Goblin Squad Member
|
...
As a former MI analyst, I can tell you that the statement that guerrillas would not exhibit SAD-type behavior is untrue. The only difference being that they would demand most or all of your goods in exchange for your life. They aren't as upset as normal bandits if the merchants decide to go elsewhere.
You feel that if the SAD were accepted and the smuggler simply pays them some coin they will let him continue on his way unmolested then. That, in your experience in Military Intelligence is what the Viet Cong or Taliban would do?
Fascinating.
~~later added~~Mr. Bush was seriously mistaken then to not just buy the Taliban off. Mr. Nixon could have paid less than a tenth what the Viet Nam 'conflict' cost, especially in lives, had you only been there to analyze things properly. I am in complete awe.
I had suggested a warning pop up of "warning war zone enter at your own risk" and yes not all merchants will be equal. If kingdom a is sieging the settlement of kingdom b and are in control of the surrounding hexes then they will obviously allow friendly neutrals in. However if kingdom b has secreted insurgent forces they may still freely perform interdiction of these neutrals
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you try to make neutrals cause rep or alignement loss in a war zone you will put good aligned forces at a huge disadvantage compared to evil. War hexes would be fairly limited in extent mostly.
Yes, Good has a reduced freedom of action relative to Evil. That is one of the limitations of Good.
The concern is (or should be) that neutrals will still be providing supply for the enemy or taking actions contrary to the interests of the other belligerent.
I think we all agree that this is the case. Neutrals in a conflict zone is certainly a serious diplomatic problem.
Why should the game rules automatically resolve this problem between players? Isn't the game content supposed to be about problems between players? Why does this problem deserved to be solved when others are not?
(Edit: Quick note, I'm legitimately interested in answers to these. If they're good enough, I may change my opinion.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So too might our Agent Provocateurs interdict the competition's supply with relative impunity to alignment shift and murder flags.Isn't that basically already possible via SAD? No need for extra Letter of Marque mechanics, really. (Though it could be a fun RP element to have one in your inventory with Nihimon's "user objects" idea :))Yet the object is interdiction and disruption rather than highway robbery. The objective is rather widely different.
Guerrillas would not issue a Stand and Deliver. They would not mind having your money, but to accept your money and allow you to deliver your supplies to the enemy of their contracting party would be a violation of trust at least.
I could be be forgetting the details on SAD, but I don't think there's any restrictions on how much you can demand in a SAD - the guerillas could simply demand 100% of the victim's stuff. While bandits may find that sort of behaviour draws too much attention to themselves, for guerillas that's not really a concern.
Good should indeed have reduced freedom of action generally but that does not mean they should be handicapped to this extent. As I said the normal rules shift as well in war time and what was unthinkable becomes acceptable.
It would be easy using neutrals to ensure for instance a settlement of paladins could not wage war without losing that status. I think from a good aligned perspective they have been warned if they ignore that warning it is on their own heads and we assume anyone not on our side is on the side of evil
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
As a former MI analyst, I can tell you that the statement that guerrillas would not exhibit SAD-type behavior is untrue. The only difference being that they would demand most or all of your goods in exchange for your life. They aren't as upset as normal bandits if the merchants decide to go elsewhere.You feel that if the SAD were accepted and the smuggler simply pays them some coin they will let him continue on his way unmolested then. That, in your experience in Military Intelligence is what the Viet Cong or Taliban would do?
Fascinating.
I'm not sure if you're deliberately misreading or not, so I'll reiterate.
The only difference being that they would demand most or all of your goods in exchange for your life.
This is a common tactic of organizations like FARC to acquire supplies for their warfare. "You have food, medical supplies, and ammo. Give them to us and we won't kill you and take them."
Edit to fix formatting
Good should indeed have reduced freedom of action generally but that does not mean they should be handicapped to this extent. As I said the normal rules shift as well in war time and what was unthinkable becomes acceptable.
Yeah, but wouldn't it be awesome if this played out in alignments? Think what kind of great story that could be!
