On SA's political coalition: Pros, Cons, and Potential Action.

[Vellos]

Yeah its not a clan... Get it right, its a cabal.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabal

Totally IC cabals created through years of awesome RP are not bad: they're like basically the point of the game.

Also: anybody who thinks you can't fight a theocracy is silly. You can't fight a theocracy as Asylon, because Asylon has catastrophically bad PR. Even then, though, a 1v1 Asylon/Astrum fight is far from unimaginable.

What you can't do is just randomly go to war for !@#$ reasons, be hyper-aggressive, and expect everybody else to go, "Yeah, we're chill with that."

You have to relate to SA somehow. There's absolutely nothing bad for the game about making it so that wars require a degree of diplomacy. Honestly, zero-diplomacy wars suck for the players involved (like Asylon's surprise attack on Terran, for example). They deny players the ability to have substantive plot-building or RP, and strip out the cultural development and social-relational component of the game.

[Glaumring the Fox]

Totally IC cabals created through years of awesome RP are not bad: they're like basically the point of the game.

Also: anybody who thinks you can't fight a theocracy is silly. You can't fight a theocracy as Asylon, because Asylon has catastrophically bad PR. Even then, though, a 1v1 Asylon/Astrum fight is far from unimaginable.

What you can't do is just randomly go to war for !@#$ reasons, be hyper-aggressive, and expect everybody else to go, "Yeah, we're chill with that."

You have to relate to SA somehow. There's absolutely nothing bad for the game about making it so that wars require a degree of diplomacy. Honestly, zero-diplomacy wars suck for the players involved (like Asylon's surprise attack on Terran, for example). They deny players the ability to have substantive plot-building or RP, and strip out the cultural development and social-relational component of the game.

We aren't fighting the theocracies nor are we fighting SA. They are attacking us because we attacked Terran and they desire Itau to set up Iashular part II for Turin. Asylon did not start a fight with SA get that in your heads and stop the forum banter steering towards that. SA is the one currently involved in a hostile war against Asylon because of who we are and what we believe.


As for relating to SA, we tried that way before you. Asylon has always been SA friendly, it has issues with realms like Astrum putting their nose into every conflict we start because of ooc hatred.

[Indirik]

Man, you need to take a break and get away from things for a while. The only one around with OOC hatred here is you.

[Glaumring the Fox]

Man, you need to take a break and get away from things for a while. The only one around with OOC hatred here is you.

Im not Asylon, im just one person. You are part of a single theocracy of multiple alliances. Who are aggressively attacking us.

Btw I threw in the 'ooc hatred' thing as a little joke. Why so offended?

[Indirik]

Im not Asylon, im just one person. You are part of a single theocracy of multiple alliances. Who are aggressively attacking us.

Yes, Astrum is attacking Asylon. That's kind of what the game is about, you know? Realms attacking realms and all.

Btw I threw in the 'ooc hatred' thing as a little joke.

Yeah, it doesn't look like it.

[Gustav Kuriga]

I can tell you this, if Turin sets up his own realm in Iato, the Farronite Republic won't be very happy about it.

[BarticaBoat]

Totally IC cabals created through years of awesome RP are not bad: they're like basically the point of the game.

Also: anybody who thinks you can't fight a theocracy is silly. You can't fight a theocracy as Asylon, because Asylon has catastrophically bad PR. Even then, though, a 1v1 Asylon/Astrum fight is far from unimaginable.

What you can't do is just randomly go to war for !@#$ reasons, be hyper-aggressive, and expect everybody else to go, "Yeah, we're chill with that."

You have to relate to SA somehow. There's absolutely nothing bad for the game about making it so that wars require a degree of diplomacy. Honestly, zero-diplomacy wars suck for the players involved (like Asylon's surprise attack on Terran, for example). They deny players the ability to have substantive plot-building or RP, and strip out the cultural development and social-relational component of the game.

What are !@#$ reasons?
Why did most people go to war in medieval ages? AFAIK it was hugely contrived "claims" that probably wouldn't stand up in a court of law.
People are so hung up on intrigue and diplomacy and scheming that they forget in the medieval ages, might was right. Catholic church says stop fighting, did that stop england and the king of france? What about the duchal warfare in France?

I'm a fan of zero diplomacy wars. My character has asserted many times to make examples of realms, that we need more land for our horses, they have sullied our saga. I'm unsure how those wars prevent RP; the barbarians from the west have jealously invaded our land, band together and drive them out, kill their men and enslave the children!

Everyone has this image of let me be some scheming mastermind oh ho hoooo when they forget all it takes for them to stay quiet is to get captured and executed.

I gotta echo what Telamon said earlier, a lot of people wanna play game of thrones and not play medieval nobles. It's bad RP because anyone who was stagnant at the top would find their wine poisoned or they would be suffocated by a bribed servant, things which we can't do in battlemaster. Medieval nobles at the top of the heirarchy were always striving for more power and more glory, that's why they're at the top. People content with their station fell to the wayside or were killed for whatever power they had.

