BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Locals => Far East Island => Topic started by: Indirik on May 01, 2014, 06:07:25 PM
-
No, this is not another mysterious poll thread. ;) I just didn't know what else to call a thread about the current war.
The recent battle in Ipsosez was pretty good. The southerners had a 2-1 advantage in overall CS and in infantry, but only brought 5 siege engines. Woops. After 7 rounds of battle, the southerners captured the field. Unfortunately, my character got wounded, and it got worse at the turn change. :(
This is turning out to be a pretty good war.
-
I thought the south was down and out. This last assault was surprising.
-
FIGHT TO THE END! \o/
-
I want Haul! This war is proving to be much more costly for me than I thought it would be.
-
This assault on Ipsosez was well planned. They had lots of troops, Arcaea was nowhere to be seen, and they only had two early arrivals despite it being about a four turn move.
-
Only 2 early arrivals and not many lagged behind either.
-
The recent battle in Ipsosez was pretty good. The southerners had a 2-1 advantage in overall CS and in infantry, but only brought 5 siege engines. Woops. After 7 rounds of battle, the southerners captured the field.
Letter from Angela Windblack (9 hours, 26 minutes ago)
Message sent to everyone in your realm (21 recipients)
High Marshal,
My congratulations on your appointment, I truly believe you can turn the situation to our side. Now the questions you have asked:
1. We didn't have many siege engines at the battle of Ipsosez, mostly present were of Kindaran origin. Instead we used big catapults to launch our men into our enemies ranks atop the fortification, swords drawn and ready to plunge into our enemies. It was my idea though, an alternative to arrows, bolts, spears and stones but it didn't work out too well.
2. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
3. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Recently they even started producing a strange but delicious food called "Ice Cream" or something similar. It also comes in different exotic flavours, the hottest around these parts are Usul Mixed Monster Madness, Angela Apple Agony and Bofeng Brined Brujas (OOC: Bruja means witch in spanish). I strongly believe Cathay would become a leading economy on FEI with this ice cream exports and us trio would become richer everyday for advertising our respective flavours. Mine is already famous in Anacan.
With regards,
Angela Windblack
Duchess of Lion's Gap
Margravine of Anacan
This is why Cathay didn't need many siege towers. Cheers!
-
What is the end point of this war for both sides? Arcaea has the majority of the continent under it's thumb, I'd hate to see it go the way of Atamara.
-
The end point will be when Velax is serving me breakfast on a silver platter...watch this space ;D
-
The end point will be when Velax is serving me breakfast on a silver platter...watch this space ;D
Cathay will have to get a better General if you intend that to happen.
-
Cathay will have to get a better General if you intend that to happen.
I think our General is doing a fine job when you consider the odds.
-
I think our General is doing a fine job when you consider the odds.
Then he'll have to better than a fine job. It's not easy when you've got three key fortresses to defend, but there isn't much room for error.
-
The Empire has offered Cathay and Kindara plenty of chances to surrender, but apparently they'd rather fight to the death. We're happy to oblige.
Once the Empire has the entire Far East, we don't intend to let things stagnate. There are a few ideas for fostering war amongst the Empire realms.
-
I think our General is doing a fine job when you consider the odds.
I think you mean Zonasa's done well despite the odds ;D
Cathay and Kindara have systematically thrown away every chance they had, military and diplomatic alike.
As for what happens after...well, let's just say that Velax isn't the only one with ideas.
-
Personally, I hope that the island doesn't turn into a "whatever Arcaea says" scenario. I've already gotten some hints of that.
-
Cathay and Kindara have been making some pretty poor decisions I have noticed. They're letting the fear of the enemy get to them, at the command level.
Personally I'd like to see a massive shakeup. There are ways to promote war within an empire or whatever, but just because you've beaten an enemy doesn't mean they're going to like the terms you give them. In fact they'll prefer to have territory taken away than having to act in a certain way.
-
The problem is, the enemies in this case refuse to accept anything less than the surrender of the Empire. Despite the fact that they've lost 2 1/2 allies and made barely any long-term territorial gains in this war. (They took territory away from Zonasa, but almost every single region they took is now either rogue or iced.)
-
The problem is, the enemies in this case refuse to accept anything less than the surrender of the Empire. Despite the fact that they've lost 2 1/2 allies and made barely any long-term territorial gains in this war. (They took territory away from Zonasa, but almost every single region they took is now either rogue or iced.)
Cathay and SoliferumKindara really need to step up their diplomacy game. And stop being a bunch of idiots.
-
Personally, I hope that the island doesn't turn into a "whatever Arcaea says" scenario. I've already gotten some hints of that.
That was never the intent of the Empire, and though Velax has shifted it more in that direction than Jenred would have I doubt it will go too far.
-
The problem is, the enemies in this case refuse to accept anything less than the surrender of the Empire. Despite the fact that they've lost 2 1/2 allies and made barely any long-term territorial gains in this war. (They took territory away from Zonasa, but almost every single region they took is now either rogue or iced.)
Really? And where are you getting that from? It certainly wasn't from Rosalind! The only surrender terms made to Kindara since the glacier event involved them betraying Cathay and fighting them, so were unacceptable to just about everyone. Plus the banishment of several nobles. And the death of another. I remember not so long ago that when Perdan offered similar 'unacceptable' terms to Caligus on EC there was a public outcry.
Cathay and Kindara have been making some pretty poor decisions I have noticed. They're letting the fear of the enemy get to them, at the command level.
From the military stand point, the southern realms haven't been doing bad considering the glacier event made about 20 players in Kindara quit, pause, or move to another island within the first couple of weeks. It seriously limits your fighting ability when half your players disappear that fast. The bonuses given as an iced realm didn't really compensate for the demoralization effect on the players that led them to leave.
With what players remain, Cathay isn't doing bad. But I'm afraid that it's another case of many wargame minded players gravitating towards the easy option of the Imperial realms, leaving the Free Realms with many of the casuals and two or three players with proper experience of the strategy side of the game, meaning the chain of command is thin.
Personally, I hope that the island doesn't turn into a "whatever Arcaea says" scenario. I've already gotten some hints of that.
More than likely. Unless they split up the realm they'll always outnumber and outpower everyone else, shy of some mass immigration of nobles to one of the other realms.
-
Really? And where are you getting that from? It certainly wasn't from Rosalind! The only surrender terms made to Kindara since the glacier event involved them betraying Cathay and fighting them, so were unacceptable to just about everyone. Plus the banishment of several nobles. And the death of another. I remember not so long ago that when Perdan offered similar 'unacceptable' terms to Caligus on EC there was a public outcry.
Kindara basically sealed their fate when they let Magnus run around literally torturing our soldiers to death as sacrifices to his Gods.
I was mostly referring to Cathay with that last, which I wasn't clear on. I apologize for that. Kindara's got no hope of survival at this point.
With what players remain, Cathay isn't doing bad. But I'm afraid that it's another case of many wargame minded players gravitating towards the easy option of the Imperial realms, leaving the Free Realms with many of the casuals and two or three players with proper experience of the strategy side of the game, meaning the chain of command is thin.
If that's what you really think is going on, I think you're badly wrong. Unless you and I have significantly different definitions of "wargame-minded players", I don't think that there's any significant tendency for them to gravitate toward Arcaea and its allies. (Zonasa certainly hasn't seen an influx of...well, much of anyone!) If you're including me in that, I'd think twice; I'm pretty much a casual player in terms of how much time I can spend actually playing the game these days myself.
More than likely. Unless they split up the realm they'll always outnumber and outpower everyone else, shy of some mass immigration of nobles to one of the other realms.
There are other things going on, other options besides "Cathay and Kindara destroy Arcaea" or "Arcaea rules everything, forever." Rosalind hasn't been let in on them for reasons that should (considering the source) be obvious ;)
-
Kindara basically sealed their fate when they let Magnus run around literally torturing our soldiers to death as sacrifices to his Gods.
That's thin as an excuse to destroy a realm, so I really do hope that's not being given in game as a primary motivation. It was basically one RP of Magnus hanging soldiers, or something, in a religious ritual. I suppose every time the Imperials hunt soldiers of enemy units they give them all nice farms when they capture them :P
If that's what you really think is going on, I think you're badly wrong. Unless you and I have significantly different definitions of "wargame-minded players", I don't think that there's any significant tendency for them to gravitate toward Arcaea and its allies. (Zonasa certainly hasn't seen an influx of...well, much of anyone!) If you're including me in that, I'd think twice; I'm pretty much a casual player in terms of how much time I can spend actually playing the game these days myself.
I was mainly talking about Arcaea. It would be a hard sell for you to convince me that their chain of command isn't deeper than any other realm on FEI due to them have more players inclined towards the military side of the game.
-
That's thin as an excuse to destroy a realm, so I really do hope that's not being given in game as a primary motivation. It was basically one RP of Magnus hanging soldiers, or something, in a religious ritual. I suppose every time the Imperials hunt soldiers of enemy units they give them all nice farms when they capture them :P
Well, it's not the only reason. There was also Magnus declaring the entire Empire heathens who should be burned at the stake, or whatever. Plus, y'know, the whole "you did your level best to wipe us out" part ;)
In general, though, Magnus did not do you any favours. If you had disowned him, you'd be getting at least some sympathy at this point.
I was mainly talking about Arcaea. It would be a hard sell for you to convince me that their chain of command isn't deeper than any other realm on FEI due to them have more players inclined towards the military side of the game.
I can't really say first-hand what Arcaea's internal chain of command looks like, so I will leave this to people who are actually there. However, I would point out that even if it's true, having more militarily-inclined players does not imply that they go there because they think it will be "easier."
-
Really? And where are you getting that from? It certainly wasn't from Rosalind! The only surrender terms made to Kindara since the glacier event involved them betraying Cathay and fighting them, so were unacceptable to just about everyone. Plus the banishment of several nobles. And the death of another. I remember not so long ago that when Perdan offered similar 'unacceptable' terms to Caligus on EC there was a public outcry.
Kindara were offered three sets of terms before that and turned them all down because you didn't want to give up any of the territory you had taken from Zonasa. As shocking as it may be, realms that start wars and then lose don't get to keep the territory they've taken from the winners. Kindara made no effort whatsoever to negotiate the terms they didn't like. The response to our terms every time was basically: "You want us to give back the regions we took? Go !@#$ yourselves." Oh, aside from the one time Kindara offered counter terms, along with the caveat of "I'm offering these counter terms but I'm pretty sure no one in Kindara will accept them".
Cathay were offered terms too. They involved the banning of one noble and the "loss" of one region that Cathay didn't even control. These terms, too, were apparently extraordinarily unreasonable. Why would we even bother trying again at this point?
Oh, and terms to Aenilia early in the war. "Give Anrimap to Zonasa and allow the Empire passage rights and we'll give you back Nahad." "No, but if you give us Nahad, Larmebsi, Talex and a ton of gold, we'll step out of the war. We'll think about passage rights, but you can't use them to attack any of your enemies." And we're the unreasonable ones.
That's thin as an excuse to destroy a realm, so I really do hope that's not being given in game as a primary motivation. It was basically one RP of Magnus hanging soldiers, or something, in a religious ritual. I suppose every time the Imperials hunt soldiers of enemy units they give them all nice farms when they capture them :P
Well, there's also the fact that Cathay tortured the Emperor's brother, and then Kindara executed him. Could you have come up with any other way of pissing off the Empire's leader more? If the Free Realms stopped putting idiots like that in their Council positions, they may get more sympathy.
I was mainly talking about Arcaea. It would be a hard sell for you to convince me that their chain of command isn't deeper than any other realm on FEI due to them have more players inclined towards the military side of the game.
