Jump to content

War and its Future on LoTC


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Mirtok said:

 


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

 

what about hidden/private alliances

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, rukio said:

what about hidden/private alliances

 

Pulled from General War Mechanics page, "Allies in War: All allies must be declared publicly on the forums in order to participate in any of the battles."

 

For the sake of battles, if they aren't posted on the forums as public RP knowledge, they cannot fight. They can still help with materials, raids, or any sorts of things they wish to be a part of in RP outside of the actual warclaim battles. New allies can be made before or even during an ongoing war, we only ask that it be posted so we know the RP/relationship is legitimate.

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

 

Pulled from General War Mechanics page, "Allies in War: All allies must be declared publicly on the forums in order to participate in any of the battles."

 

For the sake of battles, if they aren't posted on the forums as public RP knowledge, they cannot fight. They can still help with materials, raids, or any sorts of things they wish to be a part of in RP outside of the actual warclaim battles. New allies can be made before or even during an ongoing war.

I'm fine w/ there having to be a post on the forums, though I think hidden post allies should be allowed in wartimes so people can't metagame.

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

 

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 is 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.
 

 

1. Neither of these imply with any specificity that an ally somehow gains a CB for this, and the second one just plain doesn't make sense - 'violated treaties or diplomatic agreements' doesn't apply to an ally of a participant. Let's use a defensive war as an example here to show why this is nonsense: what treaty or agreement is being violated in the context of the ally? They don't necessarily have any kind of treaty with the attacking nation, so nothing to violate there, and if the attacking nation is violating an agreement with the defending nation (which will not often be the case) then there's still nothing the ally can do here unless they were for some reason included in that treaty. This seems to be presuming that the ally of the defending nation is somehow applicable to a broken agreement with the attacking nation, which is an unreasonably sweeping presumption. 

 

A treaty with a defending nation is not a violated treaty; this has to be applicable to the other side, which it will only ever be in select, and not general, circumstances.

 

2. But there's no justifiable reason to impose a tile limit at all? The only reasonable restriction would be if you are physically cut off from your allies.

 

3. The issue here is that there's still no establishment as to how this will play out - Basket is telling me on the one hand that they will happen simultaneously, but on the other the written rules don't even imply this. If Nation A is separated by the 2 tile limit from their ally Nation B in a war against Nation C but they can warclaim Nation C on their own, it'd still be antithetical to the point of political alliances and diplomacy if Nation C can meet Nation A's attack with their full numbers. If these are meant to be simultaneous and Nation C can't respond to both threats with their full numbers, this has to be written in the rules because it is a major point.

 

4. Similarly to the above, unless numbers are split for the targetted nation, then yeah, they're pretty much useless. Raids and supplies don't really mean much if they physically cannot join with their allies and make an actual difference in warclaims.

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

 

1. Neither of these imply with any specificity that an ally somehow gains a CB for this, and the second one just plain doesn't make sense - 'violated treaties or diplomatic agreements' doesn't apply to an ally of a participant. Let's use a defensive war as an example here to show why this is nonsense: what treaty or agreement is being violated in the context of the ally? They don't necessarily have any kind of treaty with the attacking nation, so nothing to violate there, and if the attacking nation is violating an agreement with the defending nation (which will not often be the case) then there's still nothing the ally can do here unless they were for some reason included in that treaty. This seems to be presuming that the ally of the defending nation is somehow applicable to a broken agreement with the attacking nation, which is an unreasonably sweeping presumption. 

 

A treaty with a defending nation is not a violated treaty; this has to be applicable to the other side, which it will only ever be in select, and not general, circumstances.

 

2. But there's no justifiable reason to impose a tile limit at all? The only reasonable restriction would be if you are physically cut off from your allies.

 

3. The issue here is that there's still no establishment as to how this will play out - Basket is telling me on the one hand that they will happen simultaneously, but on the other the written rules don't even imply this. If Nation A is separated by the 2 tile limit from their ally Nation B in a war against Nation C but they can warclaim Nation C on their own, it'd still be antithetical to the point of political alliances and diplomacy if Nation C can meet Nation A's attack with their full numbers. If these are meant to be simultaneous and Nation C can't respond to both threats with their full numbers, this has to be written in the rules because it is a major point.

