The Battle of the Ages - OOC

[Tabret]

IC: The Battle of the Ages


This here is the OOC. While I support the use of spoiler tags in your IC posts for short OOC content, any lengthy material must be posted here so that you don't ruin the atmosphere for the rest of us folks

You can sign up for the I.C here, but you have to state how many men your army can field in a specific battle. After you post the numbers, you cannot change them midway. Thus, you must be wise in choosing how many men you field in a battle and must put in some reserves.

PS: Read the IC for more info.

[Steinway and Sons]

Should I put this here? I hope the answer is yes. Consider this my Sign-Up a well.

Proposed location for upcoming battle

Weather: Rain
Visibility: Moderate
Humidity: Moderate
Temperature: 25 celsius
Degradation of surroundings due to combat: Open and rolling grassland with some farms about (which serve as bases/bunkers as well, I guess), perfect scenario for tank-to-tank battle.
Availability of military complex/base/installation (Constructed, not field bases and such): Nope.

[Tabret]

Both threads are fine. Accepted

[Primordial Luxa]

Both threads are fine. Accepted

This sounds like a very interesting idea and i would enjoy being apart of it.

[Steinway and Sons]

Okay, what now?

[Cheten]

Tag for upcoming app.

[Tabret]

All applications accepted thus far.

I'm going to wait till we get some 10 members, then I'll start the poll. After we've decided on what place to have the battle in, please submit your Battleplan (format in IC thread)

[Helltank]

Sign up.

Are we allowed to make tactical decisions based on the battleplan that we see other nations post?

[Tabret]

Sign up.

Are we allowed to make tactical decisions based on the battleplan that we see other nations post?

Yes. But battleplans are not intended to reveal your tactics, but for stating the number of forces you're deploying etc. So if Player A is deploying 300 M2A2 APCs, and Player B accordingly deploys 100 AT4 anti-tank launchers, then it is allowed. But please take your time in writing your battleplan, as once posted any changes will not be accepted later on, and don't post too much of a single unit type. It's not against the rules, but it's better to have a large arsenal of various weapons than an arsenal of one.

Also, I hope you all stick to combined arms tactics. Most useful and makes for lots of fun as well.

Also, accepted

[New Panti]

Definitely interested, seems like a pretty cool idea.
I'd also like to submit a terrain of my own, which focuses more on combined arms fighting, rather than mostly just tanks.

Proposed location for upcoming battle:
Weather: Clear, but a little cloudy
Visibility: Long
Humidity: Moderate
Temperature: 30-35 degrees Celsius
Degradation of surroundings due to combat: The landscape is a large field with a forest in the middle, with a river and highway crossing through the forest.
Availability of military complex/base/installation: No

[Tabret]

Definitely interested, seems like a pretty cool idea.
I'd also like to submit a terrain of my own, which focuses more on combined arms fighting, rather than mostly just tanks.

Proposed location for upcoming battle:
Weather: Clear, but a little cloudy
Visibility: Long
Humidity: Moderate
Temperature: 30-35 degrees Celsius
Degradation of surroundings due to combat: The landscape is a large field with a forest in the middle, with a river and highway crossing through the forest.
Availability of military complex/base/installation: No

Welcome

Sure, after we get 10 members we'll discuss all the locations and find something that appeals to everyone. However, if we don't get anywhere, then I'd pick the terrain which I think is best.

[Helltank]

Sign up.

Are we allowed to make tactical decisions based on the battleplan that we see other nations post?

Yes. But battleplans are not intended to reveal your tactics, but for stating the number of forces you're deploying etc. So if Player A is deploying 300 M2A2 APCs, and Player B accordingly deploys 100 AT4 anti-tank launchers, then it is allowed. But please take your time in writing your battleplan, as once posted any changes will not be accepted later on, and don't post too much of a single unit type. It's not against the rules, but it's better to have a large arsenal of various weapons than an arsenal of one.

Also, I hope you all stick to combined arms tactics. Most useful and makes for lots of fun as well.

Also, accepted

Wouldn't it then make sense to post your battleplans last so you can "counter" other players' battleplans?

Example:there are 10 players. The first ten all post battleplans featuring large amounts of aircraft. You then battleplan large amounts of anti-aircraft weaponry and roflstomp them all.

[Tabret]

Yes. But battleplans are not intended to reveal your tactics, but for stating the number of forces you're deploying etc. So if Player A is deploying 300 M2A2 APCs, and Player B accordingly deploys 100 AT4 anti-tank launchers, then it is allowed. But please take your time in writing your battleplan, as once posted any changes will not be accepted later on, and don't post too much of a single unit type. It's not against the rules, but it's better to have a large arsenal of various weapons than an arsenal of one.

Also, I hope you all stick to combined arms tactics. Most useful and makes for lots of fun as well.

Also, accepted

Wouldn't it then make sense to post your battleplans last so you can "counter" other players' battleplans?

Example:there are 10 players. The first ten all post battleplans featuring large amounts of aircraft. You then battleplan large amounts of anti-aircraft weaponry and roflstomp them all.

I have thought of that, which is why I won't allow people to spam any kind of vehicle/weapon to exploit this. Another reason why everyone should stick to combined arms only.

[Tabret]

Thanks for the suggestion though, added this to the rules.