This has to be the worst excuse for losing I've ever seen. "We're losing because the enemy's nobles are better at war than us." No !@#$.
The fact is the Free Realms have screwed up every step of the way.
1. They screwed up by deciding they could take on the Empire in the first place. A poor decision, given there's been no point at which the Free Realms have even vaguely looked like winning.
2. Kindara and Cathay screwed up by not finishing off Zonasa despite having a half dozen chances to, allowing the Empire's militarily weakest member to keep the Free Realm's militarily strongest member busy while the northern Empire realms dominated Aenilia and Ohnar.
3. The Free Realms screwed up by providing no support whatsoever to Ohnar. Ohnar was your best military realm. Kindara had more numbers but Ohnar had far better co-ordination and responsiveness. But you left them out to dry by giving no support at all, leaving them to be overwhelmed by the northern Empire realms.
4. You also provided no support to Aenilia. While not strong, they were your buffer realm between the north and the south and you let the Empire mash them into the ground. I don't believe I ever saw a single Kindaran or Cathayan noble in Nahad, Idapur or Ipsosez while Aenilia was still alive. Kindara was too busy failing to destroy Zonasa and Cathay was too busy doing very little.
5. A general lack of co-ordination between the Free Realms. Before the glacier forced you to live in each other's pockets, you basically fought as four separate realms. I saw, what, one joint Kindaran-Cathayan attack on Zonasa City and one joint (and disastrous) Free Realm attack on Akanos. Not much for more than a year of war and battles. By contrast, the Empire fights as a cohesive force.
6. Lack of any diplomatic ability. Even if we put aside the "Yeah! Let's murder the Emperor's brother and declare a crusade with our main religion against the Empire! There's no way that can end badly!", the Free Realms have made zero diplomatic attempts since Galiard left. Not once has a Free Realm ruler approached the Empire with, "Hey, would you maybe be willing to discuss some terms?" No, the Empire has done all the approaching and been turned down every time.
7. Failure to take advantage of the glacier benefits. When the glacier hit, Kindara had roughly as many nobles as Arcaea and a sizeable, if unorganized, army. But you did nothing with it. You could have hit Talex, or Topenah, or Idapur or Ozrat. Instead you went for...Ipsosez. Which you'd already taken and lost earlier in the war. Kindara didn't even consolidate the territory around it while Arcaea was struggling to deal with the loss of eight regions and population loss in many others after the food rebalance. You took Ipsosez and then sat on your thumbs. It was a waste.
8. Continued, deliberate attempts to piss the Empire's leader off. "Let's engage in human sacrifice and then declare a crusade against the Empire even though we know he hates it when religion gets involved in secular wars." "Let's take this unique item he was carrying and parade it around so he knows we have it." "Let's take these other two unique items of his off an adventurer we arrested, arrange a one-on-one meeting with Velax to give them back and then ambush him." "Let's offer utterly ridiculous terms that involve the Empire giving us territory, even though we're losing." "Let's burn food and commit genocide even though we've sworn not to and we know how strongly Velax abides by the terms of war." "Let's betray a personal friendship developed with Velax over years just because we're greedy for more territory." "Let's refuse a half dozen sets of reasonable surrender terms and then bitch about how unreasonable they were." "Let's torture and murder his brother." Well done. The plan worked: Velax is pissed. I'm sure that will end well for the Free Realms.
-
1. They screwed up by deciding they could take on the Empire in the first place. A poor decision, given there's been no point at which the Free Realms have even vaguely looked like winning.
To be fair to them, at the time the war started, it was just Kindara and Cathay declaring war on Zonasa, newly independent once they broke the federation to attack us (at least in part because we wouldn't help them devour Greater Aenilia). Zonasa wasn't part of the Empire till later.
That said, from what I understand, a fight with the Empire was, if not the explicit intent, at least a strong desire of the Free Realms all along.
-
Kindara made no effort whatsoever to negotiate the terms they didn't like. The response to our terms every time was basically: "You want us to give back the regions we took? Go !@#$ yourselves." Oh, aside from the one time Kindara offered counter terms, along with the caveat of "I'm offering these counter terms but I'm pretty sure no one in Kindara will accept them".
Basically because everyone involved on the Kindaran side felt there was no point in negotiation because Velax wasn't open to it unless his longstanding terms were met. His terms have pretty much remained the same throughout the war (so he gets full marks for consistency), and those terms have been put to the Kindaran nobility through votes numerous times, and always been overwhelmingly rejected. That's why there's never been any budging politically from the Kindaran side - the nobles don't want it. Partially, this is because Kindara became the 'realm of last resort' for everyone on FEI who didn't like the Empire model, and the Imperial advance depopulated opposing realms either by destroying them (Aenilia) or through the dissenters leaving (Ohnar West), leading them to join Kindara.
It's also because the players on the island appear to be polarized into the groups who fancy your experimental Empire model for the future of the island, and those who prefer the more traditional model of each-to-their-own independent realms. The former gathering in the north, the latter in the south.
This has to be the worst excuse for losing I've ever seen. "We're losing because the enemy's nobles are better at war than us." No !@#$.
You completely miss the point of what I said. This isn't about excuses for losing a war. It might surprise you to learn that I don't really give a toss about losing the war. I have more going on in my life.
What I was saying was a general point about the way that players appear to distribute themselves. For Arcaea, you can substitute the Cagilan Empire, Darka (pre-glacier), Perdan, Sirion, etc. On appearances, such realms tend to attract the more military-minded, log in every turn, players (look at the number of players who have character distribution of - character in Perdan; character in pre-glacier Darka; character in Arcaea. Or Perdan/Cagilan Empire/Arcaea. Or some other combination of such relams). This tends to lead to a concentration of such players in certain realms on each island, broadly speaking leading to a thin representation of them in the other realms. This has become even more pronounced due to the decline in player numbers. There are realms out there now who can literally find no-one who can effectively run their military because of the general shortage of people who are into the strategy side of the game.
Personal opinion, of course, but if the game is to remain interesting and thrive, we really need these strategy gamers to spread themselves out across realms in a more even fashion.
Failure to take advantage of the glacier benefits.
Did you play in an almost entirely iced realm during the event? These glacier benefits have been hugely overstated, particularly on FEI with its longer travel times and season impact on crops and travel. We were losing regions faster than we could take them, not only due to the advance of the ice, but also the snow trolls and ice demons with thousands of CS advancing ahead of the ice. We were fighting a war on two fronts for the duration. Add into this the slow travel times and the fact that takeover times remained the same, and the efforts Kindara made were titanic. Although the players were largely feeling demoralized by the event. Even Anaris said here on the forum that Kindara's response to the glacier was the most positive he'd seen. If you'd put the stongest military realm in the game into Kindara's position during the glacier event, I'm sure they wouldn't have done any better due to the limitations of travel times to glacier/monster advance ratio, plus takeover times.
We also wanted to move the capital sooner, and would have benefited from doing so, but we also wanted to stick to the letter of the rules on capital moves so we didn't move it until the ice actually claimed Masahakon. Which was too late, frankly.
To be fair to them, at the time the war started, it was just Kindara and Cathay declaring war on Zonasa, newly independent once they broke the federation to attack us (at least in part because we wouldn't help them devour Greater Aenilia). Zonasa wasn't part of the Empire till later.
Correct. The initial war was between Zonasa and Kindara. The Empire interjected itself into the war at a later stage. It might have been Galiard's intention to fight the Empire (in fact, I'm pretty sure that it was). But Kindara never sought a direct conflict with the Empire at that stage in events (well, with Arcaea and Coralynth - that's all the Empire was then). Arcaea put itself into the war, or Zonasa brought them in by joining the Empire - which ever way you want to look at it.
-
It's also because the players on the island appear to be polarized into the groups who fancy your experimental Empire model for the future of the island, and those who prefer the more traditional model of each-to-their-own independent realms. The former gathering in the north, the latter in the south.
Again, I don't believe those are the only options. However, it's hardly uncommon in BattleMaster for people not to believe that there's any middle ground.
It is, however, a problem.
Arcaea put itself into the war, or Zonasa brought them in by joining the Empire - which ever way you want to look at it.
From my perspective, at least, it wasn't precisely either—Zonasa was just desperate for anyone to help them at that point, since it was quite plain that there was no way we could survive without a strong ally, and Arcaea was willing to help us.
Not only that, they've been true to their word in everything thus far. Even when Zonasa's interests have conflicted with Imperial strategic expediency—and even when Baranion has been very vocal and not always terribly diplomatic in pushing those interests—Arcaea has continued to fight for our survival, despite the fact that we have several times come very close to annihilation.
Contrast this with the way our last allies treated us, and you might see why even some people who wouldn't have been happy following Velax at the beginning of this war might be feeling pretty loyal to him right now.
-
I just want to stab him. His bounty is bigger than Xarnelf's was. ;)
-
That's why there's never been any budging politically from the Kindaran side - the nobles don't want it.
Then that sounds like Kindara's problem, not the Empire's. The Empire got into the war with the stated purpose of defending Zonasa, so it's hardly shocking that our terms include returning territory taken from them. It's not unreasonable and certainly not deserving of "public outcry". As previously stated, if a realm starts a war and then loses, they shouldn't expect to keep territory taken from the winners. If the Kindaran nobility has a problem with that, then it's not us being unreasonable.
What I was saying was a general point about the way that players appear to distribute themselves. For Arcaea, you can substitute the Cagilan Empire, Darka (pre-glacier), Perdan, Sirion, etc. On appearances, such realms tend to attract the more military-minded, log in every turn, players (look at the number of players who have character distribution of - character in Perdan; character in pre-glacier Darka; character in Arcaea. Or Perdan/Cagilan Empire/Arcaea. Or some other combination of such relams). This tends to lead to a concentration of such players in certain realms on each island, broadly speaking leading to a thin representation of them in the other realms. This has become even more pronounced due to the decline in player numbers. There are realms out there now who can literally find no-one who can effectively run their military because of the general shortage of people who are into the strategy side of the game.
I don't believe this to be even vaguely true. Given you don't have characters in those realms, you're making guesses based on assumptions. You're mistaking a hyper-active central authority figure for depth of military command. Look at Perdan - and virtually the whole southern alliance - without Atanamir. Struggling.
Correct. The initial war was between Zonasa and Kindara. The Empire interjected itself into the war at a later stage. It might have been Galiard's intention to fight the Empire (in fact, I'm pretty sure that it was). But Kindara never sought a direct conflict with the Empire at that stage in events (well, with Arcaea and Coralynth - that's all the Empire was then). Arcaea put itself into the war, or Zonasa brought them in by joining the Empire - which ever way you want to look at it.
Some corrections: The initial war was between Cathay, Kindara and Zonasa, but the Empire declared its intention to defend Zonasa before any military action took place. The Empire was also composed of Arcaea, Coralynth and Sorraine, not just the former two. Also, Velax did everything he possibly could to keep Kindara out of the war, but you decided to fight anyway, even when Galiard made it very clear the war was now one to destroy the Empire, not Zonasa. You chose the fight and you got it.
-
It's not unreasonable and certainly not deserving of "public outcry". As previously stated, if a realm starts a war and then loses, they shouldn't expect to keep territory taken from the winners. If the Kindaran nobility has a problem with that, then it's not us being unreasonable.
The reason I used the Caligus/Perdan comparision is because the terms were very similiar at their core - "accept drastically reduced territory and turn on your ally". In the case of Caligus, we got considerable OOC public outcry on the forum and elsewhere that Perdan was imposing unreasonable and humiliating terms on Caligus and damaging the game as a result of it. So that pressure eventually made Perdan modify its terms.
