BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Locals => South Island => Topic started by: Jens Namtrah on September 16, 2014, 01:44:20 PM
-
They just sat there most of the war; what was supposed to be a three-way game of cut-throat was a fiasco & now they are waiting until the are outnumbered 3 or 4 to 1 so they can what? Sue for peace?
-
It's a tough situation for Sandalak, to be sure. Ikalak and Taselak have had a no-compete agreement since the beginning of the game. They've never fought a single battle, or even attempted to steal a region from each other on the sly. Given that, I'm surprised Sandalak managed to last so long. I'm not sure what Ikalak thinks they gain from this. Taselak will grow huge and fat, and Ikalak will get steamrollered.
-
It's a tough situation for Sandalak, to be sure. Ikalak and Taselak have had a no-compete agreement since the beginning of the game. They've never fought a single battle, or even attempted to steal a region from each other on the sly. Given that, I'm surprised Sandalak managed to last so long. I'm not sure what Ikalak thinks they gain from this. Taselak will grow huge and fat, and Ikalak will get steamrollered.
I think that is the goal, at least for some within Ikalak
-
That is ... odd. Their entire goal is "we lasted longer than Sandalak"?
-
They just seek to continue the Ikalakian tradition of never winning the War Island.
-
Maybe they want this version of SI to end quickly so they can win the next one? :o
-
Part of the reason why Taselak didn't bother fighting Ikalak from the start (and likely why Ikalak hasn't bothered to invade us either) is that the regions between our realms are pretty much the worst on the continent, yet all the regions around Sandalak on both the north-eastern and western sides are excellent producers of both gold and food. So we don't bother fighting for regions significantly worse than the ones we could be fighting Sandalak over. On the next incarnation of the war island, it would be nice to have the regions balanced differently to give more of a motivator for Taselak and Ikalak to fight.
-
Now that you mention it, I do seem to remember most fighting on the old WI to be 'out of the woods' so to speak.
-
This might apply more to Tasalak than Ikalak, since they were stronger and more organized from the beginning.
But you don't always have to fight to take regions - sometimes you need to fight their armies, too. Ikalak's behavior this long and late is pretty inexplicable, to me at least.
Regarding reset: I propose we do without the Ruler's channel, and make it clear that WI collusion is a "kick you off the island" offense.
We had great fun RPing in Sandalak, but the whole island could have been a lot more so with a proper three-way fight like it was designed to be.
-
Regarding reset: I propose we do without the Ruler's channel, and make it clear that WI collusion is a "kick you off the island" offense.
I agree.
I would go further and say that if you want to experience a different realm, delete your character and start a new one. All that region switching is fun politics on the other islands, but defeats the point of the war islands.
-
Yeah. It really didn't help people to work together. Spies really forced people to use what they use in other islands. Small groups of trusted people which was kind of a let down to be honest.
Anyway, it has been fun. I wish it was more of a three way battle than just kill Sandalak :(
-
I'm in Ikalak and after finally being ready to move again, no orders were given other than tend you lands and wait for us to come up with a plan. I feel like many, that once this WI ends, the reboot will be great because we will be past all the stupidity of people playing this like it's Atamara or any of the other Islands. But Ikalak now isn't going to win anything other than the lemming award. Also, totally agree with no ruler channel.
-
Region switching based on whomever happens to be winning at that moment in time ruins the war aspect of the war island, which is why we in Taselak adopted a policy of banning any lords who defect their regions to us for treachery and cowardice. I asked Ikalak to do something similar but I only got a rather snarky response from their king, which was interesting as Ikalak suffered rather heavily earlier in the war from a lot of lords switching the allegiance of their realms. All three realms should collude at least as far as banning lords who betray their allegiance and give their regions over to another realm, since it heavily detracts from the war elements and we all saw mass switches based on the tide of the war.
