Your View: War Claims And War Rules

[hellfiazz 879]

1. casus belli system, which consists of the following legitimate causes

close-proximity seizing of more than one plot, close-proximity being the plots directly next to the owned plots

raiding more than one time, or raiding at all after a warclaim is denied

consistent insults from a nation. Many insults from the people count if the nation does nothing to stop it

people of leadership being party to, condoning or allowing their subordinates to murder figures of authority from another faction

Or

2. Warclaim team, consisting of 2 members each from main 4 and 1 member each from smaller states (Alras, Hanseti, etc)

[Samson Option 9652]

1. casus belli system, which consists of the following legitimate causes

close-proximity seizing of more than one plot, close-proximity being the plots directly next to the owned plots

raiding more than one time, or raiding at all after a warclaim is denied

consistent insults from a nation. Many insults from the people count if the nation does nothing to stop it

people of leadership being party to, condoning or allowing their subordinates to murder figures of authority from another faction

2. Warclaim team, consisting of 2 members each from main 4 and 1 member each from smaller states (Alras, Hanseti, etc)

 

If we are going to have a war-claim team, sadly you won't be able to rely on this idea of having some sort of ruddy U.N. system. You'll need well-educated people OOCly and well-separated people OOCly for this.

[Merkaken 516]

Find some way to prove that the attacker is attacking for legitimate IC reasons, and not this "They're inactive so imma take their lands cuz I want it" crap.

 

Also, please never remove the ability to deny a warclaim :3

[Samson Option 9652]

If this is serious, I am honored. If its sarcasm. y u do dis.

 

Nah, you sound like you paid attention in your History/Social Studies class. I am being serious, thank you for making one of the plainest jane of good statements.

[FORƎST 1312]

I didn't always get along with mog but he had a pretty decent warclaims system back in the day

[DrakeHaze. 2524]

For those who are a bit iffy at my suggestion for the rules, a provoked Warclaim isn't just about the Nation raiding so much that they catch the attention of military leaders. Nor would insults of minor or greater give one the ability to Warclaim.

"So DrakeHaze, what would provoke an undeniable Warclaim then? This just seems to cater to the pvp hungry Oreners! Surely you jest!"

Actually, this caters to all groups and promotes realism and active roleplay. If you can't defend yourself but you are actively going out and trying to make a name for yourself as some bandit group or representing a nation and killing citizens of another nation, then you should be able to handle the consequences of your actions or shouldn't be doing it at all. So, back to the matter at hand.. What constitutes a provoked undeniable Warclaim? (PERSONAL OPINION! LOOKOUT FOLKS!)

• Consistant raids against a nation, it's territories and holdings led by another nation OR by players which are apart of a nation making alts to raid constantly to avoid such Warclaims. Everyone knows everyone, and most alts.
• Constant insulting of 'Nobility' within the nations by other nations to provoke some form of agression outside the back-and-forth insult. (Example: "Yo m8, my army is betterer than yurz. Cum at me m8.")
• Using 3rd party groups or other nations to attack or insult the opposing nation that can be traced back to the provoking nation can be Warclaimed as they are actively trying to find loopholes through rules and have others take the fall.
• Building on a territory not owned by you and actively defending it against the real owner of the territory can result in a Warclaim upon the building within the territory and on the nation that is trying to steal territory.
• Terrorism against another nation will result in an undeniable Warclaim at the discretion of the Nation being terrorized.

[WuHanXianShi14 0]

Find some way to prove that the attacker is attacking for legitimate IC reasons, and not this "They're inactive so imma take their lands cuz I want it" crap.

 

Also, please never remove the ability to deny a warclaim :3

 

If there is a claimed plot that is entirely inactive and an active group wishing to make better use of it then that's a good reason to attack yes?

[Lark 2227]

Nah, you sound like you paid attention in your History/Social Studies class. I am being serious, thank you for making one of the plainest jane of good statements.

 

History Master Subject. 

[Eddywilson2 2117]

The problem with the current rules is as shown on my recent warclaim, people are denying it just cause they can. Using OOC to influence RP is metagaming which is against another rule. I think the rules need to be modified to Drake's in order to make it clear between the two. If someone antagonizes you, you are going to get attacked as I said many times.

[ZeeMan_/Pillzberry 36]

Please don't make it consentual. My reasoning for this is exactly the same as eddywilson's so I am not going to say what he said.

[Stevie 1598]

 

The establishment of a Warclaim team should be made, where level headed parties (1 or 2 people from each race/nation) come together to discuss the possibilities of war, and whether or not those wishing to go to war have a valid claim.

The casus belli system would be used as a base for the Warclaim team to make decisions.

(Casus Belli is reasons for going to war other than "for the lolz")

 

 

+1

[Eleatic 1033]

I like the current rules, personally. People have their own reasons for attacking others, ICly and otherwise, but roleplay is cooperative. Unless the person involved is going out and directly bordering someones land, making faces, they should have the right to be allowed to remain and peacefully RP. Any change to that just devalues cooperation by a mile. As I said in regards to villainy on another post: If you're shoving somebodies head into the dirt, you're the only one having fun. Someone replied: "But when someone denies MY Warclaim, it makes ME not have fun!" The firm difference is, is that you opened yourself up to that possibility when you made that warclaim. In one instance there is force, in another, voluntary action. Now, don't get me wrong: Do I want people to deny warclaims just cuz? Hell no. That's stupid, that's metagaming, and that's inane.  But that doesn't negate the fact they should have the right to come up with plausible explanation, or sort things out through DIPLOMACY. Which seems to not be used in LOTC a whole bunch.

 

I think, like some people previously said, a Warclaim team should be made which would act like a mediator for people who game the system.

 

In Brief, keep it Consensual, but also give options to those on the opposing side so they're not tossed around as well. Just my two cents.

[Kickstarted and Running 965]

1) Require a legitimate reason for the battle

2) Require RP and interaction to have been conducted (meetings, raids, duels confrontations etc)

3) Maybe two or three GMs take a look, one says "Yay" or "Nay" and gives valid, public reasoning, supported by other GMs, that make sense politically, geographically etc (Such as you can't just march an army from Spain to China to take it over, there needs to be something in the middle.)

[Kanrath 190]

Don't allow groups to take a hostile action like attempt to steal someones land/resources/items and then when driven back demand a war claim. The fact is they already lost and as such if anything the other group is the one with a reason to warclaim.

 

Also, Knox, that's seriously not needed.

[calculusdesola 1658]

A cassus belli system makes war both realistic from almost every perspective it touches - ICly, OOCly, historically, and militarily.

 

The current war system is ridiculously flawed.  It makes a point of making war look, sound and play out like a chore, when war can and should be fun for all parties - the problem is that we're not doing it right.  I know that we can do better.  I got some suggestions and I'm gonna put a thread up.