I'll try and write a more thought out reply tomorrow evening. At the moment the way I see it is that I, as the single leader of my faction (which is completely inaccurate for a start), have created a chain of eents that means the entirety of HRE/Fallen/GK/FCC/TKoV/Mercs are now completely removed from strategus. In doing this i have ultimatly caused my faction and my allies to be doomed for destruction at the hands of the UIF.
I do not allege that you are the leader of your faction. I know you're not, you made that clear. Crusaders and Friends have a council. However, you ARE the only one willing to discuss this. I respect you for that. Furthermore, I have good reason to believe you're influential. You're not voiceless amongst your cadre. I intend to change your point of view with brutal honesty. The remainder of this paragraph is true, wholly or essentially.
I agree with you on the numbers, but the politics wouldn't have worked any other way.
Good, but that's not true. I refer back to the "balance of power", which would make this game consistently playable and more fun for everyone involved- perhaps your own faction most of all.
The desert alliance formulated this plan many months ago. I agreed with our plans entirely and will see them through to the end. If that means fighting an overwhelming force then so be it. If it means obvious defeat, then so be it.
On one hand, you won't do something because it leads to "obvious defeat" - fighting the UIF alone. (No disagreement there, but this has never been my point.)
On the other hand, you are doing something despite the fact that it leads to an obvious defeat - destroying the ONLY other balance on UIF power.
That's hypocrisy.
I have fought many wars, against overwhelming forces my friend and made peace afterwards, why should this one be any different. Each round of strat brings new potential, new opportunities. This time round we tried this tactic, we shall see how it develops for all else is mere prediction. However, i speak for many members of my coaltion when i say that working with Fallen is not an option we'd consider.
Two points here. First, we agree on the numbers. You've not contended that the obvious evidence indicates that the UIF has made no significant alteration since 2010- can I assume you agree that the most probable reason is that they still exist with more or less the same purpose?
Take note on this point, that I'm not addressing the UIF. They've failed at a much deeper level than your own coalition to make this an interesting and engaging game. However, they seem incompetent, incapable, and/or unwilling to do anything else. I have hope for you, hence this is worth our time to discuss.
Second, I've never asked that you "work with Fallen". (I'm starting to repeat myself...) I don't want that. I don't think anybody wants that. That would be boring. We'd have a two-sided war in which we'd (assuming full clan cooperation) be much larger than the UIF. This would be equally boring.
My point remains that it is in the best interests of
everyone that you refrain from coordination with the UIF. A trade agreement with a de facto or actual non-aggression pact is coordination.
If, in a grand stroke of hypocrisy, you complied with my request and abandoned all ties to the UIF for Strategus 4.0 and entered a cold war period, but the Fallen created a coalition with non-UIF while making a peace treaty with the UIF, wouldn't that be rather frustrating?
Put the shoe on the other foot. You've already said we'd do the same thing- and wouldn't that fucking suck for you? If we set ourselves up for a quick victory against you, creating a position where you can't play the game you love (flawed as it may be) and the game dragged out for months upon months so both sides can approach some grand war event that you have little belief will even occur because it has NEVER happened before and there is no indication it will ever happen again?
You'd quit playing (as has occurred), or bring the injustice to light (as is occurring). You'd feel betrayed. That's the position we're in. I see someone who has the choice to make the game better but who refuses to do so with the thin justification that he "won't work with Fallen" despite the obvious reasons why a more temperate and reasonable choice - using a "balance of powers" approach - is not only feasible, but clearly in his long-term best interests. Best interests, I say? Every side- UIF, Crusaders, and Easterners ALL say that Strategus is boring as shit because there's nothing to do.
It's incredibly frustrating for me, and the voices I speak for. There's "nothing to do" because so many people are afraid of the risk of action. Rightfully so, perhaps- the consequences of failure are being unable to play the game. That's a big problem, exacerbated by every issue I bring forward. But using a "balance of powers" model is the clear solution.
I want you to apply. I beg you to apply it, not just for my sake, but for your own and everyone else's.
I personally don't care much what the UIF does, wether they continue to be friends, or decide that making war at a later time would be more fun. Strategus is a long term game, and with each round it gets longer. People have to wit loger before they are interested in making wars with each other. People want to secure their own territory before expanding. We are only now seeing factions secureing their territories.
Yes, Strategus is a long-term game. That's a major part of my point. I see a failure of long-term planning on your part.
Does it get longer? Maybe.
Who's to blame for that? Partly, the mechanics of the game. But the mechanics are slave to the choices of those that use it.
