North Vs. South

[Velax]

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.

[Antonine]

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.

[Velax]

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.

[Foxglove]

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.

[Foxglove]

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.

[Anaris]

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".

[Ketchum]

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.

[Foxglove]

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.

[Bedwyr]

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.

[Anaris]

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.

[Foxglove]

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.

[Velax]

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.

[bofeng]

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.   

[Indirik]

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.

[vonGenf]

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.