War and Peace in Illyriad

SunStorm wrote: Kurfist wrote: Illyriad is NOT fictional! <.< (0.o) I recommend counseling...

I was joking..

Kumomoto wrote: LordOfTheSwamp wrote: Rill wrote: It might be an interesting challenge sir, to see whether a wargamer could drive a peaceful player out of Illy -- or whether a peaceful player could drive a wargamer out.  Not really. The wargamer can launch a siege. The peaceful player, who has small armies and hasn't bothered with the siege tech or units, either fails to defend against the siege and gets driven out, or defends himself and doesn't. I was chatting to one small player who expects to have a siege army ready by the time he hits population 3000 in his capital. That looks very doable to me (though a slightly inefficient build!) Meanwhile, if we take alliances like Free Trade Guild and Conclave at their words (and assume they aren't building wargame-style abilities), then what would they do if attacked by such a player? Say "ah, I shall be revenged! - see, I have placed orders on the Market!" or "mwahahahaha! now I shall retaliate by Spying you to death!"...? They have no recourse in the rules - only (they hope!) in the community. I disagree. I think that being a "Social" Player as opposed to a "Wargamer" is probably a much, much more powerful defense for all but the largest players in the game (and probably for them too). Building good relationships with other alliances is infinitely stronger than what one player could accomplish. Therefore, I think the "Social" players have the ultimate trump card (a number of friendly alliances) over the wargamer... And if you are a player who wants to focus on trade, or magic, or diplomacy and has no wish to really pursue the military side of the game, I think this is a very viable option to ensure your defense.

Is interesting Kumo that you use the term " Social" player whereas Rill actually poses the dilemma between a "peaceful player" and a wargamer. There is a distinct difference between the two. If you are saying that there no peaceful players in this game but there are wargamers and social networkers then I would agree with you.

Quite rightly you draw attention to the importance of the "Social" element as being a key to success in Illyriad highlighting the need to build good relationships with other alliances. This also applies to individual relations where the most successful players recognise that they must "social network" with individuals accross several alliances to be successful. Inevitably this involves politics of some kind according to the needs of any one element of the network at any one time.

I have said that social networkers are not necessarily "peaceful players" or peaceful alliances . At the top end of the ranking they will seek successs as much as a wargamering player or alliances and they will work to eliminate those that threaten or stand in their way. Whilst they may not have the armies or combat experience to attack a foe they will not think twice about utilising their social network to produce information and disinformation to ensure that they can engage, by proxy, those who do.

To paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt . Social players speak softly and know someone who carries a big stick.

In reality there are very few pacifists in the top echelons of Illy.

Kumomoto wrote: Btw. I don't understand the notion of this IllyNATO. The Coalition that formed against Valar was united in their interests against Valar. After they evaporated, the Coalition ended. It's possible that there could be overarching interests amongst the same alliances in the future, but, imo, getting that many groups together isn't easy and therefore is unlikely.

Quoted for truth

Edit: T Roosevelt phrase edited to avoid ambiguity

Edited by Celebcalen - 29 Oct 2011 at 09:15