New War System

Well I do hope it succeeds and works, just hate to see it fail after all the effort. Im done being negative now (for now , I promise nothing!).

I would like you guys to look at my battle/tournament and consider using it or some variation for the actual battles. I really think its a fairly accurate representation of a battle (I do happen to know quite a bit about the real deal), it gives a new element to it with possible 2v1 matches and some extra strategy by the commanders as the lists can be set up different ways (better players at top to win 1v1 battles or at bottom to have a chance at 2v1, etc etc. Also for these wars, opposite sides would not know the lineup until after submitted).

ROOSTER330 wrote:Well I do hope it succeeds and works, just hate to see it fail after all the effort. Im done being negative now (for now , I promise nothing!).

I would like you guys to look at my battle/tournament and consider using it or some variation for the actual battles. I really think its a fairly accurate representation of a battle (I do happen to know quite a bit about the real deal), it gives a new element to it with possible 2v1 matches and some extra strategy by the commanders as the lists can be set up different ways (better players at top to win 1v1 battles or at bottom to have a chance at 2v1, etc etc. Also for these wars, opposite sides would not know the lineup until after submitted).

No reason we can't have those as well. This new style will take quite a bit longer than a single 24 or 48 hour period to take place.

Now Dough, we have to discuss the time system Each turn can be one day, sure, but can each covenant do only one action each turn? Or can they do a few actions each, or use each unit (assuming they aren't busy).

I think we need to restrict what they can do just to make it easier for the GM to keep up with it all. Honestly I think a single action each turn is fine since we've got so much time.

DoughGuy wrote:I think we need to restrict what they can do just to make it easier for the GM to keep up with it all. Honestly I think a single action each turn is fine since we've got so much time.

Hm, that will probably limit it to a turn a day or so, but that works perfectly. Now to start compiling the information, so we can talk about it some more.

Awesome can you post me some of the key points and developments you have made shkar and we can talks rules and bonuses.

I'm typing it up right now. Won't be too much longer before I change the OP.

As an aside, I just had a neat idea. I haven't heard much from the PoLG, so why not have a single great war to test this style? Have straight up combat just like the game. If one covenant can control the 4 Lord areas, the Kiln opens up?

(Will make more sense when I update the OP).

Well the GS wont let anyone take the Tombs of the Giants!

ViralEnsign_ wrote:Well the GS wont let anyone take the Tombs of the Giants!

Haha, you'd better fight hard then! The OP is updated however, so take a gander.

In all honesty I think we need to test this will Billy and Ahho and Dough.... then just try out area abilities.

Personally I think you need to elaborate in the actions. Do you rate an area's defensibility on the number of troops plus the number of fortifies used on that area?

How many Actions can a take per turn?

What role do champions play? and how do they compare with regular troops? Does one champion always have to be accompanied by his men?

ViralEnsign_ wrote:In all honesty I think we need to test this will Billy and Ahho and Dough.... then just try out area abilities.

Personally I think you need to elaborate in the actions. Do you rate an area's defensibility on the number of troops plus the number of fortifies used on that area?

How many Actions can a take per turn?

What role do champions play? and how do they compare with regular troops? Does one champion always have to be accompanied by his men?

Looks like I need to redo some wording. I thought some of it was in there, but I'll recheck it.

The Fortification will probably act as a sort of points buffer for a battle. You could fortify a certain number of times (it would be capped), and each time would remove, say, 50 points from the invading side. Consequently, if you don't fortify but you get sabotaged, that goes in reverse and YOU lose those points for each "stage" you go under. The troops, however, provide a straight up bonus to your number of points. If you have 10 troops you get an extra, say, 100 points for that fight. If the other side brings 5, they get 50 more as well.

Dough thinks that each side should have 1 action per turn, which seems fine to me. Maybe a bit slow, since I'm not sure we could do more than one round per day due to timezone differences, but better to start slow and add more later.

The champions are like "super" troops. They can be sent as spies or assassins and other harder tasks, and they would also be more likely to detect spies and such if guarding. As troops use very basic equipment in an actual fight, the champion will likely win 9 times out of 10. And no, the champion does not need to be with his troops. Troops are only based on the number of champions in order to have it be based on covenant size without allowing for inactive members.


And of course, any detail can be changed before we get any further. We ARE still planning, after all.

Updated the OP to answer Viral's questions, and added sections on Fortification and Battles.

We will need to discuss the rules for battling...

I've got a question I understand that each area gets benefits but wat about land advantages such as higher ground/ more knowledge of the area etc. Etc

Wolfof Phyrexia wrote:I've got a question I understand that each area gets benefits but wat about land advantages such as higher ground/ more knowledge of the area etc. Etc

Different areas could have different base fortification levels to represent natural advantages, but I don't think that would apply for many of them.

I had also mulled over the idea of covenant "bonuses" that would basically act as specializations. They gain a benefit in their chosen area, and maybe something else.

Things to consider. We can talk it over.

Ok places such as anor or thePW could get the higher ground ToTG would b tricky.with the pitfalls. N would natural area npc enenemies take affect in battles I.e. skeletons, silver knights etc

The what would the benefits for low ground be? tactically speaking high ground is not always the best position to be in.

Good news is we don't have grenades, so high ground is generally better than low ground. If the low ground is sandwhich between higher sections then it can be used for cover against equal level shooting (if they have the high ground they will just destory you).

The only benefit I can see in low ground is remaining hidden.

Yes but that's a rare occasion high ground is almost always better then low ground. N bwnefits for low ground could b better fortifications seige weapons batteeing rams overhead protection from arrow volleys stuff such as that

Then there would be extreme benefits living in places like anor londo, The Tombs of the Giants, Izalith, the abyss, etc

Shkar wrote:Updated the OP to answer Viral's questions, and added sections on Fortification and Battles.

We will need to discuss the rules for battling...

I would really like my idea for the actual physical battles to be considered.

Yes but it wnt b incredibly extreme in talkin like an extra squad. Or 2

Wasn't there already a thread similar to this one?

https://soulswiki.forumotion.com/t7303-tactical-warfare?highlight=tactical

Acarnatia wrote:No grenades? Then what are firebombs and fireballs?

Improvised Explosive Devices that do not have a far range, and are very inaccurate.

You guys are loosing your minds!!!

DxV04 wrote:You guys are loosing your minds!!!

Did we ever have them to begin with?