Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm assuming GW and this communitity realizes that wars have been launched from nothing more than a cave (hideout) or from a tent on the open plains.
My point being, the war mechanics should not require a very high level of settlement structure in order to launch a war. Perhaps it could be the bare minimum of an encampment (pre permanent structure).
What my hope is, is to allow for small and losely connected charter companies to be able to join forces against a common and extremely "built up" settlement. I recognize that these small groups will not have the same level of warfare based settlement buffs, but their advantages will rely on mobility and mutiple lesser "settlements" to operate from.
The other issue, if true, is the proposed "Consensual Warfare". If warfare must be consensual, then there would be no warfare that is either predatory, defensive or even more common than the rarest of rare events.
The only time a settlement would agree to a war is if they were almost certain they could easily win that war. I can not think of any war in human history, or in fiction for that matter, that was consensual. There is always an aggressor and a defender. Defenders never give consent to being attacked, because they have nothing to be gained by it.
For those that would say, "this suggestion is just trying to skirt the alignment / reputation system":
1. Both sides would have the "at war" flag, so both benefit from it equally.
2. This suggestion does not say there should not be a high cost of initiating the war declaration. A war party should require:
* A reasonable number of members (at least 20+ for arguement sake).
* Pay a fee for the war decalration
* A number of resources to support each member of the war party in a stockpile (storage)
* A minimum of an encampment to launch the operation, and whatever resources needed to construct that encampment.
* Skills necessary for warfare (leadership skill requirments).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, they've mentioned that below a certain DI threshold, there wouldn't be a window of vulnerability for a settlement, so I'd think you need to be at least at that point to declare a war. I also think that being at war should increase your upkeep cost relative to how long the war has been ongoing. The longer the war, the more expensive it gets to maintain.
For players willing to accept the cost, launching a war is simple. All you have to do is go into the target territory and start killing people. I see no reason why a group of charter companies could not do just that.
What would a "War Declared" action grant them that simply going in and doing what the game allows them to do not?
And in terms of "skirting alignment/reputation", shouldn't launching a war have some effect on that? Good-aligned organizations shouldn't launch wars. That's one of the downsides of being good, and one of the advantages of being evil.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For players willing to accept the cost, launching a war is simple. All you have to do is go into the target territory and start killing people. I see no reason why a group of charter companies could not do just that.
What would a "War Declared" action grant them that simply going in and doing what the game allows them to do not?
The short answer is "No".
There is actually going to be a "At War" flag, which turns off all of the "negatives" of open combat (No attacker flags, no chaotic shits, no evil shifts for killing and no reputaion loss (don't know about gain).
What has been said so far is that only settlements can wage war against other settlements, and that they had to be consensual. I find no justifiable sense in that, so I posted this thread for discussion and hopefully clarification.
Starting a war isn't as easy as just going there and attacking people, although that can be a tactic to try and make a settlement declare war. According to some rather dated blog posts, a sell teeming would need to set up a siege camp and protect it as its being built before actual "War" can be declared. Perhaps this has changed, I'm not sure. I think there are more ways to declare war, but I've not found the posts that talk about them.
The consensual part though as far as I can find seems to be only mentioned by one player and I have yet to find a goblin works quote supporting that. I am hoping it is merely something he has misread or misunderstood.
As you probably guessed from my previous posts I am firmly in your camp on the issue of what is necessary for war declarations.
I really cannot see gw making wars consensual however as it this is meant to be a sandbox game based on creating kingdoms and empires. Difficult to do that if you cannot fight anyone unless you are willing to take massive hits to rep and alignement
There is actually going to be a "At War" flag, which turns off all of the "negatives" of open combat (No attacker flags, no chaotic s&~#s, no evil shifts for killing and no reputaion loss (don't know about gain).
What has been said so far is that only settlements can wage war against other settlements, and that they had to be consensual. I find no justifiable sense in that, so I posted this thread for discussion and hopefully clarification.
I'm aware there will be an "At War" flag.
My points is: If organized bandit groups can declare war against anyone, that is much too easy for them to circumvent the systems designed to make them criminals and outlaws.
Groups using a war declaration to avoid being tagged with Attacker, Criminal, or Outlaw when such circumvention is their only motivator for declaring war is bad for gameplay.
