Alrighty, I didn't mean to escalate the situation, but I thought he/she/them (???) was provoking me.
I want to figure out where this scuffle started so we can sort it out:
Going back to my mentioning of tech, I brought up the 14th/15th centuries, and somewhere crossbows came into the discussion, with Ell preferring a setting in which ranged weaponry should necessitate skill or something like that:
"...an era when, for ranged combat other than siege weaponry and Evoking, you would be limited to things that take years of practice to become a danger to more than yourself with."
Crossbows are a useful weapon because they're great against armor, and it's easy to train an army to use them, so I opted to include them in the Guard, and informally by extension, the Othean military. They were used throughout the middle ages, alongside plate armor, so I don't see a reason to force a separation between the two.
Then Ell's manner of typing and bringing up historical information I already knew seemed to me like something of a provocation, or a way of shutting down what I had said. At this point, I posted the Constabulary lore entry.
I think I took Ell's post about plate armor being expensive and falling out of fashion due to crossbows as an offensive one. I didn't understand why the effectiveness of crossbows vs. armor was brought up
again. (I thought we talked about this already?) I don't think the fact should discourage people from having knights or heavily armored troops - as I said before, they coexisted for centuries on the battlefield.
Ell said,
"But its either those shiny knights or crossbows. Not both."
To this, I ask why would you be unable to have both when they did historically?
Ell then went after the reenactor photos I used for my gallery, with all the groin talk. I just thought it was annoying, and the photos were meant to give the viewer a general idea of the aesthetic, not a literal interpretation of the IC. Both the reenactors and historical men-at-arms had to make do with what they have; so what if a few groins are uncovered?
Ell's latest post seemed to me like an attack and partial metagaming, and I thought that he/she/they were literally going to do just that in order to "win" the siege, which prompted my comment about dick-measuring (which did not help things, I'll be the first to admit).
So in all, a good deal of misinterpretation is to blame, and the tone in which our last few posts were made did not help to defuse the situation any, and I'm sorry about that.
In all seriousness though; the OOC comments about "Unit X that I created is awesome and going to wipe the floor with your unit Y" is ridiculously annoying and I've seen it too much in Nation RPs.
I get that you want the Vocators to be cool and strong, Sep; but I don't need to read
"...remember that they have been trained since childhood to be trained killers and to take down people with relics ... trained to adapt easily. Not saying you can't take them down ... it won't be easy .. Oh, me and Ellri have another surprise for you guys ... The Moral blow is enough to destroy you ... the Empire are being good guys to the city they are invading ... Vocators will still kick all your asses."
all the time.
It's like "Alright, alright, your pet faction is uber duber awesome, I get it." It's this "winning" mentality I dislike in RPs - we're supposed to be writing a story, not beating everyone else.
