Standardised Units
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
Standardised Units
4. Standardised units
One of the problems with SNARL, in my mind, is that people are misusing the Planes are worth 0.1 thing. What it should be is that a STANDARD plane is worth 0.1, and things with special features should be costed more accordingly. We do it a bit, but for the large part it's ignored unless someone puts in a really high powered unit. So why not create the "standard". Put in the capabilites of a standard Bomber, standard Fighter, standard Battleship, standard Tank etc, and then there's a measure off that whether your particular unit should cost more. The problem with ADB is that it goes too far in the other way - you have to have every single unit registered. I think if we have standards for all basic units, and people know to cost more if their thing has more features, then this'll work fine, and people can still invent units on the orbat.
With that in mind, I think it should also be added that the capabilities of any non-standard units have to be clearly declared in the orbat, NOT JUST people assume you'll look up Wikipedia. If everything's listed on the orbat then disputes about strength are done then and there - if you just list the name, then people have to either have fought you enough to know what you mean, or spend hours looking up Wikipedia, which is not good for it being an easy-to-pick-up system. Like Monty's subs having ICBM's - just glancing at the orbat, most people without a thorough military knowledged just saw "Nuclear Subs" and assumed they were normal subs. It was only when they launched ICBM that wiki was carefully checked and it verified that that model had ICBMs (which Monty had modified anyway and not mentioned till he launched it, though the fact he took the nuclear bit out is in his favour). If there had been a short bit of info about changes to a standard sub on his orbat, the whole dispute would have happened at the right time.
Since we seem to be basing this off SNARL, let's starting by working out currently known values, something like:
Man = 1
APC = 5
Tank = 10 (would we have several classes of tank?)
Artillery = ?
Bomber = 500
Fighter = 500 (going off latest values, or should these be 1000? Should they be different?)
Battleship = 600?
Carrier = 1000 (without planes)
Sub = 1000
Destroyer = 2500
One of the problems with SNARL, in my mind, is that people are misusing the Planes are worth 0.1 thing. What it should be is that a STANDARD plane is worth 0.1, and things with special features should be costed more accordingly. We do it a bit, but for the large part it's ignored unless someone puts in a really high powered unit. So why not create the "standard". Put in the capabilites of a standard Bomber, standard Fighter, standard Battleship, standard Tank etc, and then there's a measure off that whether your particular unit should cost more. The problem with ADB is that it goes too far in the other way - you have to have every single unit registered. I think if we have standards for all basic units, and people know to cost more if their thing has more features, then this'll work fine, and people can still invent units on the orbat.
With that in mind, I think it should also be added that the capabilities of any non-standard units have to be clearly declared in the orbat, NOT JUST people assume you'll look up Wikipedia. If everything's listed on the orbat then disputes about strength are done then and there - if you just list the name, then people have to either have fought you enough to know what you mean, or spend hours looking up Wikipedia, which is not good for it being an easy-to-pick-up system. Like Monty's subs having ICBM's - just glancing at the orbat, most people without a thorough military knowledged just saw "Nuclear Subs" and assumed they were normal subs. It was only when they launched ICBM that wiki was carefully checked and it verified that that model had ICBMs (which Monty had modified anyway and not mentioned till he launched it, though the fact he took the nuclear bit out is in his favour). If there had been a short bit of info about changes to a standard sub on his orbat, the whole dispute would have happened at the right time.
Since we seem to be basing this off SNARL, let's starting by working out currently known values, something like:
Man = 1
APC = 5
Tank = 10 (would we have several classes of tank?)
Artillery = ?
Bomber = 500
Fighter = 500 (going off latest values, or should these be 1000? Should they be different?)
Battleship = 600?
Carrier = 1000 (without planes)
Sub = 1000
Destroyer = 2500
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
- dr-spangle
- Technical Advisor
- Posts: 13072
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 12:20 pm
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 273
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 2:09 am
- Location: Galatia, Alexandria
- Contact:
Re: Standardised Units
What would an individual get then? Point wise of course.Andreas the Wise wrote:
Since we seem to be basing this off SNARL, let's starting by working out currently known values, something like:
Man = 1
APC = 5
Tank = 10 (would we have several classes of tank?)
