RPing Questions? Ask Here!

[Crystal Spires]

Alright, I have a question for anybody who is experienced with RPs in general- I'm very eager to do something relating to a military simulation/war RP with the members of my region, but serious IC concerns have gotten in the way, especially the division of tech levels. I have found it impossible to organize an effective RP that allows for both MT/PMT and FT nations to participate and enjoy. What always ends up happening is that the less advanced nations accuse the FT nations of godmodding and what not, because the FT approach to anything is basically to dump quadrillions of super soldiers into a country from orbital platforms. To be fair, it is rather ludicrous to allow this kind of number spamming, but then it also isn't fair to restrict the abilities of an FT nation and force them to limit their troop numbers. In the end, I always have the FT nations whining because they can't use their awesome universe forming technology, and the MT nations literally just ignoring the FT nations because they won't even consider the possibility of a cross-tech war. Both claim that letting the other participate kills creativity and makes the entire thing useless, but nobody wants to meet in the middle and fix the problem, which is why I need you all. Any ideas? Anything would be an improvement.

As a nation that regularly works with tech mixing, what you can do is talk with the people who are concerned about the tech mixing, and ask them what is or is not a limitation to their tolerance level for story purposes. It should have certain levels, all OOCly determined.

1.First, the player creates a proposed action for the defender, Let's call him the ball thrower.
2.The person who is defending should dictate what is or is not acceptable, so the ball is thrown into the defender's court. Ultimately the ball always should fall in the defender's court alone, thus the Defender can and should decide how big this ball should be.Other people should not have a say over what happens TO the defender because ultimately the choice is the defender's to have the ball fall in their court.
3.The "Bounce" or how much the defender's choice affects other involved players, is determined by the affected players alone, and not the ball thrower. The bounce might also affect other players, so it is up to the Defender to justify how big the ball is to the bounce affected nations, and not the ball thrower.
4. The Ball thrower must respect the defender's choice.

Players without exception have to agree to this to be cooperative, and ultimately it is the formula for anytech RP success.

[Novo Wagondia]

Alright, I have a question for anybody who is experienced with RPs in general- I'm very eager to do something relating to a military simulation/war RP with the members of my region, but serious IC concerns have gotten in the way, especially the division of tech levels. I have found it impossible to organize an effective RP that allows for both MT/PMT and FT nations to participate and enjoy. What always ends up happening is that the less advanced nations accuse the FT nations of godmodding and what not, because the FT approach to anything is basically to dump quadrillions of super soldiers into a country from orbital platforms. To be fair, it is rather ludicrous to allow this kind of number spamming, but then it also isn't fair to restrict the abilities of an FT nation and force them to limit their troop numbers. In the end, I always have the FT nations whining because they can't use their awesome universe forming technology, and the MT nations literally just ignoring the FT nations because they won't even consider the possibility of a cross-tech war. Both claim that letting the other participate kills creativity and makes the entire thing useless, but nobody wants to meet in the middle and fix the problem, which is why I need you all. Any ideas? Anything would be an improvement.

As a nation that regularly works with tech mixing, what you can do is talk with the people who are concerned about the tech mixing, and ask them what is or is not a limitation to their tolerance level for story purposes. It should have certain levels, all OOCly determined.

1.First, the player creates a proposed action for the defender, Let's call him the ball thrower.
2.The person who is defending should dictate what is or is not acceptable, so the ball is thrown into the defender's court. Ultimately the ball always should fall in the defender's court alone, thus the Defender can and should decide how big this ball should be.Other people should not have a say over what happens TO the defender because ultimately the choice is the defender's to have the ball fall in their court.
3.The "Bounce" or how much the defender's choice affects other involved players, is determined by the affected players alone, and not the ball thrower. The bounce might also affect other players, so it is up to the Defender to justify how big the ball is to the bounce affected nations, and not the ball thrower.
4. The Ball thrower must respect the defender's choice.

Players without exception have to agree to this to be cooperative, and ultimately it is the formula for anytech RP success.

Interesting analogy, I think I understand. I'll bring this up, thank you.

[Telros]

To add onto what Spires said, one of the difficulties has always been the matter of technology; the FT nation with laser rifles is kinda hard for those with shells and bullets to deal with a lot. So, one way of balancing, and this is also part of the 'Ball being in the defender's court" thing is that the FT side's advantage is their technology and improved mobility and such, but they could have it that they have little to no way for reinforcement or gaining of new supplies that they can't scrounge on the planet (energy cells, armor repair kits, etc), so while they have an immense advantage in tech and power, they don't have a lot of troops/reinforcement/logistics to fall back on. Make everything count kind of thing.

