First of all, "Never Negotiate with Terrorists! The Hostages will understand that we're fighting the good fight."

Second of all, this sounds like a pretty good idea. It certainly would add another element to the game in terms of warfare and just plain sabotage and arsons. And would make sending in a small group to weaken enemy territory a viable strategy.

The set back is whether this sort of tactic would be too easy to pull due to how big a county will be and how few citizens it will have compared to its size, how hard it would be able to stop a already growing fire, and how much resources would need to be allocated into this mechanic to make it possible.

I get the feeling that it won't be that easy to do- you need a pretty big fire to actually burn down trees, even if they allow us to intentionally burn a forest.

However, I do see it being viable, as scorched-earth.

I dont see it as effective as simply robbing the transports full of finished goods. But Guerrilla tactics used during a war that is another story. Burn down wheat fields and other crops, chase off cattle and such. Wouldn't be permanent as I think killing off a species while possible would be difficult for a small group to pull off. But definitely would work to destroy the food supply for a region.

If it proves to be effective, I don't expect CoE to have an ecosystem for very long. The retaliation shall be swift. Kind of reminds me of "war games" with nukes where no winner is possible. Everybody loses.

While this is a viable tactic I don't see it being part of the game for the same reason that an arsonist will not be able to burn down a home in the game.

Now a group of Eco-terrorists could start at the other end of the Kypiq's woods and "harvest" all the lumber they can carry away, with sentries posted they should be able to make several forays, slowing destroying the Kypiq lands and gaining building material for their own.

I can imagine the same group taking over mines, certain forest areas, any form of income for the region. Simply the sudden taking of a precious but limited resource is enough to screw anyone over.

Note to self: Border control a priority.

Posted By Jourfrend at 4:04 PM - Tue Apr 25 2017

While this is a viable tactic I don't see it being part of the game for the same reason that an arsonist will not be able to burn down a home in the game.

Now a group of Eco-terrorists could start at the other end of the Kypiq's woods and "harvest" all the lumber they can carry away, with sentries posted they should be able to make several forays, slowing destroying the Kypiq lands and gaining building material for their own.

Ah, but while I used burning a forest as an example, this idea is far more than that.

We're talking about things like, harvesting or destroying a key resource to extinction or at the very least, wiping it out of a certain county. The loss of such a resource could escalate to even greater issues. Going with a plant example, what if you harvested or destroyed a plant in a rival's territory to the point it was gone? What if there was a certain animal that only thrived because of that plant? The animal may migrate or starve or become increasingly rare in the region.

Other than plants, what if someone were to poison an oasis in a desert? May or may not be possible, but if so, that could greatly impact the flow of travelers across an already inhospitable desert or could even cause a community reliant on that limited water supply to die out.

Hell, even if poisoning the oasis isn't possible, denying access to it could very well be possible through the use of ambushers or other military action. Denying a settlement its food and water is siegecraft 101.

Burning or stealing the crop/cattle from farmlands can also have a similar effect.

Doesn't take an army to cause damage on a mass scale.

I wonder If you could potentially poison a river,lake, or spring not only destroying the source of hydration but also the local aquatic live putting a potential strain on both the food source and local economy ?

I doubt it is desirable to add mechanics which would allow players to engage in any form of eco-terrorism on a large scale. If such a mechanic would be included the entire world map will no doubt resemble something straight out of the Fallout series before the game reaches its first birthday. I doubt such an ecological devastated world map will be much fun to play on for anyone.

Exactly. It would be a wasteland fairly quickly. Complete destruction of the ecosystem should not be possible w/o Herculean effort. It's certainly not an easy undertaking. Exhibit A: Planet Earth.

I highly doubt it would be a wasteland. What happens in real life when a forest burns down? Either it regrows (some trees irl have seeds that only open and take root AFTER exposed to the heat of a forest fire) or it becomes more of a meadow/grassland.

To make a wasteland, you'd have to cause ecological damage on a level we won't even have access to unless we have an industrial revolution which doesn't sound like it'll happen at all save maybe the last year or two of the game.

Wolffje your probably right in a lot of ways but I think Marchioness as some points as well. We do know that people can change the eco system, the question is how quickly can we change it ?

"The Soulborn Engine is a multi-layer system, and what I mean by that is there are things happening at different levels; there is an eco-system and if you go out and kill a slew of animals then it is going to break the eco-system and that is going to cause a chain of events that will ultimately lead to some kind of a scenario. There will be a story element there."- Caspian

So it might not be very realistic to try and change an ecosystem quickly and for the point of say a way but it can happen over time.

Indeed. I believe it was a Japanese tactic to abandon their castles/villages to trick the enemy to enter them when in fact the castle/village was just some huge trap.

"How do you all feel about this?"

Well, as for how I FEEL about this, I personally would frown upon such warfare. I feel it is dishonorable and wasteful. If I was ordered to do something like this, I would probably refuse or desert.

"Do you think this is a fair means of warfare?"

Morally? No. But if you meant "fair" in the more gamey sense, that would depend on game mechanics.

"What if a Kingdom, Duchy, County or otherwise has a sort of "state sponsored" group of eco terrorists under their wing?"

If it came to light my Kingdom was using something of the sort, I would join another Kingdom.

"How would you respond if such an unusual act of aggression was used against you, provided you realized it was a human act and not an act of nature that caused the disaster?"

Retaliate to the best of my ability.

I actually am interested how/if such tactics will be employed though. Conventional Warfare has long been the favorite in sandbox games, but there is rarely any other option. Perhaps Kingdoms need to come together and set the rules of engagement or something.