cRPG
Strategus => Diplomacy => Topic started by: JohnReaper21 on March 19, 2012, 06:16:02 pm
-
From what I read the state of the Strategus map is somewhat unbalanced, for what ever reasons but one thing kept comming up, EU was more unified than the NA.
My question becomes. What stops the NA from becoming unified like the EU?
What makes the EU so successful in working together?
Why is the Na such scatter shot?
-
its all a conspiracy man
their actually is no na community the russian lords just make all of this stuff up to keep the rest of europe ignorant of their plans to take over all of crpg!!!
-
this is not gonna end well
-
From what I read the state of the Strategus map is somewhat unbalanced, for what ever reasons but one thing kept comming up, EU was more unified than the NA.
My question becomes. What stops the NA from becoming unified like the EU?
What makes the EU so successful in working together?
Why is the Na such scatter shot?
Because the NA factions never looked at strategus as being NA vs EU. They looked at strategus as being an attempt at making single player warband into a multiplayer game.
It's a faction vs faction strategy game (obviously diplomacy is important). Not a continent vs continent strategy game.
-
Aye, I understand that. but if it was a Multiplayer warband wouldn't there by 6 factions in relative stability? untill some random dude comes along and starts a massive trail blazing I win all campaign?
if you thinnk about it, there should be an easier way to communicate. and the time diffrence is a bit much to handle the more I look at this the more I favor two large continents, the only issue with that is again what happens when the winners turn their eyes to the other large landmass.
but yea. I wonder how this would play out with better communication times
and on your subject of Faction V Faction. Why isn't the EU doing the same thing in the term
What I'm asking is why did the EU do it diffrently than the NA.
-
Aye, I understand that. but if it was a Multiplayer warband wouldn't there by 6 factions in relative stability? untill some random dude comes along and starts a massive trail blazing I win all campaign?
if you thinnk about it, there should be an easier way to communicate. and the time diffrence is a bit much to handle the more I look at this the more I favor two large continents, the only issue with that is again what happens when the winners turn their eyes to the other large landmass.
but yea. I wonder how this would play out with better communication times
and on your subject of Faction V Faction. Why isn't the EU doing the same thing in the term
What I'm asking is why did the EU do it diffrently than the NA.
Cause EU likes to gloat about how they are better at strat than NA cause they only fight against NA and barely ever against themselves. So many will say.
Cause NA is all one language, so, we insult each other far quicker, and easier than EUs will? NA Doesn't care about "winning"(myabe hosp alliance) and wants to get battles together and just have fun slaughtering each other in deathmatch style battles? EU can't get off their lazy asses and fight each other cause they suffer to many losses? Other?
-
But this isn't about deathmatch style matches (NA_1) its about beating another person in a highly interactive game of risk....
-
you fail to understand that Drz alliance isnt all EU. there are wars in EU and clans have died in EU. but the Drz alliance is just incredibly strong (it isnt all EU as some NA seem to think ^^)
Reason NA isnt doing as good as them is the same reason the rest of EU didnt do very well. They are just too strong an alliance
-
But this isn't about deathmatch style matches (NA_1) its about beating another person in a highly interactive game of risk....
thats just it... most NA factions are playing RISK... in other words, they expect lots of violence and warfare and then a new game later.
most EU factions are playing some other game where they think everything is permanent and in a way it is...
basically, some (not all) NA factions are ok with the idea that each round of strat is a new game with new opportunities for friends and enemies.
and most (not all) EU factions think of each strat as being the same game as last strat in terms of alliances and such. they stay allied with all the same people and try to kill all the same people, like it is a rematch as opposed to a new game or something.
-
It's simple math actually (and I'm terrible at math so this is basically common sense stuff). Whoever starts out the strongest is going to have the most troops and best equipment at any given point and time months down the road.
If you're building up while everyone else is going to war, you're going to have more troops and more gold.
This is all common sense. The problem isn't DRZ or alliances, the problem is a game mechanic which doesn't reward people for fighting for fiefs. It doesn't punish people for having massive amounts of people in the faction, or controlling many fiefs. The more fiefs you control, the more troops and gold you can make (potentially).
Strategus mechanics are the problem, not people who actually use strategy and diplomacy to benefit themselves.
