Author Topic: [Suggesion] Limited Alliances  (Read 8128 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Tears of Destiny

  • Naive
  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1847
  • Infamy: 870
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
  • Quiet drifting through shallow waters. 死のび
    • View Profile
    • NADS
  • Faction: Black Company
  • IRC nick: Tears
Re: [Suggesion] Limited Alliances
« Reply #75 on: April 27, 2011, 06:11:23 pm »
0
This is just my opinion but:

The reason things turned out as they did is because the factions of strategus pre-emptively sliced the cake, pre-emptively made alliances to protect each others "claims" and did not allow any clan with a real claim ie, that captured a place to keep it. Instead pulling down their alliance on top of everyone who would attempt such a thing.

These "claims" were extensive, small clans were able to take vast swathes of territory if they had powerful allies that would back them up. Territory that would otherwise have been available for anyone to take. Territory that could have been shared amongst several clans was taken by a single clan and if anyone took it they got destroyed.

This is what caused the small factions of strategus to be locked out. Not the game, but the players. Look to the early great powers of strategus, look to their foreign policies, look to the false ideal of "claims" based upon nothing but paper, being stronger than the claim of possession. This is why I protested these types of claims and all the major factions backing them during the first and I believe only open meeting of faction leaders. To no avail.

You just described real life and early wars  :lol: :lol: :lol:

I say keep it as is the way strategus works.
I'm not normal and I don't pretend so, my approach is pretty much a bomb crescendo.
Death is a fun way to pass the time though, several little bullets moving in staccato.
The terror of my reign will live on in infamy, singing when they die like a dead man's symphony.

Offline 22nd_King_Plazek

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Renown: 87
  • Infamy: 57
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
Re: [Suggesion] Limited Alliances
« Reply #76 on: April 27, 2011, 08:27:46 pm »
0
Yea the freeform way diplomacy works right now is perfect.
My point is people should not complain about the game causing such problems when it is the players!

If people want to operate this way then that is their prerogative.

Offline RandomDude

  • Earl
  • ******
  • Renown: 431
  • Infamy: 43
  • cRPG Player Sir Black Knight
  • I play now! but I suck =(
    • View Profile
  • Game nicks: RandomDude
  • IRC nick: RandomDude
Re: [Suggesion] Limited Alliances
« Reply #77 on: April 29, 2011, 04:05:39 am »
0
one thing we've all learnt from strat is that you'r never totally destroyed. :)

and that any battle vs templar  = autowin?  :D

So for the nay sayers; I want to see a strategus with less possibilities for the shite that happened in the last one. It's beneficial to all and won't help one faction more than another.

It just comes from my playstyle; I like a fair, open field of battle where everyone understands the rules and is playing from the same book. It's a game, not real life so yeh I'd like a few more boundaries because designers never think of all the way players might screw with their game.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2011, 04:08:25 am by RandomDude »