Proposed New Rules: Step 1

[Behmanesh FarzAn]

Ok, since I've been drafted in to re-write the rules, I suppose I should start to do my job.  The first step in any conflict will be very simple.  All parties taking part in the conflict will get together and sign a MRWS declaration of Recwar, which will define all parties involved, as well as the territory they shall be fighting for.  All parties shall recognise that any MCS territorial gains or losses as a result of this recwar shall be entirely legitimate.  The MCS shall then declare the agreed areas to be "disputed territory" on the map.  The MRWS shall also take the territory and enlarge it, before dividing it into hexes, the size of which I have not decided yet.  These hexes shall be used as a simple method to determine troop movements, and shall be covered later.  After this, the MRWS shall then calculate the size of each nation's army (do we still have the old equations?), and then determine which units to send in to the conflict, presenting an OOB  (more troops can be sent in later, and this shall be covered later).

[St Fenix]

Well first of all how would we do the manpower?



We need to have a system that allows us to calculate the size of our armies very quickly and very easily. Long math equations only serve to slow the game and make it more tedious.



The second would be division of manpower into the Division of the Army,navy, and air-force



I am supposing that if a nation was an island nation than it would have a massive navy alot like 19th Century Britain. If it was a far north nation then maybe not beacause of sea Ice or the cost of building ships that can stand up to the ice. If it were like Babkha then it would have a truly massive navy.



So maybe some rules in the area of land size and amount of coastline would work here.



for the size of the armies then a simple equation of how dire the circumstances are and how much manpower is available will determine the size of the army. So if the nation is lovely sized but does'nt really care then it might not put up much of an army. However if the nation is fighting for its very existance then Massive mobilisation would rule the day. I don't know how we could go about doing Either of these equations though. I am not that expierienced with the numbers we are going to need for this. Such as how would we determine Manpower size? Another thing we could worry about is how dire the moment becomes. If lovely mobilises only a few platoons and all of a sudden half of their territory has been invaded then they woudl indeed mobilise even more.



And for the Air-force I really don't know.... thats I question I can't even touch...





The enlarging of the map should indicate mountains and the like but Who decided where they will be? or better yet what the terrain will look like? If the judges do then it may be fairer. However if the players do then all of a sudden all their terrian has advantage for them. And it will be hell to say the least for the other army to invade and thus the war will take longer then it actually should. Look At the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union. although they were not prepared in any way. The fact that Russia only has large rivers but not mountains made it much easier to invade it. There was no accouting for mountains beacause there simply was'nt any. In this way tanks ruled the day and Russia almost fell apart under the invasion.



But for my last Rant I would like to consider Technology.



Since war is one of the most desperate times for many nations It always goes without saying that New technology is developed. It does'nt just stay the same. However For the MCS it can't jump to lasers in two minutes. In fact the wars would be strange if they got high-tech. I prefer WW2 combat over nano-age combat beacause We have expierience with WW2 combat and nano-age combat simply has never happened. Although We have had a taste for digital Combat.



How we could go about doing this is a mystery to me but maybe one technological Innovation per side per war. Could let them change something. Such as better tanks. Or better infantry weapons. Or better artilley. Or better planes. Maybe even bigger battleships. The list goes on but it would refresh the war at a later stage and give hope to someone who has been torn to shreds by the war. So say that Babkha Invades Middle Korea. And My forces don't stand a chance. But later in the war I design a new tank that can traverse Ice and thus I gain the advantage on my own soil and can push the Babkhan invaders out. This gives me more of a chance to end the war faverably or better yet not lose any territory what-so-ever. Don't forget the finnish War of 1937-39 (some where in there) where the soviet union invaded Finland However the Red Army was ill-equipped and badly trained and the Finnish troops were the best at their kind of warfare at the time. the Red army numbered something like three or four times over the finns and yet the Finns won all their early battles and inflicted rediculous Casualties on Russia. This is an example of a turning point. Where Russia finally gets adequet supplies out to its troops and they finally won the war although their armies in Finnland were decimated they achieved their land gains to protect Leningrad (now St. Petersburg)



This is all I got for now...



