Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[NUKE9.13]

I believe that someone started making something like what you're asking for, but I don't think it was ever finished. But you can check the core thread OP of almost any arms race to get the rules, which aren't that substantial, really (in most cases). Most AR GMs learned how to run one from participating in them.
I mean, it would be hard to make a guide for how to run an AR, since there are so many variations.

[Chiefwaffles]

Yeah. There is no central Arms Race material, and pretty much every Arms Race is different by varying degrees.

For the ultimate most "Classic"-like rules, just look at the OP of Intercontinental Arms Race. For anything else, just take a look at the rules in the OP of any Arms Race you like.

[RoseHeart]

What would be really be helpful in lue of a (modern) bible, would be a sample combat log (moderator side).

A battle could be as simple as one roll that favors whom ever is more specialized, or as intricate as 10s of rolls for each unit interaction with each other.

[Chiefwaffles]

Also completely based on the GM.

I believe most ARs just have a variant of a system where the GM compares the two side’s units in every avenue of battle in a given theatre. They figure out what side has the advantages in specific areas (side 1’s artillery is doing better in this terrain, weather, and complementing designs that side 2’s artillery). Then they tally up all the distinct advantages and see what side is doing the best overall.

Some arms races have tried using programs to determine battle outcomes, to fairly disastrous results as far as I’m aware. Some use dice to varying degrees for an element of randomness, and some don’t to keep the battles deterministic hard on the dragons. Etc. etc.

[NUKE9.13]

Yeah, combat mechanics depend on the GM. Where did you get the idea that there's a canonical way of doing combat?
...and why do you want this information, anyway?

[RoseHeart]

How does a "sample combat log" imply the assumption they all do it the same way? Also Nuke I have played a few and observed several. The only thing you've added to this conversation is gatekeeping. Not helpful.

[Man of Paper]

Bruh he literally answered your question. You're asking the equivalent of "How do I make Grandma's Apple Pie?" when everyone's grandma has their own recipe. Only way to get a "sample" is to try it yourself, which you have, as you state you've played and observed several games. What's not helpful is dismissing someone because the answer isn't to your liking.

[ConscriptFive]

Few, if any, Arms Races explicitly roll dice for the BR.  Chance is already baked into the system with design and revision rolls, adding rolls to combat seems like an unnecessary layer of complexity.

Thus, there's essentially no quantitative way to handle the broad combined arms warfare you get in an Arms Race.

Qualitative parity analysis is the only way to go.  The best you can do is try to identify each side's comparative strengths and shortcomings capabilities-wise, then try to write that into how battle would occur at each specific front.  Here's a 2 year old player-written spreadsheet from ICAR, showing one way to do it: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1G-dT3NDrJ6WWIl8XEfWmYnM3Oxq-KX97br4ftrYc4EY/edit#gid=0

Arms Race players want to see a compelling interactive narrative, and getting all wrapped up trying to write equations for combat is a largely unappreciated tangent a GM will get burnt out trying to do.

[NUKE9.13]

How does a "sample combat log" imply the assumption they all do it the same way? Also Nuke I have played a few and observed several. The only thing you've added to this conversation is gatekeeping. Not helpful.

Uh... sorry? It was not my intention to gatekeep in any way. On the contrary, I encouraged you to participate in ARs.
I did misinterpret you regarding you thinking all combat systems are the same- my bad. So, to provide a more suitable answer: I, at least, didn't really have a hidden combat log- wysiwyg. How I came up with the results was by manually (in my mind) considering the effects of the various elements present in a battle, and figuring how they would interact. I think ConscriptFive has provided the closest thing you're going to get to what you're asking for, and that wasn't something the GM of that game created. The reason I misinterpreted you was due to the fact that even if someone provided you with the exact thing you're imagining, that would in no way be representative of how ARs in general are run.
I'd still like to know why you want this information. Not in a "how dare you ask for this whilst not being an established member of the AR playerbase" sense, but rather a "I don't understand why you're asking for this and I'm curious" sense.

[RoseHeart]

So if you had even advantage, lets say team 1 has 2 of unit A, and 3 of unit B, and team 2 has 4 unit C and 1 unit D:

Team 1
2 × A
3 × B

Team 2
4 × C
1 × D

And the advantages are matched. Would you just kill half of each teams units? Favoring more plentiful units?

[Chiefwaffles]

The way I see it, most Arms Races are ultimately not that dependent on mechanics.

In any of my previous games, I wouldn't even get to the situation of comparing units just in "A" and "B". To me, it's more like logical narrative-building rather than just distilling and comparing numbers. When two sides clash, I write it as a battle based on the placement, numbers, and equipment of both sides, rather than just calculate a winner and results then write a narrative after the fact.
What I'd do would depend on the exact advantages each side has, and see how they would factor into the battle. The equipment and designs of each side would determine the end result.

For example, in one of my older and now-99.9%-dead ARs, Planetary Arms Race, a scenario would crop up in which one side was entrenched with notably better longer-ranged weapons than the other side. But the other side had better close range weapons. Rather than just say "advantages cancel out, 50% casualties to both sides" I wrote the narrative of suicide charges in which the commanders of the close-range side would force a charge past the killing field and into a scenario where their weapons would be useful, and based the results like that.

Arms Races are, in my opinion, more like a mechanically-assisted narrative rather than the other way around.

[Draignean]

Combat mechanics are GM fiat, that is the bottom line. Even if they are equations, those equations are designed by the GM with their own particular brand of bias and blindness, and (as far as I've seen) only serve enshrine and magnify logical problems rather than alleviate burden.

