Poll: New Game

[WM - The Waste Mage]

Make your own game. Prove me wrong in how much better your way would be. Proof. Not circular arguing over years. You were overruled about it being a war game back then and have circled back around to it yet again. No proof just a waterfall of meandering yapping. Make your own game and when everyone goes and plays it and it's a big success then I will do the walk of shame. DO IT! You ignored my challenge because you know the only reason you are here is because there is no game like one you describe because it will not last. Our way trumps your ridiculous idea of how it should be played. Over a decade of proof. You are the one who will not face facts. So you are either crazy or winning your point is not your focus and that is proof your only goal is to ruin the game for those who wanted to see your map. And of course AA who you have also lumped in since then.

[TH - The Hunt]

Running a game online takes more patience and bullshit tolerance than I have. The typical pattern is losing a third of the players because they want the game to be about them and their exploits and don't care how that affects everyone else, while another third (or more) quit because they just don't have time to play. If I ran a game successfully, the only reason would be that I took the time to find people I could trust and call on when needed to build, rebuild, and fill out a full roster. In other words, it wouldn't be a test of how I run the game, it would be a test of who I know and what I'm willing to do with that knowledge. That's not useful. It's also handy-dandy to apply whenever and wherever you judge whether someone succeeded or failed in a social environment.

Also, regarding one of your earlier comments, the 'cliques' (really, just you, Rich, and John) I've been railing against haven't even been focused on war, certainly not as much as their opponents have been. Instead, they've been they're focused on intrigue. They spaz out when they have to fight to get what they want instead of having it handed to them. So, what even is that about?

[WM - The Waste Mage]

Pfffftttttt......png (271.43 KiB) Viewed 415 times

[TH - The Hunt]

Yeah, clearly winning isn't on anyone's mind.

[TF - The Fortress]

Also, regarding one of your earlier comments, the 'cliques' (really, just you, Rich, and John) I've been railing against haven't even been focused on war, certainly not as much as their opponents have been. Instead, they've been they're focused on intrigue. They spaz out when they have to fight to get what they want instead of having it handed to them. So, what even is that about?

MF, are you sure we were just in the same game together?

Just because you believe people are focused on intrigue (since that satisfies your preconceived notions of what they are up to), doesn't actually mean they are involved in intrigue.

Other than Random Adventure, the most used action for Riva was War Adventure (against MD through Turn 15 or so and then actively aiding MD from Turn 20 onwards).

[TH - The Hunt]

The reason it's apparent the three of you have generally been focused on intrigue is because of the actions your characters actually take, and the words they say in-game. None of your characters have been particularly militant, and in Taelshore you even played the Bireons. For most of Diaspora 1 Daene was trying to worm his way into the physical and metaphorical gap between NS and WK, an ambition you carried on into the next game with their distant heirs.

If we're going to classify the focus of play you've had, it's been on secret dealings, betrayals, political manoeuvres, shenanigans, and courtly intrigue. When war's happened, with the honourable exception of Fulgar the Mad, your characters come to it belatedly and recluctantly when they come at all. You've depended on others bound to or persuaded to join you and propaganda more than your own armies, and when defeated, you brush it off as if the conflict were of secondary importance to you. None of that even slightly resembles a focus on 'war-gaming'.

[TF - The Fortress]

I was speaking of this game in particular, not prior ones. Conflating prior play (even though you clearly mischaracterized it in several of those games) with current play is part of the problem.

The Taelshore, Bireon funded the war efforts by Gladanil. She recognized Guilders aren't the best war leaders/trainers and did her part by raising the money for Gladanil to spend on war efforts.

In Diaspora, Daene was actively engaged in a war with Dhoesone/Architect for the entirety of the game. WK occupied strategic lands, which had they gone over to Dhoesone early on would have sealed the geopolitical warscape. He actively sought the war once his allies in the Maw were betrayed by lies and invaded by Dhoesone.

