Jump to content

Back to the old times


Centurius
 Share

Recommended Posts

Recently I have been looking back in RP history and found a jewel compared to current wars about a year ago there was a big war between me and Kaiser Martens + others. What I immediately noticed was the lack of OOC bickering. I looked better and on the old forums nothing was different.

When I look at recent Wars I notice 90% OOC. Back in the old days it was fun losing territory as you could just post a story and did not have to fear you cant do that because of this small thing or that small thing. Wars were predetermined exactly what area was open to conquer and what would be from someone else. Therfore I propose the following.

As of the end of the current European conflict all Wars are to be discussed by both parties before being approved. If negotiations do not work out a GM can mediate. The decision of the GM will be law. This will make war and RP in general more fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Recently I have been looking back in RP history and found a jewel compared to current wars about a year ago there was a big war between me and Kaiser Martens + others. What I immediately noticed was the lack of OOC bickering. I looked better and on the old forums nothing was different.

When I look at recent Wars I notice 90% OOC. Back in the old days it was fun losing territory as you could just post a story and did not have to fear you cant do that because of this small thing or that small thing. Wars were predetermined exactly what area was open to conquer and what would be from someone else. Therfore I propose the following.

As of the end of the current European conflict all Wars are to be discussed by both parties before being approved. If negotiations do not work out a GM can mediate. The decision of the GM will be law. This will make war and RP in general more fun.

I fully support this.

That old CNRP looks much more fun than what it is now. (Cent linked me to the thread he mentioned)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recently I have been looking back in RP history and found a jewel compared to current wars about a year ago there was a big war between me and Kaiser Martens + others. What I immediately noticed was the lack of OOC bickering. I looked better and on the old forums nothing was different.

When I look at recent Wars I notice 90% OOC. Back in the old days it was fun losing territory as you could just post a story and did not have to fear you cant do that because of this small thing or that small thing. Wars were predetermined exactly what area was open to conquer and what would be from someone else. Therfore I propose the following.

As of the end of the current European conflict all Wars are to be discussed by both parties before being approved. If negotiations do not work out a GM can mediate. The decision of the GM will be law. This will make war and RP in general more fun.

Cent could you link me to this thread you found as I would like to read it and renimiss about the old days also was this war you mentioned before or after the world map?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cent could you link me to this thread you found as I would like to read it and renimiss about the old days also was this war you mentioned before or after the world map?

Before the world map in the days of the scramble for threads :)http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=17753

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before the world map in the days of the scramble for threads :)http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=17753

Kaiser's mechs :wub: and yes that is a perfect example of how a war should be fought and as you say people didn't mind lossing land however, today with so many players and the world map people might be afraid of loosing land because it means they are reduced to a tiny piece of land on the map to RP from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kaiser's mechs :wub: and yes that is a perfect example of how a war should be fought and as you say people didn't mind lossing land however, today with so many players and the world map people might be afraid of loosing land because it means they are reduced to a tiny piece of land on the map to RP from.

Actually this would decrease land loss. As currently you can be wiped off the map as nothing is predetermined when you plan it you can amrk exactly what area is up for conquering and what they have to stay away off :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hm, Centurius, you have quite a good point. Pre-discussed wars can reduce the possiblity of 'unplanned, unexpected, and unwanted' loss of territory that can make CNRP less fun -- and OOC bickering. That's what Botha does, I'd reckon. :P

I approve of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitely a good idea in theory. But there would still be certain unpredictable factors. The actions of allies and previously neutral powers.

I definitely agree to that.

There are two other possible problems I can see with a rule forcing everyone to pre-plan wars:

1: Metagaming (People take advantage of knowing the war is coming, and frantically RP building defenses)

2: Taking advantage of the rule (One party of the war fat out refuses to do it, and you're stuck)

Honestly, I like being in the dark about whether a war is about to be declared. That said, I think it would cut a lot of the OOC if the involved parties were to go over their defenses and the populations and locations of cities. If that were to happen, it would at least stop OOC arguments over things like casualties, and prevent people from bombing a worthless stretches of land that are RL metropolitan centers (Tat whole bombing of Los Angeles by Maelstrom comes to mind).

