Arkantos Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Voted Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 (edited) I am totally for a planned-war rule... Planned wars ultimately come out better in the end IMVHO... Two thumbs up! And a vote Changed to a No Edited August 26, 2009 by Executive Minister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V The King Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 (edited) Depends on how much planning it'd need for a war to be validated. IMO, basic planning should be compulsory such as the clarification of the pace of the war (e.g. how many RL days for a RP war day), sizes of brigades/divisions, technology being used and terrain conditions. Setting the table, pretty much, but not necessarily determining how the war would go beforehand. So, I vote yes for there to be some sort of planning, but not the whole of the war. EDIT: Just so to clarify my point, if person X DoWs Y. then the war WILL happen, but it is highly encouraged they agree on the aforementioned terms to avoid confusion and OOC. Edited August 25, 2009 by V The King Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefano Palmieri Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Null Voted, Dont care either way Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowsage Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Voted no. Why? Because I can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 No; RP while it is a story, is also a game. People shouldn't be able to opt out of risky aspects of the game, and essentially play no-risk. Moreover having such a system destroys any measure of internal regulation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vedran Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 How about no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loannes Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Voted no. It just lets people do what they want and then not recognize a war when it comes time to fight. Nation A attacks Nation B. Nation B is smaller, but thinks it'd be fun and recognizes the war Nation A wins and annexes 75% of B. Nation A declares war on Nation C. Nation C thinks the same way as B and recognizes Nation A wins and expands. Nations D, E, F, and G decide they're tired of it and want to attack Nation A Nation A refuses to recognize the war. This is just a way for the bullies to kill the fun-loving weaker nations while saving their $@! from the big guys. I'm fine if the war is unplanned, but the two sides meet and say "So do we agree not to use nukes, bio weapons, etc.", but this idea is a big $%&@ NO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justinian the Mighty Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 No matter how this poll turns our I still plan on sticking to my decision. I'm tired of the Lulz wars, and I expect other players to respect my choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefano Palmieri Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Null Voted, Dont care either way Bugger it. Change my vote to a no. And if I cant Oh well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manetheren Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Nein. I reserve the right to fight whoever I want. If you are willing to plan it out with me, great. If you're going to be a whiny !@#$%* and complain about it...well then I'll just save the fighting and nuke you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Californian Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Nein. I reserve the right to fight whoever I want. If you are willing to plan it out with me, great. If you're going to be a whiny !@#$%* and complain about it...well then I'll just save the fighting and nuke you. Quoted for truth and emphasis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justinian the Mighty Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 If they don't rp the war what makes you think they're rp you nuking them? El Oh El. Hello! Anybody home? Think McFly! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted August 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Depends on how much planning it'd need for a war to be validated. IMO, basic planning should be compulsory such as the clarification of the pace of the war (e.g. how many RL days for a RP war day), sizes of brigades/divisions, technology being used and terrain conditions. Setting the table, pretty much, but not necessarily determining how the war would go beforehand. So, I vote yes for there to be some sort of planning, but not the whole of the war. EDIT: Just so to clarify my point, if person X DoWs Y. then the war WILL happen, but it is highly encouraged they agree on the aforementioned terms to avoid confusion and OOC. By this proposal the only thing you need to do to have it validated is get a yes from the target the rest is up to you. Voted no. It just lets people do what they want and then not recognize a war when it comes time to fight.Nation A attacks Nation B. Nation B is smaller, but thinks it'd be fun and recognizes the war Nation A wins and annexes 75% of B. Nation A declares war on Nation C. Nation C thinks the same way as B and recognizes Nation A wins and expands. Nations D, E, F, and G decide they're tired of it and want to attack Nation A Nation A refuses to recognize the war. This is just a way for the bullies to kill the fun-loving weaker nations while saving their $@! from the big guys. I'm fine if the war is unplanned, but the two sides meet and say "So do we agree not to use nukes, bio weapons, etc.", but this idea is a big $%&@ NO. Actually to prevent that we put in the X months rule where if you chose for open war you have to stick with it for a long time. No matter how this poll turns our I still plan on sticking to my decision. I'm tired of the Lulz wars, and I expect other players to respect my choice. Same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Revan Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Actually to prevent that we put in the X months rule where if you chose for open war you have to stick with it for a long time. How would the X month rule prevent that scenario? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 How would the X month rule prevent that scenario? I don't think it would--it would just delay the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted August 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 How would the X month rule prevent that scenario? It would make people unable of quickly changing into a planned war mode immediately after attacking. Making sure that if you decide to engage in random wars you will have the risk of being attacked back for a certain period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 It would make people unable of quickly changing into a planned war mode immediately after attacking. Making sure that if you decide to engage in random wars you will have the risk of being attacked back for a certain period. How about this scenario? A nation is in open war mode...but the time is nearing when they can switch. They attack another nation, win, and annex the land, then as soon as that war is over, switch to the other mode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted August 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 How about this scenario? A nation is in open war mode...but the time is nearing when they can switch. They attack another nation, win, and annex the land, then as soon as that war is over, switch to the other mode. For that we can put another safety in that once you attack the period gets extended again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Revan Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 It would make people unable of quickly changing into a planned war mode immediately after attacking. Making sure that if you decide to engage in random wars you will have the risk of being attacked back for a certain period. In the scenario given the player could easily have been in planned war mode through the entire situation. What is to stop someone from seeking out smaller nations that will agree to losing a war while at the same time refusing wars that would put them on a losing side? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted August 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 In the scenario given the player could easily have been in planned war mode through the entire situation. What is to stop someone from seeking out smaller nations that will agree to losing a war while at the same time refusing wars that would put them on a losing side? If a smaller nation agrees to lose a war it is a planned conflict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Revan Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 If a smaller nation agrees to lose a war it is a planned conflict. Exactly the point. If I am in planned war mode I can continuously seek out nations to agree to let me fight and defeat them while at the same time rejecting any proposed war that would have me on a losing side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted August 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Exactly the point. If I am in planned war mode I can continuously seek out nations to agree to let me fight and defeat them while at the same time rejecting any proposed war that would have me on a losing side. Thats the freedom of the players involved if the small nations have fun in losing the war it is their right. Now, lets take another situation. A small nation does not want to get attacked but gets bullied by several other larger ones he has no choice to ignore it or he would lose his land and he cant win. What is better? Nations get attacked with their consent or nations get attacked without. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerreyRough Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Thats the freedom of the players involved if the small nations have fun in losing the war it is their right. Now, lets take another situation. A small nation does not want to get attacked but gets bullied by several other larger ones he has no choice to ignore it or he would lose his land and he cant win. What is better? Nations get attacked with their consent or nations get attacked without. Then the small nation shouldn't of gotten the larger nation to attack them, however they angered the bigger. If they are attacking for fun and (most likely) for a stupid reason often the attacking nation gets attacked themselves by a larger number of nations. Again, what will happen to treaties if your plan is adopted? Remember the four main types in your responce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Revan Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Thats the freedom of the players involved if the small nations have fun in losing the war it is their right. Now, lets take another situation. A small nation does not want to get attacked but gets bullied by several other larger ones he has no choice to ignore it or he would lose his land and he cant win. What is better? Nations get attacked with their consent or nations get attacked without. The issue here is not the small nations who are getting attacked by choice it is the shield that is put up around a nation who can choose to only ever fight winning wars and who can not be held accountable for their IC actions through IC means. To answer your question at this point after reading both sides of the argument I feel that nations getting attacked without consent is a better situation than allowing nations to be able to prevent war by simply saying no even if there is complete IC justification for a war against them. So I will ask you which is better, a nation being able to do whatever they want IC without having to worry about IC consequences or an RP where people are actually able to react to a situation the way their character would even if it is not what someone else likes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.