In Flight, Rogr wanted nothing to do with war, but found one brought about by his foolishness and ties to an Erinyes.

In Kraken, Fiona didn't want a war, but was happy to find them, play all sides in them, and get paid to attack someone (or in the best instances get paid to take someone's else's money and not actually fight at all).

All of these are clearly aspects of war gaming. Not every battle is won by units, and not every war is settled in bloodshed (although there is usually a lot of bloodshed along the way).

If you've ever played Supremacy, that's what I consider a great war game. It goes beyond just an Avalon Hill war board game, and ties in the political, economical, strategic, and technical aspects for a deeply involved war game. Birthright falls into the same mold as there are multiple avenues to achieve whatever goals you establish for yourself from war gaming to role-playing.

[TF - The Fortress]

That the most activity garnered for the past three weeks is on the subject of whether the game is over or not, tends to give credence to the former rather than the latter. The activity level has been almost non-existent until AA asked if it is time to move on.

[WM - The Waste Mage]

War game.. as in we strive against each other trying to dominate rather than some LARPy or Vampire the Masquerade weirdness. You can make anything sound weird when you define it thinly like you tried making 'war game' to mean only fighting battles. Just because you cannot win a single war there is no reason to try and change the entire basis of the game from the war game that it is. Face it.... YOU ARE.....

SPLAT!.png (374.75 KiB) Viewed 394 times

[TH - The Hunt]

We're in the middle of turn resolution, a turn with wars between and within the game's largest factions. Juan hasn't had time to resolve it yet. It's like you're trying to sabotage the game before he can finish.

You recognize that half or more of the characters in this game are not properly suited to engaging in warfare, that's as good as an admission that this isn't a war-game. There's no such thing as a war game where some of the participants fight wars (sometimes) while others always perform other activities.

It's funny that your explanation for what you were doing in Diaspora I functionally amounted to sabotaging your own objective. I can't imagine you didn't know that NS and WK were trying to resist SK and GD, and the only reason they were ever inclined to work with them was to resist your organization when you came after them instead of the Anuireans. Completely insane, motivation a mystery unless it's just because you hate me so much you'd rather not get what you want if you can't make me suffer while doing it.

Clearly you're using a definition of war-gaming I've never seen or heard used anywhere if you think 'not fighting' is a way to play one. So let's just ignore every time you've ever referred to the term, because whatever you mean when you say it, the definition is completely unknown, so you might as well just be referring to bizzle-bazzles. Judging from Supremacy, what you mean is probably 'strategy game'. This is, indeed, a strategy game almost as much as it's an RPG. The reason it's primarily an RPG and not a strategy game is because unlike in strategy games such as Supremacy, we primarily play characters who use their abilities to interact with the world and communicate with each other. Their realms are important, but secondary.

The objective of Birthright, other than to interact and have fun, is, like in any other RPG, character growth. Ruling well gives you more regency points to use to act and grow your character's influence and power, having a domain is a way to do that and establish a legacy and so on. In Birthright, at least mechanically, competing with other realms for resources is actually a bad thing, something the game discourages, not promotes, because in Birthright resources are plentiful and wars are expensive. As you're clearly aware based on how you play, fighting wars is an inefficient way to get what you want.

Supremacy, unlike Birthright, encourages players to fight for resources; those who don't do it fall behind rather than the opposite. But, like Birthright, Supremacy bears no resemblance to a wargame because there's just too little detail on that aspect. It has even fewer unit types and battle rules than Birthright does, which is already exponentially less than wargames do. It's a strategy board game, so--no surprise!--they keep the focus on acquiring and spending strategic resources. Which, despite the simplicity of the game, are more detailed and relevant there than they are in Birthright, where there's mostly just GB and RP, as the other resources we've houseruled in are so easy to get the need for them is seldom unsatisfied and even more seldom is anything more than the most basic treaty required to satisfy those needs.