User talk:Foreign Curs/Suggestion:Liberation Takeover
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Give it to allies? I don't think that's such a great idea... Just seems to further those unbreakable alliances. However, turning the region rogue, that would sound good. A quicker method than sitting and looting for weeks while the peasants keep interfering? -Chénier 16:03, 1 March 2008 (CET)
- Now now you miss the concept of this. Realm A would perform the LTO in a region of the enemy realm B that does not border to the regions of realm A, but that does border to the regions of realm C, which is an ally of realm A. If a realm can't take a region, it's better off in the hands of an ally than in the hands of an enemy. Medium 16:23, 1 March 2008 (CET)
- No, he understands perfectly. Having allies be able to take over regions for you will only make it more likely that alliances will persist, and that people will try to bring all their allies to a war, so they can take regions as fast as possible, thus resulting in even worse gangbangs than we have seen up till now. This is a Bad Idea. --Anaris 17:03, 1 March 2008 (CET)
- If a realm doesn't want to be gangbanged they should bring in their own allies. And if they don't got any that's a clear diplomatic mistake. According to your view on this we should remove takeovers alltogether, because -- although we all agree that takeovers are logical to happen -- they all further gangbanging so to speak. Realms have to die eventually, there's no point is limiting the options and reducing reality just to stretch the timeframe a little bit. Foreign Curs 19:07, 1 March 2008 (CET)
- This idea seems to pander to the lowest form of realm: the Alliance Whores. With this idea a realm doesn't have to be strong themselves to gain more land, they just have to have a strong ally. With this, as Anaris already pointed out, Alliances will persist because there would be even less reason to end them. Besides that it is simply not realistic. If one realm wants a region then it has to be them themselves who have to go around and tell the peasants that now they are owned by them. Another realm doing it by proxy would not make any sense to a commoner. A method for this already exists and that is called giving a region to a neighboring realm. It's an extra step but such things should require the extra step for such a serious action in politics. Foreign Curs' statement: "Realms have to die eventually, there's no point is limiting the options and reducing reality just to stretch the timeframe a little bit." is just silly. Realms don't have to die, they aren't living things with a lifespan. How long has the Chin Dynasty (China) stood? And the British Empire? Realms don't have a half life. -Balewind
- Precisely. But still, a TO that makes a region rogue would be interesting, as I originally said. -Chénier 23:07, 1 March 2008 (CET)
- I don't know about that. It isn't very realistic to walk into a enemy region and tell the peasants to follow no-one. How would you convince them of that? "Y'know, I think you should tear down those banners and swear for no-one. You are better off on your own without the protection of any realm." There is a way to do that but it's not a TO, it's looting the region till it goes rogue. That is how you can illustrate to the peasants that their realm really can't help them and that they really are better off on their own.-Balewind
- Precisely. But still, a TO that makes a region rogue would be interesting, as I originally said. -Chénier 23:07, 1 March 2008 (CET)
- This idea seems to pander to the lowest form of realm: the Alliance Whores. With this idea a realm doesn't have to be strong themselves to gain more land, they just have to have a strong ally. With this, as Anaris already pointed out, Alliances will persist because there would be even less reason to end them. Besides that it is simply not realistic. If one realm wants a region then it has to be them themselves who have to go around and tell the peasants that now they are owned by them. Another realm doing it by proxy would not make any sense to a commoner. A method for this already exists and that is called giving a region to a neighboring realm. It's an extra step but such things should require the extra step for such a serious action in politics. Foreign Curs' statement: "Realms have to die eventually, there's no point is limiting the options and reducing reality just to stretch the timeframe a little bit." is just silly. Realms don't have to die, they aren't living things with a lifespan. How long has the Chin Dynasty (China) stood? And the British Empire? Realms don't have a half life. -Balewind
- If a realm doesn't want to be gangbanged they should bring in their own allies. And if they don't got any that's a clear diplomatic mistake. According to your view on this we should remove takeovers alltogether, because -- although we all agree that takeovers are logical to happen -- they all further gangbanging so to speak. Realms have to die eventually, there's no point is limiting the options and reducing reality just to stretch the timeframe a little bit. Foreign Curs 19:07, 1 March 2008 (CET)
- No, he understands perfectly. Having allies be able to take over regions for you will only make it more likely that alliances will persist, and that people will try to bring all their allies to a war, so they can take regions as fast as possible, thus resulting in even worse gangbangs than we have seen up till now. This is a Bad Idea. --Anaris 17:03, 1 March 2008 (CET)
