The Current War

[Eirikr]

Wow, this exploded...

As I see it, there was nothing wrong with Hammarsett's decision to attack Coria. We have the luxury of being the winners who can forget and have been able to repair, but we really were hurting for a time. In the same situation that the North was in and with the known restrictions of treaties not being broken, it was definitely one of the better possibilities, especially considering that at the time, the North regarded Coria as an extension of the CE. (We're still seen that way now to some degree, but at least they know that the words in our mouths are our own.) Hammarsett honestly did have the potential to win it, but they just kept pressing on and looting instead of holding down regions at a time. When our side pushed in, we rarely had the strength to capture more than one region for quite some time. Darka, Hammarsett and MI all just kept walking through and trying to drive our regions rogue. Honestly, if I knew that the diplomatic status of "Hated" was reversible sooner, I might've conceded to the North under light terms, which they would've likely used to fight Tara directly.


Trying to isolate why the North lost from the perspective of the South doesn't really make so much sense. Saying that someone's reason for war was weak also has little to do with the actual capability to win said war. (I could say I'm waging war on Tara for that huge list of reasons we'd been throwing around, but realistically, we couldn't have won without some form of backup. Similarly, we could probably win a war against, say, Caergoth right now... but... why would we bother?) From having characters on both sides, I'd personally say the more likely reasons are tied to military mismanagement, huge refit times and the glaring problems with the South's withdraw. I know for a fact that the North just isn't as good at coordinating their armies. We lost that huge fight in Eston because Darka's army was using completely different settings than either BoM or Eston. This kind of thing happened several times throughout the entire war. In fact, it's always seemed to be an issue plaguing the Barony's already small forces (though it's been rekindled recently)... Even back when it was Norland and BoM vs. MI, Norland would often cancel orders late and let the Barony march in solo. I made the opposite mistake when I tried to help MI vs. ML... I sent orders too soon after misreading a message. Honestly, it can't be that surprising that forces marching in a cohesive group should win over a mix of armies that trip on their own shoelaces. Add to that the fact that any time someone messed up a battle, at least two armies would take a full week to return to the front and you've got an obvious winner.

In my opinion, the North needed the South so they could overcome their propensity for mistakes... that is, the North needed insurance against themselves.



As far as the roleplaying debate, wouldn't that be worth making a new topic? Maybe in the General Discussion area. I know it would get heated, but it's a serious topic and if it is partially responsible for why BM's growth is slow (if it is growing at all), it should certainly be addressed.

In my mind, part of the allure of BM has always been that the role-playing is what makes it fun. The battles and medieval content are the primary tools of bringing about that RP, but it makes your heart beat when you know OOC that what you are about to do is absolutely stupid or evil and yet it makes total sense IC.

Not to be overly poetic, but we're all authors contributing to an epic story that nobody has full control over. In fact, just about all we can agree upon is that the story should be set in a medieval world and should be violent. Hell, if you were able to compile all of the work on this game (letters, the wiki, battles, maps... everything IC) and do some formatting to put it in book format, we might have one of the most impressive fantasy works of all time. We might not have invented a language like Tolkien, but we've created a multitude of religions.

Why do you partake in a story (a move, a book, what have you) if you know that the characters within have other, probably better, options for them? Because sometimes it's fun to not have control. Because it's fun to see how a situation would play out if you didn't know better. Of course, fun is also subjective and you may not agree in every situation. (For example, some people like Twilight, perhaps because they find "teenage love under unusual circumstances" interesting [and by extension, fun]... I can't even pretend to care [I tried once].)

I think it would be a little far off to say high-ranking characters more often stick to their character concept than do something that breaks character to provide a wider opportunity for fun, but I don't doubt it happens. Instead, think of this: Every character in a story has a purpose, small or large, whether you like them or not. Many people hated Snape in Harry Potter and questioned why he wasn't killed until the series of reveals... now you'd have a hard time arguing someone should've just dealt with him earlier. If Dumbledore had broken character and let Snape get killed just so JK Rowling could appease readers early on, the books would have been entirely different.

