To the Nobles of Strategus

[Auphilia]

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

For five generations we have brought total war to these lands, and soon another.
However, this may be our last. The end of our reign is not far from sight.
Once more we gather warriors from all sides of the world to make our claim.
But let us not forget our history. Let us not repeat our mistakes.
If this truly is the end, the grande finale, then let us die in celebration of all the glory we have seized.
Let us make this last moment our best moment in history.
That we may die, but the legend of Strategus will live on!
That our glory be the envy of our gods!
And if they deem us worthy, that they grant us the power to rise out of our graves and meet battle again!
We decide our end! We decide our fate! And now is the time to decide!

It is time that we stop blaming the faults of this game on the game itself, and realize that the community plays a heavy role in its quality. The future of Strategus is as much our responsibility as it is the developers'. The developers are doing their part, it is time that we, the community, do ours. We can make this very fun and worthwhile. We just have to respect each other, work together, have integrity, and use our creativity.

The Proposition: All clan leaders agree to meet together in Teamspeak and discuss and suggest methods and rules to make Strategus more fun for everyone. Every leader will be given a time to speak and put forth their suggestions and at the end we will all vote on each one. A full list of passed rules will be provided to everyone who participates. Anyone who plans on participating in the next Strategus is welcome to come and listen. The rules that pass will be enforced through Roleplay. Those who break these rules will be considered rebel factions, primitives, bandits, whatever you'd fancy, and will be dealt with by the civilized factions who follow the universal laws. The objective here is not to limit anyone from their own personal fun, but to add flavor and encourage those of us who affect Strategus on a global level to help create an experience we can all enjoy.

Here are five examples of propositions that could be voted on:
*Influenced by Crusader Kings II gameplay

The Casus Belli Proposal

(click to show/hide)

The Casus Belli Proposal would require a valid reason for war or casus belli in order to legally declare war on any existing faction, this does not include banditry. We would all decide on what is and isn't a valid casus belli. A faction who started an illegal war would become considered hostile to all factions who signed this proposal and there would be no penalties for anyone to attack them or end their aggression. In addition to no penalties, there may even be rewards and compensation to those who put down illegal wars. An example of an illegal war would be to declare war on a faction simply because you do not like them, or because of trolling. An example of a valid war would be territorial expansion, holy war against different faiths (Sarranids VS Swadians), retaliation against banditry, rebellion against liege, etc. Controversial wars will be considered just that. Those who declare a war that is on the line of controversy risk other factions involving themselves in it. The victors of such wars will likely determine if it was just or not.

The De Jure & Titles Proposal

(click to show/hide)

The De Jure & Titles Proposal will identify the de jure territories on the map. This will assist in determining valid casus bellis. In addition to identifying the territories on the map, holders of most of the fiefs within a territory will be considered the Duke (or equivalent) of that land. The dukes/duchesses will have the opportunity to vassalize all of the smaller factions within their territory and the smaller factions will always have the opportunity to usurp the duke. Anyone who owns a castle would be considered a count tier rank, anyone who owns a town would be considered a duke tier rank, anyone who owns a village would be considered a baron tier rank. Small barons and counts would be protected from larger dukes, if they swore fealty to their de jure dukes. I would also imagine that this system could result in the establishment of true kingdoms, if duchies were conquered. It would only be legal to declare war on an independent realm, not someone's vassal, unless they were granted independence. This allows smaller clans to hold some weight in power shifts and politics, while protecting them from being wiped out by mega clans. This would also encourage clans to be more accepting of vassalage, rather than every leader pretending to be a god king. It would encourage realistic alliances and wars, and eliminates the need to lurk around with shady intrigues trying to find support of 90% of the map before you get the courage to go to war with someone. Finally, for once we could all respect each other as rulers and nobles, rather than only our personal clans respecting our leadership. Right to rule would be acknowledged globally. Here is a quick concept map:
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
 

The Mercenary Integrity Proposal

(click to show/hide)

The Mercenary Integrity Proposal would be an attempt to remove the need to form mega-alliances in hopes to fill your battle roster. This would require every clan to participate in the filling of rosters and try to keep both teams relatively full. We would all accept that there are absolutely no diplomatic penalties or benefits for having players merc for or against you. It is to be considered that each player in each side of the battle is merely a soldier of the respected faction, not necessarily a "mercenary" for people to harass about why they joined the "wrong" side of what is suppose to be a fun battle. Clans can sign up for their side, but actual "mercenaries" who are unaffiliated to any clan, or unaffiliated to the two battling factions, must sign up evenly to both sides. Again, this would only be an attempt to make things more fun and fair for everyone, regardless of a faction or player's popularity or infamy.

