| Author |
Topic Search
Topic Options
|
Thexion
Forum Warrior
Joined: 17 Apr 2010 Status: Offline Points: 258 |
Topic: War declaration Posted: 11 Jun 2010 at 11:00 |
It is hard to follow who is war with whom now and anything can practically be done under cloak of neutrality. So I'm suggesting that war between alliances should begin immediately after some actions. Like Siege for example or maybe full attack on Allied city. What do you think?
|
 |
Duke Felirae
Greenhorn
Joined: 08 May 2010 Status: Offline Points: 76 |
Posted: 11 Jun 2010 at 11:18 |
|
Every alliance has it's own methods for determining these things. But if you look at the diplomatic relations on each alliances summary you should be able to see who's waring with who. Of course like you said a lot of the initial parts of war are done under relations which are officially 'neutral,' so apart from asking there's some things the general population will never know.
|
|
His Grace the Duke of Felirae
|
 |
Thexion
Forum Warrior
Joined: 17 Apr 2010 Status: Offline Points: 258 |
Posted: 11 Jun 2010 at 12:12 |
|
Well most people know that H? and white are in war. Even tough there is no declaration.... and that is quite wrong when largest alliances are in war but there is no war stance. So for world to feel real there should be way of knowing these things otherwise part of the point of alliance is lost. Also this is important when people are joining alliances or making confederations. When some players city is sieged for capturing or razing is clear sign of war.
Edited by Thexion - 11 Jun 2010 at 13:51
|
 |
CranK
Forum Warrior
Joined: 27 Apr 2010 Location: Holland Status: Offline Points: 286 |
Posted: 11 Jun 2010 at 17:12 |
|
When we recruit members (in black) we let every1 know about the rules and the situation. So no1 will join our allaince without knowing we are at war.
I think most alliances do this before they recruit new members, and if they don't.. they should! :)
|
 |
HonoredMule
Postmaster General
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 1650 |
Posted: 11 Jun 2010 at 22:22 |
It is entirely reasonable and realistic for there to be secret/unofficial wars. In the case of White vs. Harmless, that war began before White existed. It all began with Danger declaring a frivolous war on Harmless while White's core players were bunkered there. When leaders in Harmless and Danger attempted to do the whole "official stance" thing, declaring our intentions and bawling each other out to the court of public opinion, the now leader of White very flippantly and transparently derailed all conversation by spamming misdirection and gibberish.
Then White formed and in short order began a loosely concerted effort against Harmless and in particular our smallest/newest players or otherwise low-hanging fruit (still long before military gameplay was developed to the point of useful purpose or even financial advantage over economic focus), White never bothered to actually declare war. Given their leadership's past lack of respect for public process, and also that these forums were at the time stuffed mostly with White members, it hardly seemed worth Harmless' effort to respond differently.
We also told our potential recruits exactly what they were getting into (it would be indeed very shameful to do otherwise), and ultimately those among us who felt particularly passionate about cultivating server growth and helping newbies split off to form Toothless. The one thing White has, to its credit, done honorably is leave Toothless alone. (The peace hasn't been perfect, though, has it CranK?
 )
----
It is worth noting that lack of war declaration can work to both participants' detriments as well. For example, an organized alliance like Harmless might very well have accepted methods for alliances or individuals to sue for peace or otherwise ending a conflict, but an unofficial conflict is not entitled to official exit strategies. In the case of a decisive ending, lack of public process can make it very unclear which players running from the wreckage are considered war criminals, why, and how far they will be pursued. This can lead the victor into future conflicts with alliances that unwittingly harbor said cowards, or without full knowledge of the circumstances perceive the victor as a bully exacting too great a punishment.