There is a circumstance where war could be "consensual". Delivered in a mechanic similar to "Stand and Deliver," one side might be motivated to accept another sides saber rattling.
Example:
Kingdom A sends an ultimatum to Kingdom B. "Do X, or we're at war."
Kingdom B does not want to do X (whatever that happens to be).
Kingdom B replies, "Fine, we're at war."
That's consensual, but one side is clearly the aggressor. In such a case, I presume Kingdom A would shoulder some financial burden related to waging war. Kingdom B, since they didn't start it, gets to wage war without the financial burden, but, presumably, they are somewhat weaker than Kingdom A in some regard otherwise it makes no sense why Kingdom B would wage war in the first place.
P.S. - I'm not arguing war should be consensual. I'm arguing there might be a mechanic for it to work in that way. I don't know that it would work or if the developers even intend to try. Personally, I think war should be non-consensual. It is war, after all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My points is: If organized bandit groups can declare war against anyone, that is much too easy for them to circumvent the systems designed to make them criminals and outlaws.
I agree, which is why I asked the question: What is the minimum settlement structure needed?
I have also written that there should be some other requirements:
* A reasonable number of members (at least 20+ for argument sake).
* Pay a fee for the war declaration
* A number of resources to support each member of the war party in a stockpile (storage)
* A minimum of an encampment to launch the operation, and whatever resources needed to construct that encampment.
* Skills necessary for warfare (leadership skill requirments).
@Dario,
Yes I would also assume there would be a steep, ongoing cost for war, which I was including in my third bullet above.
I'm aware there will be an "At War" flag.My points is: If organized bandit groups can declare war against anyone, that is much too easy for them to circumvent the systems designed to make them criminals and outlaws.
Groups using a war declaration to avoid being tagged with Attacker, Criminal, or Outlaw when such circumvention is their only motivator for declaring war is bad for gameplay.
I think this can surely be left to the gm's to decide. Ryan has said they would be actively weeding out griefers and I would suggest the above sort of thing is exactly what they should be looking at.
This fear of griefers is getting to the point where we risk throwing the baby out with the bath water. Let people declare war as they wish. If you think they are doing it to evade mechanics then report it and let the gm's decide
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What would a "War Declared" action grant them that simply going in and doing what the game allows them to do not?
That's the question, indeed.
I expect the answer to why "War Declarations" are important will be just as significant as the answer to why "Assassinations" are important.
This fear of griefers is getting to the point where we risk throwing the baby out with the bath water. Let people declare war as they wish. If you think they are doing it to evade mechanics then report it and let the gm's decide
Currently, war between two factions removes substantial negative elements from engaging in violence. That is war's benefit. It allows people to do bad things without suffering social repercussions. People will want to use this to do bad things.
In my opinion, this is an acceptable state of affairs, if war is not easy to launch.
A small group of bandits or a group of such groups should not be able to launch wars frivolously and face no real consequences.
If those bandits have to establish a settlement and build it to a certain point, then pay some costs associated with the war, then I'm fine with bandit-kings launching wars.
war has to be declarable without settlements otherwise groups coming to pathfinder late will find all suitable hexes occupied and won't be able to establish themselves without first kicking over someone else's settlements.
I stand by what I said if you think people are declaring war to frivolously to get risk free killing report it and trust the gm's to decide if it is so. All restrictions do is limit people with legitimate reasons to do it.
You as a settlement will also wish at times to declare war on landless groups otherwise you wont be able to deal with that nest of bandits in a wilderness hex unless you catch them in the short time they have an attacker flag. Remember criminal flags only work in settled hexes
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
war has to be declarable without settlements otherwise groups coming to pathfinder late will find all suitable hexes occupied and won't be able to establish themselves without first kicking over someone else's settlements.
They're going to have to kick over someone else's settlement either way. Land is a finite resource. They'll just need to find an existing settlement to back them in the attempt first.
You as a settlement will also wish at times to declare war on landless groups otherwise you wont be able to deal with that nest of bandits in a wilderness hex unless you catch them in the short time they have an attacker flag. Remember criminal flags only work in settled hexes
I'm not sure war is the mechanism for that, since that also invites the bandits to slaughter all the people from your settlement consequence free.