The Balance of Power Proposal

(click to show/hide)

The Balance of Power Proposal would restrict the formation of mega-alliances and attempt to balance the map to be viable for independent small clans to exist without being forced into the alliance of one half of the map or the other half of the map. The exact methods that would be taken would be discussed. Some examples might include separating "bro" clans from being neighbors on the map, putting likely enemies next to each other, instating an Emperor/Empress on the map that all dukes/kings must swear fealty to at the beginning, who would act as a peace keeper and consider growing dukes/kings a threat, similar to Realm Divide on Total War Shogun 2. I'm sure we could come up with plenty of interesting ways to balance the map.

The Immersion Proposal

(click to show/hide)

The Immersion Proposal would be an attempt to promote a more immersive experience for everyone by having some of the larger clans agree upon diverse themes and stick to them throughout strategus 6 or until their themed faction has been eliminated. For example, we would have a Sarranid clan in the desert, Swadian/Rhodok clans in the plains, etc. Of course, any faction could have a unique theme and be anywhere on the map. It would be more important that they simply stick to whatever theme they pick. If a clan adopted the Samurai theme for example, they should be restricted to samurai gear. If a clan adopts the highlander theme (I assume is coming), they would be restricted to that, and not be making katanas or cataphract horses. I know this is a very controversial proposal and most people simply won't be willing to dedicate to a theme, but it would allow strategus to be more about fun, roleplay, battles, intrigues, etc, rather than min-maxed gear, min-maxed trade, min-maxed mega-alliances, etc. It would be fun to see crusaders actually attacking Sarranids in the desert, or the Norse raiding and pillaging the lands. Diplomacy would be much more interesting. But alas, I realize this is a shot on the dark. It just goes to show that any and all proposals will be seriously considered by the rest of the clan leaders when they are presented.

This meeting would probably take place sometime in early December, before Strategus 6 launches. We can publicly post all the proposals here, so everyone is up to date on what material will be discussed and has time to prepare arguments. Teamspeak will be used just to finalize everything and issue the votes. Again, these are all just proposals that could potentially make the next strategus more fun, please be constructive when posting any and keep in mind each proposal is in assumption that the majority of clans will follow it.

If you are a clan leader and you are interested in participating say so in here so we can have an idea of how much collaboration there will be. We will all agree on a time and date that is convenient for as many of us as possible.

Template:

(click to show/hide)

[Name] leader of [clan name] accepts invitation to the meeting.

[Proposal name]

(click to show/hide)

[Details about proposal]

Comments: [Additional information or inquiries]

Notes:
* This does not have to be exclusive to NA. EU and other regions may participate. However, English will be the language spoken.
* The reason clan leaders are voting and not just anyone is because they will be responsible for enforcing the decided proposals on their individual clans.
* Although only clan leaders are allowed to vote, everyone is allowed to give input.
* A clan leader must have 5 active members to be considered eligible to vote. We know mostly everyone by now so don't bother trying to make shit up.

Let's be friendly.

Leaders Attending:

(click to show/hide)

Auphilia of the Caliphate of Krea
Jack1 of [Go do the dishes]

Current Proposals:

(click to show/hide)

Anti Annexation Proposal

(click to show/hide)

Any strategus faction containing more than one clan in itself must split into separate groups.

The Casus Belli Proposal

(click to show/hide)

The Casus Belli Proposal would require a valid reason for war or casus belli in order to legally declare war on any existing faction, this does not include banditry. We would all decide on what is and isn't a valid casus belli. A faction who started an illegal war would become considered hostile to all factions who signed this proposal and there would be no penalties for anyone to attack them or end their aggression. In addition to no penalties, there may even be rewards and compensation to those who put down illegal wars. An example of an illegal war would be to declare war on a faction simply because you do not like them, or because of trolling. An example of a valid war would be territorial expansion, holy war against different faiths (Sarranids VS Swadians), retaliation against banditry, rebellion against liege, etc. Controversial wars will be considered just that. Those who declare a war that is on the line of controversy risk other factions involving themselves in it. The victors of such wars will likely determine if it was just or not.

