Show me your orders/battle plans!

[alex994]

Once again, IMO it comes down to strategy vs. tactics. Elaborating a complex strategy is okay, but micromanaging every last detail isn't. That's what generals, subordinates, etc. are for.

From my experiences in various neses, all my generals and subordinates are pure incompetent brutes even with "Brilliant+1" Military leadership or things to that effect

 

[Symphony D.]

What Alex said. NPCs are by-and-large stupid. Again, as I said, more detail for smaller objects. If you are planning a very specific, tactical infiltration mission, you should better damn well put some specific, tactical information into it if you really want it to succeed. If you're planning a large war spanning a continent, you shouldn't quibble over how to engage the enemy in any particular square mile.

That is not what I am advocating. I am saying, if you are doing something complicated, complex, or precision, you should be detailed about it, because it's a situation that demands it. If it's something big and vague and highly variable you shouldn't worry about every last detail. LSD in water is specific. Advancing along a front is mostly vague. One therefore should be more elaborated than the other.

 

[Sheep]

Reason why NPCS are stupid is that players tend to get upset when they are beaten by a nation effectivley controlled by a mod.

In my experience I kind of like it when npcs cause troubles,

 

[North King]

Well, then I suppose we have quite different definitions of detail. Here, for the record, is what I do:

That's not bad, though it's rather excessive for the somewhat simple tasks you're aiming for.

The summary of the thought is the first thing you see. This example is largely superfluous, yes, but I rarely go over orders more than once or trim them unless they're just a train wreck. You can understand what I want to do from that first sentence (hence why it's bolded). The rest elaborates.

I do this for one simple reason, and that's because I take the exact opposite tact: if I were a moderator, nothing would annoy me more than having to write half a person's orders for them to produce something useful. As I stated earlier, I would rather be supplied excessive details, and trim or ignore them, than not have any details to work with at all. It is always easier to prune down what you have than to conjure up things you don't. If you just tell somebody to do something, and don't include any reasoning or thought process, it's very easy for it to come apart at the seams ("confusing orders") not turn out how you expected, or for something to come along and invalidate the original premise entirely, but not the core motivating idea. Better safe than sorry.

Mainly because, in my experience, you treat NESing more like a game, and I treat it more like a story. Micromanaging every single little aspect of it is, frankly, just irritating, as has been pointed out repeatedly, you shouldn't be telling your bloody seargants what to do.

So yes, some elaboration is necessary. But it's not particularly necessary to tell your army what to do on the specific tactical level.

For somebody who prepared a detailed set of (entirely fictional) siege maps for every Bactrashan city his forces were coming across in ITNES, you criticizing information on the selection of a particular psychoactive drug that adds perhaps one to two sentences to induce specific effects on the enemy seems just the slightest bit hypocritical.

The siege map, being graphical, was rather quick and easy to understand, IMHO. Furthermore, they weren't "completely fictional"; while I had drawn the terrains in a pinch, it wasn't as if I didn't know what I was doing.

I'd also like to note saying "Put a disorienting, psychological drug into their drinking supplies" is about as safe as saying "bombard their positions with chemical weapons."

What type? Blister? Inhalant? Really now, saying "Put enough LSD into the water to make them bonkers" is not excessive detail by any definition of the word (and yes, it would take a lot). Capulet spending an entire PM describing what a flanking movement is, that's excessive.

Honestly, I really don't see the need to say exactly what kind of chemical weapons you were bombarding them with. Except if you were introducing a completely new doctrine. Sorry, but orders which just go on and on about "do this, and do it exactly this way, allowing no margin for error, are just ludicrous, especially as no plan survives contact with the enemy.

 

[North King]

From my experiences in various neses, all my generals and subordinates are pure incompetent brutes even with "Brilliant+1" Military leadership or things to that effect

Only if the mod is poor. Very poor.

Expecting that the sent orders is the entirety of a plan is like expecting the top strategic advisors in the Pentagon to tell a seargant what to do. THEY DON'T DO THIS!

A good mod throws decent NPCs at the player opponents, giving them twists and turns and everything one could want in a challenge.

(Not, JD, by depriving the player of vital strategic information, like implying that ships were quadruple the cost when in reality they were the exact same cost. )

 

[Symphony D.]

