Thing is, if you guys want to move away from clauses, it would resort to walling as both of the parties would twist their strats to fit their argument as needed. I really hate the "it's Riboku, he'll come up with something" shit. Fucking disgusting.
If there's any conflict fill me in and I'll smash down the Crispy Judgement.
I think for now, I'd be more interested in being one of the judges, and engaging in the discussions, rather than being one of the full time players themselves. Of course, that may change in the future, but right now, I feel like I'd be better suited as a judge.
With regards to the strats, I'm thinking your suggestion of "paragraphs telling where the armies are going to go and what are their objectives without including too much detail and getting very precise on the moves of each characters like we tend to do" would be the best option, since reading walls of strats can be pretty intimidating, and make things a lot more tedious than they need to be.
For Indications I would like it to be limited to one clause per unit/army that is 1-2 sentences. Everything else will be assumed by the general's competence.
or the option of one paragraph of about 5 sentences for indications total.
I would like to add that the assumed part is to be considered secondary unless otherwise stated in your clauses. If strategic/cautious/observant general A has a clause to head for a certain spot, he is expected to execute that regardless of whether or not he is attacked along the way. He will only act in character once he has accomplished his goal. However, if you put a clause saying he can/will receive enemy attacks along the way, then he can deviate from his original course.
- - - Updated - - -
Also if your clause is vague enough for character action, that's kinda fine but a vague clause will be looked down upon by me at least if you try to twist it to your convenience. I would advise people not to be too vague.
@Void; So you can say for your clause x will head here to build a fort but will be ready to receive enemies if necessary or something like that. Anything else need to be ironed out?
I would like it to be 1 clause tops so its not overly convoluted maybe two at most.
I'm fine with cutting clauses to just 2 per officer but keep in mind that if we make it one clause per officer, arguments will just be us walling with "my officer can do this because of his style, oh yeah, my officer can do this with his style". Point is, we want people to be as specific as possible within reason so they don't resort to convenient arguments that pop up as the debate goes along. Maybe we could replace the lost third clause with a mindset clause, like bloodlusted/cautious/hasty/etc.
- - - Updated - - -
For example, bloodlusted Moubu would say fuck it to strategy (even current Moubu) and go berserk but a calmer or cautious Moubu would listen to his strategist or think for himself.
Dat Gekishin clause though
It really depends on your team though, I had a massive team last game and I was putting in the effort to give my officers all 3 clauses. Not like people read strats that aren't super long, they always find a way to twist things.
If each clause is no longer than 1 sentence like it should be thenthe strats won't end up being that long. Maybe we could say something like 3 clauses for GGs, 2 for generals and 1 for officers (Shin, Mouten and the likes) ?
Then we'd have people interpreting what is a GG and what is a general.
How about 3 clauses for one commander only. 2 clauses for generals and 1 clause for anything lower.