I should be absolutely clear that this isn't directed at you personally, Velax, but we now have a situation that's pretty similar on FEI. But we have deafening silence about the surrender terms here on the forum and everywhere else. This is really a criticism of the community, because we seem to be employing considerable double-standards to what we see as reasonable and unreasonable. Why the public outcry when Caligus was given terms its nobles said were unreasonable, but not when another realm is given terms its nobles say are unreasonable? I'm genuinely interested to hear from the community why that is? It seems to me that we either shrug and say "realms fall". Or we go for an approach that we prefer realms to be given face-saving surrender terms that allow them to live on in dignity. But which ever path we take has to be applied universally or it looks like we're all being hypocrites.
Then that sounds like Kindara's problem, not the Empire's.
No, it's a problem for everyone on FEI. Like I said, the subtext running under it all is that the players on the island are deeply polarized into two groups - those who see your new empire model as a way they want to play; and those who are strongly opposed to it as a playing form. If I read his comment right, Anaris also recognised that as a problem for the island. As the Empire gained ground, the players who didn't want to play in it were pushed into Kindara. As you might remember, I initally thought your Empire idea was a good one and supported it through Rosalind in the Kindaran council, but I've since seen how many people are opposed to it. That's why Kindara lost half its noble count overnight when the glacier really started advancing - loads of people left the island because they didn't want to move to Imperial realms and no longer saw a way of fighting the Empire. Others quit, but that's a different story and more the fault of the glacier event than other factors.
Again, I'm not painting you personally or anyone in the Imperial realms as bad guys, but you need to know that there are a lot of players in the south who won't play under the Imperial model for the island. So if the Empire claims the entire island, players will move characters elsewhere or start new characters elsewhere. So the noble/player count on the island will fall. Maybe new nobles will come in to compensate to experience the Empire model of play, or maybe they won't. Who knows. Again, I'm not calling you a bad guy (and I don't know how much more I can emphasise that without putting it in big bold letters). But you need to be aware that there's a big group of players in the south who don't like the Empire model. I know you feel the Empire model will help the game, but I'm just being honest in telling you there are a lot of people who disagree.
-
No, it's a problem for everyone on FEI. Like I said, the subtext running under it all is that the players on the island are deeply polarized into two groups - those who see your new empire model as a way they want to play; and those who are strongly opposed to it as a playing form. If I read his comment right, Anaris also recognised that as a problem for the island.
No, what I said was that there is a middle ground between a gung-ho, all Empire all the time attitude, and a "We must burn the Empire to the ground if it take a thousand years" attitude.
Middle ground, in general, is something that far too many people in BattleMaster (and, to some extent, the world in general) fail to recognize the existence of.
-
I should be absolutely clear that this isn't directed at you personally, Velax, but we now have a situation that's pretty similar on FEI. But we have deafening silence about the surrender terms here on the forum and everywhere else.
FWIW - I've never seen *any* terms or potential treaties related to the war on FEI. So far as I know, no one involved in the war has ever discussed any possible end to the war.
If it involves things like "Stay out of the war, at Peace or better with everyone on our side for 12 months", then it's bull!@#$.
Other terms that I have come to realize are bull!@#$ involve things like: "Abandon your allies. Declare war on them, and come fight for our side!" It's one thing if the losing side offers these terms, but to force them on the losers just sucks. Especially when it's backed by "do this or die".
-
FWIW - I've never seen *any* terms or potential treaties related to the war on FEI. So far as I know, no one involved in the war has ever discussed any possible end to the war.
If it involves things like "Stay out of the war, at Peace or better with everyone on our side for 12 months", then it's bull!@#$.
Other terms that I have come to realize are bull!@#$ involve things like: "Abandon your allies. Declare war on them, and come fight for our side!" It's one thing if the losing side offers these terms, but to force them on the losers just sucks. Especially when it's backed by "do this or die".
Going off the top of my head, here's what terms have been offered and accepted in this war:
- To Ohnar West, join the Empire, keep your current regions (after losing some to the Empire), you don't have to fight your former allies, but you can't rejoin this war before its end.
- To Greater Aenilia, no terms; they were destroyed utterly due to serially pissing off Velax.
I believe Velax has mentioned terms to Kindara and Cathay earlier in the thread:
- To Kindara, a variety of degrees, but including, more or less, "give back the regions you took from Zonasa and we'll call it even", and, more recently, "you can't have any of Zonasa's regions, but if you want, we'll help you take regions from Cathay."
- To Cathay, again, a variety, but also including "you give up claim on one region you don't currently hold, and don't get any more regions back, and we'll call it a day."
The terms to Kindara and Cathay have also included some specific provisions to banish nobles that have taken especially egregious or highly targeted actions against the Empire in general, or Velax and his family specifically.
Again, this is my recollection off the top of my head, so it may not be 100% accurate—but I think it is important that it's my perception, as a leader of one side, of the terms that have been offered to our enemies in this war.
-
a "We must burn the Empire to the ground if it take a thousand years" attitude
That's never been Kindara's stance while Rosalind has been High Lady. I can't speak for what High Lords Edmund or Alpha's son said while they were in charge, but Rosalind has always told Velax that she doesn't object to the Empire existing in the north. But she wants the south to remain free. That's the stance of the majority of nobles in Kindara (and Cathay too, I think, but you'd have to ask them to be sure).
Rosalind's bottom line on surrender terms has always been to have a south free of the Empire, assurances that Kindara and Cathay won't be the perpetual target of one-sided wars by the whole of the Empire, and - since the glacier - enough territory to make Kindara a viable realm. When Rosalind first got elected she offered to return all Zonasan territory except Batesoar, Alanurs, and the region east of Masahakon (forgotten it's name), but Velax refused to settle on that because he wanted to fulfill his promise to Zonasa to give them all of their territory back.
So that's the history from the Kindaran side.
FWIW - I've never seen *any* terms or potential treaties related to the war on FEI. So far as I know, no one involved in the war has ever discussed any possible end to the war.
The last terms offered by Velax to Rosalind were as follows (and I'm trying my best to be accurate here, so apologies to Velax if I get anything wrong):
1) The return of all Zonasan regions.
2) Raising or lowering of all diplomatic relations to neutral with all realms.
3) Reparations of 500 or 600 gold for damage to something somewhere (apologies - I forget the specific place).
4) The death of Magnus Himoura (he's now left the island).
5) 3 or 4 other nobles named as enemies of the Empire have to migrate off the lsland (or was it just exiled from Kindara?)
6) Kindara attacks its ally Cathay and gets Imperial help to take Cathayan regions if needed.
7) Closure of all Order of the Elders temples (pretty sure that was in the last terms offered).
Like I say, I've tried to be 100% accurate there. So apologies if anything is wrong.
-
The reason I used the Caligus/Perdan comparision is because the terms were very similiar at their core - "accept drastically reduced territory and turn on your ally". In the case of Caligus, we got considerable OOC public outcry on the forum and elsewhere that Perdan was imposing unreasonable and humiliating terms on Caligus and damaging the game as a result of it. So that pressure eventually made Perdan modify its terms.
I should be absolutely clear that this isn't directed at you personally, Velax, but we now have a situation that's pretty similar on FEI. But we have deafening silence about the surrender terms here on the forum and everywhere else. This is really a criticism of the community, because we seem to be employing considerable double-standards to what we see as reasonable and unreasonable. Why the public outcry when Caligus was given terms its nobles said were unreasonable, but not when another realm is given terms its nobles say are unreasonable? I'm genuinely interested to hear from the community why that is? It seems to me that we either shrug and say "realms fall". Or we go for an approach that we prefer realms to be given face-saving surrender terms that allow them to live on in dignity. But which ever path we take has to be applied universally or it looks like we're all being hypocrites.
It isn't a double standard, because the terms you were offered weren't unreasonable. You've twice mentioned the "betray Cathay and attack them" term, but there are two things wrong there. First, you ignore the other three sets of terms you were offered beforehand. Second, you misrepresent the actual terms you were offered. You were not told you had to betray Cathay and attack them. You were told you had to give back territory claimed by Zonasa, but given you had lost most of your territory to the glacier, if you wanted more regions we'd help you take them from Cathay if you wished. How terribly evil and unreasonable of us. Why would we bother trying to force you to fight with us? We didn't do that with Ohnar and, frankly, we don't need the help of a crippled realm to win the war.
I should be absolutely clear here: if Kindara has an issue with the terms it was offered, then you are the unreasonable ones. It is the utter height of arrogance to claim that because there's no outcry over terms you personally think are unreasonable, there must be a double standard in the BM community.
No, it's a problem for everyone on FEI. Like I said, the subtext running under it all is that the players on the island are deeply polarized into two groups - those who see your new empire model as a way they want to play; and those who are strongly opposed to it as a playing form. If I read his comment right, Anaris also recognised that as a problem for the island. As the Empire gained ground, the players who didn't want to play in it were pushed into Kindara. As you might remember, I initally thought your Empire idea was a good one and supported it through Rosalind in the Kindaran council, but I've since seen how many people are opposed to it. That's why Kindara lost half its noble count overnight when the glacier really started advancing - loads of people left the island because they didn't want to move to Imperial realms and no longer saw a way of fighting the Empire. Others quit, but that's a different story and more the fault of the glacier event than other factors.
Again, I'm not painting you personally or anyone in the Imperial realms as bad guys, but you need to know that there are a lot of players in the south who won't play under the Imperial model for the island. So if the Empire claims the entire island, players will move characters elsewhere or start new characters elsewhere. So the noble/player count on the island will fall. Maybe new nobles will come in to compensate to experience the Empire model of play, or maybe they won't. Who knows. Again, I'm not calling you a bad guy (and I don't know how much more I can emphasise that without putting it in big bold letters). But you need to be aware that there's a big group of players in the south who don't like the Empire model. I know you feel the Empire model will help the game, but I'm just being honest in telling you there are a lot of people who disagree.
And again, you make generalisations based on nothing. Most of those who are supposedly against the Empire likely aren't against "the Empire" at all. They're against Arcaea, or Sorraine, or Coralynth, or Zonasa, either because we defeated them or because they're of that group of people who will always hate the strongest force on any island, for no reason other than because they're the strongest. Of the 46 non-Empire nobles left, I'd say the number of players whose sole reason for being in Kindara or Cathay is that they "hate the Empire model" make up a bare handful. And those who do likely do so despite the fact that they have no idea what the so-called Empire model even is. For that matter, do you?
Rosalind's bottom line on surrender terms has always been to have a south free of the Empire, assurances that Kindara and Cathay won't be the perpetual target of one-sided wars by the whole of the Empire, and - since the glacier - enough territory to make Kindara a viable realm. When Rosalind first got elected she offered to return all Zonasan territory except Batesoar, Alanurs, and the region east of Masahakon (forgotten it's name), but Velax refused to settle on that because he wanted to fulfill his promise to Zonasa to give them all of their territory back.
No, Rosalind's bottom line on surrender terms has been that you won't given back all the territory taken from Zonasa. That's been the one constant thread in all talks with Rosalind.
- To Ohnar West, join the Empire, keep your current regions (after losing some to the Empire), you don't have to fight your former allies, but you can't rejoin this war before its end.
- To Greater Aenilia, no terms; they were destroyed utterly due to serially pissing off Velax.
I believe Velax has mentioned terms to Kindara and Cathay earlier in the thread:
- To Kindara, a variety of degrees, but including, more or less, "give back the regions you took from Zonasa and we'll call it even", and, more recently, "you can't have any of Zonasa's regions, but if you want, we'll help you take regions from Cathay."
- To Cathay, again, a variety, but also including "you give up claim on one region you don't currently hold, and don't get any more regions back, and we'll call it a day."
The terms to Kindara and Cathay have also included some specific provisions to banish nobles that have taken especially egregious or highly targeted actions against the Empire in general, or Velax and his family specifically.
