Transparency - What's up with war?

[Nectorist 12869]

Thank you for the transparency and taking the time out of your day to write this up! Good to know that things are wrapping up and that war should (hopefully) be live soon. The news going around yesterday of wars coming back seems to have kicked people back into gear.

 

That being said...

Spoiler

 

 

48 minutes ago, Spoopy_Duck said:

Why scaling costs for wargoals?

 

I know out of this whole post this is most likely going to be the most contentious part so allow me to answer. With 9.0 we were introduced to what we like to refer to as the “death wars” where every single war last map was with the sole purpose of complete either annexation or destruction of the realm. There were no wars that were fought over a tile or two. Every single war ended with one side losing a capital. 

I see this as one of two issues, perhaps it is both. The first being that there was no reason to attempt any other war goal when the option to just erase the problem was right in front of you. To combat this my idea is if we make it a little more expensive to delete a realm, and a little cheaper for the less consequential war goals perhaps we will see more dynamic wars?

 

The second issue this could be is just that “death wars” are what the players only want and that this cost idea is going to change nothing in the end. If that is true then it will go down as an attempt that did not work and the concept can be looked back upon in the future. I want to at least give it a shot though whether it crashes horribly or does add some variety.

 

As someone who was on the "let's have wars with broader aims than just full conquest," I just don't think it's feasible anymore. The original 8.0 war rules were shaped around the theory that if full conquest was rendered virtually impossible through elongated, expensive wars, more dynamic results would come of it. There were two wars fought under that war system:

 

1. The Oren vs. Norland War - Oren beat Norland in a non-conquest war, and as part of the peace negotiations demanded that Norland a) not fight against Oren for the next two wars and b) pay 40,000 mina in tribute. Norland did not abide by these conditions, nor did staff compel them to, nor did we have any means of recourse except for launching another expensive war with no guarantee of the conditions being fulfilled.

 

2. The Oren vs. Everyone War (hey this was me) - In what was the second-longest war in the server's history, there were a total of four warclaims fought over a nineteen week span, with four to six week gaps in between each warclaim, and extremely onerous war costs. The end result was that Oren had to give away 2 uninhabited tiles and a chest of leather and stuff. There was nothing inherently dynamic about the inability to commit to full-conquest, and at the end it was a long war where nothing much changed. My ban was more decisive than all of the raids and skirms that we had.

 

This rule set was scrapped for what became the 9.0 rules precisely because wars were just worse during that period. Being long and expensive made satisfying, coherent outcomes nearly impossible, and even when negotiated settlements came, there weren't really any aims worth having.

 

Ultimately, dynamism on here comes through political change, which is really only feasible through conquest/vassalization. It's what allows new players to rise to the forefront, political systems to be upturned, and ruling cliques to be replaced. Unfortunately, the server has a distinct lack of ambitious players, so we probably won't see the 2014-2017 and 2019-2020 era dynamism like before, but I still think cheaper (or no cost), short, decisive wars ultimately produce better outcomes than long and expensive ones. 

[Spoopy_Duck 3217]

4 minutes ago, Crevel said:

If it is required to have a specified wargoal, it's clear that you cannot declare war freely because you must obviously adhere to the scope of the wargoal. I think it would be much better to reword it along the lines of "War is often cruel and unpredictable. Realms may declare War arbitrarily, even at their own peril."

Noted! (Sorry if just that word alone sounds dismissive I just don't have much else to say)

 

 

2 minutes ago, Nectorist said:

Thank you for the transparency and taking the time out of your day to write this up! Good to know that things are wrapping up and that war should (hopefully) be live soon. The news going around yesterday of wars coming back seems to have kicked people back into gear.

 

That being said...

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

As someone who was on the "let's have wars with broader aims than just full conquest," I just don't think it's feasible anymore. The original 8.0 war rules were shaped around the theory that if full conquest was rendered virtually impossible through elongated, expensive wars, more dynamic results would come of it. There were two wars fought under that war system:

 

1. The Oren vs. Norland War - Oren beat Norland in a non-conquest war, and as part of the peace negotiations demanded that Norland a) not fight against Oren for the next two wars and b) pay 40,000 mina in tribute. Norland did not abide by these conditions, nor did staff compel them to, nor did we have any means of recourse except for launching another expensive war with no guarantee of the conditions being fulfilled.

 

2. The Oren vs. Everyone War (hey this was me) - In what was the second-longest war in the server's history, there were a total of four warclaims fought over a nineteen week span, with four to six week gaps in between each warclaim, and extremely onerous war costs. The end result was that Oren had to give away 2 uninhabited tiles and a chest of leather and stuff. There was nothing inherently dynamic about the inability to commit to full-conquest, and at the end it was a long war where nothing much changed. My ban was more decisive than all of the raids and skirms that we had.

 

Ultimately, dynamism on here comes through political change, which is really only feasible through conquest/vassalization. It's what allows new players to rise to the forefront, political systems to be upturned, and ruling cliques to be replaced. Unfortunately, the server has a distinct lack of ambitious players, so we probably won't see the 2014-2017 and 2019-2020 era dynamism like before, but I still think cheaper (or no cost), short, decisive wars ultimately produce better outcomes than long and expensive ones. 