That people are just now securing their own territory is totally untrue. Every fief has been claimed for well over a month, maybe two. Nobody has challenged a single UIF faction's territory since they took it all (with hysterical 50 v. 5 person battles, another big problem). So this just isn't true. Maybe I misunderstand you, feel free to substantiate on this claim.
I wholeheartedly believe that a large war will come to strategus, if its left long enough.
That really makes my point. =/ Why are you waiting for someone else to make something interesting happen? You're not that weak. You're either too boring or too afraid to make a move.
Whether that is by the vast forces on the NA side, (which you fail to include in many of your calculations), or from the UIF. Patience is a virtue, i frankly don't care if the war is winnable, as long as i get to fight for a while i'm content. If i must fight, i'll do it with the gear i like, not some peasants cloth.
The NA side fights. We had a damned good time for a while there. All relevant figures were accounted for. Please include specifics if you wish to make an assertion like this.
I won't disagree that acquiring good gear is too frustrating. But remember- whatever you can produce, the numbers show that your only remaining opponent is at least twice as capable of producing- troops and gold, both.
There's a solution to that problem. "Balance of powers".
Having been the diplomatic representative for my faction over three separate strategus rounds i can tell you for sure that each faction within the UIF operates under its own terms. If you took some time to go and actually talk to the leaders of other clans, rather than basing your arguments of what you see in public and what is written on forums, you may learn something more.
The UIF has time and again claimed that they no longer exist as they once did. Do you have any verifiable proof that this is true? Please present it, and this issue can be discussed further. If the UIF members operate under their own terms, why aren't they waging war?
Whether they are actually allied with plans to build up insurmountable forces or this just happens circumstantially- what's the difference? Same problem, same result. I'm fishing for a solution.
Im sure if you did go and talk to these people they'd tell you strat can be quite fun for them. and indeed, if they are enjoying it and are willing to dedicate time and effort to it, equal to your contribution and others why should they not be allowed to do what they find fun?
They haven't made that assertion. Plus, I'll admit- I'm attempting to dictate to them as much as to you what I believe is in everyone's best interest. I have sound reasoning and statistics to back it up. They're absolutely allowed to do what they want. So are you, so am I. Hence this is necessary to discuss.
I believe, strongly, that I know the best model for how to make Strategus function in a better way than currently exists - a balance of power.
If strategus changes, it may well be for the better, i will continue to persevere for as long as i am around. Remember, this is just one round of strategus, the wipe may come tomorrow and it'll all be kicking off again. For now i'm content to sit easy for a while and build up some forces for the next wave of operations.
On a further note, if the Fallen would have had their way, the whole of the Templars, Hospitallers and Occitain would have been wiped out from this round of strat, throw that into your calculations and see just how long you could of held out.
I'm glad you're open-minded to the idea. I'm certainly open-minded to your suggestions on how to balance our respective interests.
The final note, however, is incorrect. I refer back to the "balance of power" hypotheticals.
If Fallen used its resources to attack the Crusader faction and made significant headway, in whose best interest would it be to counteract that upper-hand?
The UIF, at the least. Furthermore, there are plenty of other great enemies that (ideally) would have an interest in taking Fallen land. The FCC, TKoV, CHAOS, LLJK, and many others would certainly like an extra slice of pie. And I would hope that they did, and acted upon such an impulse!
But as it stands, no motion by the Crusaders or UIF has a counter-reaction. There's no checks on power. And that makes the game dreadfully imbalanced, the natural result of which is an inferior gaming experience.
---
Paul,
The developers have a stake in the player's attitudes towards the game. I have chosen to, generally speaking, exclude discussions of the issues that are outside of the control of the people I'm addressing. Legio, DRZ, Grey, Templars, Wolves, Occitan, Fallen, FCC, LLJK - none of these have any power to make direct and positive changes to mechanics, only that which is in their power - their attitudes and behaviors. I'm trying to find a resolution to a perceived problem in spite of that which you control - the mechanics.
So what I'm addressing is that which is within their power - their actions, their perspective. Despite disagreements, we respect each other enough to have an open and (alarmingly, to some) honest discussion. This is outside the power of the developers. I hope that you read it all and use our discourse to consider the changes we all hope to come.
I hope that the developers bear this in all in mind when effectuating such change, whether you appreciate my perspective or not.
If you wish to discuss this further, I'd appreciate that.
If you'd rather not, thank you for at least taking the time to consider my position, even if you find it appalling.
Cheers!
