The Storm of War [ A Fantasy Nation RP ]

Discussion in 'THREAD ARCHIVES' started by Valor, Jul 21, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. [​IMG]
    Inspired by the Warhammer Fantasy Series by Games Workshop

    The world has been consumed by the Storm of War, a hundred years of conflict between the Kingdoms of Heironia. Several, powerful Kingdoms each vie for control of the realm, leading armies in the thousands against one another in a gamble for power. To the west, the Kingdoms of Man squabble and compete over the Imperial Throne, a dynasty which has ended with the tragic death of the last Holy Emperor. Hundreds of Lords and Vassals seek control over the throne, constantly engaged in a civil war to claim the throne of the Empire.

    In the east, the Dwarven Lords stand alone against the Orc horde. They have occupied their mountain holds for several thousand years, but now seek to lose it all against the brutal force of the Orcish armies. The Orcs seek to migrate west, to loot and pillage the realm of Heironia to further grow and sustain their already powerful horde. The Dwarves and Empire of Mankind once stood together to beat back the Orcish hordes once, but with the Empire locked into civil war, the Dwarves must desperately hold out on their own.

    To the south, many other free kingdoms wait, secretly plotting their own courses of action. But little does anyone know, a dangerous and overbearing foe brews in the north, a storm that could wipe out all of civilization in Heironia...

    The Roleplay
    So I'm pretty much just trying to gauge interest in something like this. This is a "Nation RP" set in a Fantasy universe. What this means for those not familiar with Nation RP's is that rather than controlling just one character, you must control a "Nation" or in this case a Kingdom. You will have a personal character, which will lead your armies into battle and act as your nation's prime representative, but most of the politics and warfare is dealt on a Kingdom-wide level.

    I'm looking for players who are:
    • Active. (Inactive Kingdoms will be destroyed by Civil War)
    • Interested in the plot. (duh)
    • Willing to adhere to strict rules.
    • Must be willing to read a ton of content. (Though posting expectations are not too high)
    • Any player willing to Co-GM with me.
    What you can expect from this role play:
    • A deep and rewarding strategy experience.
    • A gripping story that is made by the players' actions.
    • A detailed world map featuring the player regions.
    • A fair environment for everyone.

    As of right now, I'm not 100% sure I'm going to go through with this. If I get enough interest, then certainly. I'm looking for quite a few players to fill the boots of several different factions. I currently am looking for many human factions, a single Dwarven faction and a few factions of Elves or whatever else you can think of.

    Have a great day everyone! Hope to hear from some of you.
    #1 Valor, Jul 21, 2015
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2015
  2. I'm certainly interested and would be capable of Co-GMing if it is so required. As with all nation RPs though, I have many questions as to how things are handled - specifically battles. How will it be decided who wins any given battle? I like to try and leave it to people to work out for themselves but from experience, that tends to escalate into stupid children's fantasy games like: "I send my reserve of 400 spearmen onto the battlefield at key strategical moment X which decimate your 300 horsemen." "Well unbeknownst to you, I have 50 Giant Ogres that just entered the battlefield and are obliterating your spearmen." "Well I have these dragons that my soldiers have been training in secrecy for a moment like this and they vanquish your ogres in an instant."
  3. Interested, but I would like to learn more as well especially when conflicts arise.
  4. Interested, same basic questions on rp rules as everyone else. Good idea though ^^
  5. Oh, mechanics for a Nation-RP, sure whai nawt.
  6. Well, the only two options we have are either a huge statistic system, or have the GM choose who wins battles depending on each situation. Having the GM do everything means a lot of waiting time between posts, so I've been thinking about a board game solution. Here's what I came up with:

    Each player will be provided with a set population size. This will be the main thing that the players will not have control over. It will be rolled for randomly by the player on Kingdom Creation, with bonuses towards which racial faction you choose. (Humans will generally have the most population to compensate for their more dangerous starting positions. Dwarves will have significantly less due to having great defensive strongholds.)

    The player will then be allowed to allocate 25% of their population to their "command points". So if you have 500,000 people in your Kingdom, your army can be up to 125,000 worth of command points.

