[Proposal] War Guidelines

[Rygan]

Was there any inclusion of other mechanics outside of battles? I.E., A legendary smithy or alchemist on one side giving the usage of better swords/potions in battle, or is it whatever they can scrounge up? I'm just curious to see how other such measures are (or not) taken into account

Things venture into feeling too videogame-y for me when you start to consider things like that. We're a freeform RP server and everyone knows what they have or don't have - it's in basic powergaming rules that you shouldn't spawn potions in, etc.

 

[Tomato150]

Things venture into feeling too videogame-y for me when you start to consider things like that. We're a freeform RP server and everyone knows what they have or don't have - it's in basic powergaming rules that you shouldn't spawn potions in, etc.

Fair enough. Thanks fam

 

[Blorbis83]

Mitch didn’t you make war rules earlier? Everyone agreed upon those, so I don’t understand the sudden change, guys.

 

[Rygan]

This is my submission for war rules for the server. I don't know where you gathered Mitch being involved from.

 

[Blorbis83]

This is my submission for war rules for the server. I don't know where you gathered Mitch being involved from.

Oh I thought you were suddenly declaring this as the new rules for THIS war, which why I was asking Mitch if he was in on this.

 

[Charybdis]

Mitch didn’t you make war rules earlier? Everyone agreed upon those, so I don’t understand the sudden change, guys.

the op is from 2016

 

[Blorbis83]

the op is from 2016

Yes but he bumped it.

 

[Mitch]

Mitch didn’t you make war rules earlier? Everyone agreed upon those, so I don’t understand the sudden change, guys.

I've never wrote war rules, no. There was a few key points that I broached for discussion in the forum conversation regarding our war, to gather the opinions of those involved. Nothing was written in stone as hard rules.

That's not to say that these are the rules that will be enforced for this war, however. That is either the prerogative of Lannis or a vote of all the party leaders involved, but I do agree something needs to be done for consistency and uniformity. We've tried to speak, to no avail, about some things that a proper itinerary of rules would address.

 

[Elz]

which why I was asking Mitch if he was in on this.

No need to act like he's a criminal or something. 'In on it' like it's some kinda wacky ass conspiracy to undermine the war! >: (
I do like the travel things Rygan. : )

 

[Mitch]

No need to act like he's a criminal or something. 'In on it' like it's some kinda wacky ass conspiracy to undermine the war! >: (

He yanks on the chain hardly keeping Elz shackled, desperately trying to keep the attack dog held back.

Down, boy.

 

[Blorbis83]

No need to act like he's a criminal or something. 'In on it' like it's some kinda wacky ass conspiracy to undermine the war! >: (
I do like the travel things Rygan. : )

I didn’t mean for it to sound like that, sorry xD

 

[MRPolo13]

I don't. The travel times are a bit ridiculous.

 

[Electric]

Travel time shouldn't be set in stone imo. Staff involved in the war, I think, should be the ones to control that. Different terrain means different travel times. A mile long trek through northern mountains would be vastly longer than a mile long walk through a field. That should be taken in account- as such, it's better to just ask a mod, "hey, if I am going from Point A to Point B, taking this route, how long should it take?" and get a solid answer that.

 

[Rygan]

The travel times are, at the end of the day, just an objective benchmark for when two sides refuse to cooperate. That's what all war rules should be, really - if you think the travel times are shit and both agree when either of you can be somewhere, great. If you have two parties that absolutely refuse to work together but have ended up fighting one way or another, then something exists you can both use.

I personally think the times might be too long but I've yet to a suggestion as to what would be more reasonable.

 

[MRPolo13]

Also time measured in days... Taking three days to send an army to your borders is ludicrous, especially when nothing happens inbetween. If travel was made actually interesting - each day an event that might either speed up the travel, slow it down or halt it completely, then this might be good. Said events should be random. For a few examples let's say your army outruns their supplies. Today you get to 1.5x as far, but tomorrow you have to stop and wait for the supply train. You have encountered a farming estate. You can requisition their supplies but it'll mean having to stop for a day to get a 10% boost in range overall. Stuff like that to make travel actually interesting.

 

[MRPolo13]

As for the travel times themselves, I think they should be counted in turns rather than days. Both parties can make their decisions simultaneously or give preference to one another. That way if everyone is really active they can get travel sorted in a few hours.

 

[Rygan]

Turns might work better. The objective isn't to force people to wait (though the fact that no one roleplays together in war camps is grating to me personally) but to solve issues about travel. The primary goal was to lower dependence on a DM, but it would seem that the new staff system has everything going through a DM anyways.

The issue then turns into how far one can go in a turn, etc. I do think that's a better thought than waiting 9 entire days to march across the map, which made sense to me a year ago but after experiencing it in action was thoroughly without joy. I would still leave in the other portions of the travel section like being unable to pass each other without either a retreat or a battle.

 

[Luam]

I forgot who said it and on which thread, but cutting the map into tiles, and determining based on the terrain there, takes up a set portion of an armies' turn, and if my explanation is awful, much like Civ 5's travelling with Units
Ex: Marching across two 'tiles' of a plain field would take the same amount of a turn as marching across a tile filled with Mountains or Rivers.
EDIT: and depending on the size of an army, and if they're mounted or on foot, they can move further or slower

 

[MRPolo13]

Turns might work better. The objective isn't to force people to wait (though the fact that no one roleplays together in war camps is grating to me personally) but to solve issues about travel. The primary goal was to lower dependence on a DM, but it would seem that the new staff system has everything going through a DM anyways.

The issue then turns into how far one can go in a turn, etc. I do think that's a better thought than waiting 9 entire days to march across the map, which made sense to me a year ago but after experiencing it in action was thoroughly without joy. I would still leave in the other portions of the travel section like being unable to pass each other without either a retreat or a battle.

I'm quite happy with the distances being shortened to be fair, and having different multipliers based on random events as I suggested. Terrain can be added to that. Sure it's a bit of maths, but it'd be more fun in my opinion.

 

[Rygan]

I'm quite happy with the distances being shortened to be fair, and having different multipliers based on random events as I suggested. Terrain can be added to that. Sure it's a bit of maths, but it'd be more fun in my opinion.

I was thinking the simplest solution would be the easiest and most friendly - Both people say what they're going to do on their turn, and the faction with the closer distance completes their turn first. Repeat every turn with who goes first and second.

In terms of terrain and events, I think that's great stuff to add when I've gotten a functioning basic travel system down. That's the big goal at the moment.