planets "defenses" of let's say, a shield generator, Anti-Aircraft turrets, etc, are null and void, because they get dismissed as either A) being neutralized in a post or two, or B) Despite the amount of Anti-Aircraft defenses, the 501st and 502nd were able to touch down, and deploy their troops with acceptable losses... or C) Get ignored all together.

Which comes back to the point of NPC defenses (and attackers forces for that matter), getting steam rolled, having little to no bearing on the outcome, and for non-combatants (when I say that, I mean people that are not going to fight hand to hand on the ground or in the air on a ship), the current system holds little to no appeal at all for some of us.

 

[Fatty]

Some thoughts I have to share.

Invader cons:

1.) They MUST crush the spirit of the defenders
2.) They are on limited resources

Invader pros:

1.) Advantage of surprise (unless otherwise specified)
2.) Preparation and higher maneuverability in utilizing superior weaponry

Defender cons:

1.) Surprised (unless otherwise specified)
2.) Little preparation (unless otherwise specified)

Defender pros:

1.) Home turf advantages (resources, people, strongholds)
2.) They only have to tire out the enemy to leave


We should consider these when combining realism with game mechanics. I think the Invaders need to take a number of strongholds overwhelmingly and must suppress rebellions in the occupation thread until resistance is futile against the resources of a secondary occupational fleet's arrival. For defenders, they must keep a threshold number of specific strongholds from the invaders and they must force the enemy to exhaust their resources, until continuing attack becomes futile as a reclaiming fleet's resources arrives.


Simple, uncomplicated, and flexible.

 

[Jonathon Patches]

As far as objectives go, I would have each Invasion have 5 objectives. If a separate forum was created for invasions, each would be a separate thread or else they would all be in a single thread.
RPJs and faction staff can increase the number, but it's suggested they not decrease it.

1. Objective 1: General objective. This is set at some landmark or setting on the planet decided by the faction leaders. It is contested by PVP in the standard Invasion method.
2. Objective 2: General objective. This is set at some landmark or setting on the planet decided by the faction leaders. It is contested by PVP in the standard Invasion method.
3. Objective 3: (Optional) Special Objective. If faction leaders desire some sort of special type of objective, such as an espionage mission, escort or rescue, this objective will be used. If this is not done, it becomes a standard objective.
4. Objective 4: (Optional) A space battle in orbit. This battle would be fleeting with rules and forces decided by the faction leaders and RPJ. If fleeting is not going to be used, this becomes a standard objective.
5. Objective 5: (Optional) A ground battle. This battle would be a surface battle with rules and forces decided by the faction leaders and RPJ. If it is decided that armies are not going to be used, this becomes a standard objective.

They key point about this is that if the faction leaders decide they don't want any fleeting, armies or special missions (Invasions as they are now), the amount of Objectives can be reduced if required.
The attacker must win more objectives than the defender, if the defender has equal or more objective victories, the attack is defeated.

This allows for a lot of flexibility, allowing factions to work out the invasion plan prior so everyone knows what's happening where.

I like it, but I don't know how I feel about "5" being some golden rule. I would like to think planets like Corellia or Coruscant have much more objectives/strategic points to take than let's say Tatooine or Dathomir. What about objectives, depending on the planet, range from 3 to 7 or something maybe?

You could even leave it up to the faction on which planets they want to heavily guard; i.e. Faction "Patches is Awesome" currently rules over 10 planets. That gets you "50" defender/objective points (for arguments sake, let's say, 5 a planet). The faction can decide how to disperse those points; 5 for planet x, 3 for planet y, and 7 (the presumed homeworl) for planet z.

Then, when these objectives are "negotiated", both the attackers and defenders are aware of what sort of undertaking they are doing. Will the planet they are attacking have 7 objectives? Or the small moon of Endor, only 3?

Thoughts?

