Dawn needs badly :v:
[editline]18th June 2013[/editline]
Wlisted.
[QUOTE=Shirky;41074368]It was Thundersplat.[/QUOTE]
What, who burned Angmar?
[IMG]http://i44.tinypic.com/w2mtq8.png[/IMG]
nice town 10/10 would pirate again
(we didnt take anything we promise)
[QUOTE=Kentz;41074467][IMG]http://i44.tinypic.com/w2mtq8.png[/IMG]
nice town 10/10 would pirate again
(we didnt take anything we promise)[/QUOTE]
What the fuck kinnda texture pack is that.
its ozucraft
[editline]18th June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=redBadger;41074142]I'm like, the only guy ever on. Everytime I log in there's always 3 or 4 people in other factions but I'm there by myself :([/QUOTE]
you're welcome to join pirate - we're trying to get some more people into our crew
Can you whitelist a friend for me?
MistaWafflez
whitelsited
Could you whitelist my friend devoeryan1? He's legit, he won't grief or anything.
whitelsited
[editline]17th June 2013[/editline]
someone post so the faction map isnt automerged
Post.
DOWNLOAD IT BECAUSE IT'LL PROLLY LAG YOUR BROWSER: [url]http://filesmelt.com/dl/civilizations2.png[/url]
Here is the faction map. It's at the same normal resolution as Osku's original, and works with the coordinate system. The faction capitol territories are coloured in with the colour of the faction's primary colour.
[B]Red is The Dawn.
Grey is The Iron Crown of Angmar.
Green is The Country of Vinland
Brown is The Kingdom of Fennia.
Blue is The Holy Angus Empire.
Teal is The Men of Oasis.
The Pirate Clan of the Booty Poppers opted to keep their territory location secret in in lieu of being able to take territories.[/B]
War rules will be posted momentarily.
[editline]17th June 2013[/editline]
The image is huge I recommend saving it.
I's 70mb of beautiful high resolution.
[QUOTE=Loriborn;41076548]DOWNLOAD IT BECAUSE IT'LL PROLLY LAG YOUR BROWSER: SEE ABOVE POST
Here is the faction map. It's at the same normal resolution as Osku's original, and works with the coordinate system. The faction capitol territories are coloured in with the colour of the faction's primary colour.
[B]Red is The Dawn.
Grey is The Iron Crown of Angmar.
Green is The Country of Vinland
Brown is The Kingdom of Fennia.
Blue is The Holy Angus Empire.
Teal is The Men of Oasis.
The Pirate Clan of the Booty Poppers opted to keep their territory location secret in in lieu of being able to take territories.[/B]
War rules will be posted momentarily.
[editline]17th June 2013[/editline]
The image is huge I recommend saving it.
I's 70mb of beautiful high resolution.[/QUOTE]
[img]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64514745/mine/civilizations1000.png[/img]
Image is "correct".
There are no inaccuracies. Territories are predefined, not based on faction building size. The large amount of land given to territories is done on purpose.
[QUOTE=Loriborn;41076676]There are no inaccuracies. Territories are predefined, not based on faction building size. The large amount of land given to territories is done on purpose.[/QUOTE]
Inaccuracies as in, Angus is located in the wrong place.
should be fixed in a bit
[editline]17th June 2013[/editline]
map was corrected and should work fine now.
So who's up for taking over Fennia? :v:
are factions able to claim other areas of unclaimed land?
Some people has been complaining that this is getting too non-vanilla and predefined.
[QUOTE]And i'm not personally sure about those predefined regions and one fort per region rule.
I do see some some problems with it already:
Angus and Oasis are pretty close to each other, and theres only one region between them, which is already Angus controlled. And that means that Oasis can't have any border forts to defend their capital.
And if someone founds nice spot to build a city/village between two regions, and that means it can have two forts protecting it.[/QUOTE]
Also i think that border negotiations where leaders from the both nations come to negotiate where to place the borders are part of the fun. And if the negotiation fails, it'll lead into border dispute and even into war.
Heres my idea how we deal with the geopolitics/region/borders/forts/what ever thing:
We're now going into system where NPC villagers will drop a villager egg on death, which can be given to command block (there'll be 3 types of them, giving 3 types of troops) , which will give in return a soldier (or siege weapon), which you'll have to equip yourselves. Also those eggs can be used to found a new village.
And i already stated in OP that i can gift villagers to capitals.
So here's what we could do:
[QUOTE]-There can be as many forts as you like, but only very few of them can be forts with ability to spawn troops. The "common" forts will most likely serve as somebodys residence (atleast if your nation uses feudal system).