Again, this is my recollection off the top of my head, so it may not be 100% accurate—but I think it is important that it's my perception, as a leader of one side, of the terms that have been offered to our enemies in this war.
Aenilia were offered several sets of terms, but all were rejected. Even when Ironhorse, a family Velax can't stand, was ruler, he still tried to negotiate a surrender.
-
That's never been Kindara's stance while Rosalind has been High Lady. I can't speak for what High Lords Edmund or Alpha's son said while they were in charge, but Rosalind has always told Velax that she doesn't object to the Empire existing in the north. But she wants the south to remain free. That's the stance of the majority of nobles in Kindara (and Cathay too, I think, but you'd have to ask them to be sure).
That sounds reasonable. It's not the impression anyone in Zonasa has of our enemies' attitude, though. I wouldn't presume to speak for Arcaea, but I suspect their impression is similar to ours.
Rosalind's bottom line on surrender terms has always been to have a south free of the Empire,
Which would require Zonasa to abrogate its treaty of membership.
assurances that Kindara and Cathay won't be the perpetual target of one-sided wars by the whole of the Empire,
Reasonable on the face of it, but wording would be tricky to avoid situations where Kindara or Cathay blatantly provoke a war, and then claim that it's a breach of the terms.
and - since the glacier - enough territory to make Kindara a viable realm.
Unless you're willing to take Cathay's territory, that's just laughable.
Rosalind still seems to be operating from a position where she has negotiating room, rather than one where she's outright losing the war. The impression these terms give is that you think that there's a realistic chance that Kindara and Cathay could win something remotely like them by continuing the war—that is, after all, what peace terms (whether or not you call them surrender) are usually about. But by any standard I can see, that's just totally impossible at this point. Zonasa is gaining strength, and has retaken Ipsosez again, which prevents any sort of sortie by the Free Realms into the eastern side of the continent where the rogue regions are—except through Haul, and you saw what happened last time you tried that. The travel times are just too absurd to make it feasible.
When Rosalind first got elected she offered to return all Zonasan territory except Batesoar, Alanurs, and the region east of Masahakon (forgotten it's name), but Velax refused to settle on that because he wanted to fulfill his promise to Zonasa to give them all of their territory back.
And why wasn't Rosalind willing to consider that? Every single region Zonasa once held that Kindara held at that point was taken in this war, whether by sword or by treachery. If you had agreed to that then, there's a strong possibility Kindara would have been in a position to actually get help from the Empire, and even Zonasa, when the ice came. (Though I realize that that couldn't have been an actual factor in the thinking back then.)
6) Kindara attacks its ally Cathay and gets Imperial help to take Cathayan regions if needed.
The impression I had of this part of the terms was that it was more like, "Since you are ridiculously low on land, we are wiling to help you take land from Cathay. Or not, your choice." But, again, that's just my impression.
7) Closure of all Order of the Elders temples (pretty sure that was in the last terms offered).
Yep, Baranion insisted on that one after Magnus called the crusade.
Interestingly, thus far, we've gotten almost everything we wanted out of those terms. Neither Kindara nor Cathay holds any regions that were Zonasan at the beginning of the war (Haul was claimed by Zonasa, but not held at that time), Magnus ran off with his tail between his legs, and the Order of the Elders has, I believe, collapsed with the departure of all its elder priests.
-
FWIW - I've never seen *any* terms or potential treaties related to the war on FEI. So far as I know, no one involved in the war has ever discussed any possible end to the war.
If it involves things like "Stay out of the war, at Peace or better with everyone on our side for 12 months", then it's bull!@#$.
Other terms that I have come to realize are bull!@#$ involve things like: "Abandon your allies. Declare war on them, and come fight for our side!" It's one thing if the losing side offers these terms, but to force them on the losers just sucks. Especially when it's backed by "do this or die".
Speak with your leaders. Terms have been discussed multiple times in the Assembly with Edan and Fergus, and Velax usually discusses them within Arcaea as well.
-
you wanted more regions we'd help you take them from Cathay if you wished.
The betrayal of Cathay was the biggest sticking point there. There's also the point that if Kindara accepted peace but didn't want to take regions from Cathay, we might as well have wound up the realm anyway because it would have had no territory (remember that Haul and Taop are just on loan from Cathay). So the choices were: take land from Cathay. Or you can wind up your realm after peace. Or we can destroy you.
I should be absolutely clear here: if Kindara has an issue with the terms it was offered, then you are the unreasonable ones. It is the utter height of arrogance to claim that because there's no outcry over terms you personally think are unreasonable, there must be a double standard in the BM community.
It's also the height of arrogance for you to feel you personally know what are reasonable terms, isn't it?
I have to admit that my thinking here has been greatly coloured by the discussions around this subject that have been going on over in Might & Fealty. So it's probably unfair to bring them over here. To some extent, BM is running on an outmoded concept of what is reasonable and unreasonable terms, or what is appropriate in victory and defeat, that we've been trying to find ways to stamp out over in M&F. Where the emphasis is trying to be put on never giving the loser terms that will humiliate them (them seeing the terms as humiliating, that is) and several wars have been stopped because of it.
you make generalisations based on nothing. Most of those who are supposedly against the Empire likely aren't against "the Empire" at all.
No, they're not based on nothing. I've seen the OOC messages in the south where people are saying this. You haven't. Several players also gave it as the OOC reason for moving their characters off the island when the glaicer hit.
Once more, I have to say that most of the opinions I've written in this thread is based on what people have being saying over the past few months about the Imperial model and their dislike of it. You can either believe me or not *shrugs*
No, Rosalind's bottom line on surrender terms has been that you won't given back all the territory taken from Zonasa. That's been the one constant thread in all talks with Rosalind.
That was true before the glacier. But not afterwards. You've also ignored the parts where Rosalind wanted a free south, enough territory to make Kindara a viable realm without harming Cathay. And, most importantly, the part where she wanted assurances that Kindara wouldn't be the whipping boy of the entire Empire each time it wanted a war. To which Velax's response was, "Tough. Kindara should have joined the Empire when it had the chance."
Which would require Zonasa to abrogate its treaty of membership.
Depends where you draw the north/south line. We all use south, but it's probably no longer an accurate term since the glacier wiped off the south of the map. Maybe west or south west is more accurate.
Anyhoo, I have grocery shopping to do, so I might pick up on this thread later if I have the time. Although I'm preparing tonight for a vacation/holiday so I'm only likely to be semi-active at best for the next few days.
-
The betrayal of Cathay was the biggest sticking point there. There's also the point that if Kindara accepted peace but didn't want to take regions from Cathay, we might as well have wound up the realm anyway because it would have had no territory (remember that Haul and Taop are just on loan from Cathay). So the choices were: take land from Cathay. Or you can wind up your realm after peace. Or we can destroy you.
So...what were you expecting? "You've been completely and utterly defeated after never even coming close to winning a war you started, so here, have some territory from my ally"?
Anyhoo, I have grocery shopping to do, so I might pick up on this thread later if I have the time.
Yes, yes. We're all very convinced by your show of nonchalance.
It's also the height of arrogance for you to feel you personally know what are reasonable terms, isn't it?
No. I'm commenting on one set of terms. You're commenting on an entire community.
Where the emphasis is trying to be put on never giving the loser terms that will humiliate them (them seeing the terms as humiliating, that is) and several wars have been stopped because of it.
The losers in a war are going to see virtually any terms as humiliating, because they're the losers. I really don't know how many times I have to say this, but if giving back the territory you took after starting a war and then losing is too unreasonable for you, then there's really nothing we can do for you.
No, they're not based on nothing. I've seen the OOC messages in the south where people are saying this. You haven't. Several players also gave it as the OOC reason for moving their characters off the island when the glaicer hit.
Once more, I have to say that most of the opinions I've written in this thread is based on what people have being saying over the past few months about the Imperial model and their dislike of it. You can either believe me or not *shrugs*
Wow, "several". "Several" sounds rather similar to the "handful" that I mentioned, doesn't it. Again, neither you, nor anyone in Kindara, even know what the Imperial model is. There's a term for people who dislike something without knowing anything about what it is.
That was true before the glacier. But not afterwards. You've also ignored the parts where Rosalind wanted a free south, enough territory to make Kindara a viable realm without harming Cathay. And, most importantly, the part where she wanted assurances that Kindara wouldn't be the whipping boy of the entire Empire each time it wanted a war.
So...you start a war, lose it - badly - and then want terms whereby restrictions are put on the winners? And you want us to give you territory we'd have to force out of Zonasa? Yes, that sounds completely reasonable and completely in keeping with the established RP of this war.
-
The betrayal of Cathay was the biggest sticking point there.
Which, again, was totally optional and up to you. If you didn't want to betray Cathay, you didn't have to. So if that was the biggest sticking point, you were sticking at nothing.
There's also the point that if Kindara accepted peace but didn't want to take regions from Cathay, we might as well have wound up the realm anyway because it would have had no territory (remember that Haul and Taop are just on loan from Cathay). So the choices were: take land from Cathay. Or you can wind up your realm after peace. Or we can destroy you.
While that's not entirely fair, there is some truth to it. Either way, though, Kindara had no leg to stand on demanding territory from Zonasa. Surrender, get the war over and done with, and then maybe Kindara could have brought up the issue of gaining more territory so it wasn't one small city and one destroyed mountain stronghold.
It's also the height of arrogance for you to feel you personally know what are reasonable terms, isn't it?
I think that one cuts both ways.
I have to admit that my thinking here has been greatly coloured by the discussions around this subject that have been going on over in Might & Fealty. So it's probably unfair to bring them over here. To some extent, BM is running on an outmoded concept of what is reasonable and unreasonable terms, or what is appropriate in victory and defeat, that we've been trying to find ways to stamp out over in M&F.
That sounds like a really good thing to do; there have definitely been problems with that in BM over the years. But...
Where the emphasis is trying to be put on never giving the loser terms that will humiliate them (them seeing the terms as humiliating, that is) and several wars have been stopped because of it.
This requires the winning realm to be psychic. We can't read your minds to realize that something we consider to be quite reasonable and even generous, you would find humiliating.
I cannot tell you how many times I've seen this pattern:
- Realm (or alliance, but for simplicity we'll call both sides single realms) A attacks Realm B.
- Realm A takes a little territory away from Realm B.
- Realm B gets it stuff together, pushes Realm B back out of its territory, and takes a little more.
- Realm B sues for peace.
- Realm A says, "Give us back one or more of the regions we took from you, and we'll accept peace."
- Realm B says, "Not a chance, we're winning this war." They proceed to take more land from Realm B.
Repeat steps 4-6 until Realm A is basically destroyed.
I can understand the desire, especially in a realm that's nearly dead like Kindara is now, to be given more territory as part of a peace deal, but it just boggles my mind how people don't understand that when you're losing a war, you don't get to demand regions be given to you that you didn't hold at the beginning of the war. It's not even all that reasonable to demand that any regions be given to you. If you want to survive at all and have a chance of regaining any vestige of your former glory, you need to accept less.
enough territory to make Kindara a viable realm without harming Cathay.
You keep naming this as a term as if it's totally, unquestionably reasonable. As if the Empire has an obligation to make Kindara a viable realm. This is what continues to make me feel as if you're either being disingenuous, or we genuinely come at this from totally different premises about what losing a war means.