There is no reason why they should be required to form a settlement. Conquering by roaming warrior bands is common both in fiction and history. Requiring them to join a settlement first binds them to the rules of an existing settlement which they may not want to follow.
This is a huge problem in Eve where realistically to set up in null sec you have to join an already existing block. Pay for the privilege and are expected to do as you are told to a great extent. It is no accident that these groups are referred to as pet's.
If I and a sufficiently large group of people were to join and wished to oust an existing settlement to make room for ourselves I expect to be able to attempt it. The existing settlement already has huge advantage on its side due to infrastructure, alliances etc.
Backing such a group would also something most settlements would get no real advantage from as well. A settlement which backs you gets dragged into your war and their people become targets. If you succeed in taking the land you then become a separate entity. What exactly do they gain?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
war has to be declarable without settlements otherwise groups coming to pathfinder late will find all suitable hexes occupied and won't be able to establish themselves without first kicking over someone else's settlements.
I'd speculate that a "declaration of war" is a settlement level and above function and not possible below. Pretty sure that will be the case.
It's been described already:
1. Ratio of Wilderness to Total Possible Settlements & Distribution
2. Demand for settlements by player formed organisations > Suitable sites for Settlements
3. Game population (density) to size of map
See Marlagram's "Declaration of War"
I stand by what I said if you think people are declaring war to frivolously to get risk free killing report it and trust the gm's to decide if it is so. All restrictions do is limit people with legitimate reasons to do it.
Impractical: The gm reporting should never be 1st line support. Last line?
You as a settlement will also wish at times to declare war on landless groups otherwise you wont be able to deal with that nest of bandits in a wilderness hex unless you catch them in the short time they have an attacker flag. Remember criminal flags only work in settled hexes
A state does not declare war on a gang of criminals be they citizens or foreigners. Bandits have guards to deal with. Higher numbers and soldiers to deal with... Higher numbers and they may be an enemy task force breaking sovereignty?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your huge group could pretend to be whatever alignment the settlement is, become citizens thereof, and once you are citizens behave on a different alignment path. If there are truly enough of you, the alignment of the settlement can become opposed to the original settlers and they will have to pack up and move out.
Even Neutral Neutral settlements could oust their original NN founders if enough citizens become Chaoic Good or Lawful Good or Lawful Evil or Chaotic Evil.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If I and a sufficiently large group of people were to join and wished to oust an existing settlement to make room for ourselves I expect to be able to attempt it. The existing settlement already has huge advantage on its side due to infrastructure, alliances etc.
I'd expect only an existing, established power base of suitable size would be able to take on another settlement (even if said settlement had zero allies).
New players will feed existing power structures before budding off to form their own collectives. Again that just seems obvious?
@Being: The "enemy within" aka "cancer" technique would be the obvious exception. But I'd have to be a very lax or run-down settlement ripe for the taking...
Considering it's been stated directly in developer blogs that they'll be adding new areas as the game progresses, I don't think running out of space for potential settlements is a problem that needs to be addressed with such a fundamental rule.
If you and a sufficiently large group of people join together to oust an existing settlement, there seem likely to be means to do that without having to reduce the difficulty of an official war declaration. Not all conflict will be directed through that avenue.
If restricting the sandbox is the other option to gm reporting then yes GM reporting should be the first line.In any case it would be easy for the gm's to decide. The more restrictions you place on what players can do the less of a sand box the game becomes.
Personally I don't think that people will on the whole be declaring war on all and sundry as there are plenty of flags that give them advantages whereas the war one only as far as I have seen takes away the negative side of attacking.I was pointing out the gm option because we had people fretting that someone possibly might misuse the ability,
We do seem to have an ethos growing here though whereby we have people going "but someone might use it to grief people we ought to heap restrictions on it" and that is exactly what this is a case of in my opinion.
As to not declaring war on criminals. That is certainly true in the real world however the guards of real world states don't get alignement or reputation hits for dealing with people who they know to be criminals but dont happen to be "flagged" right at this moment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is no reason why they should be required to form a settlement. Conquering by roaming warrior bands is common both in fiction and history. Requiring them to join a settlement first binds them to the rules of an existing settlement which they may not want to follow.
