Jump to content

War and its Future on LoTC


Recommended Posts

Just now, Mirtok said:

 

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.

>lotc playerbases

>Agreeing

 

You can pick one

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

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

Great, thanks.

 

 

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.

 

If you are allied with someone you are 100% guaranteed to have crafted some form of diplomatic agreement with each other. If your ally is attacked, by the diplomatic agreement you have with them, you can either come to their aid in that battle or declare war against the offender and open up a new front. If you do not have an agreement with another group, you are not allies, you cannot aid/fight in their war or start a new one using that reason.

 

My example on how raids could be a useful tool for allies out of range was just one example. I did mention other ways how if you are allied with groups that aren't directly next to you could be useful. By the war rules, you can chain your allies together and project pretty far across the map if you organize it correctly. As well, diplomatic relations with other groups goes beyond warclaim reasons.

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

 

If you are allied with someone you are %100 guaranteed to have crafted some form of diplomatic agreement with each other. If your ally is attacked, by the diplomatic agreement you have with them, you can either come to their aid in that battle or declare war against the offender and open up a new front. If you do not have an agreement with another group, you are not allies, you cannot aid/fight in their war or start a new one using that reason.

 

Ok yeah this is what I was looking for.

 

This is different from the example you cited from the rules, because you specifically cited some kind of wrongdoing or violation of an agreement. Having a defensive agreement with another nation is not a violation, nor is that nation getting attacked unless you're included in a three-way agreement with your allied nation and the attacking nation.

 

The Rules need to be amended to reflect this because it's not at all clear that an alliance with no violations will get you a CB. 

 

6 minutes ago, Mirtok said:

My example on how raids could be useful was just an example. I did mention other ways how if you are allied with groups that aren't directly next to you could be useful. By the war rules, you can chain your allies together and project pretty far across the map if you organize it correctly.

 

We've discussed why raids are useless, NotEvil also covered supplies pretty well now that we've moved past bronze, and chain allies and 'organizing' still doesn't count for much when we've a 2 tile movement to contend with. These just feel like really band-aid solutions to a problem that doesn't really exist and can't really be justified.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, AlphaMoist said:

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

 

Hi are you interested in joining my warband?

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

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.

you mean as oren expands onto everybodies border, not every nation wants to expand or even needs to expand yet can't assist their allies if they are 2 tiles away..?

1 hour ago, Mirtok said:

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.

Also why do you plan to release 'features/abilities' the same way you released vortex, bit by bit, why does it have to be 'we plan to add things later', why not add them now... or better yet why didn't you add them into this initial release?

Edited by Boniface
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Boniface said:

or better yet why didn't you add them into this initial release?

because then they'd have to spend 2 more months getting every single admin and relevant staff member to give their feedback on it.

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

because then they'd have to spend 2 more months getting every single admin and relevant staff member to give their feedback on it.

Well no, because this would have been in the discussions that got this current set of rules approved, surely? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

epic

Link to post
Share on other sites

who gives a damn about war rules if your war servers cant even handle 100 players without becoming a 1tps slideshow or outright crashing. Focus on that first and then talk to us about war ruloes

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...