-
Region switching based on whomever happens to be winning at that moment in time ruins the war aspect of the war island, which is why we in Taselak adopted a policy of banning any lords who defect their regions to us for treachery and cowardice. I asked Ikalak to do something similar but I only got a rather snarky response from their king, which was interesting as Ikalak suffered rather heavily earlier in the war from a lot of lords switching the allegiance of their realms. All three realms should collude at least as far as banning lords who betray their allegiance and give their regions over to another realm, since it heavily detracts from the war elements and we all saw mass switches based on the tide of the war.
Some collusion in terms of enforcing these "rules" would be interesting.
-
Some collusion in terms of enforcing these "rules" would be interesting.
That is a judges agreement, which I think works fine in the game.
We also made a strict rule about spies, both for & against us - be interesting if anyone genuinely would go along with that.
Is it possible to have a "clean" island? ???
-
That is a judges agreement, which I think works fine in the game.
We also made a strict rule about spies, both for & against us - be interesting if anyone genuinely would go along with that.
Is it possible to have a "clean" island? ???
So long as those in power want it, and work together we can.
-
That is a judges agreement, which I think works fine in the game.
We also made a strict rule about spies, both for & against us - be interesting if anyone genuinely would go along with that.
Is it possible to have a "clean" island? ???
Not really, just like in RL no matter how many rules you impose, there will be some who attempt to operate outside of them. Certainly you should be able to make them a very small group though.
-
That's what I mean, though. A small group of 3 rulers & their judges, laying some ground rules and punishments for breaking.
-
I think no communication outside of on the battlefield would be a grand idea. Messengers get killed on sight otherwise. Even if people try to break this OOC I think it's a good initiative.
Also in Taselak we were so mad when Sandalak thrashed Ikalak and stormed their capital. The regions that betrayed Ikalak and flipped to Sandalak pushed them all the way there and sped them ahead of our own war plans by one or two weeks. As a result we stopped marching on Ikalak's capital and turned around to contest Sandalak's position as the strongest and most cohesive realm on the island.
They've done well, but it's the curse of the three way that you did too well. And then when Taselak started doing well Ikalak was already too bruised and there was too much mistrust with Sandalak.
-
Yeah, Taselak's battle plan has always made sense, and no problems with it from my opinion.
Ikalak seems to have dropped out of the game. Guess we'll see how things shape up.
-
Yeah, if they're biding their time it would be good for them to biding their time to throw a real spanner in the works.
-
I paused my character, most because of lack of time... but with 3 realms you will "always" end with a 2x1 instead of 1x1x1. I don't know if add Toren again would be something good, but at least it's more fun to have 2x2 or 1x1x2, etc. There are more options to avoid the lames.
-
The nobles of Ikalak's orders were to sit in the capital, and anyone who attacked the other realms was threatened with immediate banishment.
...This, on a War Island.
-
The nobles of Ikalak's orders were to sit in the capital, and anyone who attacked the other realms was threatened with immediate banishment.
...This, on a War Island.
I don't know what is sadder, that the orders were given, or that the nobility FOLLOWED them.
-
I don't know what is sadder, that the orders were given, or that the nobility FOLLOWED them.
This.
What a pathetic state of the game when 48 people are given a war island and agree to sit and do that. From the first day, Ikalak has been the epitome of everything that can be bad about this game sometimes.
-
Roll out the silent protests. Crank up the pressure on the ones in charge.
-
Region switching based on whomever happens to be winning at that moment in time ruins the war aspect of the war island, which is why we in Taselak adopted a policy of banning any lords who defect their regions to us for treachery and cowardice. I asked Ikalak to do something similar but I only got a rather snarky response from their king, which was interesting as Ikalak suffered rather heavily earlier in the war from a lot of lords switching the allegiance of their realms.
To be fair, being outnumbered by Taselak almost 2 to 1, Ikalak's only chance to win is absorbing what's left of the Sandies. It's easy to ban immigrants when you're the largest realm by far and are winning decisively.
The nobles of Ikalak's orders were to sit in the capital, and anyone who attacked the other realms was threatened with immediate banishment.
...This, on a War Island.
You play Cody, right? A brigand who was consecutively banished from both Taselak and Sandalak for not following orders, not playing in team and even spying.
Now you're doing the same in Ikalak and it's actually fine and dandy in-character, but why mislead people OOCly?
