Warfare

Addama

Except that combatants do get basic essay writing imposed on them, and essay writers do get basic combat imposed on them.  Anybody contributing to the well-being of a city has to be well-rounded.  That doesn't mean they have to be top- or even mid-tier combatants, but they should be able to do basic things, like join a raid party and spam an attack when told to do so.

Safe rooms are an absolutely terrible idea, as is hiding in your journal or on your ship.  I get that people QQ because they're not in the mood for fighting at the moment.  I've been there, I've done that.  But giving people the option to totally remove themselves from city defense totally trivializes the oaths people take to be recognized as citizens (i.e. that they will lay their lives on the line to defend their cities). 

City raids happen in cities and damage city property so that city leaders have the initiative to persuade citizens to learn basic combat and join defense parties.  They also encourage raiding because that way raiding, risky as it is (the defenders have things like fonts, shrines, guards and totems at their disposal) has some element of reward, or at least that the raid accomplished something.  If we totally sanitize city vs. city combat by removing this, or pushing it out into defendable territory that doesn't actually have to be defended, then neither city leaders nor their citizens have the initiative necessary to push out of their respective comfort zones, and neither hostile city leaders nor their citizens have the initiative necessary to raid in the first place.

Grandue

Tael said:

I think this perspective is born of a trap that is very easy to fall into - forgetting that adventurers are a tiny, exceptional part of the population of the world. The fact that city walls don't stop adventurers who possess means of infiltration from getting in shouldn't mean that the walls aren't doing much of anything - those walls are doing their job perfectly well, keeping out the vast majority of normal (non-adventurer) threats. The fact that it's possible for small groups comprised of some of the most exceptional few hundred people in the world to magically infiltrate a city isn't really a problem in light of the fact that they're still keeping out thousands of less exceptional people.

Well, let's be real, who really thinks of adventurers as demigods who possess extraordinary powers beyond that of "mere mortals" (NPCs)? Do people really imagine that ALL of the hundreds of players they interact with are a "tiny, exceptional part of the population"? Yeah, that is how the game is supposed to be viewed (I think), but we already have such a huge hierarchy of skill and ability between the players that trying to have the viewpoint of, "I'm a super hero because I can track into this fortress that I'm enemied to and one of those orphans that I saw in Ashtan is a puny little mortal so he can't (even though this 18 year old novice that doesn't even know how to buy the right armor can do the same exact thing...)" is nigh impossible. 

Sure... the walls are keeping out "thousands of less exceptional people" and threats that no one EVER sees, hears, gets praise or thanks from, hear complaints from, or interact with. You've heard the phrase, "Out of sight, out of mind." They're, for the most part, invisible. They don't exist outside of city tutors and a handful of NPCs that sell wares in a city. So yeah, the fact that literally just about ANYONE that you've ever had a conversation with can instantly poof inside a fortified enemy citadel past their whole army and start laying waste to citizens, yeah... that is kind of crazy. 

To clarify, I'm not disagreeing with you in that people SHOULD view everyone as a tiny, exceptional part of the population, but I'm saying that actually keeping that perspective is pretty much impossible considering the given mechanics of the game where everyone you meet is a "super human" and you don't really ever see "mere mortals" very often, especially in enough volume or frequency to keep up the perspective that players are a "tiny part of the population", ya know?

Addama said:
Except that combatants do get basic essay writing imposed on them, and essay writers do get basic combat imposed on them.  Anybody contributing to the well-being of a city has to be well-rounded. 

Totally agree with you. Everyone should learn the basics, similar to RL. But beyond the basics, people SHOULD be allowed to specialize and be recognized (and needed) for their specialization. Being the city Scholar, combat leader, diplomat, strategist, spy, and entertainer shouldn't be an option for one person. C'mon, this isn't a single player game. 

Addama said:

City raids happen in cities and damage city property so that city leaders have the initiative to persuade citizens to learn basic combat and join defense parties.  They also encourage raiding because that way raiding, risky as it is (the defenders have things like fonts, shrines, guards and totems at their disposal) has some element of reward, or at least that the raid accomplished something.  If we totally sanitize city vs. city combat by removing this, or pushing it out into defendable territory that doesn't actually have to be defended, then neither city leaders nor their citizens have the initiative necessary to push out of their respective comfort zones, and neither hostile city leaders nor their citizens have the initiative necessary to raid in the first place.