This is a huge problem in Eve where realistically to set up in null sec you have to join an already existing block. Pay for the privilege and are expected to do as you are told to a great extent. It is no accident that these groups are referred to as pet's.
If I and a sufficiently large group of people were to join and wished to oust an existing settlement to make room for ourselves I expect to be able to attempt it. The existing settlement already has huge advantage on its side due to infrastructure, alliances etc.
The game is about territorial control. Settlements control territory. So we want to channel players into Settlements.
Part of the point of this restriction is probably to *avoid* roaming bands of people destroying settlements. If a new group comes in, they find a settlement willing to sponsor them and become a chartered company of that settlement. You need resources and infrastructure to take down a settlement. You can't just run up to the town hall and start whacking it with a sword. You'll need siege engines that take time, resources, and facilities to build.
Backing such a group would also something most settlements would get no real advantage from as well. A settlement which backs you gets dragged into your war and their people become targets. If you succeed in taking the land you then become a separate entity. What exactly do they gain?
Maybe they end up getting you to join their kingdom. Maybe the town they're helping you take over has been operating as a safe haven and support center for undesirables. Maybe you come to a favorable trade agreement in return for their support. The backing settlement can definitely gain things for supporting a group's attempt to take down another town.
Considering it's been stated directly in developer blogs that they'll be adding new areas as the game progresses, I don't think running out of space for potential settlements is a problem that needs to be addressed with such a fundamental rule.
If you and a sufficiently large group of people join together to oust an existing settlement, there seem likely to be means to do that without having to reduce the difficulty of an official war declaration. Not all conflict will be directed through that avenue.
From the blogs so far it seems that there isnt a way to oust a settlement without either war or suffering huge alignement and reputation hits on your members. Can you point to where they said there will always be room for all? I certainly don't remember such a thing being stated and it would seem pointless as if land is limitless what reason will there ever be to fight?
The game is about territorial control. Settlements control territory. So we want to channel players into Settlements.Part of the point of this restriction is probably to *avoid* roaming bands of people destroying settlements. If a new group comes in, they find a settlement willing to sponsor them and become a chartered company of that settlement. You need resources and infrastructure to take down a settlement. You can't just run up to the town hall and start whacking it with a sword. You'll need siege engines that take time, resources, and facilities to build.
The "roving band" are taking part in territorial control. Siege engines can no doubt be purchased.
Forcing people into joining existing settlements if they want to end up having a settlement to call home is similar to other games setting a maximum number of guilds that can exist and if you want to be in a guild you have to join one of those even if you don't particularly like the way they are run.
I play Eve and this happens in that game all the time. Groups decide not to join in the null sec area's because to do so they have to make themselves subordinate to large bloc's. This is something I feel pathfinder should try and avoid in my view otherwise you will end up with the same situation as in eve. Two or three large kingdoms and a lot of smaller companies that stay in the npc settlements.
Let me try this again.... What should be the minimum required structure of a settlement in order to declare a war?
A fortress, minimum.
None whatsoever all that should be required is the willingness to take the consequences.
I have no problem however with wars costing an weekly upkeep fee and that the upkeep fee increases exponentially with the number of wars. That ensures that all sorts of rp reasons to war such as wishing to rp a nomad horde or a rebel army are preserved while meaning that has an impact upon the agressor as well
As to the Carthage example Hannibal had a city so it is natural if the city is sacked the army is demoralised and gives up. This wouldn't really have worked with the Mongols on the other hand.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
None whatsoever all that should be required is the willingness to take the consequences.
I have no problem however with wars costing an weekly upkeep fee and that the upkeep fee increases exponentially with the number of wars. That ensures that all sorts of rp reasons to war such as wishing to rp a nomad horde or a rebel army are preserved while meaning that has an impact upon the agressor as well
As to the Carthage example Hannibal had a city so it is natural if the city is sacked the army is demoralised and gives up. This wouldn't really have worked with the Mongols on the other hand.
