Your View - CBs, Wargoals, and War Classifications

[_pr0fit 3084]

18 minutes ago, Sporadic said:

 

Seconded. As I keep saying, no amount of rules will substitute for players acting in good faith.

 

Have you ever played LOTC before... it’s a bunch of 12 year olds high off of minecraft power, there is no good faith.

[Chimp 528]

The term CB is stupid in this case because CB’s historically were used by christian nations to justify going to war (remember the thy shall not kill?)

 

[monkeypoacher 8055]

get rid of it get rid of all of it

you’ve made all of this so much more complicated than it ever, ever could possibly need to be

 

I genuinely don’t understand what possessed the admins to create this system. lord of the craft isn’t ******* victoria 2 

[panda_bear 127]

On 12/11/2018 at 12:50 AM, Taketheshot said:

Too many FUCKIN mina. Holy ****. 

 

PER WARCLAIM considering the ammount of WCs we have. The number of mina is TOO HIGH!

If you think about it. It’s a whole nation paying for it so it’s not that much

[Fishy 2709]

please do not implement this

[InfamousGerman 1553]

can we just ask @Stevie to write war rules at this point

[Valkrae 11]

Alright, I’m going to go through and list the issues that I have with this, in no particular order. These aren’t all of my issues, as I generally disagree with this system as a whole, and I find it particularly lazy that instead of coming up with something original that will fit our particular situation and niche, you’ve decided to just rip from a game.



War Points – Is this an RPG or an RP server? Pick one. The addition of War Points seems to complicate things for no other reason than complication. Wars aren’t something that can be decided by numbers. You’re attempting to turn this into a numbers game, and I don’t see the reasoning behind it. What’s the point of having arbitrary ‘points’ decide a War? Wars aren’t won because of arbitrary numbers. 

Casus Belli – This is actually kinda cool. While I dislike the way this system is turning this RP server into an RPG, I can see the appeal behind it. Sure, having casus belli’s is all well and good, but what if a nation wants to conquer just for the hell of it? Sure, you’ve placed Conquer into ‘War Goals’, but why can’t it act as both?

Arbitrary Mina Cost – Don’t put flat rates. Different nations have different economies. Make it variable depending on the state of the nation/economy. Don’t make it subject to staff approval. If you’re going to rip a War Claims system from a video game, at least take the time to figure out the math. If you can’t, don’t have math involved.


tl;dr – This is an RP server, not an RPG. Stop making it an RPG, you goons.

[rukio 8924]

On 12/11/2018 at 6:52 AM, XFrostgamingX said:

 

---UNDER WAR CLASSIFICATIONS--

30,000 mina? That is too much. Lets say there is a new, small nation that appears and they only have 4,000 mina to their name, and then the Empire, who has access to hundreds of thousands of mina, find enough CB’s to warclaim them, the empire could buy enough equipment regardless. I can see how this can help small nations, but it gives large nations too much of an advantage. 
 

 

If you can’t afford it then perhaps a smaller nation shouldn’t be trying to pick fights. Appease those stronger than yourself, in all honesty. It’s realistic that a smaller, poorer nation wouldn’t have access to what the Empire of man and similar settlements have.

 

-

 

I think CBs should expire after a certain amount of time but only if a new one isn’t added on within that time period or x days after that time period ends.

 

-

 

“ Stolen Heritage - If Nation Y has a Relic or an item of grand importance held by Nation X, that originally belonged to Nation Y, then Nation Y earns the ‘Stolen Heritage’ CB.

• Further defining what a ‘Relic’ or ‘item of grand importance’ is. These items that are extremely valued by a Nation, for example, the Hammer of Urguan, Sword of Horen, the Ashwood Tree, Crown of Urguan, etc. A verdict may be given by the Game Moderation Team if there are disputes over the value of an item.”

Remove the ashwood tree. It is not a relic nor an item of grand importance it is a tree which shouldn’t be controlled by one group. This will  lead to abuse later down the line. Crowns, weapons, and armor should be the only ‘relics’.

 

-

 

“ Leadership Capture - Nation Y will capture the NL of Nation X, additional leadership captures and people who are ROs will require a /roll 20, 16 and higher is a capture. (Offensive War)

• Costs 25 War Points
• The NL can only be captured if they attended the Warclaim, ROs and Leadership can only be captured if they attended the Warclaim.