 

[Tefka]

You could even leave it up to the faction on which planets they want to heavily guard

I'd like to expand on Capital planets - as they're not really special right now. The Cloud Breaking rule makes them a bit more special, but like we've been buffering the Invasion rules, I'd like to buff Capital planets next.

As for providing more hardline requirements for Invasions... I don't see that happening. No Invasion is the same, so I think we should just keep the requirements focused on 1) members involved and 2) minimum post count.

 

[Tefka]

By buffing Invasions and Capital planets, I mean this:

I wish to make the both of these concepts more heavily impact the map game.

 

[Moroi Wareyasui]

Aggressive actions? Yes, but as it stands now, in the current system, these "aggressive" actions have no bearing at all on the success or failure of an invasion, because it always comes down to the lightsaber battle on the ground, or the ship battle in the air, or the duel by the console that has some mystical button that will end the war. The planets "defenses" of let's say, a shield generator, Anti-Aircraft turrets, etc, are null and void, because they get dismissed as either A) being neutralized in a post or two, or Despite the amount of Anti-Aircraft defenses, the 501st and 502nd were able to touch down, and deploy their troops with acceptable losses... or C) Get ignored all together.

Which comes back to the point of NPC defenses (and attackers forces for that matter), getting steam rolled, having little to no bearing on the outcome, and for non-combatants (when I say that, I mean people that are not going to fight hand to hand on the ground or in the air on a ship), the current system holds little to no appeal at all for some of us.

I wholly endorse the more utility actions having a greater bearing on things, that's not the point I was making. They are still "pvp" actions and their ultimate goal is still to influence which army gets shot less.

 

[Tefka]

Mainly because our invasion rules, as is, work. That's the most important aspect. They're very viable and I feel comfortable with how they work. We've reduced post count, we've made them easier to handle, and we've made the rules very simple.

What I wish to focus on are the smaller items - like capital planets - and how they affect things. Tweaking to further perfect the product we have.

Adding new rules and requirements, like many have suggested, do not help to "perfect" the rules (I realize we can never achieve perfection). They add new loopholes, new variables to consider... and while I'm not against this, I do wonder why it's necessary.

And in the case of many of the things being suggested here, there are no rules against what is being suggested. Meaning it can already be done - you just need proactive Faction Admins to spearhead it.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

The whole reason that I started this thread is because Invasions do not feel like invasions. They feel like a series of duels in a random setting.

What I've been trying to do is find a way to both include the traditional PVP and fleeting etc.

By having objectives where fleeting and land battles form part, but are not vital (and can be chosen to not happen by the faction admins) this can happen.
As it is now invasions CAN have fleeting, but rarely do.

 

[Darth Kentarch]

It seems we are back to square one.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

Indeed it does.

 

[Delila Castillon]

Agreed. What I liked about Roche was the fact that one had the feeling an actual war was going on. From the big fleet battles in space to the last stand of the Republic/Omega Pyre troops on G99 against an overwhelmning Sith force. Well, admittedly I'm biased because I participated in it and got to start Siobhan on her path to ceiling dropping, but based on my admittedly biased opinion Roche felt the most like an actual battle. Sure, it did have its awesome duels (e.g. Ashin vs. Darron) but it had more than that.

Likewise I liked wargaming against @[member="Ashin Varanin"] during the Fringe invasion of Atrisia.

I loved Roche. It had awesome elements : space battles, ground battles, objectives, etc. Then there was the side events with things such as the duels that went on during. Everything felt like part of a larger puzzle, or more realistic. There was some real conflict and everyone felt involved. I especially liked we have some awesome NFU military battles in it. Which...honestly I haven't seen much of, then again, NFUs are lacking a little.

I'm personally tired of special unicorn power battles.

Yet thats not the point of this thread. Anyways, a build up or a grand scale invasion every so often I think would be a shot in the arm for those involved. Could be much more interesting than whats occurring now.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

I think I'd do better getting people into fleeting/ground/campaign battles as skirmishes.