The De Jure & Titles Proposal

(click to show/hide)

The De Jure & Titles Proposal will identify the de jure territories on the map. This will assist in determining valid casus bellis. In addition to identifying the territories on the map, holders of most of the fiefs within a territory will be considered the Duke (or equivalent) of that land. The dukes/duchesses will have the opportunity to vassalize all of the smaller factions within their territory and the smaller factions will always have the opportunity to usurp the duke. Anyone who owns a castle would be considered a count tier rank, anyone who owns a town would be considered a duke tier rank, anyone who owns a village would be considered a baron tier rank. Small barons and counts would be protected from larger dukes, if they swore fealty to their de jure dukes. I would also imagine that this system could result in the establishment of true kingdoms, if duchies were conquered. It would only be legal to declare war on an independent realm, not someone's vassal, unless they were granted independence. This allows smaller clans to hold some weight in power shifts and politics, while protecting them from being wiped out by mega clans. This would also encourage clans to be more accepting of vassalage, rather than every leader pretending to be a god king. It would encourage realistic alliances and wars, and eliminates the need to lurk around with shady intrigues trying to find support of 90% of the map before you get the courage to go to war with someone. Finally, for once we could all respect each other as rulers and nobles, rather than only our personal clans respecting our leadership. Right to rule would be acknowledged globally. Here is a quick concept map:
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
 

The Mercenary Integrity Proposal

(click to show/hide)

The Mercenary Integrity Proposal would be an attempt to remove the need to form mega-alliances in hopes to fill your battle roster. This would require every clan to participate in the filling of rosters and try to keep both teams relatively full. We would all accept that there are absolutely no diplomatic penalties or benefits for having players merc for or against you. It is to be considered that each player in each side of the battle is merely a soldier of the respected faction, not necessarily a "mercenary" for people to harass about why they joined the "wrong" side of what is suppose to be a fun battle. Clans can sign up for their side, but actual "mercenaries" who are unaffiliated to any clan, or unaffiliated to the two battling factions, must sign up evenly to both sides. Again, this would only be an attempt to make things more fun and fair for everyone, regardless of a faction or player's popularity or infamy.

The Balance of Power Proposal

(click to show/hide)

The Balance of Power Proposal would restrict the formation of mega-alliances and attempt to balance the map to be viable for independent small clans to exist without being forced into the alliance of one half of the map or the other half of the map. The exact methods that would be taken would be discussed. Some examples might include separating "bro" clans from being neighbors on the map, putting likely enemies next to each other, instating an Emperor/Empress on the map that all dukes/kings must swear fealty to at the beginning, who would act as a peace keeper and consider growing dukes/kings a threat, similar to Realm Divide on Total War Shogun 2. I'm sure we could come up with plenty of interesting ways to balance the map.

The Immersion Proposal

(click to show/hide)

The Immersion Proposal would be an attempt to promote a more immersive experience for everyone by having some of the larger clans agree upon diverse themes and stick to them throughout strategus 6 or until their themed faction has been eliminated. For example, we would have a Sarranid clan in the desert, Swadian/Rhodok clans in the plains, etc. Of course, any faction could have a unique theme and be anywhere on the map. It would be more important that they simply stick to whatever theme they pick. If a clan adopted the Samurai theme for example, they should be restricted to samurai gear. If a clan adopts the highlander theme (I assume is coming), they would be restricted to that, and not be making katanas or cataphract horses. I know this is a very controversial proposal and most people simply won't be willing to dedicate to a theme, but it would allow strategus to be more about fun, roleplay, battles, intrigues, etc, rather than min-maxed gear, min-maxed trade, min-maxed mega-alliances, etc. It would be fun to see crusaders actually attacking Sarranids in the desert, or the Norse raiding and pillaging the lands. Diplomacy would be much more interesting. But alas, I realize this is a shot on the dark. It just goes to show that any and all proposals will be seriously considered by the rest of the clan leaders when they are presented.

[MURDERTRON]

No.

