War declaration
Printed From: Illyriad
Category: Miscellaneous
Forum Name: Suggestions & Game Enhancements
Forum Description: Got a great idea? A feature you'd like to see? Share it here!
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=642
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 12:56
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: War declaration
Posted By: Thexion
Subject: War declaration
Date 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?
|
Replies:
Posted By: Duke Felirae
Date 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 |
Posted By: Thexion
Date 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. |
Posted By: CranK
Date 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! :) |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date 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. |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date 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. |
Posted By: Duke Felirae
Date 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 |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date 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. |
Posted By: CranK
Date Posted: 11 Jun 2010 at 23:05
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 wrote:Posted By: HonoredMule
Date 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. |
Posted By: Wuzzel
Date Posted: 12 Jun 2010 at 02:13
|
Mmm. To be honest the war began before military units (big armies) were bashing eachother HM. It began when both parties were sending diplomatic attacks to eachother. And H? began a magic offensive against White. We were watching the Magic ranking and few members of H? were getting higher and higher and our private forums were filled with Magic "attacks". It seems like your post are saying it all started suddenly, White attacking H? Just stating the facts here.
You are putting too much of your personal feelings about the war in this thread. This already caused a derailing of the thread a bit too much. I am not saying that some things you are saying isnt true. But you are giving your feelings too much of a go in this thread. ------------- 
|
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 12 Jun 2010 at 03:08
|
I'm pretty sure I'm entitled to say whatever I like, aside from false accusations against real people as covered by libel legislation, hate speech, the rules of this forum, etc. I can and will speak frankly and personally, and the readers may take that as they will. If you really want to get into this, you're welcome to start another thread. It's quite possible even you are not privy to some of the incidents that indeed set war in motion long before the first major military clash. But my solitary side remark was a trifling matter even if a little careless. I did not spark this derailing, nor would I have classified it as one before you decided you must have the last word in here. |
Posted By: Wuzzel
Date Posted: 12 Jun 2010 at 03:36
|
Did i say you are not allowed to voice your opinion? I didnt and i dont know where you get that from. I am saying you are making this thread into a White vs H thread. You may give an example offcourse, but you are going way to deep with your posts. Maybe you should make a own thread about what you posted in this thread. -------------
|
Posted By: Thexion
Date Posted: 12 Jun 2010 at 18:29
|
Well I did not mean this to be another conflict zones for white and H?. Well another point is that in my experience in other games. Quite often bigger alliances are attacking smaller alliances. In cover of neutrality sometimes partly not fully engaging. Also smaller alliances are not keen to declare war. As it is then seen as the aggressor and also don't wan't to escalate the situation. It would be much clearer and fairer for individual players when the war would be started automatically and your village could not been destroyed during night with out no one even noticing. The sieging is not so fast in this game but anyway. Well they have promised more data and graphs.. that fixes some of the problem. but I rather have it less mechanics based and more in the game world related. Maybe its taste question..
|
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 12 Jun 2010 at 19:21
| Perhaps it is a matter of taste. I prefer to see as much as possible left to human attention to detail, allowing a more fluid nuance of viewpoints which doesn't authoritatively pigeonhole situations into discrete states. |
Posted By: Duke Felirae
Date Posted: 12 Jun 2010 at 22:29
------------- His Grace the Duke of Felirae |
Posted By: Mandarins31
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2010 at 12:09
| Is there not already a way to make a war official? for exemple if you look the White alliance page u can see they have a war with Ni in their relationships part. |
Posted By: Duke Felirae
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2010 at 12:40
|
Yes there is. What were saying is that not everyone for various reasons presses the war button and therefor officially "declares" war, thus it is hard to keep up with who is at war with who because even though people are acting in a way is 100% like war, it has not been declared. For instance in the current [H?] vs war, the war hasn't been officially declared. As far as I can see this is mostly for publicity reasons. [H?] is, or at least says it is (I'm not giving my own opinion on the matter), a friendly alliance dedicated to helping younger rulers (players) develop their civilizations and prosper - it looks bad if this friendly, harmless (pun intended, even though it was a bad one) alliance is declaring war, so they don't. is, or at least says it is (again no personal opinion of mine here), or seems to be, a 'neutral' alliance that only acts to defend it's members and when it is payed to, also if you believe some propaganda and rumours being spread they want to make [H?] look evil - so if their declaring war instead of the evil oppressive alliance it makes them look power hungry and ruins their neutral mercenary-only image. ------------- His Grace the Duke of Felirae |