Whereas the MT side is close to/at home, has a lot of troops and logistics they can call upon, but oh god do those FT weapons hurt. So, you can a balance it out that way. Numbers vs tech, home field logistics versus a very thin line for the FT guy. Perhaps they are cut off from home and desperately need supplies/a planet, or they are sent on what is considered a cakewalk and Command will laugh at any request for reinforcements. Something like that. There's a give and take, and MT players do have reason to be worried about being steamrolled, so limits have to be placed for cross-tech stuff to work.

[Novo Wagondia]

To add onto what Spires said, one of the difficulties has always been the matter of technology; the FT nation with laser rifles is kinda hard for those with shells and bullets to deal with a lot. So, one way of balancing, and this is also part of the 'Ball being in the defender's court" thing is that the FT side's advantage is their technology and improved mobility and such, but they could have it that they have little to no way for reinforcement or gaining of new supplies that they can't scrounge on the planet (energy cells, armor repair kits, etc), so while they have an immense advantage in tech and power, they don't have a lot of troops/reinforcement/logistics to fall back on. Make everything count kind of thing.

Whereas the MT side is close to/at home, has a lot of troops and logistics they can call upon, but oh god do those FT weapons hurt. So, you can a balance it out that way. Numbers vs tech, home field logistics versus a very thin line for the FT guy. Perhaps they are cut off from home and desperately need supplies/a planet, or they are sent on what is considered a cakewalk and Command will laugh at any request for reinforcements. Something like that. There's a give and take, and MT players do have reason to be worried about being steamrolled, so limits have to be placed for cross-tech stuff to work.

Alright, I think I see your point. Would morale also factor in? I mean, the FT soldiers don't have much motivation in a fight they see as a cakewalk, vs. defense of the homeland by MT forces.

[Telros]

Yes, though that is kind of up to each roleplayer. Good ones will account for morale, but some tend to forget. But yeah, unless they are ideologically driven, arrogant, sadistic, etc most FT armies would just 'what's the point' and give up when it starts to cost too much. Tech cross-overs are difficult for a variety of reasons, and this is one, as most FT nations, if not just outright conquering the place due to deploying a huge amount of material and manpower, wouldn't have much reason to attack an MT world. You risk discovery of what you are, that they gain technology enough to come after you, and such. It's only worth it, in my view, if there is something you absolutely must retrieve. Down soldiers/crew, technology, etc. They could be trying to scourge information about their tech or own databanks from what some have recovered which they cover by attacking people. It's dangerous, only works if they feel the information is just too important, but it could work.

[Alterran Republic]

Not a very or important question:

But what are all the abbreviations, e.g.: MT, OOC, IC, II, GE&T, F&NI, PT, FT, etc. mean?

Thanks

[Seljuq Kyiv]

Not a very or important question:

But what are all the abbreviations, e.g.: MT, OOC, IC, II, GE&T, F&NI, PT, FT, etc. mean?

Thanks

MT= Modern tech
OOC = Out of character
IC = In character
PT = Past tech
FT = Future tech

afaik

[Arkolon]

Not a very or important question:

But what are all the abbreviations, e.g.: MT, OOC, IC, II, GE&T, F&NI, PT, FT, etc. mean?

Thanks

in order

Modern Technology (MT)
Out of Character (OOC)
In Character (IC)
International Incidents (II)
General Economics & Trade (GE&T)
Factbooks & National Information (F&NI)
Past Technology (PT)
Future Technology (FT)

[Alterran Republic]

Thanks guys.

[Seljuq Kyiv]

How did city assaults pan out in the Franco-Prussian War? As I understand, walls were no longer effective against cannon fire ever since the last days of the star fort, and countries were resolved to build forts to defend their interests instead. How were cities defended, then? How did they go about capturing said cities?

[Lubyak]

How did city assaults pan out in the Franco-Prussian War? As I understand, walls were no longer effective against cannon fire ever since the last days of the star fort, and countries were resolved to build forts to defend their interests instead. How were cities defended, then? How did they go about capturing said cities?

Walls and general fortifications were still important. The explosive shell had reduce the effectiveness of the star fort, which were replaced by the Polygonal Fort, which mostly involved making the fortification a much smaller target for enemy fire, by placing more and more of the defenses underground. It does remove much of the bastions, ravelins, crownworks, hornworks, etc. of a star fort, in favour of a very sharp ditch and a low, clear glacis, so that the enemy would have no cover from the fort's guns. IIRC, in the Franco-Prussian War, the defenses of Paris consisted of several of these forts, in addition to the city walls. Walls, in the style of star fortifications, were less effective, but not totally ineffective in terms of defense. As for how you take a fortified city in the late 19th century, the options are the same as they have always been.