[Voncrow]

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

For five generations we have brought total war to these lands, and soon another.
However, this may be our last. The end of our reign is not far from sight.
Once more we gather warriors from all sides of the world to make our claim.
But let us not forget our history. Let us not repeat our mistakes.
If this truly is the end, the grande finale, then let us die in celebration of all the glory we have seized.
Let us make this last moment our best moment in history.
That we may die, but the legend of Strategus will live on!
That our glory be the envy of our gods!
And if they deem us worthy, that they grant us the power to rise out of our graves and meet battle again!
We decide our end! We decide our fate! And now is the time to decide!

It is time that we stop blaming the faults of this game on the game itself, and realize that the community plays a heavy role in its quality. The future of Strategus is as much our responsibility as it is the developers'. The developers are doing their part, it is time that we, the community, do ours. We can make this very fun and worthwhile. We just have to respect each other, work together, have integrity, and use our creativity.

The Proposition: All clan leaders agree to meet together in Teamspeak and discuss and suggest methods and rules to make Strategus more fun for everyone. Every leader will be given a time to speak and put forth their suggestions and at the end we will all vote on each one. A full list of passed rules will be provided to everyone who participates. Anyone who plans on participating in the next Strategus is welcome to come and listen. The rules that pass will be enforced through Roleplay. Those who break these rules will be considered rebel factions, primitives, bandits, whatever you'd fancy, and will be dealt with by the civilized factions who follow the universal laws. The objective here is not to limit anyone from their own personal fun, but to add flavor and encourage those of us who affect Strategus on a global level to help create an experience we can all enjoy.

Here are five examples of propositions that could be voted on:
*Influenced by Crusader Kings II gameplay

The Casus Belli Proposal

(click to show/hide)

The Casus Belli Proposal would require a valid reason for war or casus belli in order to legally declare war on any existing faction, this does not include banditry. We would all decide on what is and isn't a valid casus belli. A faction who started an illegal war would become considered hostile to all factions who signed this proposal and there would be no penalties for anyone to attack them or end their aggression. In addition to no penalties, there may even be rewards and compensation to those who put down illegal wars. An example of an illegal war would be to declare war on a faction simply because you do not like them, or because of trolling. An example of a valid war would be territorial expansion, holy war against different faiths (Sarranids VS Swadians), retaliation against banditry, rebellion against liege, etc. Controversial wars will be considered just that. Those who declare a war that is on the line of controversy risk other factions involving themselves in it. The victors of such wars will likely determine if it was just or not.

The De Jure & Titles Proposal

(click to show/hide)

The De Jure & Titles Proposal will identify the de jure territories on the map. This will assist in determining valid casus bellis. In addition to identifying the territories on the map, holders of most of the fiefs within a territory will be considered the Duke (or equivalent) of that land. The dukes/duchesses will have the opportunity to vassalize all of the smaller factions within their territory and the smaller factions will always have the opportunity to usurp the duke. Anyone who owns a castle would be considered a count tier rank, anyone who owns a town would be considered a duke tier rank, anyone who owns a village would be considered a baron tier rank. Small barons and counts would be protected from larger dukes, if they swore fealty to their de jure dukes. I would also imagine that this system could result in the establishment of true kingdoms, if duchies were conquered. It would only be legal to declare war on an independent realm, not someone's vassal, unless they were granted independence. This allows smaller clans to hold some weight in power shifts and politics, while protecting them from being wiped out by mega clans. This would also encourage clans to be more accepting of vassalage, rather than every leader pretending to be a god king. It would encourage realistic alliances and wars, and eliminates the need to lurk around with shady intrigues trying to find support of 90% of the map before you get the courage to go to war with someone. Finally, for once we could all respect each other as rulers and nobles, rather than only our personal clans respecting our leadership. Right to rule would be acknowledged globally. Here is a quick concept map:
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
 

The Mercenary Integrity Proposal

(click to show/hide)

The Mercenary Integrity Proposal would be an attempt to remove the need to form mega-alliances in hopes to fill your battle roster. This would require every clan to participate in the filling of rosters and try to keep both teams relatively full. We would all accept that there are absolutely no diplomatic penalties or benefits for having players merc for or against you. It is to be considered that each player in each side of the battle is merely a soldier of the respected faction, not necessarily a "mercenary" for people to harass about why they joined the "wrong" side of what is suppose to be a fun battle. Clans can sign up for their side, but actual "mercenaries" who are unaffiliated to any clan, or unaffiliated to the two battling factions, must sign up evenly to both sides. Again, this would only be an attempt to make things more fun and fair for everyone, regardless of a faction or player's popularity or infamy.

