1
Questions & Answers / Re: Against the rules?
« on: February 19, 2019, 09:05:08 PM »
Wasn't Arcaea a mercenary realm for a while as well?
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
Development / Re: NewReader/NewWriter feedback
« on: September 02, 2018, 02:51:58 PM »
I just quickly checked it out on my phone but the layout/working on mobile seems to be rather wonky for now.
3
Beluaterra / Re: Sacred Obia'Syela
« on: August 22, 2018, 07:47:39 AM »
Perhaps it would make more sense to focus on the faith, rather than come up with time consuming plans like the mercs 
There is enough in OS that's still missing in the current situation. Focus on that first.
Main thing, any faithful not in OS tge realm sees no activity to begin with. Church is at dead as the Daisha.
There is enough in OS that's still missing in the current situation. Focus on that first.
Main thing, any faithful not in OS tge realm sees no activity to begin with. Church is at dead as the Daisha.
4
BM General Discussion / Re: Discussion on Monsters
« on: August 16, 2018, 07:24:58 PM »I wonder how many realms will die before this rogue invasion ends. A city that survive without rural regions, how much food needed to feed a city that full of militia. Once rogue invasion ends, there will be no shortage of realms taking rogue rural regions back, bringing back the characters density issue again.
I think this underscores the entire issue. It's also why the monsters/undead prob will never go away entirely (or spawn back up again bigger if density goes down again.
First off, there are two types of monsters basically. Those passing through and those trying to TO your region. Rogues apparently pick a target and move there, but some regions are simply more often in the way then others. So even if your density is lower, if you're in the way of the rogue span and their target, you can still face the stacks (although if you hadn't fought them they'd simply move on away from your lands). Lower density means your regions are less likely to be picked as a target.
Tbh I had expected the rogue forces to be less strong by now, or equal of strength but residing more in rogue regions. This way they'd help ensure realms can't easily TO new regions (or fight the rogues) but those that don't expand are then hit less hard by the rogues.
5
East Island / Re: The War
« on: August 11, 2018, 11:57:35 AM »
Except that the south would not sell out HM and in fact stated multiple times any peace would have to be acceptable to HM as well.
Perdan did not break treaties with HM (I know cause I was there when the matter was handled when Arthur first flipped Perdan Duchy) although I can understand how HM was not happy. And the history of Perdan Mines was simple. When Arthur agreed to bring back Perdan Duchy first time (and became King after that) the Lord of Perdan Mines refused to return with him. Meuse Mullhouse fall in the same category but Perdan allowed use of the regions...sort of, as HM lacked funds and had nobles. In reality Arthur asked the regions back multiple times but HM kept stalling the matter, holding on to them (again I know cause I helped in the stalling of it).
And FG felt HM betraying them and acted accordingly. They did not wish to betray their allies. Not sure why that's considered so wrong and foolish.
Perdan did not break treaties with HM (I know cause I was there when the matter was handled when Arthur first flipped Perdan Duchy) although I can understand how HM was not happy. And the history of Perdan Mines was simple. When Arthur agreed to bring back Perdan Duchy first time (and became King after that) the Lord of Perdan Mines refused to return with him. Meuse Mullhouse fall in the same category but Perdan allowed use of the regions...sort of, as HM lacked funds and had nobles. In reality Arthur asked the regions back multiple times but HM kept stalling the matter, holding on to them (again I know cause I helped in the stalling of it).
And FG felt HM betraying them and acted accordingly. They did not wish to betray their allies. Not sure why that's considered so wrong and foolish.
6
East Island / Re: The War
« on: August 11, 2018, 09:05:06 AM »
Except FG is not treated like dirt and clearly does not feel as such, they will end up with friends unlike HM and they did not see HM as caring for them.
7
East Island / Re: The War
« on: August 10, 2018, 10:18:42 PM »
Sure. There was no choice. The hatred towards Vix in the north is large enough. What HM does beyond warring Perdan is irrelevant cause had Vix not aided, they'd be next no matter what.
You flipped, fine, but can you please stop making it sound like you flipped for the betterment of Vix or FG?