There's been dozens of great suggestions for "fixing" strategus over the last 3 or 4 months. I'm not going to even begin to list them all.
-
Cause EU likes to gloat about how they are better at strat than NA cause they only fight against NA and barely ever against themselves. So many will say.
Cause NA is all one language, so, we insult each other far quicker, and easier than EUs will? NA Doesn't care about "winning"(myabe hosp alliance) and wants to get battles together and just have fun slaughtering each other in deathmatch style battles? EU can't get off their lazy asses and fight each other cause they suffer to many losses? Other?
the most stupid post ever.....
we had war betwen eu clans, we still have and we will have
It only shows lack of knowlage about things in strat.
-
thats just it... most NA factions are playing RISK... in other words, they expect lots of violence and warfare and then a new game later.
most EU factions are playing some other game where they think everything is permanent and in a way it is...
basically, some (not all) NA factions are ok with the idea that each round of strat is a new game with new opportunities for friends and enemies.
and most (not all) EU factions think of each strat as being the same game as last strat in terms of alliances and such. they stay allied with all the same people and try to kill all the same people, like it is a rematch as opposed to a new game or something.
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
-
the most stupid post ever.....
we had war betwen eu clans, we still have and we will have
It only shows lack of knowlage about things in strat.
I listed all the reasons why NA sucks versus EU. Did you not catch the "So many will say" or all the question marks at the end of sentences?
Perhaps you should READ what i said.
-
EU seems to take the strategy part more seriously, so they get more pragmatic about "winning" that part (by forming big economic alliances).
NA clans mostly seem concerned with battle performance against rival clans they dislike.
-
the most stupid post ever.....
we had war betwen eu clans, we still have and we will have
It only shows lack of knowlage about things in strat.
Actually no, this thread you started (quoted below) was one of the dumbest post I've seen on the forums (and your subsequent follow up rage posts were even less intelligent).
I want say how I HATE you all lancers who aim for the other lancer horrsy on the battelfield.
That probably becouse half of you havent idea how to use lance proper.
Btw what do you think about that????
EU seems to take the strategy part more seriously, so they get more pragmatic about "winning" that part (by forming big economic alliances).
NA clans mostly seem concerned with battle performance against rival clans they dislike.
QFT. The problem I have is that NA clans are worried about their neighbors at the beg of strat. But the big EU clans divided up all the territory and went to work building up troops and gold. the NA factions fought tooth and nail for villages, the EU factions took them over with little to no resistance.
-
Don't generalise with such statements. Just look in c-rpg.net at the top10 factions in terms of members and fiefs, then look up their diplomatic relationships. Also note, that EU has a much larger playerbase than NA.
-
"thats just it... most NA factions are playing RISK... in other words, they expect lots of violence and warfare and then a new game later.
most EU factions are playing some other game where they think everything is permanent and in a way it is..."
Indeed your playing risk most of EU is playing something more akin to Europa Universalis 2+3.
Risk is a war game where you win via fighting and luck with a lil diplomacy
EU2/3 is a grand strategy game where you win via carefull diplomacy trading and economy building whilst using warefare as a means to an end.
One plays to fight the other plays to win. easy to see why they win
*also a long MP game of eu2 is the most awesome thing ever* *never played mp eu3*
(edit Generalised like a boss)
-
QFT. The problem I have is that NA clans are worried about their neighbors at the beg of strat. But the big EU clans divided up all the territory and went to work building up troops and gold. the NA factions fought tooth and nail for villages, the EU factions took them over with little to no resistance.
Yeah remember the "claims" map at the beginning? EU clans took it super seriously while NA clans mostly used it to troll each other then the only thing the mattered when it started was what they could actually conquer, the ones that actually even cared to... If anyone "won" strat, I would have to nominate ATS. They didn't even bother with any kind of diplo/strategic/fief crap, they just hung out in neutral areas and engaged in banditry. Now that is how you should play strat, have fun engaging in hijinks. What me worry?
-
Well, I can say that I got what I wanted out of strat. I am disappointed that it ended so quickly, and is likely to go down the exact same way again next time without more changes.
Hospitallers were losing the war against us, they knew this. Our battles were great EXP and great fun. They called in their UIF friends to squash us, and they brought in their bored UIF friends to fill the rosters. NA often brought people from all sides to merc for them, and I can say I got a MASSIVE amount of EXP mercing against them. It was great fun, but ended too quickly!!