 

4. Similarly to the above, unless numbers are split for the targetted nation, then yeah, they're pretty much useless. Raids and supplies don't really mean much if they physically cannot join with their allies and make an actual difference in warclaims.

 

1. An alliance is a diplomatic agreement. If a treaty specifies things you cannot do- like attacking someone- and someone does them, that's a violated treaty. We can add in specifically to the list of some examples that if you ally is attacked, you gain that type of CB. We kept the verbage a little broader to capture many more situations/circumstances that could occur. As for your case with Defensive wars, allies cannot participate with the Defender in that case unless the Attacker attempts to commit aggressive action during the DW- like invading. When a side that is supposed to be waging a Defensive War isn't, they can trigger CBs against themselves.

 

2. There is, both RPly and OOCly. We anticipate a more tile occupied map later, we've accounted for RP logistics- granted in a much simpler way, and we've addressed a near unanimous issue discovered from feedback that people do not like across the map every nation crammed into one chunk blowout wars.

 

3. It is established in that you it will be treated like any other war, with the only anomalous instance that battles could occur in different locations on the same day or time. It doesn't change anything cosmically, groups can coordinate with their allies to achieve the most strategic approach. Some form of cooperation and compromise will need to be exercised with the opponent, as always. Moderation will facilitate a multi front war using the war system mechanics.

 

4. I simply disagree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Spend less time arguing about what the rules should mean and clarify them in the main post. If you're devoting time to writing an explanatory Tolstoy novel blogpost because people are "misinterpreting" what was written, you've shat the bed on writing rules that can easily be understood and followed. Fix that in the main posts.

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

Spend less time arguing about what the rules should mean and clarify them in the main post. If you're devoting time to writing an explanatory Tolstoy novel blogpost because people are "misinterpreting" what was written, you've shat the bed on writing rules that can easily be followed.

 

Questions are being asked, answers are being given. We are sharing our reasonings behind why certain decisions were made for this system. The system was released yesterday, there is bound to be confusion. I'm sorry if the dialogue is upsetting you, you are welcome to take a break from the computer and cool off.

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

 

Questions are being asked, answers are being given. We are sharing our reasonings behind why certain decisions were made for this system. The system was released yesterday, there is bound to be confusion. I'm sorry if the dialogue is upsetting you, you are welcome to take a break from the computer and cool off.

 

Grow up buddy, your theatre of shifting the blame of poor writing onto the players is not upsetting me.

 

You need to clarify the rules on the main rules post instead of expecting players to delve through pages of explanatory comments when a war does arise. You can't expect to be there at every juncture explaining away inconsistencies if these rules are meant to last. Please, like I asked, put your clarifications in the main rules post.

 

Edit because I'm going to stop replying to you; the intent of what you wrote and what people read from what was written are going to be very different. There is no blame in giving the wording a second or third pass for sake of clarification of meaning. But the comments of an announcement thread are not the place for these revelations. Playing Siege now bye

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

 

1. An alliance is a diplomatic agreement. If a treaty specifies things you cannot do- like attacking someone- and someone does them, that's a violated treaty. We can add in specifically to the list of some examples that if you ally is attacked, you gain that type of CB. We kept the verbage a little broader to capture many more situations/circumstances that could occur. As for your case with Defensive wars, allies cannot participate with the Defender in that case unless the Attacker attempts to commit aggressive action during the DW- like invading. When a side that is supposed to be waging a Defensive War isn't, they can trigger CBs against themselves.

 

My point is that, in response to concerns about allies joining a war, you cited AW as a solution to this. However, this is a completely unrealistic solution because if I'm Norland and I have a treaty with Elvenesse and then Krugmar attacks Elvenesse, I don't have a treaty with Krugmar to be violated and I'm not included in any pre-existing treaty with Elvenesse or Krugmar that might or might not exist. Where is my CB coming from here? There is no violated treaty pertaining to me, the ally, so the rules don't encompass me at all. It seems to be an even bigger void in an offensive war given the grievances I've discussed about the contrariness surrounding whether battles become simultaneous multi-fronts. 