“

I apologize if I’m misreading this but if you win a warclaim you shouldn’t be forced to spend war points to capture/execute the enemy leadership. It should 100% be a given that they will die if the victor so chooses, as the losing side lost. I’m not sure why it hasn’t been this way before.

[_pr0fit 3084]

5 hours ago, argle-bargle said:

Remove the ashwood tree. It is not a relic nor an item of grand importance

 

well, considering it is the holy symbol of the red faith and the symbol of the Rurikid, not to mention that we did almost go to war with another faction over it, it is important to Norland. and stealing one would definitely count as stolen heritage.

[monkeypoacher 8055]

It would be worth actually engaging with this your view if the idea of needing an OOCly-justifiable “CB” to declare war made any sense at all. Of course, it doesn’t.

 

CBs are added into grand strategy games as an abstraction with the specific purpose of implementing diplomacy into the game. If CBs didn’t exist in EU4 the game would just be a war simulator. The purpose of a CB in the game is to show that your country is reluctant to go into a completely unjustified war. The difference between EU4 and LoTC is that an army in LoTC isn’t an object with int morale and int soldiers that the player has complete control over. To organize an army on LoTC and go to war you need to compel actual people to join your cause and to show up on warclaim dates. If you lose a warclaim, people are less likely to fight for you in the future, at least in theory. Everyone who participated loses gear, at the very least. War has tangible effects in LoTC, while it has abstracted effects in strategy games. You shouldn’t add abstractions to LoTC’s rules, at least, not unnecessary ones.

 

Say you agree with me that there’s too much war on LoTC. How do you encourage people to go to war less? You increase the cost of making war. There’s an attempt to do that in this ungainly mess of a post, but it’s trapped in the distended mechanic of “unjustified war” and “justified war.” This sounds extremely broken to me, at the very least because it doesn’t adjust for inflation. Minas could become a lot more scarce in the next map and it would prohibitively, ridiculously expensive to even justifiably fight somebody. Also, it makes RP less valuable. Say you’re a man of intrigue and a talented rhetorician. You, for whatever reason, need to justify a war, shouldn’t you be allowed to rouse your army with a broadside about the threat of your enemies or the promise of glory? In this system, you have to come up with justifications that make sense to a rational third party, but if you look at history there are all sorts of wars that don’t make sense. 

 

The real problem with LoTC is that battles are too decisive and they cost too little. It’s difficult to represent the cost of war when your army literally rises from the dead after each battle, but I think with the right combination of raising the price of iron and enforcing roll PKs on slain commanders, you can make it real enough for people to balk a little bit going into battle. But better yet, why don’t we get rid of large warclaims? I’m almost certain Zhulik suggested something like this. Wars would be a lot more realistic if there were dynamically changing warzones instead of large all-or-nothing fights on saturdays. This way, war would also create activity and satisfy people’s itch for 24hr PvP. 

 

It’s time for us to wake up and realize that the war rules satisfy nobody – they don’t adequately protect people who don’t like war rp, they don’t provide everyone else enough action. You don’t need to tune and fiddle with what we already have, you need to throw it out. Create a your view for that, not this nonsense

[rukio 8924]

2 hours ago, Master Baiter said:

 

well, considering it is the holy symbol of the red faith and the symbol of the Rurikid, not to mention that we did almost go to war with another faction over it, it is important to Norland. and stealing one would definitely count as stolen heritage.

That's where you're wrong kiddo. It isn't the symbol of the red faith. Also it's a tree not a relic or item. Funny that you say stealing one would count as stolen heritage. Where's your rosiks I'd love to wc them because you oocly stole my tree this map and none of them pkd to the warclaim ?

 

[LatzMomo 2088]

6 hours ago, argle-bargle said:

That's where you're wrong kiddo. It isn't the symbol of the red faith. Also it's a tree not a relic or item. Funny that you say stealing one would count as stolen heritage. Where's your rosiks I'd love to wc them because you oocly stole my tree this map and none of them pkd to the warclaim ?

 

Professorus actually made the Red Faith before it was expanded by Narthok, and when I wrote the lore for the Ashwood tree, it was already a religious and national symbol for Norland. Surely you should be able to warclaim over this thing if it is stolen, if these rules get accepted and you find out where it is, I would have no problem with that contributing to a war. Also just want to add that it wasn’t OOC’ly stolen, there was roleplay of the Ashwood being taken away.

