Non-combat units
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
Non-combat units
We did civilians, now's the time to debate and finalise non-combat units. By non-combat I mean
a. People purely for backstory purposes but that aren't used for fighting specifically (like if you name a commander but never actually use him to inflict damage personally);
b. Friendly transport for units (naval transport's already in there but land transport has always been rather vague)
I'd suggest that a be allowed on the specific condition that they aren't used to inflict damage on things (so if you have a commander, say, they can slap a prisoner but they couldn't kill one. If you bring in an old war veteran and ask his advice he could tell you something but he couldn't cannabalise your gunpowder to create a new weapon etc.)
For b, I would say that friendly transport exists between friendly cities and within friendly nations between non-combat regions, but cannot be used to transport into combat or non-friendly regions.
And, as always, anything you plan to use to inflict damage or help your units inflict damage in any concrete way has to be costed. You couldn't use a transport truck to drive into a prison wall and break POWs out, but you could use a costed one. The war veteran above would be valid only if costed etc. You couldn't even use a transport truck to drop you behind enemy lines unless it was costed.
If that seems fair and non-disputed, I can write up a section on it for the charter and if the judges and Jonas agree, it can be used for this conflict.
a. People purely for backstory purposes but that aren't used for fighting specifically (like if you name a commander but never actually use him to inflict damage personally);
b. Friendly transport for units (naval transport's already in there but land transport has always been rather vague)
I'd suggest that a be allowed on the specific condition that they aren't used to inflict damage on things (so if you have a commander, say, they can slap a prisoner but they couldn't kill one. If you bring in an old war veteran and ask his advice he could tell you something but he couldn't cannabalise your gunpowder to create a new weapon etc.)
For b, I would say that friendly transport exists between friendly cities and within friendly nations between non-combat regions, but cannot be used to transport into combat or non-friendly regions.
And, as always, anything you plan to use to inflict damage or help your units inflict damage in any concrete way has to be costed. You couldn't use a transport truck to drive into a prison wall and break POWs out, but you could use a costed one. The war veteran above would be valid only if costed etc. You couldn't even use a transport truck to drop you behind enemy lines unless it was costed.
If that seems fair and non-disputed, I can write up a section on it for the charter and if the judges and Jonas agree, it can be used for this conflict.
Andreas
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
-
- Posts: 537
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:26 pm
Re: Non-combat units
First, if that's what a non-combat unit is, then you should change the thread name to mean "Civilian Units". Cause there are other non-combat units that aid plenty in war.
Now, on topic, what do I do when I want to move my forces from one enemy city to another ? Could I say "I confiscated all vehicles in the city to help move my men." ? Afterall, that should be possible. Would these vehicles need to be costed then?
Also, and for this, i'll use an example from Jaris War. In the Jaris War, my special forces dropped in enemy territory. They flew from my airbase to drop zone in two or three helicopters. At the dropzone, they were met by Babkhan secret service agents who drove them from the drop zone to the Shirerithian airfield in trucks. They did their mission, and came back the same way. The helicopters and trucks were only used for transporting. Now, none of those, including special forces, were ever costed. My unit was actually 25 aircrafts (in SNARL back then, 1 unit = 25 aircrafts).
Now, let's say I want to do the same thing in this Jasonia War. Right now, i got the special forces costed. Would I be able to get the helicopters and trucks like that? Would I have to cost them? I would understand for helicopter that I'd need to cost them. But the trucks? It helped the story keep moving.
Also, another problem I see rising is when is friendly transport available and when not? Say I move my forces from city A to city B in my nation, using the trains. And you blew a set of train tracks in one of your daring missions. I reply by saying I am moving more troops from city A to city B using trains, but they are taking a different path. I could just keep saying that, every time you bomb/destroy one track.
Replace trains and tracks with trucks and roads (or bridges) and there's a bigger problem! One could just drive a few meters off the big ditch in the road (thanks to your bomb) and keep going. Or cross the river on a different road.
I think the friendly/civilian non-combat units are all backstory stuff and thus, can't really be kept in check all the time.
Now, on topic, what do I do when I want to move my forces from one enemy city to another ? Could I say "I confiscated all vehicles in the city to help move my men." ? Afterall, that should be possible. Would these vehicles need to be costed then?