Ok, let me ask you this, then. Roaming band declares war on Settlement. Roaming band wins if it destroys Settlement. What is Settlement's win condition?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ok, let me ask you this, then. Roaming band declares war on Settlement. Roaming band wins if it destroys Settlement. What is Settlement's win condition?To crush your enemies -- See them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women!"
Need there be more?
Seriously though, when ever you are fighting from a fortified position, your win condition is simply to hold that position. You can always send out scavenger parties to loot the dead, and then they can scurry back behind the walls.
@Dario
There are no win conditions in any war...war continues until one party accepts defeat and is forced to agree to the victor's demands this may be the aggressor who has realised he isn't going to conquer and the war is draining him or the defender who loses a settlement and wishes war to end so he can start to rebuild his forces elsewhere.
It is no different to a kingdom vs kingdom war. The endpoint occurs when both parties reach an agreement it does, a bit like the real world wars. A destroyed settlement can always continue as a guerilla force and try to retake the land.
This is a sandbox there aren't black and white win conditions we are not playing capture the flag we are playing a game of politics,diplomacy and intrigue
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Zen:
It's not a question imo of attaching arbitrary win/loss conditions vs "letting the players sort it out". Either too closed or too open.
It's imo, a question of what sort of tools to provide players with in a logical system to set win/loss conditions in a wars of their own making that is positive and synchronises with other game systems.
players setting win loss conditions will never happen as it requires agreement so it is a non starter. What kingdom that thinks it will lose will agree to "Destruction of all your settlements"?
Can you even suggest a system like that whereby both sides would agree?
Wars in Eve end quite naturally without this win loss condition stuff when one side or the other accedes to the demands of the other.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that it will be possible for bands of characters to attack structures but not settlements.
Armies require sophisticated logistics as well, so they are not likely to be found roaming randomly around a hex.
The following quote has a lot of intervening text was deleted for focus on what can be destroyed by individuals (like a band of Bluddwolf's).
- Hideouts can be destroyed by individuals.
- Inns can be destroyed by individuals.
- Watchtowers can be destroyed by individuals.
- Forts can only be destroyed by siege engines.
I do not believe that there is a required progression from watchtower to fort to settlement that must be followed. The above quote (in deleted text) did not indicate so by my read. But it did state that the construction site for a building or settlement can be attacked and destroyed, presumably by individuals.
We may also be forgetting that player settlements will have a PvP window where PvP is allowed in the settlement. I presume that conducting war in those times is possible but not when the window is closed. As Lee Hammack implies below, settlement development beyond basic levels will be governed by the size of the PvP window. War will most likely be more successful for those settlement that have 24-hour PvP windows because they will have the highest development indexes to accumulate war resources. If there is a certain DI level required to wage war, then their will probably be a minimum PvP window connected with that level which will circumscribe a lot of war effort. A settlement with a 24-hour PvP window will also be more susceptible to attack, especially at odd hours when the local time of the majority of settlement charter members is most inconvenient.
The leader of a settlement can set a PvP window, during which time their NPC guards get drastically less numerous, thus providing a window for outsiders to attack without having to worry much about the NPC guards. If the settlement does not have a PvP window, it's development indexes can never go above 200 (so if you have a small just starting out settlement you can keep your PvP protection up full time to allow settlements to get some time to build up and get their feet under them before they start getting attacked). This means your settlement is safer from PvP, but is really going to be limited in what it can do.
As players set a larger and larger PvP window for their settlement, their development index limit increases. The settlement gets to set the window, so if they are open for PvP 4 hours a day they get to choose those four hours so they don't have to worry about being up at 4 AM just to defend their territory from some guys in another time zone. Eventually to get the highest development indexes you have to be open to PvP 24 hours a day, or at least a substantial portion thereof. We'll have to see how it works out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
players setting win loss conditions will never happen as it requires agreement so it is a non starter. What kingdom that thinks it will lose will agree to "Destruction of all your settlements"?
Can you even suggest a system like that whereby both sides would agree?
Wars in Eve end quite naturally without this win loss condition stuff when one side or the other accedes to the demands of the other.
What sort of kingdom will set war conditions that maintain it's high alignment and reputation but gain it's objectives?
What sort of kingdom puts less stock in setting conditions and does not mind steam-rolling another kingdom and creating a vendetta reprisal system with that group of players?
