Shireroth

Look, I understand what you want now, I think some of the others do, if not all. All you need to do is write up a rough set of guidelines for an entire "story" recwar rather than a more "wargame" one, so we can all abide by them. And possibly put something about wars going through you before happening? Not officially, just privately, working out who wins etc ...

Then this is less like recwar and more like a collaborative story in the vein of Burning Sands of Tashbaan or Shah Abbas' Coup.

I'm fine with that.

No.. this is more like a Civil* Rec-War in the Shireroth tradition and less like a simulation war game like most "rec-wars" have become...

I think I already stated the guidelines more or less...

*'Civil' in that people get along and behave...

So a category four melée then...

Scott of Hyperborea wrote:What I really do hate is when people take this the wrong way, and think that recwarring is all about the tech, all about the weapons, all about stats. That's turning a literary exercise, a collective fun timing writing about a whole slew of things, and killing whatever joy is left in it. Perhaps the people who do that are trying to compensate for a lack of writing ability. 'If I can't write about the struggle from a personal point of view, I'll just waste away pages of technical details that will make people cry.' or something like that.

Well, is it impossible to have both? I for one think it necessary to solving conflicts and disputes about "can this do that" or "would this be able to reach that" and what have you. Now, admittedly, my technical details don't make people cry. They are just brief details that can help clear up problems (which no other micronation other than Gralus seems to realize, and instead they just say "Hey, this can do whatever I want it to because I didn't list specifics about its capabilities"). And I try to include a good portion of writing in my attacks. I'm not a literary genius like some micronationalists, and can't write a five-paragraph story on a single order to bomb a coastline (I can barely write a five-paragraph essay for school without wanting to tear my eyes out...), but I don't make it bland.

So... happy medium?

I like the idea of concentrating on your strengths. If you can't write large action scenes, sketch them out in a few sentences. If you want to introduce some new idea or weapon, do so, but just try to make it fit with the style/story/battle plans. We're all new at this at some time.

Prodigy Almighty wrote:I'm not a literary genius like some micronationalists, and can't write a five-paragraph story on a single order to bomb a coastline (I can barely write a five-paragraph essay for school without wanting to tear my eyes out...), but I don't make it bland.

Really? Five paragraphs isn't that much to come up with, when it's a narrative... Throw in a bit of deliberation about the loss of lives in a bombing, then the order itself (with the commander walking in to the command room dramatically and all that), and finally a description from the other side's POV, or however you want to...

I agree that writing a five-paragraph for school is usually difficult, but this is different....

HEY! WAIT JUST ONE SECOND!

I was just complimenting you and Tsunade for doing the best literary work in your duel in the Tournament!!! You're not half bad at writing up your moves by anyone's standards! Stop with the false modesty!!!

...

Oh, whatever... I try.

The Khan of Vijayanagara wrote:a collaborative story

It's called "freeform roleplaying"!

Well, it's always good to have technical specifications available for reference in the case of an accusation of godmodding.

Chim, you're thinking normal recwars. In which case you do need that for godmodding. Our Kaiser is thinking much more story (Gralans - read 'War-style Expedition') where you do things for the drama and excitement, and get away with a little more than you would in reality if you're on the side meant to be winning ...

Neike Taika-Tessaro wrote:

The Khan of Vijayanagara wrote:a collaborative story

It's called "freeform roleplaying"!

I like the Babkhan term better.

We just called them "civil Rec-wars" to have a play on words... since we were fighting each other and being "civil" about it...

Well, if there wasn't the problem of godmodding, or people using other people's units in their own writings without the conceptual owner of that unit explaining what their unit is about, then yeah.

Kaiser Mors V wrote:We just called them "civil Rec-wars" to have a play on words... since we were fighting each other and being "civil" about it...

Hah! Point. Though I bet your characters aren't civil about it....

Technical specifications, indeed.
But just how technical? I mean, in many RecWars there is a vast discrepancy between how technical people get in description of their OOB's weaponry. Sometimes, so technical to the extent that everyone just ignores all their fancy techie-talk and gets on with it.
Which is, actually, what happens all the time come to think of it
Maybe next time we should agree some predefined rules as to what specs to put for each units or aeroplanes or whatever. Not right down to the pistol calibre on each individual soldier in their armies like some people do!

No, that would be excessive. It could be as simple as saying that normal soldiers are armed with a pistol, a rifle, a sabre, and a bandolier of grenades. Verbatim.

I simply prefer saying what kind of rifle (usually a CheLat MPR-07) or what kind of pistol (M1911, typically silenced) my soldiers have because there are many weapons superior to others.

I prefer to ignore the "technical details" and just stick with.. rifles... pistol... sword... etc.. though maybe be somewhat specific on the type of sword. Short, long, calvry, etc.

I'm with you, mate, but a lot of people like details, so who are we to stop them?

Oh wait, you're the Kaiser. Go for your life ...