Also, and for this, i'll use an example from Jaris War. In the Jaris War, my special forces dropped in enemy territory. They flew from my airbase to drop zone in two or three helicopters. At the dropzone, they were met by Babkhan secret service agents who drove them from the drop zone to the Shirerithian airfield in trucks. They did their mission, and came back the same way. The helicopters and trucks were only used for transporting. Now, none of those, including special forces, were ever costed. My unit was actually 25 aircrafts (in SNARL back then, 1 unit = 25 aircrafts).
Now, let's say I want to do the same thing in this Jasonia War. Right now, i got the special forces costed. Would I be able to get the helicopters and trucks like that? Would I have to cost them? I would understand for helicopter that I'd need to cost them. But the trucks? It helped the story keep moving.
Also, another problem I see rising is when is friendly transport available and when not? Say I move my forces from city A to city B in my nation, using the trains. And you blew a set of train tracks in one of your daring missions. I reply by saying I am moving more troops from city A to city B using trains, but they are taking a different path. I could just keep saying that, every time you bomb/destroy one track.
Replace trains and tracks with trucks and roads (or bridges) and there's a bigger problem! One could just drive a few meters off the big ditch in the road (thanks to your bomb) and keep going. Or cross the river on a different road.
I think the friendly/civilian non-combat units are all backstory stuff and thus, can't really be kept in check all the time.
- Lord_Montague
- Posts: 913
- Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:39 pm
Re: Non-combat units
Adding commanders and transport trucks into the equation for Annunia is too much. It will clog everything up and reduce force potential. For instance, back in the MWW2, I think it would have been completely unreasonable to expect me or Jeremy to factor in ourselves to the orbat because that is pretty much what you're doing by valueing commanders into an Orbat. It will penalise the greats of Recwarring like Ardy, Extreme and Edgard II. Their experience, and the commanders they use, would mean less combat troops.
As for transportation, bringing troops into combat on trucks I have no problem with. It was done in RL WW2 and has been done ever since. You can still attack those trucks with your forces and you can still kill the men in them as a result. It makes no sense in my view to bring them into the value system.
As for transportation, bringing troops into combat on trucks I have no problem with. It was done in RL WW2 and has been done ever since. You can still attack those trucks with your forces and you can still kill the men in them as a result. It makes no sense in my view to bring them into the value system.
In Battle; Unbeatable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
Re: Non-combat units
So we're just assuming all troops have transport anywhere?
Andreas
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
Re: Non-combat units
It's assumed that in allied territory you're taking whatever infrastructure they have. In hostile territory though you'd have none of that. My take on it is, if you want reliable transport, cost some points to it.
It should be possible but it would be a huge hassle that would slow you down considerably. You would eventually get what you want but the "cost" would be delays. If you don't want to have to wait to intimidate the locals into giving you their stuff, cost your own trucks.Now, on topic, what do I do when I want to move my forces from one enemy city to another ? Could I say "I confiscated all vehicles in the city to help move my men." ? Afterall, that should be possible.
- Lord_Montague
- Posts: 913
- Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:39 pm
Re: Non-combat units
What about helicopters and the way they travel, especially across seas?
Helicopters can land on transport vessels in reality (I seem to remember that the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and some of the requistioned vessels like Atlantic Conveyor had helicopters on them during the Falklands). So can helicopters be transported via transports during recwars or do they need to be on a military combat vessel?
Helicopters can land on transport vessels in reality (I seem to remember that the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and some of the requistioned vessels like Atlantic Conveyor had helicopters on them during the Falklands). So can helicopters be transported via transports during recwars or do they need to be on a military combat vessel?
In Battle; Unbeatable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
Re: Non-combat units
The inverse question is, "If they're transported on non-military transport, how hard is it to shoot it down?"
I mean, however good it is in backstory, if it's an uncosted unit, costed units should be able to take it down instantly. If Scott tries to escape via his opal airships, for example, a single AA or fighter should be able to take them all down, because the airships are uncosted. If you try transporting helicopters via civilian transport, a single sub or rocket should be able to take it down. Is that a fair risk for using uncosted transport?