    With your starting army, you must then allocate your troops to the following:
    **You can have pictures and descriptions of your units to make them unique, but their point value will always be the same and their strength will depend on their class.

    Light Infantry - (Example: Levy Infantry) worth 1 point.
    Heavy Infantry - (Imperial Legionnaire) worth 2 points.
    Elite Infantry - (Imperial Foot Knight) worth 5 points.
    Heroic Infantry - (Emperor's Guard) worth 10 points.

    Light Skirmishers - (Peasant Javelinmen) worth 1 point.
    Heavy Skirmishers - (Elven Archers) worth 2 points.
    Elite Skirmishers - (Elven Rangers) worth 5 points.

    Light Cavalry - (Scout Cavalry) worth 2 points.
    Heavy Cavalry - (Questing Knights) worth 5 points
    Elite Cavalry - (Imperial Royal Cavalry) worth 10 points
    Heroic (Flying) Cavalry - (Dragon Riders) worth 20 points

    So this may sound bad, but in terms of balance, a Heroic Dragon Rider would essentially be worth 20 armed militiamen. The point system may change if people have different opinions, but this is the basic idea. This means players will know exactly how many troops you have at all times. While this gets rid of the "espionage" of a strategy game, it makes sure that no one is meta gaming or cheating. So how is combat calculated?

    Note: this isn't the best representation of what will happen in the RP. Players will generally fight in many, smaller engagements that create a larger battle. You will generally never see a full army fight another full army since there will be major penalties for leaving your Kingdom undefended, etc.

    So let's say two armies face each other on the battlefield.

    Army One is 200,000 points and consists of 100,000 Levy Infantry and 100,000 Peasant Javelinmen
    Army Two is 150,000 points and consists of 30,000 Imperial Foot Knights.

    The Imperial Foot Knights are clearly outmatched in this situation, 200,000 points being 25% more than 150,000 points. The only way for the foot knights to win are through tactical ingenuity and leadership. (IE a dice roll.) Both players roll a 100 faced die using the dice system on Iwaku to determine who wins this battle. Army Two, being outnumbered by 25%, must score exactly 25% higher on the roll to come out in a draw, and more than 25% to win the battle.

    Example: Army One rolls a 50, Army Two rolls a 75. The battle engagement ends in a draw.
    Example 2: Army One rolls a 1, Army Two rolls a 24. Army One wins the battle despite a shitty roll.

    Basically, it is then up to the players to role play out the engagement, even though they already know who is going to win it. Casualties can either be agreed upon or decided by another dice roll, I'm not too sure how I want it to be yet.

    It may sound really complex, but it's actually not too bad in my opinion.
    #6 Valor, Jul 21, 2015
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2015
  7. I might be interested. Still umming and erring, but I'll definitely keep an eye on this. I'd love to hear a little more information about the world.
  8. Of course. This is just the interest check to see if I would have enough people to do something like this, which I think I do now.

    The actual OOC thread would have quite a bit of information to read through.
  9. I can not wait to see the OOC then! I will definitely give be keeping an eye for it. I like the system for its simplicity as long as one Kingdom doesn't have a drastically larger population then the rest odd should be pretty even. Though other tactical advantages should give modifiers as well, like for instance an army defending a castle should have an advantage against the army attacking.
  10. Yes, there will be certain modifiers that will count towards the point system. For example, a castle might be worth 20,000 points, so it becomes part of the calculation. There will be modifiers like generalship and other concepts that may increase point values as well, perhaps even negative traits that subtract from point values. These will be either assigned by myself or a Co-GM

    Anyways, I'll probably have it all up by late tomorrow since I should be studying for a test right now. I do have enough interest to definitely go through with this, though!
    • Like Like x 1
  11. The combat system feels a little simple to me. It essentially suggests that sheer force is far more effective than proper tactics - for example, spears are and have always been incredibly effective against cavalry units. Even if the points were lower, a unit of 20 spearmen would have no problem dealing with a unit of 20 horsemen provided the spearmen were turned to face the horses. On the other hand, 20 or even 100 spearmen would be completely powerless against a single dragon.

