Originally Posted by
Kestrel038
Wow.. what a long rant on all sides for something that A... is not even mentioned in the "rules" that I am able to find. (So if someone could show me where "fake wars" are deemed illegal that would be appreciated).. and B... is something that pretty much EVERY player in the history of Utopia has partaken in..
Fake wars are a problem if and when they are used to affect crown wins I will accept, but FWs have been part of the game for many MANY years now.. and have been used by the top kingdoms as often as they are/were used by the ghetto type kingdoms.
so I have two points to make... firstly..if FW is SUCH a major problem, then why not introduce game mechanics to prevet them or to penalise any kingdoms taking part..
And secondly.. Lay out a CLEAR set of rules regarding what does and does not constitute a fake war. I feel that Bishops interpretation of a "mid-war CF/Agreement" is flawed and I shall explain why. Imagine a scenario in a real war situation (i.e. not a game, but an ACTUAL medieval war).. Invader A attacks Defender B.. lays siege to their City/Castle/Land.. After a short time, Defender B realises that the armies of Invader A will overwhelm them. Defender B is then faced with a decision.. to either "fight to the last" until every one of his people is dead and the Invaders take everything they have.... or alternatively.. to speak to the enemy leader under a flag of truce.. and try to negotiate and end to the war that minimises further loss of life/land. It would not be unusual for such a leader to offer to withdraw from certain lands in exchange for mercy/leniency.. nor would it be unreasonable for Defender B to request a ceasefire for a length of time to allow them to evacuate the civilian population etc.. There may even be an agreement that Defender B got to keep certain land in return for non-opposition for the remainder of the war or in the future.
So simply put.. whilst a "fake war" would never have occurred in any military conflict in history.. an agreement between two warring parties part way through a war could and would.. and indeed DID happen many times in history. If you are going to claim that this is a "war-game" then you MUST base all decisions on how such an event would have played out within the environment the game is set in.
Also, I do feel that as this is now a commercial game.. that any administrative/judgement functions within the game should be carried out by a paid employee rather than a player of the game. After all.. what would happen if Bishops kingdom ended up in a war where they agreed part way through on a mutually beneficial ending to the war. Would Bishop delete his own kingdoms war wins?? would he delete his own monarch??
sorry Bishop, but as much as I agree with you that pre-arranged fake wars are wrong.. I also feel that no person who actually plays the game can be truly impartial. I also know of no other gaming model where this is the norm. Almost all MMO games do not allow their administrative staff to actually play the game on any server where they have administrative/God level access. Whilst I am not suggesting for one minute that 99% of accusations leveled at you are legitimate.. I DO feel that you could negate that 99% of accusations by withdrawing from the game and making yourself TRULY impartial. As long as anybody with the ability to directly "punish" kingdoms/provinces is allowed to play with those provinces, then you DO invite accusations of impartiality.
Every single type of "public competition" from game shows to lottery operations to subscription based games are forced to appoint "independent adjudicators". As long as you are in the game.. you will be accused of bias.. and if you cannot/will not help to develop either clear rulesets.. or game mechanics to avoid the kind of play that is causing the problem, then i do not feel you can claim any righteousness in ANY decision of this kind.
But the leader of any kingdom is likely to.. and indeed SHOULD do everything in their power to preserve their kingdom.. and to protect the players who elected them and trusted them to lead.. and THAT is quite clearly stated in the Utopian Wiki regarding the choice of a monarch.. ergo.. mid-war CF's.. negotiated agreements between monarchs for less aggressive ends to wars etc are not only acceptable, but are in fact advocated by the game rules and the utopian code of conduct. Until those rules and that code is modified to clarify the whole "fake war" situation, then ANY judgement surrounding such a situation IS.. and rightly SHOULD be.. open to criticism by the playerbase..