-The military forts requires village/town nearby with NPC villagers and long enough distance to another similar fort.
-The villages/towns must be actual villages/towns, breeders/prisons/gulags and concentration camps doesn't count. Would you have an army of prisoners? They'll probably rebel and kill you.
-Only capital fort(Or capital's forts) can have all 3 types of military spawners, others can have only 1, except some very special cases.
-Fort must be someone's (governor,landlord, etc...) permanent residence.
-The spawners are given by admins, so that means the forts will reviewed by them to see if it's good enough, so shit like mudforts and other 2min shit won't pass.[/QUOTE]
Constructing proper village and fort will take a lot of resources and time, so we won't be having massive fort spam.
[QUOTE=Shirky;41074368]It was Thundersplat.[/QUOTE]
It wasn't, but what made you think that?
The problem with these ideas are mostly due to player action and how players like to play, versus how we want them to play. As realistic as some of the ideas are, they just can't happen due to the fact that people wouldn't willingly do/enjoy them. A good majority I agree with, and had already based the rules around, but there are also some I disagree with vehemently, and I ask that you don't claim any rules are set in stone until I am consulted and there is an agreement with understanding on the full details of the war rules. Last thing we want is a re-instance of AoM V.1 where Umbra Mortus and the other factions ended up spending more time arguing about rules than actually fighting.
[quote]Some people has been complaining that this is getting too non-vanilla and predefined.[/quote]
They are the same ones who have been complaining since day one; they will adapt. It may not be 100% vanilla, but if they actually give it a try, I highly doubt these ideas have been attempted by any servers that most of us frequent. There is nothing wrong with trying something new.
[quote]And i'm not personally sure about those predefined regions and one fort per region rule.
I do see some some problems with it already:
Angus and Oasis are pretty close to each other, and theres only one region between them, which is already Angus controlled. And that means that Oasis can't have any border forts to defend their capital.
And if someone founds nice spot to build a city/village between two regions, and that means it can have two forts protecting it.[/quote]
The problem with this is double edged. Either we predefine territories and one faction has one fort in that territory, or we don't and one faction attacks the other and makes one fort in that territory. Regardless of instance, Angus and Oasis are literally a stones' throw away, and we can't change that. At least with altering the territory division, we can force extra territories between the two factions, but without it, there is nothing preventing these factions from making forts right next to their enemy. Territories act as buffers to control the flow of units, without it, nobody will be forced to abide by borders. If someone finds a nice spot to build a city/village, it doesn't matter if there are territories predefined or not, that faction will still have a fort in that location. There is no way to stop Angus/Oasis from having forts in that general northern area; territories or not, their closeness means a fort will be made there, probably one due to the general area, and then it'll be as if we had territories anyway. At least we can redraw the map and add an extra few territories between them to force away from curbstomping that will ensue without buffers. There is no win situation in the Angus/Oasis issue because of how inhumanely close they are.
[quote]Heres my idea how we deal with the geopolitics/region/borders/forts/what ever thing:
We're now going into system where NPC villagers will drop a villager egg on death, which can be given to command block (there'll be 3 types of them, giving 3 types of troops) , which will give in return a soldier (or siege weapon), which you'll have to equip yourselves. Also those eggs can be used to found a new village.
And i already stated in OP that i can gift villagers to capitals.[/quote]
This works, this is a working system for villagers and villages being useful for producing "farmable" villagers for use in armies. I recommend we don't allow villagers to be made for new villages, rather, we give a faction villagers when they create a village. This means each village produces units, and they can't just take the eggs and go make a secret underground villager bunker under the capitol for last-minute-instant-armies. Though, I will say, villagers would be used for infantry, (which can be equipped with any weapons) but rideable mounts such as wolves, spiders, and so on, would require more expensive/sensical alternatives.
[quote]-There can be as many forts as you like, but only very few of them can be forts with ability to spawn troops. The "common" forts will most likely serve as somebodys residence (atleast if your nation uses feudal system).[/quote]
I still wholeheartedly disagree with this. Here was my idea for how claiming would work: (from the rules file)
"The map is divided into 74 distinct sections called territories. These neutral territories can be captured by a faction via the construction of a fort, village, or town, (or combination) within the borders of the territory. Once the building(s) is(are) constructed, a player claims the territory in the name of their faction by placing the 2x2 banner representing their faction colours in a location on the clearly visible to other factions. A village, town, or fort without a banner continues to mark the territory as neutral. Neutral territories cannot be garrisoned by NPC units. If a fort is constructed, a barracks or stables can be constructed inside the fort for use in creating units. Forts must be deemed appropriate by an admin before being given the ability to spawn units from barracks or stables."