The settlement of Caulborn was founded by Lawful Good paladins. Yet, it was the long war with Askeroth and Faem which drove the Caulborni to the depths of cold, ruthless evil....
If neutrals are targets, then war can't change reputations (probably alignments).
Shouldn't it have the chance to do exactly that?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Good should indeed have reduced freedom of action generally but that does not mean they should be handicapped to this extent. As I said the normal rules shift as well in war time and what was unthinkable becomes acceptable.
It would be easy using neutrals to ensure for instance a settlement of paladins could not wage war without losing that status. I think from a good aligned perspective they have been warned if they ignore that warning it is on their own heads and we assume anyone not on our side is on the side of evil
I've already outlined two ways in which the bolded statement is not true. I have no doubt that once the mechanics are more fully understood, creative players will be able to come up with more. Also, if they're actually evil, throw up the champion flag and kill them. It is not the crushing handicap you present it to be.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...I could be be forgetting the details on SAD, but I don't think there's any restrictions on how much you can demand in a SAD - the guerillas could simply demand 100% of the victim's stuff. While bandits may find that sort of behaviour draws too much attention to themselves, for guerillas that's not really a concern.
All I can say is that our recollections differ. In my memory there has not been anything like that level of detail provided. Instead we still do not know whether the SAD amount will be something the bandits set or whether it will be a game-set percentage of the merchant's available coin/present assets
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
I'm not sure if you're deliberately misreading or not, so I'll reiterate.
The only difference being that they would demand most or all of your goods in exchange for your life.This is a common tactic of organizations like FARC to acquire supplies for their warfare. "You have food, medical supplies, and ammo. Give them to us and we won't kill you and take them."
Edit to fix formatting
I'm doing my best to not misread. If I am a guerilla force determined to interdict supply to a town I'm not going to accept a bribe, which is what the agreed-to SAD would be if offered and accepted. I'm there to interdict supply whether I destroy that supply or prevent its delivery to the settlement by taking it. Certainly guerillas like bandits need food and medicinals. That does not mean their objective is robbery, even if you want to think it is. SAD is inappropriate as a substitute for guerrilla warfare.
~~edit~~ by the way you may notice a pattern with me: I do not respond well to authoritarian assertions, especially where I think said authority is mistaken. Identifying that you were a military intelligence analyst does not excuse you from delivering well reasoned points, and you should not be surprised in future if I fail to cower before you when you try and use that device.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm doing my best to not misread. If I am a guerilla force determined to interdict supply to a town I'm not going to accept a bribe, which is what the agreed-to SAD would be if offered and accepted. I'm there to interdict supply whether I destroy that supply or prevent its delivery to the settlement by taking it. Certainly guerillas like bandits need food and medicinals. That does not mean their objective is robbery, even if you want to think it is. SAD is inappropriate as a substitute for guerrilla warfare....
I'm not sure if you're deliberately misreading or not, so I'll reiterate.
The only difference being that they would demand most or all of your goods in exchange for your life.This is a common tactic of organizations like FARC to acquire supplies for their warfare. "You have food, medical supplies, and ammo. Give them to us and we won't kill you and take them."
Edit to fix formatting
Your previous post states that we don't know exactly how SAD will work, and then you go on to operate on the assumption that all you can get from a SAD is coin. I find that to be extremely unlikely, given that a merchant could thus offload his coin to an alt and be unable to meet any SAD demand. It's far more likely that a SAD will be able to demand some portion of the cargo.
Edit: The statement was not intended to be a "I know what I'm talking about, listen to me." but rather a "This is the source of my information." You're free to evaluate that fact however you wish. =P
I've already outlined two ways in which the bolded statement is not true. I have no doubt that once the mechanics are more fully understood, creative players will be able to come up with more. Also, if they're actually evil, throw up the champion flag and kill them. It is not the crushing handicap you present it to be.
Sorry I must have missed it how are a group of Paladins getting around a settlement using a load of lawful good neutrals as a human shield against the aoe of siege engines. Remember it has been stated you need siege engines to take a settlement.
