EMPIRE! CWBG VIII: It's Not An Event Without A Few Corpses

[Rizban]

Was there ever a decision on whether or not militias could move to adjacent regions for defense?

Also, does rounding apply? I.e., does my region with 9,800 militia get +5 or only +4 from them? Or +4.9?

[QuintonBeck]

Was there ever a decision on whether or not militias could move to adjacent regions for defense?

Last I heard (and what seems most reasonable considering their meaning and fluff) is that militias only defend the regions they're raised from. Defending theirs and their neighbors home and all that, not traipsing over to fight a war since they aren't real soldiers.

[Rizban]

Last I heard (and what seems most reasonable considering their meaning and fluff) is that militias only defend the regions they're raised from. Defending theirs and their neighbors home and all that, not traipsing over to fight a war since they aren't real soldiers.

I also got you with an edit: "Also, does rounding apply? I.e., does my region with 9,800 militia get +5 or only +4 from them? Or +4.9? "

[QuintonBeck]

I also got you with an edit: "Also, does rounding apply? I.e., does my region with 9,800 militia get +5 or only +4 from them? Or +4.9? "

I believe there was mention of making all decimals/fractions round down and conservatism is probably wiser to assume than over inflating the numbers so I'd go with rounding down.

[Rizban]

I believe there was mention of making all decimals/fractions round down and conservatism is probably wiser to assume than over inflating the numbers so I'd go with rounding down.

So, 1,800 rounds down to 0. Got it.

Edit: Wait... Does that mean the +0.5 from Holy Orders no longer applies unless there is another +0.5 applied from somewhere else? Or is that a special case?

[Jeriah]

I believe this is up to date to the round open of Round 21. I should be able to get the tech table updated some time today rather than keep copping others stuff as well.

As a side note, Silverbit you tried to raise more troops than you could in Razdis last round but rather than just lose an action (especially since it wasn't 100% clear you meant troops from Razdis specifically) I just bumped them into being raised in Eyrecradia but you are at max troops in Razdis (owing to its small population)

Spoiler: Military Table

Show

Militairy Tables

Updated through Round Open for 21

Region Caps - Regions are capped at 1/10th total regional population and may not exceed 10,000 within Capital Regions or 5,000 in Auxiliary Regions

