Narthok

THE FM TEAM WILL SOON FALL

This was a voting run to see what players wanted before I poured tens of hours into making and refining a cohesive raid document. Stellaris CBs will have requirements and some restrictions upon them. I’m just not going to write a massive document for something that might not be well received by players again. Now that we’ve gotten some data on what players want i’ll move from there in making a system. Impose ideology is a reason to go to war rather than an end result. Same with conquest, you go to war with the intention to conquest. But that might not be the final result.

Again your writing is very one dimensional and you need to work on showing people rather than telling peopele. Also the more your reneg on hiatus and leaving posts the more it just seems like a grab for attention.

A bunch of carebears are going to run screaming through this thread about how this man is toxic. Joel is a blunt man that takes no nonsense and holds quality realistic rp above all things. I’ve found he calls our cancer no matter what someone’s position is and appreciate that level of integrity. its ******* rare. I’d absolutely love to see someone like this be added to the GM team. +1

Thoromir dies

What.. did you even the post brother? Most popular system rn is the regulated stellaris system.

Players are voting for the CB system. In what way is this warring to war? Seems like certain players just want their rp to be oocly protected by staff rather than dealing with rp in rp. Furthermore when we’ve had a less regulated system in the past people haven’t warred purely to war. There has been rp justifications behind it. As we are now with excessive restrictions and an obsession with ‘justified’ war reasons war and conflict is utterly choked and throttled.

Again OOC barriers shouldn’t block rp and protect beligerent factions. RP should protect beligerent factions. Deal with rp problems in rp rather than running to big brother GM team. Fully detailed system will have restrictions and will have as little GM involvement as possible as GMs are prone to incompetence and bias.

as stated directly above your post. you don’t get to take land if you don’t get Conquest. Buff has also suggested tiered CBs which I will be implementing if the stellaris system comes out ahead.

I’m going to bed. I leave you all with the only good song mankind has ever produced. if you don’t get a conquest cb you don’t get to take their pixel land. Every other CB is some variant of pillage or vassalize or anti vassalize.

Only way we make strong factions not beat weak factions is with excessive ooc barriers. Restrictions would be implaced upon the stellaris system I just want players to vote on what they want before I go through the effort of actually writing up a full system. First poll was used to guage player interest and desire this is narrowing things down.