The Balance of Power Proposal

(click to show/hide)

The Balance of Power Proposal would restrict the formation of mega-alliances and attempt to balance the map to be viable for independent small clans to exist without being forced into the alliance of one half of the map or the other half of the map. The exact methods that would be taken would be discussed. Some examples might include separating "bro" clans from being neighbors on the map, putting likely enemies next to each other, instating an Emperor/Empress on the map that all dukes/kings must swear fealty to at the beginning, who would act as a peace keeper and consider growing dukes/kings a threat, similar to Realm Divide on Total War Shogun 2. I'm sure we could come up with plenty of interesting ways to balance the map.

The Immersion Proposal

(click to show/hide)

The Immersion Proposal would be an attempt to promote a more immersive experience for everyone by having some of the larger clans agree upon diverse themes and stick to them throughout strategus 6 or until their themed faction has been eliminated. For example, we would have a Sarranid clan in the desert, Swadian/Rhodok clans in the plains, etc. Of course, any faction could have a unique theme and be anywhere on the map. It would be more important that they simply stick to whatever theme they pick. If a clan adopted the Samurai theme for example, they should be restricted to samurai gear. If a clan adopts the highlander theme (I assume is coming), they would be restricted to that, and not be making katanas or cataphract horses. I know this is a very controversial proposal and most people simply won't be willing to dedicate to a theme, but it would allow strategus to be more about fun, roleplay, battles, intrigues, etc, rather than min-maxed gear, min-maxed trade, min-maxed mega-alliances, etc. It would be fun to see crusaders actually attacking Sarranids in the desert, or the Norse raiding and pillaging the lands. Diplomacy would be much more interesting. But alas, I realize this is a shot on the dark. It just goes to show that any and all proposals will be seriously considered by the rest of the clan leaders when they are presented.

This meeting would probably take place sometime in early December, before Strategus 6 launches. We can publicly post all the proposals here, so everyone is up to date on what material will be discussed and has time to prepare arguments. Teamspeak will be used just to finalize everything and issue the votes. Again, these are all just proposals that could potentially make the next strategus more fun, please be constructive when posting any and keep in mind each proposal is in assumption that the majority of clans will follow it.

If you are a clan leader and you are interested in participating say so in here so we can have an idea of how much collaboration there will be. We will all agree on a time and date that is convenient for as many of us as possible.

Template:

(click to show/hide)

[Name] leader of [clan name] accepts invitation to the meeting.

[Proposal name]

(click to show/hide)

[Details about proposal]

Comments: [Additional information or inquiries]

Notes:
* This does not have to be exclusive to NA. EU and other regions may participate. However, English will be the language spoken.
* The reason clan leaders are voting and not just anyone is because they will be responsible for enforcing the decided proposals on their individual clans.
* Although only clan leaders are allowed to vote, everyone is allowed to give input.
* A clan leader must have 5 active members to be considered eligible to vote. We know mostly everyone by now so don't bother trying to make shit up.

Let's be friendly.

How is this that much different from strat 5? Other than actual roleplay.

[Auphilia]

(click to show/hide)

How is this that much different from strat 5? Other than actual roleplay.

I'd answer this question if I didn't just spend an hour or so answering it in further detail above. 

[Jack1]

Jack1 leader of go do the dishes(needs revising most likely) accepts invitation to the meeting assuming I can make it.

Anti annexation proposal


 

(click to show/hide)

any strategus faction containing more than one clan in itself must split into separate groups

Comments: basically strategus gets ruined by factions that are composed by multiple clans(FCC, LCO, VE in strat 4, squids, LCO, wardans of the north, KBW now.) the game adds a large amount of diversity when the game contains many more smaller clans in smaller factions than many clans in larger ones.

[Auphilia]

I would agree on that, but at the same time a lot of these clans are a fraction of the size they use to be. LCO for example, activity wise, are they really that large?
Hospitallers at one point was larger than all of LCO currently, and so was Occitan. If they agreed to split up, they would be very small, I'd imagine.


Also, I don't mind having a few very large clans. Their size might make them Kings, and force them to never be allies. The kings would have a lot of responsibility and have to maintain order in their own realms. If Dukes turn on them because they are being tyrants, and the other King takes the opportunity to attack, they wouldn't be in such a great situation. Also if we evenly distribute fiefs to clans, a large clan would only have a few more fiefs than a small/moderate clan. It would only give them more troop farmers, not really more gold and equipment.

