Proposal
- chrimigules
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:04 am
Re: Proposal
You also have to remember that the people of the West are weaklings, while the people of Eastern Europe and the Communist countries are Nietzschian Supermen that could easily conquer all of us singlehandedly simply by virtue of their amazing power. Or at least 4 SAS.
Коля лает «гав-гав».
-
- Posts: 180
- Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 1:23 pm
Re: Proposal
Over the course of a single page, this discussion devolved into a mudslinging contest.
We're getting better.
We're getting better.
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
Re: Proposal
.8 for same weaponry but no training. That would probably work, yeah.Matt Kovac wrote:.8?
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: 180
- Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 1:23 pm
Re: Proposal
Wouldn't it be more practical to use .75?
- Lord_Montague
- Posts: 913
- Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:39 pm
-
- Posts: 537
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:26 pm
Re: Proposal
Just go ahead and use any number you deem required. When it comes to actually using them in combat/recwar, you are going to have to establish why you labeled/valued them as such. For instance, in one war, you could classify them at 0.8, while in another 0.3. So, it will depend war to war. This isnt exactly a fixed scale.
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
Re: Proposal
As long as the strength you use them at each war changes appropriately. That bit is fixed.
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: Proposal
I think it would be very wise to keep morale out of how we calculate troop costs. I have never heard anyone describe their troops as anything but the most fearless and loyal men the world as ever seen. I guess a lot of that is national pride since nobody wants to be a commander of a bunch of cowards. It makes me wary that people will want to cost them cheaper, citing lower morale, and then not have them react as they should.
Kind of the same deal with deployment time. Entire battlegroups are miraculously fully assembled in someone's first post and usually setting sail from the port as they write their first words. This doesn't really bother me either, because we have a war to fight, darn it, and transportation times are long enough as is. Makes sense that way really. But again, going for discounts there seems weak.
I'm not saying it's not possible to play low morale or long deployment times fairly to justify their lower costs. I just think most people wouldn't do it properly and would be getting extra forces for essentially free. Imagine if anyone tried to call them on it. "Your low morale troops should have fled!" "Low morale doesn't mean they flee from every single battle!" "Well you used low morale to get extra forces, so start acting like it!" "Don't tell me what to do!" Yeah. That kind of thing wouldn't end well.
Kind of the same deal with deployment time. Entire battlegroups are miraculously fully assembled in someone's first post and usually setting sail from the port as they write their first words. This doesn't really bother me either, because we have a war to fight, darn it, and transportation times are long enough as is. Makes sense that way really. But again, going for discounts there seems weak.
I'm not saying it's not possible to play low morale or long deployment times fairly to justify their lower costs. I just think most people wouldn't do it properly and would be getting extra forces for essentially free. Imagine if anyone tried to call them on it. "Your low morale troops should have fled!" "Low morale doesn't mean they flee from every single battle!" "Well you used low morale to get extra forces, so start acting like it!" "Don't tell me what to do!" Yeah. That kind of thing wouldn't end well.
- Lord_Montague
- Posts: 913
- Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:39 pm
Re: Proposal
Harvey has a point.
Morale usually comes into question when a judge is asked to intervene though. For instance, a unit under siege and being subjected to constant artillery bombardment and air strikes would be considered to have low morale if they couldn't do anything but sit and take it.
A unit fighting to the last though; how does morale affect them? Do they have high morale fighting a glorious battle to the death? Or low morale because they know they're doomed?
Morale usually comes into question when a judge is asked to intervene though. For instance, a unit under siege and being subjected to constant artillery bombardment and air strikes would be considered to have low morale if they couldn't do anything but sit and take it.
A unit fighting to the last though; how does morale affect them? Do they have high morale fighting a glorious battle to the death? Or low morale because they know they're doomed?
In Battle; Unbeatable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
Re: Proposal
That *really* depends on the culture and how you played them in the posts beforehand.
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
- chrimigules
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:04 am
Re: Proposal
A unit having low morale is a boon for writing. It's much more interesting, in Monty's siege example, to write about people becoming mentally incapacitated and seeing things, than to write about how majestically awesome everyone is regardless of bombs dropping.
Factoring that into the worth of the unit, though... I dunno about that. Morale changes.
Factoring that into the worth of the unit, though... I dunno about that. Morale changes.
Коля лает «гав-гав».
- Lord_Montague
- Posts: 913
- Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:39 pm
Re: Proposal
Indeed. But will people who want to win at all costs really do that? Or will they go for the stoical and heroic "we can take it lads." approach?
Furthermore, morale does change and after seeing most of this discussion it is too great a variable I think to be factored into unit costing. Its fine for how a unit fights in the field, but unit costing I think not. Conscripts may have high morale if the propaganda they've been told is effective as well as circumstances giving them high morale. But that morale can be destructive if say, Army X has been told that their enemy Army Y are all cowards and will run at the first sight of them. When Army X, made up of conscripts, attacks Army Y and Army Y stand their ground they could subsequently slaughter Army X because the conscripts are over enthusiastic etc.
Furthermore, morale does change and after seeing most of this discussion it is too great a variable I think to be factored into unit costing. Its fine for how a unit fights in the field, but unit costing I think not. Conscripts may have high morale if the propaganda they've been told is effective as well as circumstances giving them high morale. But that morale can be destructive if say, Army X has been told that their enemy Army Y are all cowards and will run at the first sight of them. When Army X, made up of conscripts, attacks Army Y and Army Y stand their ground they could subsequently slaughter Army X because the conscripts are over enthusiastic etc.
In Battle; Unbeatable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
- chrimigules
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:04 am
-
- Posts: 482
- Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 10:44 pm
Re: Proposal
So the suggestion is have them slightly less equiped then normal infantry?
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
Re: Proposal
Yes. And less trained.
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