The alignement drop would be horrendous especially as the neutrals would be killed over and over as they respawn.
Secondly even if you find a way around that. Explain why a paladin settlement can pass a law stating this group is not legal in our territory (this is not an evil group just someone who the paladins dont like) and therefore they can be killed within our territories and paladins saying no neutrals in this territory we have supremacy in while we are at war on pain of death?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@KJD I like the idea of a Settlement's alignment shifting during a war, and the idea of neutrals not being acceptable (non-penalzed) targets, but even without that, evil is attractive. A city of paladin types in weeks of war might not find it easy to go back to being all nicey-nice after the war has ended. The appeal of expediency is hard to deny.
That being said, a group of neutrals moving in and out of a settlement might be worth attacking regardless; if I'm planning on Assassinating you, I'm going to disguise myself to be a neutral party to do so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
Your previous post states that we don't know exactly how SAD will work, and then you go on to operate on the assumption that all you can get from a SAD is coin. I find that to be extremely unlikely, given that a merchant could thus offload his coin to an alt and be unable to meet any SAD demand. It's far more likely that a SAD will be able to demand some portion of the cargo.
Very true, we do not. But you were the one arguing that SAD takes care of the scenario. My point is that we do not know that it does.
Edit: The statement was not intended to be a "I know what I'm talking about, listen to me." but rather a "This is the source of my information." You're free to evaluate that fact however you wish. =P
I can buy that, Dario, but beware: some people my age hold a very very dim view of military intelligence from their direct and unmistakable experience therewith.
~~edit~~ the 'scenario' in question was a proposition that perhaps there is a place for 'Letters of Marque' for group-sized 3rd party combattants working for one of the warring settlements. The objection was raised that the case is already adequately handled by SAD. I object that it is not adequately handled by SAD.|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Suppose a Good kingdom attacks an Evil kingdom. Neutral merchants are supplying Evil forces. This means the Good kingdom might lose the war.What do they do? They can attack the Neutral merchants, but that might mean the Good kingdom loses some alignment.
In the "occupation laws" proposal I made above, I think it's safe to assume that enacting certain laws (occupation laws or regular settlement laws) will have ongoing alignment repercussions for the enacting settlement (or alternatively, but less interestingly, certain options might simply have alignment prerequisites). A Lawful Good kingdom is going to have a pretty hard time justifying that it's Lawful Good to have a "kill trespassers on sight" law around its home settlement, after all - but it might decide take the alignment hit for a (relatively short-term) siege.
I think this might be a good compromise if we must come to that, but I think KJD has the right of it here... he's convinced me.
-I agree that taking away alignment and rep penalties for attacking non-combative 3rd parties makes the choice of 'should I attack or not?' much easier to make. More factors going into that choice will make it more interesting.
-Why bypass the alignment system? Lawful Goods should be held to a higher moral standard than Chaotic Evils.
-I would expect that LG settlements will simply hire a mercenary or bandit band to do their dirty work for them.
-We've been told that maintaining a Lawful Good alignment is going to be both difficult and rewarding. I think this fits into that design goal; the rewards for that alignment can be used to help pay for these dirty tactics used by a 4th party.
-Just as with the long-ago proposed 'challenge' mechanic, I wonder why we should try to bypass the alignment system; let it work. At worst, I can see something close to Tuoweit's suggestion, where the alignment and rep penalties are somewhat decreased or replaced with a flat daily hit, after some time&money effort has been put forth in order to enact an 'occupation' zone in the settlement hex.
I just wonder if it's worth designing another system for this, in what amounts to a system designed to circumvent an existing system (alignment/rep) in a 'special case.'
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The objection was raised that the case is already adequately handled by SAD. I object that it is not adequately handled by SAD.
I agree that SAD is not intended for warfare, but it can be used that way by a 3rd party.
The UnNamed Company is hired as a 3rd party participant (mercenary-bandits) to support "A" settlement vs. "B" settlement.
"A" settlement wants my company to primarily kill their opponent; and only loot after the fact if available. We are not flagged for war, but instead we are flagged as Outlaws and Assassins.