You want Perdan dead, fine, but others not agreeing with that and choosing their allies is not a bad decision. Maybe in terms of lands...but there are so many other factors at play.
You flipped, fine, but can you please stop making it sound like you flipped for the betterment of Vix or FG?
You want Perdan dead, fine, but others not agreeing with that and choosing their allies is not a bad decision. Maybe in terms of lands...but there are so many other factors at play.
8
East Island / Re: The War
« on: August 10, 2018, 08:09:56 PM »
Turned only on Perdan? Who are you trying to kid here? Don't get me wrong I enjoy the propaganda attempt, byt the north would go after Vix anyway. They'd be screwed if they'd let the north destroy Perdan first, let alone the moral dilemma.
And I still believe FG did not make a foolish decision. They chose to honor their allies rather than betray them. There's a good argument for that. FG felt HM's action a betrayel and acted accordingly. Not sure why that's so bad? Unless of course you're HM.
*Edit you also forget that everyone has seen the deal you made. Most Perdanese lands are decided by tye north and thus go to Epponlyn. FG's lands go to Caligus and if you take more land so will Domus. The only expansion option for HM is into Vix. So yeah your deal is not just anti Perdan is it?
And I still believe FG did not make a foolish decision. They chose to honor their allies rather than betray them. There's a good argument for that. FG felt HM's action a betrayel and acted accordingly. Not sure why that's so bad? Unless of course you're HM.
*Edit you also forget that everyone has seen the deal you made. Most Perdanese lands are decided by tye north and thus go to Epponlyn. FG's lands go to Caligus and if you take more land so will Domus. The only expansion option for HM is into Vix. So yeah your deal is not just anti Perdan is it?
9
East Island / Re: The War
« on: August 09, 2018, 06:20:46 PM »
I was speaking in the case that they had already rejected your treaty.
Sure they had the option to betray their allies and lose no lands in the short term, but I would not consider them rejecting it to be the wrong move. Some prefer to fight and stand by their allies rather than turn on them. If you look solely at the realm regions etc, yes then it was a huge mistake, but otherwise it wasn't (or doesn't have to be depending on your priorities and your char's sense of honor etc).
Sure they had the option to betray their allies and lose no lands in the short term, but I would not consider them rejecting it to be the wrong move. Some prefer to fight and stand by their allies rather than turn on them. If you look solely at the realm regions etc, yes then it was a huge mistake, but otherwise it wasn't (or doesn't have to be depending on your priorities and your char's sense of honor etc).
10
East Island / Re: The War
« on: August 09, 2018, 09:19:17 AM »The irony is that Edvard's the one insisting on being in this position. Highmarch always fought to have the North let Fallangard be, but... we grew tired of them constantly helping Vix out against us, and them looting Winkamus was the last straw.
That's nonsense. Maybe Mathias didn't want to war them, but Caligus/north would've definately moved anyway. Highmarch is allowed to fight, but I doubt you actually decide on the targets.
11
Beluaterra / Re: Sacred Obia'Syela
« on: August 04, 2018, 07:59:59 PM »It definitely worked out well for your character. I'm still left scratching my head. Turns out G2 lied about Grehkia, no one even knew about the dealings besides Iestyn(?) AND they just elected Wilhelm Altenar to the throne to boot. And that whole spiral with Adolphus was just out of the blue.
Meanwhile, I'm behind on everything as per usual
G2 did not lie in that regard. The char that led the 'rebellion' against Wilhelm autopaused though. And perhaps without G2 there is an option for relations, but with a Gabanus leading OS that wasn't possible. My family name entirely is shat upon by some
12
Development / Re: Archer targeting
« on: July 31, 2018, 02:32:34 PM »
@Medron, to the best of my knowledge even at the end we received very little financial support? Then I assume this was after I paused? Till then we always survived without aid.
I should add that in total we've spent atleast 60k+ family wealth to support Oligarch. We were running at improved taxes for almost the entire duration of the war.
As to inf vs archers. Keep in mind that a while ago the archer bug that reduced archer damaged by factor 3 was fixes. So archers now are much stronger than in the past.
