War Rework Voting

[Narthok 10416]

Options for War Reworks

Comprehensive rework covering new options for CBs, Warzones, Warclaims proper and Declaration formats

Spoiler

 

 

---

Contents

1.Preface

2.CB options crafted according to suggestions and polling data

3.Suggestions for Warclaim and Warzone integration

4.New War declaration format

---

Preface

THE INFORMATION INCLUDED HEREIN IS A BRIEF SUMMARY OUTLINING OPTIONS BEING GIVEN TO PLAYERS. THAT THEY MAY VOTE ON THE CHOICES THEY LIKE BEST AND TAILOR THE WAR SYSTEM TO THEIR OWN IDEALS. OPTIONS ARE BASED UPON YOUR VIEW POLLS.

---

CB Options

 

A.Keep CBs as they Are, CBs remain as they are now heavily regulated

 

B.Complete Deregulation, Power to the Players

Under this format CBs will be entirely determined by RP factors and RP leaders with no restrictions whatsoever imposed by staff.

 

C.Stellaris System, Modest regulation, restrictions upon baseless warfare. It goes without saying that sufficient rp must be provided for any of these CBs. One cannot simply Conquest someone if they lack an rp claim. CBs that are to be included are below for players to discuss and critique.

 

Conquest. The Aggressing party goes to war with the intention of conquering the victim’s holds. This claim can be pressed against a single keep or against an entire realm depending on the breadth of the involved rp.

 

Subjugate. Aggressing party goes to war with the intention of subjugating the victimized party. Intending to force them into vassal or tributary status.

 

Humiliate. Aggressing party goes to war with the intention of humiliating the victimized party before other actors and their own people. Generally this would cover things such as revenge and long term grudges.

 

Impose Ideology. Aggressing party goes to war with the intention of opposing their ideology upon the victimized party. Generally this would cover faith but can also cover economic or political ideologies.

 

Independence. Aggressing party goes to war with the intention of securing independence and self determination from its overlord.

 

Plunder. Aggressing party goes to war with the intention of securing loot, wealth and slaves or to economically weaken an enemies settlement.

 

---

Warclaim System Options

 

A. Old System. System remains as it is, nothing changes at all. Field Battle > Siege > Field Battle etc. Sieges take place entirely in the warclaim.

 

B. Integrated Warzones. System integrates warzones and warclaims. In this system warzones serve as a preface to field battles and sieges. Before field battles a warzone will be setup on the battlefield between the two conflicting parties. The victorious party (determined by having the majority share of capture point time) will be allowed to choose their deployment first, taking the choices ground for themselves. They also have the option for multiple deployments to simulate flanks and such. The choice of deployments being to reflect the victorious party having rply proven themselves the superior tactical force in the ‘skirmish’ phase, ie the warzone. In the event of a super majority of possession (70%+) possession the victorious party will be allowed to choose both their deployment and that of the enemy. Having outmaneuvered them so distinctly that the opponent is forced into disadvantageous ground. Deployment being in reference to the existing ‘warclaim’ deployment.

 

Siege warclaims would become ‘Assaults’. With the actual sieging phase ie: the use of artillery to weaken the defences of the besieged, would instead become a warzone equipped with siege weapons. Attackers would operate and defend the siege weapons while defenders would be able to sally out and disable the siege weapons. The warclaim ‘assault’ would then take place with no further sieging, with the attackers attacking the fortification in its most recent state of damage. Warzones would take place during a window of say 2pm GMT to 2am EST (7am GMT) from where activity begins to pick up to where it begins to fall off.

 

C. Anarchy. Entirely new system wherein the lands of both factions would be fully available. Each holding would have a flag within that must be changed in order for the settlement or keep to be ‘captured’. Anarchy warclaims would open up the territory of both conflicting factions to full pvp for the duration of the warclaim. Likely a two or three hour period. Commanders will need to allocate garrisons and manpower to different areas and prioritize various objectives. This would reduce lag as there would be fewer players in chunks and would also allow for a more enjoyable pvp experience. As you’d be able to have a meaningful objective oriented fight rather than just watching a stat check slideshow. At the end of the ‘warring’ period new warzones would set up. The side that had taken more enemy replacements would be given the initiative to declare what enemy keeps or settlements would receive a siege warzone and begin to be shelled.

