Author Topic: Rathgar clan battle tradition for dominance.  (Read 9244 times)

PanH

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 251
  • Karma: +5/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Rathgar clan battle tradition for dominance.
« Reply #30 on: April 02, 2014, 10:17:43 PM »
Nice to see I've started a tradition  :P

Anyway, something along the lines of :
Let each side bring what it is worth to them. That will rarely be everything, but it'll make for more interesting battles.
and this
To keep the 'legal' part simple I did suggest not to define 'x number of warriors' but  '2 estates against 2 estates', '1 clan against 1 clan', '1 noble against 1 noble'....basically create a temporary playing field where others are forbidden to enter.
and this
I say I can beat you with x troops and you say you can win with y troops. Honor dictates these numbers be close to each other or less. This way every conflict is different.
sounds about good. There shouldn't be too much legalese, so something built along the lines of honor and stuff, and if you feel wronged or tricked by your enemy, then would be a good time to bring it to the Thing or you clans.

Mookzen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 780
  • Karma: +17/-3
    • View Profile
Re: Rathgar clan battle tradition for dominance.
« Reply #31 on: April 02, 2014, 10:18:11 PM »
I've always been a fan of the Battletech Clans method of bidding. I say I can beat you with x troops and you say you can win with y troops. Honor dictates these numbers be close to each other or less. This way every conflict is different.


That sounds like something that seems clever at first sight when read in a book or a story but falls apart completely when used in a 'real', unbalanced environment unless there is strong incentive/custom to stick to the low side of the scale. What if I say I can beat you with a troop of 600 ? What is your answer ? Should I still go for the raid ? Is the escalation going to rip the realm to shreds thus defeating the purpose ?
« Last Edit: April 02, 2014, 10:21:41 PM by Mookzen »

Stonedman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 679
  • Karma: +19/-65
    • View Profile
Re: Rathgar clan battle tradition for dominance.
« Reply #32 on: April 02, 2014, 10:58:07 PM »
whatever we do and agree on, it's down to the players of Rathgar what we decide best fits our culture and game play.


Can we take this in-game? i'm rather tired of outsiders (non rathgar clans/players) trying to mould our customs into what benefits them the most. i.e kills the most rathgar troops just cos they want to see us weakened.

Cynic

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
  • Karma: +16/-8
    • View Profile
Re: Rathgar clan battle tradition for dominance.
« Reply #33 on: April 02, 2014, 11:12:58 PM »
whatever we do and agree on, it's down to the players of Rathgar what we decide best fits our culture and game play.

Can we take this in-game? i'm rather tired of outsiders (non rathgar clans/players) trying to mould our customs into what benefits them the most. i.e kills the most rathgar troops just cos they want to see us weakened.


Baseless and untrue.

Tom

  • Head Developer
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6320
  • Karma: +102/-15
    • View Profile
    • Might & Fealty
Re: Rathgar clan battle tradition for dominance.
« Reply #34 on: April 02, 2014, 11:16:43 PM »
If everyone just brings what they can

I didn't say "what they can", but "what it's worth to them".

That's a huge difference. If the dispute is small, you'll bring a few troops. Because you can't bring your whole army all the time to every little thing.

cenrae

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 563
  • Karma: +5/-1
    • View Profile
Re: Rathgar clan battle tradition for dominance.
« Reply #35 on: April 02, 2014, 11:38:43 PM »
To be effective yes honor and likely penalty of nithing would need to be tied together.
Clan Skies | House Kye on BM

Zakath

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 241
  • Karma: +3/-2
    • View Profile
Re: Rathgar clan battle tradition for dominance.
« Reply #36 on: April 02, 2014, 11:50:00 PM »
Use the Order and use the Thing to keep things small scale.


If someone keeps raiding with 50 heavy infantry against small settlements with 20 light infantry as militia call them out. Call them honourless scum, demand the Order step in, demand a Thing be called, or demand their clan leader reins them in. We have the Nithing to stop people considered honourless lawbreakers, and we have the Order to mediate in conflicts and speak the laws.


Inside of Rathgar we don't even have to take settlements, we can go for a middle ground. If someone pounds your village militia flat they can offer that you pay some sort of tribute for a few weeks. Have the Order witness it, if they break it off early call them out as honourless scum whose word is worth less than the wind.


I promise, I won't be too corrupt and demand _all_ your provinces to view laws and agreements favourably for you :)

Mookzen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 780
  • Karma: +17/-3
    • View Profile
Re: Rathgar clan battle tradition for dominance.
« Reply #37 on: April 03, 2014, 12:04:48 AM »
I didn't say "what they can", but "what it's worth to them".

That's a huge difference. If the dispute is small, you'll bring a few troops. Because you can't bring your whole army all the time to every little thing.


Yet the problem stands, there are hardly any little things. The 'all or nothing' mindset is hindering the idea of inter-realm raiding, if there was a lot of little disputes going on then yes it would be so and the situation would balance itself, but the reality is very binary, of there being a time of peace and a time of war with little in between. My hope with all this semi-artificial stuff is to get the ball rolling, but who are going to be the first ones to raid an ally and risk getting wiped, these are untested waters. On the other hand giving some assurances and incentives can lead to the constant strife many crave, lowering the barrier to beneficial conflict.


For example, If I bring few troops (assuming I don't use a fuller extent of the idle forces I have) to the raid, then my neighbor, who doesn't have anything going on war-wise, will bring a much larger force to defend and will probably move to my lands for a 'little raid' with that same force jumping at an opportunity to conquer a settlement with righteous gusto right in front of, and with the silent consent of, everyone, and in 2 simple steps what I intended to be a honor-raid escalated into either war or me losing a settlement simply because my neighbor didn't have anything else going on and this 'small' thing could be considered a 'big' thing because it was the only thing.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2014, 12:10:19 AM by Mookzen »

Tom

  • Head Developer
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6320
  • Karma: +102/-15
    • View Profile
    • Might & Fealty
Re: Rathgar clan battle tradition for dominance.
« Reply #38 on: April 03, 2014, 12:19:49 AM »
To be effective yes honor and likely penalty of nithing would need to be tied together.

If you use that banishment for every tiny transgression, it's a worthless penalty. It has to be rare, for the most dire crimes only, if you want it to mean something.

Which means there's plenty of lesser crimes one can commit.

Tom

  • Head Developer
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6320
  • Karma: +102/-15
    • View Profile
    • Might & Fealty
Re: Rathgar clan battle tradition for dominance.
« Reply #39 on: April 03, 2014, 12:20:51 AM »
Yet the problem stands, there are hardly any little things. The 'all or nothing' mindset is hindering the idea of inter-realm raiding,

It is hindering everything. It's a game-destroying bullshit mindest. How can we kill it and bury it deep?

Cynic

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
  • Karma: +16/-8
    • View Profile
Re: Rathgar clan battle tradition for dominance.
« Reply #40 on: April 03, 2014, 01:08:44 AM »
Now that Erstes Imperium is free to pursue its own internal politics, I suspect it is also going to need a healthy dose of something similar to what Rathgar are going through. So the below applies to Erstes too.

Anyway, to state the obvious it needs to die through mechanics or through culture.

Mechanics would need to give people reasons to do bits and reasons to not take it too far. A loot-type action might help, as it can be done quickly and then moved on from before a huge battle necessarily happens. An anonymity thing might help with plausible deniability, either by restricting information about looting when no first one is present to witness it or by an active hiding of heraldry to obscure it when a first one is present (I'm not too keen on the second one to be honest). Spread doubt, and ease the path to doing less serious actions.

Culture would require that a large enough majority of players adapt their role-play to suit - by not caring when someone complains about being attacked, by caring a bit when a skirmish becomes a drawn out war, and caring a lot when it looks like someone is getting too powerful. By not caring when people more than a few villages away do stuff (none of your business) and by distrusting everybody and working against them, by role-playing self-interest and actively finding ways to pursue that self-interest. Doesn't need to go over the top and doesn't need to apply to every character, just enough to set a precedent that you deal with your own problems and there is shame in interfering and shame in asking for help (but not enough shame to prevent interference when the stakes rise).

Culture would be ideal in my eyes (and needs less coding), but it requires that people are signed up, in agreement, and willing to do it. If enough players aren't persuaded then it will just die a pathetic wasting death, like my attempt to do something similar for Erstes last month.

Mookzen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 780
  • Karma: +17/-3
    • View Profile
Re: Rathgar clan battle tradition for dominance.
« Reply #41 on: April 03, 2014, 02:16:53 AM »
The division of Rathgar, essentially, into 2 powerful protectorates severely hamstrings the potential for infighting. It's actually the main issue I think, perhaps in practice it may not be so but the perception it projects is enough to screw with everyone considering lifting a finger against their neighbor either for fear that they are of the same coalition or for fear that they belong to a coalition that makes raiding one clan seem like raiding 10. I intentionally avoided joining any of the sides for now to serve as a counterweight in a crisis situation, but seems as though we have an excess of stability at the moment.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2014, 02:22:34 AM by Mookzen »

Stonedman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 679
  • Karma: +19/-65
    • View Profile
Re: Rathgar clan battle tradition for dominance.
« Reply #42 on: April 03, 2014, 11:01:52 AM »
 
