Advertisement
by Tsarus » Thu Oct 17, 2019 6:28 am
by SherpDaWerp » Thu Oct 17, 2019 5:02 pm
Saying "You have called for a discussion" breaches player autonomy. It doesn't really flow, as there is also a little bit too much 'description' of what happened. The majority of what's being said can be cut out. For example:Tsarus wrote:After being unable to compete with better organized allies during military exercises, and realizing yours lacks any engagement organization, you have called for a discussion on a doctrine for the @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ military over dinner and have invited those who have shown interest to share their ideas.
That flows a lot better, and most of the extraneous information has been cut out. From that description, you know that @@NAME@@ didn't do well in a practice exercise, and people want the leader to decide on some official 'tactic' to use in warfare. That's really all that's needed to set up this issue.After @@NAME@@ underperformed in the recent @@REGION@@ War Games, @@DEMONYM@@ military generals are questioning the lack of an official military doctrine.
Good characterisation! Not sure if there is an 'official bigtopian accent' that has been established before, or he's just drunk, but it works well. Although, being Bigtopian he wouldn't be saying "the enemy can't hit us. And he probably also wouldn't be giving military advice to @@NAME@@ given that he's a foreigner... I'm not sure if you can assume NPC nations are in @@REGION@@, but if you can, try using an NPC nation that is deliberately and obviously non-hostile to the nation, under the assumption they participated in the war games? Maybe one of the scandinavian-style nations, they seem like they would have snipers.Tsarus wrote:"Aye, so I told tha' bloody keech, 'I'll shoot ya head clean off yer shoulders blootered as I am from afar if ya dont believe me,'" a Bigtopian sniper delineates, drunk off his arse. "Oi, @@LEADER@@, why dont we train em soldiers o' yers ta' shoot straight like I can, and give em all proper battle rifles? That way tha enemy can't hit us, cause we're too far away!"
Also good characterisation. Although, gender-specific macros could be avoided here by calling the general @@RANDOMNAME@@, and then saying @@HE@@ inhales @@HIS@@ dinner. The @@HE@@ and @@HIS@@ macros will decide on he/she and his/her depending on whether the @@RANDOMNAME@@ is male or female.Tsarus wrote:"WAAAGH!" General @@RANDOMMALENAME@@ bellows as he inhales his dinner. "More guns, more soldiers! Specifically, we need shotguns and SMG's, and a lot of soldiers! Sure, this may cost a few more lives, but we can just replace them, of course!"
Again with the gender-specific macros. Especially if @@NAME@@ is a matriarchy or a queendom, having all-male speakers would be a bit off. There is also some non-option-specific feedback that's relevant here, but I'll get to that soon.Tsarus wrote:"I agree," ex-machine gunner and gun-nut @@RANDOMMALENAME@@ speaks up, eating a bacon cheeseburger and fries. "We should be more aggressive, of course! But let's be reasonable here, we cant put our fine men's lives at stake! These are human beings, fighting for our country. I suggest we assume a suppress and advance doctrine. Keep the bullets flyin', their heads duckin', and our boots movin'! Suppressing fire is always the way to go."
This is (I think) a valid place for a gender-specific macro, given that there's no mother/father macro that I'm aware of.Tsarus wrote:@@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@, a mother of an active duty soldier, says "Oh dear! My poor Billy is out there on the battlefield, and I'm so worried about him!" she weeps, as she eats from a carton of ice cream. "Please, @@LEADER@@, keep him safe however you can. Just let the airforce do all the work or something."
Tsarus wrote:Outcome:
Wars with @@NAME@@ are often bloody and demoralizing for all belligerents.
Outcome:
@@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ soldiers are trained to hit tin cans a mile away.
Outcome:
Ammunition manufacturing is at an all time high.