Honestly, I really don't see the need to say exactly what kind of chemical weapons you were bombarding them with.

Well, that pretty much proves my point right there. As examples, that's like saying there's no difference between a 25kt nuke or a 10mt one, or a 500lbs bomb versus a 22,000lbs MOAB. Again, we apparently have vastly different definitions of detail, because I do not view those as specific tactical details within their frame of reference. Again, these are examples, I would never specify "use only these bombs", but my point still stands. It's the difference between saying "Use a handful of Divisions or "Use 10 Divisions". It's not extreme detail, it's simple expansion of the basic thought. It is not on-and-on or overly complex. Once you toss in rationale and such it can balloon, but the precise detail itself does not consume oh-so-much-more space all on its own.

The siege map, being graphical, was rather quick and easy to understand, IMHO. Furthermore, they weren't "completely fictional"; while I had drawn the terrains in a pinch, it wasn't as if I didn't know what I was doing.

You're missing my point. The city layout was the product of your own thought processes of what it should look like, as were the positions of Bactrashan troops relative to your own. By your own logic, making them at all was superfluous, as it was excessive detail. You could have just said "Take this city."

The only difference is it was graphical instead of textual. Otherwise they're equivilent.

If you're going to use a weapon, you should know what it is, and what it does. If somebody ever said to me "use chemical weapons" I'd just laugh and tell them to redo it. I don't want them to describe in detail to me the shell of the thing and its dispersal pattern and lethality ratio (actually, that last bit might be useful, save me a wikipedia trip) when I can just go look it up, but I'd want them to at least name the agent they're using, because it does make a difference. The same goes for these other supposedly "excessive" details - they're not excessive at all, they're just descriptive of what you want.

1.) Nuke this city.
2.) Use a tactical nuclear warhead on this target in city X.
3.) Use a strategic nuke and vaporize the city.
4.) Use a neutron bomb, capture the city after radiation dissipates.

1 can mean either 2, 3, or 4. I don't know because it's too vague. Why should the mod be psychic and have to interpret what the player wants? The player should just say it. It's three times longer, but I don't think anyone would particularly care. Say what you mean, mean what you say, and supply an appropriate level of information. I would despise the one-line orders far more than I would the ones that were 4 PMs. Apparently we have to agree to disagree though, since we appear diametrically opposed on the issue.

 

[North King]

Well, that pretty much proves my point right there. As examples, that's like saying there's no difference between a 25kt nuke or a 10mt one, or a 500lbs bomb versus a 22,000lbs MOAB. Again, we apparently have vastly different definitions of detail, because I do not view those as specific tactical details within their frame of reference. Again, these are examples, I would never specify "use only these bombs", but my point still stands. It's the difference between saying "Use a handful of Divisions or "Use 10 Divisions". It's not extreme detail, it's simple expansion of the basic thought. It is not on-and-on or overly complex. Once you toss in rationale and such it can balloon, but the precise detail itself does not consume oh-so-much-more space all on its own.

Not at all the same. Distinction in what greusome way a chemical warhead kills the enemy is not nearly the same as the amount of ordinance delivered, and you know that.

You're missing my point. The city layout was the product of your own thought processes of what it should look like, as were the positions of Bactrashan troops relative to your own. By your own logic, making them at all was superfluous, as it was excessive detail. You could have just said "Take this city."

The only difference is it was graphical instead of textual. Otherwise they're equivilent.

Wrong. I have repeatedly said (and you have ignored, perhaps to "prove" your point) that some level of detail is necessary. For example, I like the idea of smuggling in soldiers in wine casks. This is not the same as "take this city". The idea of how I would engage each separate city in broad overview is okay. If I were to research the exact terrain, post a terrain Google Map of the area, examine exactly which tower to attack, that would be stupid.

If you're going to use a weapon, you should know what it is, and what it does. If somebody ever said to me "use chemical weapons" I'd just laugh and tell them to redo it. I don't want them to describe in detail to me the shell of the thing and its dispersal pattern and lethality ratio (actually, that last bit might be useful, save me a wikipedia trip) when I can just go look it up, but I'd want them to at least name the agent they're using, because it does make a difference. The same goes for these other supposedly "excessive" details - they're not excessive at all, they're just descriptive of what you want.