#	Region Name	Country	Population	Capital or Auxiliary Region	# Army (Ground)	# Navy (Water)	# Aerial (Sky)
P1	Mictlanpa	Kingdom of the Burning Mountains	79,000	Auxiliary Region	1.000	0	0
P2	Wenyavuk	Faedas Freehold	74,000	Auxiliary Region	0	0	0
P3	Krepida	Kingdom of the Iron Doctrine	13,000	Auxiliary Region	2,000	0	0
P8	Tletica	Kingdom of the Burning Mountains	25,000	Auxiliary Region	0	0	0
1	Gunung	Kingdom of the Burning Mountains	140,000	Capital Region	4,000	0	6,000
2A	Celero	Kingdom of Celero	122,000	Capital Region	4,000	2,000	1,000
2B	Bereginia	Kingdom of Celero	38,000	Auxiliary Region	3,000	0	0
3	Nyroth	Triumvirate	124,000	Auxiliary Region	4,000	0	0
4A	Kasumor	Hurosha Empire	158,000	Capital Region	0	1,000	2,000
4B	Shikurai	Hurosha Empire	43,000	Auxiliary Region	1,000	0	0
5A	The Heartwaste	Faedas Freehold	110,000	Capital Region	0	0	0
5B	Eyrecradia	Razdissi Underpire	148,000	Auxiliary Region	4,000	0	0
6	Woodwind	Triumvirate	139,000	Auxiliary Region	1000	1,000	2,000
7A	Calorum	None	125,000	Capital Region	10,000	0	0
7B	Gwristin	Hurosha Empire	49,000	Auxiliary Region	2000	0	0
8A	Aloren	Triumvirate	138,000	Capital Region	4,000	1,000	3,000
8B	K’Braashriix	Triumvirate	25,000	Auxiliary Region	1,000	0	0
9	Genivana	Triumvirate	158,000	Auxiliary Region	2,000	1,000	0
10	Hrathan-Tuor	Triumvirate	120,000	Auxiliary Region	2,000	1,000	0
11A	Raaneka	Royal Council of Raaneka	103,000	Capital Region	1,000	1,000	1,000
11B	Ayava	Royal Council of Raaneka	80,000	Auxiliary Region	2,000	0	1,000
12	Qarimos	Royal Council of Raaneka	143,000	Auxiliary Region	0	2,000	1.000
13A	Lyradis	Kingdom of Serendel	117,000	Capital Region	1,000	1,000	2,000
13B	Razdis	Razdissi Underpire	51,000	Capital Region	5,000	0	0
14A	Guilder	Guilderene Expanse	111,000	Capital Region	0	2,000	0
14B	Elbaraz	Razdissi Underpire	73,000	Auxiliary Region	0	0	0
15A	Zargrim	Hurosha Empire	75,000	Auxiliary Region	2,000	0	0
15B	Keldagrim	Hurosha Empire	91,000	Auxiliary Region	2,000	0	1,000
16A	Pryonia	Pryonic Kingdom	126,000	Capital Region	1,000	0	0
16B	Galie-Noiret	Pryonic Kingdom	31,000	Auxiliary Region	0	0	0
17A	Tekorva	Hurosha Empire Vassal	100,000	Auxiliary Region	0	0	0
17B	Yorukuni	Faedas Freehold	24,000	Auxiliary Region	2,000	0	0
18A	Sympolemou	Kingdom of the Iron Doctrine	160,000	Capital Region	7,000	0	0
18B	Aimplach	Kingdom of the Iron Doctrine	71,000	Auxiliary Region	2,000	0	0
19	Domhan Abhaile	Kingdom of Serendel Vassal	121,000	Auxiliary Region	3,000	0	0
20	Bordeux	Bordeux Concordat	126,000	Capital Region	6,000	1,000	0
21	Sulvan Primarchy	Razdissi Underpire	104,000	Auxiliary Region	0	0	0
22	Ashenia	Kingdom of Ashenia	152,000	Capital Region	4,000	0	0
23	Crima	Bordeux Concordat	138,000	Auxiliary Region	2,000	1,000	0
24	Tar	AQUA	117,000	Auxiliary Region	3,000	0	0
25	The Jeweled Cities	AQUA	103,000	Capital Region	0	2,000	2,000
26	Cassia/Shengdi	Salterri Heartlands	79,000	Auxiliary Region	2,000	0	0
27	Scla'Ca	Alydaxian Dominion	103,000	Auxiliary Region	2,000	0	0
28	Hazaria	Kingdom of Ashenia	25,000	Auxiliary Region	1,000	0	0
29	Alydaxis	Alydaxian Dominion	90,000	Capital Region	2,000	1,000	0
30	Grizzland	Triumvirate	135,000	Auxiliary Region	3,000	0	0
31	Grmanhil	Kingdom of Serendel	56,000	Auxiliary Region	2,000	0	0
32	Selyra	Kingdom of Serendel	65,000	Auxiliary Region	0	0	0
33	Bracia	Priory of Ascension	34,000	Auxiliary Region	1,000	0	0
34	Bor-Teire	Priory of Ascension	74,000	Auxiliary Region	2,000	0	0