Posted By: Wuzzel
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2010 at 14:10
|
A few months ago, when you were in an alliance, you couldnt attack other people who were in another alliance. First you had to declare war at the target alliance and wait 24hours before any hostilites (military) could happen between the 2 warring alliances. See: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/alliance-changes-heads-up_topic141_post1279.html - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/alliance-changes-heads-up_topic141_post1279.html -------------
|
Posted By: Mandarins31
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2010 at 15:40
|
Ok i understand better now. For me too it's a good thing if alliances can make a war official or not. I think it should'nt change because, as we can see in this topic, it's good for the roleplay. |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2010 at 16:25
I agree. We will, however, be introducing some benefits to actually declaring war rather than having a war-like conflict in place. These benefits will be mostly display-related; for example when we have the overall higher-level zoom strategic map, hostile towns and units from alliances that you are specifically "at war" with will be colour-coded and highlighted. As we introduce more functionality there may be specific things that only apply if there's a declared state of war; but they're unlikely to be 'game-changers', simply because this mitigates against the independent non-allied player. Interesting thread, though. tyvm |
Posted By: Thexion
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2010 at 15:41
|
That sounds good.. I was just wishing that if there is war it should be possible to notice and there would be difference between war and neutrality. One could be possibility to do other player reinforced sieges only in war stage. ( Since its group effort it would need group being in wartime logistic ) Problem would be then that you cannot do reinforced sieges on neutral players. But It would not be unfair to unaligned players since you cannot reinforce neutral players anyway and no one can reinforce their possible sieges neither. In fact current rules are bit unfair against neutral players. No chance of asking your neutral neighbors to help, and can be sieged by huge combined armies.
|
Posted By: Mandarins31
Date Posted: 15 Jun 2010 at 03:52
|
I agree with this point Thexion. Maybe admins have many ideas about this already, but i'll put some of mines hopping it would be interesting, in accordance with the topic, and not too long  ----------------- *Friendly option player/player*: - a neutral player can be friendly with an other neutral player. Then he can reinforce him or be reinforced by him at any time (includes city and siege reinforcement). - a neutral player can be friendly with a player who has an alliance. They can reinforce each other if one of them is attacked by a neutral player. To do a reinforcement (defence, siege) that affects a player whose alliance is in war with the friend's alliance , the neutral player must be friendly with. ----------------- *Friendly option player/alliance*: - a neutral player can be friendly with an alliance (only during an official war). Then, he is knwon as friendly with every members. He can reinforce them and be reinforced by them. ----------------- To clarify: A= neutral player B= player in alliance B C= player in alliance C D= player in alliance D alliance B and C are at war alliance D has no NAP or official war with allaince B or C. *A is friendly with B but not friendly with alliance B* - A is attacked by C. B cant reinforce A. - B is attacked by C. A cant reinforce B. - alliance B has a siege against C. A cant reinforce this siege - B is attacked by D. A can send reinforcement. - A sieges D. B can send reinforcement. - A can be attacked by the other alliance B members. *A is friendly with allaince B* - alliance B has a siege against C. A can send reinforcement to this siege. - alliance B has a NAP with alliance X. X members can't attack A. - A dont pay alliance's tax. and cant go on alliance's forum. *A is friendly with allaince B and C* - alliance B sieges alliance C. A can choose his side. *A is friendly with B and D* - A cant attack B or D. - B can attack D - B and D cant attack A *A is friendly with allaince B and alliance D* - B can attack D - alliance B's members and alliance D's members can't attack A. a friendly situation can be broke at any time by one of the two players in player/player. By the alliance's master or the player in player/alliance. A bit long finally. My idea was that neutral players cant go in a war without being friendly with at least one side. they also could be used as independant mercenaries. they can be friendly with some alliances during a war. but come back neutral after. players who dont have any alliance members around them can ask a neutral player to be friendly and give some reinforcement. |