All forts spawn troops, but not all territories would have forts due to how expensive they are and time consuming to create. Imagine replicating your capitol; maybe not that large, but definitely to an extent, much harder than making a simple village for farming villagers for units. This makes all forts very important strategic locations to both capture and defend, just as villages are for units. A fort can be alongside a town, or alone, but again, the cost of making one and defending it is what makes it difficult. I also think we shouldn't force players to house in forts/capitols; where players are positioned should be entirely optional. Personally, I feel this allows players more freedom and makes it less about admin opinion of what forts are deemed appropriate for unit construction; players determine where a fort is a tactical advantage. The number of forts is a dual edge sword; we allow infinite and a single territory becomes a powerhouse of fort walls. If we force one, attacks are consolidated. It really just tries to spread out the efforts of war, but if only one territory lays between a faction, I can see how that would lead to issues. Perhaps making territories smaller, or having a minimum distance between forts would prevent "Great Wall of China" syndrome.
[quote]-The military forts requires village/town nearby with NPC villagers and long enough distance to another similar fort.[/quote]
Again, disagree, players should determine where and what are good places for forts and villages. If a village is far away, the fort has less opportunity to get eggs for units. So that way, instead of making it a rule to have villages, we make it a suggested option; it gives players the ability to make sole forts, and lets them decide what forts need villages for army construction. The "long enough distance to other forts" is pretty much what the territories are designed to enforce, but makes it easier to do so.
[quote]-The villages/towns must be actual villages/towns, breeders/prisons/gulags and concentration camps doesn't count. Would you have an army of prisoners? They'll probably rebel and kill you.[/quote]
Fully agree. While a prison/gulag should claim land, I wouldn't allow it to have villagers.
[quote]-Only capital fort(Or capital's forts) can have all 3 types of military spawners, others can have only 1, except some very special cases.[/quote]
This is tricky, since there is only two military buildings now, (I combined siege engines and stables for fluidity's sake) it makes sense that each fort could only specialise in one type of unit. I'm on the ball with it, but I don't like enforcing limits on players in that regard. I'd rather just have the cost of the building/unit prevent players from making overabundance of them. It makes it realistic; armies are forced to be limited in real life due to resource constraints, not admin rules.
[quote]-Fort must be someone's (governor,landlord, etc...) permanent residence.[/quote]
Again, I don't think we should force players to live in any one place. Hell, players can't even handle living in one capitol; people are defecting left and right because of "log cabin fever," they want to get outta the house. Let people live where they want; if they don't live in a fort on the frontlines, it'll make it hard for them to defend it, which again, makes them want to live in forts near the frontlines, but doesn't enforce it as a rule. Make it a suggested choice, rather than a stringent rule. The less rules, but more structure, the better.
[quote]-The spawners are given by admins, so that means the forts will reviewed by them to see if it's good enough, so shit like mudforts and other 2min shit won't pass.[/quote]
That was always the plan. Barracks and Stables must look good, and have their respective requirements, and the forts they inhabit must also be up to par. (Barracks require 20 beds and stables require 6 (4x4 wooden fence) pens.)
did the server just crash
[QUOTE=oskutin;41071594]Okay, i own an apology for Seppochumon.
Also did you unban and rewhitelist him?
And DaysBefore got banned?[/QUOTE]
Apology accepted, now lets all go out for frosty chocolate milkshakes and be friends. And I'm not yet whitelisted on the server.
you should be
could a pirate 'capture' me and 'convert' me?
Apparently "im tired" and the server is down.
"Error getting player list: Can't connect to Minecraft bridge! (110: Connection timed out)"
When that error occurs MC cannot connect to the MC Server database of logged in players.
Totally outta my control and based either due to the database servers failing, or my host just having a connection issue for a few minutes.
It'll resolve itself momentarily.
[editline]18th June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=redBadger;41081150]could a pirate 'capture' me and 'convert' me?[/QUOTE]
kinky
I want some of that booty if you know what I mean
[QUOTE=redBadger;41081304]I want some of that booty if you know what I mean[/QUOTE]
we'll give you that booty don't worry - you're very welcome yo harr fidelifee et cetera
Are other people experiencing problems connecting? It says I'm tired.
sorry about that, Tyler, our host, had to move us to a new node due to hardware issues on the old one
we should be up and running again.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