35	Salteire	Priory of Ascension	103,000	Capital Region	0	0	5,000
36	Aus-Teire	Salterri Heartlands	175,000	Capital Region	3,000	1,000	0
37	Pontensulae	Salterri Heartlands	104,000	Auxiliary Region	1,000	2,000	0
38	Penoccident	Salterri Heartlands	51,000	Auxiliary Region	2,000	1,000	0
39	Propinlonge	Kingdom of Celero	???? plus 15,000	Auxiliary Region	0	1,000	1,000
40	Solus	Bordeux Concordat	85,000	Auxiliary Region	2,000	1,000	2,000
41	Glirfrey	Alydaxan Dominion	87,000	Auxiliary Region	2,000	0	0
42	Arix'La	Alydaxan Dominion	77,000	Auxiliary Region	2,000	0	0
43	Angan Anvale	Kingdom of Ashenia	67,000	Auxiliary Region	1,000	0	0
44	Kyaraleth	Kingdom of Ashenia	70,000	Auxiliary Region	2,000	0	0
45	Lacertia	Kingdom of Ashenia	72,000	Auxiliary Region	0	0	0
46	Intepeuh	Kingdom of the Burning Mountains	?? plus 9000	Auxiliary Region	0	0	0
47A	Niskovia	--	102,000	Capital Region	2,000	0	0
47B	Halja	Fera	83,000	Capital Region	3,000	0	0
48	Karintiya	Niskovia	94,000	Auxiliary Region	0	0	0
49	Errelosse	Bordeux Concordat	28,000	Auxiliary Region	0	0	0
50	Sycia	Holy Kingdom of Sycia	84,000	Capital Region	2,000	0	1,000
51	Felitora	Holy Kingdom of Sycia	?? plus 5000	Auxiliary Region	0	0	0
52	Drugaud	Glazfell Hegemony	89,000	Auxiliary Region	3,000	2,000	0
53	Maos	Guilderene Expanse	86,000	Auxiliary Region	0	0	1,000
54	Rannara	Guilderene Expanse	68,000	Auxiliary Region	0	0	0
55	Sah'Ra	---	78,000	Auxiliary Region	0	0	0
56	Skarval	Glazfell Hegemony	95,000	Auxiliary Region	3,000	0	0
57	Frosskov Expanse	Glazfell Hegemony	102,000	Auxiliary Region	3,000	0	0
58	Estglaz	Glazfell Hegemony	124,000	Auxiliary Region	3,000	0	0
59	Glazfell	Glazfell Hegemony	121,000	Capital Region	0	0	0
60	Borlmyn	Serendel Kingdom	70,000	Auxiliary Region	0	0	0
61	Requiem	Serendel Kingdom	81,000	Auxiliary Region	2,000	0	0
62A	Jarrland	---	69,000	Capital Region	4,000	1,000	0
62B	Asterith	Mulharum Underpire	94,000	Auxiliary Region	0	0	0
63A	Discordia	Salterri Heartlands	118,000	Auxiliary Region	3,000	0	0
63B	Galardoth	Mularuhm Underpire	92,000	Auxiliary Region	0	0	0
64A	Vennland	Jarrland	97,000	Capital Region	1,000	1,000	0
64B	Mularuhm	Mularuhm Underpire	64,000	Capital Region	2,000	0	0
65	Campestrus Pratum	Priory of Ascension	110,000	Auxiliary Region	2,000	0	0
66	Wyrmar	Caercian Consortium	88,000	Capital Region	3,000	0	0
67	Palas Caercia	Caercian Consortium	68,000	Capital Region	3,000	0	0
68A	Pavonia	Pavonia	94,000	Capital Region	6,000	0	0
68B	Norogh	Pavonia	42,000	Auxiliary Region	0	0	0
69	Farridon	Jarrland	168,000	Auxiliary Region	0	0	0
70	Valterre	Bordeux Concordat	136,000	Auxiliary Region	1,000	2,000	0
74	Kaspiyskiya	Niskovia	122,000	Auxiliary Region	0	0	0
76	Neo Scandza	Halja	58,000	Auxiliary Region	0	0	0
77	Valeriya	Niskovia	127,000	Auxiliary Region	0	0	0
82	Haiwaste	Glazfell	82,000	Auxilery Region	2,000	0	0
84	Frontier	Guilder	?? minus 8,000	Auxilery Region	0	0	0
85	Amocuallan	Tzalteclan	88,000	Auxilery Region	3,000	0	0
86	Tzalteclan	---	80,000	Capital Region	3,000	1,000	0
87	Elomaoli	Tzalteclan	40,000	Auxilery Region	2,000	0	0
88	Niemidaland	Jarrland	102,000	Auxilery Region	0	0	0
90	Galomyr	Celero	?? plus 10,000	Auxilery Region	0	0	0
93	Sterkelv	Caercian Consortium	79,000	Auxilery Region	1,000	1,000	1,000
122	The Broken Enclave	---	108,000	Capital Region	3,000	3.000	0
124	Tempestia	Jarrland	132,000	Auxiliary Region	0	0	0
133	Rì Chūgǎng	---	54,000	Capital Region	4,000	0	0
134	Nia Hai Nian	Salterri Heartlands	107,000	Auxilery Region	0	0	0

