Page 14 of 25 FirstFirst ... 456789101112131415161718192021222324 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 280 of 496

Thread: A Storm of Swords - Westeros Online Battle HS

  1. #261
    Mergor's Avatar T H E | G O R
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Hungary
    Posts
    1,880

    Default Re: A Storm of Swords - Westeros Online Battle HS


  2. #262

    Default Re: A Storm of Swords - Westeros Online Battle HS

    Save send directly via ds. Upload to stick to rules https://www.mediafire.com/file/hqeqa...ell_9.sav/file

  3. #263
    Isenbard's Avatar Semisalis
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    486

    Default Re: A Storm of Swords - Westeros Online Battle HS

    I'm confused, why did Ural play here? Wasn't Stark next?

  4. #264

    Default Re: A Storm of Swords - Westeros Online Battle HS

    he just uploaded his save from before, where he didnt do it. its still my turn. had to check some things with admins thats why its taking so long sry

  5. #265
    Jadli's Avatar The Fallen God
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    8,513

    Default Re: A Storm of Swords - Westeros Online Battle HS

    Mergor was supposed to ask ppl, but didnt, so I shall ask ppl myself, as I will not play my turn until its resolved...

    The question is, whether Riverrun can be gifted from Stark back to Tully. There is the relatively ambigious rule about not trading settlements in danger of being conquered/warzone...
    Riverrun is bordering Lannister Golden Tooth (and it might remain so till the end of the HS) and the lannies has some armies there, however its not in direct danger, as Stark and Tully forces hold the Riverrun bridge with a force strong enough to repel any invaders.

    Therefore, we believe there is no reason to not allow Riverrun being given back to Tully, as its not in direct danger... I suppose you guys qre supposed to say your opinions...

  6. #266

    Default Re: A Storm of Swords - Westeros Online Battle HS

    As long as any spawned units bar 1
    get Axed should be fine... Changing the flag...
    Not a big deal ��!

  7. #267

    Default Re: A Storm of Swords - Westeros Online Battle HS

    Rule is rule.
    I wouldn't like it, if you get your capital back.
    I mean it is in the warzone, if you want it back, than crush lannister.
    In my opinion there is no other option.

    So I understood mergor, why he didn't ask the players, because its an obvious rule.

  8. #268

    Default Re: A Storm of Swords - Westeros Online Battle HS

    i think the question is one of, are we
    i) running this game with somesort of relativity to the books [and therefore give back the settlement from stark to tully, which i think the starks would do,considering lord stark married a tully] or are we
    ii) purely running this as a game , for superiority of your own faction for a win? in which case, i expect stark being a ally would probably return this...in time, but for a cost which is to be negotiated?

    as for the ruling that settlements shouldnt be traded in a warzone, as caly6000 says as long as the trade-off doesnt result in the city receiving spawned units, i see no reason why this should'nt be allowed? for have'nt the main lannister forces been smashed...and how far does a army [if there is one nearby] constitutes being in a "warzone" or danger of "being conquered" , how big a army does that mean? how far does a army have to be to be considered a threat against how big a defending force in the settlement? does the entire factions need to be at peace to be considered not a warzone? ....in such matters, i think we should just rely on common sense...and if a trade happens and it leaves to Riverrun under threat to the lannisters...then that is part of war too , is it not? for if the trade is done at a bad time without support then the lannisters would just take it back anyways again and reap the profit from such a enterprise?

    As for the law itself , it looks like it was made to stop people trading cities and receiving spawned garrisons, as quick extra troops..in the midst of potential combat...i think we could amend the rule to say that cities can be exchanged and traded, but any spawned units must be removed if a settlement is exchanged..thus making the new faction receiving the settlement to commit some troops to garrison it, lest it quickly be retaken?
    Last edited by paladinbob123; June 16, 2022 at 07:36 PM.
    "War is the continuation of politics by other means." - Carl von Clausewitz

  9. #269

    Default Re: A Storm of Swords - Westeros Online Battle HS

    Quote Originally Posted by Fubuky View Post
    Rule is rule.
    I wouldn't like it, if you get your capital back.
    I mean it is in the warzone, if you want it back, than crush lannister.
    In my opinion there is no other option.

    So I understood mergor, why he didn't ask the players, because its an obvious rule.
    just because you wouldnt like it , isnt a argument to stop a exchange, particulary when the allies here have won the field....to argue that because allies wish to return lands to their rightful owners, because they won the field, they would have have to wipe out a entire faction is tantamount to madness ? as for what is in the warzone , is not the entire map in the warzone? does that mean that all territories that have been recaptured, cannot be returned until their enemies are completely destroyed, would destroy the hell out of any diplomacy.....which in the game of thrones, the age of betrayal , negotiation and advancement was a major part was it not?
    "War is the continuation of politics by other means." - Carl von Clausewitz

  10. #270

    Default Re: A Storm of Swords - Westeros Online Battle HS

    Absolutely against that sort of trading. The rule is clear and i don't see a reason to change it. If you want to trade the province, come take my castle. Besides, what is the purpose of the rule, if not to prevent stuff like this? If you didn't like it, it should have been brought up before the game start. Rn it's merely a matter of convenience for a particular side. I fail to see a valid reason to make an exception to the rule in this case. Tully not able to utilize their starting capital? Tough luck, should have thought ahead.