Furthermore, the losing players themselves may not know how condemned they are--whether they are "fully" guilty just by association with their warring alliance, how carefully their personal contributions to war are tracked by the enemy, or how serious the enemy will be about following through with post-war punishment. Lack of such knowledge can pressure players into unwilling participation or continued involvement, leading to otherwise unnecessary consequences and also prolonging the war for the eventual victors when individual losers don't know whether they can escape either the wrath of the enemy alliance or that of their own alliance when they depart.
|
 |
HonoredMule
Postmaster General
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 1650 |
Posted: 11 Jun 2010 at 22:31 |
|
Focusing a little more directly on the topic: I described above how undeclared war is potentially legitimate, and how it can also be a drawback to those who fail to make declaration. I think you will find therefore that alliances will usually make a declaration of war, along with a public announcement of offense and justification (usually "they attacked us first"). As for following alliance relationships, this is indeed a place with room for improvement, but not so much in what information is available as how usefully it is presented. That makes this a problem well-suited to 3rd-party solutions. Hopefully alliance relationships will eventually be available for export like the town data...then you'll eventually start seeing relationship networks, venn diagrams of alliance affiliation, and the like. Before you know it, data miners will be predicting and pointing out the next Archduke Ferdinand.
|
 |
Duke Felirae
Greenhorn
Joined: 08 May 2010 Status: Offline Points: 76 |
Posted: 11 Jun 2010 at 22:36 |
|
Well spoken HonoredMule - personally I think someone in the White Company or Harmless? should make it official - seeing as there's been massive sieges and everything, it really isn't very neutral.
|
|
His Grace the Duke of Felirae
|
 |
HonoredMule
Postmaster General
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 1650 |
Posted: 11 Jun 2010 at 23:03 |
We do need to make a public announcement and share more details...we've just been so busy AFK lately.
 (Personally, I'm scrambling to put some more polish on my game wiki to prepare it for more organized growth and will be making a public announcement of it very soon.)
We thought to make a "triumphant" press release handling all this when we destroyed Diablito's capital, but then when we had accomplished that, we felt it wasn't that meaningful an accomplishment nor did it really bring us much closer to the time for discussing how it's all supposed to end. I will say this for now: White/Black's members have been quite vocal in support of their leadership and how they've "enjoyed" picking on our newbies. This stands in stark contrast to many wars we've faced in other games where members often have no clue what's going on or why they're in a war in the first place. Because of this it's unlikely we'll consider letting (m)any of their members leave without suffering some meaningful consequences. And there are at least a half a dozen players we intend to set back substantially lest they find opportunity to harass us again.
|
 |
CranK
Forum Warrior
Joined: 27 Apr 2010 Location: Holland Status: Offline Points: 286 |
Posted: 11 Jun 2010 at 23:05 |
HonoredMule wrote:
and ultimately those among us who felt particularly passionate about cultivating server growth and helping newbies split off to form Toothless. The one thing White has, to its credit, done honorably is leave Toothless alone. (The peace hasn't been perfect, though, has it CranK? )
|
What do you mean with that? peace hasn't been perfect? I know what you are saying,, but is this meant to personally attack me on forum, or did I just misread your intentions on this....
|
 |
HonoredMule
Postmaster General
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 1650 |
Posted: 12 Jun 2010 at 00:42 |
|
It is meant as a
small jab at you, as the leader of Black and therefore accountable for its members' actions, as well as the overall attitude Black took toward Toothless prior to counsel from White's acting leadership. My unfocused intent was only to indicate in passing that while I am a 3rd party in that matter, I do take a personal interest and am aware of the proceedings. For a while it appeared things were headed in a very different direction, and then I or another would be making direct accusations rather than innocuous little jabs, and pushing for re-prioritization of military targets.
I don't want to derail the topic over a stray remark though. For the sake of Black's reputation, I will say it isn't a matter deserving of public scrutiny as it currently stands and with luck everyone will be happy to leave it at that.
I still have yet to decide how I personally feel about many of the participants in this war, let alone what public influence I should exert against them. So if my public prodding feels deceptive or manipulative, I apologize. My past experience with opponents in war has primarily involved raving mouth-breathers more comparable to deductively-challenged conspiracy theorists than anyone deserving of professional courtesy...this is not a line I've previously needed to identify, and that sentence was not used with great care.
|
 |