Chief's description is basically the standard, adjusted in exact flavor by individual DMs. For me, I write up a cheatsheet of the advantages and disadvantages each side has in a conflict. Given that, I can write a skeleton of how those advantages and disadvantages between sides interact that defines the scope of the battle. Given that skeleton, I can then put more flesh on the bones as needed for narrative and descriptive purpose.

In the example you've given, it's really crucially important to note that most AR games are not scoped at that level. Most ARs take the position that a front is big enough, reinforcements are good enough, and enough battles take place that every battlefield situation will occur simultaneously. Two evenly matched sides do not get halved at the end of the day, they skirmish back and forth over ground, the turn of chance creating vicious defeats and hard-won victories on both sides. In the end it's net zero, no territory lost or gained, but it's a much more bitter net zero than just burying everyone with odd numbered both years.

Now, there are some ARs that do use finite numbers of units fighting finite numbers of units. I'd strongly advise against using the GalactiRace system for doing so unless you're dead certain, have meditated long on the issue, and have struck a deal with one of the dead Godflesh aggregates who wait within the dreamveil and whose names structure the void between voids. I'd strongly advise against the spires system of infantry combat, period.

In GR ground combat, you can have roughly the situation you described above. However, in most cases, units will never be lost. It's important to remember that war is NOT a competition to kill the most people, it is a conquest to take the most COWS ground from your enemy. Your main goal, as with most ARs, is to gain territory. If the advantages your troops have outweigh and/or cancel the enemy advantages to a sufficient degree, then you gain territory and the enemy is pushed back. Thematically, this involves some of them dying, but from a mechanical standpoint these numbers are small as an intelligent commander will pick their battles and pull back before being crushed. Massive casualties in GR combat only occur when one side decides they have to hold ground at all costs, or a side decides to push a campaign at gale speed.

In GR space combat, things are much different. The numbers of units are small, and you can get into exactly the situation you described above. Teams make tactical decision on what to do with their units, but at the end of the day it's loadout pitched against loadout, but even then you have to consider what the units actually are. Two perfectly matched forces butting heads generally won't end up with 50% mutual losses. If they're individual humans with the ability to retreat, then you might have minimal or no losses. They value their own lives, and without the opportunity for a decisive victory will not just slug it out to X point and then politely agree to stop. Tanks, however, in the same situation may inflict heavy mutual casualties, beyond 50%, as the game is very much who gets to shoot who first. If the two sides aren't allowed retreat, then consider the fact that evenly matched forces will turn into a meatgrinder. It's not 50% losses you're looking at, but a no survivors or wounded only scenario.

The boildown of this is you just can't boil down the fighting with a few simple axioms. It depends on what kind of mechanics you're using (finite units, infinite fronts, or a combination), what units are actually involved in combat, and the base nature of the game.

[Aseaheru]

 Yeah, Ive yet to see a game that actually uses rolls for combat except one, and that is using several hundred rolls. For that matter, few if any games actually attach numbers to effectiveness of weapons, even if the game does have inordinate amounts of bookkeeping.I.e., anything I wind up making, some other weapon design games out there...

[RoseHeart]

For example, in one of my older and now-99.9%-dead ARs, Planetary Arms Race, a scenario would crop up in which one side was entrenched with notably better longer-ranged weapons than the other side. But the other side had better close range weapons. Rather than just say "advantages cancel out, 50% casualties to both sides" I wrote the narrative of suicide charges in which the commanders of the close-range side would force a charge past the killing field and into a scenario where their weapons would be useful, and based the results like that.

Arms Races are, in my opinion, more like a mechanically-assisted narrative rather than the other way around.

So would the few close range troops that survived the charge kill all the long rangers?

In GR ground combat, you can have roughly the situation you described above. However, in most cases, units will never be lost. It's important to remember that war is NOT a competition to kill the most people, it is a conquest to take the most COWS ground from your enemy. Your main goal, as with most ARs, is to gain territory.
In GR space combat, things are much different. The numbers of units are small, and you can get into exactly the situation you described above. Teams make tactical decision on what to do with their units, but at the end of the day it's loadout pitched against loadout, but even then you have to consider what the units actually are.

The longest running ones I played (xcom, gladiators) focused on individual units. Thanks for pointing that option out.

I'd still like to know why you want this information. Not in a "how dare you ask for this whilst not being an established member of the AR playerbase" sense, but rather a "I don't understand why you're asking for this and I'm curious" sense.

Do YOU have any UNANNOUNCED projects? I may just be curious myself, even if I don't plan to make one.

[Madman198237]

For example, in one of my older and now-99.9%-dead ARs, Planetary Arms Race, a scenario would crop up in which one side was entrenched with notably better longer-ranged weapons than the other side. But the other side had better close range weapons. Rather than just say "advantages cancel out, 50% casualties to both sides" I wrote the narrative of suicide charges in which the commanders of the close-range side would force a charge past the killing field and into a scenario where their weapons would be useful, and based the results like that.

Arms Races are, in my opinion, more like a mechanically-assisted narrative rather than the other way around.

So would the few close range troops that survived the charge kill all the long rangers?

In that case, no, but neither did the snipers kill the entire force of troops equipped better for close combat. It turned out roughly to be a bloody tie in the favor of the longer-ranged side for various reasons, IIRC. But you'd have to, as a GM, decide things like that. Nobody can give you a guide to answer every question flawlessly, you just have to do your best to analyze EVERY situation that might occur and give the fairest result you can think of.