To be clear, I do not think that humiliation is a useful purpose of surrender terms. I think that the purpose of surrender terms should be, by and large, to first fulfill the objectives of the war, if there are clear objectives, and second give the defeated realm an incentive to stop fighting. That can sometimes mean just the chance to survive, and it can sometimes mean something more material. I have personally written surrender terms (as a Realm B above) that involved giving regions back to the defeated realm—regions that were theirs to begin with, of course, not realms that we had held at the beginning of the war—in hopes that they would actually be willing to stop trying to bruise our faces with their fists. (It didn't work. They refused to give up even when we'd sacked their capital multiple times. Only the Third Invasion stopped the war, and when we asked, multiple times, if they needed our help against the invaders, they were silent. So the invaders destroyed them, and we didn't help, because they never admitted they wanted it. It was very frustrating, but in the end, rang somewhat of poetic justice.)
I've seen humiliating surrender terms offered before, and I do not see how you could characterize the terms offered to Kindara and Cathay in this war in that manner. Neither realm has been asked to give up large amounts of territory that they hold on the date of the terms; neither realm has been asked to make a public apology, admission of guilt, or anything of the sort; neither realm has been told they need to accept an Imperial monitor, or forced to elect a specific noble as Ruler or any other Council position. I have seen all of these as surrender terms in the past.
The terms that have been offered to Kindara and Cathay have been mildly punitive (particularly in the matter of reparations, which I believe were intended to be negotiable), but overall quite fair. If I had been in your place, I can honestly say that I think I would have taken them. But then, I don't have your (or your realm's) strong distrust of Arcaea, which colors your responses quite a lot.
-
Yes, yes. We're all very convinced by your show of nonchalance.
C'mon, Velax, that was uncalled for. RL is RL.
-
And again, you make generalisations based on nothing. Most of those who are supposedly against the Empire likely aren't against "the Empire" at all. They're against Arcaea, or Sorraine, or Coralynth, or Zonasa, either because we defeated them or because they're of that group of people who will always hate the strongest force on any island, for no reason other than because they're the strongest. Of the 46 non-Empire nobles left, I'd say the number of players whose sole reason for being in Kindara or Cathay is that they "hate the Empire model" make up a bare handful. And those who do likely do so despite the fact that they have no idea what the so-called Empire model even is. For that matter, do you?
Don't be too sure that everyone who is in the Empire actually *likes* the Empire. Or wants to be in the Empire. Or even cares about the Empire at all. I would venture to say that a very significant number of people in the Empire are in it ether because their ruler decided to be part of it, or they did it simply to avoid destruction of their realm.
My personal feeling is that an overall Empire model for FEI, assuming that Arcaea manages to establish an actual island-spanning Empire and make it stick, will be disastrous.
Edit: Fixed whacky quotes...
-
C'mon, Velax, that was uncalled for. RL is RL.
Bleh, maybe. It just irritates me when people write multiple long replies but feel the need to end it with, "Oh, but I don't really care about this, so maybe I'll reply later, if I can be bothered". If you take the time to write half a dozen replies, it's obviously an issue you care about, so why pretend otherwise.
-
Anyway, this war has unfortunately brought up something that is far too common and that is an accusation of cheating. I'm not sure if anyone ever did file a Titan report on it, and if not it would probably be far too late now as it was at least a couple of weeks ago. There's been an accusation flying round which essentially goes along the lines of "Zonasa sends nobles to Arcaea, changes allegiance, recruits masses of troops then switches back".
Personally, I wish people wouldn't fall back on such accusations when you're losing. It's bad form. Not to mention the fact that Tim's ruling Zonasa and he wouldn't let people get away with that. Then again, the person in question is also using that as an OOC reason for losing the war when really, it's just how things played out in-game. On an IC level, Malos at this point doesn't really care what happens so long as his own temples aren't sacked or closed, and he's also annoyed that certain people keep on with the line of "Priests can't be effective Lords or Dukes".
-
Don't be too sure that everyone who is in the Empire actually *likes* the Empire. Or wants to be in the Empire. Or even cares about the Empire at all. I would venture to say that a very significant number of people in the Empire are in it ether because their ruler decided to be part of it, or they did it simply to avoid destruction of their realm.
Exactly! And the same holds true for the reverse. A very significant number of people in the Free Realms didn't know or care about the Empire at all and hold no opinion on the "Empire model", but just happened to be in the realms whose rulers chose to fight against the Empire.
My personal feeling is that an overall Empire model for FEI, assuming that Arcaea manages to establish an actual island-spanning Empire and make it stick, will be disastrous.
Honestly, if it all goes to !@#$, I'll just say, "Right, everyone drop relations to neutral and let's go back to the way things were".
-
Anyway, this war has unfortunately brought up something that is far too common and that is an accusation of cheating. I'm not sure if anyone ever did file a Titan report on it, and if not it would probably be far too late now as it was at least a couple of weeks ago. There's been an accusation flying round which essentially goes along the lines of "Zonasa sends nobles to Arcaea, changes allegiance, recruits masses of troops then switches back".
Whut? :o That's the first I've heard of this. It's definitely totally untrue.
I'm not sure I'd consider it an abuse, personally, and it certainly doesn't rise to the level of outright cheating. It would be a very cumbersome way to increase our army size, which is reason enough for me not to want to try any such thing.
-
Honestly, if it all goes to !@#$, I'll just say, "Right, everyone drop relations to neutral and let's go back to the way things were".
Well, I have reason to believe that even after this war, there's very little risk of things getting boring on the FEI for a while.
-
Whut? :o That's the first I've heard of this. It's definitely totally untrue.
I'm not sure I'd consider it an abuse, personally, and it certainly doesn't rise to the level of outright cheating. It would be a very cumbersome way to increase our army size, which is reason enough for me not to want to try any such thing.
I know. It was also linked with the usual "their ruler is one of the Devs" line of thinking. In other words, the guy is paranoid, a bad loser, or both. Doesn't changing allegiance also cause an automatic ban, or am I thinking of something else?
-
Doesn't changing allegiance also cause an automatic ban, or am I thinking of something else?
It used to. It has not for several years.
(Except for advies. They still get a ban.)
-
It used to. It has not for several years.
(Except for advies. They still get a ban.)
Ah, gotcha. The message when Ravier changed allegiance said he'd be auto-banned from his old realm, hence why I wasn't sure.
-
Sounds like a bug.
-
Anyway, this war has unfortunately brought up something that is far too common and that is an accusation of cheating. I'm not sure if anyone ever did file a Titan report on it, and if not it would probably be far too late now as it was at least a couple of weeks ago. There's been an accusation flying round which essentially goes along the lines of "Zonasa sends nobles to Arcaea, changes allegiance, recruits masses of troops then switches back".
As you know, I dismissed that accusation in-game when it was raised and said it was groundless as far as I could see.
Yes, yes. We're all very convinced by your show of nonchalance.
Do you want to see the checkout receipt?
Bleh, maybe. It just irritates me when people write multiple long replies but feel the need to end it with, "Oh, but I don't really care about this, so maybe I'll reply later, if I can be bothered". If you take the time to write half a dozen replies, it's obviously an issue you care about, so why pretend otherwise.
You won't find that many posts from me on this forum of any great length for the past year or so. Broadly, because I don't have the time for it. You'll struggle to find anything much from me that involves realm vs realm situations. I have a pretty good emotional disconnect from the game, meaning that sort of thing doesn't move me much.
The difference here is that I know players on FEI are unhappy with the direction you're taking the island in. I could have just stayed silent and avoided all of this unnecessary forum drama and your vitriol, but I felt it best to speak up and make it clear that people are being alienated.
Concerning the surrender terms and Kindaran/southern refusal of them, I forgot to mention that pre-glacier part of the point of rejecting them was also to ensure that the war was prolonged to make sure everyone on the island had an active war to take part in that was pretty well balanced between the two opposing sides. Post-glacier is, of course, a completely different kettle of fish.
So...you start a war, lose it - badly - and then want terms whereby restrictions are put on the winners? And you want us to give you territory we'd have to force out of Zonasa? Yes, that sounds completely reasonable and completely in keeping with the established RP of this war.
And this....
You keep naming this as a term as if it's totally, unquestionably reasonable. As if the Empire has an obligation to make Kindara a viable realm. This is what continues to make me feel as if you're either being disingenuous, or we genuinely come at this from totally different premises about what losing a war means.
Yes, we genuinely come at this from totally different angles. I know this is why Velax will never see where I'm coming from with it. Again, my thinking on this is deeply coloured by discussions and happenings over in Might & Fealty. We've come to realize that pushing defeated realms too far was making people quit the game. In a couple of recent cases, wars have ended with pretty much no surrender terms imposed because the losing side has said, "What the hell are you doing to us?" causing the winners to back off. One winning realm recently made reparations to the losing side for an unjust war. And Hawks has just returned all the territory it won from Red Forest in a war about two months ago (I realise the realm names will mean nothing to people here).
Partly, this is motivated by a deep wish among the M&F community to stop players leaving, maintain levels of happiness and enjoyment amongst all players (not just the ones on your side), and attract new ones to make the game a success. It doesn't take much imagination to see echoes for that here, on an island with a dwindling number of players in a game with a dwindling number of players. To lift a quote from the M&F character page, "Don't play to win or you'll soon have no-one to war with".
I fully accept that this sort of "no win, no loss" scenario is completely alien to BM players, and I recently said over in M&F that the import of BM war culture is what was damaging the M&F outlook on war. In this case, I wish some of M&F would rub off on BM. But I seriously doubt that it will.
-
Partly, this is motivated by a deep wish among the M&F community to stop players leaving, maintain levels of happiness and enjoyment amongst all players (not just the ones on your side), and attract new ones to make the game a success. It doesn't take much imagination to see echoes for that here, on an island with a dwindling number of players in a game with a dwindling number of players. To lift a quote from the M&F character page, "Don't play to win or you'll soon have no-one to war with".
I fully accept that this sort of "no win, no loss" scenario is completely alien to BM players, and I recently said over in M&F that the import of BM war culture is what was damaging the M&F outlook on war. In this case, I wish some of M&F would rub off on BM. But I seriously doubt that it will.
I don't play M&F, I suppose there are some mechanics which are quite different. If you end a war with a "no win, no loss" scenario, why were you fighting in the first place? Does that translate in BM terms?
-
Wow, I didn't notice there has been a public thread here. This is exciting.
There is no excuse in losing the war. The world is not a fair world, and realms are fighting losing wars all the time. There is no need to call your opponents idiots just because you are winning the game. Admittedly, Cathay has some less experienced nobles on the leadership positions. We made wrong decisions that enrage Velax and others. Those decisions could be foolish. But we have been trying us best to stay us float.
I have no personal issue about the surrender terms that Cathay got. Whatever we got was reasonable to the other side of the table. As Bofeng explained in the private letter to Velax, more political wisdom is needed to plan for the next stage of the continent and to end the war. Bofeng was inclined to accept the terms, but nobles declined such terms. It's just the nature of the game. You think the surrender terms are NOT humiliating, but yes many of us do feel that way. We have no problem in admitting the war is lost. But Velax wants more than that. He wants others to kneel in front of him. The problem is, as I told him, he has to show more mercy to convince others to kneel in front of him. If he believes he is great enough to conquer the whole continent, he has to demonstrate that by destroying us to the dusts, or showing us enough mercy.
Now the terms.
1. Cathay lowers (or raises) relations with all realms in the Far East to peace for the duration of the war and offers no assistance to Kindara or any other realms that oppose the Empire.
2. Cathay promises to offer no sanctuary to those nobles decreed Enemies of the Empire - namely Agnes Rossignon, Fedor Ironhorse and any member of the Himoura family.
3. Cathay cedes Ansopen to Zonasa. Any changes - such as the disbandment of militia or the tearing down of recruitment centres - will abrogate this agreement.
4. The banning of Usul Soul for the crime of torture.
5. Cathay joins the Empire. It will sign the same treaty as each other Empire realm has signed.
6. Cathay grants the realms of the Empire passage rights for the duration of the war and agrees to give Kindara or any other realm opposing the Empire no such rights.
