New War System

Yeah but the power has to be based off of your position in the Dukes Archives.

And the archives books would be full of battle plans and stuff. Or at least magic tomes and I have mages.

And you yourself admitted the archives was a defensive masterpiece. I can just apply that logic everywhere.

It should have been an impenatrable fortress......

I blame Amos broke the world with his ... well you know

Yeah you should never mess with the god of the sea and earthquakes....

Ok, so I put in a little thought to the rules, and I was thinking on the following changes. Let me know what you guys think.

1. Double move speed through controlled areas. So you can move two areas per turn, assuming you own both areas. In addition, Actions will be changed to allow one move and one action each turn.

2. Removal of the Troop Units. We can just assume that each Champion has a small squadron of NPC soldiers with them (to justify previous lore involving NPC's).

3. Tentative removal of the Message action. We should discuss if we want it to be instant or delayed, but it seems pointless to have it as an action.

4. The strength of each fortification level being 50 points, with caps at 5 and -5.

5. We play as great warriors, with good instincts. Assassinations will be settled with duels, never-mind out of combat RNG to determine effectiveness. Although, maybe we should allow for backup from the zone due to RNG...

6. Guarding will now be used to "defend" an area better. If an area is attacked, units that are not defending can not participate in the war for a short time (1 hour?).

7. Scouting will now be used to determine if enemy troops are in the occupied area.

1. Sounds good. I assume the second part means I can move somewhere and then fortify it in the same round?
2. Yep
3. I say have it instant. It's how we've played in up until now so thats fine.
4. Cool.
5. Fair.
6. Makes sense, and stops people being left out. The main problem is what if the attackers are different timezones to the defenders?
7. SO what does spying do? I think spying should give fotification level. Or can spies go further into their territory while scouts can only see the border?

DoughGuy wrote:1. Sounds good. I assume the second part means I can move somewhere and then fortify it in the same round?
2. Yep
3. I say have it instant. It's how we've played in up until now so thats fine.
4. Cool.
5. Fair.
6. Makes sense, and stops people being left out. The main problem is what if the attackers are different timezones to the defenders?
7. SO what does spying do? I think spying should give fotification level. Or can spies go further into their territory while scouts can only see the border?

1. Yeah, or you can fortify one area and have another unit be moving elsewhere.

6. An attack doesn't have to be the actual "old" style of war. We could just say that they have, say, the next turn (maybe another 1 or two after to represent an ongoing battle?), during which they can choose to count, say, 6 hours of scoring. However, units in that area who didn't use the guard option last only get 5 hours. (or however long we make the battles).

7. Scouting can give Fortification level too. I was thinking of letting spying give some "advice" to the spy, if the actions of the other side seem fairly clear. ("Sounds like a lot of soldiers are moving to Lost Izalith...")


In addition:

8. I'm thinking of letting Spying and Scouting information be passed on to the actual unit. That way they can choose to withhold information if they would like.

9. Units can also disobey orders from their general. Generals are, of course, able to punish / exile their units for such actions.

10. Generals can "invite" traitors or exiled troops to their side.

8. No I don't like it. Too much possibility for people in dual covenants to be spies and work for the wrong sides or provide accidental misinformation. I say tell the leader.

9. Hmmmm. They'd need to give in game lore reason. Can't just be "Nope, cbf" or something.

10. This worries me that the game could get too intense, like what happened with SPur and Jov with the LH. Nothing good came of that. I dont like it.

DoughGuy wrote:8. No I don't like it. Too much possibility for people in dual covenants to be spies and work for the wrong sides or provide accidental misinformation. I say tell the leader.

9. Hmmmm. They'd need to give in game lore reason. Can't just be "Nope, cbf" or something.

10. This worries me that the game could get too intense, like what happened with SPur and Jov with the LH. Nothing good came of that. I dont like it.

Hm, those were there so that the players would get a bit more say into what goes on, but you are probably right. I won't add those parts.

I'm sure all the leaders will take advice from their soldiers and all the soldiers will helpfully tell the leaders when their orders are bull ****.

Question...how will this work cross platform?

Well I dunno, but from the way Shkar has said what he has it shouldn't make too much difference apart from assassins.

At the moment, it's looking like we have to allow substitutions for assassinations (As in, a PS3 DS assassinates an XBL GL, the DS can allow an XBL DS to take his place for that duel).

Aside from that, I have updated the fortification, battles, and units section of the OP, and added a section on assassinations.

What determines the "taking" of an area?
How the fortification level increases/decreases?
Why are you basing actions on luck? ie. I decide to fortify but that action wasn't needed because there weren't as many attackers from the opposing team on that turn. How can I choose an action if I don't know the outcome?

Since Viral didn't copy paste my suggestions on this thread:

If you're planning to have small scale RSS battles, you have to take into consideration timezones. In the past RSS war most of the NA guys couldn't meet with the EU guys.

Like it or not, you'll have to use a war currency to determine which side wins an area, how bonuses are applied and who wins the war. (points)

If you're still going for actions, use increasing and decreasing bonuses. In the case of using points, "Attack" could mean 25% more points but -30 mins of turn (unreal example).


High ranks (or a small number of cov members) and leaders could instead be part of these scenarios and the mass of soldiers do simple coop or fight randoms. Example of this was a final duel billy and me had after the New Londo war ended. The winner won 100 points.

1. I explained this to Viral a page or 2 back if the area is empty. If someone already holds it itll be more complicated.
2. By assigning soldiers to do it from your members.
3. Thats what war is wyrm. Thats why you have spies and scouts, so you know where to fortify.

We know this and we're working on it. Cross platforms are also a concern.

No we don't. We've said it again and again we can use scenarios. Points are the only way. Obviously sometimes we will and we have no problem with that.

I'm not sure what you're referencing here.

Well it depends if they're where the action is.

Hey SHkar thats something we didnt consider. If the leader dies 1. Who takes over? 2. How much do they know?

Spies? How the hell? Like going to skype or something?

Scout - Check the occupied area for signs of fortification or enemy champions.
Spy - Send a champion undercover in another army in order to try to uncover intel
You send a unit to spy on someone, the GM determines if they're successful and we go from there. They either get you info or you fight to escape.

Can you give me a playing Dark Souls example?

DoughGuy wrote:

Hey SHkar thats something we didnt consider. If the leader dies 1. Who takes over? 2. How much do they know?

I thought we were going based on the assumption that characters could only actually DIE if they willed it?

WyrmHero wrote:Spies? How the hell? Like going to skype or something?

Basically, it will be if a side starts making actions that seem fairly obvious (moving a few units to an area), the Herald (the GM, so to speak) will let the covenants with spies there know that information.


As for battles, they will basically be like smaller scale "wars". Same style we use now, just with slight tweaks to include the fortification and unit systems.

Hm, that's probably what we should work on now. More scenario kind of things we can try to use for determining results. Obviously we can't have EVERYTHING be settled in game due to time constraints, but are assassinations and battles really enough?

That was before the 3 day revival rule was thought of. Now death isnt permanent if Oscar's on the frontlines defending a place and dies (it would never happen, just an example) what happens?

Wyrm what do you mean dark souls example?

Shkar wrote:Hm, that's probably what we should work on now. More scenario kind of things we can try to use for determining results. Obviously we can't have EVERYTHING be settled in game due to time constraints, but are assassinations and battles really enough?

There isn't much else we can decide through tin game stuff. Maybe, rather than RNGing it we could have people try to sneak and scout?

So if I send spies to NK the NK has to take a random action + let it know to by obligation to GM so that I know what the NK is going to do?