I should have 5k troops in Ri Chugang, not 4k.

[Rizban]

Going back to the "when to roll combat" discussion for a moment.

My concern with rolling for combat very late in the round or only after the round closes is that when war happens early on in a round IC, say the first year of the round, it leaves you multiple years in which you don't really know how to react.

Say, for example, I lose one of my regions this round, but I spent 3 actions to raise troops there this turn because I didn't know for sure I was going to lose it until after the round closed and I could no longer edit my actions. Do those just become wasted actions? Do the actions get retroactively "pseudo-edited" so that the troops appear elsewhere?

The first one is overly harsh, as the player has already lost a region, and punishing them even more for losing that region is pretty bad.
The second one potentially opens the door for future post-closing edits and revisions, something that could significantly reduce the finality of a round ending.

I'm becoming increasingly of the opinion that war should be agreed upon between those involved and a final date set earlier on in a round by which rolls should be made, with troop totals added in the roll post and unable to be changed after the fact. Regions still wouldn't transfer control until the next round, but at least the players would know how to "react" for the rest of the round.

I'm also not a fan of "stealth" attacks made without informing the other player they are being made. I was honestly unaware of the two attacks made against me this round until someone else pointed them out to me, because I'm not in the habit of reading through every single other player's posts to see if I've been attacked and have had a hell of a lot of my plate in real life lately. All I'm saying is that, when you do something to or against another player, especially one that needs a response, (e.g., attack, cancel trade, whatever), you should inform that player when you do it.

[Rain Dragon]

I was just checking the thread for Tailong's fate.

Yeah, well I mean, I missed that he was stabbed directly in the heart. I'm only surprised he didn't die sooner.
Oddly enough, since I wasn't sure where he was stabbed, as Aipiskaupus said he can't mend a broken heart. (Which vaguely amused me to use in a more literal sense than it is typically used!)

/Jion flies away in his airship

[Rizban]

I was just checking the thread for Tailong's fate.

Yeah, well I mean, I missed that he was stabbed directly in the heart. I'm only surprised he didn't die sooner.
Oddly enough, since I wasn't sure where he was stabbed, as Aipiskaupus said he can't mend a broken heart. (Which vaguely amused me to use in a more literal sense than it is typically used!)

/Jion flies away in his airship

Yeah, it was a bit frustrating for me to do all that with Rongyao only to have Tailong killed anyway. It was kind of like, at the last minute, I felt a bit of "Why did I bother?" I'm still hoping he lives.

[WaylanderX]

Yeah, it was a bit frustrating for me to do all that with Rongyao only to have Tailong killed anyway. It was kind of like, at the last minute, I felt a bit of "Why did I bother?" I'm still hoping he lives.

Morph has the choice himself if Tailong dies or not. For sofar I know, he is intending to roll for it, so nothing is sure just yet. (Also Morph, Ridovo thought he stabbed Tailong in the heart, but it could be a miss. Also, I am maybe planning to save him anyway, as I have 1 char cappable of doing that)

[Kitsanth]

Morph has the choice himself if Tailong dies or not. For sofar I know, he is intending to roll for it, so nothing is sure just yet. (Also Morph, Ridovo thought he stabbed Tailong in the heart, but it could be a miss. Also, I am maybe planning to save him anyway, as I have 1 char cappable of doing that)

Daggers have a tendency to hit a convenient rib when required to by plot.

[Aedilred]

This is your hour's notice about the closure of the round.

[Morph Bark]

With regards to Tailong, I told Way at the start that I'd leave his fate largely in his hands, as long as he got a cool ending. When I learned of Rizban's plan to have Rongyao go meet the Silver Lady through a blaze of glory, I told Way I was cool with Tailong dying as well, so things would be over after this, though I didn't know there was more to that plan from Rizban's end.

Then I figured, y'know, I could roll for it and if I hit maximum, Tailong could survive with the necessary medical care, talked about the latter with Rain Dragon, and we ended up concluding that even a Leikjos couldn't treat that with how far medicine currently has advanced.

Since it is the last day, I'm not going to alter Tailong's fate, since all the actions that were riding on his survival from half a dozen players have already been made with the idea that he didn't.

So, 1,800 rounds down to 0. Got it.