Our "Outlaws" issue a SAD, and demand 100%, expecting that this will be rejected. We now have the "green light" to kill, letting our Assassins commit the finishing blow, whenever possible. No reputation loss on our part; Outlaws get "Chaotic shift"; Assassins get "Evil shift"; we loot what is unthreaded and destroy the rest.
There are only two ways this can fail, that I can see. First, they could accept the SAD and we walk away with 100% of their goods. Second, they defeat us in battle..... Such is war.
What I like about this 3rd party option, is that we can walk away from it when we have met our contractual obligations. The war may rage on, long after our interests have ended.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
-Why bypass the alignment system? Lawful Goods should be held to a higher moral standard than Chaotic Evils.
-I would expect that LG settlements will simply hire a mercenary or bandit band to do their dirty work for them.
This is the very concept that The UnNamed Company was founded on.
In all forms of government, where wealth, power and influence are held by the few or even the one, such power breeds corruption. Yet in almost all of these cases, the corruption is never admitted to, and it is often outright denied. Even in examples of Kingdoms or Nations where the leaders deem themselves to be just and honorable, and they do their level best to live up to that perception, practical governance at times requires good leaders to make tough choices.
It is at those trying times that a solution may be presented to them. They find themselves presented with an offer, to make their problems disappear; their competition to falter; their own reputation to rise; or their power to run anew, without question. It is at those times that The UnNamed Company makes its presence known and its talents available.
I know, a shameless plug, but it does match what you suggest in your post.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm hoping that a declaration of war will be solely between force A and force B. Forces C through Z are neutral, unless war is declared upon them or they join one of the other factions already involved.
Yes, someone will use human (pixel?) shields. Yes, alignments will take hits unless other flags are up. Yes, there will be blockade runners. Yes, people will need to make tough decisions. All awesome stuff! War is hard. Making decisions is hard. This is what a PvP game is all about. The less mechanics making decisions for us, the better.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why wouldn't the neutral merchant suffer the typical negative effects associated with aggression if they acted aggressively against one faction or another involved in a war with a completely different faction?Because I expect the attacking army to be PvP-flagged. Which means they can be attacked by anyone without suffering negative effects.
[Edit] I realize this is an assumption on my part that is not based on facts in evidence.
Nihimon, it sounds like you assume "WAR" is some kind of open pvp flag?
War is declared on a specific settlement, allowing you to attack any and all members of said settlement without penalty - and vice versa. I see no reason why war should change your pvp status with respect to neutral parties.The only reasons I see for war parties to add pvp flags are assassins vs commanders, crusaders vs heinous tactics and bandits vs merchants trying to move out their goods before the city falls (which i find much more likely than them bringing supplies in).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The only reasons I see for war parties to add pvp flags are assassins vs commanders, crusaders vs heinous tactics and bandits vs merchants trying to move out their goods before the city falls (which i find much more likely than them bringing supplies in).
A few weeks ago I had posted a hope that we could have true smuggling / blockade running, where we could bring war supplies into a settlement under siege and boost the morale of the NPC population (Buff).
The reverse could be done as well, where the smuggler tries to slip in goods that help to destabilize the NPC moral, adding a debuff to the defenders.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It occurs to me that while SAD mechanics may not flag an otherwise neutral party as friendly to one party but hostile to another, a supply or support contract to one of the parties might.
Out of curiosity, is being flagged friendly or hostile something that the game needs to handle? Or can faction leaders just disseminate to their troops "Hey, these guys are working [with/against] us. [Don't/Do] nuke them into the ground on sight." I'm ok with poor communication and planning leading to blue on blue attacks. I don't think it makes any more sense to wrap them up in war flags than it does the traders supporting each side. In fact, it makes less, since if they're hitting people with a SAD, then they're already PVP flagged.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Perhaps there will be some kind of a restriction on trade, or special requirement for trade with a settlement at war?
I know there was mention in one of the blogs, that if you give add to someone in combat (ie healing or buff or some sort) you will become "involved" and therefore PVP flagged yourself.