 

---

New War Declaration Format

 

Preface

Probably some of the most radical change I’ve proposed for wars that are less utopian and more ‘quality of life’. Warclaim declarations have rather become declarations of war themselves. Where aggressors will submit the CBs they are using to justify (whether legitimately or illegitimately) going to war (The legitimacy of the CBs being determined irp.). The submissions of course being coupled with appropriate demonstrations of the RP behind said cbs.

 

Beyond this the most jarring additions are probably the insertion of the War Goals, Warpaths and giving the choice of battlefield to the defender. Firstly, I believe the addition of War Goals will be vital to ensuring that smaller wars however it will also stop wars from dragging on for too long. Aggressors will now be expected to go into a war with a well defined goal of war. Beyond this, I feel that the addition of Warpaths will serve as an integral mechanic due to its close ties with the skirmish system. Launching wars over unfavourable terrain will result in you being forced to fight uphill battles in the pitched field battle and in the warzone. Furthermore, it has always seemed alien to me that the aggressor determined the place of the field battle. Generally the attacking party is marching on a specific settlement and is intercepted by the defending party as to spare their immediate lands the ravages of invasion. Thus I think it is fit to allow the defending party the initiative in choosing the battlefield. Although should the Integrated system be accepted then the victorious party would be allowed to determine DEPLOYMENTS on the battlefield.

 

Format

 

Role-play:  

CBs: (Provide a list of CBs you believe to have with proof to back them up. These will be reviewed by moderators for approval.)

Side A: (The faction declaring war)

Side B: (The faction having war declared upon it)

 

Official Allies: (Side A will declare their allies and link the appropriate treaties or whatever substitute is necessary)

 

Proposed Date & Time: (Example: September 17, 1787 @ 3 P.M. EST.)

 

War Goal(s): State the intentions and goals of your campaign, ie what criteria need to be satisfied for the war to be over.

 

Warpath(s): State the route you will be using to reach your goal. Multiple theatres and fronts may be opened but will all take simultaneously if you do choose to rply divide your forces. Please accompany this with a picture of the map with the route drawn on it.

 

Skirmish Warzone location(s): The defending party will provide a screenshot of a location along the route where they will choose to fight should they decide to fight in the field. Keep in mind that offensive initiative can only be gained by winning a field battle or the enemy not presenting themselves.

 

Discord: (Your current Discord username, example: Test#1234.)

---

Final Notes and Reflections

The intent behind this rework is to invest as much agency as possible in the players and take a fire axe to tedious staff bureaucracy while streamlining war and making it more interesting for players involved. Ie: ensuring that wars produce more meaningful and goal oriented content for those involved. Hence the proposal to make warzones actually impactful. Having predetermined CBs entirely nukes player independence and excessively limits rp. Allowing GMs to rule on whether or not a CB is valid will just open up an already bias prone system to even more bias and partisanship. Wars should have as little GM influence as possible as any GM that claims they do not have innate biases is lying. I really do ardently believe that the success in LOTC lies in its nature as a dynamic medieval sandbox populated by characters piloted by other real people. Therefore removing as much red tape as we can will naturally progress to a more enjoyable experience for players.

 

 

[Monkee 7369]

Disappointingly little here about making wars less decisive. If a group wants to state “total conquest” as their war goal, there’s nothing stopping them. Also fabricating CB’s is, and always will be, massively dumb.

[Narthok 10416]

1 minute ago, Aeldrin said:

Disappointingly little here about making wars less decisive. If a group wants to state “total conquest” as their war goal, there’s nothing stopping them. Also fabricating CB’s is, and always will be, massively dumb.