 

 

29 minutes ago, Mirtok said:

2. There is, both RPly and OOCly. We anticipate a more tile occupied map later, we've accounted for RP logistics- granted in a much simpler way, and we've addressed a near unanimous issue discovered from feedback that people do not like across the map every nation crammed into one chunk blowout wars.

 

Can you substantiate what these RPly and OOCly reasons are, though? 'One chunk blowout wars' aren't necessarily a problem when nations go through effort (ie. creating RP) to actually make them, and it forges an actual dynamic political climate. The tile limit objectively doesn't make sense, especially in the case of unopposed territory.

 

29 minutes ago, Mirtok said:

3. It is established in that you it will be treated like any other war, with the only anomalous instance that battles could occur in different locations on the same day or time. It doesn't change anything cosmically, groups can coordinate with their allies to achieve the most strategic approach. Some form of cooperation and compromise will need to be exercised with the opponent, as always. Moderation will facilitate a multi front war using the war system mechanics.

 

It's not established at all though. Nowhere in the rules, as of the time of posting, is a multi-front war with simultaneous battles even mentioned, much less how it would play out, and if battles can occur at the same time, this is a major point that, once again, absolutely needs to be written down very clearly. Pretty much everyone has interpreted these rules the same way I am now, because they are clearly written in a way that omits multi-fronts and simultaneous battles. I'm not really disagreeing with you here I just want you to actually write it in the rules.

 

Edit: Unless you're referring to Split Battles, but this is under the specific caveat of server load rather than multi-fronts.

 

29 minutes ago, Mirtok said:

4. I simply disagree.

 

?? Why ??

 

Can you please justify your disagreement? Specifically, how does paritcipation in something like raids (which has 0 effect on the outcome of the war) compare to the traditional approach of allies actually being able to participate in the battle itself and make a major contribution to how the war actually turns out? In this vein, it still continues to undermine the point of alliances and diplomacy unless you are literally right next to them. This very clearly and obviously castrates any kind of meaningful alliance, crafted with obvious intention and dynamic, and it's just unreasonable to suggest that participation in raids is somehow a suitable alternative to this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

can we have some clarification on GMs going into vanish mid raid to avoid capture and labelling it as "GMing the situation.."

 

 

and can this be an addendum to the main post. . . :•)

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

 

My point is that, in response to concerns about allies joining a war, you cited AW as a solution to this. However, this is a completely unrealistic solution because if I'm Norland and I have a treaty with Elvenesse and then Krugmar attacks Elvenesse, I don't have a treaty with Krugmar to be violated and I'm not included in any pre-existing treaty with Elvenesse or Krugmar that might or might not exist. Where is my CB coming from here? There is no violated treaty pertaining to me, the ally, so the rules don't encompass me at all. It seems to be an even bigger void in an offensive war given the grievances I listed above about the contrariness between Mod Admin saying it'll be a simultaneous war but the rules themselves not providing any inkling of this. 

 

 

Can you substantiate what these RPly and OOCly reasons are, though? 'One chunk blowout wars' aren't necessarily a problem when nations go through effort (ie. creating RP) to actually make them, and it forges an actual dynamic political climate. The tile limit objectively doesn't make sense, especially in the case of unopposed territory.

 

 

It's not established at all though. Nowhere in the rules, as of the time of posting, is a multi-front war with simultaneous battles even mentioned, much less how it would play out, and if battles can occur at the same time, this is a major point that, once again, absolutely needs to be written down very clearly. Pretty much everyone has interpreted these rules the same way I am now, because they are clearly written in a way that omits multi-fronts and simultaneous battles. I'm not really disagreeing with you here I just want you to actually write it in the rules.

 

 

?? Why ??

 

Can you please justify your disagreement? Specifically, how does paritcipation in something like raids (which has 0 effect on the outcome of the war) compare to the traditional approach of allies actually being able to participate in the battle itself and make a major contribution to how the war actually turns out? In this vein, it still continues to undermine the point of alliances and diplomacy unless you are literally right next to them. This very clearly and obviously castrates any kind of meaningful alliance, crafted with obvious intention and dynamic, and it's just unreasonable to suggest that participation in raids is somehow a suitable alternative to this.

