Declare War Spell

[Dragual]

What if there was a spell to declare war? This spell would be available ONLY to Land Leaders(Kings? Council?) and to Military Ally Leaders. This spell would not cost any heat and could be an item instead. Like, maybe a saber of some sort? This spell/item could only be used at the gates of the enemy. And then any other Allys or lands that wish to get involved in the war can run to the gates and choose whether they are joining the attackers or the defenders. This could create a sort of system for warfare. Also, the Attackers could choose who specifically they are attacking while using the spell/item. Maybe this could also effect how easily the enemies enter said gates?

Example- KoB decide that for some reason or anther they want to attack GG and any citizen in the lands. (Just a random example) Said leader of KoB would approach the Gates of Ages and declare war against Land GG.

(Sorry this seems so illegible... I guess my mind is groggy from not being able to get on MD lately. )

Note- I have no idea about any future wars, this is just another random idea I had.

[Chewett]

What is the concept as you understand of a land "war"?

From what i have seen, A land does not need an item to declare a war, it is easily enough done with words. So essentially the idea of a war will create some period of time where you fight each other, similar to Torch contest?

If so, it sounds a lot more just like a battle, versis a war that would be a longer campain

[Yrthilian]

I had already suggest this system idea but in a slightly diffrent way. back when there was a kingship
it would be a system of showing what lands are friendly or a level of agression that a land has towards another.

In the system i was putting forward at the time was that land leader/kingship could change their level towards other lands
to show greviences towards each land or to show alliance between lands. think of it as similar to the rebel system but land based
at the time the idea was that of 2 ands wantedto go to war they could choose to do so and end up in a war mode.
Untill all citizens of one side was killed. (the mechanics for this are already in game). This would only be a way to facilitate a war
and to show a death toll between sides. It would be an automated way of showing what land won the war.

So in essence it is only a way to show and display war stats. I was going to expand on that idea even further with other things like
if 2 lands did go to war they would have to put up an equal share of a prize say for example each land had to put forward 3/4 creatures
of equal value and the winning side would win all of the creatures from that war. (Spoils of war and all that)

I have always been in favour of a system like this. But it needs to be backed by the comunity and then put to the council/Mur for approval
but remember there would be a need for coding changes to do such a thing and have it land controled. Unlike the TC where it is time controled
I think it would make things more intresting and cause land to want to have good fighters as well as stragitist. this would also cause land to want the needle
or other item of power to gain an advantage. Like the death wepons used to assinate top players to keep them out of the war.

I could go on and on and on with what could be done but i wont as for something like this to work it need the comunity of MD to back and support
such an idea and to then push for it to be done.

In case it was missed i am for this idea

Edited January 31, 2012 by Yrthilian

[Jubaris]

Yrth, maybe in an ideal system without bugs, bug abusing and such.

From time to time, some bug with which you can attack offline people constantly swims out. Abuse of spells that were dedicated for moderating certain competitions or helping newbs...

What would those wars actually show, you tell me, actually victory of one's land strategy, or "who has accumulated more privileges and game mechanics abuse knowledge"?

[Kamisha]

For what ever its worth which is not much since I am not part of any land or alliance and dont plan to be for an undetermined amount of time I am somewhat for this idea. If you can make something like war integrated it increases the kings ability to go to war against another land. However the spoils of war I am somewhat sketchy on. Since two lands dont agree to go to war. One ussually wants to go to war and the other land is eaither going to agree to go to war and make an offensive before the other side can launch an offensive ot simply play defensivley. If there was a spoils of war prize at the end of every one (I have played MMORPG's that have such a system) it quickly turns into a source of income which causes repeditive attacks on the opposing nation. What I would suggest is only the team launching the initial attack be penalized the creatures in the case of a lose and in the case of a win I would still have to work out. Aparently there is supposed to be some sort of award desposted to the lands treasury after the end of torch war. I dont think that has been decided yet but when that is integrated the spoils in return should be something in that catagory.

Participation is questionable since allthough you are to abide by your kings wishes mur likes the idea of not taking freewill away completely in most cases (case and point making two rebals in nocrocron when it was first implemented although if he didnt make them they would likely in anycase do so themselves). So there should be freewill element involved sort of like a voting point like during elections but instead of coming to a concensus deciding if they are participating or not. Those who do get involved will be captured if killed and those who dont won't but wont be able to capture opponents either. The king or alliance leader could if they fail to join the war choose to label them as tratoirs though and disband certain members (but I think they can do that already).

Death toll (or capture toll as I am suggesting) is a hard one though. There are active and none active players. Players who are inactive should be discounted as part of the death toll of wars. Maybe a a system that they adepts have such as the five days leeway of inactivity. If they are inactive for 5 days they are no longer counted and removed from the war. I also would suggest a percentage then a cold hard toll that changes after each death to reach 100% in order to win or after a predetermined time or else somepeople will just hide and prolong the war as long as possible and im an advacate for complete conflict quickly but effectivly to get the point across (not just turn things into a pissing match).

As for nations that are considered friendly they would be asked to go to war as a combined land. If the other land refused it would be the kings choice eaither to increase there relation.

I am for this but there are three things to take into account. First this is a huge or monumental amount of coding. Two as Rheagar Targaryen has brought up there are bugs that could be abused at the current moment and the more complex systems you implement ussually more show up. (Just look at skyrims first patch and its backwards flying dragons however bugs can be fixed and disipline can be taken against those who use them.) Third and finally I dont take crdit for creating a perfect system I am just sketching out what I think and throwing in suggestions and a few tweaks.

Also this is not to be taken as more then a grain of sand. I am not part of a land and have never been part of one so I am no exspert on the topic and dont claim to be.

[Kaya]

What you're saying, Kamisha, sounds pretty much like Torch Competition, only players that pick up a torch participate, and the prize goes to each land.

One thing I thought is that it might be interesting when the land recognizes citizens of opposing lands as enemies, and makes it harder for them to walk through their territory, as opposing to land loyalty bonus.

[Kamisha]

[quote name='samon' timestamp='1328026920' post='102977']
What you're saying, Kamisha, sounds pretty much like Torch Competition, only players that pick up a torch participate, and the prize goes to each land...
[/quote]

Well all things considered what do you think the torch competition was.

[Yrthilian]

@ Rhaegar[b]: [/b][font=times new roman,times,serif]There are many bugs in the game yes. I dont really see your argument as the issue you speak of is part of the system now and has been for a very long time.[/font]

[font=times new roman,times,serif]What is being suggested here was already worked on a very long time ago and turned into TC.[/font]
[font=times new roman,times,serif]So the codeing and bugs would still be more or less the same.[/font]

[font=times new roman,times,serif]Yes the War system is basicaly the TC but a land chosen one. It is more how such a system could be run[/font]
[font=times new roman,times,serif]and would be better if instead of shooting the idea down suggestions are made as to how it may or how it wont work.[/font]
[font=times new roman,times,serif]what [/font]Rhaegar says is a posiable why it wont work but not a cant work. It is just a moan regards bugs and people with ablities.

I believe each land have such people with ablities that give that land an advantage over another
this is something land will need to look at when looking to goto war. Whom to take out first and how they may do it.
One of the strongest players in game is Eon so yes he/she will be come a main target if he/she gets involved in the war.
The idea that pople can choose to be part of the war is a good idea. But i would say only citizens get to choose alliance
have a single person the leader who will choose to enter war or not. But then that will bring in its own issues.

The idea of a war system bring with it many diffrent things and will even bring with it internal struggles within the lands themselfs.
Dont just look at what the mechanics of such a system would be also look at the bigger picture. This is in its self an expansion
posiable a way for land to go to war over the laws of that land been broken by a citizen of another land. This in its self bring
a whole diffrent way of comunicating and whole new way of diplomacy that currently has no influence within MD at all.

If there was a war system this would bring a diffrent scope to the way lands interact with each other.
What is being suggested can be refined to a this is how it work step by step and how it can benifit or influence things withn MD
as for the war. Once there has been war then the 2 land cant enter into another one between them for a while. say 1 month or even 3 months
make a nice cool down so then you cant use it as a way to gain resorces for your land to easly.

Could make it that a % of the land resorces become the spoils of war but that is something that needs talking about and how that could be applied.
There is much in this that could be of great value to MD and much that becomes a disadvantage so lets iron them out and see what could be suggested
and see if this is something that could be supported by the comunity at large and see if Mur or council would be willing to add this to MD

YES it is a lot of coding and much i believe can already be put in place from some of the other systems already in place.
It is just codeing it slightly diffrently and makeing it fit the requirement of the war system. I beleiev TC will already have most of
what is suggested to be used just with some tweeks and yes big ones at that. But you never know it may have already been looked at or being worked on and we
just dont know it and what we put forward as suggestions may come into play or help shape such a system.