-
To be fair, being outnumbered by Taselak almost 2 to 1, Ikalak's only chance to win is absorbing what's left of the Sandies. It's easy to ban immigrants when you're the largest realm by far and are winning decisively.
If victory is impossible, then death in glorious battle, in order to bring upon a quicker island reset, is preferable to a long period of inactive agony.
-
If victory is impossible, then death in glorious battle, in order to bring upon a quicker island reset, is preferable to a long period of inactive agony.
Y'know, I think I've agreed with Chénier more in the last couple months than in the preceding 8 years or so ;D
I do so again.
-
If victory is impossible, then death in glorious battle, in order to bring upon a quicker island reset, is preferable to a long period of inactive agony.
Indeed. If we're beaten, I'm not joining Ikalak. I have no specific hatred for Taselak and no desire to see them lose. Once I lose, I'll leave the war islands and wait for the reset.
-
To be fair, being outnumbered by Taselak almost 2 to 1, Ikalak's only chance to win is absorbing what's left of the Sandies.
That's a not a chance to win. That's not even delaying the inevitable. That's living in denial. Snapping up a couple rurals while Taselak snags a city, a rich townsland, and more rurals on top of that, is pointless. You cannot turtle on this island. Ikalak has pissed off Sandalak enough that most of Sandalak will probably join Taselak.
Ikalak's only chance to win was to join with Sandalak and attack Taselak. Then it would be 2:1 against Taselak, allowing Ikalak to take some northern territories. Just like Ikalak took some southern territories when it joined in a 2:1 against Sandalak. Just like Sandalak couldn't hold off both Taselak and Ikkalak, Taselak couldn't have held off both Ikalak and Sandalak. That's the nature of a three-way war like this.
A few see-saws back and forth, snagging a region here and there, and Ikalak could have easily come back in strength. But it's too late now. Taselak has gained too much strength, and Sandalak is hurting.
-
I think it has reached a point where Taselak can overwhelm both realms. Their regions are probably full of RCs. You can't leave your enemy with Toren Stronghold in this game. Taselak held on to Toren Stronghold for 2 months now.
It was fun though fighting two realms at once. I hope the next version will be more difficult to win though.
-
I'll agree that it would be better if Ikalak made a decision earlier. Can't blame leaders for not being active enough though, that's breaking the rules. So let's chill and see what happens next, for Ikalak finally stirs.
-
I'll agree that it would be better if Ikalak made a decision earlier. Can't blame leaders for not being active enough though, that's breaking the rules. So let's chill and see what happens next, for Ikalak finally stirs.
Unless Ikalak can field 20k CS with at least 5k CS cavalry, nothing will happen ;)
-
Can't blame leaders for not being active enough though, that's breaking the rules.
Sure you can. You can IC blame them for their inaction. For their indecisiveness. Or for whatever other faults you want to lay at their feet, real or imagined.
What you can't do is blame their players for not logging in often enough, or at any specific times.
The IRs are NOT a blanket shield against being held accountable for your actions or inaction. Characters in game can always be held accountable for the performance of their job.
-
Sure you can. You can IC blame them for their inaction. For their indecisiveness. Or for whatever other faults you want to lay at their feet, real or imagined.
What you can't do is blame their players for not logging in often enough, or at any specific times.
The IRs are NOT a blanket shield against being held accountable for your actions or inaction. Characters in game can always be held accountable for the performance of their job.
I think that's not entirely correct.
Earlier in the game we had a very inactive general who logged in like twice a week. When a runner-up leader pointed his inaction out he got a 3 day ban.
What gives?
-
I just hope next time there's no "informal" alliance between two of the realms on the WI. I enjoyed playing Aero and I suspect I will do something else with him other than play in Ikalak or Taselak. I did say he was a Zealot at the start and I have played him as such, even torturing infidels. You can blame Taselak's General for being a insulting twit for that one. ;D Aero didn't start the pain until Sennianus starting being an ass.
And assuming he heals up quickly, he's got more to do yet.