Hosp gets to take NA lands, not win it from us. Rob your rival the joy of victory, when that's what they so desperately need, and I'm all good with that. :mrgreen:
So, in conclusion: Nobody can stand against the might of the UIF. They are great at "using" the mechanics of strategus to their advantage, they like each other, and they seem to always unite in Strategus, until they are so large a power they can squash anyone. And they do. Only way to avoid being crushed is to ally yourselves with them, see current NA map for details.
Actually if there is another round of Strategus I'd be pretty surprised if DRZ and Greys weren't targeted for destruction/genocide "for the greater good". :lol:
Won't happen. Everyone knows what happens in the end, and they'll already have their regular roster of allies to play with them. People who weren't in the UIF will be helping those attacking them to try to get in their good graces. Strat will just end that much sooner.
VVVV
-
Actually if there is another round of Strategus I'd be pretty surprised if DRZ and Greys weren't targeted for destruction/genocide "for the greater good". :lol:
-
yeah... there was a plan by many EU clans to take out DRZ early in strat 3.0... if you are curious how that went, go ask the wolves, since they chose to ride DRZ coattails instead.
-
Forging an alliance means trust.
An alliance formed by 8 factions within a day of knowing eachother is like this tower:
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
-
Forging an alliance means trust.
An alliance formed by 8 factions within a day of knowing eachother is like this tower:
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
You mean notable, still standing, world-famous, actually worth something?
-
You mean notable, still standing, world-famous, actually worth something?
What I took from the statement was one rather large man can kick it the rest of the way over. Look at LLJK.
-
You mean notable, still standing, world-famous, actually worth something?
Sort of but the person below you found the proper answer.
What I took from the statement was one rather large man can kick it the rest of the way over. Look at LLJK.
-
I don't get how hard it is to stick to a plan and not betray your word in a game.
-
Was I the only one that didn't think Strat would just be EU vs NA?
I guess so.
Now that everyone got the memo... Let's restart strat.
-
Actually no, this thread you started (quoted below) was one of the dumbest post I've seen on the forums (and your subsequent follow up rage posts were even less intelligent).
QFT. The problem I have is that NA clans are worried about their neighbors at the beg of strat. But the big EU clans divided up all the territory and went to work building up troops and gold. the NA factions fought tooth and nail for villages, the EU factions took them over with little to no resistance.
Im sorry man, but like most statements about strat, this is just born from ignorance.
It wasnt the EU sieges that had empty rosters. You cant be an eu clan and attack a village at a time when eu players play, and not face a full roster.
Wasnt it LLJK that was able to attack villages and face rosters 1/2 full or pretty much empty? I think this was before strat xp was changed. EU players go out of their way to fuck their in-game enemies up, whether they're getting xp for it or not.
There has to be some big change in future strats, either from the players or the devs, or i think strat will die.
-
Strat 4 is going to be so fun. Nobody from EU or NA does anything except trade goods back and forth until reset. Country with largest amount of lordly plate armor claims victory by default, because they would've won had there actually been any fights.
Great economics/diplomacy simulator your guys got going here.
-
Wasnt it LLJK that was able to attack villages and face rosters 1/2 full or pretty much empty? I think this was before strat xp was changed.
Not sure about LLJK, but Chaos always outnumbered village defenders by double or more. Our record low was having four signups for a village's defense against us.
the NA factions fought tooth and nail for villages, the EU factions took them over with little to no resistance.
Quit makin' stuff up.
Do you know that we only took Rduna because nobody else was going to? Any of the early conflicts that would have happened in our neck of the woods with the territories on our periphery simply didn't happen, certain clans quit the game or decided to move somewhere else and there were two villages that were just sitting abandoned until we decided to do something with them.
Really, we didn't want to expand any further, or stretch ourselves out too much, but there just wasn't anyone around who seemed to want to get a use out of them, save maybe for bandits.
-
ATS actually did start this strat out real - just letting some of their members go the bandit route. Early on I tried to work with Gash a bit, but Palatro being hilarious kind of necessitated a stop to that. Then I declared war on Wojtek and stole all his stuff with Mala on newyears! I'd say Shik won strat when he captured that village with 150k gold in it.