Players setting win/loss conditions when political dialogue between two otherwise non-competing kingdoms, does not reach a resolution?
Suffice to add: Non-declared wars WILL impact alignment and reputation.
|
I think that <WAR> is probably a flag that your settlment, charter, guild, or other groups you belong to can declare against any other, settlement charter, guild or assorted player/NPC group.
In order to do this, you need to have a player decision system in place in each of these organizations whereby they can actively wage their <WAR>.
For each level of organization you are on, you have more complex ways to interact with your players and resources.
For example, you are part of a settlement, who is not at <WAR>. You however are on a Holy (Good) Crusade <WAR>, against a clan of evil assassins who killed your Chartered Company (Or Guild, whatever) Spiritual Leader during a religous ceremony.
Since your settlement isn't involved, your CC gets together and decides this is the final straw and organizes a militia (Impromptu after the killing and discovery of Assassin) to seek revenge. <WAR> is declared and suddenly you have the morale and personal wit, and skill of an entire CC of people to get behind you. Think 10-100 Level 1-4ish experienced role-players ready to raise the assassins hideout.
Because you dont have the resources of a settlement you probably wont have as many soldiers or siege weapons ready on command with any lesser group, but <WAR> should still be possible to use your limited resources to some extent.
What sort of kingdom will set war conditions that maintain it's high alignment and reputation but gain it's objectives?What sort of kingdom puts less stock in setting conditions and does not mind steam-rolling another kingdom and creating a vendetta reprisal system with that group of players?
Players setting win/loss conditions when political dialogue between two otherwise non-competing kingdoms, does not reach a resolution?
Suffice to add: Non-declared wars WILL impact alignment and reputation.
Yes non declared wars will however I do not believe for a moment that wars will require consent hence that will not be an issue. Agreeing the win conditions will be tantamount to requiring consent therefore it won't happen either
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes non declared wars will however I do not believe for a moment that wars will require consent hence that will not be an issue. Agreeing the win conditions will be tantamount to requiring consent therefore it won't happen either
What sort of kingdom will set war conditions that maintain it's high alignment and reputation but gain it's objectives?What sort of kingdom puts less stock in setting conditions and does not mind steam-rolling another kingdom and creating a vendetta reprisal system with that group of players?
Players setting win/loss conditions when political dialogue between two otherwise non-competing kingdoms, does not reach a resolution?
Suffice to add: Non-declared wars WILL impact alignment and reputation.
Sorry using win/loss condition as short-hand: I mean more fully: Setting:
1. What is open to attack
2. When the war is to be waged & How long before it is finished.
3. What is the consensus for what each side may be after and entitled to go after
4. Anything that cancels the just war null and void
5. Anything that can be done during a war to set matters straight between sides.
6. Further: Is assassination off-limits eg? Such "underhand" tactics etc....
7. Where a pitched battle is to be staged...
I think the negotiating table has much to offer settlements that have higher alignment/reputation concerns. Sometimes "mortal combat" as a form of finding justice is an emotionally satisfying method.
You can have wars thrown on you, but I think there should be alignment/reputation hits to that method - and potential vendetta spiral too.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is a circumstance where war could be "consensual". Delivered in a mechanic similar to "Stand and Deliver," one side might be motivated to accept another sides saber rattling.
Example:
Kingdom A sends an ultimatum to Kingdom B. "Do X, or we're at war."Kingdom B does not want to do X (whatever that happens to be).
Kingdom B replies, "Fine, we're at war."
That's consensual
I hate to be pedantic about a tangential point (though admittedly the part I hate is that it's tangential...), but: No, that's not consensual. Consensual means the willing participation of both parties. It MIGHT be consensual if Kingdom B actually wanted to go to war, but it's just as likely they wanted neither to "Do X", nor to go to war (but war was preferable to doing X).
This is a huge problem in Eve where realistically to set up in null sec you have to join an already existing block. Pay for the privilege and are expected to do as you are told to a great extent. It is no accident that these groups are referred to as pet's.
We don't really have enough information to know whether your fears are realistic or not. Can siege engines be sold to groups not part of a settlement, for example?