[Liberty4life]

well kamisha wars in past were all about profit, wars today are expense for state, but they are still profit for corporations

if ya lookin for a way take spoils, why not take it from lands treasury, ya know that thing that gets more and more stuff after land wins tc, its not yet finished but it would be good place from which spoils would be taken

or we need some large economy system as well from which this war thingy would be fueled

personally, md is goin in very undetermined path, and there are much more important stuff atm to be done, this war thingy aint that important in mine view

[The Warrior]

I like the idea, and personally I feel like the risk of bugs is a very weak argument. It's like saying, I'm think I'll bake a cake. But no, it might not rise properly, therefore I won't try to bake a cake (terrible analogy but gets the point across).
Implementing new features, finding bugs and fixing them is the general way MD develops and to argue against creating new features on the basis of bugs being made would completely stall the development of MD.

Now my contribution to the idea: Rather than have a timeout in an attempt to prevent abuse. Have it so that when the leader declares war, they have to submit a "aim of war" statement to be approved after the war (no matter what the outcome). If after the war, the 'aim' is not deemed correct or befitting by a war counsel (made of those who contributed most to the war effort of either side) the declaring party could be target for land-based sanctioning. However all of this would require immense coding. It's how I see MD wars working optimally.

I don't know what is already available in the game mechanics to facilitate this, but reading that which Yrthilian has posted above, it makes me feel this is a very possible feature to implement where the system controls all the statistics and mechanics and community control the effort and spoils.

[ChildOfTheSoul]

I agree that MD should have more of an interface designed to facilitate war. If a war spell like that does get made, I would suggest making it a four cast or less spell, just so a person can't make a "declare war" stone. haha.

There are other ways to accomplish the same task other than making "Declare War" into a spell. There could be an item or, like I said, a programmed interface. I suppose we'll see what happens with the monarchy and government system.

[Kamisha]

[quote name='ChildOfTheSoul' timestamp='1328039725' post='102999']
I agree that MD should have more of an interface designed to facilitate war. If a war spell like that does get made, I would suggest making it a four cast or less spell, just so a person can't make a "declare war" stone. haha.

There are other ways to accomplish the same task other than making "Declare War" into a spell. There could be an item or, like I said, a programmed interface. I suppose we'll see what happens with the monarchy and government system.
[/quote]

I do like the idea of an item as it allows the ability of the king to give the priorties of starting and ending wars to a stratagist or appointed military leader. So the king can build a small hierarchy around him self as oppose to one person controling all land affairs. It is sort of like the signet ring. If the king is to busy or just not willing he can pass the ring to somebody else to take care of citizenship.

[Chewett]

Who is the leader?

Its pointless to devise a system when currently there are no land heads...

[Dragual]

What if we make it to were the Leaders declare war on just a specific Ally, and then either side has the ability to add any citizen to their ally for the duration of the war? And then, have there be three ways to end the war. Either A, you run out of time... Say, 7 days and B you kill all enemy soldiers. And finally C, the opposing Ally surrenders. As for B, this could also lead to a draw if both sides lose the same amount of troops.

[Chewett]

[quote name='Dragual' timestamp='1328048465' post='103021']
What if we make it to were the [b]Leaders[/b] declare war on just a specific Ally, and then either side has the ability to add any citizen to their ally for the duration of the war? And then, have there be three ways to end the war. Either A, you run out of time... Say, 7 days and B you kill all enemy soldiers. And finally C, the opposing Ally surrenders. As for B, this could also lead to a draw if both sides lose the same amount of troops.
[/quote]

Who are these leaders? alliance leaders? Monarchs? Because as iv already said we dont have monarchs atm and i dont see that changing anytime soon...

[Kamisha]

[quote name='Chewett' timestamp='1328050536' post='103025']

Who are these leaders? alliance leaders? Monarchs? Because as iv already said we dont have monarchs atm and i dont see that changing anytime soon...
[/quote]

Chewett does have a point considering the lack of an actual decisve leader of a land since monarchy has been abolished. An alliance version of this item or spell should be discussed until such a point that there is actually such thing as a land leader. Since alliances have the ability to influance wars.