7. The agreement between Cathay and Kindara to cede the Duchy of Azros to Kindara at the end of the war is rendered null and void.
8. Cathay agrees to sell excess food to Sorraine at a fair market price until Sorraine can produce enough food to feed its regions.
And my response:
1. A package deal with Cathay and Kindara is preferred if possible.
2. Banning Duke Usul is highly unlikely. Though I understand your pain in losing your brother, Duke Usul tortured him for a good reason. A reparation could be considered instead.
3. Cathay will not give up her claim on Ansopen, Taop, or Haul. Cathay has already lost the war. What’s the point in further crippling us?
In fact, my position was soft. But the nobles didn't feel that Velax was seriously in entering the talks because they felt the terms are humiliating. Nobles would rather die together with Cathay.
We are soft, weak, foolish, inexperienced, doomed, just like I was attacked by some when Queen Stephanie was in place. But we stick with Cathay with a reason. We have a dream that is greater than the existence of Cathay or Kindara, that is to bring peace and balance back to this continent. For that reason, we stand and fight. For that reason, nobles choose not to leave the Free Realms.
-
Yes, we genuinely come at this from totally different angles. I know this is why Velax will never see where I'm coming from with it. Again, my thinking on this is deeply coloured by discussions and happenings over in Might & Fealty. We've come to realize that pushing defeated realms too far was making people quit the game.
I guess it just seems absurd to me that asking a defeated realm to be content with what regions it has managed to retain is "pushing them too far".
It seems like, in general, you are expecting the winning realm to make major concessions in order to achieve peace: granting multiple regions, allowing crimes to go unpunished, abandoning the very goals the war was started for.
Now, like I said before, I've seen some unreasonable surrender terms in my time. I know it happens, and I know it's a problem. But I really think you're being unreasonable by lumping the terms Kindara and Cathay have been given in this game along with them, and from what you've said here, I suspect that you're letting your experience in M&F colour your perceptions of this too much.
In a couple of recent cases, wars have ended with pretty much no surrender terms imposed because the losing side has said, "What the hell are you doing to us?" causing the winners to back off.
So what, exactly, were they doing to them that made that make sense?
One winning realm recently made reparations to the losing side for an unjust war.
And if Kindara and Cathay were winning this war, I might expect them to do the same, because it is they who were unjust in starting it. Even with some pretty impressive stretching of the truth, I can't see how one could characterize Zonasa and Arcaea's fight against Cathay and Kindara as an "unjust war."
And Hawks has just returned all the territory it won from Red Forest in a war about two months ago (I realise the realm names will mean nothing to people here).
For what IC reasons? All of this is just being given without context, and context is vital in situations like this.
If it was really all done purely because of OOC reasons, then I'm sorry, but I can't condone it. I would rather have BattleMaster collapse to a one-island game, or die off entirely, than have major decisions like those made on a regular basis for OOC reasons without a solid IC justification. If that ever happened to it, it would mean most of the reason for the game's very existence had died anyway.
I fully accept that this sort of "no win, no loss" scenario is completely alien to BM players, and I recently said over in M&F that the import of BM war culture is what was damaging the M&F outlook on war. In this case, I wish some of M&F would rub off on BM. But I seriously doubt that it will.
And here, you're just sounding condescending. "I know you poor, unenlightened savages here in the backwards game of BattleMaster are still clinging to your notions that a war should have some kind of purpose, or meaning, but we superior beings over in the shining city on a hill of Might and Fealty know that its true purpose is just to give fun to the players, and then be over without any consequences!" That may not be your intent, but it's certainly what this sounds like to me.
And yeah, sorry, not buying it. When you remove the IC consequences for war, you remove the IC purpose and justification for war, and everything just becomes a meaningless wargame where you're moving tokens around on a sand table. That's not what BattleMaster was ever meant to be.
-
Do you want to see the checkout receipt?
Pics or it didn't happen! ;)
We've come to realize that pushing defeated realms too far was making people quit the game.
In a way, I agree. Every time a war ends with the destruction of a realm, people will quit the game.
The problem is that the definition of "too far" varies wildly from person to person. Is a 500 gold reparation too far? How about 5,000 gold? Is the loss of one region from your original borders OK? How about an entire duchy?
Is it OK to destroy a realm? If realms don't get destroyed, then where's the risk? Without risk, then what's the point?
Anyway, this is a very widely debated topic.
-
I guess it just seems absurd to me that asking a defeated realm to be content with what regions it has managed to retain is "pushing them too far".
It seems like, in general, you are expecting the winning realm to make major concessions in order to achieve peace: granting multiple regions, allowing crimes to go unpunished, abandoning the very goals the war was started for.
Now, like I said before, I've seen some unreasonable surrender terms in my time. I know it happens, and I know it's a problem. But I really think you're being unreasonable by lumping the terms Kindara and Cathay have been given in this game along with them, and from what you've said here, I suspect that you're letting your experience in M&F colour your perceptions of this too much.
So what, exactly, were they doing to them that made that make sense?
And if Kindara and Cathay were winning this war, I might expect them to do the same, because it is they who were unjust in starting it. Even with some pretty impressive stretching of the truth, I can't see how one could characterize Zonasa and Arcaea's fight against Cathay and Kindara as an "unjust war."
For what IC reasons? All of this is just being given without context, and context is vital in situations like this.
If it was really all done purely because of OOC reasons, then I'm sorry, but I can't condone it. I would rather have BattleMaster collapse to a one-island game, or die off entirely, than have major decisions like those made on a regular basis for OOC reasons without a solid IC justification. If that ever happened to it, it would mean most of the reason for the game's very existence had died anyway.
And here, you're just sounding condescending. "I know you poor, unenlightened savages here in the backwards game of BattleMaster are still clinging to your notions that a war should have some kind of purpose, or meaning, but we superior beings over in the shining city on a hill of Might and Fealty know that its true purpose is just to give fun to the players, and then be over without any consequences!" That may not be your intent, but it's certainly what this sounds like to me.
And yeah, sorry, not buying it. When you remove the IC consequences for war, you remove the IC purpose and justification for war, and everything just becomes a meaningless wargame where you're moving tokens around on a sand table. That's not what BattleMaster was ever meant to be.
I'm sorry Anaris, but as someone who's played Might & Fealty for a short time, I can tell you that the atmosphere in that game is a hell of a lot better than in this game. We aren't saying that wars shouldn't have meaning, but the fact is they're trying to build an IG, IC culture that allows for people to have wars with consequences that don't immediately escalate into continent-wide gangbangs. Because that's all that Battlemaster has become, continent-wide alliances where realms have little choice but to join one of two sides or be ground to dust in a merciless gangbang as one mega-alliance brings in all of its allies to kill off that one realm and claim its lands as its own so that the other alliance can't hold it. The one continent that was relatively different was Dwilight, and that's because of how incredibly massive it was compared to other continents. Now that it's been cut in half, that's what I see for its future.
By the way, there are consequences. The realm that conquered Red Forest was The White Company, which was a mercenary realm. It basically was contracted into taking three regions and forcing a surrender from Red Forest. They went well beyond that (I should know, I was commanding it at the time), blitzing through the realm and taking all of their regions save for one. This backfired as the realm that had contracted it did not want Red Forest destroyed, merely diminished. This lead to massive diplomatic repercussions, and I'm pretty sure that the White Company collapsed after I left.
-
I heard wars hardly happen in M&F because people quit once they lose a war?
-
I'm sorry Anaris, but as someone who's played Might & Fealty for a short time, I can tell you that the atmosphere in that game is a hell of a lot better than in this game.
I'm not trying to say it's not; I simply have no information beyond what's being said in this thread. I don't have the time to invest in taking up Might and Fealty, and don't expect to in the foreseeable future.
If it has a better atmosphere than BM, that's great. I'd love for BM to have a better atmosphere, too. I'd love for BM not to descend into continent-wide wars. If you have good, practical advice on preventing that, I'm all ears.
However, in this particular instance, I really don't have a whole lot of sympathy. This war was begun when three realms attacked one realm, approximately equal in size to the smallest of the three, in what was, at least from my perspective, a totally shameless attempt at a land grab. The reason it's become a continent-wide war is because it started out with Zonasa vs half the continent, so it took the other half the continent to prevent Zonasa from getting destroyed in the first place.
We aren't saying that wars shouldn't have meaning, but the fact is they're trying to build an IG, IC culture that allows for people to have wars with consequences that don't immediately escalate into continent-wide gangbangs. Because that's all that Battlemaster has become, continent-wide alliances where realms have little choice but to join one of two sides or be ground to dust in a merciless gangbang as one mega-alliance brings in all of its allies to kill off that one realm and claim its lands as its own so that the other alliance can't hold it.
That's good, and I agree.
The one continent that was relatively different was Dwilight, and that's because of how incredibly massive it was compared to other continents. Now that it's been cut in half, that's what I see for its future.
I'm afraid I agree with that, too—not that it's a certainty, but a likelihood. Cutting Dwilight in half was a damn hard decision for me; by this time it should be obvious to you and other regular forum-goers that it's my favourite continent. When we were discussing actually sinking a continent, though, Tom was pushing hard for that continent to be Dwilight, and it was hard to convince him that that wasn't the best idea. So I'm totally on board with cutting Dwilight in half (and the ice age in general) being a Bad Thing—it's just that letting everything slowly decay without doing anything would be a Worse Thing.
By the way, there are consequences. The realm that conquered Red Forest was The White Company, which was a mercenary realm. It basically was contracted into taking three regions and forcing a surrender from Red Forest. They went well beyond that (I should know, I was commanding it at the time), blitzing through the realm and taking all of their regions save for one. This backfired as the realm that had contracted it did not want Red Forest destroyed, merely diminished. This lead to massive diplomatic repercussions, and I'm pretty sure that the White Company collapsed after I left.
Again, that's good. But that's all about context.
I don't know how much you know about the current conflict on the FEI, but just based on what you've read here, can you honestly say that you think the terms given to Kindara and Cathay have been unreasonably harsh, whether by BattleMaster or Might and Fealty terms?
-
I heard wars hardly happen in M&F because people quit once they lose a war?
No, there are wars. But we're learning to limit them to a smaller scale than "Pile on! World war!" so nobody gets wiped out. The much bigger map helps in this too, and even if a realm looks like it's going to be wiped out its much easier to move it somewhere else than in BM. People have quit because of losing wars, but that's part of what the change in culture is trying to address.
Wars also aren't the be all and end all of the game, because there's also stuff like dungeoneering.
I don't play M&F, I suppose there are some mechanics which are quite different. If you end a war with a "no win, no loss" scenario, why were you fighting in the first place? Does that translate in BM terms?
Yeah, it's probably easier to fight a war without destroying someone or seriously damaging them in M&F than here. For example, you can fight in the open field without damaging settlements (regions in BM terms). So you could probably fight an enjoyable war in M&F without absolutely needing to take land. There's other stuff too, but it would take ages to write it all down. The M&F manual explains some of it if you take a look.
And here, you're just sounding condescending. "I know you poor, unenlightened savages here in the backwards game of BattleMaster are still clinging to your notions that a war should have some kind of purpose, or meaning, but we superior beings over in the shining city on a hill of Might and Fealty know that its true purpose is just to give fun to the players, and then be over without any consequences!" That may not be your intent, but it's certainly what this sounds like to me.
Sorry, that wasn't the intent. But I do think the M&F playing atmosphere is a lot healthier than BM's.
This war was begun when three realms attacked one realm, approximately equal in size to the smallest of the three, in what was, at least from my perspective, a totally shameless attempt at a land grab.