1.) Nuke this city.
2.) Use a tactical nuclear warhead on this target in city X.
3.) Use a strategic nuke and vaporize the city.
4.) Use a neutron bomb, capture the city after radiation dissipates.

1 can mean either 2, 3, or 4. I don't know because it's too vague. Why should the mod be psychic and have to interpret what the player wants? The player should just say it. It's three times longer, but I don't think anyone would particularly care. Say what you mean, mean what you say, and supply an appropriate level of information. I would despise the one-line orders far more than I would the ones that were 4 PMs. Apparently we have to agree to disagree though, since we appear diametrically opposed on the issue.

1, in conventional nomenclature, always means 3.

AGAIN, you are missing the ponit I'm repeatedly bringing up entirely--detail is okay. Overloading on superfluous crap is stupid (like the chemical warheads data, unless it is key crucial to your plan). Overburdening on everything down to the tactical level is stupid, mindbogglingly mundane, and utterly irritating to a mod who wants to write a decent NES update.

 

[Symphony D.]

Overloading on superfluous crap is stupid (like the chemical warheads data, unless it is key crucial to your plan).

You're grossly underestimating the major impact of a simple detail. OK, lets do something really simple.

The method of delivery is every bit the same. I say "use Sulfur Mustard chemical weapons". You have gasmasks, but your troops don't have NBC suits. Hey, guess what, I inflict significant casualties on your guys, because they're not properly protected. Why? Because I identified my agent! I say "use chemical weapons" and the mod scratches his head and goes "hrm, okay, Chlorine gas". That's a pulmonary agent. Your gasmasks totally counter it. My weapon is utterly useless and gains me no benefit. Hey, wow, guess what, that level of detail is critical to the plan. A few battles and that's me winning or losing the war, because I identified my weapon, and took all of twenty characters more.

It is not superfluous by any definition of the word. LSD and Etheogen! Totally different. Maybe I want to poison your leader with Ricin instead of arsenic. Hey, guess what, one is 100% fatal, the other really isn't. If I leave it in the mods hands, maybe he'll pick something crappy and I'll fail, instead of if I take the time to say something like "Modify a cane to contain an airgun. Test to make sure penetration is difficult to notice by poison. Engineer a small pellet containing ricin poison. Shoot target to ensure kill" I will be almost guaranteed of killing him if I can catch him in the open.

See, in the big, huge scope of a war, stuff like this matters far less. But when you break it down for individual results, it stacks up, hugely. These effects are not just random crap thrown in to aggrevate mods, they are plan-making or plan-breaking details. They don't take pages and pages and they aren't just exceptionally detailed.

1, in conventional nomenclature, always means 3.

Maybe to you. Oh, wait, except most nuclear warheads for the vast bulk of the time you'll have nuclear warheads are under the size of 500kt! It's not the difference between nuking Hiroshima and turning it into Hiroshima Bay at all. I'll say it again: these sorts of details are not trivial at all once they start to add up.

 

[North King]

I already bloody made my point, and you're just deliberately ignoring it now.

Debate where one side doesn't listen=Not a debate.


EDIT: And if your plan is devastated by that minor of a detail, then you must be a pretty bad plan-maker.

 

[Symphony D.]

Well, you're doing the exact same thing.

History revolves around minor details. World War I started because some idiot driver stopped his car in the middle of a road instead of continuing to drive. Kennedy was killed because he didn't have a car with a damn roof on it. Challenger blew up because of a bad rubber gasket. Columbia vaporized because of a chunk of foam.

Small things make all the difference. Your arguments utterly gloss over this fact which I've repeated again and again, so if you're ignoring my arguments, why should I pay attention to your response? Point remains, if you can't be bothered to insert a few words identifying some specific of your plan, which is not at all out of line, then you deserve the potential of catastrophic failure and if the mod says "Well, you were really vague," tough luck. These examples aren't just way out there esoteric either, which you keep trying to make them out to be.

Picking between VX, Sarin, or Chlorine isn't a matter of "a plan not surviving contact with the enemy," it's a matter of not doing any damn research. If the mod can't be bothered to look at Wikipedia for all of two minutes to figure out which does what, they shouldn't be modding. And if they player can't either, they shouldn't be bothering to do such things at all. It's that simple, in my book. Know what you're doing, and demonstrate that, or don't do it.