I should add that in total we've spent atleast 60k+ family wealth to support Oligarch. We were running at improved taxes for almost the entire duration of the war.
As to inf vs archers. Keep in mind that a while ago the archer bug that reduced archer damaged by factor 3 was fixes. So archers now are much stronger than in the past.
13
Development / Re: Archer targeting
« on: July 31, 2018, 10:50:53 AM »
I will elaborate on a few points mentioned here:
1) Initially Oligarch had around 40k militia which held off anything
2) Then we gained more nobles, lowered the militia to 12k and used the rest of the gold to field mobile army.
3) Our noble count reached same as Sirion and we were winning battles even in the open field
4) Sirion's allies entered beating us back and we lost some nobles because of it and raised militia back to 20k or so with a 10k mobile force
5) Everytime we left the city, because Commonyr and Greatbridge were hateful now, we faced 5-6k peasant militia. This caused us to lose more nobles as we were stuck in the city mostly
6) More militia, less mobile again and then about 3 occurances of peasant militia?
In summary, Oligarch for the half of its time didn't fully rely on militia but on mobile force. There were several issues overall though:
1) Peasant militia is overpowered and its effects too easy to repair before the enemy brings the next wave of attack
2) There was too much magic used against Oligarch.
3) The spawning of peasant militia upon arrival due to hateful ruins everything for smaller realms. You get stuck in your own regions.
The archer opening siege is one I don't see as an abuse though. Ranged attacks make sense. It's a strategy Zakky and I fleshed out at the time after tye fall of Taselak, so in that sense I helped defeat Oligarch I fear.
Oligarch as a single realm can field 40k militia no problem. One the one hand it makes sense that the largest city is nearly impossible to take, but on the other hand militia is powerful and has little downsides.
I would support initiatives like increasing the rate at which militia walks away for instance, to strengthen the idea of them being more temporary.
I would also once more beg that the peasant militia rising up due to hateful to be removed and peasant militia called by rulers to be weakened somehow.
1) Initially Oligarch had around 40k militia which held off anything
2) Then we gained more nobles, lowered the militia to 12k and used the rest of the gold to field mobile army.
3) Our noble count reached same as Sirion and we were winning battles even in the open field
4) Sirion's allies entered beating us back and we lost some nobles because of it and raised militia back to 20k or so with a 10k mobile force
5) Everytime we left the city, because Commonyr and Greatbridge were hateful now, we faced 5-6k peasant militia. This caused us to lose more nobles as we were stuck in the city mostly
6) More militia, less mobile again and then about 3 occurances of peasant militia?
In summary, Oligarch for the half of its time didn't fully rely on militia but on mobile force. There were several issues overall though:
1) Peasant militia is overpowered and its effects too easy to repair before the enemy brings the next wave of attack
2) There was too much magic used against Oligarch.
3) The spawning of peasant militia upon arrival due to hateful ruins everything for smaller realms. You get stuck in your own regions.
The archer opening siege is one I don't see as an abuse though. Ranged attacks make sense. It's a strategy Zakky and I fleshed out at the time after tye fall of Taselak, so in that sense I helped defeat Oligarch I fear.
Oligarch as a single realm can field 40k militia no problem. One the one hand it makes sense that the largest city is nearly impossible to take, but on the other hand militia is powerful and has little downsides.
I would support initiatives like increasing the rate at which militia walks away for instance, to strengthen the idea of them being more temporary.
I would also once more beg that the peasant militia rising up due to hateful to be removed and peasant militia called by rulers to be weakened somehow.
14
BM General Discussion / Re: Discussion on Monsters
« on: July 21, 2018, 10:01:29 PM »
You mean everyone ganging up on 1 small realm? Wouldn't call it that interesting tbh
15
East Island / Re: Magical Events in Bescanon & Surrounding Regions
« on: July 18, 2018, 08:18:18 PM »
It actually made sense. Perdan had never moved their capital institutions away from Perdan thus they remained there. For Perdan not to switch during the entire debacle was a choice.