[MURDERTRON]

You can't force people to not be allies, whether its official or not.  What we should really do is just pair off clans and force them to go to war with each other or a dev takes their fiefs away and returns it to AI.

[Balikar]

Honestly, I think some of the things that need to be fixed have nothing to do with clans at all.  They have to do with the mechanics. 

Issue:  Rosters
Possible Fix:  Battle and Siege servers go offline five minutes before a strat battle for strat preparations.  If one side fills their roster, and the others do not, the players are funnelled onto the other team's roster until it's full.  Downside, yes, 'bad' players may be put on the unfilled roster, but in all honesty, the merc advantage of the other side would likely overpower the unfilled roster anyway.  In close rostered battles, this becomes an issue...  But when it's 30 vs 10, the other side needs the people.

Issue:  Crime
Possible fix:  Either reduce the rate in which troops are lost, or install a different kind of fix.  For example, troops lost to crime increase the population.  If the population goes over 'x' percentage in comparison to the garrison, there's an AI revolt.  Either it's an actual battle, or the fief simply 'turns.'  Silver drops to 0.  Original strat equipment is in place, yada yada wolf wolf.

Issue:  Alliances
You can complain all you want about alliances, but in all honesty, nothing will change.  If you have 100 little factions, there's nothing stopping them from 'blocking' together. 

Issue:  Faction size  (Anti Annexation Proposal Explained)
Possible Fix:  Don't allow people from different factions to join other factions while maintaining their original banner.  IE an Astralis member joins the Squids in Strat, but stays in Astralis (Yes, it happened).  This would stop a lot, but in all honesty, if someone wants to be in one mega faction, they'll end up there somehow. 
Possible Fix:  Limited Ladder Sizes.  Yes, make people make decisions on who is in their faction rather than allowing anyone and everyone.  How many times have we heard Kesh say '8 man faction..'  and heard other people (myself included) say that ladder size doesn't denote activity. 

Issue:  Economy

Issue:  Themed armies
Honestly, there's no way to limit the gear someone uses.  When the winning army leaves the field, they have looted gear.  There's no way to stop them from using it.  And in all honesty, they shouldn't have to.  ;-)   Since gear degrades, I'm all for keeping armies in play rather than having them fight twice, and have to go back into trade mode to re equip themselves.

Just some thoughts.

[Jona]

Jack1 leader of go do the dishes(needs revising most likely) accepts invitation to the meeting assuming I can make it.

Anti annexation proposal


 

(click to show/hide)

any strategus faction containing more than one clan in itself must split into separate groups

Comments: basically strategus gets ruined by factions that are composed by multiple clans(FCC, LCO, VE in strat 4, squids, LCO, wardans of the north, KBW now.) the game adds a large amount of diversity when the game contains many more smaller clans in smaller factions than many clans in larger ones.

I always thought that strat factions and crpg clans should be the same entity... whatever clan your strat hero is in on the ladder is the same faction that you are in for strat. Sure alliances could still be formed, and there is nothing that would ever stop that, but at least you wouldn't be able to see what is going on with your allies. You can't see their movements, their gear/gold/goods, etc. Where there is uncertainty, there is unrest.

Clan leader #1: "Hey man, we are under attack, could you send some troops our way?"
Clan leader #2: "Nah, sorry. We don't have any to spare."
Clan leader #1: "Bullshit! You haven't done shit all strat, you've got to have some laying around."
*Clan leader #1 leaves alliance between clans 1 and 2 and relations turn sour between the two clans leading to war, more battles, more fun, more xp, etc.*

Well, that is how I would hope it would play out, but undoubtedly large mega factions will find ways to bypass such things (account sharing, etc.). Not to mention the mega factions could still exist by having all the clans that make up the faction join the same clan, like LCOH and FCC (and to a lesser extent kbw). Even if clans don't banner stack together, this method still allows for massive clans (AoW and MB, for example) to have massive factions as well. We should really just have a hard cap on the number of members each faction can contain. But then this will simply lead to FFC Faction A, FCC Faction B, etc. I know that the devs were interested in good ideas for limiting the size of factions somehow when planning strat 5, but there is frankly no good solution to this problem that has been proposed yet, so the mega factions remain an issue. Get your thinking caps on, everybody...