Artillery = ?
Bomber = 500
Fighter = 500 (going off latest values, or should these be 1000? Should they be different?)
Battleship = 600?
Carrier = 1000 (without planes)
Sub = 1000
Destroyer = 2500
If anything i think points should be awarded to the nation. EX. Take Babkha.
say they had 23 active citizens. The judge should rule the amount of points given to the nation, and then the nation distributes the points unto their Military Officials.
In a different thread, I proposed this equation to calculate points:
25,000 * Citizens fighting in war (aka military) + 10,000 * (active) citizens not fighting in war (aka civilian) + 2,500 * PPD in the past month
This takes into account your economy (since it includes posts per day and civilians), but still the primary factor is your military (number of OrBat-using citizens)...
And perhaps a threshold of at least 1 PPD for that citizen within the past month for them to count as active...
So let's say you have 23 active citizens. Make up some more values, 5 of them are military officers that will be fighting. And perhaps you've got 75 posts per day, if you have that many active citizens...
So 25000*5+10000*17+2500*75 = 482,500 points...
25,000 * Citizens fighting in war (aka military) + 10,000 * (active) citizens not fighting in war (aka civilian) + 2,500 * PPD in the past month
This takes into account your economy (since it includes posts per day and civilians), but still the primary factor is your military (number of OrBat-using citizens)...
And perhaps a threshold of at least 1 PPD for that citizen within the past month for them to count as active...
So let's say you have 23 active citizens. Make up some more values, 5 of them are military officers that will be fighting. And perhaps you've got 75 posts per day, if you have that many active citizens...
So 25000*5+10000*17+2500*75 = 482,500 points...
Bayen ronToketi
http://www.toketi.org
http://www.toketi.org
-
- Posts: 232
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 10:16 pm
- Location: Newcastle-Upon-Eastmoor, Nova England.
- Contact:
Why not just tweak the costs of the actual weapons systems themselves rather than splitting hairs over values? Simply listing arbitrary points for very broadly-defined units is unfair. Why should the Type 45 destroyer have the same points value as a WWII era one? Why should FCS equipment have the same value as non FCS? Why give an Archer SPG the same value as
You start to get into the areas of splitting hairs, and rather than poring over numerous details to tweak a set of points that works on a flawed conception of relative value (ten men, well-equipped and well-positioned, can take out more than one tank), the relatively available data of Cost Per Unit renders such questions fairer.
You start to get into the areas of splitting hairs, and rather than poring over numerous details to tweak a set of points that works on a flawed conception of relative value (ten men, well-equipped and well-positioned, can take out more than one tank), the relatively available data of Cost Per Unit renders such questions fairer.
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
Enrique, separate thread, though the consensus when I left (haven't read the thread yet) was to go with the SNARL 25000 per person, but let nations split it up between commanders differently.
And Graius, the idea of the broadly defined unit is merely to provide a standard, and a unit for those who haven't done a detailed study of the military and just want to jump in. They can use the standards. For everyone else, yes, by all means, use specific units - but if they're stronger than the standard, then cost them higher. Otherwise, we get a Riponian Bobcat Mark III with the same cost as a far lesser plane, for example.
And Graius, the idea of the broadly defined unit is merely to provide a standard, and a unit for those who haven't done a detailed study of the military and just want to jump in. They can use the standards. For everyone else, yes, by all means, use specific units - but if they're stronger than the standard, then cost them higher. Otherwise, we get a Riponian Bobcat Mark III with the same cost as a far lesser plane, for example.
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: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
Montague, or someone else suitably knowledgeable, could you begin this process? Select 'standard' units for common areas like Infantry, Tank, Artillery, SAM, Fighter, Bomber etc (plus all the types of naval units you feel necessary) and post their basic capabilities, as well as what you think their strength should be in troops (working, at the moment, on the idea of 25000 troops per person). It doesn't have to be the unit you like using, just what could be considered the basic unit of that type that's used by current military.
This would then provide a basic level to judge other units of that type off so their proper strength could worked out.