-St. Fenix



 

Middle Korea

www.MiddleKorea.com

Edited by: St Fenix  at: 18/12/05 19:21

[Behmanesh FarzAn]

Quote: Well first of all how would we do the manpower?

I'm working out the equation for that.  It will determine the entire size of the country's forces, and they can then decide how many troops they want to mobilise.

Quote:I am supposing that if a nation was an island nation than it would have a massive navy alot like 19th Century Britain. If it was a far north nation then maybe not beacause of sea Ice or the cost of building ships that can stand up to the ice. If it were like Babkha then it would have a truly massive navy.

It's completely up to them.  If a landlocked country wants a massive Navy that's their choice, not ours.  We don't need to hold people's hands.



Besides which, military sizes and OOBs are going to be dealt with in Step 2.

Quote:The enlarging of the map should indicate mountains and the like but Who decided where they will be? or better yet what the terrain will look like?

Check the MCS site; there's a physical map.

Quote:For the MCS it can't jump to lasers in two minutes

This is an issue to decide later, but essentially the judges will use their own discretion.  We can usually tell when there's G-dmodding, and nothing stupid's going to happen.  People here aren't idiots, and if it starts to get silly then appropriate sanctions will be taken (but that will also be dealt with later in the rules).  

[St Fenix]

Quote:I'm working out the equation for that. It will determine the entire size of the country's forces, and they can then decide how many troops they want to mobilise.

Show me what you have so far. I may be able to help. or at least give ideas.

Quote:It's completely up to them. If a landlocked country wants a massive Navy that's their choice, not ours. We don't need to hold people's hands.

An odd way of doing things. But since this is micronationalism then I guess its ok.

Quote:Besides which, military sizes and OOBs are going to be dealt with in Step 2

So is it going to be points or Manpower? We could use points per Member of the micronations site. Or we could use manpower according to those who actually post.

Quote:Check the MCS site; there's a physical map.

Interesting. But it still does'nt go into all that much detail. Should we expand upon its detail when we make a zoomed in map? It would make it a little more realistic. Beacuase there are laot of big hills that have importance in the real world but beacause they are flat topped they don't count as mountains.



Or are we not zooming that far in?

Quote:This is an issue to decide later, but essentially the judges will use their own discretion. We can usually tell when there's G-dmodding, and nothing stupid's going to happen. People here aren't idiots, and if it starts to get silly then appropriate sanctions will be taken (but that will also be dealt with later in the rules).

works for me. But technology is something that does seem interesting to add. since most of the threads in this forums don't even mention it nearly as much as they do the actual war.



-St. Fenix

Middle Korea

www.MiddleKorea.com

[johndarcyofanthelia]

Quote:Check the MCS site; there's a physical map.

Yeah, but like I've been saying for months, the level of detail is insignificant.  Continents the size of North America should have a variety of mountain ranges and river systems.  Instead we have colour-shaded relief at only three or four levels.  Nobody even knows what these elevations are - 1500 metre contour interval?  500 metre?  Without knowing this broad-scale detail, and adding a lot of small-scale extra detail, you do not have an environment suitable for decent recwarring.  Sorry.

Cheers



John Darcy

Executive Councillor

Minister for Finance, Economy and Business

Minister for Immigration

Republic of Anthelia

[Behmanesh FarzAn]

Yes, but at this point many hexes will not even be used to fight in, since many will go uncontested.  Only where a battle occurs will we examine the contents of a hex, and then create a map based on that.

[St Fenix]

Quote:Yes, but at this point many hexes will not even be used to fight in, since many will go uncontested. Only where a battle occurs will we examine the contents of a hex, and then create a map based on that.

exactly What I was waiting for.





So what about those calculations you have thus far?



-St. fenix

Middle Korea

www.MiddleKorea.com

[Behmanesh FarzAn]

I've been busy with some plans in Treithar, but they will come in soon.  I'm trying to work out all the variables.

