War Rework Voting

[Narthok 10416]

28 minutes ago, Hiebe said:

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

Players are voting for the CB system. In what way is this warring to war? Seems like certain players just want their rp to be oocly protected by staff rather than dealing with rp in rp. Furthermore when we’ve had a less regulated system in the past people haven’t warred purely to war. There has been rp justifications behind it. As we are now with excessive restrictions and an obsession with ‘justified’ war reasons war and conflict is utterly choked and throttled.

[Monkee 7369]

7 hours 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. 

Aren’t you tired of fighting the same singular war over and over again? How many coalition vs empire wars have we had at this point lmao. There’s nothing dynamic about that, it’s just the same **** over and over again w/ virtually nothing changed

 

6 hours ago, Sky said:

 

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

In some cases, sure. In other cases, entire cultures were snuffed out b/c they were disagreed with, and that’s put playerbases to death. I’m not saying there might not be legitimate reasons for a conqueror to try to snuff out a culture, but I think it’s common sense that this destroys roleplay, rather than creates it – especially when the snuffed out culture did nothing to warrant a war against them in the first place.

[Corpean 183]

1 hour ago, Harold said:

 

I don’t think you should be able to change any rules until you have done a satisfactory job in speaking to the playerbase properly, using a FCR (full community review) be it through discord or in-game, or a twitch stream (now that that is available.) This should not just be an Orenian ruleset. You need to use all the methods available to you to speak to everyone, or the war rules you create from forums alone will be entirely useless to the actualities of the server, and make one man very very happy indeed. 

 

 

We’ve spoken to nation leaders countless times, all have said war rules need to be rewritten, we attempted a FCR in the past utilizing discord and it turned into people using racial slurs, expletives, memes, and arguments on who RP’d taking a goat and how they’re breaking the rules somehow.

 

We’re utilizing the forums now to get community feedback, the systems being voted on are NOT final, they are simply to get an idea on what the majority of players would like, in order to focus on that area and see what they would like before we spend 200+ hours writing something that is just for show. Drafts will be posted in the future depending on what the majority of players would like to see, in a fair and balanced manner and in the course of impartiality. 

[Destroyer_Bravo 1054]

why shouldn’t I be able to annihilate my enemies anyway

 

ive never liked the fact that you get forced to spare “inferior factions”

[Treaty 1353]

5 hours ago, Narthok said:

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. 

This whole entire system just shows bias for large groups to take over peaceful smaller ones. 

[Narthok 10416]

15 minutes ago, Treaty said:

This whole entire system just shows bias for large groups to take over peaceful smaller ones. 

What.. did you even the post brother? Most popular system rn is the regulated stellaris system. 

[ARCHITECUS 4788]

12 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. 

I remember when Welves or whatever petty union they titled themselves with went under a Human governor, and ended up much better off for it

[WuHanXianShi14 0]

3 hours ago, Harold said:

 

hey i agree with this guy for once

[Lsuvsfar 255]

18 hours ago, Narthok said:

What.. did you even the post brother? Most popular system rn is the regulated stellaris system. 

I’m not familiar with Stelarris. However, from what I can see based off the Stelarris system, Conquest, Subjugate, and Impose Ideology CBs don’t require much RP to go to war. Obviously I could understand if there was a back and forth between two factions of them raiding one another, but what about less hostile factions.

 

Take Sutica and the Empire. Let’s say the Empire starting raiding Sutica, and Sutica, being Sutica, doesn’t raid back, just shuts their gates and kills imperials if they raid. Is the Empire repeatedly raiding Sutica enough to give the Empire a conquest CB? Could the Empire demand Sutica vassalize, and get subjugation CB Sutica refused? Could the Church simply demand Sutica purge itself of all non-canonists, and declare a war of imposed ideology if Sutica fails to do so?

[Lsuvsfar 255]

10 hours ago, Jaeden said:

A system such as this promotes dynamic roleplay; I firmly believe that even as NL of an ‘RP nation’. The way you conduct yourself politically would be much more important than it is now. Alliances, pacts, relationships, etc would have much more impact. Gifts and appeasing other nations would have more impacts. Vassalization would become more common, lessening the amount of freelance nations. We could likely see condensed roleplay pressured by this dynamism.

From my experience, condensed roleplay and dynamic roleplay do not complement each other well. If anything, the abundance of freelance nations has led to much more dynamic RP than we’ve seen in the past. So far this map, we’ve seen a war between nations for dominance of the Farfolk, Rivia’s civil war which pulled in a good chunk of the empire, fracturing of the Dwarves and Orcs into different groups which then fight, etc. Due to the ease of making a free build nation, we’ve seen very dynamic roleplay this map.

 

Also, some of the CBs still seem a bit wonky to me.

For example, Humiliate. I understand there has to be a grudge of some sort, but what exactly does the victor get. Is it just “Ha, we won a war.” and nothing more?
 

Or Impose Ideology. So what happens after the war is over? If it’s a religious ideology, does everyone in the nation have to adopt that religion? What about Culture? Or what happens if whatever ideology that’s imposed isn’t adopted? Then does that give someone better CB? Also, will this act to effectively cull different religions and cultures?