At the start of the war, the Kindaran intention was to force a change in government inside Zonasa (at least that's what Edmund told his council). It escalated to a much more serious war from there as more realms became involved. Galiard might have wanted a land grab of rurals for Cathay, but I wasn't privy to Cathay's decision making process at that stage.
And yeah, sorry, not buying it. When you remove the IC consequences for war, you remove the IC purpose and justification for war, and everything just becomes a meaningless wargame where you're moving tokens around on a sand table. That's not what BattleMaster was ever meant to be.
No, there are IC consequences for war, and IC purpose and justifications, but with a good level of OOC restraint and peer pressure not to kill realms or humiliate them.
Every time a war ends with the destruction of a realm, people will quit the game.
Fully agree.
-
And my response:
1. A package deal with Cathay and Kindara is preferred if possible.
2. Banning Duke Usul is highly unlikely. Though I understand your pain in losing your brother, Duke Usul tortured him for a good reason. A reparation could be considered instead.
3. Cathay will not give up her claim on Ansopen, Taop, or Haul. Cathay has already lost the war. What’s the point in further crippling us?
In fact, my position was soft. But the nobles didn't feel that Velax was seriously in entering the talks because they felt the terms are humiliating. Nobles would rather die together with Cathay.
1. A ridiculous request, as the demands Kindara had made were unreasonable and there was no way any sort of "package deal" could be made without tossing existing RP out the window.
2. If you torture the brother of the enemy's leader and then lose the war, you should expect there to be consequences.
3. You were told you can have Taop and that Ansopen was negotiable. You didn't even control Haul and hadn't for months, so to claim it's "humiliating" to not be given back territory that your ally currently controls is ridiculous.
If you and your nobles felt the terms were humiliating, then you and your nobles are being unreasonable and overly prideful. Bofeng apparently had no issue bending the knee to another ruler but losing a stronghold that isn't yours and gaining a city is too embarrassing?
You received terms that boiled down to, "Give up two regions, one of which you don't currently control and the other we're willing to negotiate on, and ban one noble. Oh, and you'll get back the city your ally took from you" and this is apparently humiliating. This sort of attitude is why realms get destroyed. This refusal to admit that they should pay any sort of price for starting a war and losing it.
-
From Kindara's perspective, I really don't see how having to return to pre-war borders and banish a few nobles hated by the enemy really constitutes destruction or humiliation when they're badly losing the war and are on the verge of annihilation. I've been in situations before where I'd have jumped at terms like that when my realm's circumstances were far less dire than Kindara's. Kindara, or at least its rulers, are living in some sort of parallel universe if they really think that a realm losing badly is in any position to demand territory from the victor, particularly when said realm caused the war in the first place.
I don't see how the terms being offered to Cathay are awful either: give up some territory you don't actually control at the moment, don't let so and so nobles join you and join the winning side in the war without being forced to directly fight your former ally. Yes, those aren't pleasant peace terms and I can see why Cathayans would resent them but if you've lost a war then of course any peace terms which involve sparing your life are probably going to be unpleasant and cause you resentment.
-
Concerning the surrender terms and Kindaran/southern refusal of them, I forgot to mention that pre-glacier part of the point of rejecting them was also to ensure that the war was prolonged to make sure everyone on the island had an active war to take part in that was pretty well balanced between the two opposing sides. Post-glacier is, of course, a completely different kettle of fish.
And this....
Yes, we genuinely come at this from totally different angles. I know this is why Velax will never see where I'm coming from with it. Again, my thinking on this is deeply coloured by discussions and happenings over in Might & Fealty. We've come to realize that pushing defeated realms too far was making people quit the game. In a couple of recent cases, wars have ended with pretty much no surrender terms imposed because the losing side has said, "What the hell are you doing to us?" causing the winners to back off. One winning realm recently made reparations to the losing side for an unjust war. And Hawks has just returned all the territory it won from Red Forest in a war about two months ago (I realise the realm names will mean nothing to people here).
Partly, this is motivated by a deep wish among the M&F community to stop players leaving, maintain levels of happiness and enjoyment amongst all players (not just the ones on your side), and attract new ones to make the game a success. It doesn't take much imagination to see echoes for that here, on an island with a dwindling number of players in a game with a dwindling number of players. To lift a quote from the M&F character page, "Don't play to win or you'll soon have no-one to war with".
I fully accept that this sort of "no win, no loss" scenario is completely alien to BM players, and I recently said over in M&F that the import of BM war culture is what was damaging the M&F outlook on war. In this case, I wish some of M&F would rub off on BM. But I seriously doubt that it will.
So you accept that your attitude here is alien to BM, but still felt you had the right to attack the opposing side for their "unreasonable" terms?
Let me put it bluntly. If you think you can start a war - a war that very quickly became a war to destroy my realm - lose it and then have us give you our own lands, lands that were not Kindara's at the beginning of the war, as well as impose restrictions on the winners about when and who future wars can be against, then yes. That will not ever, ever rub off on BM. I would not bother to play a game like that, where making repeated poor decisions has no effect whatsoever and there are no consequences for your actions. That sounds boring and unrealistic and is not what BM is about.
-
From Kindara's perspective, I really don't see how having to return to pre-war borders and banish a few nobles hated by the enemy really constitutes destruction or humiliation when they're badly losing the war and are on the verge of annihilation.
Pre-glacier, the refusal to return to pre-war borders was partially to prolong the war which was reasonably balanced at that stage before the ice and was probably the most interesting thing that had happened on the FEI for a while. And most people on both sides seemed to be still enjoying it at that point.
-
So you accept that your attitude here is alien to BM, but still felt you had the right to attack the opposing side for their "unreasonable" terms?
It's not about sides. It's about all the players on the island. Those on your side. Those on my side. And the playing atmosphere. I've told you that people are feeling alienated. As the owner of the strongest character on the island who has the greatest influence, it's up to you to either take that on board or ignore it.
a war that very quickly became a war to destroy my realm
Oh, come on. When was Arcaea ever likely to get destroyed? Even if the south had managed to push right up into Arcaean territory, they'd never have been able to fully destroy Arcaea. Without the glacier cutting down the map, I doubt that the Empire would have been able to push all the way down into the southern extremities of the island to totally destroy the south either. Or if you had, it would probably have taken a year or two in RL time scale.
-
It's not about sides.
I'm sorry, but that's a nonsensical statement. You are the ruler of a realm that is about to be destroyed, and Velax is the ruler of the realm that is going to destroy you. You are declaring his terms of surrender for your realm unreasonable, based on an attitude that comes from a completely different game, that you have, yourself, admitted is completely alien to BattleMaster.
There's no way on Earth that's "not about sides".
-
FWIW - I've never seen *any* terms or potential treaties related to the war on FEI. So far as I know, no one involved in the war has ever discussed any possible end to the war.
When my character Gary was on FEI Arcaea realm, Velax did inform whole realm and council about the treaty terms. It is almost exactly what Anaris states below.
Going off the top of my head, here's what terms have been offered and accepted in this war:
- To Ohnar West, join the Empire, keep your current regions (after losing some to the Empire), you don't have to fight your former allies, but you can't rejoin this war before its end.
- To Greater Aenilia, no terms; they were destroyed utterly due to serially pissing off Velax.
I believe Velax has mentioned terms to Kindara and Cathay earlier in the thread:
- To Kindara, a variety of degrees, but including, more or less, "give back the regions you took from Zonasa and we'll call it even", and, more recently, "you can't have any of Zonasa's regions, but if you want, we'll help you take regions from Cathay."
- To Cathay, again, a variety, but also including "you give up claim on one region you don't currently hold, and don't get any more regions back, and we'll call it a day."
The terms to Kindara and Cathay have also included some specific provisions to banish nobles that have taken especially egregious or highly targeted actions against the Empire in general, or Velax and his family specifically.
Again, this is my recollection off the top of my head, so it may not be 100% accurate—but I think it is important that it's my perception, as a leader of one side, of the terms that have been offered to our enemies in this war.
I cannot tell you how many times I've seen this pattern:
- Realm (or alliance, but for simplicity we'll call both sides single realms) A attacks Realm B.
- Realm A takes a little territory away from Realm B.
- Realm B gets it stuff together, pushes Realm B back out of its territory, and takes a little more.
- Realm B sues for peace.
- Realm A says, "Give us back one or more of the regions we took from you, and we'll accept peace."
- Realm B says, "Not a chance, we're winning this war." They proceed to take more land from Realm B.
Repeat steps 4-6 until Realm A is basically destroyed.
I can understand the desire, especially in a realm that's nearly dead like Kindara is now, to be given more territory as part of a peace deal, but it just boggles my mind how people don't understand that when you're losing a war, you don't get to demand regions be given to you that you didn't hold at the beginning of the war. It's not even all that reasonable to demand that any regions be given to you. If you want to survive at all and have a chance of regaining any vestige of your former glory, you need to accept less.
This is quite true cycle for most situations on Battlemaster. Actually at one moment of Battlemaster history, Caligus did lose whole Domus city duchy to Yssaria realm and was confined to a small piece of lands, from which they rebuilt and they finally defeated their foe Yssaria later on. Losing realm will not always stay losing all the time, they just need to be patient and bide their time to rise up. No realm stay winning or losing forever. Patience is a virtue.
Looking at what going on here. Now I do have a headache for my other realm on winning side to offer terms to losing realm at the conclusion of a war. My character Ruler does not wish to kill the entire realm and culture for that matter. I even willing to give back one of the regions we took in the war as long as they give us gold as compensation. Let hope the losing realm accept the terms my Ruler offered. If they have so much gold to hire infiltrators to wreak havoc on our lands, they should have much gold to compensate us.
-
a completely different game, that you have, yourself, admitted is completely alien to BattleMaster.
Well, M&F is the ideological child of BM, so let's not pretend it's that alien. I've seen numerous debates over the years here about realm death being detrimental to the game because we lose some players with each realm that goes.
I'm sorry, but that's a nonsensical statement. You are the ruler of a realm that is about to be destroyed, and Velax is the ruler of the realm that is going to destroy you. You are declaring his terms of surrender for your realm unreasonable.... There's no way on Earth that's "not about sides".
We're too far apart here to find grounds for agreement. You're still talking about realms, I'm talking about players. What matters is that there's a significant number of players who don't like the direction the island is being taken in by the Empire project. You either believe that or you don't. But really you're just shooting the messenger that's highlighting this. Like I said, I could have stayed silent and let it take its course. And probably will in the future. You see players complaining about realms being destroyed, when they're really complaining about a model of play being introduced to the island that they don't like the look of. The terms are unreasonable because they'll leave no place on the island where these players can go if they don't want to play within the Empire.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter that much because people can just move their characters somewhere else. But it will negatively impact your player numbers on the island. Believe it. Don't believe it. Act on it. Don't act on it. Your choice.
-
Oh, come on. When was Arcaea ever likely to get destroyed? Even if the south had managed to push right up into Arcaean territory, they'd never have been able to fully destroy Arcaea. Without the glacier cutting down the map, I doubt that the Empire would have been able to push all the way down into the southern extremities of the island to totally destroy the south either. Or if you had, it would probably have taken a year or two in RL time scale.
Considering a northern coalition successfully destroyed Soliferum with a much, much less overwhelming advantage previously, I don't think it's that hard to believe that the Empire would win this round with a much, much better command structure and stronger position, even pre-glacier.
No, there are wars. But we're learning to limit them to a smaller scale than "Pile on! World war!" so nobody gets wiped out.
You do realize that one of the primary goals of the Empire (at least of Jenred's original vision of how this would work, which I understand Velax has moved somewhat away from) was to put Imperial might behind what are essentially duels between realms, yes?
The much bigger map helps in this too, and even if a realm looks like it's going to be wiped out its much easier to move it somewhere else than in BM. People have quit because of losing wars, but that's part of what the change in culture is trying to address.