The cool thing about our game is that we can give those characters a hard time with our own characters. It's those interactions that should be making this game fun. If everyone simply abandoned their character's style for "the sake of fun", I would expect less and less emphasis on providing some form of RP or rationale to fight someone... and then the point of fighting is lost as well. It's not like BM is fast-paced or uses superior graphics that make battles interesting in and of themselves; I would argue, at least, that the strategy and conditions around those battles are what really matter. As a result, those with the power to provide options for fun are challenged to do so both through RP and wars.

[Eirikr]

Of course if something is fun for everybody, then you should do it. However, I think you underestimate one big aspect: consistent character roleplay is a big part of the fun in BM.

When I see a character take an action that is contrary to everything they've shown before for obviously OOC consideration, then I'm not having fun, whether this leads to a war or not.

And of course, while I'm typing that monster of a response, someone says pretty much what I meant to in many fewer words.

EDIT: Holy crap, that post was larger than I thought it was. Sorry!

[Kwanstein]

I don't see much merit in this sort of user-driven storytelling. The game itself imposes needless constraints on what's possible, and the myriad of authors keeps everything discordant and simplistic. I play BM for the game aspects first and foremost, the roleplay aspect is just dressing.

[Eirikr]

I don't see much merit in this sort of user-driven storytelling. The game itself imposes needless constraints on what's possible, and the myriad of authors keeps everything discordant and simplistic. I play BM for the game aspects first and foremost, the roleplay aspect is just dressing.

Which, to me, is precisely why we should have a dedicated topic on this, perhaps with a poll. Whether or not one person sees merit in it, someone else may think the opposite way. Maybe with a concerted effort on finding where players derive their fun would help to find a medium?

Kwanstein, perhaps you can further describe what you would prefer?

[Azerax]

I'd love to see this go on the wiki so the history isn't lost.

[Kwanstein]

Kwanstein, perhaps you can further describe what you would prefer?

A novel is the highest mode of conveying a story, as the author of a novel has unlimited control over what he/she creates, as well as huge amounts of potential in terms of creativity and complexity. Movies and games both have their niches; both allow for audio and visuals, and games provide a means of interacting with the audience. However they are both inferior modes, as they are constrained in many ways, the most important of which is by the resources required to utilize them.

[Dante Silverfire]

I'd love to see this go on the wiki so the history isn't lost.

What is "this"?

But yes this thread has a lot of great history.

[Eirikr]

A novel is the highest mode of conveying a story, as the author of a novel has unlimited control over what he/she creates, as well as huge amounts of potential in terms of creativity and complexity. Movies and games both have their niches; both allow for audio and visuals, and games provide a means of interacting with the audience. However they are both inferior modes, as they are constrained in many ways, the most important of which is by the resources required to utilize them.

I'd accept that definition/description, but I'm not sure how it relates to our discussion. If the creators of BattleMaster had defined an actual story to be conveyed, perhaps I could see where you're going, but my point was much more related to the idea that BattleMaster forms a world of its own comprised of multiple stories. These stories, in turn, make the game enjoyable and are enhanced by the dynamic and varied characters we, as players, bring to the game.

I don't mean to convey, at all, that any one player would particularly desire to see the whole thing, beginning to end or that any character is required for the game to exist or be enjoyable. The idea of characters as having their own motivations that may be contrary to OOC considerations, however, I believe is integral to BattleMaster being enjoyable.

Seeing the whole deal wrapped up in book format would be pretty cool, though.

[Gustav Kuriga]

A novel is the highest mode of conveying a story, as the author of a novel has unlimited control over what he/she creates, as well as huge amounts of potential in terms of creativity and complexity. Movies and games both have their niches; both allow for audio and visuals, and games provide a means of interacting with the audience. However they are both inferior modes, as they are constrained in many ways, the most important of which is by the resources required to utilize them.

I really, really hate it when people use the word "inferior" when describing games and movies. That's just a smug, patronizing (not to mention in many ways outdated) outlook and in some cases just plain wrong. I certainly don't see very many books that spawn orchestral concerts, unlike certain games.

The way I view it, every medium brings its own pluses and minuses. For a book, that would be for the most part the freedom of the author to create his book's universe the way he wants (please note, there are publishers in the book world, so it isn't complete freedom). It also has the length to in many ways flesh out the story and characters fully. However, this can lead to confusion for the reader if the author is too vague about certain aspects of the story, as he may already know about the background fully, while the readers don't.