There has to be a similar mechanic for a neutral party to enter a settlement at war, because there would be nothing stopping that character from aiding the besieged. Merely entering the hex of a besieged settlement should give you an "involved flag".
Let the attacker of the settlement decide to let you pass through safely or the defender to allow you to enter. I have a feeling neither will let you go unchallenged.
War zones are not open to tourists!
My view is still the same if you are expecting to enter a warzone to aid either party why should you expect to be able to do so consequence free.
Why are you hitting me I am an innocent merchant merely helping out your enemy? That is so evil of you!
This is a mechanic I hate in Eve, you will hear people complain about neutral haulers and neutral repairers all the time (though they have recently changed the latter after many years).
If you are helping either side you have decided to take part in the war by your own action
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My view is still the same if you are expecting to enter a warzone to aid either party why should you expect to be able to do so consequence free.
Why are you hitting me I am an innocent merchant merely helping out your enemy? That is so evil of you!
This is a mechanic I hate in Eve, you will hear people complain about neutral haulers and neutral repairers all the time (though they have recently changed the latter after many years).
If you are helping either side you have decided to take part in the war by your own action
Perhaps that is where trade treaties and diplomatic demands are thrashed out with 3rd parties ie existing treaties and sanctions on that if they can be persuaded or reimbursed for their loss of trade rights/agreements??
Interesting...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It occurs to me that while SAD mechanics may not flag an otherwise neutral party as friendly to one party but hostile to another, a supply or support contract to one of the parties might.Out of curiosity, is being flagged friendly or hostile something that the game needs to handle? Or can faction leaders just disseminate to their troops "Hey, these guys are working [with/against] us. [Don't/Do] nuke them into the ground on sight." I'm ok with poor communication and planning leading to blue on blue attacks. I don't think it makes any more sense to wrap them up in war flags than it does the traders supporting each side. In fact, it makes less, since if they're hitting people with a SAD, then they're already PVP flagged.
There is this meme of a 'war zone' currently on the forums. What that looks like, anyway, is that if a neutral enters such a war zone there are a few possible ways it could work, the most alarming being that the neutral becomes simply flagged for PvP, making them identified as 'hostile' to both belligerents. One example where this would not be functioning rightly is where that neutral is actually attempting to help one side of the other either by delivering needed supplies (blockade runner) or interdicting the opposition's supply route. In such a case they are clearly not neutral but partisan. Yet under only the PvP flag they may come under attack even by the side they are working for. My thought is that there should be a way for an undeclared participant to show up as friendly to the one side while being hostile to the other. Hence the letter of marque or contractual effect without having to also declare war (too small/undeveloped community).
An advanced settlement might 'ally', but an unsettled group would not have such an option.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Perhaps there will be some kind of a restriction on trade, or special requirement for trade with a settlement at war?
-it is easy to flag a settlement as "under siege" if attacking army is/has/builds [CRITERIA]
-it is easy to flag anyone doing economic activity in settlement "under siege" as "involved with [settlement]"
-depending on what you want to achieve, you could additionally
-flag any neutrals entering the besieged hex as "trespassers". THere may be a "contest" mechanism that could be used for this though.
-flag anyone entering (but not leaving) the settlement as "involved with.."
-close the doors of besieged settlements so that noone can enter or leave (except by teleports, death porting etc.) except by permission from both sides
I think 'neutral' opportunists entering the besieged hex are just as likely to offer help to the attackers as to the defenders.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ ZenPagan,
I agree fully...
Also to the other concern that "LG characters" will have when defending their settlement, and how to defend against neutrals aiding their enemy.
Your reputation is only useful for your settlement. If your settlement is going to fall, screw your reputation and the minor alignment shifts... Kill them all and let your God sort them out.
Your can't pray for forgiveness if your church is a smoldering hole in the ground!
Besides, one of the devs said something like, a Paladin for example can kill about 150 PCs (neutral) before he / she may shift to Neutral from max Lawful. Your reputation may be a bit harder hit, but your settlement will forgive you or it will be gone, either way... No big deal.
