Jump to content

War and its Future on LoTC


Recommended Posts

Just now, AlphaMoist said:

Can't wait for malgonious to come back and go mad at the noob recruiting 

join me please

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, yandeer said:

With the Wartime Raid rules, it states that in case of a defender victory the raid size cap for nations/settlements/lairs will be reduced by six players. Above that, in section 3, it says that a raid upon a lair will be capped at six players. Does this mean that if a lair wins a raid upon them the attackers are now no longer allowed to raid the lair, given their max raid cap is now at a sum of zero players total? 

 

PS: there are two sections 3s under the Wartime Raids category.

 

Yes, raid cap will be zero. This raid alleviation will persist until the next battle in the war and will either continue or discontinue pending the results of the battle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you can tell which playerbase steered the writing of this

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd need a tile map to say this conclusively, but from what I recall about tile sizes the 2-4 tile limit for allies to participate in war feels like it negates the point of international alliances unless that nation is right next to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Xarkly said:

I'd need a tile map to say this conclusively, but from what I recall about tile sizes the 2-4 tile limit for allies to participate in war feels like it negates the point of international alliances unless that nation is right next to you.

I guess they didn't want there to be giant map-wide coalition wars like there used to be.

 

Which is good I guess, although the big ol' coalitions of the past were the only real countermeasure to snowballing and the only real method for smaller communities finding themselves at war to not face a nearly guaranteed defeat.

 

Maybe if decent rules were written for multi-front wars that wouldn't allow for a large power to just defeat in detail both fronts with their max rally, it'd be alright, but as it stands right now there aren't really any penalties for snowballing besides giving your opponents CBs against you (that they won't win 'cause they ain't getting any stronger whilst losing all their wars) and paying higher taxes (which is an acceptable anti-snowball measure to be fair).

 

Also maybe rules should be written for mercenary groups not attached to a set settlement or nation, just to prevent that from being a contentious issue in the future full of rules lawyering.

 

rip coalition wars I guess. They were funny while they lasted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NotEvilAtAll said:

I guess they didn't want there to be giant map-wide coalition wars like there used to be.

 

Which is good I guess, although the big ol' coalitions of the past were the only real countermeasure to snowballing and the only real method for smaller communities finding themselves at war to not face a nearly guaranteed defeat.

 

Maybe if decent rules were written for multi-front wars that wouldn't allow for a large power to just defeat in detail both fronts with their max rally, it'd be alright, but as it stands right now there aren't really any penalties for snowballing besides giving your opponents CBs against you (that they won't win 'cause they ain't getting any stronger whilst losing all their wars) and paying higher taxes (which is an acceptable anti-snowball measure to be fair).

 

Also maybe rules should be written for mercenary groups not attached to a set settlement or nation, just to prevent that from being a contentious issue in the future full of rules lawyering.

 

rip coalition wars I guess. They were funny while they lasted.

 

This goes beyond 'no coalition wars' (which itself isn't really a reasonable objective); it effectively renders diplomacy and alliances null and void unless they're your neighbour.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Xarkly said:

 

This goes beyond 'no coalition wars' (which itself isn't really a reasonable objective); it effectively renders diplomacy and alliances null and void unless they're your neighbour.

 

That portion of the rules is more saying that you would be having wars on different fronts, rather than sharing the battlefield with your ally, your allies would be fighting with you on different fronts. Once the fast travel plugin is implemented (hopefully this week) that may make some changes to the concept of 2 tiles away.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Anore said:

 

That portion of the rules is more saying that you would be having wars on different fronts, rather than sharing the battlefield with your ally, your allies would be fighting with you on different fronts. Once the fast travel plugin is implemented (hopefully this week) that may make some changes to the concept of 2 tiles away.

Anything to prevent a larger power from defeat in detail'ing multiple fronts that they would've lost had the fronts been combined? Like, it's kinda unfair if a coalition fighting a larger power can't combine their forces while the big power gets their entire rally for both fights.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, NotEvilAtAll said:

Anything to prevent a larger power from defeat in detail'ing multiple fronts that they would've lost had the fronts been combined? Like, it's kinda unfair if a coalition fighting a larger power can't combine their forces while the big power gets their entire rally for both fights.

 

That would be more on scheduling of the battles, if both allies had their battle on the same day/time then the other side would be forced to split their forces. Either try to divide their forces to win both battles, put their stronger forces on one battle and risk taking a loss on the other etc. I do agree that there is issue related to that, which should be clarified.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Anore said:

 

That would be more on scheduling of the battles, if both allies had their battle on the same day/time then the other side would be forced to split their forces. Either try to divide their forces to win both battles, put their stronger forces on one battle and risk taking a loss on the other etc. I do agree that there is issue related to that, which should be clarified.

 

I might be blind but I can't find this mentioned anywhere in the rules and this is an absolutely major clarification.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Xarkly said:

 

I might be blind but I can't find this mentioned anywhere in the rules and this is an absolutely major clarification.

