War

We will file suggestions here that did not make the cut. Don't expect detailed responses, but the most common reasons are:
- implementing the suggestion is impractical, or too much work for the gain
- the suggestion is thematically against our design philosophy
- the suggestion is too detailed/low-level
Keep your suggestions broad and focused on RP benefits, please, not detailed suggestions of how to tweak X class.

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Contributors, Suggestion Moderators

Locked
monkeywithstick
Arelith Silver Supporter
Arelith Silver Supporter
Posts: 264
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 8:54 am
Location: UK

War

Post by monkeywithstick » Mon Nov 05, 2018 10:52 am

I was unsure if this belonged in suggestions or feedback so I have placed here, I am totally happy for this to be moved if it would be more appropriate in feedback or for a discussion thread to be started if someone feels the need...

I have been thinking on the current lack of an active war system on Arelith and I had an idea. It flows thusly:

Settlement A declares war on Settlement B
All citizens of both settlements now have a limited MoD with respect to members of the hostile settlement. A citizen PC killed 5 times by a citizen of the opposing settlement is perma dead. If the war ends (more on this later) that token is removed and reset in the event of another war. If the citizen ceases to be a citizen of said settlement, the token is removed.

I would hazard a hiatus on acquiring citizenship during wartime might be needed also, certainly directly swapping from Settlement A to Settlement B would need to be avoided. Likewise whilst I support the right of the districts of Andunor to war with each other, I think this would not really be viable as a means for underdark vs surface, that should I feel be a more or less constant state of affairs (Sencliffe is also tricky, not sure how I would address that).

I also expect that practically speaking limiting a settlement being in one war at once might well be the only way to make this work (multiple different war related MoDs sounds like a breeding ground for bugs if nothing else).

War ends when one of the settlements wishes to “surrender”. This can be done by settlement officials with the appropriate role. Potentially, this skips out on roleplayed peace conferences and the like however it prevents any settlement being locked in a forever-war, which negotiations could feasibly cause to drag on (especially if people were being IC unreasonable - this is in theory fine and good roleplay but more tedious and unfun OOC than I feel is worth it). It is possible that a white peace could be agreed with no consequences to either faction, but I feel the “escape button” of surrender should always be there. (EDIT: Likewise if the settlement leader permadies or abdicates I think that should also end the war).

The consequences of surrender could be varied, perhaps they could be guided by a broad “casus belli” selected by the one declaring the war, perhaps simply selected by the surrendering settlement. Perhaps the choices available and/or the severity could be related to how badly the war has been going (if such a metric could be drawn from the game engine). There should also be prevention of re-declaring within a timescale to prevent chaining wars together.
These consequences could include vassalisation, a tribute % of taxes raised for an amount of time, a lump sum from the coffers, enforced trade with the victor via lowered buy/sell rates from the warehouse, bulk transfer of goods from the warehouse.

Practically speaking this system would achieve a few things:
As a war drags on, citizens will start to leave or start to die (that is honestly almost entirely a player choice. If someone manages to get dead to the same faction five times in short succession without it being a breach of the be nice rule or the 24hrs rule I will be surprised, and I would hope blatant griefing could be reversed.
(There is possibly some room for discussion of assassin’s and the role played within this also: I don’t think a repeating contract of multiple kills in 24hrs would be very fulfilling in this system...).

There is a lot of potential for RP in this, leaving the faction is IC cowardice, fear of death, something I have heard the lack of lamented a lot. (Albeit at present limited to someone confessing as such, because we cannot iirc check settlement citizenship). Probably they should lose voting rights for the same period as when swapping settlements.
Citizens will almost certainly as a group grow less supportive of the war as it drags on and grows riskier for them. Settlement leaders will be pressured to compromise rather than push for overwhelming victory at all costs or continue stony faced and uncompromising against all threats.

If both settlement leaders are hellbent on a long, grindy war, then they can expect their settlements to empty out of willing pawns unless they are winning very convincingly.

It could of course use a bit more visibility on who is a citizen. And possibly also some more benefits for citizenship to counterweight the admittedly minor risk of death.
Characters: Izzy, short for Isabel. Shaena Ash.

User avatar
Irongron
Server Owner/Creative Lead
Server Owner/Creative Lead
Posts: 4666
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 7:13 pm

Re: War

Post by Irongron » Thu Dec 06, 2018 10:34 am

This suggestion contains the dreaded word 'perma-death' and will reject it. I've given my feelings on war mechanics on a previous rejection, and it has spawned a discussion. By all means take these ideas/concerns there.

viewtopic.php?f=37&t=22160

Rejected.

Locked