The argument has been made that lawful good is hard to maintain. I don't think that means the alignment, mechanically is hard to maintain, I think that refers to the behavior is hard to maintain. With the use of flags and the automatic off-line or inactive shift towards LG, it is mechanically easy to maintain.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Let me also ask you how will playing both sides work? Those of us wishing to truly give the bad guy a good name, there could be a lot of profit in selling and "working" for both sides. If have are required to "flag" for one side or the other, then this can't work. There are many ways to play both sides without getting involved with either. Sell weapons to one and blockade run for the other for example.
I have alway assumed that PfO would have a similar flagging system to Eve where you can set the relationship to various entities from single people up through corporations to full alliances on a scale from -10 to +10.
This hasn't been specifically stated but my reasons for supposing are
1) Ryan worked on Eve
2) It is a simple system with not much to go wrong
3) It is extremely flexible
4) It is under full player control
This would allow something that a letter of Marque mechanic wouldn't. Duplicity!
I get +10 status with the attacker then at the last moment I turn left and deliver to the defender who won't shoot me as they have also set my status on +10
With a letter of marque mechanic they would assume I am hostile as I show up as hostile
One of the good things it does is once attacked by someone you can set their rating and a 3 months later when you meet them again the rating is still there to warn you to be careful long after pvp flags are gone.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like the self rating system, especially having them last fora while.
Also, if I'm hired by Settlement A to assassinate a leader of Settlement B, I don't know if I could effectively do that while flagged PvP for both sides.
Well, if you're assassinating someone, then you're already PVP flagged to everyone via the assassin flag. You could rock a disguise for it, but if the town is under seige, you'd be the person wandering around *without* a war flag, which may be suspicious on it's own.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, if you're assassinating someone, then you're already PVP flagged to everyone via the assassin flag. You could rock a disguise for it, but if the town is under siege, you'd be the person wandering around *without* a war flag, which may be suspicious on it's own.I like the self rating system, especially having them last fora while.
Also, if I'm hired by Settlement A to assassinate a leader of Settlement B, I don't know if I could effectively do that while flagged PvP for both sides.
Unless, of course, it's possible to disguise yourself as a member of the settlement (Honest, sir, I just joined yesterday!), thereby gaining the necessary flags.
Setting a hex as a war zone should give any neutral entering it a message: "Warning, you are about to enter a designated war zone. You should be aware that you may be attacked, maimed, killed, and/or eaten by carnivorous marmosets. Continue at your own risk."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that warning might be a good idea, but I don't think it should mean that anybody can kill you free of alignment and rep penalties.
When you enter a warzone, you should expect to encounter hostile characters from one or both sides of the conflict, obviously. Both armies know that you are likely there to aid one or the other of them; of course they want to keep you from helping the other so they can win the war! If they are both Lawful Good settlements, maybe you have less reason to expect to be murdered by such upstanding citizens =) That is a choice they will have to make.
... If you've seen that The UnNamed Company has been hired in the conflict, expect no mercy (Bludd, I was indeed thinking of your organization when I put that in my other post ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nihimon, it sounds like you assume "WAR" is some kind of open pvp flag?
Nope.
I believe a Declaration of War allows players from two opposing sides to freely attack each other anywhere without having to be individually flagged. I do not believe that C can attack A and or B just because A and B are in a Declared War.
What you quoted me talking about was an "attacking army", which I have also called an "occupying army". This is a significant distinction, and I believe it is largely determined by whether or not there is Siege Equipment attacking a Settlement. In that specific condition, I expect everyone in the Hex to be a fair target because they are in a war zone. That expectation may be unreasonable, but I would rather people understand what my actual expectation is, rather than assuming I'm saying something I'm not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So if warzone is full, consequence-free PVP for everyone in the hex:
A declares war on B.
A emplaces a siege camp around B.
C assembles army, enters warzone, attacks A.