  11. #271

    Default Re: A Storm of Swords - Westeros Online Battle HS

    I agree with Paladin and Caly on this point. Furthermore id like to add a few thoughts.
    Firstly i believe we are not talking about an exception, but an unambigous rule with known purpose and based on pros and cons.

    So just shortly my thoughts on this:
    Purpose as i understand it is to prevent any abuse of the game, as there are ingame mechanics which make trading settlements unfair to an attacker, like spawning units, or giving it to a faction in peace so a battle can be delayed or anything. These cases only apply when an army can reach the exact settlement in one turn, as it wouldnt have changed any strategic battle lineup, due to abuse of game mechanics or shady alliances.

    On the con side i only see that some people have handled it different in the past and now dont want to change it, due to reasons known.

    On the next aspect iŽd like to add to Paladins "solo win or near books" which has been declared at the start of the game, where fixed alliances has been set (lanny/kings stark/tully). So i think this is a pro argument as well.

    Furthermore, i lastly hear a lot about the contradiction of realism and ingame engine. In this case the ingame does not affect anything in these cases (when an army cant attack the settlement directly), and it is totally realistic that the army of tully standing right next to his own capital would receive it by its ally.

    I hope we can discuss this in a nice way

    And if we dont come to an all participants conclusion, iŽd like to make it a vote.

  12. #272
    Jadli's Avatar The Fallen God
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    8,513

    Default Re: A Storm of Swords - Westeros Online Battle HS

    Yea, that all unit but one is disbanded is given (i could disband all, not a huge deal reall,y as I have a force next to the castle)

    Quote Originally Posted by Fubuky View Post
    So I understood mergor, why he didn't ask the players, because its an obvious rule.
    Sorry, I probably didnt write it clearly... he said he is going to start a discussion on this like a day or two ago, but he hadnt done it yet yesterday (he is prob busy, didnt respond to other messages....), so I went ahead and started, so that HS can move on at earliest opportunity. It wasnt clear to him as well, as we have been asking this for like two turns, and he hasnt been able to give a clear answer on whether we can trade it or not

    Its not that obvious, the question is what exactly is considered "warzone"

    Considering the precedent from similar rules about destruction of building, I suppose this applies for settlements that a superior enemy force (hence able to take it) can besiege/take in one turn.... and that is not the case here, as Lanny force seems to be more than one turn away unless im mistaken... either way, it definitely cant get through the bridge (at least this turn).

    Anyway, in the previous turns Lanny forces were much farther (by Goldeen Tooth) so if this precedent is used, we should have been allowed to trade it on the previous turns.

    Plus, there are ofc the RP reasons, and strategically, its not going to change that much for Lannies anyway...

  13. #273

    Default Re: A Storm of Swords - Westeros Online Battle HS

    Quote Originally Posted by sluzavyblin View Post
    Absolutely against that sort of trading. The rule is clear and i don't see a reason to change it. If you want to trade the province, come take my castle. Besides, what is the purpose of the rule, if not to prevent stuff like this? If you didn't like it, it should have been brought up before the game start. Rn it's merely a matter of convenience for a particular side. I fail to see a valid reason to make an exception to the rule in this case. Tully not able to utilize their starting capital? Tough luck, should have thought ahead.
    I totally agree with that

  14. #274

    Default Re: A Storm of Swords - Westeros Online Battle HS

    - Two factions can trade maximally one settlement per turn. Such settlements musnt be in war zone.

    This rule should be rewritten so that it is more concrete and less open to discussion or interpretation.


    Two nations can only exchange one settlement per turn, but this settlement must not be within range of an enemy army or adjacent to a warring party's settlement.

  15. #275
    Isenbard's Avatar Semisalis
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    486

    Default Re: A Storm of Swords - Westeros Online Battle HS

    I don't see an issue with this. Let Tully have Riverrun as it is the will of the Starks too. Jadli can delete all spawning units for good measure

    The rule should be tweaked a bit then. At this instance Riverrun isn't a warzone either since no Lannister army can threaten it this turn. This is how I see it.

    Lannister can bring their armies to Riverrun and actually hold it this time if they wish to keep it away from Tully

  16. #276
    Mergor's Avatar T H E | G O R
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Hungary
    Posts
    1,880

    Default Re: A Storm of Swords - Westeros Online Battle HS

    I can think about this tomorrow, but I'd like to request that Stark / Tully gives consent about posting the picture that shows how far are the Lannister armies from Riverrun. They are not a turn away, but they do contest the province itself, which makes this not an easy decision.

