North Vs. South

[Anaris]

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?    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.

[Anaris]

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.

[Ravier Nebehn]

Whut?    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?

[Indirik]

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.)

[Ravier Nebehn]

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.

[Indirik]

Sounds like a bug.

[Foxglove]

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.

[vonGenf]

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?

[bofeng]

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.

[Anaris]

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.

[Indirik]

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.

[Gustav Kuriga]

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.

[Zakilevo]

I heard wars hardly happen in M&F because people quit once they lose a war?

[Anaris]

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?

[Foxglove]

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.