The War of Thalmarkin... Supremacy?

[Lorgan]

I'd just like to say, again, that it was always made very clear IC and OOC that Melhed did not face extinction in the past wars. First we only wanted your capital, then we just wanted you to stick to your word and didn't even have any territorial ambitions, both ambitions are reflected in the peace treaties. Wars should not be fought to extinction by definition.

Anyway, however this situation came to be, I was already having a fun war but I reckon this will be even more so. Looking forward to it as well.

Oh and I forgot to say, loved the post-battle taunting in Lloringel yesterday. Always an excellent forum to start an argument with your enemy and spread a little propaganda!

[Chenier]

Well, if Melhed wouldn't have agreed to ceding land for Ar Agyr, what would you have done then? Looked a lot like a "submit or die" ultimatum. A leadership just minimally more prideful or arrogant would have sent Melhed down that path.

[Antonine]

The peace treaty which saw Melhed lose Agyr very much came with the threat of extinction and, as a bonus, came with forcing the abdication of a ruler who'd only been on the throne for a few days. Which, of course, is how Pavel came to be King and he's the one who seems to have annoyed Thalmarkin so much by being duplicitous.

Realistically, Thalmarkin are currently reaping what they've sowed with Melhed - you cannot expect peace and friendship with a realm which you've kept under your thumb and repeatedly bullied for ages. If Melhed was small enough to be unable to fight back it'd be one thing but as it is no one should be surprised that Melhed was constantly looking for any chance it could to restore what it had lost. And with its new allies it now has this chance.

Thalmarkin's actions have driven all this conflict. I don't mind that - they're top dog and are entitled to throw their weight around - but they certainly shouldn't complain about the response it's gotten :p

[Antonine]

Incidentally, in terms of official history of this war, on the Melhed wiki page I'm calling it the War of Sovereignty between the Northern Alliance and the Free Realms.

[Noldorin]

Thalmarkin also has more nobles than anyone else which will count for a lot as the war drags on and gold reserves get spent.

And a short look at the gold shows that the 3 defending realms have about 22 200 gold potential income and the south ca 55 100 gold potential income. So yes, when the gold reserves runs low the north will have an extreme advantage! 

Anyhow, Thalmarkin was obviously aware of that we were irritating most realms. That was the whole idea about it. If we didnt want to aggress people, we simply wouldnt have done it. The problem (at least for my part), is that none really cares about proper IG actions as long as it gains them momentary wins. Melheds actions the last month would have been completely impossible, but right now it works fine since people find it very easy to just say "oh well" to dishonourable behaviour and false accusations which are very obviously false.

[Tan dSerrai]

I respect Thalmarkin for trying to aggravate other realms - this was what got things moving. As players we should take care that such risks are (somehow) rewarded and not cause for being crushed.

Now, Riombara is quite aware of Melheds actions - however, the alternative would have been Melhed fighting at Thalmarkins side. So I disagree with the statement that we took an 'oh well' stance - my char did look at the situation and had to chose (or had the opportunity to choose) between two less then ideal choices. Fighting alongside Melhed does not make us the closest of friends.

I also do not agree that Melheds actions during the past month were only possible due to chars not caring enough IC - betrayal did happen quite frequently during the middle ages...even right on the battlefield.

Still, looking at the whole continent ooc I agree that the war is too lopsided - though that is taking an 'absolute' view of only being able to choose between total defeat or totally crushing your enemies. If Old Grehk and Agyr take a defensive stance and Thalmarkin supports them well, then it will be very very difficult for your enemies to reach any decisive victory - even if they/we would be aiming for that.

Lastly: what would be a ooc suggestion to 'balance' this war better - while still keeping actions believably ic?

[Cren]

I know how to balance this war. Huge monster hordes appearing in all the realms so that no one really cares about fighting others.