To this day, I think the single most awesomely de-stabilizing and far-reaching act I have ever seen on the Far East was the destruction of Sartania. That destruction and the subsequent Sartanian exodus either directly led to or strongly influenced: The wars between Arcaea and Arcachon the ultimately led to the destruction of Arcachon and the founding of Coralynth; NeoSartania, and all the wars it had with C'thonia and other realms in the south; all kinds of craziness in the Ohnar/Papania region that eventually led to Sorraine; a huge shift in how Cathay (temporarily), Soliferum, Coralynth, and to a lesser extent Arcaea were governed; my personal favourite trio of Jenred working closely with Thain and Selene while trying to keep them from killing each other which caused all kinds of conflict that appears to have now escalated into all kinds of issues with the Order of the Elders; and countless other events which fell in a cascade from all of these.
What I generally find is the opposite: Keeping the same realms around for ages results in stagnation, especially if their power structure doesn't change, just downsize.
Now, admittedly, a lot of that happened because the Sartanians had places to go. I might suggest to Velax that a large group of nobles that don't want to live in the Empire might make an excellent vanguard for a post-unification idea we discussed, if or when that day ever comes.
But there is a difference between leaving a way out where surrendering forces might march with dignity, and handing them back bloodily won land for purely OOC reasons. The first any halfway decent Ruler strives for, the latter tends to lead to your back getting stabbed as soon as another threat rises.
-
We're too far apart here to find grounds for agreement. You're still talking about realms, I'm talking about players.
Yes, you keep saying that, and I do understand that. But frankly, it's meaningless.
The argument you're making could be made about any realm losing a war: It's never fun to lose. But that doesn't mean that we should eliminate losing, because if no one ever really loses, then no one ever really wins, either.
What you're trying to do is get everyone to make all their major decisions about when and how to start and end wars based on purely OOC criteria. That would destroy BattleMaster. BattleMaster is not just another game of Risk: it's a game full of nobles, good and bad and in-between. You're asking everyone on the winning side of every war to just ignore everything their character would do, just so that the losers don't ever have to actually lose anything, and that's neither reasonable nor realistic.
The terms are unreasonable because they'll leave no place on the island where these players can go if they don't want to play within the Empire.
Apparently, no matter how many times I say "there's middle ground between those who hate the Empire and want no part of it, and those who want to have the Empire rule everything," you're just going to ignore me, because it destroys your carefully-built narrative.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter that much because people can just move their characters somewhere else. But it will negatively impact your player numbers on the island. Believe it. Don't believe it. Act on it. Don't act on it. Your choice.
Yes, you totally have the moral high ground here, and you get to be the one making sad pronouncements of inevitability.
And yes, I know that when the war is over, people will leave the island, and probably the game. And that's sad. But I basically knew that when the war started—I know that's the way BattleMaster is these days. I want to change that, but your way is not the way to do it.
Because like I said before: I'd rather see BattleMaster die than become a game of meaningless, empty wars, and despite your assurances otherwise, that's exactly what it sounds to me like you're advocating.
And in the end, Foxglove, what you are advocating is pointless, because it's a change that the vast majority of players in BattleMaster will simply never accept. Changing a culture as entrenched as the one in this game is a very hard, very slow process.
I can rewrite the code, but I can't rewrite the culture. Only the players, by acts of consensus and slow, subtle movements, can do that.
-
What you're trying to do is get everyone to make all their major decisions about when and how to start and end wars based on purely OOC criteria. That would destroy BattleMaster. BattleMaster is not just another game of Risk: it's a game full of nobles, good and bad and in-between. You're asking everyone on the winning side of every war to just ignore everything their character would do
No, not purely on OOC criteria. My experience of the game is that some people make decisions that are character led, while some people make OOC decisions about what their characters will do or decisions they'll make, then align their RP to allow them to do it. There's a mixture in there already. Some people do already put an OOC brake on some of their decisions.
I'm not advocating eliminating losing completely. Just that the winners should recognise that if they value what they've built in the game or the way they play, chances are the losers also value what they've built or the way they play. There are still ways for winners to win and for losers to lose that make it acceptable for both sides.
Apparently, no matter how many times I say "there's middle ground between those who hate the Empire and want no part of it, and those who want to have the Empire rule everything," you're just going to ignore me, because it destroys your carefully-built narrative.
No, I'm not ignoring it. But you're quite rightly not elaborating on what the middle way is because you want to keep the plans in game. I can't comment on something I don't know about, or form an opinion on whether it has a chance of getting off the ground.
And yes, I know that when the war is over, people will leave the island, and probably the game. And that's sad. But I basically knew that when the war started—I know that's the way BattleMaster is these days. I want to change it
It really is sad if we're accepting that people will leave the game at the end of a war when we start one. I didn't realize we'd reached that stage of acceptance about that outcome to wars. I'm glad you hope to change it, though.
And in the end, Foxglove, what you are advocating is pointless, because it's a change that the vast majority of players in BattleMaster will simply never accept. Changing a culture as entrenched as the one in this game is a very hard, very slow process.
I can rewrite the code, but I can't rewrite the culture. Only the players, by acts of consensus and slow, subtle movements, can do that.
And the slow, subtle movements have to start somewhere with people expressing opinions about ways to do it. I get you don't feel anything I'm saying has any merit, but maybe the next idea will.
-
We're too far apart here to find grounds for agreement. You're still talking about realms, I'm talking about players. What matters is that there's a significant number of players who don't like the direction the island is being taken in by the Empire project. You either believe that or you don't. But really you're just shooting the messenger that's highlighting this. Like I said, I could have stayed silent and let it take its course. And probably will in the future. You see players complaining about realms being destroyed, when they're really complaining about a model of play being introduced to the island that they don't like the look of. The terms are unreasonable because they'll leave no place on the island where these players can go if they don't want to play within the Empire.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter that much because people can just move their characters somewhere else. But it will negatively impact your player numbers on the island. Believe it. Don't believe it. Act on it. Don't act on it. Your choice.
You keep going on, and on, and on and on and on about the Empire model and the Empire project, while ignoring the repeatedly made statement that you don't even know what it is. For the vast majority of players, the "Empire model" is just a normal federation with a strong central leader. The only people it makes a difference to is the rulers, who have to put up with a large realm occasionally dictating the course of a war. Hey, much like it is now. It's fine for characters to bitch about surrendering sovereignty, etc, etc, but if there are players going on about how they hate the Empire and how they'll leave the island because it makes such a massive difference to the way they play, then they're talking out of their arses. If you picked any random player in the Empire, chances are the fact they're in the Empire has no effect whatsoever on their gameplay, save perhaps some RP, because the Empire makes a specific point of not interfering in internal realm politics.
-
1. A ridiculous request, as the demands Kindara had made were unreasonable and there was no way any sort of "package deal" could be made without tossing existing RP out the window.
2. If you torture the brother of the enemy's leader and then lose the war, you should expect there to be consequences.
3. You were told you can have Taop and that Ansopen was negotiable. You didn't even control Haul and hadn't for months, so to claim it's "humiliating" to not be given back territory that your ally currently controls is ridiculous.
1. I don't see why this is a ridiculous request. You are giving terms on the whole Empire, then the terms should cover both Cathay and Kindara. We had no idea how Kindara negotiated with the Empire, but Cathay will consider the terms "incomplete" if they do not talk about Kindara.
2. I didn't say there can't be consequences. I said it's "unlikely" been done. We can pay money or ask our Judge to step down. But effectively banning him from this continent seems too much. Keep in mind it's the first time the player has been playing a Judge. While assassinating nobles are acceptable for players, torturing such criminals is suddenly unacceptable and considered a "crime". That's a new lesson to me too.
3. I didn't personally think the terms were "humiliating" just because we were asked to hand out Ansopen, and Ansopen WAS controlled by Cathay at the moment. I said "Cathay will not give up her claim on Ansopen, Taop, or Haul." We never gave up our claim on Taop and Haul, though Kindara was having it. That's because we agreed Kindara needed the regions.
Beyond these points, we implicitly expressed we could accept all other terms, and gave up claims on Duchy of Colosan. We were making efforts. On other words, if the Empire would agree to accept the border line at that moment, where Cathay and Kindara controls Zarimel, Ansopen and Haul, Cathy was ready to embrace peace. But beyond that we can't make a deal. Betraying our only ally or banning our respectful Judge, who controls the largest Duchy, will bring a disaster to the foundation of this realm. So those were our bottom lines, and I was very frank to Velax on that point.
-
While assassinating nobles are acceptable for players, torturing such criminals is suddenly unacceptable and considered a "crime". That's a new lesson to me too.
I always thought this was an odd disconnect. I have to admit that I am susceptible to it, too. I suppose you can consider it along the lines of "It doesn't matter what he did, he's one of mine, and I'm going to protect him".
It used to be that torturing infiltrators, while not routine, was generally considered part of the risk you take for being an infiltrator. Even now, the reaction depends quite a bit on who is getting tortured. Torturing the king's brother is likely to get a big reaction. Torturing that realm-hopping psychotic serial killer will probably not eve get noticed.
It should be noted, though, that judges who have a habit of torturing a large amount of nobles, especially random nobles who are not infiltrators or perhaps council members, are some of the most despised characters in the game. You see this occasionally when realms are on the verge of being overrun, and the judge snaps and spends all his hours torturing everyone who ends up in his dungeon. The most famous one I can think of was that judge from Yssaria(?) on EC who spent months routinely torturing captured enemies.
-
Yeah, it's probably easier to fight a war without destroying someone or seriously damaging them in M&F than here. For example, you can fight in the open field without damaging settlements (regions in BM terms). So you could probably fight an enjoyable war in M&F without absolutely needing to take land. There's other stuff too, but it would take ages to write it all down. The M&F manual explains some of it if you take a look.
So, for example, you can break the army (and the fighting capacity) of a realm without taking over its territory? That's possible in BM too, by looting. I like looting wars - even though a devastating looting war will seriously cripple a realm for a long time, it gives a chance for the realm to rebuild. More importantly, if the time to rebuild is sufficiently long it does give a chance for the realm to change its leaders and culture.
If the outlook for the near future is that the losing realm will retain its leaders and culture, then it makes sense that the winning realm will want to cripple it; otherwise you can expect the same war to restart a few months down the line. If you can expect the losing realm to change however, then it makes sense for the winning realm to leave more room, in the hopes that the new realm will be one they like.
This is why conditions like "ban such nobles" or "formally abandon some long-standing claims" or "adopt such religious policies" are better ways to end a war than land grabbing. They effect political changes rather than territorial changes. This means the island remains diverse, but ensures the war does have a point.
-
To the rulers of Cathay and Kindara:
Quit putting the entire island's fun, and especially your realm's fun, as Velax's responsibility. Its not. I agree he should try to give reasonable terms, but you both don't seem to try much for that supposed fun Velax is required to guarantee.
You have options, but you act like the only one is that Velax accept the terms you demand.
For starters, negotiate. He sent you some terms you didn't like, that should be expected. Send him back some new terms. Have some back and forth with him on terms instead of just well I don't like your terms so no peace.
Next, you are the ruler of your realm, you should have experience persuading your realm of things. So after you have got what you consider more reasonable terms, start convincing your realm the terms are in fact reasonable.
Finally, you are the damn ruler, not the nobility. Not only are you the ruler, you are the ruler in a monarchy, so quit acting like you can't do anything because there was a vote and the realm disagreed. How about just don't have a vote? The point I am getting to is, quit blaming the lack of peace on your nobles, you are the one with the button for peace, its your decision not theirs.
As an add-on, you could always accept terms and not follow through with them, then politic your way out of another war/get them to just deal with it.