Raids don't happen so that city leaders have the initiative to persuade citizens to learn basic combat. That is not their purpose, it may be a small result of city raids, but it is definitely not their purpose. 

They also encourage raiding because that way raiding, risky as it is (the defenders have things like fonts, shrines, guards and totems at their disposal) has some element of reward, or at least that the raid accomplished something. 

Addama said:

They also encourage raiding because that way raiding, risky as it is (the defenders have things like fonts, shrines, guards and totems at their disposal) has some element of reward, or at least that the raid accomplished something.

This was actually one of the reasons people are asking for a new war system. You said they have a reward and that raids actually accomplish something. No, they really don't, not really. I mean sure, maybe a room is destroyed and a couple of people have to spend a little time and money repairing it, but in no way are the results felt significantly by either side and in no way was anything of value "accomplished" because it was immediately reversed when you left the city. Both sides blow off losses as if they didn't happen, "Targossas said they are going to wipe out Chaos, but in reality they just knocked some stones loose in that building so we pushed 'em back in when they went home..." If you weren't present when it happened, you don't even feel the result outside of reading the city log. 

Addama said:

If we totally sanitize city vs. city combat by removing this, or pushing it out into defendable territory that doesn't actually have to be defended, then neither city leaders nor their citizens have the initiative necessary to push out of their respective comfort zones, and neither hostile city leaders nor their citizens have the initiative necessary to raid in the first place.

Truthfully, I addressed this pretty thoroughly in my post. Does a stronghold HAVE to be defended? No. But, because of the value that is tied to a stronghold and their necessity to keep a city protected, they really ARE necessary to defend and people will actually WANT to keep them. I would argue that right now neither city leaders nor citizens have the initiative necessary to push out of their respective comfort zones because in a very real sense, they lose nothing by losing a raid on their city. If all your enemy can do is blow up a couple rooms that you can immediately repair afterward, why in the world would you feel the need to become proficient in combat if you're more interested in playing the role of a scholar or spy? And likewise, if the most you can do is blow up a couple rooms in your enemy's city... how are you ever going to "win" a war when they could care less about you blowing up a room?  There is no way to hurt anyone, we're all incredibly safe!

Xith

So my addiction before Achaea (5+ years ago) was Tribalwars. All about troop movements and training, conquering villages. There were neutral 'barbarian villages' that would build small quantities of troops themselves, but you could conquer and then train your own troops there, expanding that way.

I stared at this post for like 2 hours trying to remember what I was talking about but... yeah, Tribalwars <_< I'm tired.

Bronislav

I so want this. I want all of this.

I mean, yeah, my character will happily be in a city that will likely assume heavily-defensive positions, occupying very specific targets near Cyrene (Caer Witrin? Actar? OH, MOGHEDU, GIVE US MOGHEDU AND THE SOUTHERN VASHNARS!). Largely, I expect Cyrene will accumulate incredible wealth because it's not out fighting everyone's everything, and make its territories a veritable hell to feasibly attack. I'm okay with this.  

Addama

Grandue said:

Addama said:

City raids happen in cities and damage city property so that city leaders have the initiative to persuade citizens to learn basic combat and join defense parties.  They also encourage raiding because that way raiding, risky as it is (the defenders have things like fonts, shrines, guards and totems at their disposal) has some element of reward, or at least that the raid accomplished something.  If we totally sanitize city vs. city combat by removing this, or pushing it out into defendable territory that doesn't actually have to be defended, then neither city leaders nor their citizens have the initiative necessary to push out of their respective comfort zones, and neither hostile city leaders nor their citizens have the initiative necessary to raid in the first place.

Raids don't happen so that city leaders have the initiative to persuade citizens to learn basic combat. That is not their purpose, it may be a small result of city raids, but it is definitely not their purpose.

I'm being knit-picky here, but I said City raids happen in cities.  That was the key part - that they happen in cities as opposed to some neutral zone.  You read it as some general declaration of why raids happen.

Why they happen in general, of course, you're right, there's other reasons for that, but being forced to treat your home as a castle raises the stakes, and I don't believe turning your castle into a combat-free bubble is going to solve any problems with participation.