[Indirik]

The problem (at least for my part), is that none really cares about proper IG actions as long as it gains them momentary wins. Melheds actions the last month would have been completely impossible, but right now it works fine since people find it very easy to just say "oh well" to dishonourable behaviour and false accusations which are very obviously false.

Be very careful about accusations such as this. In any situation, seen only from one side, it is very easy to see your own actions as perfectly logical and making sense, and the other guy's actions as being nonsensical, random, or untrustworthy. Don't go around trashing everyone else just because the actions they took don't meet your expectations, or weren't what you planned for them to do.

[Chenier]

People have been turning a blind eye to what their allies have been doing since forever. There's nothing new there, nor surprising. Any discontent over Melhed's actions will only manifest against them when more convenient to do so.

As for all of these remarks about the odds... Power is the relation of work over time. That's how it is in physics, and I think it applies perfectly to armies. Wiki's example is that a kg of coal has more power than kg of TNT, because of the time over which work is exercised.

Having a total mobile CS of 20000 is nice, sure, much nicer than having a total mobile CS of 5000.  But if it takes a week and a half for the first realm to get to the front line, and just as much to get back, then that's 20000 CS of might applied per three weeks. Wheras if it takes 3 days to defend the front line, and another 4 to refit, then the latter realm has 5000 CS over one week. So it's more like 6666 CSw vs 5000 CSw. Yes, the first realm is still noticeably more powerful, but no longer as much, having a 6.6:5 ratio instead of 4:1 ratio. This is because the marching army will accumulate soldier pay and equipment damage before even entering battle, and even a victory is likely to cause problematic equipment damage. The much smaller army, by avoiding the incoming enemy or by siding with militia, can often keep this army in check long enough to force a refit. Far-away armies rarely have much time to loot or do takeovers.

Of course, if all of the armies came to Thalmarkin simultaneously, it would pose a problem. However, organizing such  feat is incredibly problematic on its own, and rarely optimal or safe. Enweil managed to fend off almost every single realm of the continent simultaneously for a very long period. Not because it was stronger than all of them combined, it obviously wasn't. Not because all of the enemies were so far off, most were not. But because they weren't coordinated. One army came, we'd defeat them, and then a few days later the next army would come. We were stronger than any one of them alone, and alone is how they came at us.

The odds aren't all that skewed against Thalmarkin.

[vonGenf]

As for all of these remarks about the odds... Power is the relation of work over time. That's how it is in physics, and I think it applies perfectly to armies. Wiki's example is that a kg of coal has more power than kg of TNT, because of the time over which work is exercised.

Entirely off-topic comment to come:

Sorry, but that's not how physics works.

Work has the same units as energy, it is usually defined as a change in energy. Power is energy expended per unit of time.

What you call "the power of a kg of coal" is probably the energy content (or heat content). You can measure the total energy content of a kg of coal, which is the potential work (heating) that you could get by burning it. Coal has an energy content of roughly 30-35 MJ/kg, while TNT has an energy content of roughly 3 MJ/kg, which is roughly ten times less than coal.

Power is the energy actually released per second. As such, if you burn a kg of coal over 10 min, it will release 30 MJ of energy at a rate of 50 kW (30MJ / 600 seconds).

Comparatively, if you light a stick of dynamite with 1 kg of TNT and it explodes over 1/10th of a second, it will do so with a power of 30 MW (3 MJ / 0.1 s). So the TNT actually releases more power than the coal, however it does so only over a short period of time. The total energy released by coal is higher.

You can now return to the scheduled discussion, which is emphatically not about physics.

[Chenier]

Entirely off-topic comment to come:

Sorry, but that's not how physics works.

Work has the same units as energy, it is usually defined as a change in energy. Power is energy expended per unit of time.

What you call "the power of a kg of coal" is probably the energy content (or heat content). You can measure the total energy content of a kg of coal, which is the potential work (heating) that you could get by burning it. Coal has an energy content of roughly 30-35 MJ/kg, while TNT has an energy content of roughly 3 MJ/kg, which is roughly ten times less than coal.