    Since the rule is ambigious and should be reworked, I am on the side of precedent which happened in a previous HS (AI only) I adminned. There, in the end, the rule became much stricter and this wouldn't be allowed. So right now (but its not final as I just don't have time to properly think about it) I am on the side that Lannister forces are too close for a trade to happen. The decision would be easier if Sluzazy would be fine with the trade as the involved party, but he is clearly not.

    The argument for letting the trade happen is that Riverrun itself couldn't be captured. The argument for not letting it is that a rule is a rule. The question is, what counts as a war zone. If you can give a good definition (but I'll think of one myself) that would be a start. Right now, for me, the ideal definition would be that no single unit can reach the settlement in a turn, all hinderences (armies, forts in the way) ignored.

  17. #277

    Default Re: A Storm of Swords - Westeros Online Battle HS

    My definition of warzone is:
    Adjacent to an enemy settlement or an army is within range to besiege or conquer the city.


    If one of the two cases occurs, it is a "war zone".


    I also play in some other hotseats and this rule is also determined in this way there.

  18. #278

    Default Re: A Storm of Swords - Westeros Online Battle HS

    My definition of Warzone in the case of Region Trading:

    The Region is in immediate Danger of being attacked, having a chance of conquering or sieging it with a force.
    Furthermore the exchange must not affect any strategic options of the attacking force due to spawning units or ZoC.

    For the argument with adjacent to an enemy settlement, there are regions that have like 3 turn ways to the adjacent settlement. Not being able to trade this is in my opinion unrealistic and illogical.

    And just because there are other HS with the same rule doesnŽt mean its the best way. If we stick to the rules of the first few HS ever made, good luck with that, rules should always be open to improvement.

    Furthermore, this rule could be handled differently in different HS maps.
    As example imagine not being able to trade a Harad region of DaC while your troops need over 5 turns even crossing that region.

  19. #279
    Dr Mac's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Liverpool, GB
    Posts
    2,765

    Default Re: A Storm of Swords - Westeros Online Battle HS

    A tough dilemma, but here's my view:
    - My understanding of that is if a large enough force can besiege or take the province it should not be switched currently. I agree with Jake regarding bordering provinces, for example some provinces like Winterfell border Moat Cailin, if Lannister owned Moat Cailin I would not class Winterfell as in a warzone. However, if Lannister has sufficient forces to attack/threaten Winterfell, it should be considered in a warzone.

    - I am totally fine with Stark giving Riverrun back to Tully as it fits strategically and from a RP perspective, but the rules were laid out from the start of the HS regarding the warzone and should be adhered to. This can easily be worked around by placement of a fort or two to stop Lannister from besieging and then the exchange could happen next turn. Either that or we change the rule to clarify the definition and the swap can happen prospectively. But overall, I think the swap shouldn't happen this turn because it would be unfair on Lannister who would have prepared last turn for an attack on Riverrun (I assume), postponing the swap until next turn.

    - Minor point, but as for disbanding units from traded settlements, ALL units should be disbanded in any swap as they are free.

  20. #280
    Mergor's Avatar T H E | G O R
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Hungary
    Posts
    1,880

    Default Re: A Storm of Swords - Westeros Online Battle HS

    Right, so first of all, I ask all parties that they won't make a big deal out of this. Whether Riverrun can or cannot be traded this turn will not result in anything major, so lets take things as they are and not blow it up, as we, as a community, always have the tendency to do just that

    My decision is, that the rule is faulty and should be reworked. There is no reason why a settlement should not be traded if it is an impossibility to besiege it before the trade and the unit disbanding can happen. To this end, I agree with the interpretation, that something shouldn't be a warzone simply because it borders an enemy province for reasons already said above. This whole warzone word should be taken out anyhow. That said, a rule is a rule, and no one should be punished for anticipating something according to the rules. So here is what I would like to happen: the settlement trade will NOT happen this turn as to not make it unfair for Lannister. The rule will be reworked however, applied for next turn, and if stark / tully meet the conditions next turn, then they can trade the settlement next turn.

    Regarding the settlement trade this turn, that is my decision. Regarding the rule rework, here is my !proposition!

    - Two factions can trade maximally one settlement per turn. Such settlements can only be traded if they are not in danger of being besieged by any number of enemy units, AND the switch, along with the disbanding of units can happen before the settlement could be besieged. If such settlements borders an enemy province, the two players trading the settlement must notify their enemy(s) that the trade will happen. Their enemy(s) may show proof that the settlement can indeed be besieged to prevent the trade.



    + Some interpretations:
    - I have no idea how to define which provinces separated by sea should count as adjacent, but the other parts of the rule apply
    - As to not screw with the possible element of surprise, notifications should only be sent if provinces are adjacent, and you are at war with the faction (one party claims that there is a war)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •