Atlantic Roleplay Community Boards

Tarothin Armunn

Please read and then post on what you think would be a good way to do this if we agree to do this.

When it comes to war. There is a major factor involved in battle tactics that the game lacks do to the quick healing and ressing factor. And this is the position of troops on location and the possible tactics of offense and defense.

What I mean is. Because of gates or recalling. It is very easy for the game to allow an army to attack half way around the world and then teleport back to their land to defend if attacked by another army. What I am about to propose will most likely need a seperate forum if people wish to do it to add more realism to the spreading out of troops and the strategy involved in war. In this new forum will be accounts and records of how many troops were moved into what area and what troops were used in a battle. This doesnt apply to skirmishes only large planned battles with set RP outcomes.

Let me explain in an example.

Guild A has 23 troops, Guild B has 10, Guild C has 13 and Guild D has 31

Guild A who is ambitous for power decides to attack Guild B in an attempt to take over land or some other reason.

Guild A decides to send 15 troops over to attack. (thus recorded and leaving them with 8 to defend if any other guild decides to attack.)

Guild B is allied with Guild C because of their smaller numbers for more added protection. Guild C sends aid to Guild B of 10 troops leaving only 3 in their land to defend.

Guild A if they catch word of this move by Guild C through ops (can make theives very handy in gathering information for large battles) and so decide to send 5 of their 8 remaining troops to go around and attack Guild C's territory using the battle at Guild B's as more of a diversion.

Guild D, finding the others quite amusing and waiting their troops, decides to send 10 troops to Guild A's territory taking advantage of the troops away from defending it.

Since preparing for set and large battles takes resources and time to set up and organize. There can even be a day march to a territory within that one facet and a two day march to another facet. Taking time as a factor on moving troops and preparing battle scenes. For instance.

Guild A hears of Guild D sending 20 troops to attack his territory. And since guild D is located in Malas and Guild A is located in Tram. It will take Guild D 's troops two days to get to Guild A and battle.

Since Guild A's troops were sent to guild B which is in trammel, and guild C which is in Fel. A recal of troops to help defend Guild A's territory from Guild D will result in only the troops that was sent to attack Guild B from returning in time to defend the land. This could also help clear up and make more difficult for anyone to take over land. Because if their troops are used up whose to say that another guild wont use the advantage to attack. It will give more realism and concern when wanting to go to battle as well as add more strategy and tactics to the war aspect.

Or it can be at least like this. If a battle for something happened to be on the same day. Then the troops necessary to be used for either offense or defense need to be recorded and taken note of. For example.

Using the same guilds above. Guild A is allied to Guild C.

Guild A is being attacked by Guild D and need their allies Guild C, to help. Yet, Guild C is being attacked by Guild B and so not being able to defend and attack in the same day decides it cannot help their allies so as to defend their own territory and so Guild A does get defeated by Guild D while guild C manages to defeat and hold back guild B. Adds more what is more important type thing that will aslo add to more diplomacy between guilds and allies.

Just some thoughts.

The only problem I would see happening in this is that the small amount of troops at each guilds disposal will have much effect. Yet then again it would add more realism that a three person guild cannot continue to take over land. And it would add more depth to alliances and more urgency of them.

Bailos · Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2004 2:43 pm Post subject:

I like the theory of it, but here's what would happen:

Guild A attacks B & C.......then guild D acts like idiots and finds some way to magically wipe out C's and A's home bases or something a lot of fighting would occur. I soo dearly wish there was a real need and ability to have realistic tactics and things like that, but sadly.......yeah, doesnt work like that.

Not to mention you'd have like a total of 4 guilds agree to this

I LIKE IT........but I cant see it translating to practice, -ever-, regardless of changes

Horace Telver · Certifiable Joined: 31 Dec 2003 Posts: 1539

The warring system is not, absolutely is not the most pressing issue on our community these days.

It works, it is on a basis of per battle or per war, it aint broke, don't "fix" it.

Tarothin Armunn · Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2004 3:26 pm Post subject:

Not trying to fix it. Just try fix it, just opening up possible ideas to make things more interesting and rp related towards it.

Horace Telver · Certifiable Joined: 31 Dec 2003 Posts: 1539

I think more pressing issues revolve around land claims, people not wanting to defend them, people using outdated claims...

While I love the map kuja put together, I think we need a map like we had back on the old board. It was a little more detailed.

I also think we should try to limit the amount of land claimed by a guild by the amount of members they have...

About your war idea? It would be nice, but because of the limited amount of people in the community, the limited amount of time we all have, and the long history of our community for hating centralized rules? I think things are best left in this sort of One by One basis.