 

[Kentharu]

those small things are called random events

 

[North King]

Well, you're doing the exact same thing.

History revolves around minor details. World War I started because some idiot driver stopped his car in the middle of a road instead of continuing to drive. Kennedy was killed because he didn't have a car with a damn roof on it. Challenger blew up because of a bad rubber gasket. Columbia vaporized because of a chunk of foam.

All of which wouldn't even deserve mention in a plan, given that they were accidents.

Small things make all the difference. Your arguments utterly gloss over this fact which I've repeated again and again, so if you're ignoring my arguments, why should I pay attention to your response? Point remains, if you can't be bothered to insert a few words identifying some specific of your plan, which is not at all out of line, then you deserve the potential of catastrophic failure and if the mod says "Well, you were really vague," tough luck. These examples aren't just way out there esoteric either, which you keep trying to make them out to be.

Picking between VX, Sarin, or Chlorine isn't a matter of "a plan not surviving contact with the enemy," it's a matter of not doing any damn research. If the mod can't be bothered to look at Wikipedia for all of two minutes to figure out which does what, they shouldn't be modding. And if they player can't either, they shouldn't be bothering to do such things at all. It's that simple, in my book. Know what you're doing, and demonstrate that, or don't do it.

If the mod does that sort of thing, then they certainly shouldn't be modding.

AS I HAVE REPEATED OVER AND OVER, a strategic planner should NOT be required to order down to the very nuts and bolts on the bloody tanks. If he is, then his subordinates are just bloody terrible.

And if I, as a mod, encounter orders which tell me exactly every single little detail of the plan, then I'm just going to skim them anyway; it's completely pointless for a story, or even a game if you want to intereperet this as such, to force every single player to be an expert in every damn field. I have no doubt that there is one field or another in which I could outperform most people in the NES forum; I might well be rewarded for that, but to make every success hinge upon that is plain stupid.

 

[Warman17]

Well, you're doing the exact same thing.

History revolves around minor details. World War I started because some idiot driver stopped his car in the middle of a road instead of continuing to drive. Kennedy was killed because he didn't have a car with a damn roof on it. Challenger blew up because of a bad rubber gasket. Columbia vaporized because of a chunk of foam.

Small things make all the difference. Your arguments utterly gloss over this fact which I've repeated again and again, so if you're ignoring my arguments, why should I pay attention to your response? Point remains, if you can't be bothered to insert a few words identifying some specific of your plan, which is not at all out of line, then you deserve the potential of catastrophic failure and if the mod says "Well, you were really vague," tough luck. These examples aren't just way out there esoteric either, which you keep trying to make them out to be.

Picking between VX, Sarin, or Chlorine isn't a matter of "a plan not surviving contact with the enemy," it's a matter of not doing any damn research. If the mod can't be bothered to look at Wikipedia for all of two minutes to figure out which does what, they shouldn't be modding. And if they player can't either, they shouldn't be bothering to do such things at all. It's that simple, in my book. Know what you're doing, and demonstrate that, or don't do it.

Theres this thing called a moderator. He can forgo all of your neat little orders and do whatever the heck he wants.

 

[Symphony D.]

All of which wouldn't even deserve mention in a plan, given that they were accidents.

You have gasmasks but wear t-shirts. I use VX. I R WINNAR. I use Chlorine gas. I R PHAEL. I might not lose the war, but I might take significantly higher casualties. I DON'T USE HELMETS. Hey, wow, look, now I take maybe double the casualties I would otherwise from artillery shrapnel. They're not freaking minor details. See below.

AS I HAVE REPEATED OVER AND OVER, a strategic planner should NOT be required to order down to the very nuts and bolts on the bloody tanks. If he is, then his subordinates are just bloody terrible.

So, since when is the allocation of equipment not a strategic consideration? Is that why the Pentagon has all these weapons research programs and has to run budgets for systems through Congress? Why they sit down and plan out what they're going to deploy and when? Is that why the British Navy had these huge cannonwork foundaries to ensure quality of all the weapons they made and used?

See, a tactical decision would be you saying in your orders "Squads will be composed of a four man fireteam, centered around a heavy gunner, two riflemen, and a weapons specialist. They will always advance under cover in pairs of twos in flanking movements and [...]"

