Aelu / Rel (Combustionary) 1535 Share Posted June 3, 2014 The war of late, in my opinion, has reached the current level for a single reason - It's being forced to stay drawn out. The idea of consensual conquest is rather controversial, but I've started to believe it to be something we need. The war we're in now? Every day, armies from either side march in, and raid the capitals of the opposition. Some days, the capitals may as well have been taken. Yet nothing happens. The war is nothing but a series of raids, and there needs to be some progression. A way to actually win. I've seen arguing from both sides about who has the upper hand, but what does that mean when the game never ends? For there to be a contest, there needs to be a way to win. In short? This war's not going to end until one side has lost, or one side has a legitimate reason to make peace. To the topic of forced-conquest, many of the arguments against it come to the point of the 'loss of rp'. Things like the destruction of a town forcing the residents to leave. And this is a valid point. In a world where death means nothing, war means nothing. An army can go into a battle, lose 4/5ths of it's troops but win, and walk into the next fight with it's numbers fully recovered. They can take a town, raze it, and leave to the next. The smaller group won't ever have a chance to return to their homes. Which brings me to my idea, a compromise of sorts. Degrading Control The problem with forced conquest is not conquest itself - It's what happens after. Many times in the past, a fairly active town has been taken, destroyed, and replaced with a half-built ruin that never sees more activity than an explorer randomly coming across it. With Telanir's 'activity check' system for 4.0, where players bind their soulstones to a region, we can create a way to make sure that taken lands are actually used. A nation can take lands, but simply lose them if they don't use the land. My proposal is this - If a nation takes land outside of their original borders. they must maintain slightly higher activity requirements. If they fail to do this, the region will, after a length of time, return to the nation which originally owned it. Say Region A is on, as an example, Urguan's borders. The region requires 10 players to stay on its soulstone roster in order to maintain build protection. Oren then takes this land in conquest. In order to keep the land, Oren would need to have a number of active players bound to the taken land, or it will return to the hands of Urguan. Since it's at the border, a multiplier like x1.1 can be added, bringing the number to 11. For lands closer to the capital, the number can be modified. My idea is based on the regions between the target and the invading border - If it's the third region from the border, it's a x1.3 multiplier. With an activity minimum, (Maybe 5 hours spent online per week?), people will have to actually rp in the area. This would require that any 'lost rp' be made up - And more. A town of ten that is destroyed will have to be replaced with a town of thirteen, otherwise, after a short period of time the original owners can simply return. The only exclusion I'd have in mind would be capitals, which I don't believe should be eligible for forced conquest. Thought of this on the spur of a moment, so I'm unsure if something similar's been discussed before. If I left anything unclear, feel free to ask. Thoughts? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minst 7 Share Posted June 3, 2014 There are no regions in the Fridge. So this can't really work. Sorry. Edit: Can't really work as is. Can be reworked. Do kinda like the idea of having the war actually move in a direction, for once. Raiding the same places is getting boring. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aelu / Rel (Combustionary) 1535 Author Share Posted June 3, 2014 There are no regions in the Fridge. So this can't really work. Sorry. It's more an idea for 4.0, but it could be done in a more manual fashion for the fringe, based on the towns and holds in each area. The goal would be to make things smoother in later wars. To prevent a repeat of this mess. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeymo14 53 Share Posted June 3, 2014 That's pretty gucchi, I guess. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minst 7 Share Posted June 3, 2014 An idea for 4.0? By all means then, please do. The point the war has gotten to is just.. meh. We're working on a way to progress it in the fridge, though. Hopefully. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Boiendl 1453 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Why not just let the human and dwarf leaders decide how the war will go. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aelu / Rel (Combustionary) 1535 Author Share Posted June 3, 2014 Why not just let the human and dwarf leaders decide how the war will go. Let them. I simply feel that we need a better 'baseline' system for wars, because the one at the moment is utterly horrid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kardel 1047 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Use lago's war system instead, like we were planning to for the vaerhaven rebellion. It was a great system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.948830a75769676ae0e2bb42ef640979.jpg)
Recommended Posts