"Fair" aspect of takovers

[Stue (DC)]

I rally had enough of discussions where personal attack replace exchange of arguments, but as I already received number of questions related to some current aspects of fair play, I would bring the case here just to receive feedback.

If you are prone to attack me for what I am (though you don't actually know me), please skip this subject, while if you are interested in impersonal discussion about game issues, you are more than welcome.

So we have situation where our realm declared hatred to other, which bring many limitations for near of far future, but that also make some increased troubles to our enemies to take our region. From what I see (I do not claim that my observation is referrent), they decided to take easier path by way of systematically taking our regions by "third party", means they bring all their army to destroy our defenses, than allied army brings often one single troop to take our region.

If that happened once, I would not probably bother much, but now it is becoming apparent that it is systematic approach, applied to all our regions and implemented for RL months.

For me it looks pretty much as sort of circumventing game mechanics, and disrespecting spirit of in-game world. Takeover is taking region for yourself, and you can always use in-game options of region exchange to gift such region to your ally, but this bypass approach mostly looks like sort of exploit.

Of course, takeover mechanics could be improved in way that only largerst army in the region can conduct takeover, but it is not the case now.  I believe we are here to respect game spirit, not to use things to make it easier for ourselves  just because game mechanics allowys it.

Of course, that is just my personal opinon, comments are welcome.

[Solari]

Can you explain this in a little more detail?  The description you've given is so vague as to make any response pointless.  For example:

Is Realm C handing the regions over to Realm B at a later date or is Realm C just taking them from you and keeping them?

[Indirik]

To the Magistrates!

[egamma]

To the Magistrates!

Yes, this sounds like a case for them.

[^ban^]

So we have situation where our realm declared hatred to other, which bring many limitations for near of far future, but that also make some increased troubles to our enemies to take our region.

This is somewhat off topic but the only thing hatred does is prevent ceasefire offers.

[Indirik]

There are a few other minor things, as well.

[Vellos]

This is somewhat off topic but the only thing hatred does is prevent ceasefire offers.

Really? I could have sworn it makes sympathy for the hated realm drop in your own realm.

[Anaris]

Really? I could have sworn it makes sympathy for the hated realm drop in your own realm.

Isn't confirmation bias fun?

[egamma]

Isn't confirmation bias fun?

Isn't the point of declaring hatred that it's harder for the enemy to take over your regions?

[fodder]

no.. the point would be to declare they are your hated enemies. anything else, if exist (no idea), is a bonus

[De-Legro]

I rally had enough of discussions where personal attack replace exchange of arguments, but as I already received number of questions related to some current aspects of fair play, I would bring the case here just to receive feedback.

If you are prone to attack me for what I am (though you don't actually know me), please skip this subject, while if you are interested in impersonal discussion about game issues, you are more than welcome.

So we have situation where our realm declared hatred to other, which bring many limitations for near of far future, but that also make some increased troubles to our enemies to take our region. From what I see (I do not claim that my observation is referrent), they decided to take easier path by way of systematically taking our regions by "third party", means they bring all their army to destroy our defenses, than allied army brings often one single troop to take our region.

If that happened once, I would not probably bother much, but now it is becoming apparent that it is systematic approach, applied to all our regions and implemented for RL months.

For me it looks pretty much as sort of circumventing game mechanics, and disrespecting spirit of in-game world. Takeover is taking region for yourself, and you can always use in-game options of region exchange to gift such region to your ally, but this bypass approach mostly looks like sort of exploit.

Of course, takeover mechanics could be improved in way that only largerst army in the region can conduct takeover, but it is not the case now.  I believe we are here to respect game spirit, not to use things to make it easier for ourselves  just because game mechanics allowys it.

Of course, that is just my personal opinon, comments are welcome.

My opinion is that such things can be very situation. For example mega realm A may decide to help ally realm B by providing a large military forces that smashes realm C and leaves their regions available for realm B to takeover, also providing their forces to speed up the take overs. Possibly not much fun for realm C but to me this satisfied the spirit of the game and one of the purposes of allies.

What I disagree with in the case you stated was the SINGLE unit doing the TO's. Thinking IC I have a hard time justifying any realm sending a single unit to TO, even if you have allied help. I would also like to know are the regions being handed back to the original aggressor?

I'm not sure what Hatred does with regards to TOs, but if the second realm supplying the single TO unit is significantly smaller then their ally, they should have a easier time TOing the regions as well, so far as I understand it at least.

[Stue (DC)]

if i felt to be magistrates case, i would have sent it there, but that assumes belief that someone needs to be punished, while i was mostly interested in non-binding aspects of fair-play consensus if that is possible.

generally, i am very doubtful about whether fair-play can be imposed by force.

==

generally, as far as i remember one of main reasons to declare hatred was exactly to make regions more resistant to takeovers of that realm, with apparent cost of reducing diplomatic possibilities, and i believe it is proved hatred does such thins, and i also believe they realized that, and modified their i-c strategies afterwards, which i personally consider unfair.

[fodder]

if the issue is realm A-B hatred and realm C (allied to A) pops along to TO B, then something to think about is to have A being utterly ineffective in terms of aiding the TO.

assuming that isn't the case already.

[Anaris]

if the issue is realm A-B hatred and realm C (allied to A) pops along to TO B, then something to think about is to have A being utterly ineffective in terms of aiding the TO.

assuming that isn't the case already.

The issue is moot, because despite what Stue thinks, Hatred actually has absolutely no effect on how hard it is for a realm to take regions from its enemies.  Therefore, there is no game mechanic to be circumvented.

What I think is a much more interesting question is this:

Assuming for the sake of argument that, if Hatred did do what Stue thought, what realms B and C were doing was an unethical and unfair circumvention of game mechanics—does the fact that Hatred does nothing of the sort change anything?  That is, if the players in those realms should be punished for actually circumventing game mechanics in the described way, should they also be punished for intending to do so, even when there was nothing to actually circumvent?

[fodder]

regardless of the hatred issue, having 1 unit of B TO a region of C with the help of an allied army of A... is that a good thing, if it's indeed possible?