Honor System?

Zurkiba · #1 08-12-2002, 01:53 AM

I think to increase RPing Warfare and Fun we should have a well developed Honor System/Warfare System.

Some Basic Rules should be like.
-No attacking High Commanding Officers
-If the Head General (Main Leader) is destroyed then the whole kingdom's forces become disrouted and flee.
-Battles will take place in an open field. If the On Duty Army is destroyed then the Winning Army can march towards the town and fight the standing army
-Suprise Attacks can be made on the town if for a stratagy reason. (Raiding for resources, Arison, Assassianation, etc.)
-If challanged to a duel (Officers only) they can accept the Duel Challange... the first hit wins.
-If a person surrenders you dont kill them... you just jail them.

Post anything that could be changed,added, removed... stuff like that O_o... Might as well get rulesets ready and stuff.

Brad · #2 08-12-2002, 02:12 AM

(Ronith)

Quote:

Originally posted by Zurkiba

-If challanged to a duel (Officers only) they can accept
the Duel Challange... the first hit wins.

Kthxno.
How about to the death.
Thats much more entertaining.

_0AfTeRsHoCk0_ · #3 08-12-2002, 04:46 AM

Sounds like colonial british tactics. While I agree with it in theory, I doubt that that's how it will work in game. There will always be some sort of bandit squad making cheap runs at commanding officers and having guerilla style warfare.

Zurkiba · #4 08-12-2002, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by _0AfTeRsHoCk0_
Sounds like colonial british tactics. While I agree with it in theory, I doubt that that's how it will work in game. There will always be some sort of bandit squad making cheap runs at commanding officers and having guerilla style warfare.

Then allow them to do so.... it just wouldn't be very RPish unless the kingdom is based around theiving operations. As most, if not all, soldiers only have their Honor. So Honor should be top thing in the RP Charts.

Duels to the death only result in disrouting of forces. It isn't honorable and it isn't a duel O_o... a Duel is just first hit wins. Winner gets bragging rights

ssj2sal · #5 08-12-2002, 01:54 PM

Actaully, there were duels do the death. The types of duels were first blood and death. Duels to the death were very uncommon and only implemented when one party felt that their honor had been insulted

marrico · #6 08-13-2002, 06:34 AM

For wars you can't have like 10 on 10...you need like 50 on 50 for it to be good, that way you can actually march into battle with superior officers in the back for protection, and there always come that question of reviving. I know you get warped somewhere, but when there was heaven on g2k1, people would just come back after there time.

aylad · #7 08-13-2002, 08:26 AM

Quote:

-Battles will take place in an open field.

Why? Why not in forests, too? And if we get Naval Warfare..... oooohh...... heck yeaaaaaahhh............

Quote:

Originally posted by ssj2sal
Actaully, there were duels do the death. The types of duels were first blood and death. Duels to the death were very uncommon and only implemented when one party felt that their honor had been insulted

....or when at least one party was very badly drunk....

ldhfd · #8 08-13-2002, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zurkiba

-Battles will take place in an open field. If the On Duty Army is destroyed then the Winning Army can march towards the town and fight the standing army

nah just let battles happen anywhere

ldhfd · #9 08-13-2002, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by marrico
For wars you can't have like 10 on 10...you need like 50 on 50 for it to be good, that way you can actually march into battle with superior officers in the back for protection, and there always come that question of reviving. I know you get warped somewhere, but when there was heaven on g2k1, people would just come back after there time.

we'll never have 50 vs 50.10 on 10 is good enough

marrico · #10 08-13-2002, 08:54 AM

10 on 10 in just dandy for a skirmish, not a war

ldhfd · #11 08-13-2002, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by marrico
10 on 10 in just dandy for a skirmish, not a war

well we don't have 100 people so we just have to go with what we have

marrico · #12 08-13-2002, 09:59 AM

Never said we had 100 players now did I?

Discharge · #13 08-13-2002, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ldhfd

we'll never have 50 vs 50.10 on 10 is good enough

Then will move pixel by pixel because will lag like crazy naked sloths.

ldhfd · #14 08-13-2002, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by marrico
Never said we had 100 players now did I?

I didn't say you did.I just said we should just go with what we have

ssj2sal · #15 08-13-2002, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by aylad

....or when at least one party was very badly drunk....

That happened too..I do admit...but that isn't the point.....the point is...that washing machines weren't invented!

aylad · #16 08-13-2002, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ssj2sal
That happened too..I do admit...but that isn't the point.....the point is...that washing machines weren't invented!

Very true. Very very true. I stand corrected.

Zurkiba · #17 08-14-2002, 04:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ldhfd

nah just let battles happen anywhere

By Open I mean anywhere away from the townships. We should also have a REAL basic law for RPing which states that only small armies (1-3 people) can march over mountains and such. Otherwise there is no real purpose to mountains.

feivel · #18 08-15-2002, 12:18 AM

Yes there is a purpose to mountains, they slow you down and give the people on the uphill the advantage, you cant limit how large of an army can go over mountains. what they need to do is make mountains that arent just hills, I mean mountains that you have to go through narrow passes and stuff.
and about killing commanding officers,
thats redicilous. Killing commanding officers is not dishonorable, and it is the smartest thing to do. Also you cannot force the army to route just because its commanding officer was killed, because his second in command will take over, but the effect will still remain on moral because now that battling is complicated an army is going to have to strategize and if the second in command is not as good as the first in command he is going to have a harder time getitng the army in formation to fight effectively.
Also lets say I am with my army and the commanding officer is killed and then the second in command is killed that will reduce my moral because I know two of the best people have been killed and I have even less chance of surviving then I thought I did.
And especially now that there are bigger punishments for deing people are going to think more realistically. I think now in battle there is going to be less death because people are going to do stupid things like run into the middle and randomly slash because maybe it worked on g2k1 but it wont work on this. I foresee that rather than an army winning because it killed all of its enemies I see an army winning because it out manuevred the enemy and the enemy knew that they couldnt manuevre as well and if they kept on fighting it would be hopeless so I see more battles being one because of retreat rather than mass deaths. Also someone thought it would be better if you didnt lose experience and such in a kingdom battle.... You have too, that is what makes you have real moral and think realistically, if I know that the only penalty for me deing will be I wont be able to fight in this battle then I am not going to be as careful as I would if my charcter had bad things happen to it.

aylad · #19 08-15-2002, 10:36 PM

I agree with feivel. Stats and exp should be lost, b/c that gives you a motive to grab your rear end and RUN when your army is losing.

ssj2sal · #20 08-18-2002, 04:06 PM

I agree with Feivel also...

Pith · #21 08-19-2002, 02:30 AM

mayeb they should have like a new exp category thing like rp battle exp and when you die you lose some of that exp and when you kill you gain some

Androk2k1 · #22 08-20-2002, 01:45 AM

There are no rules in war... Just to show that I'll break every rule >=)

jeff335 · #23 09-08-2002, 09:39 PM

I reckon that once the RPing starts we can handle the issue of POWs, et cetera, ingame with a treaty.

LiL_NightFall · #24 09-08-2002, 10:49 PM

That's dumb, you can't put rules on war. It's up to the individual kingdom leaders to decide how they want to handle a war.

Zurkiba · #25 09-08-2002, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LiL_NightFall
That's dumb, you can't put rules on war. It's up to the individual kingdom leaders to decide how they want to handle a war.

No ****... This is called an IDEA (please read the first post).

Rules on War are decided by the kingdom leaders and an agreement....

kthxbai :o/