War proposal.

Kyrra

Ashtan only has Thera allied both ways. Petra isn’t allied with Ashtan.

Accipiter

If you really want to get non-comms involved: spend points to give citizens priority to the crafting council, spend points to get xp from mudsex, foragers gather 30% more wood

Minifie

Accipiter said:

If you really want to get non-comms involved: spend points to give citizens priority to the crafting council, spend points to get xp from mudsex, foragers gather 30% more wood

Missed opportunity to say, "mudsexing rewards wood".

Utianima

Keorin said:

I want to put another non-existent vote behind "bring back village raiding." While I totally acknowledge that it may have had all kinds of flaws as it was, it struck me as something both interesting and impactful enough that it was a meaningful improvement to the game even -with- those flaws.

Maybe it would take some refining to really get into an ideal state, but my hunch is that it would be a lot more fun to have it how it was, than to wait months and months to even have the potential to see it again.

Same here.

How about making allied village siege/take-over/control a requirement for being able to declare war on the protective city? Or a strategic advantage. Or a pre-requisite to be able to invade city itself in war time.

The thought behind this is RL historical wars, where invading forces took town by town, region by region, before finally taking over a major city of a nation. 

Ererean

Utianima said:

Keorin said:

I want to put another non-existent vote behind "bring back village raiding." While I totally acknowledge that it may have had all kinds of flaws as it was, it struck me as something both interesting and impactful enough that it was a meaningful improvement to the game even -with- those flaws.

Maybe it would take some refining to really get into an ideal state, but my hunch is that it would be a lot more fun to have it how it was, than to wait months and months to even have the potential to see it again.

Same here.

How about making allied village siege/take-over/control a requirement for being able to declare war on the protective city? Or a strategic advantage. Or a pre-requisite to be able to invade city itself in war time.

The thought behind this is RL historical wars, where invading forces took town by town, region by region, before finally taking over a major city of a nation. 

Didn't he say that they literally couldn't do it, as it was breaking the game?

Utianima

Ererean said:

Utianima said:

Keorin said:

I want to put another non-existent vote behind "bring back village raiding." While I totally acknowledge that it may have had all kinds of flaws as it was, it struck me as something both interesting and impactful enough that it was a meaningful improvement to the game even -with- those flaws.

Maybe it would take some refining to really get into an ideal state, but my hunch is that it would be a lot more fun to have it how it was, than to wait months and months to even have the potential to see it again.

Same here.

How about making allied village siege/take-over/control a requirement for being able to declare war on the protective city? Or a strategic advantage. Or a pre-requisite to be able to invade city itself in war time.

The thought behind this is RL historical wars, where invading forces took town by town, region by region, before finally taking over a major city of a nation. 

Didn't he say that they literally couldn't do it, as it was breaking the game?

Makarios said:

[..]

As for denizen village raids, they had a lot of broken aspects (it was very much not an intended feature). I won't say they'd never return, because who knows. But they'd need a lot more work before they could actually function beyond the blowing up bit, which I appreciate is mostly what people liked about them.

See above. I agree that my suggestion is a bit off topic because of this, but as he didn't rule out that villages raids might be implemented in the future, I wanted to voice my idea.

Farrah

Minifie said:

Having some to think this through, the system could work but changes would need to happen:

remove the gold loss for engaging in war
make it so WP are gained in totality, then distributed 50/50 at the end (if Side A never fights/wars, there won't be any WP, just getting people TO engage will be better).
Move all the rewards to WP, winners get bragging rights. 
Remove accolades IMO, instead allow accolades for the year people build X advancement with WP (idol of conquest for crit and xp, idol of bloodshed for +damage and +DR against honours mobs that needs to be activated and lasts for an IG day as examples).
having small costs WP things to help with fights, and larger costs for permanent advancements seems good to me, it'll promote trying to engage more wars, even losing, because you can't get them without at least participating.

Basically, promote participating without having costs, I have found when the cost for losing is very little, to nothing, people are more likely to engage (not everyone, but it is something to some), and if the potential only exists to make gains, then surely people will be more interested to participate. Make sanctions, disarms and detonations count, and then as the stuff under the hood fixes to allow settlement tanking will expand this further. I think the system could work, but it really does need some ally to how to reward players just for engaging, not almost solely cut to winning only, which will just lead to more system gaming (who doesn't want to pop a heap of tanks if losing, or detonating, will get more WP from the war anyway? )

just my .02.

It being 50/50 is too far in the other direction, imo. You shouldn't win massively just by intentionally dying over and over. It creates a different kind of system gaming. I'm pretty content with war points just being distributed based on what you actually earn, personally. I think war is meant to still be something special and the decision to go to war isn't meant to be an obvious choice where there's nothing to lose at all. More of a cost-benefit analysis where the gains might be worth the costs.

I think the problem of sanctions being voluntary is a separate problem to address. Currently, the ways to deal with it are the city leader bounties, infamy once the war gets started and people outside city counting (if they don't hide in temples/ships), and guard killing. I'm concerned it will still lead to lots of hiding and ganking and much prefer that (1) kills themselves don't give points and (2) engagements are not initiated by kills. But I think rewards that even the loser can obtain help a lot.

I'm not a fan of the auto-generated accolade either, though I don't think it'd deter my participation.

Sothantos said:

Minifie said:

This really doesn’t address or fix any issues I see with this system, especially since it doesn’t take into consideration the issues the war system allows for that seem to be getting ignored. The system itself still isn’t REALLY worth participating in compared to normal conflict instigators that exist.

+1 to this -- I don't really think these sorts of rewards are the kind of thing people are looking for versus more 'meaningful' rewards or system overhauls e.g. claiming territory.

The point of this thread is to suggest things that would be meaningful, though. I'm personally especially interested in things that can lead to accomplishing rp goals, like Avatar (which has been used for a lot of events - burning down the arboretum in Ashtan, turning the ocean around Mhaldor to blood, etc). If you could build a resource to empower your guardian or font and use that for rp events that make actual strides for your faction, that's meaningful, I think.

Laedha

I can see it helping somewhat, especially if the points accumulate based on actions taken and not a fixed amount for winner/loser. For both the war points and this currency, I would suggest some sort of a cap on how much counts per day or something. I really am worried about people going out on guard-bashing sprees when their enemy city is low on fighters if those directly translate into points. 

It does seem like there should be more fixes to the actual system themselves, not just something added in at the end. Give a city a cooldown after a war so that no other city can immediately declare on them. Shorten wars a bit. Reduce the gold penalty for losing, it's just unnecessary. The shame of losing is the real punishment. Having enemy pennons in the city adds to that and creates great RP potential. 

Lorath

Not sure how I feel about the hostility system part. But then I don't fully understand how it works. Who generates the hostility, is it just soldiers in the army or any city of a city? Even still it just feels like a way to force a city into a war and if they don't they get fined.

Micaelis

It's any member of a city against any member of another city. Per the help file:

- guard kills

- tank detonations

- sanctions gained

- killing citizens inside a city

- sinking org-owned ships

As for the "forcing" part, that only happens if they're outwardly hostile against a given city. It's a bit hard to claim the victim if you're actively hostile enough to peg that hostility meter. 

Rackham

The cost of city repair doesn't concern me. The costs associated with personal death don't either. Even the new costs of declining a war are fine, given that they have to be earned by your own acts of hostility. I'm just against the 5 mil cost of trying and failing. If you want more wars to happen, there shouldn't be such a large drawback to participation, imho

Micaelis

There shouldn't really be a drawback at all, really. In most events where participation is desired the only real drawback is not winning, which is fine. But, even with the point system, each of those points you win in a loss is going to feel tainted. You're just going to do the math in the back of your mind and go "We paid 1.27 million for each of those points". And I doubt they're going to be worth it. 

Lenn

Instead of getting 5 million by default, the winner could harvest gold from the loser up to some amount by spending their war points, soft capped by their lead (eg. maybe 10k per point they won by, just as an example number) and hard capped by a much larger number (say 5 million).

Jinsun

Lenn said:

Instead of getting 5 million by default, the winner could harvest gold from the loser up to some amount by spending their war points, soft capped by their lead (eg. maybe 10k per point they won by, just as an example number) and hard capped by a much larger number (say 5 million).

Only gives incentive for people to start one sided wars. 

Astarod

Rackham said:

The cost of city repair doesn't concern me. The costs associated with personal death don't either. Even the new costs of declining a war are fine, given that they have to be earned by your own acts of hostility. I'm just against the 5 mil cost of trying and failing. If you want more wars to happen, there shouldn't be such a large drawback to participation, imho

I mean I completely agree. Though the problem without some kinda balance is that the admin might think some people would game the war system just to generate gold (which could happen). Just a devil’s advocate response.

Jinsun

Astarod said:

Rackham said:

The cost of city repair doesn't concern me. The costs associated with personal death don't either. Even the new costs of declining a war are fine, given that they have to be earned by your own acts of hostility. I'm just against the 5 mil cost of trying and failing. If you want more wars to happen, there shouldn't be such a large drawback to participation, imho

I mean I completely agree. Though the problem without some kinda balance is that the admin might think some people would game the war system just to generate gold (which could happen). Just a devil’s advocate response.

Wars are super visible and I imagine if the admin even smelled a whiff of two cities gaming for (a really small amount of money) the instigators would get mega shrubbed

Lorath

What about having territories that cities could fight over that would gain the city comms, gold or whatever when captured by a city?

Thaisen

Lorath said:

What about having territories that cities could fight over that would gain the city comms, gold or whatever when captured by a city?

Yes please... we need more economic warfare! 

Eril

Thaisen said:

Lorath said:

What about having territories that cities could fight over that would gain the city comms, gold or whatever when captured by a city?

Yes please... we need more economic warfare! 

Love this proposal

Eril

Some of the things proposed makes sense.  Maybe have one of the options available to fill the sewers with noxious gas a period of time to drive out defenders?  Would be costly, but I know it's a disadvantage a lot of cities can face

Kresslack

I know that NPC's and the non-player populous of Achaea are largely assumed roles that go on in the background, but would really interesting to see some sort of legion system by which the Ministry of War and those in it can create, maintain, and march armies. These could be utilized to take and hold villages and create an area of influence by which the holding city-state receives yearly tribute from it's subjugated or vassal areas. Likewise, the ability for tactics in long-term campaigns and wars by which cities can be marched upon with armies, laid siege to, and if the enemy forces are able to push their troops to the commodities room or a designated treasury area then they could sack the city and take a portion of funds and commodities. This would further allow city leaders and those leading the forces on the ability to attempt to negotiate towards a desired resolution. If a city is sacked, they remain under the area of influence of the conquering city for a determined amount of time, during which they pay a determined tribute to the victors. It seems as if the groundwork for something like this has already been experimented with in the additions of Mining and Foraging. 

Mannimar

Kresslack said:

I know that NPC's and the non-player populous of Achaea are largely assumed roles that go on in the background, but would really interesting to see some sort of legion system by which the Ministry of War and those in it can create, maintain, and march armies. These could be utilized to take and hold villages and create an area of influence by which the holding city-state receives yearly tribute from it's subjugated or vassal areas. Likewise, the ability for tactics in long-term campaigns and wars by which cities can be marched upon with armies, laid siege to, and if the enemy forces are able to push their troops to the commodities room or a designated treasury area then they could sack the city and take a portion of funds and commodities. This would further allow city leaders and those leading the forces on the ability to attempt to negotiate towards a desired resolution. If a city is sacked, they remain under the area of influence of the conquering city for a determined amount of time, during which they pay a determined tribute to the victors. It seems as if the groundwork for something like this has already been experimented with in the additions of Mining and Foraging. 

This is very similar to the original concept of City war. Cities raised troops and attacked other cities with infantry and siege weapons. Clearly, it didn't really work out. 

Cooper

I think they did something fairly early on in Aetolia as well. You could essentially take over a city and implement your own government in it. It did not take long for one city to get over run and a huge amount of people quit the game.