[Kwanstein]

The continental scope, nationalism and alliance webs of Battlemaster diplomacy would be more appropriate for a 19th century setting than a medieval one.

The pacifism of Astrum in it's relations with Asylon is a recent example of non-medieval behaviour. Astrum reneged on the war because it felt that the war no longer served the high minded purpose of defending it's ally, Terran. That simply does not strike me as medieval behaviour, not the purpose for war itself nor the reasoning behind the ensuing peace.

[Glaumring the Fox]

Asylon is all for war. What we are against is entangled alliances. We have let all our alliances nullify after achieving our goals. No need for year long federations and crap like SA has. Now we face Astrum alone, can they do the same? No because they are a kingdom of fear, not of bravery. Asylon might be a kingdom of !@#$%^& barbarians but at least we recognize when huge alliances are no longer needed. SA should do the same, goal oriented alliances for short term gains and once achieved the nations go back to their independent scheming and fighting.

[Feylonis]

See, this is what Halleria's been saying. The Council of Mech Albion is useless because it's just a way for Asylon to make sure FR is kept pacified while it goes warring against Iashalur/Niselur and Astrum.

I am so glad I wrote up (in my opinion) treaties with Astrum and Niselur :D Now, to D'Hara and the South!

[Penchant]

What are !@#$ reasons?
Why did most people go to war in medieval ages? AFAIK it was hugely contrived "claims" that probably wouldn't stand up in a court of law.
People are so hung up on intrigue and diplomacy and scheming that they forget in the medieval ages, might was right. Catholic church says stop fighting, did that stop england and the king of france? What about the duchal warfare in France?

I'm a fan of zero diplomacy wars. My character has asserted many times to make examples of realms, that we need more land for our horses, they have sullied our saga. I'm unsure how those wars prevent RP; the barbarians from the west have jealously invaded our land, band together and drive them out, kill their men and enslave the children!

Everyone has this image of let me be some scheming mastermind oh ho hoooo when they forget all it takes for them to stay quiet is to get captured and executed.

I gotta echo what Telamon said earlier, a lot of people wanna play game of thrones and not play medieval nobles. It's bad RP because anyone who was stagnant at the top would find their wine poisoned or they would be suffocated by a bribed servant, things which we can't do in battlemaster. Medieval nobles at the top of the heirarchy were always striving for more power and more glory, that's why they're at the top. People content with their station fell to the wayside or were killed for whatever power they had.

!@#$ Reasons=We are going to war over a mattsr of honor which we won't tell anyone. More room for the horses is better than that.

[Dishman]

I prefer contrived reasons for war with contrived demands for surrender. Something that enables realms to go to war willy-nilly, but keeps them intact. If people worried less about their realm being entirely destroyed, all their work being undone, then we'd see more conflict.

Honestly, I'd like to see SA play a role in enabling this. SA can act as a multi-realm guaranteer that 80% of the realm will be left to rebuild, but only marginal gains/losses of border regions will incur. Let the SA realms have at each other, but under limitations. Make Corsanctum act as a third party over all war/peace treaties so that the faithful can have 'fun' wars with each other. Not the 'no fun allowed' anti-conflict stance the church has shown me.

[Ironsides]

The continental scope, nationalism and alliance webs of Battlemaster diplomacy would be more appropriate for a 19th century setting than a medieval one.

Hmm, an enlightenment to post napoleonic period (so 1500 to 1830ish) version of Battlemaster, sounds awesome! Imagine all of the families of our medieval nobility in that time period. I'd play that for the rest of my life.

[Glaumring the Fox]

See, this is what Halleria's been saying. The Council of Mech Albion is useless because it's just a way for Asylon to make sure FR is kept pacified while it goes warring against Iashalur/Niselur and Astrum.

I am so glad I wrote up (in my opinion) treaties with Astrum and Niselur :D Now, to D'Hara and the South!

the council of Mech Albion and our peace treaty has been a boon for the Farronites. They now have a powerful ally to their west and an entire area to the south to conquer unhindered. We gave you guys access to two duchies and we are going to help you get them, never mind whatever else you grab inbetween. If they had of warred us they  possibly could have gained Itau and a burned out hulk of land on their western border, thousands dead and wasted lives. Instead, now they have peace and a strong army in which to tame the Terran lands and become a great power on the east coast of western Dwilight.

The Farronites did what Terran was incapable of doing, and that was seeing passed a few short term gains, if the Terrans had fought against Kabrinskia they would have a duchy in Golden Farrow and their empire would be powerful, independent and alive. Instead they cowed to SA, they made enemies where once the greatest friend and ally was and failed to see that they could be more. Asylon will do for the Farronites what no other could believe possible, we will make them a powerhouse in the west lands and in time free them from the iron grip of Astrum and theocracies and show you all how truly wrong and shortsighted you have been about the sleeping bear of the westlands.

[Zakilevo]

Astrum should seriously consider wiping FR out ;)