Tyrael N'Veaire · Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2004 12:33 am Post subject:

I like the idea of actually using tactics in battle. Last fight I saw was O|S, =L=, AOF versus OES with Orc. =L= had a scout relaying the enemy positions, but O|S ignored that and charged in headlong only to get slaughtered like cows in a meat processing plant, dragging with them =L= and AOF who also got pointlessly slaughtered. So yeah, tactics would be nicer than just running in and swinging your sword at everything that moves. It'd make things a little less boring, and the underdog could actually win some.
_________________
Tyrael N'Veaire
Czar of Nujel'm under the Feluccian moon
Boss of the Black Dragon Corps

Tay Thormear · Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2004 6:06 am Post subject:

This is mainly in reply to Horace.

I think more pressing issues revolve around land claims, people not wanting to defend them, people using outdated claims...

If people own land such as a town or what not and they do not wish to protect it, than let it be stolen from them. I don't think that a guild should have any limit on the amount of towns they can be in control of. If a guild has 10 people and they hold three towns, they must be pretty damn good to take three towns. Let that guild hold them until someone else is good enough to take it from them.

Most battles of late are simply running in and killing, standing around talking than attacking. Mix it up a little with gorilla war tactics or even some kind of tactics..ANYTHING! I don't mind killing people, but standing around killing people gets boring. I think anything to do with tactics is a good idea.

As for the community not liking to follow rules...Who has ever liked following rules? Some things just have to be lived with

Evinyatar · Seasoned Veteran Joined: 02 Jan 2004 Posts: 358

Just a practical comment..I may have read it wrong but here it is:

Back when I still controlled a guild it was difficult enough to know who'd be online within 2 hours let alone 2 days in advance.... you might 'send' 20 warriors into battle and leave 5 at home and then at the eve of battle realise only 3 of the 20 showed up, yet the 5 people who are 'guarding' showed up and get to do nothing while their comrades ride to a sure death

It's a good idea in theory but I think it has some flaws in a fluid multiplayer game...

Regarding land ownership I always prefer the idea of Ingame presence. The guild that can create an ingame presence at a location for the longest duration wins. If you get defeated in battle once or twice call it a raid or anything like that like it really is. It avoids 'roaming' armies grabbing land they're not creating an in-game presence for. And I'm not talking about some set rule like 'occupie at least 4 screens with at least 2-3 players for X amount of time' and rubbish like that....Any man with commun sence will be able to determin what is defined as 'persistent ingame presence'... if not too many loopholes

Arlin · Slightly Crazed Joined: 14 Apr 2004 Posts: 1464

Thats what Im doing with Yew. Im making use of ingame structures like guard outposts and the Abbey to post guards.

Ive got to say, its not the most fun thing in the world, but it gives my troosp time to bond with each other. It also lets them interact with other charachters on thier own, without me holding thier hand. So far they havent mutinied against me yet.

Its also a great way to drag in new roleplayers. Ive had, to date, 7 roleplayers recruited into my army, just by having a prescense in Yew. Besides, it gives my guys a REASON to want to go to Poets to relax.
_________________
As the fire fades to night, remember always the ember that started it all.

Lag'Dug · Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2004 9:00 am Post subject:

Grudok (Det'Bwingur[KN]) and myself came up with this:

Grudok
Wargh
Posts: 1483
(8/13/04 2:51 pm)
Re: Re: Why not make good items restricted by rank? Since combat is fairly item-based... And its always the leaders with the artifacts and stuff. I mean... it makes sense to me... but really, they'd be cool about whatever happens, I got faith in em. If the won somehow... they might make a way for us to take it back? I dunno. They seem to have really good intentions, and to be able to take part in a huge RP battle/event thing that's well-known... man, just try and hold it off till AFTER I manage to find a way to get some sort of Broadband connection, and re-format and get this thing running real fast...:evil

LagDug
Wargh
Posts: 514
(8/13/04 3:34 pm)
Yeah! I like that idea (kind of like the human chess thing!)
Designating people for particular positions, they get certain items. Or we could just leave it for their general rank. (it'd just be easier to standardize if we did the war-rank thing)

---

Just an idea, originally meant for the Yew War thing.
_________________
Aus

Lag'Dug
Stormreaver Orc Clan
Runt Basher

Guw git wuuliez!

Teh Glouris Lrod Kujabis · Transcendent Spammer Joined: 29 Dec 2003 Posts: 5740

Thats an awesome way to say 'im a high rank and want to keep my twink armor'.

Nobody will regulate exactly how it should be.

Just stop whining and go Gm armor like the majority of the warring community.

Tarothin Armunn · Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2004 4:08 pm Post subject:

Lilyth Noir · Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2004 4:30 pm Post subject:

So it is official GM armor only?

or still a case by case basis
_________________
"Always forgive your enemies. Nothing annoys them so much."
- Oscar Wilde
"You are the true Yewbie, Yew the town of Justice"-Kuja

Tarothin Armunn · Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2004 4:48 pm Post subject:

It's only case by case.

Arcana · Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2004 5:14 pm Post subject:

I'll repeat what I said on summit; I really like the idea of using only stationary moongates and roads to move troops. Nice RP potential.