[Elenioneth]

I have thought about RecWarring in general some time, and these are my suggestions, I hope they can be usefull.



Following the (current) MRWS rules each micronation can have 25,000 'soldiers' per unique citizen. To make it more realistic, I think it would be good to grant those soldiers ranks (from one star - "amateur" - to five stars - "very skilled").



Star system

Of course, there should be some sort of price for those stars, otherwise, everybody would give five stars to all his soldiers. The solution: every unique citizen can divide 75,000 stars among his (25,000) soldiers.



You could then choose for a small elite and a large moderate army:

5,000 5* soldiers and 25,000 2* soldiers



Or you could chose for a large elite army:

15,000 5* soldiers



Or a moderate - but large - army:

25,000 3* soldiers



Calculating the outcome of battles

Then there as to be some way of calculating how a fight between soldiers comes to an end. Though, it is not my intention to precisely calculate how many die and how many survive. This would destroy the idea of RecWarring. The calculating would just serve to have a general idea on how the battle would end in ideal circumstances.



An example: army A with 5,000 5* soldiers fights army B with 10,000 3* soldiers.



In ideal circumstances this would mean:

25,000 stars (5,000 x 5) versus 30,000 stars (10,000 x 3) = 0 stars remaining (25,000 stars dead) versus 5,000 stars remaining (25,000 stars dead)



Army B has won the battle and remains with 5,000 stars (appr. 1,650 3* soldiers) on the battlefield.



But RecWarring is (mainly) about actually describing the war, strategies, alliances, fantasy, ... Thus, these calculations would only be used to have a general idea (even the best RecWar'er shouldn't be able to win with 1,000 soldiers against a 50,000-people army).



Deviations

There are numerous factors that can be an advantage or disadvantage for one army (and vica versa for the other army). A small oversight:



advantages:

- knowledge of the battlefield (army B invades army A's homeland, soldiers of army A have the advantage of knowing the terrain)

- expierence (army A has fought many wars and had many successes: they have an advantage on a non-expierenced army)

- own land (nationalism)

- geographical elements (army B is composed of horsmen, they will have an advantage on open fields, especially against archmen)

- element of surprise

- religion

- ...



disadvantages

- element of fatigue (army A has travelled far to reach the battlefield, they have a disadvantage; or: army B has just fought another army before entering a new battle)

- element of panic (huge versus small army; experienced versus unexperienced army)

- bad experience (an army that has already lost against another army, will, if they would fight each other again, have a disadvantage, although this could also be seen as an advantage: the element of revenge)

- ...



How to treat the dead

In the same RecWar, soldiers who die, remain dead. But if the war has ended, there has to be a realistic way to 're-fill' each unique persons army. This should be an "evolution", not a "revolution" (which would mean that after a RecWar is done, all dead soldiers would immediatly be replaced with new ones). An evolution is far more realistic. If a new RecWar would occure just days after the first, it would not be right to have complete armies so soon.



I would choose for a replacement rate of 100 stars a day. This would mean that 20 dead 5* soldiers would be able to be replaced per day. If you would have an army of 10,000 1* soldiers from which 2,000 were slain, it would take 20 days to have a complete army again.

[extreme007]

are you grauis???



also..  i think that the star system is completly um.. hard..



why not just have everyone start at the same level.. that is, star 1... and award stars to the citizens/players rather than "soldiers"..



the stars should be awarded for brilliant military tactics and/or very good methods of explaining the storyline or whatever...





every person, would write down for example a unit they will play in a war... for example, let's take me.. suppose we have a war (War of Babkha), and my unit, 11th AirForce, does wonders.. and earns me two stars... only that unit will get two stars... in the next battle, if i play with some other unit, then i will have to start from 0 stars again.. however, if i play 11th Airforce again, then i will be able to start from 2 stars...  