[Yrthilian]

In reply to "Leaders" and to say Duh!

The leader are thoes of the 4 main land alliances. When there was no kingship the ones that where in charge where the Main alliance leaders
so even thogh there is no kingship. I dont see why it would be any diffrent to be honest. SO yeah the leader are the alliance leader of the main land alliances untill a desision is made regards the kingship.

In regards a system.
All systems start off in one way or another and get adapted. the fact there is no kingship should not be a reason to not try and design one.
It is as week an excuse as the bugs excuse sorry if that offend but that is how i see it.

Edited February 1, 2012 by Yrthilian

[Chewett]

[quote name='Yrthilian' timestamp='1328088025' post='103058']
The leader are thoes of the 4 main land alliances. When there was no kingship the ones that where in charge where the Main alliance leaders
so even thogh there is no kingship. I dont see why it would be any diffrent to be honest. SO yeah the leader are the alliance leader of the main land alliances untill a desision is made regards the kingship.
[/quote]

That statement is incredibly foolish and if you only stopped to consider what you were saying for a moment it would dawn on you.

MB is run as a council currently, and elections are going on for the "leader" position. CM has not put his name forward so clearly he doesnt want to be leader.
GG is run as a <insert funny T word> and unless its changed has no real "one" leader, even looking at the main alliance, i was under the impression that it was run by multiple peolpe.
LR... I dont really know whats up with LR, i "think" shem and mya are kinda leaders... but as i said im not sure about that.
And Necro... thats a strange state, you could claim that leader of main alliance is "leader" But i could see oppersition.

Doing things like there was before kingship, and taking wide land desicsions is entirely different. The Monarchs took decisions based on what they felt, and they were "legal" and allowed. Wheras before Kings we had various points of authority that generally did things as a general concensus from everyone important in the area.

You can easily see the difference when you look at Firs banning Rheagar and Blackwood forest? (or someone, people dont matter, its the point) Firs didnt like whatever they were doing, and thusly decided to ban them. Wheras if there was merely an alliance leader, they wouldnt have had the legal right to do so, since they are not in charge of the land, but merely one part of said land.
I see little point designing a system where the trigger of the system relies on something not currently there.

If you say that main alliance has the ability to declare war on any other main alliance, Then that seems much more sensible, as they would not nesscarily be doing it "for the land" like a king could.

[Maebius]

How were "wars" started back in the days of the Adventure Log (RPC times?). Did they have mechanics of rebellion and numerical analogs to count victory? I'm too young to have know those details.

[Yrthilian]

in the old day the main land alliance leader decided if war was to happen.
between the land or not. Being as i was one of the people doing that back then.
I had the right as alliance leader back before i was even king. Back then i also was the one to decided
what could and could not be done with the land. As at that time i was alliance leader and the right was mine to do so
as i was leader of the main alliance land.

So from history what i said is true. in regards to Chewys reply.
Main land alliance where concidered the leaders of the lands. It does not matter how thoes leaders chose to run the
leadership it was still based on their word of yes or no or even maybe. Yes GG is not run with the as you say funny T word
so the leader (BURNS) would talk with the others and between them make the desision. He is still the one in charge by game mechanics

For MB Who ever is leader of the main alliance still could request things and have them granted as a land leader.
How the mechanical leader choosed to run things is their business but they are ultimatly the one with the power.

For LR whom ever is alliance leader there has the same ablity and rights that where of the past
same for Necrovian. so yes there are still land leaders they are the leaders of the main alliance that was never changed
just because kings got put in place the right transfered to them and so in turn with them gone the rights of the positon fall back
to the land leaders.

Yes this is my view on this and to me make logical sence. There is always someone who is in charge unless you reset the whle world
(somehow i dont see that happining) but even then some people will gather together and regain some sort of leadership.
To me it is silly to assume control would not be taken in some form. The kingship is an open ended issue and will be some time before
anything may get done with that position. Untill then i for one concider that Burns has the same right as the king had in regards land desisions
until the council/Mur say otherwise.

there may be thoes that are not happy that lands have certan leader. if it is such an issue then rebel to regain control.
as is said many time over. the systems are there so use them.

designing a system for war can still be done be the control be with a group or with a single leader does not matter
the system can still bedesigned and suggestions still be made for such. Just because something is not there does not mean
you count it out for good. changes CAN be made to fit what is needed. The system does not even NEED a leader to decided
it can be done by civilan vote. An alliance could wish to goto war put this to the citizens they vote. Oh look no king or leader
decideing for sure that the land will go to war. All it takes is thinking outside the box to work on a way to make this work

No system really NEEDS to be that solid in how it may be run.