 

What about Plunder? Can I just declare a war of plunder against whoever I want whenever I want? Is there a limit to how often I can declare a war of plunder? Could I just plunder whatever nation I dislike monthly in order to try and kill their roleplay?

 

Or even subjugation? How much roleplay do you need to subjugate someone? Can Kaz’Ulrah subjugate Holm just because they’re both Dwarven nations? What if Holm is disrespectful to Kaz’Ulrah diplomats, then is that an excuse? If I am subjugated, is there protection afforded to me, or can I be executed and have my lands taken?

 

Most of the CBs here don’t even touch on what nation leaders can do to their vassals. Does a King need CB to declare war on his vassals? Can he just execute newly subjugated vassals in order to avoid a conquest CB?

 

TL;DR

Most of the Casus Belli which have been suggested aren’t don’t offer clear answers as to how you acquire them, or to what extent they can be used/abused.

[Anderssn 1115]

On 10/25/2018 at 10:49 AM, 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.

On 10/25/2018 at 1:24 PM, Treaty said:

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

 

On 10/25/2018 at 12:16 PM, 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.

 

And that’s basically how it worked irl too. If a weaker nation doesn’t want to get fucked they should probably look for aid from other nations, improve relations with larger nations or subjugate under a larger nation in return for protection and possibly remain autonomous. Small groups on lotc tend to rely on ooc restrictions to avoid threats, instead they should rely on diplomacy and foreign relations just like any small nation in the real world. If you don’t make friends you’ll get bullied, if you make a lot of friends the bully is less likely to bully you because there are many of you.

 

With less restriction, if a nation bullies a smaller nation and fabricates a CB to invade them, other nations who disapprove of the false CBs could then declare war on the bully based on that. With the current restrictions, if the larger nation manages to get CBs to invade, no one except official allies can really get involved because of the rules. 

 

“It kills RP! :<”

Only if the group lets that happen to themselves, instead of fighting to the last drop like the **** did, destroying your morale defeat after defeat yeah of course it kills your RP.

 

When Haense vassalized it didn’t kill their RP, they made a deal. They have autonomy and continue to rp with the same old group in their own lands as they always have, but they’re ruled by a different monarch, that’s life. When Vrakai was active the first three-four months of the map it was still a quite small group compared to larger nations since most of the RP there was from the road travellers and tavern goers. And Vrakai didn’t get in trouble with any large nations (unless you count the flays) because they had strong relations with almost every major nation at the time.

 

Tl;dr, don’t rely on restrictions to keep yourself safe, use diplomacy and relations.

[zaezae 1098]

Realistically speaking, all one should have to do to avoid war is to recognize another as hegemon and /maybe/ collect a tax. Then, if your hegemon doesn’t defend you, it makes the hegemon look like a cuck who’s too scared to defend what’s theirs. 

[Narthok 10416]

11 hours ago, Lsuvsfar said:

From my experience, condensed roleplay and dynamic roleplay do not complement each other well. If anything, the abundance of freelance nations has led to much more dynamic RP than we’ve seen in the past. So far this map, we’ve seen a war between nations for dominance of the Farfolk, Rivia’s civil war which pulled in a good chunk of the empire, fracturing of the Dwarves and Orcs into different groups which then fight, etc. Due to the ease of making a free build nation, we’ve seen very dynamic roleplay this map.

 

Also, some of the CBs still seem a bit wonky to me.

For example, Humiliate. I understand there has to be a grudge of some sort, but what exactly does the victor get. Is it just “Ha, we won a war.” and nothing more?
 

Or Impose Ideology. So what happens after the war is over? If it’s a religious ideology, does everyone in the nation have to adopt that religion? What about Culture? Or what happens if whatever ideology that’s imposed isn’t adopted? Then does that give someone better CB? Also, will this act to effectively cull different religions and cultures?

 

What about Plunder? Can I just declare a war of plunder against whoever I want whenever I want? Is there a limit to how often I can declare a war of plunder? Could I just plunder whatever nation I dislike monthly in order to try and kill their roleplay?

 

Or even subjugation? How much roleplay do you need to subjugate someone? Can Kaz’Ulrah subjugate Holm just because they’re both Dwarven nations? What if Holm is disrespectful to Kaz’Ulrah diplomats, then is that an excuse? If I am subjugated, is there protection afforded to me, or can I be executed and have my lands taken?

 

Most of the CBs here don’t even touch on what nation leaders can do to their vassals. Does a King need CB to declare war on his vassals? Can he just execute newly subjugated vassals in order to avoid a conquest CB?

 

TL;DR

Most of the Casus Belli which have been suggested aren’t don’t offer clear answers as to how you acquire them, or to what extent they can be used/abused.

This was a voting run to see what players wanted before I poured tens of hours into making and refining a cohesive raid document. Stellaris CBs will have requirements and some restrictions upon them. I’m just not going to write a massive document for something that might not be well received by players again. Now that we’ve gotten some data on what players want i’ll move from there in making a system. Impose ideology is a reason to go to war rather than an end result. Same with conquest, you go to war with the intention to conquest. But that might not be the final result. 

[Zacho 2177]

Moved to The Great Library. It shall be sorted into the appropriate category shortly.

 

If you feel this is a mistake, please contact myself or any FM and we'll restore it.