[rukio 8924]

4 hours ago, B7W4 said:

Professorus actually made the Red Faith before it was expanded by Narthok, and when I wrote the lore for the Ashwood tree, it was already a religious and national symbol for Norland. Surely you should be able to warclaim over this thing if it is stolen, if these rules get accepted and you find out where it is, I would have no problem with that contributing to a war. Also just want to add that it wasn’t OOC’ly stolen, there was roleplay of the Ashwood being taken away.

He may have made the original Red Faith lore but it isn’t the same as it was back then. It’s (The ashwood tree) no longer a symbol of the Red Faith if it once was, but rather a cultural symbol. It shouldn’t need to lead to a war, considering it /was/ stolen through OOC means and- I’m not going to bother discussing the issue with the tree being stolen with you, I’m going to talk to people in charge of lore, I’m just glad in hindsight that two saplings and one seed was brought over from last map in roleplay by the Red Faith priests.

 

My argument, as a part of the leadership of the group (Nordengrad) and as a person with a Ruric character, is that a tree should not be able to be considered a relic or item of importance. Your opinion on the singular missing Ashwood is irrelevant, as is your claim that it is a religious symbol. You’re not part of Norland or the Red Faith anymore, you’re playing part of a french group. If you make a plant or animal a relevant relic or item of importance to that group then I can’t argue against that outside of my belief that only weapons/armor and similar things should be relics, but leave Norland and the relating culture alone.

 

-

 

Don’t make the tree or any plants in general relics or items of importance, War rules writers. They are living feeling beings and no one should be able to control where a plant is placed.

[LatzMomo 2088]

5 hours ago, argle-bargle said:

He may have made the original Red Faith lore but it isn’t the same as it was back then. It’s (The ashwood tree) no longer a symbol of the Red Faith if it once was, but rather a cultural symbol. It shouldn’t need to lead to a war, considering it /was/ stolen through OOC means and- I’m not going to bother discussing the issue with the tree being stolen with you, I’m going to talk to people in charge of lore, I’m just glad in hindsight that two saplings and one seed was brought over from last map in roleplay by the Red Faith priests.

 

My argument, as a part of the leadership of the group (Nordengrad) and as a person with a Ruric character, is that a tree should not be able to be considered a relic or item of importance. Your opinion on the singular missing Ashwood is irrelevant, as is your claim that it is a religious symbol. You’re not part of Norland or the Red Faith anymore, you’re playing part of a french group. If you make a plant or animal a relevant relic or item of importance to that group then I can’t argue against that outside of my belief that only weapons/armor and similar things should be relics, but leave Norland and the relating culture alone.

 

-

 

Don’t make the tree or any plants in general relics or items of importance, War rules writers. They are living feeling beings and no one should be able to control where a plant is placed.

As one of the founders of Norland, a project that I may come back to one day. I would like to see that it remains a reason for a CB. There have been situations in the past where we have attempted to wage war over a stolen Ashwood, (However, it was returned, so we dropped it.) so I see no reason why Norland would not do it in the future. My claims are not irrelevant, and that’s my feedback on the situation. I’ll add once more that it was not stolen through OOC means, it was rp’ly uprooted and taken to a new location.

[Ankalagon_ 258]

High cost is a good idea. The big nations are the groups that are the primary catalyst for waging wars on the server anyway. Without strict CB’s, there needs to be a check so that blatant throwing around of war declarations by big nations doesn't happen. The reason CB’s were thought of in the first place was because the community hated random warclaim threats. So making the price steep will force nations to really consider if a war is worth it at all. This is how it should be. Even the biggest nations would want to way the cost vs the benefit of going to battle. 

That being said, we don’t want to make it a pain in the ass to declare the war in the first place. It just ruins the fun on both sides. So the solution is to loosen restrictions on declaring war, but make the cost high. Simple.

 

The war rules should just be rewritten on this simple principle: loosen restrictions on declaring war, but make wars cost more. Everyone will be happy with that. Big nations get insane amounts of mina quickly anyway. Get rid of all this bureaucratic stuff that everyone hates. A war rules page should ideally be only a couple paragraphs long.