If people just kept a bit of courtesy over these things (IE, politely say that someone's post was godmodding, Say in the beginning of a war where your defenses are, etc), that would cut out most, if not all (in some cases) of the OOC bickering that goes on.

My two cents

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely agree to that.

There are two other possible problems I can see with a rule forcing everyone to pre-plan wars:

1: Metagaming (People take advantage of knowing the war is coming, and frantically RP building defenses)

2: Taking advantage of the rule (One party of the war fat out refuses to do it, and you're stuck)

Honestly, I like being in the dark about whether a war is about to be declared. That said, I think it would cut a lot of the OOC if the involved parties were to go over their defenses and the populations and locations of cities. If that were to happen, it would at least stop OOC arguments over things like casualties, and prevent people from bombing a worthless stretches of land that are RL metropolitan centers (Tat whole bombing of Los Angeles by Maelstrom comes to mind).

If people just kept a bit of courtesy over these things (IE, politely say that someone's post was godmodding, Say in the beginning of a war where your defenses are, etc), that would cut out most, if not all (in some cases) of the OOC bickering that goes on.

My two cents

Actually that's where the GM part is for if a party refuses to be reasonable the GM will rule on results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually that's where the GM part is for if a party refuses to be reasonable the GM will rule on results.

Yeah, that'll do fine for a war that's been agreed to be fought...but what if there's a legitimate cause for war...but one person stubbornly refuses to fight or even acknolwedge a war could happen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that'll do fine for a war that's been agreed to be fought...but what if there's a legitimate cause for war...but one person stubbornly refuses to fight or even acknolwedge a war could happen?

Same rule as currently refuse to recognize a GM verdict and the nation gets automatically defeated

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because something should be done doesn't mean people should be forced to do it. Planning wars between players before they happen in the game is the better way of doing things, but a lot of people will be turned off by making unplanned aggression off-limits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, wars should be planned before they begin. There's still going to be bickering, but it will all happen before the war. People can't help the ooc stuff, we all have different ideas about how the rp is in general, and when countries interact in war there's bound to be problems.

If you ask me though I think this war is going pretty well, apart from triyun complaining because I'm "ignoring" his posts. My military on that front sustained high casualties and retreated, what else do I have to say to that? Triyun help me help you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because something should be done doesn't mean people should be forced to do it. Planning wars between players before they happen in the game is the better way of doing things, but a lot of people will be turned off by making unplanned aggression off-limits.

While I agree with your last point we really have to make an equation. War with lesser people on the map but epic versions where both parties do not have to fear their total destruction(in the form of losing all land) or staying with the current way where there is more OOC than IC

Ah yes, the crushing of Gebiv. One of my more successful wars :P

Yeah it was :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, wars should be planned before they begin. There's still going to be bickering, but it will all happen before the war. People can't help the ooc stuff, we all have different ideas about how the rp is in general, and when countries interact in war there's bound to be problems.

If you ask me though I think this war is going pretty well, apart from triyun complaining because I'm "ignoring" his posts. My military on that front sustained high casualties and retreated, what else do I have to say to that? Triyun help me help you.

My primary issue there was the anti armor tactics you engaged, it was like a sentence which ignored my much more detailed strategy of engagement. I like to have a well thought out defense for a well thought out offense. Your first post wasn't high casualties btw as I recall.

Anyways, I'd agree to some pre agreed war, however I would like to see some restriction there. For example, I can't send in a !@#$ load of spies and aggitators with tons of weapons into Slavorussia and then refuse to fight Justinian if he discovers its me and chooses to go to war. Thats a recipe for abuse in my book.

Edited by Triyun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My primary issue there was the anti armor tactics you engaged, it was like a sentence which ignored my much more detailed strategy of engagement. I like to have a well thought out defense for a well thought out offense. Your first post wasn't high casualties btw as I recall.

Anyways, I'd agree to some pre agreed war, however I would like to see some restriction there. For example, I can't send in a !@#$ load of spies and aggitators with tons of weapons into Slavorussia and then refuse to fight Justinian if he discovers its me and chooses to go to war. Thats a recipe for abuse in my book.

Of course and this would need GM supervision, I did not add specifics as much will be case-to-case basis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...