Discover, Invent, Theories, Experiment,



Advance Science,

Advance Extremism,

(in Karnali, Republic of)

[Elenioneth]

I think it would be better to integrate your suggestion into the star system: unique citizens/players who succeed in having very good storylines, brilliant strategies, etc. could be rewarded by earning additional stars to distribute among their (25,000) soldiers. In my initial idea, a (starting) unique citizen/player would be able to distribute 75,000 stars among his/her (25,000) soldiers/units. If that player in fact as many success, he/she could gain 5,000, 10,000 or any number of additional stars to distribute (up to the jury to decide).



Radical view on warfare

Another thing I was thinking about, although this might (and I'm pretty sure: will) be very controversial: in my opinion, we shouldn't work with 'contracts'. Being on the MCS map should be considered as a 'contract'. This would mean: all nations can attack an be attacked. If you work with a contract, many interesting factors are banned from the game: suprise effect, international indignation and the diplomacy as a result of it, the conquering of land that would otherwise not be possible due to lack of consent, imperialism, total annihilation, etc.



In the most radical way this would mean:

- Any  nation and thus also (small) nations without an army should be able to be attacked.

- Nations should be able to be completely destroyed/conquered.



Some buffers:

- An army can't just appear at another nations border. If a nation would like to attack a neighboring nation, then there should be an announcement period of one day. If the attacking nation lies further away from the nation that would be attack, this period should be a couple of days or more.

- An army can't just walk through another nations territory in order to reach another nation that it wants to attack. Two options:

(a) it has received permission to go through the nation which terrority it has to pass. (interesting for diplomacy)

(b) it fights (a part of the) nation it has to go through. (this would allow the initially targeted nation to prepare itself)

- Attacking small and/or defenceless nations will result in a negative image and might provoke (militairy) reactions from (larger) nations.

[extreme007]

the radical idea.. is radical... but not appropriate with the land exchange part.. perhaps, you can attack.. but no transfer of land takes place if it was not in the "contract", or pre-war discussion..



also, if a nation does not do recwars.. then that nation should  not be recognised as existing on the MCS map...  

Discover, Invent, Theories, Experiment,



Advance Science,

Advance Extremism,

(in Karnali, Republic of)

[Behmanesh FarzAn]

I think this system is too convoluted.  I was going to operate along a very simple "points" system along the lines of Games Workshop strategy games, and assign obvious unit advantages and disadvantages as the map dictates.  Individual units could later on be fielded, and as they gain experience through combat, certain skills should be added.  I think that the proposed system is far too complex to be workable or, more importantly, enjoyable, since it gets far too much into micro-management as opposed to strategy and entertainment.



On the issue of the MCS being a "contract" - I am entirely against that.  The MCS is there to provide culture for nations with their own maps, not to serve the MRWS in loads of silly wars.  Think of the Sullifree/Mussadiq Isles controversy times a thousand and you have some idea why I might be against this.  If nations want to get involved in recwar the MRWS can provide a list of willing nations who can remove their name from the list at any time.  Not only that, but the proposal seems pointless - if no land will be exchanged at the end, why should the MCS function as the "contract" agency at all?  If people want to recwar, they should sign up at a recwar organisation, not on the MCS.  Furthermore I believe that land should be granted at the end to the victors, in line with territory they occupied at the end of the war.  The MRWS could then make a submission of changes in territory to the MCS at the end of every month, which would allow for updates, and make all the claims at once, and neutrally.

[St Fenix]

not gaining land would destroy the award at the end of the tunnel.



there has to be land gains. Besides if the losing nation wishes compete annexation should be possible.

Quote:lines of Games Workshop strategy games

strange you should name those. I play them and make alot of my reccomendations to this system from that system. I also use the PC games from Paradox Entertainment for most of my suggestions.



If you need more info on these games look it up online. Their games deal alot with Nations and thus have many calculations to get really in-depth with these subjects.



-St. Fenix

Middle Korea

www.MiddleKorea.com

[Behmanesh FarzAn]

Right, well I think we've settled step 1, getting off-topic in the process, and coming up with some good ideas at the same time.  I don't think anything more needs to be said, so let's move on to step 2: the determination of army sizes (on another thread).