Personally I don’t care much about powerful clans within the same realm as me. It’s good, it makes my own realm stronger.
I care about powerful realms who could threaten mine. Outsiders are my enemy, not the members of my own realm.
If it gets to the point where my own realm becomes my enemy, then the logical course is to split away from that realm.
That’s not going to change just because some people say it should.
Will I raid settlements, probably, as I do need more land for my goals in this game.
Will I help a friend in need (if asked to do so, within whatever culture the players of Rathgar decide, if you are outside Rathgar, go make your own culture, worry about your own internal affairs)

Would I like to see some limited internal raiding, yes, could be fun. But LIMITED and RESTRICTED is what I want to see. Not what Tom or others want where we run around kicking seven bells out of eachother generally making the realm weak and chaotic. Like the proposed type which was mentioned earlier in this thread. We should not change our proposed culture to suite anyone apart from the active members of Rathgar, we should be free to decide our own ways.
If TA and NS decide to actively oppose eachother and fight for dominance, that’s our business, and we should be free to do it how we please.
If we decide not to actively oppose eachother and not to fight, equally that’s our prerogative.

I would agree that the division of Rathgar into two main sub realms has made raiding difficult, but at the same time, it has created some rivalry and some suspicion. NS obviously has the more fertile lands, bigger settlements, more troops, more lands than everyone else. TA is on the boarders of the wastelands and mountains, less fertile lands, smaller settlements, less of them.

Lets face it, we don’t know what the future holds for any realm in this game.

Whose to say NS won’t just completely split from the rest of Rathgar and go fully independent because they role play that they think we are too civilised in the west or something /shrug.
 
That's the beauty of this game, we are free to choose whatever destiny we want for ourselves.
 
Stoned

Tom

  • Head Developer
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6320
  • Karma: +102/-15
    • View Profile
    • Might & Fealty
Re: Rathgar clan battle tradition for dominance.
« Reply #43 on: April 03, 2014, 12:10:43 PM »
I think what BM players need to wrap their heads around is that "realm" doesn't mean the same thing here as it means there.

What is "your realm"? If you look on your character screen, most of you will belong to several realms. And each of those realms could belong to a different superior realm tomorrow. Realms merging and splitting is real in this game. Your loyality is where? To Rathgar? What if Rathgar were to split into two realms tomorrow?

Stonedman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 679
  • Karma: +19/-65
    • View Profile
Re: Rathgar clan battle tradition for dominance.
« Reply #44 on: April 03, 2014, 12:41:25 PM »
 
Just for clarification I didn’t actually play BM, so not sure what it was like in that game.

“Your Realm” is whatever that individual determines it to be. That mindset cannot be dictated for them.

For me this is my realm structure….
Rathgar = Me and Everyone else. Loose affiliations under a common banner / culture. Neither close friends nor enemies.
Tor Agrithar = Me and my close Allies,
Stoned Lands = Me and my Vassal

So if Rathgar split in two tomorrow. I would go where the rest of the Tor Agrithar Clans went rather than where eg the North Spear Clans went.

In theory this is almost pre-determined I think. Sooner or later, the way things have developed I think there are 3 main possibilities.

Status quo remains, we are a united powerful realm, but with not much to do.
TA + NS dissolve, and we become a looser collection of Clans with more competition.
Either TA or NS decide to split from Rathgar and go it alone.

I’m fairly happy with all three. Probably least happy with number 2.
From an outsiders view (ie Tom / Other Realms) I think the third option would be the one they would most like to see.

I think everyone needs to remember that this world is only a couple of months old. Things are still very much in their infancy, the deeper inter character side of the game hasn’t really developed yet. I would just wish that people would stop trying to force things to happen “unnaturally”. Let the inter character relations build naturally over time, and the game will be far far richer in the long term.

The mention last night of the lack of in-fighting being “game destroying bullshit” and all the other criticism of our position is a bit irritating to say the least.
It seems that just because EI failed to achieve what it was meant to (be the biggest baddest realm), doesn’t mean Rathgar is breaking the game.

If this whole internal realm infighting and raiding not happening concept is what’s breaking the game, and it is not directly aimed at Rathgar alone, shouldn’t it be addressed within the general areas of the forums for all to participate in ?

Then we can leave Rathgar to actually develop our own culture ourselves.

I’m starting to think that the whole genesis of this game ( i.e from day one the beta + guided start announced ) is the reason we are in this situation (hindsight is wonderful)
Rather than setting up three realms, everyone should have been free to set up their own or join a friend. That way we would have eg 10 different realms right from the start, none overly powerful more room for growth etc.
BUT…… each realm would not have the similar cultural development. Due to less character interaction.

Oh well…. I’m sure we can all figure it out and things will develop in the fullness of time.