 

It's mentioned all over the rules that if you have a valid CB, you can pursue a warclaim. In the case that your Ally is attacked, you gain a CB that enables an Amendment War to be fought. Whether or not you are in range of another Ally that is fighting their own war claim drives whether or not you want to combine your forces with them or to pursue your own war front. If you are out of range of the Ally that is in conflict, then your choices become to cash in that CB immediately, hold onto it for later in the war or let it expire when your Allys war is over. As far as when battles happen, we have stated that a battle WILL occur at least once every two weeks for each warclaim being fought. Leaders are still required to try and coordinate dates/times that work for both sides but if an agreement cannot be met, Moderation will deliberate and set one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Mirtok said:

 

It's mentioned all over the rules that if you have a valid CB, you can pursue a warclaim. In the case that your Ally is attacked, you gain a CB that enables an Amendment War to be fought. Whether or not you are in range of another Ally that is fighting their own war claim drives whether or not you want to combine your forces with them or to pursue your own war front. If you are out of range of the Ally that is in conflict, then your choices become to cash in that CB immediately, hold onto it for later in the war or let it expire when your Allys war is over. As far as when battles happen, we have stated that a battle WILL occur at least once every two weeks for each warclaim being fought. Leaders are still required to try and coordinate dates/times that work for both sides but if an agreement cannot be met, Moderation will deliberate and set one.

 

1. The section on Amendment Wars don't mention anything about gaining a CB in the event that an ally is attacked, especially because it doesn't really fit with the criteria for n Amendment War that is provided. You can't reasonably expect this to be inferred, because it's contrary to the traditional approach to alliances and wars. Not that this traditional approach is right or wrong, but this needs to be explicitly outlined.

 

2. The range is still absurdly small; it should really only apply in enemy territory (or a neutral nation who refuses access) directly cuts you off from your allies. A flat 2 tile limit is bonkers and makes no sense.

 

3. Basket has since clarified this would become a multi-front simultaneous war, and while this is fine, it's something that again needs to be explicitly set out because its antithetical to the traditional understanding of war on this server and everyone is extremely confused and sceptical at this clause. Nowhere does a multi-front war, simultaneous war or two warclaims occuring together appear in the current ruleset. The ruleset does not actually reflect nor provide for this at all, if you mentioned this in a war chat with no basis in the rules it'd look like you were pulling out of your ass.

 

4. In the event that the rules aren't provided for the above, alliances are still effectively useless because one ally with a casus belli, unable to act with their allies, is still entirely detrimental to the point of alliances and diplomacy in this context and leaves us with the exact same problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Xarkly said:

 

1. The section on Amendment Wars don't mention anything about gaining a CB in the event that an ally is attacked, especially because it doesn't really fit with the criteria for n Amendment War that is provided. You can't reasonably expect this to be inferred, because it's contrary to the traditional approach to alliances and wars. Not that this traditional approach is right or wrong, but this needs to be explicitly outlined.

 

2. The range is still absurdly small; it should really only apply in enemy territory (or a neutral nation who refuses access) directly cuts you off from your allies. 2 tiles is bonkers.

 

3. Basket has since clarified this would become a multi-front war, and while this is fine, it's something that again needs to be explicitly set out because its antithetical to the traditional understanding of war on this server and everyone is extremely confused and sceptical at this clause. Nowhere does a multi-front war, simultaneous war or two warclaims occuring together appear in the current ruleset. The ruleset does not actually reflect nor provide for this at all, if you mentioned this in a war chat with no basis in the rules it'd look like you were pulling out of your ass.

 

4. In the event that the rules aren't provided for the above, alliances are still effectively useless because one ally with a casus belli, unable to act with their allies, is still entirely useless and detrimental to the point of alliances and diplomacy in this context and leaves us with the exact same problem.

 

1. Pulled directly from AW "AWs are for the purpose of righting what has been wronged during typical economic, diplomatic, or social exchanges. They are usually reserved for much less jarring or offensive instances that would trigger a VW. Rather, AWs usually occur as a result of violated treaties or diplomatic agreements, economic competition, unfulfilled promises, or moments that personally offend certain organizations, institutions, or important figures."

If your Ally is attacked, and you have a publicly declared agreement with them, I.E an Alliance, you gain a CB.

2. The range is designed with the longevity of the map in mind. Right now things are further apart and the number of groups that own tiles are low. As time goes on, tile owners will acquire more tiles, settlements will upgrade into nations, and new settlements will populate the blank space- ideally. With the planned update of Naval routes and conflict, the effective range increases for groups with water access.

 

3. The war system allows for groups to cash in CBs for warclaims. If one nation is being attacked by two groups, regardless of ally status, Moderation would facilitate both wars. If a group uses a valid CB to start a warclaim, that's considered a war that will have it's own thread. We are not going to deny another warclaim with a valid CB that is called at the same time for the reason of them happening at the same time. Each war called will be handled as it's own war.

 

4. Alliances are not useless, you still have strength in numbers, especially if you are in league with your neighbors. Your allies can still help with raids, offer supplies, or help you build chains of allied or cooperating neutral parties to move forces wherever they need to be. When naval conflict is rolled out, that opens up more opportunity from groups further away.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...