-
I don't know that particular circumstance so I can't really comment on it. But I can say this:
Things you shouldn't say:
"Kepler doesn't give orders every turn."
"Kepler doesn't issue orders early enough in the turn."
"Kepler is inactive, and never here when we need him."
Things that you can say:
"Kepler is a crappy general."
"Kepler is too slow to react to the enemy's changing tactics."
"Kepler is so erratic at giving orders and updates that the enemy is running circles around us."
"Kepler's army has a horrible movement rate, and never brings enough strength to battles."
You need to critique the character's IC performance, not the players OOC activity. If you find that your critiques routinely use the words "activity" or "inactivity" or any such form of those words, then chances are that you're critiquing the player, not the character.
-
To be fair, I can't see a difference. You're just using codewords like "slow to react", "erratic at giving order" but everyone knows player's inactivity is implied.
The player in question said something perfectly IC, namely that a general should update orders and communicate with marshals on a daily basis. So you never know what will trigger a bad reaction here. Or for me at least it's a bit complicated to grasp.
-
To be fair, I can't see a difference. You're just using codewords like "slow to react", "erratic at giving order" but everyone knows player's inactivity is implied.
That's not "codewords," that's the difference between what our characters can understand and what we, the players, can.
The player in question said something perfectly IC, namely that a general should update orders and communicate with marshals on a daily basis. So you never know what will trigger a bad reaction here. Or for me at least it's a bit complicated to grasp.
But that is a restriction that is not permitted. That requires a certain, specified level of activity of a player, which is clearly and strictly against the Inalienable Rights.
-
The player in question said something perfectly IC, namely that a general should update orders and communicate with marshals on a daily basis. So you never know what will trigger a bad reaction here. Or for me at least it's a bit complicated to grasp.
It's the "daily" part that's the issue. You shouldn't complain about the rhythm of the orders - that's activity based. You can, however, complain about their quality.
Earlier in the thread, someone said that nobles in Ikalak were literally ordered not to move. That has nothing to do with inactivity. It's not like the General was not logged in - he was logged in and he ordered people not to move. You can complain about that order without any activity issue creeping up.
-
This has devolved into semantics. The IRs do not act as a shield for inactive people holding government positions. You can't be banned for inactivity, but at the same time it is perfectly understandable in character to say "This waste of space General only issues orders twice a week, lets get a new general." That is not violating anyone's rights, and basically what was said based on my interpretation of this forum post. End of discussion.
-
This has devolved into semantics. The IRs do not act as a shield for inactive people holding government positions. You can't be banned for inactivity, but at the same time it is perfectly understandable in character to say "This waste of space General only issues orders twice a week, lets get a new general." That is not violating anyone's rights, and basically what was said based on my interpretation of this forum post. End of discussion.
This, a General needs to perform. Expecting orders every day is foolish, expecting that the General has some plan, delegates if he is not terribly active etc is not. Just as we throw out Rulers for making rubbish diplomatic decisions, throw out Generals who do not perform and do not ensure the realm has some sort of cohesive command structure.
Indeed. If we're beaten, I'm not joining Ikalak. I have no specific hatred for Taselak and no desire to see them lose. Once I lose, I'll leave the war islands and wait for the reset.
Same it has been a good fight, and I like to think we have performed well given the situation. In general I don't have plans to switch realms on the WI's once they start, but in this case why would we anyway. Taselak doesn't need us and why would any would want to assist Ikalak in prolonging things at this stage.
-
Death or glory... most likely death
-
Death or glory... most likely death
That is foolish, it is not a either or situation. To fight is glory, sometimes that glory results in death.
-
A better way to look at it is Ikalak chose fun over boredom, than that whole glory or death debate, and boredom is just death by a different name in this game.
-
That is foolish, it is not a either or situation. To fight is glory, sometimes that glory results in death.
It was a sarcastic comment about a realistic evaluation of the situation - I'll try to explain better another time ;)
For the record I plan a bloody amazing death - all I'm saying is there'll be no realm hopping. I stick where I stand pointing my sword at all comers and my realm is more likely to lose the fight in the end than win. Either way is all good
-
Death or glory... most likely death
That reminds me... have there actually been any non-duel fatalities on the WI yet?