Games can bring you the length and the depth of a book, sometimes even more, while allowing you to take part in the story itself. However, if the game mechanics are poor, this can distract from the story too much. There is more variety in depth in games, some having layers and layers of story and backstory, while others are just given a vague concept so that you have a reason to do what you're doing. Some have none.

[Munro]

There IS a reason he eventually lost his position and was replaced.

Yes. And that was because I, as a player, went travelling around South-East Asia for four months and paused my characters. To suggest Saeculo 'lost his position and was replaced' for trying to justify an excursion down South is ludicris at best. If I hadn't gone travelling, Saeculo would probably still be Consul right now.

I don't really recall the incident, but I believe the reasoning behind it is that you couldn't disprove it. No-one called Saeculo a liar at the time. If they had, he would have challanged them to a duel. Nobility didn't just accuse nobility of lying very lightly.

As a side note, I'm pretty sure this 'excuse' was talked about within the Senate, or at least with Merlin.

Besides, it was Hammarsett that broke their treaty with us, not the other way around. They did so by using our lands to attack Tara, we helped Tara and it was THIS that Hammarsett used as it's reasoning for War, not because Coria was marching South.

As an OOC note, I truly tried to play Saeculo as an honest and noble character, but the politics and bias was just unbelievable, and by the end Saeculo was getting fed up of trying for nothing.

[Dante Silverfire]

Yes. And that was because I, as a player, went travelling around South-East Asia for four months and paused my characters. To suggest Saeculo 'lost his position and was replaced' for trying to justify an excursion down South is ludicris at best. If I hadn't gone travelling, Saeculo would probably still be Consul right now.

I don't really recall the incident, but I believe the reasoning behind it is that you couldn't disprove it. No-one called Saeculo a liar at the time. If they had, he would have challanged them to a duel. Nobility didn't just accuse nobility of lying very lightly.

As a side note, I'm pretty sure this 'excuse' was talked about within the Senate, or at least with Merlin.

Besides, it was Hammarsett that broke their treaty with us, not the other way around. They did so by using our lands to attack Tara, we helped Tara and it was THIS that Hammarsett used as it's reasoning for War, not because Coria was marching South.

As an OOC note, I truly tried to play Saeculo as an honest and noble character, but the politics and bias was just unbelievable, and by the end Saeculo was getting fed up of trying for nothing.

Shhhh, they don't remember that.

I use this forum for propaganda. You're killing me. ;-)

You were Consul at the time so you knew what was going on much more than me. I'm sure you told me the reasons but I can't remember everything that happened so long ago.

I know I"m accurate on the excuse for going south though. I had one of the original ideas about it.

[Perth]

This is interesting, and it seems a lot of people have some animosity towards Kerwin for one reason or another. It is truly interesting both from a historical aspect of the game and also for me personally as a player because I honestly only ever made decisions that I thought would be best for Eston, the North, and our cause (for what it's worth).

I'm not going to do it now, but this tomorrow or this weekend I will post here a sizable summary of Kerwin's decisions during the war, why he made them, and why I as a player made them.

[Dante Silverfire]

I'm not going to do it now, but this tomorrow or this weekend I will post here a sizable summary of Kerwin's decisions during the war, why he made them, and why I as a player made them.

I think this would honestly be interesting if every war participant posted something similar at the very end of this war.

That sounds very interesting.

[Sypher]

I might write up something myself. Relkin was King of Minas Ithil when this all started and though I paused him mid 2011, I can at least provide some context up until that point. As for Relkin, he's going down with the ship. He always was loyal to a fault. Besides, once Minas Ithil is gone, that is just as good a time as any to take a break from this continent.

[Gabanus family]

This is interesting, and it seems a lot of people have some animosity towards Kerwin for one reason or another. It is truly interesting both from a historical aspect of the game and also for me personally as a player because I honestly only ever made decisions that I thought would be best for Eston, the North, and our cause (for what it's worth).

I'm not going to do it now, but this tomorrow or this weekend I will post here a sizable summary of Kerwin's decisions during the war, why he made them, and why I as a player made them.

Nah mainly Ottar demanding it as the only Taran measure...