[Auphilia]

That is just the thing though, instead of trying to rely on the developers to create some wonky mechanics fix to roster problems, or mega-clan problems, why can't we just have some decency and integrity and play fairly with each other? The developers wouldn't have to create these mechanics if we just had integrity. No one wants to play monopoly with some asshole who starts off with twice as much money as you. No one wants to play poker with some group of friends who are looking at each others cards and snickering about how easy it is to manipulate the game and win every single time. The purpose of this thread is to avoid looking towards the developers to solve every problem, and to take some responsibility ourselves. The problem isn't mechanics, the problem is a community of cowardly, cheating, dishonorable, poor-sportsmen, min-maxing, trolling, griefing, exploiting, cockroaches that crawl in and out of every crack and flaw they can find in the system. In real life, no one plays with assholes who play this way. People just figure out they aren't worth bothering with. Online we have to deal with it, or create a collaboration of solutions. Rosters can be solved without mechanics. Mega-factions can be solved without any codding. It's as simple as everyone agreeing to play fair.

[MURDERTRON]

Well, one way to help with the roster/alliance problem would be to make all applications automatically be to both teams, unless you are in one of the factions fighting.  That way mercs are just mercs.  Unfortunately, that would make people join factions together, but at least any spillover, will be available to the other side.

if we just had integrity.

No one in this entire mod has integrity.

[BaleOhay]

This strat did not have FCC and look how bad it is.

[Jona]

The problem isn't mechanics, the problem is a community of cowardly, cheating, dishonorable, poor-sportsmen, min-maxing, trolling, griefing, exploiting, cockroaches that crawl in and out of every crack and flaw they can find in the system. In real life, no one plays with assholes who play this way. People just figure out they aren't worth bothering with. Online we have to deal with it, or create a collaboration of solutions. Rosters can be solved without mechanics. Mega-factions can be solved without any codding. It's as simple as everyone agreeing to play fair.

Exactly. And as you said, online we are stuck with having to deal with them, hence many people have chosen not to deal with them, hence strat is dead.

[Chosen1]

This strat did not have FCC and look how bad it is.

but it did though? did you not attend the VC Day celebrations or something 

[Holiday203]

Honestly, I think some of the things that need to be fixed have nothing to do with clans at all.  They have to do with the mechanics. 

Issue:  Rosters
Possible Fix:  Battle and Siege servers go offline five minutes before a strat battle for strat preparations.  If one side fills their roster, and the others do not, the players are funnelled onto the other team's roster until it's full.  Downside, yes, 'bad' players may be put on the unfilled roster, but in all honesty, the merc advantage of the other side would likely overpower the unfilled roster anyway.  In close rostered battles, this becomes an issue...  But when it's 30 vs 10, the other side needs the people.

Issue:  Crime
Possible fix:  Either reduce the rate in which troops are lost, or install a different kind of fix.  For example, troops lost to crime increase the population.  If the population goes over 'x' percentage in comparison to the garrison, there's an AI revolt.  Either it's an actual battle, or the fief simply 'turns.'  Silver drops to 0.  Original strat equipment is in place, yada yada wolf wolf.

Issue:  Alliances
You can complain all you want about alliances, but in all honesty, nothing will change.  If you have 100 little factions, there's nothing stopping them from 'blocking' together. 

Issue:  Faction size  (Anti Annexation Proposal Explained)
Possible Fix:  Don't allow people from different factions to join other factions while maintaining their original banner.  IE an Astralis member joins the Squids in Strat, but stays in Astralis (Yes, it happened).  This would stop a lot, but in all honesty, if someone wants to be in one mega faction, they'll end up there somehow. 
Possible Fix:  Limited Ladder Sizes.  Yes, make people make decisions on who is in their faction rather than allowing anyone and everyone.  How many times have we heard Kesh say '8 man faction..'  and heard other people (myself included) say that ladder size doesn't denote activity. 

Issue:  Economy

Issue:  Themed armies
Honestly, there's no way to limit the gear someone uses.  When the winning army leaves the field, they have looted gear.  There's no way to stop them from using it.  And in all honesty, they shouldn't have to.  ;-)   Since gear degrades, I'm all for keeping armies in play rather than having them fight twice, and have to go back into trade mode to re equip themselves.

Just some thoughts.

You're fucking stupid.