Edit: Wait... Does that mean the +0.5 from Holy Orders no longer applies unless there is another +0.5 applied from somewhere else? Or is that a special case?

I'm going to alter the wording to be better in a lot of places, and make the Holy Order bonus instead simply "breaks ties in favor of the defender". Holy Orders should also be getting something else as a little extra, but I don't know yet what exactly.

This isn't meant as an attack, but I don't see why we should require someone to play their feudal medieval nation with a 20th century attitude towards maturity and sex. If someone is skeeved out by the idea of the age of consent being puberty, it shouldn't be forced on them, but by that same token if you want to have a situation like the Dauphin or an arranged marriage like Marie Antoinette it shouldn't be mechanically forbidden. I have a nation that runs on taboo, and it strikes me as unfair if other people can't embrace certain other taboos for flavor.

I'm mostly asking due to potential out-of-game repercussions that I'd rather not have, because regardless of what we play, we play it as people in the 21st century. I'm not currently planning on trying to limit anyone if they want to play something that's taboo, but if something pops up that I feel like should definitely not be done, I am going to do so. For one, I'm extremely uncomfortable about just the idea of pedophilia and would definitely not want to see it beyond a passing mention of it. There are some things that are taboo I feel could be included at decent length, like Tzalteclan's system of slavery, while there are things that are taboo that I don't want to see beyond just a mention that says "hey, it's there".

Age of rulers is a bit of an elephant in the room, of course. Most people are pretty good at keeping their rulers' ages reasonable (I haven't been the age police and haven't been checking, but very little has jumped off the screen at me) and those that have much older rulers tend to balance it by having them succeed at an older age in the first place. But it would also be trivially abusable to get a full row of tens with every ruler if you wrote your fluff the right way. It's just about the one area in which fluff has a direct game effect, and there's no real penalty for it... but that's not to say I have a problem with the way things are, just something to bear in mind maybe.

I suppose we can always take another similar game as example here, like Crusader Kings II, where rulers can start at... I believe 16? That would be just a little over three rounds old.

[Sorrcerousflux]

Can someone run two different great projects at the same time, and keep them running with separate actions?

[Aedilred]

Can someone run two different great projects at the same time, and keep them running with separate actions?

Yes. You can in fact theoretically run up to five (or six, if you're a GK/Federation) Great Projects at the same time, provided you don't mind not being able to do anything else for five rounds.

Does anyone have a link to the updated military table?

Edit: never mind, found it. I am a div.

[Sorrcerousflux]

Yes. You can in fact theoretically run up to five (or six, if you're a GK/Federation) Great Projects at the same time, provided you don't mind not being able to do anything else for five rounds.

Does anyone have a link to the updated military table?

Edit: never mind, found it. I am a div.

I was just curious about that, and speaking of curiosity... Im wondering about Tzalteclan's prehistory, and the current opinion of it.

[ImperatorV]

Going back to the "when to roll combat" discussion for a moment.

My concern with rolling for combat very late in the round or only after the round closes is that when war happens early on in a round IC, say the first year of the round, it leaves you multiple years in which you don't really know how to react.

Say, for example, I lose one of my regions this round, but I spent 3 actions to raise troops there this turn because I didn't know for sure I was going to lose it until after the round closed and I could no longer edit my actions. Do those just become wasted actions? Do the actions get retroactively "pseudo-edited" so that the troops appear elsewhere?

The first one is overly harsh, as the player has already lost a region, and punishing them even more for losing that region is pretty bad.
The second one potentially opens the door for future post-closing edits and revisions, something that could significantly reduce the finality of a round ending.

I'm becoming increasingly of the opinion that war should be agreed upon between those involved and a final date set earlier on in a round by which rolls should be made, with troop totals added in the roll post and unable to be changed after the fact. Regions still wouldn't transfer control until the next round, but at least the players would know how to "react" for the rest of the round.

I'm also not a fan of "stealth" attacks made without informing the other player they are being made. I was honestly unaware of the two attacks made against me this round until someone else pointed them out to me, because I'm not in the habit of reading through every single other player's posts to see if I've been attacked and have had a hell of a lot of my plate in real life lately. All I'm saying is that, when you do something to or against another player, especially one that needs a response, (e.g., attack, cancel trade, whatever), you should inform that player when you do it.