 

If you are Norland with an alliance or some sort of defensive pact/treaty (diplomatic agreement) with Elvenesse, and Krugmar attacks Elvenesse; Its not that you had a treaty with Krugmar it's that your diplomatic agreement with Norland comes into effect. If let's say wars have already happened and as a term of winning a war you told Krugmar they cannot act aggressively (excessive raiding, declaring wars, etc.) and they do it anyway, then in that case you would have your treaty violated- you get a CB. If you had both, the alliance with Elvenesse and this existing treaty with Krugmar, and Krugmar attacked then it's redundant- you still have that CB. We will be adding in some clarification on simultaneous wars that hopefully will provide some backbone to the concept. In these cases, it DOESN'T have to be a simultaneous war. But it CAN be one if it is properly coordinated with your allies.

 

It is not entirely realistic for armies to project across the map and be at any battle without obstacles. Without designing an entire game in on itself to try and bring army movements and supply logistics into the equation, we settled on something simpler that can still be strategized and that will be less isolating with a prep work and time. You can still have your blowout wars if you've as a coalition have long term strategized to accomplish it. Having your allies being close to you as opposed to across the continent would make sense on why they can be with you on your war front right away. We do intend to add in more features/abilities in the future to realistically but simply allow further away groups to project themselves into wars.

 

Multi-front wars will be specifically mentioned to make it clear it is a possible choice and we will provide a basis on how they can be fought.

 

I disagreed with your 4th point in that I still see the merit in having allies wherever. Some allies will obviously be more effective in certain situations. Not all your allies will be fully effective in every war, but if you end up with more than one enemy that has the ability to hurt you and you have a diverse range of allies, you are more prepared to meet known/unknown obstacles. As for raids, some groups might not put much value on the effectiveness of raids but others might see them as essential for a successful war campaign. Grinding down the enemies supplies, taking war gear for yourself, disrupting civilian or economical gains do have an affect on the war. And the singular war claim itself is often a single part of the overall conflict that can extend through multiple war claims.

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

Grinding down the enemies supplies, taking war gear for yourself, disrupting civilian or economical gains do have an affect on the war. And the singular war claim itself is often a single part of the overall conflict that can extend through multiple war claims.

this has zero value if you lose the warclaim itself. sure, it makes for funny rep farming, but that's about it. unless you're 30000 iq dwarves who manage to raid Oren into submission before there's even a warclaim raids don't do anything other than serve as propaganda value.

 

war gear isn't all that precious as of yet ever since Ferrum was made available thus removing the huge bronze bottleneck ('cause you could only get 4 bronze per mine harvest as opposed to 32 ferrum). Maybe with more advanced tiers of weaponry that might matter a bit more true but with current rates for iron in mines it seems that Ferrum gear at a minimum is gonna be pretty accessible, which will likely be enough for folks down on their resources to still matter a lot in warclaims (at least, more than they mattered in Nexus PvP anyways). Not to mention that most of the best PvP gear will be reserved for warclaims and not used in raids anyways so even really successful raiders might still see their opponents in top gear for warclaims. Unless they somehow bust into the national vault, it'll be impossible for raiders to deny their opponents good gear they prepared and locked away previously for warclaims.

 

You can't conquer any territory with raids because that all comes down to the big mosh pit battle. You can't defend your land by beating off raids successfully because if you win every raid attempted against you but lose the warclaim you lose PRO. Raids are really just added fluff and flair to the warclaims that really determine the result of the fighting. Sometimes warzones also matter if they provide benefis to the victor, but since warzones aren't mentioned in these rules i'ma assume they aren't gonna be happening much anymore.

 

maybe one day LOTC will move away from 200+ player laggy mosh pit battles and allow for more assymetrical fighting to play a bigger role. I hope we do that one day. I wanna see guerilla and trench warfare play as big a role as pitched siege and field battles with fighting outside of warzones and warclaims being impactful. I wanna see areas conquered by a foreign enemy fight prolonged campaigns of resistance and guerilla fighting rather than getting OOCly evicted en masse after the battle's over. All this cool stuff we don't get 'cause we're too attached to having big ol' laggy battles that determine absolutely everything.

 

ah well what do I care I play a halfling anyways. whatever the case is I won't see much of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading this thread can we just go back to moshpitting on saturdays and finish (most) wars in a couple of weekend warrior warclaims instead of dragging them out into unneeded complexity? 