    For this reason, I propose a basic rock-paper-scissors type mechanism in addition to the points system:

    Archers beat Spearmen
    Spearmen beat Cavalry
    Cavalry beat Archers

    Then for point calculation, before the dice roll and calculation of the percentage you need higher than your opponent to win, you modify the points slightly:

    Army One has 10,000 points of Archers
    Army Two has 10,000 points of Spearmen

    Archers beat Spearmen, so the Spearmen points are reduced by 10% to become 9,000 points.

    In a more complex situation, you might have:

    Army One has 10,000 points Archers, 10,000 points Spearmen and 5,000 points Cavalry. Total 25,000
    Army Two has 10,000 points Archers, 15,000 points Spearmen and no Cavalry. Total 25,000

    Army One has units of every type, so the points of Army Two are all reduced by 10%.
    Army Two has Archers and Spearmen, so the points of Army One's Spearmen and Cavalry are reduced by 10%, but retains all it's Archers

    Army One: 10,000 points Archers, 9,000 points Spearmen, 4,500 points Cavalry. Total 23,500
    Army Two: 9,000 points Archers, 13,500 points Spearmen. Total 22,500

    This would allow for Generals to play a part too: You can have one general in your army, and he will be of a specific type: Archer, Spearman or Cavalry. While a General is in your army, your points for that unit are decreased by only 5%, not 10%:

    Army One has 10,000 points Archers, 10,000 points Spearmen and 5,000 points Cavalry. Total 25,000
    Army Two has 10,000 points Archers, 15,000 points Spearmen and no Cavalry. They have a Spearman General. Total 25,000

    Army One has units of every type, so the points of Army Two are all reduced by 10%.
    Army Two has Archers and Spearmen, so the points of Army One's Spearmen and Cavalry are reduced by 10%, but retains all it's Archers
    Army Two has a Spearman General, which means than the Spearmen points are only reduced by 5%:

    Army One: 10,000 points Archers, 9,000 points Spearmen, 4,500 points Cavalry. Total 23,500
    Army Two: 9,000 points Archers, 14,250 points Spearmen. Total 23,250.

    The general clearly doesn't make too much of a difference yet, but the more men he has the more important he will become.

    This system would make battles more strategic even while retaining simplicity by choosing your units carefully based upon what you think the attacker may be bringing.
    Most importantly, it eliminates the main problem with that combat system: The one with the highest population always wins.

    Optional suggestions:

    I'm not sure how to make the different ranks of each unit play a part yet, but I'm thinking something along the lines of intimidation factor: 10,000 Heavy Cavalry will intimidate 10,000 Light Cavalry (Unit numbers, not point values), and so the Light Cavalry will get a 2% reduction in their points. This makes strategical differences when choosing to have fewer heavy units or more light units, instead of them having the same final point total and it not actually mattering much.

    Heroic units. These could have special advantages. Sure, you don't get many of them, but those Heroic Dragons riders you have aren't going to have a point reduction from being in a swamp because the dragons are in the sky and not sinking into the mud. Your Emperor's Guard units might be highly trained and have an increased effectiveness, causing a 12% decrease in points in their enemy's cavalry units. (A cavalry general would reduce this to 7%)

    Perhaps other generals besides unit specifics could be possible: A broad General who reduces the point reduction for every unit in his army by 1-2%. A General bred in the mountains who knows how to navigate them, and reduces the point reduction from being in Mountains...
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Also, Magic? Warhammer features it considerably, so will it be in this RP?
  13. The problem is that the more in depth we go with the combat system, the more difficult the calculations start to become. The whole premise of the game is the imaginative story telling, kingdom management and faction interactions, not necessarily just the battles. I understand that there are strong counters to each unit type, but if we start to take unit classes into consideration it becomes a bit of a hellhole managing it all.

    Another issue is that certain factions may not make use of certain roles, such as the Dwarves, who do not usually field any sort of cavalry or flying units on the battlefield. They would be placed at a severe disadvantage since their entire army lacks such units. Of course, we could give them some sort of buff to compensate, but then it might become even more complex.