Grandue

Addama said:

Grandue said:

Addama said:

City raids happen in cities and damage city property so that city leaders have the initiative to persuade citizens to learn basic combat and join defense parties.  They also encourage raiding because that way raiding, risky as it is (the defenders have things like fonts, shrines, guards and totems at their disposal) has some element of reward, or at least that the raid accomplished something.  If we totally sanitize city vs. city combat by removing this, or pushing it out into defendable territory that doesn't actually have to be defended, then neither city leaders nor their citizens have the initiative necessary to push out of their respective comfort zones, and neither hostile city leaders nor their citizens have the initiative necessary to raid in the first place.

Raids don't happen so that city leaders have the initiative to persuade citizens to learn basic combat. That is not their purpose, it may be a small result of city raids, but it is definitely not their purpose.

I'm being knit-picky here, but I said City raids happen in cities.  That was the key part - that they happen in cities as opposed to some neutral zone.  You read it as some general declaration of why raids happen.

Why they happen in general, of course, you're right, there's other reasons for that, but being forced to treat your home as a castle raises the stakes, and I don't believe turning your castle into a combat-free bubble is going to solve any problems with participation.

My mistake, I see what you were talking about there.

I think we actually agree more than we think. 

You're right, being forced to treat your home as a castle raises the stakes. I'm of the mindset that no one treats their home as a castle because there is literally nothing to really lose. Sure, a room might get blown up and then immediately repaired, you may have to go bash while being raided instead of hanging out in the city pub talking, but it is impossible to value something that you can never really lose in any real sense. If you know that no matter how many times your combatants die, just wait 60 minutes and at end of the episode the bad guys will go home and everything will be as it was before and both sides can raise their fist and yell, "We prevailed!"

I'm not saying that city raids should stop, but I would say that city raids should maybe only take up 10% of the battles, not 99% like they currently do. Make them more difficult, make it take way more skill and planning. Make it rely on having certain classes. Make it much more difficult to break through the defenses and slaughter the citizens, so that when it DOES happen, it is a huge deal. Maybe make it so that EVERYONE is free game inside an enemy city, not just those participating in combat, so that people sit on edge while the enemy is attempting to break through the city guards and the soldiers actually feel a sense of responsibility for the lives they've sworn to protect. 

I'm saying that with a system similar to this, where strongholds are seen not just as a deterrent to city raids but also seen as a dependency for the life of the city, when a stronghold is attacked there will be an appropriate response because we'll know the importance of controlling that stronghold and will feel the loss if it is taken from us. If this were to happen, people wouldn't just scatter to ships or go bashing while a raid is happening, all the while thinking, "Ugh, effing Ashtan, eventually they'll get bored and I can go back to the city." No, when an enemy city lays siege to a stronghold that supplies the city and the novices or non-coms don't have the skill to participate in defending it, they'll sit there biting their nails, waiting to hear from the front line if the combatants and troops were enough to hold off the assault again or if they'll spend the next year or however long having to go without the resources from that stronghold. 

Look around, there are hundreds of people who just QQ or ship return when a raid happens. They know that the only way they'll actually feel a loss is if they actually participate and lose herbs/xp/bragging rights, so there is zero incentive for them to participate. If a raid is felt by all citizens, either through loss of resources that provides everyone with some benefit or through some kind of adventurer moral loss that effects their life in some other way, then when the alarm bells start tolling they'll be faced with a decision that they currently do not have to face: Do I stay and fight, or do I run and hide and suffer for it when we lose?

When there is nothing to really lose or gain by city raids (and let's be honest, there currently isn't), then there really isn't a NEED for people to step up and learn how to fight or participate in some other capacity. They can QQ and be no worse off for it. Give the people a reason to fight and they will. Just saying, "You need to fight because of RP/honor/duty" isn't going to cut it. They need to FEEL the loss and gain of winning and losing, only then will participation be born out of desire to participate instead of duty/honor/rp.

Herose

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought there were very real consequences to the current city destruction system.  City bank gets blown up in a raid?  Can't withdraw or deposit gold.  Shops blown up?  Those can't be used.  City comm shop?  Can't buy or sell commodities to the city . Barracks blown up?  Can't hire new guards.   Also repairing those rooms costs the city in resources.

Of course, the consequences aren't permanent but that seems to be designed to avoid a feedback loop where losing makes it harder and harder for you to win next time.