Outcome:
Soldiers tend to do less combat, and more phone calls to the air base.
by Tsarus » Thu Oct 17, 2019 5:07 pm
by Tsarus » Thu Oct 17, 2019 5:11 pm
SherpDaWerp wrote:Not so fast on that submission...
by USS Monitor » Thu Oct 17, 2019 9:22 pm
by Tsarus » Thu Oct 17, 2019 9:36 pm
by Fontenais » Thu Oct 17, 2019 11:26 pm
Tsarus wrote:Description:
After @@NAME@@ underperformed during recent military exercises with allies, your military advisors have questioned the current doctrine of the military. Subsequently, a meeting has been called over dinner by your advisors.
Tsarus wrote:Choice 2:
"WAAAGH!" General @@RANDOMNAME@@ bellows as @@HE@@ inhales @@HIS@@ dinner. "More tanks, men, planes! To hell with losses if we have tons of reinforcements, we should be aggressive! Very aggressive!"
Tsarus wrote:Choice 4:
@@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@, a mother of an active duty soldier, says "Oh dear! My poor Billy is out there on the battlefield, and I'm so worried about him!" she weeps, as she eats from a carton of ice cream. "Please, @@LEADER@@, keep him safe however you can. Just let the airforce do all the work or something, I don't want my boy to die!"
by Candlewhisper Archive » Fri Oct 18, 2019 1:42 am
Description:
After @@NAME@@ underperformed during recent military exercises with allies, your military advisors have questioned the current doctrine of the military. Subsequently, a meeting has been called over dinner by your advisors.
by Tsarus » Fri Oct 18, 2019 7:17 pm
by Tsarus » Wed Oct 23, 2019 9:54 am
by Fontenais » Wed Oct 23, 2019 3:07 pm
Tsarus wrote:Choice 2:
"WAAAGH!" General @@RANDOMNAME@@ bellows as @@HE@@ inhales @@HIS@@ dinner. "More tanks, men, planes! To hell with losses if we have tons of reinforcements, we should be aggressive! Very aggressive!"
Tsarus wrote:Choice 3:
"I agree," United Federation machine gunner and gun-nut @@RANDOMNAME@@ speaks up, eating a bacon cheeseburger and fries. "Course we should be more aggressive! But let's be reasonable here, we also cant put our fine soldiers' lives at stake! These are brave human beings, fighting for our country. I suggest we assume a suppress and advance doctrine. Keep the bullets flyin', their heads duckin', and our boots movin'! Firepower is always the way to go."
by Tsarus » Wed Oct 23, 2019 4:48 pm
Fontenais wrote:Well, I stand by the last two comments I made, but apart from that:Tsarus wrote:Choice 2:
"WAAAGH!" General @@RANDOMNAME@@ bellows as @@HE@@ inhales @@HIS@@ dinner. "More tanks, men, planes! To hell with losses if we have tons of reinforcements, we should be aggressive! Very aggressive!"Tsarus wrote:Choice 3:
"I agree," United Federation machine gunner and gun-nut @@RANDOMNAME@@ speaks up, eating a bacon cheeseburger and fries. "Course we should be more aggressive! But let's be reasonable here, we also cant put our fine soldiers' lives at stake! These are brave human beings, fighting for our country. I suggest we assume a suppress and advance doctrine. Keep the bullets flyin', their heads duckin', and our boots movin'! Firepower is always the way to go."
Bearing in mind, I really don't know much about military tactics, but I can't see much of a differences between options 2 and 3
I can see in option 3, it says 'we can't put our fine soldiers' lives at stake', but, what the speaker actually suggests (more firepower), is really similar to option 2 (more aggression). I think it would be better if you could distinguish these options more.
by Tsarus » Mon Nov 04, 2019 11:00 am
by Candlewhisper Archive » Tue Nov 05, 2019 2:52 am
@@NAME@@ under-performed during recent military exercises with allies likely due to lack of standardized attacking procedures, with a more notably embarrassing situation involving the use of highly outdated Line Infantry tactics.
As such, your military advisors have questioned the current engagement doctrine, or lack thereof, of the military.
by Tsarus » Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:04 pm
by Tsarus » Wed Nov 27, 2019 9:38 am
by Tsarus » Tue Dec 03, 2019 7:41 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement