Battle based on Blanchetaque (was: Scouting Missions)

[Rosstin]

Note that the Slygardians under you are probably considered complete traitors for serving you (if their own country isn't a vassal state, and they are serving your side during a war, they are pretty much traitors--so it's a matter of whether they decide they like being traitors or not). That isn't to say they wouldn't be accepted into the war effort--but that offence to them may be able to be used to your advantage. Plus, they mightn't be sure that their own side would welcome them.


Retreat: Because of the bridge, an organized retreat might work. Depends on a variety of factors. Might be game over regardless.

Thanks again, Mask. Excellent info! You can see why this is so difficult. The whole conflict with all of its political complications makes for a hefty (and slightly boring) backstory. I have to meter it out slowly over time to the player. Give it to them too fast and it's an infodump. Give it to them too slowly and they'll wonder "Why didn't I know that? That was important!"

On top of that, I'm only the battle writer, not the main writer. Yes, I'm also the producer and boss, but I still have to trust the main writer to build the framework of the story. That's what I hired her for. It's a very delicate and complex thing for us to write together. She writes a complex story that has emotional impact, I try to make logical sense out of the logistics of the warfare. What a tangled web we weave...

That's why I value the input of historians like yourselves so much. There's just way too much info out there for me to absorb.

I have way more sympathy for the writers of Fire Emblem now. The whole time I was playing Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance I was like *snooooooze what's going on who is the bad guy just tell me, god*. Now I really empathize with the writers.

[Mr. Mask]

Metering out information is the challenge of having a rich world. One trick in games, is that the player can ask questions. I've spent tons of time in RPG just investigating every dialogue choice and asking every question.


I recommend getting her to this thread. Battles aren't secluded affairs, they tend to have a ton of effects and dependencies on other elements of the story. You working as an intermediary isn't a bad thing, just that it does leave room for miscommunication, and she mightn't get to voice concerns and ideas and facts which could be helpful to our helping you.

[Rosstin]

Serenity is aware of the existence of this thread. But honestly I don't want to distract her too much, she needs to sit her butt down and get writing! Serenity, if you're reading this, keep writing! <3

Metering out information is the challenge of having a rich world. One trick in games, is that the player can ask questions. I've spent tons of time in RPG just investigating every dialogue choice and asking every question.


I recommend getting her to this thread. Battles aren't secluded affairs, they tend to have a ton of effects and dependencies on other elements of the story. You working as an intermediary isn't a bad thing, just that it does leave room for miscommunication, and she mightn't get to voice concerns and ideas and facts which could be helpful to our helping you.

Right now there's a lot of linearity, especially in the conversations. That's something I'm going to take a pass at tomorrow, in the first chapter. I'd like to make conversations more radiant, but I don't want to reduce the consistency of Serenity's work either. Very tricky.

Don't worry, Serenity and I are in constant communication over the effects of the battles. She reads over them very carefully to make sure that the characters stay consistent, just as I carefully go over her work to make sure it's the best it can be.

[Mr. Mask]

That puts my concerns about communications to rest. If Serenity ever has any questions of her own, even if not combat related, feel free to post them.


I can't really comment on how many questions you should have. I wanted to point out that technique, since some VNs forget they can make use of it, but what use you make of it really depends on the story and style. You can get the answer from your play testers, and can experiment with questions to see what seems the best mix.

((Clarifying: Do you mean anything in particular with making conversations, "radiant"?))

[Rosstin]

That's a slang that may be confusing-- "radiant" means containing branches, options. I like that word because it's easier to say than "nonlinear", which doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, and sounds more positive. But it's sort of crazy visual novel lingo that nobody else understands.

[Mr. Mask]

Cool. I'll remember that lingo so I can confuse people with it.


Anyway, I'll keep an eye on the thread. Post if you have any new questions or if you're having problems with stuff I suggested (there are a lot of exceptions in history, sociology and psychology, so you can normally work around given problems).

[veti]

Note that the Slygardians under you are probably considered complete traitors for serving you (if their own country isn't a vassal state, and they are serving your side during a war, they are pretty much traitors--so it's a matter of whether they decide they like being traitors or not).

Umm... This is a cultural question. For this to be true, your culture has to have embraced the concept of "nationalism" - the idea that your first and highest political loyalty is to something abstract called a "country", rather than to a feudal liege-lord or other individual.

That's an idea that appeared in medieval Europe, probably towards the end of the Hundred Years' War (George Bernard Shaw attributes Joan of Arc as its inventor, which is probably an exaggeration, but not by much). Before nationalism - under feudalism - you were expected to fight for your lord, not your country - in fact, the very idea that "you" belonged to something called a "country", just because of where you were born and what language you spoke, would have seemed alien. (In a feudal system, for a peasant, or common man-at-arms, or even a knight, that sort of loyalty is not yours to give; it's your lord who tells you what king - or challenger - you'll side with in any given conflict.)

Edit: Note that the feudal organisation also makes it pretty well impossible to break units up and assign their members to other units. The huge bulk of your army (mercenaries excepted) will fight only under their own lord - you can't simply say "OK, you Folkestone man, you're officially from Gloucester now, go join the Duke's men". After all, the Folkestone man knows that (the best thing that can possibly happen is that) he'll one day go back to his home in Folkestone, and it'll be the Viscount of Folkestone who'll be giving out rewards, not the Duke of some larger town half-way across the country.

[Mr. Mask]

Treatment of the men who serve the traitor lord could vary between cultures--but it was normally very bad.

If the Slygardian troops have a lord or lords who have mustered them specifically, the politics of controlling them changes.

[Brother Oni]

River fording: I really don't think the commander should be the one to test this. The other officers wouldn't be likely to allow it. You'd be better to send one skilled man to try, get his opinion if he comes back alive.

Except that exact situation was engineered to get the commander to prove his worth to the men - the whole 'leading from the front, never ask a man to do something that you wouldn't do yourself' style of leadership. Besides, you need to get an officer across the river anyway, so it's good for morale for him to cross first and to prove that it can be done (it can't in this case).

It's just an example of letting your ideals over-ride your common sense which is fairly common in heroic stories. I'm just injecting a little bit more realism into it.

Fording a river more slowly doesn't usually have any benefit. It might depending on the river, but it wouldn't be so common that you need that option.

Except that fording the river wasn't an option, just the speed at which you use the pontoon or ice bridge.
Forcing more men across the bridge at a time could potentially cause the bridge to fail under the extra weight.

Treatment of the men who serve the traitor lord could vary between cultures--but it was normally very bad.

As veti said, it depends very much on the culture. During the Three Kingdoms, captured soldiers from a losing army were typically either subsumed into the victorious army's forces or demobilised and sent home and this was with a much stronger sense of nationalism than in western Medieval times (you were a man of a country/city state rather than serving a lord).

Depending on how the Sylgardians under the protagonist's control got into the army in the first place affects their perception by other Sylgardians. I find it hard to fault them if they were conscripted or otherwise subsumed into the Ortheran army against their will - if they were volunteers, then I would agree with them.
As for how badly they were treated, it depends entirely on the lord in question and his prejudices against Sylgardians, irrespective of the actual political situation.

One point of note is that if Sylgardia is under Ortheran control in the first place, the Sylgardian army that's been running around are rebels/traitors or freedom fighters depending on your point of view, making this into a revolutionary war.

[Mr. Mask]

Treatment of prisoners is separate from treatment of traitors.

If the Slygardians were subsumed against their will, the MC is in serious trouble. That scenario can only go downhill.

Did Aster say that Slygardians are apparently not treated very well under the MC's kingdom, hence their small loyalty?

I believe Aster said that Slygardia is still its own nation?


River fording: I see what you mean about testing the player's common sense, giving them a lesson on what's inspiring and what's dumb. Just, I think this example doesn't fit, since the officers and possibly the men wouldn't allow it.


Speed of crossing: I don't feel a decision of speed should be placed on bridge/ice crossing either. The differences in crossing order are too subtle and hard to judge for a VN.

[Brother Oni]

Treatment of prisoners is separate from treatment of traitors.

You're missing the point - the Sylgardians wouldn't be considered traitors as the idea of nationalism wouldn't be present in the first place.

About the only way you could swing it, is if the Sylgardians are racially (and obviously) different, which changes the dynamic.

Did Aster say that Slygardians are apparently not treated very well under the MC's kingdom, hence their small loyalty?

It's unclear. He mentioned the US/GB revolutionary war and the current PROC/ROC/HK/Tibet situation in the same example, which confused me.

Making the assumption that the Sylgardians are treated as second class citizens and generally under the thumb of the Ortherans, why on earth do they still have a standing military capable of opposing the Ortherans?

If they were recently conquered, then a rebellion of all the disenfranchised soldiers would be reasonable, but Aster said they had been under the thumb for a while. I guess it depends on what exactly is meant by 'under the thumb' and the level of undue influence the Ortherans have on Sylgardian politics.

I believe Aster said that Slygardia is still its own nation?

There's a difference between being a puppet state and being an semi autonomous sovereignty. Since they still have a standing military, I'm inclined to think the latter (unless the Ortherans never got round to demobilising them or it's beyond the scope of the story), subject to my comments above.

River fording: I see what you mean about testing the player's common sense, giving them a lesson on what's inspiring and what's dumb. Just, I think this example doesn't fit, since the officers and possibly the men wouldn't allow it.

I'm inclined to agree, but if the protagonist's relationship with the overall commander is that bad, then that commander could order him to do it.

It's just a suggestion anyway.

Speed of crossing: I don't feel a decision of speed should be placed on bridge/ice crossing either. The differences in crossing order are too subtle and hard to judge for a VN.

Your men are crossing the bridge safely in small groups. Your fellow commander, Wossname, comes up to you. "This is taking too long - an enemy patrol could come across us at any time!"

Do you:

• Agree - "Yes, this is taking too long. Lieutenant Thingamajig, get the men to cross in larger groups."
• Disagree - "No, the bridge is too unstable to risk the men's safety. We'll carry on in small groups."
• Tell him to bugger off - "These are my men and I'll decide the best way to cross. Now shut up and let me get on with it. Sir."

[Rosstin]

Your men are crossing the bridge safely in small groups. Your fellow commander, Wossname, comes up to you. "This is taking too long - an enemy patrol could come across us at any time!"

Do you:

• Agree - "Yes, this is taking too long. Lieutenant Thingamajig, get the men to cross in larger groups."
• Disagree - "No, the bridge is too unstable to risk the men's safety. We'll carry on in small groups."
• Tell him to bugger off - "These are my men and I'll decide the best way to cross. Now shut up and let me get on with it. Sir."

I like this situation! I might use this. I'm going to have to give the two of you a place in the special thanks for sure.

Honestly, the Sylgard/Orthera thing is something I'm confused by as well. Serenity has her own view of the situation but I think I'm going to have to reinterpret it and nail it down. She wrote the initial story outline, and now she's in charge of the emotional/character-content/dialog whereas I'm in charge of the military angle and overall game structure.

Basically, I need to retroactively construct whichever scenario makes the most sense with the current story.

The way Serenity explained it to me: Sylgard and Orthera are very good allies. They have common enemies to the North, to the South, and across the seas, as well as the harsh elements to contend with. They rely on eachother. Historically, they have been allies for a very long time.

Sylgard and Orthera have some kind of relationship where Sylgard is totally OK with having Orthera train their troops. Most of the time the troops are even allowed to return home to Sylgard after a few years, with the understanding that in a time of war they will return to the army to help fight against a common enemy. There may be some resentment about this situation, but it's under-the-surface. It has been this way for a long time.

What changed, is the conflict. The revelation that Sylgard launched a sneak attack (secretly what the King of Orthera wanted) has justified a war of subjugation. The King of Orthera is somehow eloquent enough to convince the Sylgardian troops that they should continue to fight for him. This all seems very sudden, but if we go back a few years in history there were some other events that made this seem less surprising-- trouble has been brewing for a few years but most people (especially the Sylgard-born soldiers in the Ortheran army) haven't been aware of it.

Currently, I'm imagining that the King of Orthera's real agenda is to make Sylgard into some kind of vassal or proxy state against their will. Essentially, Sylgard is currently ruled by Queen Charlotte, and he doesn't want her in the picture anymore. He'll probably instill someone in power over Sylgard, but it certainly won't be a Queen. It will be someone he controls... his son Prince Alastor for instance.

Inside, the Sylgardian troops are very confused and suspicious. There is a lot of mumbling and talking amongst themselves.

A Sylgardian-born man, your brother Sir Nick, is appointed as Assistant Commander of the army. An Ortheran soldier tries to assassinate him, but the Commander slays the assassin in front of everyone. There is uproar.

When it reaches the point of the first, actual conflict (and the Sylgard-born troops are close enough to the border to actually possibly return to Sylgard) they start to consider breaking ranks with the army. There is a breaking point during the first battle of the march, and only quick eloquent words or an appeal to your reputation or the relationship you've built with them can save things.

[Brother Oni]

I like this situation! I might use this. I'm going to have to give the two of you a place in the special thanks for sure.

Thank you, but I feel it's only fair to also mention the others in this thread who have contributed.

You may want to change my suggested names though.

[Snip Sylgard/Orthera political situation]

That sounds perfectly viable - an alliance turning sour, resulting into a war between the former members.
If the Ortheran king paints the Sylgardian army and queen as the belligerent for an unprovoked attack, he may be able to sway the loyalty of the existing Sylgardian troops under Ortheran command.

Personally I'd have all Sylgardians within Ortheran borders detained initially then the soldiers asked to prove their loyalty to peace and the alliance, while their families in Orthera are kept in camps 'for their own safety', much like what happened to the Japanese-Americans during WW2: Nisei regiments and Japanese-American internment.

Only other comment I would have is that a false flag operation (Ortherans disguised as Sylgardians raiding Ortheran villages) would be both more controllable and provide better propaganda than Ortherans disguised as bandits provoking a real Sylgardian reaction.

Edit: one detail I forgot to ask - are the Sylgardians and Ortherans visibly racially different?

[Rosstin]

Edit: one detail I forgot to ask - are the Sylgardians and Ortherans visibly racially different?

This is another important point. We've been talking a lot about this in the team. There are a lot of triggers here (even though it's a fantasy world) and we also have to worry about streamlining the art pipeline. However, I am ultimately in charge of this aspect.

My decision is that: All the Sylgardians we show will have red hair and the same skin tone (although it's not a very special skin tone, just a regular white-person tone.) If we have enough time, we'll also give them some kind of cultural ornament, like a type of hair ornamentation or something. I'm open to ideas on that front-- it has to be something that would make sense as a cultural affectation and it also needs to be easy for us to work into the character sprites on a second pass (if we get a second pass-- we may not.)



Here's a screenshot of the two Sylgard-born characters we have art for: The protagonist (default name: Marcus, in the lower left) and her brother Nick, on-screen.

[Brother Oni]

How about the Ortherans? Are they capable of a similar-ish red hair and pale skin?

Out of curiosity, why such a typically male name as default for the female protagonist, or is that something we discover?

Edit: Finally got round to looking at the facebbok page and noticed this post:

What would you call a female knight named, say, Lorimette?

Dame Lorimette?
Sir Lorimette?
Knightess Lorimette?
Knight Lorimette?
???

The correct form of address is 'Dame'. 'Lady' is used for all females up to Duke (Duchess) and anybody higher is royalty: link.

Given that the wife of a knight is referred to as 'Lady', it could theoretically be an insulting form of address to a female knight, implying that she didn't earn the right to the title in her own right and instead married into it, with all the sexual connotations implied ('earned it on her knees/back' etc).

[Mr. Mask]

Aster: That's very kind of you. I'm glad we can be of help.

That situation seems to work with the stuff you want. You could sometimes recruit captured enemy troops, so recruiting the guys with mixed loyalties to begin with who have been training (and fighting?) with your other soldiers could take your side. It's still a risky a plan, but not to a bad extent for the story.

If you plan to make racism a part of the story, I'd be happy to help with that aspect.


Brother: Well, I was hoping it would be unnecessary to call this outright wrong. People don't need nations to be considered traitors. Tribes, races (much more in modern day), guilds, smokers, any sort of group affiliation would work. What you're suggesting is they have specific culture that makes them not see traitors badly.

River fording: Yeah, I see your point.

Crossing: You could have a decision like that. It's essentially a character-based decision rather than one about the bridge. Do you trust this character's judgement? Do you get annoyed and rebuke them harshly? Etc..

Slygardian camps: In the Slygardians' case, where they are genuinely likely to join the other side because they weren't raised and bred in Ortheria and don't consider themselves primarily to be Ortheren citizens, then detaining them in camps does seem to make sense, in their case.

If you can get their families, that deals with the biggest problem of getting them to fight for you and turns it into an advantage.



Facebook Question: I'd go with Knightess for the aesthetic of the word. Calling them, "knight," the same as any other knight male or female, could be a sign of the culture that men and women are considered no different (at least, when it comes to being knights). But you could still do that with the title Knightess.

I rather like the idea of warrior Ladies as well. I don't think it would be insulting--wives of knights wouldn't get to be warriors unless they became such by their own talent.

[Rosstin]

How about the Ortherans? Are they capable of a similar-ish red hair and pale skin?

Probably not, for contrast.

Obviously if I had thought this out better ahead of time, I would have brainstormed more intelligent, distinct differences. But deadlines deadlines deadlines. The colorist is very prompt and very close to me, so I may still have her do something with the characters' skin tones. We're working really hard right now and cutting some corners because we want to get a demo of Chapter 1 by Feb 16th.

Out of curiosity, why such a typically male name as default for the female protagonist, or is that something we discover?

She has disguised herself as a man for the greater portion of her life, to hide from assassins. She's just used to dressing as a boy at this point; her disguise is part of her.

[Brother Oni]

Brother: Well, I was hoping it would be unnecessary to call this outright wrong. People don't need nations to be considered traitors. Tribes, races (much more in modern day), guilds, smokers, any sort of group affiliation would work. What you're suggesting is they have specific culture that makes them not see traitors badly.

While I see your point, to be a traitor, you have to betray something - what exactly are the Sylgardian troops betraying? Their country? Nationalism isn't common yet (unless Aster rules otherwise).
Their Sylgardian commander? Their 2IC is Sylgardian born, according to Aster (Nicholas).
Their people? Sylgardians are not significantly racially different (at least not so far).
Their culture? How are they betraying their culture unless there are some specific prohibitions that they're violating (eg eating pork or something).

About the only possible traitorous action I can see is betraying their Queen by fighting other Sylgardian troops, but given that they've been painted as traitors themselves, it becomes very muddy.

I've already pointed historically that loyalty (at least for the rank and file) was solely to whoever was keeping you fed and during the Three Kingdoms at least, it wasn't that much different for the officers.

Even in the modern era, captured troops were often re-purposed to provide cannon fodder, just far away from their original side. For example, take the case of Yang Kyoungjong and his three fellow countrymen, Korean conscripts for the IJA, captured by the Russians and sent to fight the Germans, then captured by the Germans and sent to guard Normandy only to be finally captured by the Allies on D-Day.

I rather like the idea of warrior Ladies as well. I don't think it would be insulting--wives of knights wouldn't get to be warriors unless they became such by their own talent.

I'm sorry, I'm having trouble understanding this sentence.

If the wife of a knight is a capable warrior in her own right and earned the title in her own merit, she would be called a Dame. Using the address Lady, means she earned it by virtue of her gender and not by her efforts.

I'm not sure about you, but I would find that insulting.

I agree with you that using the same title for both genders would help enforce gender equality, but I feel it loses a bit of flavour. I have no complaints about Knight/Knightess with the oral forms of the address as Sir/Lady - my earlier comments were solely on the correct British form of address.

[Mr. Mask]

Well, if they're a feudal system with a Queen, that calls the conglomeration Slygardia, then they do have nationalism. The nationalism isn't going to be as strong as Rome's, people under Baron Fred won't care much if someone under Lord Teddy was murdered. But, if you threaten Slygardia... you're threatening the people under Baron Fred and Lord Teddy, so they will feel threatened, and hate you for threatening them. And people who should have been fighting for you, who are fighting your enemy who is trying to destroy you instead... man, those guys are jerks!

As for traitors, it is a point worth bringing up that say the Slygardian troops had been raised in the lands under Baron Fred. The people of Baron Fred's lands would consider them traitors more strongly than people of other lands (they also have a larger chance of sympathizing with them, ironically).

How the people see their own country's actions also makes a big difference. If no one in Slygardia wants to fight... well, they're going to see their enemies and traitors in a much more positive light.


Aster: That's an interesting point to consider. Your actions could effect general Slygardian opinion. If you perform atrocities, they could get mad. If you behave well, they'll wonder why they're fighting their old ally who seems to be winning.

[Brother Oni]

Well, if they're a feudal system with a Queen, that calls the conglomeration Slygardia, then they do have nationalism.

There was a country which had a feudal system with a monarchy and they didn't have nationalism in a recognisable form for over 400 years after its unification.

It's called England.

Nevertheless I concede the point. The threat isn't to the country, it's to the the people and their neighbours. If your friendly neighbours are under attack, you band together because after them, you're probably next.

[Mr. Mask]

Sorry to continue, just curious about what period of Britain's history you mean. I think I know, but I'm uncertain.

[Rosstin]

I'm thinking that, for the sake of making it easy on the players, the concept of nationalism will exist in this world. We have late-medieval war tech, but the culture is a bit more modern I think.

Serenity and I put the physical/racial differences between the various characters on our agenda. I have to make a decision about that soon because we'll be finalizing the character art in only a few weeks.

Unrelated, but... left or right?

Spoiler: Art Comparison

Show

This character, Lucius the Head Cleric, is essentially the head medic. He's in charge of triage, administering medical attention, etcetera. This world's medical tech is way ahead of its war tech-- they have some concept of cleanliness and surgery. Lucius's appearance is said to be similar to the appearance of the Goddess Althea. People base this on popular depictions of the Goddess, which are in-turn based off a huge statue of the Goddess Althea on the border of Sylgard/Orthera. Lucius is not actually a particularly religious man and hates this comparison.

[Brother Oni]

Sorry to continue, just curious about what period of Britain's history you mean. I think I know, but I'm uncertain.

From Edgar the Peaceful and the first real consolidation of England (England specifically, not including Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland) to round about the 100 Years War where an English identity and culture was firmly in place: English Nationalism.

Unrelated, but... left or right?

Spoiler: Art Comparison

Show

Personally left as right looks like a bad reverse dye job (no offence intended).

[Mr. Mask]

Aster: I think I like the one on the right better, personally.


Brother: Umm... that isn't the origin of English nationalism, that's the origin of the nationalism of England. Actually, that's probably what you meant. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[SerenityFrost]

Hello, I've been keeping up with the thread, but wasn't terribly confident in making a profile to make commentary. Anyway, since there's been some questions about the relationship between Sylgard and Orthera I'm going to pop in and do my best to explain it.

Orthera used to be run by King Pharamond, who helped Sylgard break free of Montechrest (their neighbors to the west) so that they could become their own nation. They'd been warring with Montechrest for nearly a decade before Orthera (the big powerful neighbors to their north) came in to help them.

As Sylgard was recovering from their massive war scars Orthera stepped in to help them financially, educationally, and kept soldiers around to help keep Montechrest from trying to retake them until they were strong enough to defend themselves.

King Pharamond really opened his arms for the Sylgardians. Encouraging their able bodied men to come to Othera to benifit from their resources and gain an education that they could take back to Sylgard. For Orthera is was a good strategy because it not only solidified a new ally for them, but the Sylgardian's managed to gain some of the most fertile land from Montechrest allowing them to grow more food and harbor more animals. Something Orthera was on the breach of being too overdeveloped to do for themselves.

Sylgard was established as a puppet nation, but was never treated like one by King Pharamond. He had every intention of helping this new country prosper and stand on its own feet over time. It was just unfortunate that Prince Kendrick (youngest son in the line of nine to the King of Montechrest) cut Pharamond's life short.

Prince Kendrick wanted his father's crown, and devised a way to get it that wouldn't have to involve murdering his family one by one. Orthera always had the soldiers and means to absorb Montechrest, but Pharamond was (in his opinion) too weak a leader to take advantage of this. So he set into motion a chain of events that managed to kill Pharamond and his family and took Orthera's crown for himself.

The crown of Orthera is an old artifact (rumored to have belonged to their goddess Althea when she was still a mortal general) and it is a well known fact that any man who did not have the wisdom to lead Orthera would be struck down by the crown the moment it was placed upon their head. When this didn't happen to Kendrick he was made King. He then absorbed Montechrest as he'd intended to, and since he was a favorite of his father's sons to those of Montechrest, and his father was growing senile and vicious, the majority willingly followed. [The dissenters were cast out, forced to either leave for Panservoy (a country across the ocean) or gain assistance from the Sylgardians.]

The newly accepted King Kendrick, however, was not happy with just gaining Orthera and his father's crown. He also wanted to finish his father's work, which was to unify their continent (something he lost sight of due to his senility in his last years as King). He worked with Sylgard and their Queen for some time. Keeping up the front of being the "good son" and not wishing their to be war over his gaining Orthera. He constructed the story about King Pharamond being more shady than he had appeared, claiming that if he'd ever truly planned on giving Sylgard it's freedom he would never have made it a puppet nation. Kendrick promised Queen Charlotte that he would give them true freedom, but Charlotte was either too smart or too paranoid to believe him. So Kendrick decided he would need to force his plans into motion with war.

He started by fabricating a brewing war with Panservoy. Claiming he would need all able bodied men to aid him in this and started to draft the ones in Sylgard. Because Sylgard was still so dependent on Orthera Charlotte couldn't put up too much fight over this. Plus she couldn't risk the threat of Panservoy attacking being real and not helping push any oncoming forces of theirs back before they could reach her shores. Once he had her good fighting men (he didn't draft women, a good faith measure for Charlotte in that he was leaving her some who could fight if they needed to, and not really a misogynistic cherry picking of her best, though it certainly looks that way which Charlotte will be taking advantage of) he claimed that Charlotte, in her paranoia, had decided to cut her losses and attack Orthera and that she claimed that all the men who went to Orthera to fight were traitors who would not be welcome back.

The Sylgardian men were not given much choice but to follow Kendrick. Kendrick's soldiers, who came to collect them, were rumored to murder those who refused to come with them. While some men did get killed, they were also thieves or murders themselves. Kendrick just let the rumor that you'd be gutted in the street for refusing perpetuate because fear could be a good drafting tool. (Plus he knew that Charlotte would find ways to demonize him the second war actually began, so there was no point in not taking advantage of growing rumors that could benefit him, even if they made him look bad.)


The Sylgardian men in Orthera's army were never mistreated or looked down on. King Kendrick himself always encouraged his Ortheran's to treat the Sylgardian's among their ranks as brothers, and even after Sylgard attacked them he continued to insist on this. He's promised the Sylgardian men that he will do everything he can to talk sense into their Queen, but they first have to get to her capital. And there is no way she will allow that without bloodshed. For the Sylgardian men under him, they've seen him do nothing but be both reasonable and honest. Though there is of course lingering anger, hate, paranoia, and fear amongst some Sylgardians, (not to mention the same from the Ortherans that lost brothers and friends during the Sylgardian's first attack) that is something the MC will need to deal with to keep as many men alive as possible during the march to Sylgard's gates.


Hopefully that'll clarify the relationship between Sylgard and Orthera (and isn't a total cluster**** of words and abstract ideas that only make sense to me.) Please keep in mind that all that info wouldn't be dumped into the story at once like I had to do here. The MC will be learning this as she learns more about her heritage as the only surviving heir to Orthera's throne. Something she is, as of yet in the writing progression of the story, unaware of.

I'm open to suggestions and questions. I adore group discussion, and always manage to do my best work when I can bounce ideas off of others.

[Mr. Mask]

I like it!

Two questions:

First: You say Kendrick is the son of the King of Montechrest, and yet is eligible for the Orthera crown. This makes it seem that the Montechrest and Orthera families are closely tied, as many royal families were in Europe. Which I find great, as that aspect is very rarely covered in stories, even though it is so interesting. I just want to clarify if that is the case.

Second: You mention that from Slygardia, they draft men but not women, and that while this was not cherry picking, the Queen will use it as propaganda against Orthera. This sounds great! I am curious though, as to why they picked only the men?



There is also one thing I would like to discuss. The queen branding those who were drafted by Orthera as traitors.

What do you want to accomplish with this element of the story?

I can think of a reason she might try this. If her fear is that her soldiers won't be willing to fight Orthera which has many Slygardians fighting under them, then to demonize the people who joined Orthera might be a good way to increase her soldiers' fighting spirit. However, the drawbacks might be too severe.

The drawback is, you're cutting off chances for men within the enemy's workings to betray your enemy, or to desert and help you. You're also pushing them into a corner, so the only choice they seem to have is to fight. If you offered amnesty to those Slygardians who surrendered or turned back to their homeland, then at the very least they would be quicker to surrender than the Ortherans.

If you want to give more reason as to why the Slygardians are working for Orthera instead of their homeland, there may be ways more preferable. For example, during the attack on the Ortheran capital, if Slygardians had been killed as well (particularly those related to the soldiers under Orthera), that'd make the terrorists' actions seem less forgiveable to the Slygardians (even when they find out their queen was involved). If general opinion is that Orthera will win this war because of its size, then that's another factor that would effect the soldiers' chance of turncoating.

I feel the balance of factors you have is already very good for a power struggle over the loyalty of your Slygardian troops, if that has been a concern.

If instead the story element is to make the Queen paranoid, a bit mad, then it would also imply she has a very firm position of power, where she can make decisions which her advisers and generals would likely have been against. Alternatively, it might have been advised to her by someone(s) whose status combined with hers allowed the decision to be pushed through.

[Mr. Mask]

Oh, one important thing I forgot.

If you need it for the story that the queen is apparently branding Slygardians who were taken to Orthera traitors and won't accept them back, it could easily be Orthera propaganda.

[Rosstin]

Thanks Mask, more good ideas!

First: You say Kendrick is the son of the King of Montechrest, and yet is eligible for the Orthera crown. This makes it seem that the Montechrest and Orthera families are closely tied, as many royal families were in Europe. Which I find great, as that aspect is very rarely covered in stories, even though it is so interesting. I just want to clarify if that is the case.

Serenity will have to answer this one, the Orthera/Montecrest thing is complicated...

Second: You mention that from Slygardia, they draft men but not women, and that while this was not cherry picking, the Queen will use it as propaganda against Orthera. This sounds great! I am curious though, as to why they picked only the men?