I think a lot of this is not so much do to wanting to "surprise" the opponent as to hashing out the deals and actions for a war takes a while, not to mention real-life stuff getting in the way.

For example: me loaning my leader to the Salties wasn't even confirmed to be happening until three days ago, and RL stuff combined with my horrible procrastination habits delayed the public posting to yesterday.

In fact, the very first last-minute-post-attack was done by me in the war for Aloren (or the Triumvirate Founding War, whichever you prefer). It was done purely because I didn't even think of fighting Woodwind until the day before round close.

I mean, heck, I pretty much always don't post actions until Saturday night (and more frequently then Quinton would like Sunday morning). It's a natural happenstance of having a specific deadline; people will procrastinate until close to it.

[QuintonBeck]

I think a lot of this is not so much do to wanting to "surprise" the opponent as to hashing out the deals and actions for a war takes a while, not to mention real-life stuff getting in the way.

For example: me loaning my leader to the Salties wasn't even confirmed to be happening until three days ago, and RL stuff combined with my horrible procrastination habits delayed the public posting to yesterday.

In fact, the very first last-minute-post-attack was done by me in the war for Aloren (or the Triumvirate Founding War, whichever you prefer). It was done purely because I didn't even think of fighting Woodwind until the day before round close.

I mean, heck, I pretty much always don't post actions until Saturday night (and more frequently then Quinton would like Sunday morning). It's a natural happenstance of having a specific deadline; people will procrastinate until close to it.

Well our involvement doesn't really matter anyway

Rules: "Allies can help attack or defend a region they have army units in"

So ultimately if you hadn't gotten around to actions it would have had the same effect but at least we got stat bonuses

[Rizban]

I mean, heck, I pretty much always don't post actions until Saturday night (and more frequently then Quinton would like Sunday morning). It's a natural happenstance of having a specific deadline; people will procrastinate until close to it.

Which, frankly, is kind of rude, since it gives people no time to react or even know you've done stuff against them until after it's been completely resolved by the round's end. Had I known the Triumvirate was the one leading the battle against my nation, I'm sure I would have approached people differently throughout the last two weeks. Heck, I'd have done things differently yesterday.

This goes back to what I was saying earlier. If you're going to be performing hostile actions against someone, you should inform them.

I think the OOC reactions a lot of people have had to the wars are less because of the wars themselves and more because they feel like they're being cut out of the creative process and having control of "their stuff" taken away. The premise of this is that it's a community world building project, and that's what I know that I personally signed up to play. If the community aspect is ignored and communication doesn't exist, then this is just a fancy game of Risk.

---

As to the thing with Tailong, I'm not mad about it. I'm just very disappointed.

[QuintonBeck]

Which, frankly, is kind of rude, since it gives people no time to react or even know you've done stuff against them until after it's been completely resolved by the round's end. Had I known the Triumvirate was the one leading the battle against my nation, I'm sure I would have approached people differently throughout the last two weeks. Heck, I'd have done things differently yesterday.

This goes back to what I was saying earlier. If you're going to be performing hostile actions against someone, you should inform them.

I think the OOC reactions a lot of people have had to the wars are less because of the wars themselves and more because they feel like they're being cut out of the creative process and having control of "their stuff" taken away. The premise of this is that it's a community world building project, and that's what I know that I personally signed up to play. If the community aspect is ignored and communication doesn't exist, then this is just a fancy game of Risk.

---

As to the thing with Tailong, I'm not mad about it. I'm just very disappointed.

Well, we really won't be. As I said, rules don't allow it so essentially it's wasted actions anyway and as Imp said, he's a dreadful procrastinator which has caused problems before but is generally not an issue (and it really isn't here either for aforementioned reasons)

Well, the idea of having "your stuff" in a, as you correctly say, "community" game is a little self contradictory in and of itself. Lording your own stuff as vaulted and above or even just as separate and untouchable by the rest of the players isn't exactly all that open and communicable either. I think people are allowed to have their reactions to what others put out there, that's what builds things up as a community. A lot of defining moments in the game have come from conflict of interest. As Imperator pointed out, his and I's was (I think) the first player on player war and was in many ways the forge for the Triumvirate. So on and so forth with other interactions between players, confrontational and cooperative both.

