The Zuma

[Chenier]

Must... crush... the... saxo-vandal alliance...

[Glaumring the Fox]

There are several RP things I really want to get going, but the damn war with Aurvandil has been such an attention/RP/time sink that it's basically just been "I want to do this... maybe when the damn war is over...sigh..."

You guys don't have any patience for war do you? I have noticed that many of you start a war and think 'oh it'll be over in like two turns' and then it turns into a week long conflict or god forbid a month and your kingdom can't take it so your nobles begin to complain about how boring the war is. Its BM , the long slog quagmire of war is in effect... Write up a long windy treaty with Aurvandiil and finish the war then.

[Kwanstein]

Characters are power in this game. Gold and troops are meaningless. Gold and troops can be commanded and lost, but characters are inherently free and immortal. Nothing can destroy or chain a character, unless that character consents. Thus, for all their military and financial superiority, those realms aligned against Aurvandil are fighting a hopeless battle, for Aurvandil exceeds them in characters and therefore holds an undying advantage. Even the destruction of the Aurvandil realm would amount to nothing, for the characters of Aurvandil would remain, free to conduct themselves however they would wish. So pursuing the destruction of Aurvandil is pointless.

Falkirk, on the other hand, does not possess a character advantage, so they are the perpetual underdogs in their wars, who are at the mercy of others. They may be destroyed, and denied ability to reform.

[Chenier]

I disagree. Having more nobles gives an advantage, doesn't make one invincible. As it is, Aurvandilians are in the best spot they could hope for: away from the hegemonous North, and surrounded by neighbors who are prone to starvations and who can't get along much with each other. If the Aurvandilians can be kicked out of that spot, there's nowhere they can be safe. Any uprising they'd attempt elsewhere would be crushed without mercy.

Aurvandil can be defeated. All that's needed is for Luria Nova to keep its word for once, and for the North to commit a bit more seriously.

[Perth]

You guys don't have any patience for war do you? I have noticed that many of you start a war and think 'oh it'll be over in like two turns' and then it turns into a week long conflict or god forbid a month and your kingdom can't take it so your nobles begin to complain about how boring the war is. Its BM , the long slog quagmire of war is in effect... Write up a long windy treaty with Aurvandiil and finish the war then.

Yup, that's totally it. Because the war against Aurvandil has been going for a month.

[Vellos]

Characters are power in this game. Gold and troops are meaningless. Gold and troops can be commanded and lost, but characters are inherently free and immortal. Nothing can destroy or chain a character, unless that character consents. Thus, for all their military and financial superiority, those realms aligned against Aurvandil are fighting a hopeless battle, for Aurvandil exceeds them in characters and therefore holds an undying advantage. Even the destruction of the Aurvandil realm would amount to nothing, for the characters of Aurvandil would remain, free to conduct themselves however they would wish. So pursuing the destruction of Aurvandil is pointless.

Falkirk, on the other hand, does not possess a character advantage, so they are the perpetual underdogs in their wars, who are at the mercy of others. They may be destroyed, and denied ability to reform.

umm... no.

If we destroy the realm, they can still have characters, but what will they do with them? Wander around in the wilds yelling at us? We'll catch'em, bann'em, and kill'em, one by one. But I strongly suggest many of them would just quit. I think, if forced to play alongside the rest of BM rather than against it, some won't want to play any more, which is sad.

[Stabbity]

I disagree. Having more nobles gives an advantage, doesn't make one invincible. As it is, Aurvandilians are in the best spot they could hope for: away from the hegemonous North, and surrounded by neighbors who are prone to starvations and who can't get along much with each other. If the Aurvandilians can be kicked out of that spot, there's nowhere they can be safe. Any uprising they'd attempt elsewhere would be crushed without mercy.

Aurvandil can be defeated. All that's needed is for Luria Nova to keep its word for once, and for the North to commit a bit more seriously.

Or perhaps D'hara could do something besides provoke its irritable neighbor. I do believe even Terran had some bitter comments about that.

[Chenier]

Or perhaps D'hara could do something besides provoke its irritable neighbor. I do believe even Terran had some bitter comments about that.

Right, stupid ambassadors thinking they could take a shortcut through a realm they just signed peace with to fight a common foe.

[Stabbity]

Right, silly ambassadors from a realm known to harbor hostilities toward the realm he's trespassing in. "Down with Luria!" five minutes later "Why don't you want me in your lands?"

Or should Luria just assist your attempts at limiting our influence in Swordfell?

[Pike]

Right, silly ambassadors from a realm known to harbor hostilities toward the realm he's trespassing in. "Down with Luria!" five minutes later "Why don't you want me in your lands?"

Or should Luria just assist your attempts at limiting our influence in Swordfell?

*blink blink*  how is any of the ambasadores limiting Luria's influence in Swordfell.  And what does it have to do with the Zuma.

[Vellos]

And what does it have to do with the Zuma.

+1

[Bjarnson]

umm... no.

If we destroy the realm, they can still have characters, but what will they do with them? Wander around in the wilds yelling at us? We'll catch'em, bann'em, and kill'em, one by one. But I strongly suggest many of them would just quit. I think, if forced to play alongside the rest of BM rather than against it, some won't want to play any more, which is sad.

This statement just pisses me off, why do they have to play alongside what YOU deem the right way to play? OH, ok, lets all convert to SA and ally with eachoter and banter about the Zuma...

I would also play "against it" if "it" where trying to bully me into playing according to their "right way to play" instead of playing the way I do, and the way I and thoose I have around me enjoy. Just because someone enjoys their steak rare dosent mean we all like it that way, in fact, some of us might just find that disgusting, but that dosent mean we will try to force you to have it prepared medium.

[Perth]

This statement just pisses me off, why do they have to play alongside what YOU deem the right way to play? OH, ok, lets all convert to SA and ally with eachoter and banter about the Zuma...

I would also play "against it" if "it" where trying to bully me into playing according to their "right way to play" instead of playing the way I do, and the way I and thoose I have around me enjoy. Just because someone enjoys their steak rare dosent mean we all like it that way, in fact, some of us might just find that disgusting, but that dosent mean we will try to force you to have it prepared medium.

Who is forcing anyone to play a certain way?

[Anaris]

There's an important distinction to be made, I think, between "playing only with your friends" and "playing only with people whose playing style you enjoy."

[Vellos]

There's an important distinction to be made, I think, between "playing only with your friends" and "playing only with people whose playing style you enjoy."

+1