I mean, however good it is in backstory, if it's an uncosted unit, costed units should be able to take it down instantly. If Scott tries to escape via his opal airships, for example, a single AA or fighter should be able to take them all down, because the airships are uncosted. If you try transporting helicopters via civilian transport, a single sub or rocket should be able to take it down. Is that a fair risk for using uncosted transport?
Andreas
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
-
- Posts: 537
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:26 pm
Re: Non-combat units
yeah. i like that idea.
if you are using non-costed items for non-combatants, then it should be easy to take it down. in my opinion, non-costed non-combatants are generally used for keeping the story going/backstory/literally devices. they are usually not the primary focus of the participant using them. the primary focus is usually the service provided by that unit or the 'package' that they carry.
however, this does not mean that the opponent cannot take advantage and put the primary focus on these units. the opponent could attack these non-combants to help themselves (not by giving themselves an advantage but by putting the player into a disadvantage).
in this situation, where the opponent is attacking the non-combatants and thereby putting them into a primary focus, i think that the only way to 'save' these units from destruction would be down to strategy and very basic capabilities. for instance, I am flying my special forces in my non-costed hueys. and an enemy unit spots them and fires a missile at them. the missile is quite far and my helicopters are low to the ground, and no hills or anything to hide from missile. inorder to save these helicopters, i could simply land them. that way, the missiles 'lose' contact with the air target they were fired at.
or say for instance missiles were fired against my column of truck that is traveling through a city. I could say that my trucks parked themselves in such a way that a building or some structure came in the path of the missile.
Offcourse, in all these cases, some damage needs to be taken. the damage should be relative to the attack and the units. if i have 100 trucks and not one got hit, then its obviously god-modding. same if 1000 missiles were fired at my 10 trucks. whatever building was in the middle is probably of a lower height than my trucks after about 500 missiles or so.
if you are using non-costed items for non-combatants, then it should be easy to take it down. in my opinion, non-costed non-combatants are generally used for keeping the story going/backstory/literally devices. they are usually not the primary focus of the participant using them. the primary focus is usually the service provided by that unit or the 'package' that they carry.
however, this does not mean that the opponent cannot take advantage and put the primary focus on these units. the opponent could attack these non-combants to help themselves (not by giving themselves an advantage but by putting the player into a disadvantage).
in this situation, where the opponent is attacking the non-combatants and thereby putting them into a primary focus, i think that the only way to 'save' these units from destruction would be down to strategy and very basic capabilities. for instance, I am flying my special forces in my non-costed hueys. and an enemy unit spots them and fires a missile at them. the missile is quite far and my helicopters are low to the ground, and no hills or anything to hide from missile. inorder to save these helicopters, i could simply land them. that way, the missiles 'lose' contact with the air target they were fired at.
or say for instance missiles were fired against my column of truck that is traveling through a city. I could say that my trucks parked themselves in such a way that a building or some structure came in the path of the missile.
Offcourse, in all these cases, some damage needs to be taken. the damage should be relative to the attack and the units. if i have 100 trucks and not one got hit, then its obviously god-modding. same if 1000 missiles were fired at my 10 trucks. whatever building was in the middle is probably of a lower height than my trucks after about 500 missiles or so.
Re: Non-combat units
I don't agree with this at all. Non-costed should be inherently vulnerable no matter what. If you aren't paying for them with cost points, they barely exist at all. Foiling costed units with non-costed units in any regard seems like a slipperly slope. I'd rather resolve this by making ALL transport non-combats costed rather than having people abuse the non-costed units against actual military forces.extreme007 wrote:in this situation, where the opponent is attacking the non-combatants and thereby putting them into a primary focus, i think that the only way to 'save' these units from destruction would be down to strategy and very basic capabilities. for instance, I am flying my special forces in my non-costed hueys. and an enemy unit spots them and fires a missile at them. the missile is quite far and my helicopters are low to the ground, and no hills or anything to hide from missile. inorder to save these helicopters, i could simply land them. that way, the missiles 'lose' contact with the air target they were fired at.
or say for instance missiles were fired against my column of truck that is traveling through a city. I could say that my trucks parked themselves in such a way that a building or some structure came in the path of the missile.