[WaylanderX]

---

As to the thing with Tailong, I'm not mad about it. I'm just very disappointed.

I'm sorry man, but it was his choice.

[Jeriah]

Well, the idea of having "your stuff" in a, as you correctly say, "community" game is a little self contradictory in and of itself. Lording your own stuff as vaulted and above or even just as separate and untouchable by the rest of the players isn't exactly all that open and communicable either. I think people are allowed to have their reactions to what others put out there, that's what builds things up as a community. A lot of defining moments in the game have come from conflict of interest. As Imperator pointed out, his and I's was (I think) the first player on player war and was in many ways the forge for the Triumvirate. So on and so forth with other interactions between players, confrontational and cooperative both.

I'm pretty sure that's not what Riz was saying. I almost 100% he's talking about a need for better communication between people, particularly when you're doing something that directly affects another player. That has nothing to do with lording over others.

[QuintonBeck]

I'm pretty sure that's not what Riz was saying. I almost 100% he's talking about a need for better communication between people, particularly when you're doing something that directly affects another player. That has nothing to do with lording over others.

I agree, that is definitely a good point, but the way he seemed to deride war as turning it into a overcomplicated game of Risk seems to speak of taking issue with war prompting "having control of "their stuff" taken away" and my counterargument is that war only adds another way in which interaction is possible. I do agree communication in regards to it (and cooperative things as well) ought to be more prominent, I disagree that war between players in and of itself robs someone of their independence as a player or takes away "their stuff"

EDIT: In fact, I believe its the belief that that is the understanding regarding war that prevents people from talking to people about it. If everyone accepts war as a possibility and can deal with it rationally then people can talk about it without fear that doing so will incite the other person.

[Jeriah]

EDIT: In fact, I believe its the belief that that is the understanding regarding war that prevents people from talking to people about it. If everyone accepts war as a possibility and can deal with it rationally then people can talk about it without fear that doing so will incite the other person.

And, not to put words in his mouth, but I think Riz's point is that a PM saying "Hey, I'm thinking about attacking you for X reasons. Can we work something out?" would solve a lot of those problems and promote calm, rational discussion whereas arbitrarily attacking someone without communicating or even informing them does just the opposite.

[QuintonBeck]

And, not to put words in his mouth, but I think Riz's point is that a PM saying "Hey, I'm thinking about attacking you for X reasons. Can we work something out?" would solve a lot of those problems and promote calm, rational discussion whereas arbitrarily attacking someone without communicating or even informing them does just the opposite.

A point on which we would be in agreement on, however trends of exploding on someone for any sort of war or flat out refusing to talk about a war when discussion is opened tends to make doing such seem a bit pointless.

[Morph Bark]

And, not to put words in his mouth, but I think Riz's point is that a PM saying "Hey, I'm thinking about attacking you for X reasons. Can we work something out?" would solve a lot of those problems and promote calm, rational discussion whereas arbitrarily attacking someone without communicating or even informing them does just the opposite.

Rizban's suggestion was more in the vein of, if someone doesn't want to be attacked, they won't be--or at least looked like it. What you are saying though, I agree on. A while back I brought up some ideas for how to make wars still viable without having them get blown up OOC, like discussing wars a round before they happen and "betting" stuff on it. Those ideas didn't receive much positive reply then, probably mainly because I thought it'd require more deliberation earlier on, like a round before it'd even happen.

[Rizban]

Well, we really won't be. As I said, rules don't allow it so essentially it's wasted actions anyway and as Imp said, he's a dreadful procrastinator which has caused problems before but is generally not an issue (and it really isn't here either for aforementioned reasons)

Well, the idea of having "your stuff" in a, as you correctly say, "community" game is a little self contradictory in and of itself. Lording your own stuff as vaulted and above or even just as separate and untouchable by the rest of the players isn't exactly all that open and communicable either. I think people are allowed to have their reactions to what others put out there, that's what builds things up as a community. A lot of defining moments in the game have come from conflict of interest. As Imperator pointed out, his and I's was (I think) the first player on player war and was in many ways the forge for the Triumvirate. So on and so forth with other interactions between players, confrontational and cooperative both.