[Helltank]

Brief description of terrain:Snowy mountains, risk of avalanche
Weather:Snowy
Visibility:Low
Humidity:Very dry [/b]
Temperature (Ranges only, as in from 20-40 degrees celsius, and such):-20 to -5 degrees celsius
Degradation of surroundings due to combat:Minor avalanches due to previous gunfire has blocked some natural paths and created a lot of debris.
Availability of military complex/base/installation (Constructed, not field bases and such):No

[Tabret]

Brief description of terrain:Snowy mountains, risk of avalanche
Weather:Snowy
Visibility:Low
Humidity:Very dry [/b]
Temperature (Ranges only, as in from 20-40 degrees celsius, and such):-20 to -5 degrees celsius
Degradation of surroundings due to combat:Minor avalanches due to previous gunfire has blocked some natural paths and created a lot of debris.
Availability of military complex/base/installation (Constructed, not field bases and such):No

Accepted.

I believe we have to discuss what location should we pick, they all are interesting and offer unique possibilities for interesting scenarios.

[Helltank]

I vote for the one I suggested(that's a surprise).

[Tabret]

For all those who have signed up but haven't proposed a location yet, please do so.

Code: Select all

[b]BATTLE PLAN FORMAT[/b]
[b]Forces Committed:[/b] (A [i]huge[/i] thank you to Interstellar Space Corps for this time-saving idea)
[b]Secondary Equipment (Accessories, for rifles, small, medium arms and other weapons):[/b]
[b]Protective Equipment and Quantity (Gas masks, radiation suits, etc., limit present):[/b]
[b]Ammunition, for each platform type, quantity:[/b]
[b]Food, Fuel and other logistics, in quantity:[/b] (Everyone's encouraged to use the same numbers, but there's a limit so you can't bring a Supertanker along)
[b]Spare parts for faulty equipment, quantity:[/b] (I'll be a bit complacent, no need to use exact weapon types and spares, just type how many you'd be bringing along, also the ammunition part needn't be detailed, just state how many rounds for M-16's etc.
[b]POLICY OF NATION:[/b] (This is very important so as to avoid any misunderstandings. Please be as detailed as possible)

[Tabret]

I vote for the one I suggested(that's a surprise).

Your vote will be counted, but first we need an adequate number of members.

[Helltank]

I feel that a scenario for the war should be given, so we know whether it's a free-for-all or a factionized war.

Also my nation's policy would be different if I were dealing with, say, people who wanted to conquer Helltank("beat their armies a couple of times, extend the hand of peace, tell them "obviously we're no easy nuts to crack... try the nation around the corner and keep away please") as compared to people to threatened to launch missiles at Helltank because we tried to get them to abolish slavery("strike first, disable their missiles, then move the main army in and grind them to dust").

I therefore propose the following scenario for my suggested snowy mountains terrain:

@@ALLIANCE@@, comprised of @@PLAYERS ONE TO SIX@@, are trying to invade the territory of @@PLAYER SEVEN@@, who has called in his buddies @@PLAYERS EIGHT TO TEN@@ to help him. Though they are outnumbered, they are more familiar with @@PLAYER SEVEN@@'s snowy mountain border's terrain and have the high ground as they are at the peaks of the mountains while @@ALLIANCE@@ is trying to scale to the top.

[Tabret]

I feel that a scenario for the war should be given, so we know whether it's a free-for-all or a factionized war.

Also my nation's policy would be different if I were dealing with, say, people who wanted to conquer Helltank("beat their armies a couple of times, extend the hand of peace, tell them "obviously we're no easy nuts to crack... try the nation around the corner and keep away please") as compared to people to threatened to launch missiles at Helltank because we tried to get them to abolish slavery("strike first, disable their missiles, then move the main army in and grind them to dust").

I therefore propose the following scenario for my suggested snowy mountains terrain:

@@ALLIANCE@@, comprised of @@PLAYERS ONE TO SIX@@, are trying to invade the territory of @@PLAYER SEVEN@@, who has called in his buddies @@PLAYERS EIGHT TO TEN@@ to help him. Though they are outnumbered, they are more familiar with @@PLAYER SEVEN@@'s snowy mountain border's terrain and have the high ground as they are at the peaks of the mountains while @@ALLIANCE@@ is trying to scale to the top.

A great suggestion, without any scenario on which the conflict is based upon it'd be pointless and this whole thing would be very hard to organize. Thanks once again.

Players could make alliances with other players before a battle, and based on the resulting alliances (Whose numbers are limited, no 8-man alliance against two players unless these are special circumstances etc.) a set of possible scenarios would be discussed and the most appropriate one would be picked. - added to rules

[Tabret]

But to keep this RP from turning into what some other RPs are these days, there won't be any 'war' of which this battle is a part of. Battles are fought randomly and have almost no connection to each other, unless the players want to make a sequel to a very good battle, in which case I would allow it. Thus, you get really involved in your commanding position.

[Helltank]

Proposing an alliance with New Panthi.

[Delusija]

Proposed location for upcoming battle: Mountains subject to karstism
Weather: Local Showers
Visibility: Good to Fair, mountains and rocks in the way
Humidity: 30-60 % (After it rains, dries quickly)
Temperature : 10-20° C
Degradation of surroundings due to combat : Local landslides, caves, sinkholes
Availability of military complex/base/installation : Remains of WWI Trenches

[Tabret]

Proposed location for upcoming battle: Mountains subject to karstism
Weather: Local Showers
Visibility: Good to Fair, mountains and rocks in the way
Humidity: 30-60 % (After it rains, dries quickly)
Temperature : 10-20° C
Degradation of surroundings due to combat : Local landslides, caves, sinkholes
Availability of military complex/base/installation : Remains of WWI Trenches

Accepted