A strategic decision would be "We're going to field this model of jet and we're going to use these types of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Our overall objectives are these; use the aforementioned assets to achieve them."

There is a very large difference between these. Fielding the F-22 to swat down enemy fighters and telling Sergeant Holloman to only use the SPAS-12 shotgun because it's just hella cool are two entirely seperate things which you are confusing very badly. It's not a nuts and bolts decision, it is, for these particular examples, a weapons selection affecting the entire theater, the kind made by strategic planning agencies. Did you know Strategic Air Command ordered the construction templates for the B-52? They needed something to drop nukes on the USSR, part of their entire retaliatory strategy. If I outlined the basic requirements for the B-52 in my orders as something I need, according to you, it's fluff. But in reality, it underpins the whole damn strategic aspect of my nuclear arms posture. Huge freaking difference. It can even take the same number of words to describe:

"Use Chemical Weapons in combat."
"Use Sarin Gas in combat"

Oh holy crap, it's actually shorter in that instance! These are not tactical issues. They are strategic ones, ones that in real life, yes, actually are worked out by strategic planners, budgeted for, and so forth. If I started talking about what kind of face paint I want my soldiers to use to camoflauge themselves, that's tactical, and excessive. Identifying a theater-wide weapons system is not in any conceivable fashion excessive. Maybe back in the stone age when you've got sharp stick or stick with sharp rock, but certainly not anytime from about 1800 on.

 

[TerrisH]

you both need to calm down and back for a bit. from what I can tell, you are both agreeign, and eather one or both of ou refuse to reconize.

From what I can read of your posts:
N.K. Is saying sensless amounts of detail should not be put into the orders, but Some detail is requiered and acceptible. but to much can be a problem for the mod, and can get ignored.

S.D. your saying the Details can make a diffrence in a conflict and outcome in orders, while ignoring that NK Agrees with this. your also quibling over minor details in his post.

can we get this thread back?

 

[Kal'thzar]

nah they both disagree about what a sensible amount of detail is

oh and the NPC's being stupid?
Currently I'm debating with myself because Rhodos and the Samnite League just got oppurtunistic in my NES, wondering how Das and Andis will take it

well that and the stats but thats lazyness.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

if I were a moderator, nothing would annoy me more than having to write half a person's orders for them to produce something useful.

This, Sym, is where we are different. I love writing from simple orders, it gives me freedom. I don't see it as poor government, I see it as a government that trusts its people to do the right thing.

I'm often forced to ignore parts of people's elaborately designed schemes anyway, because the situations have so drastically changed.

 

[Insane_Panda]

And that is why we need long, clear, and detailed orders. We don't make elaborate schemes, we design schemes that SHOULD WORK, regardless of the situation, we plan carefully for war so that we succeed as soon as possible. Long orders, by our track record, have clearly worked.

Furthermore, I don't much care about your freedom - if you want to be creative and touchy-feely than go to the stories forum . NESing is a game, and we do our best to suceed in said game, and to do the best for our nations. If I wanted to read, I would buy a book, and the reading would probably be much better. But if I want to play a game, I NES. Don't give me any crap about "Never-Ending-Stories". Those days are gone. NESes are not neverending, nor are they mainly stories.

I don't see it as poor government, I see it as a government that trusts its people to do the right thing.

I see it as lack of willing to put the hardwork in which is neccessary. Do you think I forged the HRE out of paragraph long orders? No. It's not a question of government, its a question of how much the NESer puts into the game. Short orders are rather novice. (Anything less than a full PM to me seems quite minimal.)

 

[Lord_Iggy]

@IP- Yes, it depends on the mod. In a dasNES, you NEED fairly long orders to be successful.

 

[North King]

Furthermore, I don't much care about your freedom - if you want to be creative and touchy-feely than go to the stories forum . NESing is a game, and we do our best to suceed in said game, and to do the best for our nations. If I wanted to read, I would buy a book, and the reading would probably be much better. But if I want to play a game, I NES. Don't give me any crap about "Never-Ending-Stories". Those days are gone. NESes are not neverending, nor are they mainly stories.

Is that how everyone feels? Well, then, I might just well quit. Gaming never really held the same appeal for me.