Power is the energy actually released per second. As such, if you burn a kg of coal over 10 min, it will release 30 MJ of energy at a rate of 50 kW (30MJ / 600 seconds).

Comparatively, if you light a stick of dynamite with 1 kg of TNT and it explodes over 1/10th of a second, it will do so with a power of 30 MW (3 MJ / 0.1 s). So the TNT actually releases more power than the coal, however it does so only over a short period of time. The total energy released by coal is higher.

You can now return to the scheduled discussion, which is emphatically not about physics.

You are, of course, absolutely right. I was pressed for time and I did not learn any of these terms in english, and as such used them incorrectly. I'll edit my post shortly.

[Antonine]

For the third time in a row Selene Octavius (who is banned from Ar Agyr) has been arrested and thrown in the Agyrian dungeon while trying to religiously takeover or cause unrest in an Agyrian region.

Clearly the game hates my characters :p

[Indirik]

Maybe it's a sign that Sartanism doesn't belong on BT?

[Noldorin]

*** stuff about proximity to war vs CS ***

The odds aren't all that skewed against Thalmarkin.

Yes, proximity to the fronts is important enough (though I wouldnt see it as a linear scale). Anyhow, the fronts arent where you seem to think. The big front has been in Xerus/Junohep (or even nothois mountains), and a second might now be opened in Melhed.

For the front in Xerus, OG and Fronen are obviously closest, but Spearhold is closer than Thalmarkin and Nothoi is only 1/2 - 1 day further away than Thalmarkin. To Melhed front, Fronen is same distance as Thalmarkin and yet again Nothoi is only ca 1 day slower than Thalmarkin.

Not sure how this argument changes anything, other than that Riombara (who should have more gold stored than most other realms combined and as such can stay in field 3-4 weeks at a time) need a week back and forth every refit.

Lastly: what would be a ooc suggestion to 'balance' this war better - while still keeping actions believably ic?

Doubt there is much that can (or should) be done about it ooc. IG Thalmarkin can only hope that Spearhold start making sense (correction: making sense from our point of view) and see that their reason for warring us has completely vanished.

Be very careful about accusations such as this. In any situation, seen only from one side, it is very easy to see your own actions as perfectly logical and making sense, and the other guy's actions as being nonsensical, random, or untrustworthy. Don't go around trashing everyone else just because the actions they took don't meet your expectations, or weren't what you planned for them to do.

Well sorry about the hard words. The facts remain though that the BT rulers are completely fine with the riddiculous accusations and constant lies of some rulers, just because they benefit from it right now.

[Indirik]

What is truth and what is a lie varies depending on your point of view. It's easy enough to accept something that you want to hear as the truth, when you don't feel especially motivated to look too closely. When it's your buddy saying something about someone you don't especially like, that motivation isn't very strong. Situational morality is the name of the game. And yeah, sometimes people are willing to accept that someone stretched the truth, is that stretching benefits them. And, sometimes, they just don't give a damn.

This isn't limited to the current situation on BT. (Of which I know very little, to tell the truth.) This is a common thread across the entire game. We just had a situation on EC where two people from different realms (let's call them Alice and Bob) were debating the actions of a third person from yet a third realm (who we'll refer to as Zack). "Alice" liked "Zack". She thought his actions were perfectly justified and acceptable, and went to great lengths to explain why. "Bob" thought "Zack" was a scumbag. He thought Zack's actions were dishonorable and reprehensible, and had a very thorough argument to explain why. Same action, two viewpoints, two different conclusions. (And then "Charlie" checked in with "I don't give a damn, I just want to fight the war!")

Who's right? I dunno. Doesn't matter. They are both entitled to their opinions. Coming onto the forums and going non-linear about how you're the only one who's right, and everyone else involved is a dishonest, lying shyster who kicks puppies down the street and ties kittens to clotheslines by their tails doesn't do anyone any good. It just makes everyone defensive and hostile. It generates OOC bad feelings between players.