[Maebius]

[quote name='Yrthilian' timestamp='1328106339' post='103087']
in the old day the main land alliance leader decided if war was to happen.
between the land or not. Being as i was one of the people doing that back then.
I had the right as alliance leader back before i was even king. Back then i also was the one to decided
what could and could not be done with the land. As at that time i was alliance leader and the right was mine to do so
as i was leader of the main alliance land.
[/quote]

Thank you yrth, but my question was one of more "mechanics". You say you waged war because you decided to.
[b]How?[/b] That was my question. Were there rules and numbers to track who won then?
If not...

who won, and why?
Can the same be done in today's culture of MD?
Why, or why not?

[Yrthilian]

[quote name='Maebius' timestamp='1328107346' post='103091']

Thank you yrth, but my question was one of more "mechanics". You say you waged war because you decided to.
[b]How?[/b] That was my question. Were there rules and numbers to track who won then?
If not...

who won, and why?
Can the same be done in today's culture of MD?
Why, or why not?
[/quote]

no there was not game mechanics to support the war.

The way one of the wars was won was that i declaired a player step down from their position and new person to be elected and i stated
whom would not be accepted as the new leader. After much forum wars and in game fighting what i asked for was done.

the second one was a civial war and it succeded in calling a cote for kingship. This was a narow win on my part.

the 3rd was with necrovian this one was lost and was player controled regards how the battle would work.
this is logged in the history of necrovian i think recently.

None of the 3 wars had a mechanic behind it but should have to make it more war like.
they where more arguments between ego's at the time and flame wars and ingame argument made it work.
after the first war i asked about getting a mechanic put in place to facilitate any other wars but that was shot down quickly
by all the vets at the time.

can the same be done??
i dont think it can be to the same extent it was back in the old days.
but yes once both sides agree to terms of how to run it and how one could claim victory
but no spoils of war or anything like that.

Wars today can be more visous but still mean nothing in the end. they become pointless

Edited February 1, 2012 by Yrthilian

[Liberty4life]

what yrth said is true leaders of land main alliances still hold significant power, they are executors, as for all those councils or w/e is goin on that is holdin some kind of legislative power, from what i see executors of lands atm hold power with exception of mb where clocky isnt interested much so he leaves decisions to council, but in other lands i can clearly see that ally leaders are in charge, ofc we dont really count necro, it aint real land anymore at the moment it doesnt even have capitol marked as sanctuary

[Dragual]

Can we stay on the main topic please? So what if there are no kings? That just means that a LAND can't declare war on another LAND until such things are dealt with. The idea is that BOTH Land Leaders and Ally Leaders can use this ability/spell/item. Then, once Land Leaders are taken care of, they too would get this "feature".

In addition, I'd like to say I support the idea of Spoils of War. Perhaps it could be done with Yrth's resource idea and maybe a small stealing from the enemy Vault? But I do understand if that can be a problem with Land's deciding to become raiders...

[Udgard]

[quote name='Yrthilian' timestamp='1328110500' post='103093']
The way one of the wars was won was that i declaired a player step down from their position and new person to be elected and i stated
whom would not be accepted as the new leader. After much forum wars and in game fighting what i asked for was done.
[/quote]
Correction: technically there was never a war. You broke the treaty and threatened to start a war if Raven didn't step down, which he did to prevent war from happening.

On topic: What does the community think about main alliances' power over the land, really? I remember a lot of bitching on the forums during the loreroot HC elections when they wrongly assumed that the HC wanted to control the land.. I see the ability to decide who the land goes to war with as one of the ultimate form of control against the land.
Also, there's an issue if the main alliance wants to go to war, while other alliances don't. Since they all belong to the same land, this would mean they would be forced to go to war as well. I think it would be better if it requires all of the land's alliances' agreement to declare a war, and if a uniform stance cannot be formed, the war would affect the participating alliances only (which makes it an alliance war really, not a land war).