Author Topic: Lots of warriors cause problems!!  (Read 5283 times)

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3139
  • Karma: +105/-55
    • View Profile
Re: Lots of warriors cause problems!!
« Reply #15 on: October 23, 2014, 10:58:19 PM »
yeah, well, there are a few handfull less now    :P . I still have to bury quite few of those fallen at Fioroux...but yes, if we can find any way to have small scale wars/raids without them spiralling out of control....that would be a boon!


This seems to be a North mentality. In most realms a militia of hundred or more is a large militia, most players don't want to commit so much food to troop maintenance.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

Valast

  • Guest
Re: Lots of warriors cause problems!!
« Reply #16 on: October 24, 2014, 04:01:33 PM »
I believe it started out of fear.  I mean we were intended to be a small realm...which made us prepare for what ever the Empire would become.  It flopped at first and we grew.  BUT that mentality of fear/anticipation was already in place.

Then because of our Northern ideas it was only farther developed because we could not trust each other.  We did not know what everyone else had or how long it would be before they attacked us.  This was the result of weak leadership from the Order.

I did not know that the North had that many warriors until we attacked the Empire and had to reign ourselves in.  BUT instead of this kicking us into a place of understanding we kept on building up for this war that just now took place.

My personal thought is that this war needs to keep on going until everyone is at a good level.  BUT we would need some stats to know when that is.

Stonedman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 679
  • Karma: +19/-65
    • View Profile
Re: Lots of warriors cause problems!!
« Reply #17 on: October 25, 2014, 02:15:24 AM »
seeing  the numbers that are marching from the south, i dont think that the north is "that" unbalanced any more, as long as we do not unite into a single realm again.

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3139
  • Karma: +105/-55
    • View Profile
Re: Lots of warriors cause problems!!
« Reply #18 on: October 25, 2014, 02:53:45 AM »
seeing  the numbers that are marching from the south, i dont think that the north is "that" unbalanced any more, as long as we do not unite into a single realm again.

If the "south" is Westerness then that is probably not a great indicator of most of the south. The largest wars I have been a part of in six different realms totaled no more then 2000 troops on both sides, this war throws more then that away in single battles.

That said it may be that the rest of us simply need to revaluate our own idea of what an adequate force is.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

Roran Hawkins

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 799
  • Karma: +37/-20
  • "He whose thread shall not be flamed."
    • View Profile
Re: Lots of warriors cause problems!!
« Reply #19 on: October 25, 2014, 03:38:58 AM »
Speaking for Ascalon, every Duchy sent a small amount of troops that amounted to about 2000 as De-Legro noted.
The story of Ascalon's forum threads.
Founder of Ascalon, professional whiner, minor storyteller.

Mookzen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 780
  • Karma: +17/-3
    • View Profile
Re: Lots of warriors cause problems!!
« Reply #20 on: October 25, 2014, 08:14:05 AM »
yeah, well, there are a few handfull less now    :P . I still have to bury quite few of those fallen at Fioroux...but yes, if we can find any way to have small scale wars/raids without them spiralling out of control....that would be a boon!


It's been said before but the whole historical burden of knowledge we all carry with us regarding both NATO style allegiances and WW1/2 style total war is really getting in the way.

Alumaani

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 554
  • Karma: +25/-13
    • View Profile
Re: Lots of warriors cause problems!!
« Reply #21 on: October 25, 2014, 12:41:39 PM »
Westerness sent 1500, Alumaani 1500 and the rest of the Empire 1500...once Beals Song where beaten both Westerness and the Empire forces went south again.  Ascalon fields about 3000 soldiers if the figures given are correct so I think it's safe to presume that most kingdoms or realms/empires are carrying a few thousand troops now at any one time.  I don't think it's abnormal, I think it's the norm.

I have one character in the isles with 2 settlements that can field 400 warriors on his own...I guess we all have different focuses but mine has always been on warriors and I optimise all settlements for that.  Does anyone do it different and if so why?  Id be interested to know.

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3139
  • Karma: +105/-55
    • View Profile
Re: Lots of warriors cause problems!!
« Reply #22 on: October 25, 2014, 12:51:38 PM »
Westerness sent 1500, Alumaani 1500 and the rest of the Empire 1500...once Beals Song where beaten both Westerness and the Empire forces went south again.  Ascalon fields about 3000 soldiers if the figures given are correct so I think it's safe to presume that most kingdoms or realms/empires are carrying a few thousand troops now at any one time.  I don't think it's abnormal, I think it's the norm.

I have one character in the isles with 2 settlements that can field 400 warriors on his own...I guess we all have different focuses but mine has always been on warriors and I optimise all settlements for that.  Does anyone do it different and if so why?  Id be interested to know.


You miss the point. Like I said in previous wars both sides could field thousands, the difference was that would be pretty much everything the realm had, leaving minimal if any defence. Northern realms appear able to throw those sorts of forces into combat, lose them and still have something to fall back on. Then again unlike most Northern realms the realms I play in have had to rebuild their forces from scratch at least 3 time after some serious losses in wars. The Hawk settlements I control have just finished their 8 complete rebuild, but they are an exception since most of the rebuilds are due to me giving away masses of troops.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

Tan dSerrai

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 866
  • Karma: +20/-2
    • View Profile
Re: Lots of warriors cause problems!!
« Reply #23 on: October 25, 2014, 01:19:30 PM »
Near all northern realms did march _all_ their warriors into combat. I know the Northmanni and Valinor did at Aelfric's, I know that near all of mine were marching towards that battlefield or were on it. Skloddings, Serrai and Schultze had _all_ their warriors at Fioroux.

I am quite sure that the Stonedlords also did have all their warriors marching, both at Aelfrics and Fioroux. At Aelfrics there were 4300 against 3100, at Fioroux there were a bit above 4000 on each side (Ascalon and Alumaani vs Sklodding, Schultze, Serrai)

So its less of a 'the northern realms seem to be able to throw x number at a battle AND have more large forces in reserve'....its more of a 'the northern realms wanted a decision and threw everything they had at it'.

I agree with Mookzen that we should 'free' ourselves from the 'total war' approach we have...especially in the north which was originally 'designed' to have raids and wars. The problem is that with single battles being so decisive, escalation is both easy and brings massive results. I would very much like to see battles not mainly resulting in 'many lost soldiers (and equipment)', but also in 'time' and 'position'.

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3139
  • Karma: +105/-55
    • View Profile
Re: Lots of warriors cause problems!!
« Reply #24 on: October 25, 2014, 01:31:28 PM »
Near all northern realms did march _all_ their warriors into combat. I know the Northmanni and Valinor did at Aelfric's, I know that near all of mine were marching towards that battlefield or were on it. Skloddings, Serrai and Schultze had _all_ their warriors at Fioroux.

I am quite sure that the Stonedlords also did have all their warriors marching, both at Aelfrics and Fioroux. At Aelfrics there were 4300 against 3100, at Fioroux there were a bit above 4000 on each side (Ascalon and Alumaani vs Sklodding, Schultze, Serrai)

So its less of a 'the northern realms seem to be able to throw x number at a battle AND have more large forces in reserve'....its more of a 'the northern realms wanted a decision and threw everything they had at it'.

I agree with Mookzen that we should 'free' ourselves from the 'total war' approach we have...especially in the north which was originally 'designed' to have raids and wars. The problem is that with single battles being so decisive, escalation is both easy and brings massive results. I would very much like to see battles not mainly resulting in 'many lost soldiers (and equipment)', but also in 'time' and 'position'.


In Hawks I've been trying to foster the batchall system from the clans in Battletech. The first time it has been used outside of internal conflicts has reportedly been well received in the North, thought that was only fought over a matter of honour regarding previous raids and not over land. Such a system is probably not well suited to the culture in the North though, it reeks far too much of rules and restrictions.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

Stonedman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 679
  • Karma: +19/-65
    • View Profile
Re: Lots of warriors cause problems!!
« Reply #25 on: October 25, 2014, 01:47:43 PM »
aye, when entering this war against Northspear, i will fully prepared to lose everything. I was preparing basically for my exit from the north, taking as many enemies down as i could in the process, there was no way my characters could submit to Northspear from a RP point of view, and considering the expectations should we lose.


considering the massive numerical superiority of Northspear i knew i could never defend land and fight battles, so i chose to fight battles.
Then the southern realms got involved.
As did the Moorkhaani.


everything was comitted to alefrics fall, and we won.
Northspear losses were very uneven.
Valinor lost almost everything i think.
Northmaani didn't participate much.
D'serrai lost a chunk of men, but they obviously have huge reserves still.
Skloddings was unscathed.
Beals song taken out by the south.


Now lots of men have been lost on both sides in follow up battles.
although large armies still remain.


It's still very hard to decide "what to do next"
It almost feels as though the war "stalled" and the next big clash never really happened.
some RP would continue to the war onwards to a conclusion, there is still no "dominant" power in the north, well D'serrai are still the single most powerful Clan, but they lost most of their allies, at least in this war.
Some RP looks to have the tables further balanced, decreasing the military might of Clans like D'serrai to a more even balance with the other clans.
Some RP would lead us to peace, and a new beginning in the North. Setting up a new "Thing" for all the clans.
Some RP would lead also to peace, to re-build many crippled settlements, resolve things with Valinor / Northmaani (not in a hostile way, more a repairing of relations)
A debt is to be paid to Ascalon as well which will need to be addressed after the war.


It is actually really hard to get a "right" choice now, i'm not sure if anyone on "our" side really knows what they want to do the most.


Personally i'm very "torn" on what to do next.
Almost every day i change my mind at least twice on what we should do. :)

Gustav Kuriga

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 459
  • Karma: +22/-34
    • View Profile
Re: Lots of warriors cause problems!!
« Reply #26 on: October 26, 2014, 05:42:43 AM »

In Hawks I've been trying to foster the batchall system from the clans in Battletech. The first time it has been used outside of internal conflicts has reportedly been well received in the North, thought that was only fought over a matter of honour regarding previous raids and not over land. Such a system is probably not well suited to the culture in the North though, it reeks far too much of rules and restrictions.

Actually, it is probably a perfect fit. It's basically a system that says if you use too many forces you are weak.

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3139
  • Karma: +105/-55
    • View Profile
Re: Lots of warriors cause problems!!
« Reply #27 on: October 26, 2014, 10:53:36 AM »
Actually, it is probably a perfect fit. It's basically a system that says if you use too many forces you are weak.


Yes they already have that concept, but codifying it into actual rules tends to go against things in the North if I recall correctly the last time such things come up. Any system Rathgar clans are likely to adopt would be far more subjective then what I am aiming for.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

Tan dSerrai

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 866
  • Karma: +20/-2
    • View Profile
Re: Lots of warriors cause problems!!
« Reply #28 on: October 26, 2014, 01:36:05 PM »
Yeah, I'd very much like to have some rules (as simple as possible) for raiding (with raiding being anything from raiding food to attempting to take 1-3 estates)....rules that are _not_ subjective.

Views are already differing very much on several items (which is perfectly ok) - trouble starts if these views are not stated and are thus not _known_ to the other side....and then 'breached'.

It would be perfectly alright for different clans to hold different views on raiding....as long as each side roughly knows where it stands.

Valast

  • Guest
Re: Lots of warriors cause problems!!
« Reply #29 on: October 26, 2014, 04:55:43 PM »
Such a system is probably not well suited to the culture in the North though, it reeks far too much of rules and restrictions.

It seems VERY close to the way the North was intended to work IMO.  Of course heh, It is Valinor that the honor battle was fought in...sooo.

But really, the idea of the North was the strong lead.  That means not just a strong army, but leadership skills to sway votes / allies.  It was going to be a group of realms who had loyalties that would change depending on the issue.  Valinor may have been fighting against Stonedman on one issue and against Tan on another.  Those who were involved from the start may remember seeing King John argue in just that way depending on the issue.

Honorable battle is the way of Valinor.  If it differs from the rest of the North then I have been living a dream with my head in the clouds...but it would explain why I always feel I am fighting an uphill battle.

As far as the all or nothing warfare goes...  IMO this war should have never been seen as such.  I think that any all in or all or nothing thinking in war is unrealistic.  Sorry but it is true.  Yes you may have wars that end in total ruin (valinor commited all our armies to this one and lost) but if you are subjected by a larger or stronger realm you do not move away...  You sit quietly and prepare to throw off the oppressor in the future.  That is how this war should have been seen instead of being prepared to leave the North, Stonedman should have fought just as hard as he is but with the idea that loosing means rebuilding and finding allies to break free of North Spear.

Abandoning ones lands is not a great historical example.  Neither is accepting defeat and being oppressed.  Instead you do not abandon your home, but you work to form a resistance.

My point is that total war is a two way street.  You have to be willing to look at other options.  You have to be willing to be defeated.  If you have a character who has RP too proud to do this then that is a character flaw (which is great) that may well end in that character leaving or dieing by his own hand.  If ALL your characters have the same willingness to not be subjected/suffer defeat.... that is a player flaw for not having rounded diverse characters.

Anyway... this war did what it should have.  But the idea of having to leave the North because of it if you had lost Stonedman,... that is flawed.