1) Siege. The classic method of dealing with a fortress was to invest it, cut off all supply lines, and starve the fortress out. This probable the slowest method of doing so, but--assuming your supply lines are good and you maintain good conditions amongst your troops--the most conservative of your own forces. Do be wary though, as properly investing a whole city does require a lot of troops, and you will probably need an additional army to defend your lines of circum- and contravallation from attack by enemy relief forces.

2) Storm. You could just attempt to storm the fortress as soon as you arrive, but this does of course lead to heavy casualties. However, it should be noted, that by this time, firepower had begun to improve to the point where you begin to see trench warfare, and an open storm may not be as successful as it could be. The old style of storming in which the guns were slowly moved up with the trenches in order to breach the walls and allow an assault were less prevalent in the era of rifled cannon and high explosives shells, and you can probably lay fairly accurate fire to break city walls. Storming a polygonal fort would probably involve close cooperation with the artillery to silence the guns defending the glacis, so that infantry might seize the ditch, and hopefully force the fortification to surrender.

[Seljuq Kyiv]

What about a city with none such forts?

[Bears Armed]

As for how you take a fortified city in the late 19th century, the options are the same as they have always been.

1) Siege.

2) Storm.

3) Treachery. Bribe (or persuade by other means) the garrison's commander to hand the city over to you.

[Lubyak]

As for how you take a fortified city in the late 19th century, the options are the same as they have always been.

1) Siege.

2) Storm.

3) Treachery. Bribe (or persuade by other means) the garrison's commander to hand the city over to you.

Perhaps in earlier periods, but with nationalism becoming an increasingly large factor by the late 1800s, it is unlikely you'll have a commander willing to turn traitor and betray his country. Aside from a few Dutch fortresses in the Eighty Years War, I can't think of many modern fortresses surrendered by treachery. It's an option, but I would not consider it very high on the list. More likely would be to lay siege to the city, so that you can threaten to storm it, and then offer generous terms of surrender.

What about a city with none such forts?

If the city is unfortified, then it is relatively easy to take, although urban combat is always unpleasant. At least the defenders won't have fortifications in place. However, the same applies. You can either surround and starve the city out, or attempt to storm it.

[The 54th Squadron]

Is it okay if I did a thread for a newspaper in my nation? Like, a full-blown one instead of just one thing in the OP and be done?

[Jenrak]

Is it okay if I did a thread for a newspaper in my nation? Like, a full-blown one instead of just one thing in the OP and be done?

Sure.

[Oppressorion]

So an RP I was in (Rynatian Civil War) died. OK, it happens every day, no big deal. But still, leaving my particular storyline unfinished bothers me. What would be an appropriate way to close it out? The main problem is that I can't write about what actually happened during the RP, since it would mean writing what the opposing forces did, too.

Best idea I can think of is an after-action report, like a disciplinary hearing of the politicians and officers involved.

[Lamoni]

So an RP I was in (Rynatian Civil War) died. OK, it happens every day, no big deal. But still, leaving my particular storyline unfinished bothers me. What would be an appropriate way to close it out? The main problem is that I can't write about what actually happened during the RP, since it would mean writing what the opposing forces did, too.

Best idea I can think of is an after-action report, like a disciplinary hearing of the politicians and officers involved.

As long as you don't dictate what the enemy forces did, then it should be fine.

[Lubyak]

So an RP I was in (Rynatian Civil War) died. OK, it happens every day, no big deal. But still, leaving my particular storyline unfinished bothers me. What would be an appropriate way to close it out? The main problem is that I can't write about what actually happened during the RP, since it would mean writing what the opposing forces did, too.

Best idea I can think of is an after-action report, like a disciplinary hearing of the politicians and officers involved.

Another thing is--if you wish--contacting the other player, and trying to decide how it ended, without writing out the rest of the story. If you're trying to work this particular RP into a larger history.

[The Sotoan Union]

A serious RP question, how do you make maps. Many players have maps to go along with their RP and I was wondering how players liked to make them. Specifically I was wondering about Wikipedia style maps with color coded countries like this one.

[Lamoni]

A lot of people use programs like MSPaint to make their maps. It's surprising to a lot of people, but MSPaint is one of the most powerful image generating software programs out there.

[Constaniana]

A lot of people use programs like MSPaint to make their maps. It's surprising to a lot of people, but MSPaint is one of the most powerful image generating software programs out there.

It's true. You can make pretty good maps as long as you have the patience for it and a steady hand. One issue it has is that text boxes can't be altered once made, aside from being moved or deleted.

[Maltropia]

Paint.net works very similarly to Paint, but it has many more tools and the option for plugins, as well as the huge advantage of layers. It's the programme I've used for all my maps.

[Romberg]

If you're good at it, Photoshop.

[Starkiller101]

I have a question how do you like talk in character like how are you supposed to write.