Forums

Discussion: Battlefields

Quick find code: 237-238-403-65854131

Zrie
Mar Member 2019

Zrie

Posts: 4,116Adamant Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Hi W42,

First let me be upfront, I am not an avid combat role-player (nor do I aim to be). However, I have been around long enough to notice the lack of detail given battlefields during conflicts, which often results in role-players accusing each other of lore-breaking, cheating, making things up in the heat of the moment, etc. And, even when some forethought has been given to the area before a battle, it is usually not shared between groups.

This is a problem.

Battles are usually fought in in-game areas or landscaled areas between them, I have a two-part proposal that will help streamline battle-planning and minimize conflict.

(1) All major lore-based locations are assessed in a pros and cons manner, e.g.: defences (fortifications, armaments, standing forces, etc.), terrain and accessibility (roads, physical barriers, weather conditions, etc.), etc. This gives a common ground for those involved to reference when preparing for the battle. For example, if the roads are bad, the attackers will likely find it difficult to bring supplies for an assault or require rest from the journey.

(2) Landscaled areas are a little more tricky. I suggest that a third-party takes the general description of the area and builds pros and cons for the battle in order to give attackers and defenders realistic challenges and something to build their strategies around.

I think that this systematic examination of areas would benefit from being an in-character manual, so it's available to characters for in-character war planning.

Anyway, these are just rough ideas. I'd love to hear other ideas and suggestions.

- Zrie

24-Nov-2016 18:47:03

Spartae

Spartae

Posts: 5,603Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
During the Worshipper Wars, it was a mandatory practice that we and our opponents discussed not only the general terrain as it existed naturally, but also weather, potential events, and even things each army would possess such as artillery, boss-level Generals/characters, or secret weapons.

That way, we all OOCly had an inkling of what to expect so nobody could call foul. Likewise, all groups that were participating (whether as "allies" or additional soldiers/rofls) had to declare that they were part of the event prior to the event commencing to avoid "rofl allies" turning the tide last second.
W42 Roleplayer
| Anthropologist - Scholar of Humans |
Looking for Roleplay? Click below!

W42 Active Roleplay FC

26-Nov-2016 00:11:22

DormamMagus

DormamMagus

Posts: 3,676Adamant Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Spartae said:
During the Worshipper Wars, it was a mandatory practice that we and our opponents discussed not only the general terrain as it existed naturally, but also weather, potential events, and even things each army would possess such as artillery, boss-level Generals/characters, or secret weapons.

That way, we all OOCly had an inkling of what to expect so nobody could call foul. Likewise, all groups that were participating (whether as "allies" or additional soldiers/rofls) had to declare that they were part of the event prior to the event commencing to avoid "rofl allies" turning the tide last second.


During the Worshipper Wars, and then subsequently in some World Event battles we also tried to keep going with similar ideas we'd also have various criteria from battle to battle. We'd give certain sides a number of 'lives'/unites, put caps on certain higher 'level' characters such as aviansie or trolls who'd turn a battle. Really comes down to communicating things out not so much to the point that the outcome is predetermined but so that there's less room for confusion and argument.

26-Nov-2016 02:35:35 - Last edited on 26-Nov-2016 02:36:21 by DormamMagus

Quick find code: 237-238-403-65854131Back to Top