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

If you are Norland with an alliance or some sort of defensive pact/treaty (diplomatic agreement) with Elvenesse, and Krugmar attacks Elvenesse; Its not that you had a treaty with Krugmar it's that your diplomatic agreement with Norland comes into effect. If let's say wars have already happened and as a term of winning a war you told Krugmar they cannot act aggressively (excessive raiding, declaring wars, etc.) and they do it anyway, then in that case you would have your treaty violated- you get a CB. If you had both, the alliance with Elvenesse and this existing treaty with Krugmar, and Krugmar attacked then it's redundant- you still have that CB. We will be adding in some clarification on simultaneous wars that hopefully will provide some backbone to the concept. In these cases, it DOESN'T have to be a simultaneous war. But it CAN be one if it is properly coordinated with your allies.

 

This is still loaded with presumptions here and that's my issue. An ally being able to participate in a war is contingent on the presumed existence of these circumstances that just aren't always going to exist. A war having already happened with a requirement is a circumstantial presumption in the same way it is in the treaty example I listed above. 

 

This is circumstantial response to a general concern as to how allies can actually participate in a war with this silly 2 tile limit. If you remove your circumstantial examples, we're still left with no guidance as to how an ally interacts with a war - how would this be navigated if a war involving no treaties were to happen today? It's completely unclear, and that's the problem. If your answer is 'nothing', then that feeds back the purpose of alliances and diplomacy being drastically undermined.

 

23 minutes ago, Mirtok said:

It is not entirely realistic for armies to project across the map and be at any battle without obstacles. Without designing an entire game in on itself to try and bring army movements and supply logistics into the equation, we settled on something simpler that can still be strategized and that will be less isolating with a prep work and time. You can still have your blowout wars if you've as a coalition have long term strategized to accomplish it. Having your allies being close to you as opposed to across the continent would make sense on why they can be with you on your war front right away. We do intend to add in more features/abilities in the future to realistically but simply allow further away groups to project themselves into wars.

 

I'm not advocating for complete teleportation with no obstacles; I specifically advocated  that you should be restricted if you're blocked by enemy or uncooperative-neutral territory. Anything more than that (and ships if crossing water) is an over-ambitious approach that has been tried and failed in the past.

 

But let's for argument's sake agree on that.

 

It still does not justify a flat 2 tile limit in any way. There's no reason to tailor this to the 'possibility of expansion' and a requirement to spend tens of thousands of a mina just to walk a few extra hundred blocks when this makes zero sense with the RP motive cited by the Rules themselves. If you want to retain some element of realism, then make it something like 5-7. 2, however, is just silly and once again is detrimental to diplomacy and alliances.

 

23 minutes ago, Mirtok said:

Multi-front wars will be specifically mentioned to make it clear it is a possible choice and we will provide a basis on how they can be fought.

 

Great, thanks.

 

23 minutes ago, Mirtok said:

I disagreed with your 4th point in that I still see the merit in having allies wherever. Some allies will obviously be more effective in certain situations. Not all your allies will be fully effective in every war, but if you end up with more than one enemy that has the ability to hurt you and you have a diverse range of allies, you are more prepared to meet known/unknown obstacles. As for raids, some groups might not put much value on the effectiveness of raids but others might see them as essential for a successful war campaign. Grinding down the enemies supplies, taking war gear for yourself, disrupting civilian or economical gains do have an affect on the war. And the singular war claim itself is often a single part of the overall conflict that can extend through multiple war claims.

 

NotEvilAtAll actually touched fairly well on why this approach doesn't really make sense for these rules. At the end of the day, you're still undermining diplomacy and alliances to the extent where they are significantly less valuable in favour of larger nations. As a result, there's less incentive to RP and meet and build relations and marry and all that other jazz with other nations and, as a result, there's less RP being created from this goal. 'Raid' assistance, for the reasons described by NotEvil, is just not really compelling in light of that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rukio said:

After reading this thread can we just go back to moshpitting on saturdays and finish (most) wars in a couple of weekend warrior warclaims instead of dragging them out into unneeded complexity? 

 

You could absolutely. The ability for the players to create whatever war system they want still exists, all they need is to be able to agree.

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...