This series is going time be so lucid. It almost matches with our own history. In this current playtest, the point where I see the new traction machine and wulfram’s response as the age of progress… It becomes so similar to post ww1 era. Say that the antar war was ww1, lords of infinity is the depression time, the takarans(americans/the west) have kept both antar and tierra crippled, the outburst is awaited in wars of infinity (ww2) and then emerges the 2 masters of infinity viz. Takara and Kian’zi (USA and USSR) OOOOOOOH god it seems so good. I am relishing it
The Antar-Tierra conflict was nowhere near the scale of a world war. It was more of a “one and a quarter nations” war. The Intendant specifically remarked how minor it was during Wulfram’s Ball in Sabres (although it could have been a bluff).
The Antar-Tierra conflict is basically the Russo-Japanese War, so we should be having WW1 start any year now.
Speaking of an infinite sea version of WW1, we might even did a lot of progresses on technological advancement. Who knows? By that time if Tierra prospered, we will not just have a stronger and well-trained and fully armed army with a whole new command structure, or even going as far as having steel-armoured steam-propelled warships for the entire Northern Fleet.
Just out of curiosity, is there a subreddit available for this series?
Some high-level feedback @Cataphrak: I’ve always thought when dealing with the soldiers-turned-brigands on road that there was only a very ruthless/idealist option or a very merciful/idealist option after successfully talking them down and hiring them. I think an additional choice or two in the reasons of why our MC chooses to hire them would make sense. I say this because RPing as my MC, I know he wouldn’t care about going back on his word and he doesn’t care to kill them through the letter, he genuinely just wants to hire them because they would be loyal and competent because they are veterans whom he saved from a hard life. This is certainly a cynical choice, but not really merciful or ruthless. Just pragmatic. Just my thoughts because I always found the reasons of that choice to be limited.
And a question for you as well: I saw in the code that when you try to convince the Shipowners Club to allow your acceptance that our MC can say he’s worth 2500 crown a year, but how in the world would he have that much income a year? It just caught my attention.
If I understand it correctly, it’s less “Why did you hire them?” (past the “Do you go back on your word or not?”), and more “Why do you think they turned to a life like this?”, which is going to reflect some degree of hardness of heart one way or another.
It’s not really something that has an answer that completely sidesteps the question of pity/sympathy/concern or the lack thereof.
That code is probably for MCs who switch from the estate to the Cortes later on in the story, and therefore have their estate in order.
I understand the other option later about why they turned to a life like this, but that question is a separate choice altogether. What I’m saying is that RPing as my MC, he does not care about going back on his word (as the game specifically points outs as a dishonorable, reprensible act) because in another situation he would do just that. He is more than capable of lying to the men and having them all hung later on with no remorse, but he simply doesn’t want to because he wants to hire them because he sees them as a good investment.
The choice “I will not go back on my word” showcases going through with hiring them as an honorable act only because you are keeping your word. My MC doesn’t care about keeping his word or honor one way or another, and this choice does not accurately reflect him of why he doesn’t go back on his word.
It’s a very small thing that does not need this much coverage, it’s just something I noticed and wanted to share with Cataphrak. It’s his choice of whether he adds more choices about this or not.
Yes I just saw talk about unnecessary bloat if we try to join a club later on in Aetoria if we decide to go midway through and was wondering if this bit of code proved we’d be able to later on.
Being cynical doesn’t mean constantly backstabbing people, it’s just as the text says, you said you’ll hire them, whatever your reason might be and you’re acting as you decided. This doesn’t really have anything to do with idealism and cynicism
I’m extremely cynical in real life. Haven’t stabbed anyone recently.
Its impossible to avoid bankruptcy with a new character. At least in the demo
Sounds like it might be difficult to juggle both a townhouse in Aetoria and the baronial estates unless your MC can talk down the townhouse rent.
Yeah, if you negociate well, you can get 20% off of it and you still have the potential gains from Garret/the Shipowners/third parties (or even what you saved up) to pay for the rent. Even the most expensive one, 400 crowns every 6 months when bargained, wouldn’t be that expensive. I mean, a lieutenant-colonel (non disgraced) gains 40 crowns a month, so 240 every 6 month (270 for wulframite). That’s 160/130 crowns left to pay. Combined with the 4000 crowns you can get from capturing princess Anna (best option in my opinion), you could afford to pay rent for about twelve years.
Then again that’s if you don’t give anything to your estate and if the army isn’t disbanded, which might have consequences on how much you receive.
Wulfram shall not undo what the blood of good Tierrans has bought if my MC has anything to say about it, by Saint Hunter!!
Let me clarify. I was saying it was a cynical choice not about the betrayal, but the hiring of them in the first place. I could see a highly idealistic MC wanting them to pay for their crimes regardless of their reasons and refusing to hire them out of justice (and a ruthless idealist makes just that choice when he betrays them). Or at least I could see that reasoning. When your MC chooses to hire them he is rewarding them for their crimes, and in my MC’s case he is hiring them because he sees them as a good investment. Nothing more, nothing less.
The betrayal is a separate question. My MC is capable of going back on his word, that’s not why he goes through with hiring them. My MC could betray them and have no remorse but that would be a waste in his opinion.
Like I said, it’s a very small thing that doesn’t matter all that much, but in the interest of having nuanced choices for a nuanced character I thought I’d give my thoughts. (I only use my MC as an example because that’s what made me think of this.)
He can talk it down, but I’m also trying to see how much I can get away with, especially in the demo.
Crimes of wanting to eat and not starve to death. If anyone is at fault for that its the king and country. I feel like a high idealism MC wouldnt want them punished, now a high idealism extremely low int character yes.
They even say they don’t like the situation they’re in. But are forced to by the state of the country. If anything a high idealism character wouldn’t want them to be punished for their crimes. Only if they are ruthless and like watching people suffer I suppose.
There is no “justice” in not hiring them. If anything its the opposite.
Granted my character 100% blames Tierras king, Antar and the blasted elves for everything. Since they all had a hand to play in it.
Antari declare war on Tierra, what could the king do in that situation. And you heard what Loch said in the first game, the Antari were planning to pillage our cities. While thing are bad they could have been a helluva lot worse
Pretty much why it isnt 100% just the kings fault. Plus the ones that increased grain prices were those dirty elven merchants.
I’m pretty sure that’s the kian.
I’d say that depends on what the ideals are, a merciful idealist would have a different outlook than a ruthless one.