Only way we make strong factions not beat weak factions is with excessive ooc barriers. Restrictions would be implaced upon the stellaris system I just want players to vote on what they want before I go through the effort of actually writing up a full system. First poll was used to guage player interest and desire this is narrowing things down. 

[FlemishSupremacy 6115]

As buff said, perhaps some wars should end in pillage claims, like it used to be, where an opposing faction could only pillage a nation’s capital, and that would end the war.

[Narthok 10416]

I’m going to bed. I leave you all with the only good song mankind has ever produced. 

 

Just now, TheElvenMage said:

As buff said, perhaps some wars should end in pillage claims, like it used to be, where an opposing faction could only pillage a nation’s capital, and that would end the war.

if you don’t get a conquest cb you don’t get to take their pixel land. Every other CB is some variant of pillage or vassalize or anti vassalize. 

[Xarkly 17299]

If you’re going to deregulate CBs then you need to first heavily rework the rewards/consequences of winning/losing a war i.e. your entire nation can’t be put at risk from a single war.

 

Until you do that, these proposed changes are terrible.

[Narthok 10416]

Just now, Xarkly said:

If you’re going to deregulate CBs then you need to first heavily rework the rewards/consequences of winning/losing a war i.e. your entire nation can’t be put at risk from a single war.

 

Until you do that, these proposed changes are terrible.

as stated directly above your post. you don’t get to take land if you don’t get Conquest. Buff has also suggested tiered CBs which I will be implementing if the stellaris system comes out ahead. 

[Treaty 1353]

Glad to know the GM team is willing to just let someone world conquest and destroy the rp of everyone else. 

[Gizzol 252]

Here's the issue I have with b and C for number 1. Who determines what us sufficent rp? In the last map I very literally had a war claim approved against me by someone who hadn't played the persona war claiming me in over 80 days and yhe overseeing gm was approving their claims. If you want less gm over sight like the end of your poll says then I personally would like to see a sit down oocly between all the major playerbases to iron out what is still going to be handled by gms. You cannot truly say you know your job and your playerbase if you believe b or c would work without extensive gm oversight as everyone knows someone in the playerbase is going to abuse.

 

That said it also understand this is just an initial post and obviously a more detailed one will come out later. I just have  intrepidation that these new non fleshed out options could win and then we might be stuck with a worse option unbeknownst to us as the playerbase.

[Chimp 528]

[Helios_ 288]

2 hours ago, Treaty said:

Glad to know the GM team is willing to just let someone world conquest and destroy the rp of everyone else. 

You act as if its a really easy task to conquer the whole map. Nobody has conquered and destroyed the rp of everyone else on the server on the past 3 years ive been on it because there are alliance pacts that are put in place in rp to prevent it. 

[Sky 0]

57 minutes ago, Helios_ said:

You act as if its a really easy task to conquer the whole map. Nobody has conquered and destroyed the rp of everyone else on the server on the past 3 years ive been on it because there are alliance pacts that are put in place in rp to prevent it. 

 

And even when the big nations were conquered by a single nation, the role-play wasn’t killed off. 

[Burnsy 437]

Anarchy war claims actually sound fun as hell. In conjunctions with Stellaris style CB’s this should make for a more interesting war system overall.

[Narthok 10416]

5 hours ago, Treaty said:

Glad to know the GM team is willing to just let someone world conquest and destroy the rp of everyone else. 

Again OOC barriers shouldn’t block rp and protect beligerent factions. RP should protect beligerent factions. Deal with rp problems in rp rather than running to big brother GM team. Fully detailed system will have restrictions and will have as little GM involvement as possible as GMs are prone to incompetence and bias. 

[Hiebe 2493]

Warring to war is dumb and shouldn't be allowed.

 

You keep stating "there is be teirs and such and such added later" add them now so we can actually see them. this is a half made bill being pushed through Congress like a typical liberal