Some stuff that we do know:
* Kingdoms will be quite limited in the number of hexes they'll be able to control due to exponential maintenance costs.
* All usable land in PFO will eventually become settled, but then that land will actually be IN USE rather than just gathering dust with only some nominal sovereignty flag on it. (That doesn't preclude expanding the map to add more territory, though.)
Some additional speculation on my part:
If war costs escalate quickly for declaring multiple aggressive wars, and then maintaining large meta-game power blocks of mutually-supporting kingdoms becomes highly impractical. Without large power blocks protecting massive swaths of territory, it's much easier to take out individual settlements to make room for yourselves.
War generally take place after negotiations have broken down and is a means of bringing the other party back to the table in a more amenable frame of mind.
If I was the leader on either side there is no way I would discuss any of those issues prior to a war and I can't see many being willing to. War's will probably be mostly one sided with one side having a significant advantage going into it. Why would they be willing to agree any of it.
Second question why do you wish to limit player action by setting arbitrary criteria.
A sandbox means a players actions affect the world. Actions also have consequences. This seems nothing more than a way of trying to limit the consequences for whichever side is the one wanting to set these and I can almost guarantee one side will want this all laid out and the other won't.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I still stand by my hope that nothing more than an encampment / hideout; and the other listed requirements, is all that should be needed.
What about instances of an insurgency against an occupying army. Is it suggested that those displaced charter companies would have to build a whole new settlement, just to go back to war and try to retake their settlement?
This scenario is what I believe could become a common place event. How many companies will have spent months or more building up a settlement, losing it in one battle, and then just say... "Oh shucks, that sucks.... We'll try again in six months."
How many other settlements will welcome in these refugees and then take up their cause and declare war against the occupier? I dare say, not many. But even if one did, what are the chances that the occupier will accept another consensual war? Doubtful at best.
Wars have been planned from inside of tents, from smoke filled back rooms if Inns, Hell I bet there may have been some planned under a tree.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't see why a war declaration process cannot include various levels of aggression that the attacker wishes to set and suitable hits to their alignment going further up. Conversely producing a list of things the defender can decide to agree by and therefore limit the amount of negative rating of the alignment or even positive rating they could do?
Of course the recent history of of positive/negative interactions between different settlements/nations might have a place to feed into the above to shift the baseline?
As said, settlements might have the means to achieve what they want or take the alignment hits in their stride or otherwise outside a mutually declared state of war.
The reason is simple either these things are compulsory to decide before war commences or they are not.
If compulsory then wars become consensual as one side just refuses to agree
If not compulsory the side with advantage refuses to agree terms and just takes all it can.
In either case terms are not agreed. War as I understand it will entail no reputation or alignement hits
@Bringslite
Many of us aren't opposed to there being no barriers to declaration of war. Unfortunately that does not appear to be a unanimous opinion so we are having a robust but hopefully good natured debate on the subject.
By the way as a declaration of interest. I am part of a large organisation that is known on these boards and is more likely than not going to be defensive on the whole rather than aggressive so I am not actually arguing in my own self interest here
I am not sure the dev's have thought about doing it anyway as yet if I am honest. A lot of this conversation came I hope from people projecting their own hopes on the dev statements. However hopefully we will get some info from a dev in the near future
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The reason is simple either these things are compulsory to decide before war commences or they are not.
If compulsory then wars become consensual as one side just refuses to agree
If not compulsory the side with advantage refuses to agree terms and just takes all it can.
In either case terms are not agreed. War as I understand it will entail no reputation or alignement hits
I suggest more than a mere binary agree/disagree condition to a declared war. One that provides options.
We know a War state removes the penalties of the flag system and that it is a viable in-game arrangement between different groups: Perhaps justified if enough aggression hits a settlement and IT can react by declaring war.
But the question is therefore what constitutes a war state? And is there any further options to explore for the subject and object of a war declaration?
Define "war." War is generally assumed to mean a big, long-lasting series of battles and other encounters. Yes, technically, using a more general definition, one could say that wars have been launched by small numbers of people, but we usually use words like "incursion," "conflict," "rebellion" (depending on who you're talking to), and "uprising" for that sort of thing.
Arguing semantics, yes, but in cases of war semantics can matter.