C has none of the drawbacks of being at war (it's noncombatants and settlement are unflagged, does not pay any associated "war cost") unless A then declares a second war on them. This is even worse if war cost is non-equal (such as the case where the aggressor pays more than the defender), since A would have to pay the agressor cost again to defend itself from C if forced to declare war against them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
C has none of the drawbacks of being at war (it's noncombatants and settlement are unflagged, does not pay any associated "war cost") unless A then declares a second war on them. This is even worse if war cost is non-equal (such as the case where the aggressor pays more than the defender), since A would have to pay the agressor cost again to defend itself from C if forced to declare war against them.
It's unknown whether the "costs" of war are abstracted and have to be paid to the ether when you Declare War, or whether they are inherent in creating and moving Siege Equipment into another Hex.
Keep in mind that Ryan has expressed a desire that two organizations which want to freely attack each other should be able to do so by mutually Declaring War. I can't imagine he would want this to be an extremely costly thing to do.
My expectation, again, is that there is a significant difference between a "Declared War" and "Attacking a Hex". I expect a Declared War to be fairly easy and cheap. I expect Attacking a Hex to be quite costly. I personally don't expect C to be able to avoid the costs of Attacking a Hex just because they avoided Declaring War.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
C has none of the drawbacks of being at war (it's noncombatants and settlement are unflagged, does not pay any associated "war cost") unless A then declares a second war on them. This is even worse if war cost is non-equal (such as the case where the aggressor pays more than the defender), since A would have to pay the agressor cost again to defend itself from C if forced to declare war against them.It's unknown whether the "costs" of war are abstracted and have to be paid to the ether when you Declare War, or whether they are inherent in creating and moving Siege Equipment into another Hex.
Keep in mind that Ryan has expressed a desire that two organizations which want to freely attack each other should be able to do so by mutually Declaring War. I can't imagine he would want this to be an extremely costly thing to do.
My expectation, again, is that there is a significant difference between a "Declared War" and "Attacking a Hex". I expect a Declared War to be fairly easy and cheap. I expect Attacking a Hex to be quite costly. I personally don't expect C to be able to avoid the costs of Attacking a Hex just because they avoided Declaring War.
That's true if they're bringing in siege equipment and the like to go after B (the entity under seige). If they're going after A, however, then they don't have need of any of that. They just have to roll in and keep killing all the people A sends, and let B deal with A's structures.
So if warzone is full, consequence-free PVP for everyone in the hex:
A declares war on B.
A emplaces a siege camp around B.
C assembles army, enters warzone, attacks A.C has none of the drawbacks of being at war (it's noncombatants and settlement are unflagged, does not pay any associated "war cost") unless A then declares a second war on them. This is even worse if war cost is non-equal (such as the case where the aggressor pays more than the defender), since A would have to pay the agressor cost again to defend itself from C if forced to declare war against them.
Which provides a huge benefit to any defensive alliances.
Not to say that's a "bad" thing per se, but talking about potential emergent gameplay before it causes a problem in game is a good thing.
I think everyone knows how I feel on the issue, so I won't reiterate it.
:/
The simple answer is the army C can be freely killed without repercussion in the warzone even though they are neutral. Once the attack is over the attacked army may well indeed declare war and go teach C not to interfere.
Fighting the army though is still free
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If they're going after A, however, then they don't have need of any of that.That's possible, but it's not really known yet. There might very well be counter-Siege Equipment that is needed to dislodge Siege Equipment. We just don't know.
Which is why I followed it up with
They just have to roll in and keep killing all the people A sends, and let B deal with A's structures.
That's possible, but it's not really known yet. There might very well be counter-Siege Equipment that is needed to dislodge Siege Equipment. We just don't know.
If the invading army is all dead, does it really matter what happens to their abandoned siege equipment?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Which provides a huge benefit to any defensive alliances.
I'm not sure it does. The key fact in PFO is that C can send in an army to attack A anyway. Will it really make that much of a difference to them whether or not they take Reputation or Alignment hits for doing so? Maybe, maybe not. If C is Chaotic Evil, I guarantee you it won't matter to them at all.