Addama

Herose said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought there were very real consequences to the current city destruction system.  City bank gets blown up in a raid?  Can't withdraw or deposit gold.  Shops blown up?  Those can't be used.  City comm shop?  Can't buy or sell commodities to the city . Barracks blown up?  Can't hire new guards.   Also repairing those rooms costs the city in resources.

Of course, the consequences aren't permanent but that seems to be designed to avoid a feedback loop where losing makes it harder and harder for you to win next time.

If you read a page or two back, there was a suggestion that things should not be like this.  That's what I'm addressing, mostly.

Basically people who don't fight would prefer that there be no consequences for their cities.

Jules

Was discussing the Ashtan juggernaut (which has existed pretty much forever?) with someone on Imperian last night.  Admin needs to make more of the A-team into Immortals/coders like Tanris.  A bit of a joke there, but there really is such a thing as too many talented people in one place, for too long, and it's not really good for anyone.  I often wonder if the core A-team members aren't bored out of their skulls at times because there are no worthy opponents.  I mean, there are worthy individual fighters, I'm sure, but it doesn't seem that there is another team of people that can consistently bring the fight to Ashtan.  I think this is the biggest problem, far more than earrings, or veils.  It's the concentration of talent and knowledge in one place.  The problem is the A-team itself (and also whatever was before A-team because I think this goes beyond them).  

Ashtan has consistently had more appeal to the budding, talented fighter not only because of the personalites there (that plays a role), but because Ashtan is actually designed to be more appealing to that player than any other city.  So, it attracts those people, and then the presence of those likeminded people further enhances the appeal.  

Some of that appeal needs to be stripped away (i.e. force Ashtan to be more factional, for one, which admin has already started to do in baby steps) and other cities need to be given more (excusive to them) shinies that attract fighters (with the probable exception of Cyrene, and perhaps Hashan) - although even those cities need to be able to able to attract competent people.  Part of it will have to be hard-coded things that make cities into natural enemies (which is happening), and part of it may have to be admin forcing political changes at times (also seen this happen lately, for the ultimate good).  I don't think you can ever force the core A-team members apart, especially as they're close friends (although really, I wonder if Mizik and Jarrod might not have more fun leading teams against each other), but I hope/think admin is already working on breaking Ashtan's incredible appeal to rising combatants above all other cities as part of the overall trend toward more defined factions.

Jhui

We're just fun to play with. Other city's combatants just have sticks up their asses. Ateam would easily translate to any other city.

We have/create fun so we logon and actually play more than most combatants.  ashtan isn't the problem, though I would love to see it split. Other people are the problem.  I wouldn't say ashtan has always been the strongest, eleusis had their (our) day for quite a few years

Jules

You are.  You have a critical mass of fun, talented players.  That in itself is a draw.  The problem is complex, and I don't fully grasp all of it, but yes, my roundabout way of admitting that other cities have "sticks up our asses" was the probably too obscure comment of "admin forcing political changes".  Not that it's ever going to be appropriate to say, let war hawks call the shots in Cyrene, but we do need to find ways to make enthusiastic combatants happier in Cyrene, for example.  And the other cities, which are supposed to be more militant... I can't speak to their "combat culture" but I know those cities can come off as stodgy/strict at times.  But part of that is that those cities have very defined "roles" in Achaea, whereas Ashtan, defined by "freedom" to begin with, is incredibly fluid, flexible and pragmatic - partly because it's allowed to be.

Addama

The shitty thing about Cyrene is that it wants so hard to be the Switzerland of Achaea.  This is great if you make cheese or art, but when trouble comes, they're just going to watch.

I think there's definitely a place in Achaea for a Switzerland.  Not all the cities have to be all about that big capital-C Conflict.  I do feel badly for players who, on one hand, want to be part of this cultural identity, but on the other hand, want the dynamic combat situations that Targossas, Mhaldor and Ashtan (and to a much lesser extent Hashan) enjoy.

I don't know if there's a proper middle-ground for this.  It's hard to think of one that doesn't redefine Cyrene's roots.

Jules

I don't think there is a middle ground for Cyrene, and Cyrene's identity is awesome.  I do think there is room for Cyrene to have a terrifying Navy (conflict far from Cyrene, and in the interest of preserving trade, which nicks perfectly with our role), however, and that could provide an outlet for combatants to feel fulfilled - which would filter over nicely to them rounding out and guiding raid defense.