    Another issue is that it adds more opportunity to metagame. If a player wants to create a "nomadic steppe" faction based around the Huns, meaning their entire army is comprised of cavalry, players will start to take spearmen in their armies for the sole purpose of countering that player, which starts to create a negative and competitive atmosphere. The idea is that you aren't supposed to stress about the army you make, just make an army you think is cool and fits the theme of your Kingdom well.

    You could also completely cheat the system and have the following unit composition:
    9,997 points of Spearmen
    1 point of Archers
    2 point of Cavalry

    You have now inferred 10% penalties to the enemy player across the board for literally having 1 archer and 1 horse in your army.

    As for the intimidation concept you brought up, it's rather confusing. If light cavalry is intimidated by heavy cavalry, then what is the point of ever taking light cavalry? 10,000 points of heavy cavalry will always be better than 10,000 points of light cavalry. No, 10,000 points should be 10,000 points. Unless you suggest light cavalry would have the same effect on light infantry or light archers, which makes the entire game sort of a jumbled mess because players will need to take this into consideration. (The whole idea is that the players can easily do these calculations on their own without a GM instructing them.)

    I think a simple point system is good, it doesn't guarantee that the higher point army will always win, only that the higher point army has an advantage. Most players are going to bring a mixture of various units anyways, (since having only one unit would be boring) So we can guarantee it wont just be spearmen losing to cavalry or archer hordes beating cavalry all the time. It makes it easy to explain and keeps the math as simple as possible and takes into consideration the value of higher tiers of units.

    I do agree about making generals and heroic units incur buffs or penalties, however! I think we should have a few list of traits that provide certain buffs to armies.

    I don't mean to shoot your idea down, I really like it, it's just very complex.

    P.S. TECHNICALLY: 20 spearmen should lose versus 20 cavalry, this is because the main reason why spears are effective versus cavalry are due to the dense formations that effectively stop the gallop. 20 men formed into a single line with no one behind them would get utterly trampled by 1,000 pounds of mass charging at them 25-30 mph, especially if the the cavalry had any sort of armor. Plus, the cavalry could simply get off their horse and fight as standard infantry if they wanted to...

    It is not the spear itself that is the counter to the horse, it is any sort of densely packed formation supplemented by heavier mass (shields, armor, etc.) that counters horses. Spears are just better for deterring riders from wanting to charge into the line. Historically, the Roman army had almost no spears in their army to defend from cavalry, but a braced line of heavily armored legionnaires was always sufficient when stopping any cavalry charge, even when they were armed with tiny gladiuses.

    As for magic, I haven't thought too much about that yet! I want to include it, but I'm not sure how that'd work out. If you have any ideas, I would love to hear them!
    Valor threw 90-faced die for: Total: 185 $dice $dice $dice $dice
    Valor threw 90-faced die for: Total: 150 $dice $dice
    #13 Valor, Jul 22, 2015
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2015
  14. Isn't the whole idea of a nation game going to cause competitiveness anyway? Everyone wants to be the winner. I don't think this makes calculations difficult, either. Not with only 10%. I mean, 10% of any number isn't a hard sum. I did all the maths in my examples in my head in a few seconds. Plus, I quite like the idea of dwarves not having any cavalry and therefore being at a slight disadvantage against armies with archers in them. It gives more of an incentive to create temporary alliances. Perhaps that nomadic Hun faction realises it's having some problems against spears and they make an agreement with the dwarves. And the spearmen - cavalry example was literally just that. I've never been in a real battle - I don't actually know the exact quantities needed :D It was just a random number. You're right about the numbers though. I hadn't even realised that could happen and I'm not sure how to rectify it. Perhaps instead of the rock-paper-scissors thing, different terrains simply provide different debuffs to different unit types. After all, cavalry are going to have quite a few problems fighting in a forest, and heavily armoured spearmen will sink into a swamp.

    In the end these are all just ideas I tried to repurpose from a simplified war game I designed using lego figures as pieces. They're more suited to an environment where you're able to do lots of calculations and negotiations in a short space of time because you're talking face to face.
  15. As for magic: Most armies will probably have mages, but they'll just be part of the points total anyway. Perhaps there's some kind of mana system and players can spend this to cast global buffs on their army or debuffs on the enemy's?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.