Thank you for the insight here. I joined 2022 Almaris so I believe the 3rd of the 4 warclaims for the Oren everyone war just happened days befoer I was accepted. I was very unaware of the scope of that war however so I appreciate the context here. As I said I am somewhat stubbornly hoping maybe that a system can enable a change but as you make it sound here too it is more a result of the player politics and unless we fully red-tape things this is the way things must be. Thank you for the feedback.

[Nectorist 12869]

1 minute ago, Spoopy_Duck said:

Thank you for the insight here. I joined 2022 Almaris so I believe the 3rd of the 4 warclaims for the Oren everyone war just happened days befoer I was accepted. I was very unaware of the scope of that war however so I appreciate the context here. As I said I am somewhat stubbornly hoping maybe that a system can enable a change but as you make it sound here too it is more a result of the player politics and unless we fully red-tape things this is the way things must be. Thank you for the feedback.

Oh yeah, no worries at all. I'm not optimistic about the prospect at all, but there are some avenues that haven't really been explored in war systems yet. 

 

If there's an answer to be found, it probably comes down to finding wargoals for nations to pursue that can still result in fresh, dynamic RP. I.e., making a positive case for non-conquest wars, rather than just limiting the ability to wage them.

[Random 1690]

Isn’t it a bit silly that you can’t add or remove leaders for a month after subjugating a realm? From a roleplay perspective, at least, that makes no sense at all

[Werew0lf 24180]

After reading the proposal, I will give my feedback.

 

These wars look like they were sewn up together in hopes of battling a “death war”, but it also fundamentally prevents most new nations, or smaller nations (inevitably) from even being able to afford the costs for this. It is evident that these rules were not created and their costs were not calculated to help implement a long standing system, but instead, created to prevent to work around the current (empire) war dilemma, maybe as a prevential method (ur not preventing it). 

 

I ran some calculations with the numbers provided, one being 75 mina per player (outrageous price) that was proposed, and the other one being 150 mina per player (we must have lost the plot). 
 

The costs vary but they are over 80-150k mina (the rules neglect to calculate travel costs included) to annex three tiles and siege one capital. This is with me capping the rally at 120-140 players. 
 

I could probably afford this, yes, and I still plan on it. I just don’t see how this is viable for any smaller nations — now, if your plan is to reduce the costs once the Empire breaks apart, I’d say you’re a mutt. Kept the war costs cheap for Haense coalition to bum Veletz, but won’t keep it cheap for me huh? :) 

 

If you decide to have that discussion and reduce the costs, it would be most appreciated!

 

I’m still posting the war declaration though.

 

No other complaints. 

[Xarkly 17299]

For some added context, the reason wars aren't live yet is because costs were proscribed by Admins on their review. The intention is for there to be four increments of war costs based on wargoals, going from pillaging (cheapest), to razing, to conquest, to subjugation (most expensive).

 

As is, the costs as agreed by Admins are too high and we're currently trying to resolve it. 

[Cheezboi9 618]

Increase war costs for attackers please. Make it 200 mina per player (armour repair and eating costs a lot, especially if we're talking about 1 war per irp year)

Gotta keep the realism heh.

War should be prohibitively expensive, after all, no wars are cheap.

[Werew0lf 24180]

2 minutes ago, Xarkly said:

For some added context, the reason wars aren't live yet is because costs were proscribed by Admins on their review. The intention is for there to be four increments of wargoal costs based on wargoals, going from pillaging (cheapest), to razing, to conquest, to subjugation (most expensive).

 

As is, the costs as agreed by Admins are too high and we're currently trying to resolve it. 

Yes, that is understood.

 

I just hope you guys understand the lunacy of making players try to pay in the ranges of 75 to 150 mina for subjugation. It’s quite the big leap from the cheapest. I do think the war costs for annexing and subjugation should be higher, but let’s try to realistically calculate the costs before it’s proposed. 
 

I know the original costs were implemented by admins to be 150 per person. Must have lost their minds. 

 

Also, Cheezboi stinks. 

[Cheezboi9 618]

Werew0lf is actually a darkspawn that simply enjoys collecting other lotc races like pokemon cards.

Make love, not war.

[LoTC's Next Top Model 1626]

1 hour ago, monkeypoacher said:

There were no wars fought over a tile because nobody cares about tiles. Maybe this is less true now because you can go to war to secure strategic resources, but there are no strategic tiles really because the map is so decentralized. 

even now, what is the strategic benefit to taking tiles for resources and NOT destroying your enemy, when all resources only serve to benefit war?

all resources just contribute to war, so any successful war just means the next time you war them they're fucked because they have 0 netherite tiles.

[Mayios 542]

I miss you spoopy

[ferdaboy 3472]

25 minutes ago, Cheezboi9 said:

Increase war costs for attackers please. Make it 200 mina per player (armour repair and eating costs a lot, especially if we're talking about 1 war per irp year)

Gotta keep the realism heh.

War should be prohibitively expensive, after all, no wars are cheap.

then implement armour repair LOL

[PolarLoLs 984]

How about we settle wars like this

[iSmooch 124]

Thanks Spoopy.

 

Now how do I get top medic?

[Riot 743]

2 hours ago, Sandman_Plays said:

@Xarkly

i read the whole thing to know what to be prepaired for but had to scroll back because i thought that was real