I think that Ortherans are basically super-sexist. Which makes me a little uncomfortable, but I think we did it that way in order to have an all-male army with lots of hot guys. (Yes, there's a ton of war in this game, but it's also a dating sim, although that aspect of the game is less cheesy and in-your-face than in most of the genre.) We've been picking up a little flak for this but I think we have to just work with it.

There is also one thing I would like to discuss. The queen branding those who were drafted by Orthera as traitors.

What do you want to accomplish with this element of the story?

I can think of a reason she might try this. If her fear is that her soldiers won't be willing to fight Orthera which has many Slygardians fighting under them, then to demonize the people who joined Orthera might be a good way to increase her soldiers' fighting spirit. However, the drawbacks might be too severe.

The drawback is, you're cutting off chances for men within the enemy's workings to betray your enemy, or to desert and help you. You're also pushing them into a corner, so the only choice they seem to have is to fight. If you offered amnesty to those Slygardians who surrendered or turned back to their homeland, then at the very least they would be quicker to surrender than the Ortherans.

If you want to give more reason as to why the Slygardians are working for Orthera instead of their homeland, there may be ways more preferable. For example, during the attack on the Ortheran capital, if Slygardians had been killed as well (particularly those related to the soldiers under Orthera), that'd make the terrorists' actions seem less forgiveable to the Slygardians (even when they find out their queen was involved). If general opinion is that Orthera will win this war because of its size, then that's another factor that would effect the soldiers' chance of turncoating.

I like these ideas. The allegiances of the various nationalities is so complicated...

If instead the story element is to make the Queen paranoid, a bit mad, then it would also imply she has a very firm position of power, where she can make decisions which her advisers and generals would likely have been against. Alternatively, it might have been advised to her by someone(s) whose status combined with hers allowed the decision to be pushed through.

We already have one Mad King, "Mad" King Kendrick. So I think we'll avoid painting Queen Charlotte as mad... just... passionately nationalistic, cunning, and ruthless. She loves her people and doesn't care who needs to be killed to protect them. I think that her competence is what makes Sylgard such a force to be reckoned with. No one would have predicted that Sylgard would mount such a deadly attack.

[Rosstin]

Unrelated to this discussion, but I'm considering hiring Andrew Morgan Smith as our music guy. His portfolio is here. What do you think?

https://soundcloud.com/andrew-morgan-smith

[Mr. Mask]

I think you have a good musician. There are some very lovely pieces there. Will probably keep listening to them for a while.



I'm glad if these ideas are helpful to you. If I ever work on my own VN, maybe you can give me advise.


An interesting point with Orthera being super sexist, is their ideals has potential of spreading a sort of superstitious worry. "That big, conqueror kingdom takes only men....? Does--does that mean a pure-male army is plain better? ...Is our army objectively worse....?"

It would depend on how much experience the remaining soldiers have and cultural outlook (as in, how strongly they believe in the equality of the sexes). If they've been on campaign with the men, they aren't likely to put weight into this notion. "Meh... I remember John from the fourteenth battalion--he seemed really tough when we were back home. Soon as the fighting started: He was a total pushover."

If super sexism is common among the populace, then you can expect the men to be overconfident when they know they're facing women soldiers--which could either be positive in the form of a morale boost, or could lead to downfall. Depending on their culture, it's possible they'll fight harder and be less likely to surrender when up against women (this is particular true of a misogynist culture).


Oh, one neat thing to consider is soldiers of the two sides being related. So, if you have a Slygardian-heavy unit advancing on your enemy: "Hey guys, look, it's Sally from our hometown! Oh goddess... she's on the front rank!"
"My sister! My sister is there!"
"Bob, Harry, our brother Mitch is on the other side! And I think he's seen us too!"
"My wife!? No... what will happen to our boys? We don't have any other family!"
"It's Joe! I always hated that guy! Remember when he kicked that cat? Throw the javelins in his direction!"
"Jim, Harry, look: It's mother! Our mother is there in the third rank!!"

With the same thing going on with the other side. I think that happened in one of the Roman civil wars, where both sides came to a halt without fighting.

You don't have to do this. Just that it's quite an opportunity.


Complicated allegiances are indeed nuanced. They're also very interesting when formed correctly--which has made this game very interesting.


Queen and winning: Would you be able to tell us a little about Slygard's chances? So far, it seems like Pearl Harbour. A surprise attack that will lead to inevitable defeat.