-
Nope. Although I can only speak for battles Sandalak has been involved in. #troll
-
To be fair, being outnumbered by Taselak almost 2 to 1, Ikalak's only chance to win is absorbing what's left of the Sandies. It's easy to ban immigrants when you're the largest realm by far and are winning decisively.You play Cody, right? A brigand who was consecutively banished from both Taselak and Sandalak for not following orders, not playing in team and even spying.
Now you're doing the same in Ikalak and it's actually fine and dandy in-character, but why mislead people OOCly?
Wasn't banned from Sandalak, as that character /was/ following orders when he defected. Chew on that.
-
Wasn't banned from Sandalak, as that character /was/ following orders when he defected. Chew on that.
Yes, but the two of you miscalculated the backlash you would get from it, so now your "friend" can't help you or even speak up about it.
Were you ever to come back to Sandalak, you'd be banned before you could say hello. And if he ever came clean with the story, he'd be drummed out as well.
So same thing, wouldn't you say?
-
Not really. Cody's a devout follower of the Immortal God-king.
-
When I'm more active again I hope Sandalak and Taselak can have some more good battles and a glorious end before the reset (and subsequent tweaking). I've already missed a slew of battles because I was asked to take command of a region.
So much for most prestigious noble of Taselak.
-
I've already missed a slew of battles because I was asked to take command of a region.
I know how you feel. Tending your region, running drafts, passing out gold ... all takes away from the fighting time. Our poor banker almost exclusively sat in Sandalak managing food for the realm for weeks.
-
I know how you feel. Tending your region, running drafts, passing out gold ... all takes away from the fighting time. Our poor banker almost exclusively sat in Sandalak managing food for the realm for weeks.
How hard would it be to remove all food aspects of the war islands?
-
How hard would it be to remove all food aspects of the war islands?
Not totally trivial, but not difficult, either.
However, I believe that food is an important strategic resource, and as such, management of it is part of war.
If you remove food as a factor on the War Islands, rural regions essentially cease to have meaning. Looting your enemy loses half its punch.
So many things depend on food being a factor.
-
Same for drafts. Sandalak would not be in the trouble it currently is in if its RCs were full, and that's part of normal strategy.
-
I proposed getting rid of food, too. I don't really think it adds anything. Given the ratio of cities to rurals, and the food surplus we've been running, you've already got to be screwed before it matters. And if it did matter, then it would become overpowering.
From what I've seen so far, food has been nothing but a minor distraction. It adds nothing.
-
Yeah. I feel the same. Food doesn't seem to add too much depth. Just makes people constantly check on food or make at least one person be stuck in the capital managing food.
I am sure once your looting WIP section gets added, it will be a lot different since you can temporarily cripple a region :D
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the old war island didn't have a food economy did they? And I also think it detracts from the spirit of the island. It's like an ever looming shadow over your realm's war efforts.
-
We must destroy Ikalak in the name of the Great Flying Llama!!!!!
-
The issue I believe is not that the food economy exists, it is that the mechanics which are so location dependent in regular BM may not be appropriate to be location based on the War Islands. Would food and drafts still be relevant if you could perform the actions from anywhere?
-
Not totally trivial, but not difficult, either.
However, I believe that food is an important strategic resource, and as such, management of it is part of war.
If you remove food as a factor on the War Islands, rural regions essentially cease to have meaning. Looting your enemy loses half its punch.
So many things depend on food being a factor.
Nah actually looting rurals has more effect now than it ever has because it kills the income of fringe knights that nobody care about and so become disaffected and quit.
-
Nah actually looting rurals has more effect now than it ever has because it kills the income of fringe knights that nobody care about and so become disaffected and quit.
This reminds me
Next time I'm running on a platform of organising a base income everyone should strive to achieve and having someone tell everyone what size to put their bloody estates. The only difference from the current system would be that we'd do that at the start.
-
Can we bring back communism on war islands plssssssss
-
Food/trade revamp discussion split off to here:
http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,6166.0.html