Eg. Riponia has their Bobcat III planes. If a standard Fighter is worth 500 troops, and has 10 Air to Air Missiles, Service Ceiling of 5000 m and onboard guns, and the Bobcat has 15 Air to Air Missiles, Satellite Guidance, onboard guns, and a Service Ceiling of 10000m (just making these stats up for the example, they bear no resemblance to reality), then it should cost more as it's stronger ... perhaps 550 or 600.
As I said to Graius, this is NOT the unit people have to use, but rather a standard to base strength calculations on, instead of just having "Planes are worth 500" and then getting nations custom built planes that are much better for the same cost.
This would then provide a basic level to judge other units of that type off so their proper strength could worked out.
Eg. Riponia has their Bobcat III planes. If a standard Fighter is worth 500 troops, and has 10 Air to Air Missiles, Service Ceiling of 5000 m and onboard guns, and the Bobcat has 15 Air to Air Missiles, Satellite Guidance, onboard guns, and a Service Ceiling of 10000m (just making these stats up for the example, they bear no resemblance to reality), then it should cost more as it's stronger ... perhaps 550 or 600.
As I said to Graius, this is NOT the unit people have to use, but rather a standard to base strength calculations on, instead of just having "Planes are worth 500" and then getting nations custom built planes that are much better for the same cost.
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
- Lord_Montague
- Posts: 913
- Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:39 pm
Personally, I believe that in the case of Riponia's advanced technology and any other nation's advanced technology should be assessed before a war by a MRWS judge or judging panel. However, I think we need instead of fixed points we should have a range of points on things that can vary depending on the levels of advancement, varying about 10% between the established points. So here's what I propose:
Infantry = Light Infantry - 1
Paratroops - 3
Marines - 3
Special Forces - 5
APC = 15 (This does NOT include IFVs)
Armour = Main Battle Tank - 50
Infantry Fighting Vehicle - 40
Light Tank - 35
Reconnaisance Tank - 30
Armoured Artillery - 25
Armoured Anti-Air - 20
Towed Artillery pieces - 10
Bomber = 1,000
Fighter = 500
Battleship = 5,000
Carrier = 1,000
Diesel Sub = 500
Nuclear powered submarine = 1,000
Destroyer/Frigate = 1,000
Cruiser = 2,500
Corvette/Minesweeper = 500
Each number relates to how many men it will cost out 25,000.
Does anyone wish to modify this in anyway?
Infantry = Light Infantry - 1
Paratroops - 3
Marines - 3
Special Forces - 5
APC = 15 (This does NOT include IFVs)
Armour = Main Battle Tank - 50
Infantry Fighting Vehicle - 40
Light Tank - 35
Reconnaisance Tank - 30
Armoured Artillery - 25
Armoured Anti-Air - 20
Towed Artillery pieces - 10
Bomber = 1,000
Fighter = 500
Battleship = 5,000
Carrier = 1,000
Diesel Sub = 500
Nuclear powered submarine = 1,000
Destroyer/Frigate = 1,000
Cruiser = 2,500
Corvette/Minesweeper = 500
Each number relates to how many men it will cost out 25,000.
Does anyone wish to modify this in anyway?
In Battle; Unbeatable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
-
- Posts: 232
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 10:16 pm
- Location: Newcastle-Upon-Eastmoor, Nova England.
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
Monty, they look good to me from what I remember of SNARL fighting. It's nice to have a list that long and not just:
Infantry - 1
Plane - 1000
Ship - 5000
Infantry - 1
Plane - 1000
Ship - 5000
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
- Lord_Montague
- Posts: 913
- Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:39 pm
I'd say about 60, with apache attack helicopters about 75.kingjosephus wrote:What would Multi-Purpose Helicopters be counted as? I.e A Huey... Because I personally would be very interested in testing 'Fire-Force' tactics though I would need to know what limitations I have regarding a helicopter borne unit....
Joe
In Battle; Unbeatable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
-
- Posts: 232
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 10:16 pm
- Location: Newcastle-Upon-Eastmoor, Nova England.
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
Now we've got some basic values, could we have a model assigned to each one? Then that really gives us something to compare off. Before Behmanesh goes on about WW2 planes costing the same, this would be a model that's in current military use as a 'standard'.
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
- Lord_Montague
- Posts: 913
- Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:39 pm