Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ScreamingDingo

YOUR VIEW - WARS

Recommended Posts

Your View - Wars

 

 
 
 


 

Hey LotC, it’s been a while since we have discussed wars and what systems we could implement to try and change things around.

 

With a massive thanks to @Corpean, @3andDand @Stevie and the Nation Leaders for providing feedback on this.

 

These are the things that were suggested last time, with a few added additions and an entire new system to place some sort of RP emphasis and strategy beyond simple clicking.


 

There’s the Stellaris War-goal / CB system in the document below

 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/10-1MhDANVO1trdN-FN9W6zAa0ncnPPu5_3eC4Lyn_gk/edit?usp=sharing


 

And the system of “Tile Movement” to add more depth and the ability of attrition to wars.

 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g9RK5ByYoSg1GUhzmWwEGB8wp5WMKUnRRouXDJr6nQ4/edit?usp=sharing


 

My discord PMs are open for any suggestions, otherwise post them below on the forums.

 

(joel#4235)


 

 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tested it out, was actually quite fun! A good solution to the current system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t care what the nitty gritty of war rules is anymore.

 

Just make it so it doesnt end in the total destruction of a nation and their tile, except in the most absolute extreme of circumstances.

 

War becomes a lot less toxic, and OOCly spiteful, when you remove the edgy kid’s tools to destroy communities, and communities don’t have the tension of having their entire existences at risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, WuHanXianShi14 said:

I don’t care what the nitty gritty of war rules is anymore.

 

Just make it so it doesnt end in the total destruction of a nation and their tile, except in the most absolute extreme of circumstances. 

 

War becomes a lot less toxic, and OOCly spiteful, when you remove the edgy kid’s tools to destroy communities, and communities don’t have the tension of having their entire existences at risk.

 

that’s the plan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t know if this is a mistake, but you took out the limitation on amount of Border Conflicts which makes me concerned for the obvious reason of people using this to stack up War Points untill they declare a Plunder or Pillage CB. Which these two CBs especially for being offensive seem like they could be heavily abused through combinations of the Border Conflict CB and the Demands CB. Unless I’m misunderstanding something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i’ve always been an advocate for a minimum of restrictions in conflict for wars and ****, and have been relatively supportive of the ability for nations to annihilate other nations in the past.

 

however lotc isn't mature enough for that, we all know this, we as a community can’t handle the ability to destroy each other like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

joel grimreaper ScreamingDingo is a good man with smart ideas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems decent enough, only in practice will we know if the finer numbers work out. I’d say the defender fort business might have some clarification, what about pre war structures, will there be a irl weekly upkeep on a fort if Nation A builds it in peacetime as a defensive measure? Will random baronies and tribal camps count as defensive camps? Or will it simply be the fact if you have payed upkeep on it recently? I do like the idea of baronies / keeps requiring a monthly war team payment as “maintenance fees”, would give reason not to dot the countryside with them unless the owner of the keep assigned by the tile owner / the nation itself could maintain the money for having it around.

All in all I like the direction of the changes, just hope we see some general updates and changes with time as it plays out next map as well.

I’d also consider some kind of standing army bonus? I don’t know how to describe this but perhaps if a nation has RP proof of having a strong military RP presence for some months, they might receive a slight buff at the start of a war, like an extra tile to move their first turn or something to represent that expertise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Silverstatik said:

Seems decent enough, only in practice will we know if the finer numbers work out. I’d say the defender fort business might have some clarification, what about pre war structures, will there be a irl weekly upkeep on a fort if Nation A builds it in peacetime as a defensive measure? Will random baronies and tribal camps count as defensive camps? Or will it simply be the fact if you have payed upkeep on it recently? I do like the idea of baronies / keeps requiring a monthly war team payment as “maintenance fees”, would give reason not to dot the countryside with them unless the owner of the keep assigned by the tile owner / the nation itself could maintain the money for having it around.

All in all I like the direction of the changes, just hope we see some general updates and changes with time as it plays out next map as well.

I’d also consider some kind of standing army bonus? I don’t know how to describe this but perhaps if a nation has RP proof of having a strong military RP presence for some months, they might receive a slight buff at the start of a war, like an extra tile to move their first turn or something to represent that expertise.

 

 

Yeah, fair enough. The defender fort system was my compromise of not having builds and forts litter the map because of the charter system. Baronies and ‘tribal’ camps will depend on the situation, because at the moment this system relies on there being a “single” capture point at the Capital tile. This is all made with the presumption that there will only be one controlled ‘nation’ tile per settlement. Paying upkeep was a thing to do attrition-wise and I would not want to enforce fort payments outside of war-time for the sheer sake of adding onto systems that are unneeded.

 

I’ll have to adjust the system slightly for when other nations are granted settlements within the same tile, because it’s something that I honestly have no clue how I’ll do that. I’ll overcome that hurdle with the last adjustments to the systems before I send it to the admins after the community feedback.

 

Also with the standing army bonus, it’s a nice thing but it seems to be adding nothing really to the system and creates a “subjective” measure and advantage to those in staff. System is attempting to be clear cut as possible to avoid the subjective CB bias and things that have happened previously. Thanks for the feedback!

 

2 hours ago, Skyrunner said:

I don’t know if this is a mistake, but you took out the limitation on amount of Border Conflicts which makes me concerned for the obvious reason of people using this to stack up War Points untill they declare a Plunder or Pillage CB. Which these two CBs especially for being offensive seem like they could be heavily abused through combinations of the Border Conflict CB and the Demands CB. Unless I’m misunderstanding something.

 

You can only gain up to 30 war points maximum with the Border Conflict system. This is meant to encourage diplomatic relations with your direct neighbor nstead of confrontations.

 

Also there’s no point fishing for CBs for Plunder and Pillage. You do realise that offensive wars can be declared without any CBs and only are twice the amount of a justification war. It’s just that these are limited in the choices of war-goals you have, while justified has access to basically all of them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think recent warclaims have proven that it’s high time for LoTC to ditch the current system and move to a system of dynamic war. I genuinely lament for anyone who thinks they’re going to reform warclaims by adding more red tape, more rules no one can understand, more terms and conditions for people to lawyer with until wars are no longer won by RP or PvP but by who has the favor of the mods. 

 

The current system satisfies nobody; it doesn’t give the PvP-oriented playerbase enough excitement while essentially subjecting people’s RP to the constant looming threat of annihilation by whoever gathers enough inactive shitters into their rally chat. If anything the sheer number of revisions to our war rules should tell you this. There’s something deeply flawed with war on LoTC and it could be improved so much.

 

I’d like to suggest an entirely different way to do war, where war zones are laid out over stretches of the actual map, and territory is gained and lost by who can hold onto it in minute-to-minute skirmishes. Basically, nations agree on a place and it’s set to freebuild, with the same rules we have now except that buildings can be burned down and razed, fields can be salted, and chests can be lockpicked, with proper RP. Objectives are placed in the warzone around forts and towns. Once one side holds the objective for an hour, it flips to their side, controlling all objectives expands the warfront, adding adjacent forts and settlements as new objectives. If both sides agree, a time can be set where the warzone is inactive, so that GMTs don’t get fucked by Americans and vice-versa. But I think this system will self-regulate a lot better than warclaims with a lot less stress added for the GMs.

 

Spontaneity and RP hold sway in this system. Nations can still organize skirmishes and pitch battles, but maintaining your troops and your supply line ultimately decides the course of a war. Map awareness, and strategy win wars, rather than crude, easily-rigged, GMs-pick-who’s-allowed-to-fight warclaims. It’s the ultimate fair system, rewarding consistent activity and ridding LoTC of inactive powermongers and goons. It gives strategies like asymmetrical and attrition warfare, which do not exist in our current system, a chance to shine. Nations which have been fucked by their inability to organize rallies for massive battles they don’t want would have a chance to defend themselves. Not only that, it does this while satisfying our PvP playerbase 24/7, with almost none of the maintenance we currently do for wars. Can I hear some counterarguments?

Edited by xxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×