I'm pretty sure that's not what Riz was saying. I almost 100% he's talking about a need for better communication between people, particularly when you're doing something that directly affects another player. That has nothing to do with lording over others.

I agree, that is definitely a good point, but the way he seemed to deride war as turning it into a overcomplicated game of Risk seems to speak of taking issue with war prompting "having control of "their stuff" taken away" and my counterargument is that war only adds another way in which interaction is possible. I do agree communication in regards to it (and cooperative things as well) ought to be more prominent, I disagree that war between players in and of itself robs someone of their independence as a player or takes away "their stuff"

EDIT: In fact, I believe its the belief that that is the understanding regarding war that prevents people from talking to people about it. If everyone accepts war as a possibility and can deal with it rationally then people can talk about it without fear that doing so will incite the other person.

And, not to put words in his mouth, but I think Riz's point is that a PM saying "Hey, I'm thinking about attacking you for X reasons. Can we work something out?" would solve a lot of those problems and promote calm, rational discussion whereas arbitrarily attacking someone without communicating or even informing them does just the opposite.

Yeah, what Jeriah just said.

But, yes, it is "their stuff". They took the time and creative effort to design and build it and write it up. "Community driven" does not equal "Communistic Group Ownership," unless you're proposing that all players equally own all nations, regions, and characters and should have equal control over them. By the very nature of the game, we each "own" a particular nation, and, yes, it is our nation. Disregarding that basic premise is going to cause some waves, and trying to handwave that "community" equals "I can do whatever I want, and you shouldn't complain" is going to cause some issues. It's community as in "a group of friends" not as in "communally owned". Quite frankly, war is a major part of the game, and it should be. It should not, however, be used as a blunt tool to force a player OOC to do things they don't want to do and are opposed to, particularly if there is little or no OOC attempt to communicate with them.

I'm not saying there should never be a conflict of interests. That's silly utopian BS at best. What I'm saying is that we should be a friendly community working towards a common goal of building the world, as that is the stated premise of this game. Yes, there will be conflicts of interest. Yes, there will be disagreements on how things should be done. That's expected and even good at times, as conflict drives stories. What should not happen is denying all communication to certain parties, particularly when fighting against them IC. A game like this thrives on communication and interpersonal interactions between players. It has much less to do with the actual mechanics of the game itself. If those OOC interactions break down, which they seem to be doing in certain areas (particularly where war is concerned), then it's only a matter of time before the IC game breaks down as well, no matter how well written the mechanical rules themselves are.

When that breaks down, it does degenerate into a fancy game of risk. By that, I mean that there are forced winners and losers. In a game of this nature and stated purpose, that should not happen. Yes, there will be winners and losers of individual events and circumstances IC, which should happen. However, there should not be winners and losers OOC. A community game should be first and foremost about the community, with the game coming second. The idea of winning and losing shouldn't even enter into the game OOC. The game should be a constant push forwards and upwards, growing and developing the world. Arbitrarily tearing things down without consent from the controlling player or at least discussion with that player is not only rude but the opposite of what a community game should be, as it creates fractures in that very community.

Edit: Reading over that again, not the most organized thoughts there, but I think it's clear what I'm trying to say.

[Jeriah]

Rizban's suggestion was more in the vein of, if someone doesn't want to be attacked, they won't be--or at least looked like it. What you are saying though, I agree on. A while back I brought up some ideas for how to make wars still viable without having them get blown up OOC, like discussing wars a round before they happen and "betting" stuff on it. Those ideas didn't receive much positive reply then, probably mainly because I thought it'd require more deliberation earlier on, like a round before it'd even happen.

I'm pretty sure that's not what was meant. It seemed to me that he meant there should be discussion about it before it happens or at least informing a player when it happens.

Edit: Swordsaged by Riz.

[Aedilred]

Round 22 is dead, long live Round 23!

[Jeriah]

A point on which we would be in agreement on, however trends of exploding on someone for any sort of war or flat out refusing to talk about a war when discussion is opened tends to make doing such seem a bit pointless.

Missed this post.
There has to be give and take on both sides. Just because you can stomp someone IC doesn't mean you should. If they react badly, ask them why and what you can do to make it more appealing. Find a compromise. If they're not willing to compromise, then come up with some other alternative. Don't just force your will on others.