Hello I play a character in The Shattered Vales.
I should start by saying I do appreciate the effort made by volunteers to dev, operate, mod and titan patrol the game. (And sorry to Polar if I am perceived by Polar to be sidetracking his thread).
I would like to do 3 things in my post.
Over and above the 3rd point is the only thing that really matters to me. I would prefer something informed on the questions section as it could serve as answers for people in the future to avoid my unhappy experience. My other points offer context or at least something of my account, just finding fault with my experience will not interest me or benefit those that follow.
1) Introduction. I play the Emperor of the Vales. I think many of the things that have been said and inferred about my realm recently have been unfair and plain wrong in a lot of instances. In varying degrees quite a few of us feel like second class citizens in the Vales. I find the titan intervention insulting. As this is subjective there is little point arguing with me about it. I am insulted frequently for my (fairly uninteresting job) so I can compartmentalise that fairly well. It is not what I look for first in an escapism game, but I can handle it. I will be taking active steps to remove myself from that environment IG.
2) Points already raised. I am struggling with the point earlier in the thread.
"The fact that you share a common enemy does not make you allies." seems very valid and appropriate to the situation to me.
Walk into a room with 10 strangers and smack each of them in the mouth on your way by.
All of a sudden 10 strangers who don't know each other and have nothing in common (other than the smack in the mouth that you just gave them) have a common goal.
Are ANY of them in the wrong for wanting to return your smack in the mouth?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is an OOC restriction for game balance. Attempting to make sense of it by real-world analogy will fail.
It is exactly as real and logical as only being able to move one region per turn (even if it only takes 6 hours to get from region A->B->C), or only being able to recruit troops in the capital (even if the recruitment centers are out in the rural regions).
The examples can be explained at least partially logically so there is no comparison to just ignore diplomacy unless it fits a prescribed box. We move through regions with a unit, each region is a distinct governed region. For a small contingent it does not move just as the crow flies or even hare runs. There is only enough time per turn to navigate the difference between one different region. Gauging the politics and base provisioning along the way. Not until the corps. unit system were armies able to move rapidly through areas at only the rate of hours travel alone. The recruitment centres in the capital is imperfect, but you can argue mobile units of noble guards need recruiting at the royal/imperial capital where the finest troops need to be sworn in by ceremony. You can recruit local bound troops in the form of militia. Noble troops come from the capital. Both examples also benefit from being physical things with physical effects. You cannot believe your way into another region nor can you have the concept of having 50 cavalry if you don't. A friendly realm and an ally are concepts along a scale eg acquaintances>mates>friends, different value weighting but similar concepts. Indeed the Alliance Bloc could sensibly be meant to be seen as the practical extent of what your diplomats can manage in a formal arrangement. Outside that you suffer the not insignificant consequences of maybe being friendly or having shared enemies without a formal effective structure. This is the point my many questions arise from because otherwise it makes no sense, was never clearly presented as such and creates loads of problems that have never been addressed any where I can find access. Just to say "real world analogies will fail" is self evidently weak, a bit like saying you can argue anything with facts - to do away with those pesky facts.
I have touched on the valuable point Raven made in my earlier brief post. Yes very much, there should be other things considered when assessing what makes evenly matched sides in a conflict. I simply do not buy the argument made that Thal entered the war expecting to lose. (If nothing else its ruler was spectacularly unprepared to deal with being anything other than the alpha dog). By attacking Irondale so soon there was no chance for them to build unity or preparedness. The political effect of losing one of your merged parties cities (and be unable to retake it) threatened the very real risk that Irondale might not recover from that early shock. They began cultivating people who shared that hatred for Thal's past and current tyrannies. In your own "Thunderclap" intervention you state, "While a realm that botches its diplomacy should certainly expect to find itself on the wrong end of a beating.." but you never indicate how, if we were not allowed to oppose them with interests short of formal alliance. Sitting watching a realm you respect getting turned over for the 2nd time after its predecessors were destroyed or broken up = diplomatic failure and a lack of consequence for ignoring diplomacy if you can keep a core hard hitting momentum going. No dictator would ever be resisted in that scenario. IG or RL. And don't forget we have been witnessing that very occurrence without the slightest intervention til now as it was someone else's fun being ground under the heel.
Any way, that is all too subjective to go anywhere but at least I have voiced an aspect of the counter points that have been raging amongst realm members and other rulers, And I haven't even touched on the fact everything we thought we knew led us to think Vordul
would join Thal making an even contest all in all. But again the supposed consequence of Thal's lack of any diplomatic consideration meant Vordul had to have the agency to reject the assumption they would just do as bid.
3) Finally to my questions:
Where on the forum were the interpretations and implications of the Alliance Bloc outlined? Is there anything on the wiki? If so, please would you point them out. If not would this not be a desirable feature before starting to describe supposed players you believe the best of, of being abusive?
What practically happens if you are in an alliance bloc within size limits, but which then outgrows it?
Are treaties and embassies and diplomatic pledges not captured by an alliance all illegal now?
Despite a very complicated background 5 rulers from 3 realms, Vales, Nova and OS (2 realms switched rulers during the drawn out negotiations) worked strenuously to form a treaty to stop a war going to destruction/leaving a beaten realm in-viable. Ironically Thal bragged about trying to derail this at least twice, the second as Polar alludes to with scrolls, with zero consideration for OS's fun. Our treaty basically was a mutual protection pact to allow OS to recover.
NOT accepting this responsibility to help OS back on its feet after the conflicted feelings arising from the war would have been OOC unfair IMHO. We outgrew the alliance bloc limits while OS was recovering and us still negotiating, but adjusted it to mutual defence against an attacker which is not a full alliance. Any post war settlement relies on some diplomatic support being lent to the defeated or else someone else will just follow up a 1st successful invasion with a 2nd by a different realm.
How exactly are we supposed to make any sense of favourable relations/histories we cannot fit in an alliance bloc based on this new harsh interpretation? For my realm we owe existence to Nothoi granting us a city, and built strong Daishi ties. To ignore their plight a second time would piss on that friendship/history but at various stages we were too big to ally. Similarly my realm owe a debt to Ar Agyr, if there are no circumstances that is allowed to be repayed through even defensive action how is that anything other than cutting diplomacy out of the game?
If all these scenarios are simply, well you just have to accept it as a price for the supposed interests of fun that seems to lose a whole dimension from the game for a flawed attempt at balance (as already pointed out an elite aggressive realm can dominate damaged/disunited recovering ones. In this war Thal managed 100% movement at key moments. This is not normal nor should it have to be, other armies move as more of an oscillating blob. But these are players too and you seem to be ignoring or placing a lesser worth on their experiences.) It does pose a fairly obvious solution. No one has any allies, simply informal friends/favourites and just reacts diplomacy up when trouble or opportunity presents. You could even see allies roll in and out to keep pressure on while an enemy got no chance to recover. Are you saying that is acceptable? It makes more sense despite obvious flaws/exploits.
The final sickening irony is that after being reached out to in semi reasonable terms (rather than harangued and implied to be cheating) we had been bending over backwards to find workable solutions. This trusting the players was non existent then and has destroyed my interest in the game. Rather than pass a !@#$ sandwich with just a bite taken out to my successor I would appreciate some considered answers on the questions posed. I can do without snide or condescending input. Thanks for your time.