Options for War Reworks Comprehensive rework covering new options for CBs, Warzones, Warclaims proper and Declaration formats Contents 1.Preface 2.CB options crafted according to suggestions and polling data 3.Suggestions for Warclaim and Warzone integration 4.New War declaration format Preface THE INFORMATION INCLUDED HEREIN IS A BRIEF SUMMARY OUTLINING OPTIONS BEING GIVEN TO PLAYERS. THAT THEY MAY VOTE ON THE CHOICES THEY LIKE BEST AND TAILOR THE WAR SYSTEM TO THEIR OWN IDEALS. OPTIONS ARE BASED UPON YOUR VIEW POLLS. CB Options A.Keep CBs as they Are, CBs remain as they are now heavily regulated B.Complete Deregulation, Power to the Players Under this format CBs will be entirely determined by RP factors and RP leaders with no restrictions whatsoever imposed by staff. C.Stellaris System, Modest regulation, restrictions upon baseless warfare. It goes without saying that sufficient rp must be provided for any of these CBs. One cannot simply Conquest someone if they lack an rp claim. CBs that are to be included are below for players to discuss and critique. Conquest. The Aggressing party goes to war with the intention of conquering the victim’s holds. This claim can be pressed against a single keep or against an entire realm depending on the breadth of the involved rp. Subjugate. Aggressing party goes to war with the intention of subjugating the victimized party. Intending to force them into vassal or tributary status. Humiliate. Aggressing party goes to war with the intention of humiliating the victimized party before other actors and their own people. Generally this would cover things such as revenge and long term grudges. Impose Ideology. Aggressing party goes to war with the intention of opposing their ideology upon the victimized party. Generally this would cover faith but can also cover economic or political ideologies. Independence. Aggressing party goes to war with the intention of securing independence and self determination from its overlord. Plunder. Aggressing party goes to war with the intention of securing loot, wealth and slaves or to economically weaken an enemies settlement. Warclaim System Options A. Old System. System remains as it is, nothing changes at all. Field Battle > Siege > Field Battle etc. Sieges take place entirely in the warclaim. B. Integrated Warzones. System integrates warzones and warclaims. In this system warzones serve as a preface to field battles and sieges. Before field battles a warzone will be setup on the battlefield between the two conflicting parties. The victorious party (determined by having the majority share of capture point time) will be allowed to choose their deployment first, taking the choices ground for themselves. They also have the option for multiple deployments to simulate flanks and such. The choice of deployments being to reflect the victorious party having rply proven themselves the superior tactical force in the ‘skirmish’ phase, ie the warzone. In the event of a super majority of possession (70%+) possession the victorious party will be allowed to choose both their deployment and that of the enemy. Having outmaneuvered them so distinctly that the opponent is forced into disadvantageous ground. Deployment being in reference to the existing ‘warclaim’ deployment. Siege warclaims would become ‘Assaults’. With the actual sieging phase ie: the use of artillery to weaken the defences of the besieged, would instead become a warzone equipped with siege weapons. Attackers would operate and defend the siege weapons while defenders would be able to sally out and disable the siege weapons. The warclaim ‘assault’ would then take place with no further sieging, with the attackers attacking the fortification in its most recent state of damage. Warzones would take place during a window of say 2pm GMT to 2am EST (7am GMT) from where activity begins to pick up to where it begins to fall off. C. Anarchy. Entirely new system wherein the lands of both factions would be fully available. Each holding would have a flag within that must be changed in order for the settlement or keep to be ‘captured’. Anarchy warclaims would open up the territory of both conflicting factions to full pvp for the duration of the warclaim. Likely a two or three hour period. Commanders will need to allocate garrisons and manpower to different areas and prioritize various objectives. This would reduce lag as there would be fewer players in chunks and would also allow for a more enjoyable pvp experience. As you’d be able to have a meaningful objective oriented fight rather than just watching a stat check slideshow. At the end of the ‘warring’ period new warzones would set up. The side that had taken more enemy replacements would be given the initiative to declare what enemy keeps or settlements would receive a siege warzone and begin to be shelled. New War Declaration Format Preface Probably some of the most radical change I’ve proposed for wars that are less utopian and more ‘quality of life’. Warclaim declarations have rather become declarations of war themselves. Where aggressors will submit the CBs they are using to justify (whether legitimately or illegitimately) going to war (The legitimacy of the CBs being determined irp.). The submissions of course being coupled with appropriate demonstrations of the RP behind said cbs. Beyond this the most jarring additions are probably the insertion of the War Goals, Warpaths and giving the choice of battlefield to the defender. Firstly, I believe the addition of War Goals will be vital to ensuring that smaller wars however it will also stop wars from dragging on for too long. Aggressors will now be expected to go into a war with a well defined goal of war. Beyond this, I feel that the addition of Warpaths will serve as an integral mechanic due to its close ties with the skirmish system. Launching wars over unfavourable terrain will result in you being forced to fight uphill battles in the pitched field battle and in the warzone. Furthermore, it has always seemed alien to me that the aggressor determined the place of the field battle. Generally the attacking party is marching on a specific settlement and is intercepted by the defending party as to spare their immediate lands the ravages of invasion. Thus I think it is fit to allow the defending party the initiative in choosing the battlefield. Although should the Integrated system be accepted then the victorious party would be allowed to determine DEPLOYMENTS on the battlefield. Format Role-play: CBs: (Provide a list of CBs you believe to have with proof to back them up. These will be reviewed by moderators for approval.) Side A: (The faction declaring war) Side B: (The faction having war declared upon it) Official Allies: (Side A will declare their allies and link the appropriate treaties or whatever substitute is necessary) Proposed Date & Time: (Example: September 17, 1787 @ 3 P.M. EST.) War Goal(s): State the intentions and goals of your campaign, ie what criteria need to be satisfied for the war to be over. Warpath(s): State the route you will be using to reach your goal. Multiple theatres and fronts may be opened but will all take simultaneously if you do choose to rply divide your forces. Please accompany this with a picture of the map with the route drawn on it. Skirmish Warzone location(s): The defending party will provide a screenshot of a location along the route where they will choose to fight should they decide to fight in the field. Keep in mind that offensive initiative can only be gained by winning a field battle or the enemy not presenting themselves. Discord: (Your current Discord username, example: Test#1234.) Final Notes and Reflections The intent behind this rework is to invest as much agency as possible in the players and take a fire axe to tedious staff bureaucracy while streamlining war and making it more interesting for players involved. Ie: ensuring that wars produce more meaningful and goal oriented content for those involved. Hence the proposal to make warzones actually impactful. Having predetermined CBs entirely nukes player independence and excessively limits rp. Allowing GMs to rule on whether or not a CB is valid will just open up an already bias prone system to even more bias and partisanship. Wars should have as little GM influence as possible as any GM that claims they do not have innate biases is lying. I really do ardently believe that the success in LOTC lies in its nature as a dynamic medieval sandbox populated by characters piloted by other real people. Therefore removing as much red tape as we can will naturally progress to a more enjoyable experience for players.

If the Eirikssons wish to frame their bullying and usurpation of other clans as widespread dissent they are free to. But I shall call a wolf a wolf and not dress it in woolens pretending it is a sheep. Indeed, that is an error on my part I believed it necessary to do so as the Ardens had gone a full cycle without holding a moot. However with Kjartan recovering from his illness the clan shall come into health once more.

“Self interested ambition at the cost of our national unity, stability and future progress shall always be opposed by me. Let lesser men scheme and stab their brethren in the back. It is not what I expected from our own” Thoromir would reply