King Solterra

To Lund ap Lunds [ Early Middle Ages NRP ]

...And the first summit BEGINS!

Also, pay no heed to the affair currently going on.

To Lund ap Lunds [ Early Middle Ages NRP ]

So Boerd said
The...overlord?

Cale Tucker said
Aaaand... this just got juicy.

^ This is my reaction to figuring it out. I usually only pay attention to things that concern me. Anyway, yeah, not okay with the hundred knights still.

To Lund ap Lunds [ Early Middle Ages NRP ]

Aaaand... this just got juicy.

To Lund ap Lunds [ Early Middle Ages NRP ]

Who ever is landing a hundred knights at Lord Wolff's border's is going to have to speak to me before stepping a single foot on the territory, unless they wish to lose said foot.

To Lund ap Lunds [ Early Middle Ages NRP ]

Could Flooby see to my PMs? And I've realized I may have been hard on you Flooby, sorry.

To Lund ap Lunds [ Early Middle Ages NRP ]

Hey guys, I haven't put any body off right? Just wanna make sure I don't have any bad blood OOC that could potentially spill into IC

To Lund ap Lunds [ Early Middle Ages NRP ]

Also; Dear Flooby. You kind of owe me reports for two seasons of Recruitment for my merc group. I did mention that in my orders, didn't I? So... I kind of did give orders that landed results, even if they are nil :P

Also, I wanna ask you something.

To Lund ap Lunds [ Early Middle Ages NRP ]

The Nexerus said
Siege weapons.

Let me explain the part I planned to say but I had to get back to work from my job.

OBVIOUSLY if there are siege weapons, you can just sit far away and fire off rounds until you destroy the wall and then invade, unless the other party also has siege weapons. Siege weapons within walls are much more protected than a bunch all lined in a close knit row in the open field. Castle Siege weapon missing; engineers and soldiers scatter for cover, or the flying debris hits and injures or kills them. Open field siege weapons missing; you hit the wall or blatantly missed, fire more rounds because the soldiers will hold behind the wall because it is their cover, especially if you want to destroy a wall.

Also, it doesn't really look well for offensive siege weapons when archers can continuously fire off volley's of flaming arrows into open ground on wood-made constructs and (high gravity + velocity = painful strike) soldiers. Yeah, you can do the same to a castle. The difference is some siege weapons can use a slit in a wall, and what's your defense for yours, a shield wall? You didn't make your case any better.

True, I am trying to make myself more threatening, but my point is, well it's obvious. Facts are facts and last I checked this was a realistic roleplay. You can never be too prepared, even when you're overly prepared for nothing.

Flooby Badoop said
It isn't required to have a full army to protect a fief, so that's good. If there's anything in the rules that imply otherwise, I shall have them removed.As for the alcohol ban, you do what you wish in your kingdom.As for not being with the Overlord, it's tough to say whether you're in rebellion or not, since no demands have been placed on you. And if there's nothing to rebel against, you're not technically in rebellion.

There you go. I can hate my government all I want, but I will still more than likely pay my taxes and follow the just laws.

(Created a new page, gah, will just pull my post over here.

To Lund ap Lunds [ Early Middle Ages NRP ]

The Nexerus said
Siege weapons.

Let me explain the part I planned to say but I had to get back to work from my job.

OBVIOUSLY if there are siege weapons, you can just sit far away and fire off rounds until you destroy the wall and then invade, unless the other party also has siege weapons. Siege weapons within walls are much more protected than a bunch all lined in a close knit row in the open field. Castle Siege weapon missing; engineers and soldiers scatter for cover, or the flying debris hits and injures or kills them. Open field siege weapons missing; you hit the wall or blatantly missed, fire more rounds because the soldiers will hold behind the wall because it is their cover, especially if you want to destroy a wall.

Also, it doesn't really look well for offensive siege weapons when archers can continuously fire off volley's of flaming arrows into open ground on wood-made constructs and (high gravity + velocity = painful strike) soldiers. Yeah, you can do the same to a castle. The difference is some siege weapons can use a slit in a wall, and what's your defense for yours, a shield wall? You didn't make your case any better.

To Lund ap Lunds [ Early Middle Ages NRP ]

Declare? Too lazy, I thought it was obvious I was not with the Overlord. Dare I raise my armies against him? I don't agree with the guy but I don't think he should die.

Enforced abstinence? No, just no alcohol. If we had alcohol, there would still be riots. Drunken fools ans mad fools aren't that different. Having alcohol 'may' "improve" morale, but it makes it easier for them to rebel and have bad training.

FLOOBY SOMETHING LIFE THREATENING I MUST SPEAK TO YOU ABOUT.

It should not be required to have a full army stationed in a fief to keep its defenses strong. If it did, castles would be useless. If you have a fully stationed wall, even if it's 100 to a thousand, they should be able to hold out. Victory? That depends. But since they have incredibly high ground, are not fighting gravity as much as the enemy, and have ready cover (cover that is available automatically without being a distracted or extra work), plus other minor things that may inhibit the enemy in a substantial way, they should be able to have a fair fight