Greetings Explorer, Navigate into the Lobby!
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Be sure to "Get Whitelisted" to join the community on server!
Just read your previously post. "Substantial Military", and I say this in noble terms- as players can very well make a bandit organization or barbarian clan to do the same, would be a decent handful of characters part of the organization. I'm not saying someone needs to recruit 30+ players, even if it's doable, but if you want to establish an empire or takeover, you need some backing to it along with agreement oocly from two parties that goes along with the claim you want to uphold. Want to take over a small village? You don't need more than 3-5 players if the villager owner consents an attempt (emphasis- this part goes first). This includes some funding and the tools or wits to go about it. Rome wasn't built in a day, and I use the ancient term lightly for those who're troubled by consent not being a thing in medieval times. We're a sandbox, multiplayer server with a medieval/fantasy theme. If you want conflict, communicate that with folks in a manner where you don't steamroll them oocly.
Yes, I did read your responses and I'm aware that not all the regions are listed with a marker. But I feel this thread would have gone a lot better if there was some effort into finding and contacting folks around the region. There's a fort right below Motte_Farne, for example, and it looks like they weren't aware this was happening judging from overlord's reply post.
If that's your permanent viewpoint, as I get you aren't the only one, then that's not something I can change with more words.
Getting something done is all I want. I don't need words, I need actions. There's been a lot of the former and none of the latter.
Thank you for addressing my question. Would the scale of the military force have to be equal to the size of the claim/invasion?
'Show not tell' is what we're trying to keep to.
If you find a region that has 10 active players and you want to take them over in a bandit raid with 3 people that have mundane weapons with them- if you have their consent, go for it. The scale is in place if someone attempts to take something that they cannot feasibly backup oocly or in rp. No insta-navy forces or siege weaponry if you don't have anyplace they live in or have built.
Is this promoting combat roleplay, or does it follow a premise of "If you can, go for it, and we can discuss losses and gains and outcomes through OOC negotiation"?
It depends on what the two parties are comfortable with. Will it be an event that involves combat roleplay with lots of action? Or a glossover event "Risk" conquest style where you discuss it over a map- oocly? So far, it's been choice of playstyle, so long as it's established in RP- as we've had land claims like this before. The general consensus has been to establish things in roleplay if there is conflict, which should be with OOC contacting folks before hand. Any deeper discussion on this falls into War Rule discussions that are still being wrapped up, even within the player base discussions- because everyone has a different style and we're trying to keep it easy to understand.
Then please, offer your input on specific issues, if you would? I think dropping your war rules format would result in an entirely different discussion on it. It would be nice if you gave advice/references to what did/didn't work in your war rules draft as issues arise. I'm sure we'd all appreciate it.
I initially wrote my war rules waay back during the time frame where we had multiple houses vying for supremacy in different aspects, and my war rules had no dancing around consent - they existed as a structure people could use to ensure their warring, logistics, and the like had rules. In order to take a region you needed to commit it's value in a war chest - half paid at the start of the war automatically. If you won and were looking to conquer, the other half would be paid to the owners and then you would have ownership transferred. If you lost, you lost the 50% commitment in the war chest. It essentially made war somewhat of a gamble.
I don't think you should be calling out people in this way. Take it to a convo.
So the monetary value of a region was the deciding factor of how desperate they wanted to go to war? I'm curios as to how wartime was conducted. Mind summarizing?
I think it's fair game. It's not bullying and nobody can deny that Niah and Solus were two individuals with strong opinions now embedded into this thread, everyone should be able to respond how they'd like so long as it isn't a personal attack. He essentially said he was surprised, Niah often displays her emotions and ideas nice and fairly. Not to say she didn't, and I'm certainly not responding in naelwyns stead.
...Whaaaat?
I was calling out people before Naelwyn was, and he's right. I handled it poorly. I may still disagree with the situation for all the reasons I listed, but the way I went about it was piss poor because I was riled up.
It's a weird time for hollowworld right now. Don't feel too bad. We're all gonna get through this.
