| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Celebcalen 
Forum Warrior
Joined: 18 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 288
|
 Topic: War and Peace in Illyriad
Posted: 29 Oct 2011 at 12:41 |
|
Hi kurfist
I am unable to reply to your message as your IGM box is full
Celebcalen
|
 |
Celebcalen
Forum Warrior
Joined: 18 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 288
|
Posted: 28 Oct 2011 at 17:17 |
 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
|
|
Kumomoto
Postmaster General
Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2224
|
Posted: 28 Oct 2011 at 16:14 |
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. And no, I'm not just talking about this "IllyNATO". It applies to any small players or alliances building good relationships with other alliances. 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.
|
|
Kurfist
Postmaster
Joined: 14 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 824
|
Posted: 28 Oct 2011 at 13:54 |
SunStorm wrote:
Kurfist wrote:
Illyriad is NOT fictional! <.< |
(0.o) I recommend counseling... |
I was joking..
|
|
Patience is a virtue, resource giving is a sin
|
|
Southern Dwarf
Forum Warrior
Joined: 28 Sep 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 281
|
Posted: 28 Oct 2011 at 12:02 |
Rill wrote:
There's one problem with your reasoning. A peaceful player has no need for armies -- and thus no need for cities to support them.
Siege all my cities to the ground, and I will simply rebuild them. I LIKE building cities.
|
Invitation?  I see the problems with Illyriad war now because a VALAR player destroyed my illusion of a safe place by settling nearby. I was driven by the illusion to only have Alliance and Confed players around and then this city pops up. As much as I wish to wipe that out I know it would be the end of me. But it is a security breach for me especially since I don't trust that alliance anymore since the last war and even with its reform. Paranoia gets everyone I fear. And I would like undetectable spells which allow me to wipe that city out since magic is by far my favorable tool in Illy.
|
|
Thexion
Forum Warrior
Joined: 17 Apr 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 258
|
Posted: 28 Oct 2011 at 10:53 |
As I see it war is not something that player can ignore in illyriad. Game is not farmville and I don't think it should be. In my opinion war should be option for everyone also for the smaller players. But point is that even if you can't ignore war you don't have to be the aggressor if you don't wish to.
Also Id like to point out that if people quit because loosing a war and loosing part of cities its not sieging someone out. Sieging all of someones cities is and even then you can still continue if you really wish. As rill says. I don't doubt that big player with lot of diplomats could drive peaceful players out of game too with constant rampage and stopping him from building his cities.
As the same way diplomacy (not diplomatic units) and mostly diplomacy between alliances and real players, is also important in the game and cannot be ignored as many has noticed to their demise. And the game gives a good opportunity for people to discuss in the forums and in the chats.
Community of the game is important but people tend to over emphasis on it. Community is not something that has one mind and especially it does not have same opinion as I do or you do. It can only agree about some quite essential things like "new players should not be bullied out of the game".
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 28 Oct 2011 at 09:31 |
There's one problem with your reasoning. A peaceful player has no need for armies -- and thus no need for cities to support them.
Siege all my cities to the ground, and I will simply rebuild them. I LIKE building cities.
Edited by Rill - 28 Oct 2011 at 09:33
|
|
LordOfTheSwamp
Forum Warrior
Joined: 23 May 2011
Location: Swamp of Fyrgis
Status: Offline
Points: 481
|
Posted: 28 Oct 2011 at 09:22 |
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.
|
|
"A boy is building sandcastles on a beach. You go and kick down his castle. You could say that it only reflects how you play with sandcastles. Others may think it reflects who you are." - Ander.
|
|
LordOfTheSwamp
Forum Warrior
Joined: 23 May 2011
Location: Swamp of Fyrgis
Status: Offline
Points: 481
|
Posted: 28 Oct 2011 at 09:07 |
I'd like to make a distinction between the way the rules work, and the way the community works.
The rules absolutely favor wargamers. By wargamers, I mean people who play this as a war game - who favor military units, know how to use them, and want to use them. I do not necessarily mean aggressive or antisocial players. H? are wargamers - very impressive wargamers, as it happens.
The community is very different. This is not how the rules work, but how the dominant players choose to play within those rules. So, when people say "ah, but the evil bully cannot prosper, because of alliances / diplomacy / H? /whatever" that's what they mean. If a wargamer gets out of line, a bigger bunch of wargamers will stomp on him. That has nothing to do with the rules, and everything to do with how the big wargamers choose to exercise the power that the rules have given them. (This is also, in its detail, highly arguable. I personally think that the people who see "the community" / the lynch-mob in waiting / H? and it's hangers-on /whoever as "NATO" are either deluding themselves or just sucking up. But that's a topic for another post, no doubt.)
|
|
"A boy is building sandcastles on a beach. You go and kick down his castle. You could say that it only reflects how you play with sandcastles. Others may think it reflects who you are." - Ander.
|
|
SunStorm
Postmaster
Joined: 01 Apr 2011
Location: "Look Up"
Status: Offline
Points: 979
|
Posted: 28 Oct 2011 at 03:52 |
Kurfist wrote:
Illyriad is NOT fictional! <.< |
(0.o) I recommend counseling...
|
"Side? I am on nobody's side because nobody is on my side" ~LoTR
|
|
Tweet
War and Peace in Illyriad