[Lore] What exactly is Astrub defined as right now, politically?

Well the world for this game doesn't really make sense, but if I was trying to make sense of Astrub I'd frame it as some kind of city state (which often relied on mercenary armies for their military power).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_city-states

Thinking of it as some kind of city state I think can explain it's independence from the nations.

It's too powerful to easily subjugate
It's too weak to expand itself
It's too useful for trade to alienate

What about the world doesn't make sense to you?

I heard about the Italian city-states when trying to look up "mercenary state" but I didn't pay much attention to them. You're right, though, in that Astrub sounds almost exactly like that. However, that's a Yin and there's a Yang - while Astrub is a trade hub, it's not a major economic hub for the entire world, and it's more like Astrub's mercenaries get paid by other nations to deal with their problems than something like Astrub paying its mercenaries as soldiers.

Astrub could be defined as a communist country as everyone gains an equal amount of tokens for different amounts of effort. People who work harder get the same as those who work less. Ex. Daily Quests for tokens instead of killing dungeon boss. 

Wouldn't it be fun if they would somehow add something in astrub so people would actually stay and hang around in it?.. Wakfu seems to lack that place where everyone would be at compared to other games thats why others seems so lively.. or it could just be the temple but that place is so cramped

 

Rezilia|2017-02-24 16:27

What about the world doesn't make sense to you?

I heard about the Italian city-states when trying to look up "mercenary state" but I didn't pay much attention to them. You're right, though, in that Astrub sounds almost exactly like that. However, that's a Yin and there's a Yang - while Astrub is a trade hub, it's not a major economic hub for the entire world, and it's more like Astrub's mercenaries get paid by other nations to deal with their problems than something like Astrub paying its mercenaries as soldiers.
 

Well you have 4 basically identical nations with a tiny amount of flavour to distinguish them, each on their own self-contained island. So Brakmar is about corruption and abuse of power. Bonta is about being fair. Amakna is about being helpful. And Sufokia is about fish. Yep fish.

These 4 nations are in a state of constant war with at least 2 of their neighbours at any time, yet they never expand or contract or even fluctuate in power really. So the nations feel a bit overly safe and overly similar. Yeah you want nations to be balanced to keep things fair, but I think there's scope for some assymetric balance here rather than making every nation nearly indentical. And with these island based nations you'd expect most of their conflicts to be naval based, but the only fighting occurs on land. And the only territory they war over is a pirate infested desert island, whilst completely ignoring all other contestable territory. Oh and then interspliced with that you have a group of bandits that kind of exists on the platforms of "screw yo trees" and "I'm desperately looking for someone to fight". And some of this is kinda normal really because game worlds usually don't make sense.

The flavour for the nations feels really simplified and silly for me. Corruption seems like a silly flavour aspect for a nation, because if this weren't a game why would anybody want to settle there? (though nation flavour isn't really obvious until you visit them). I mean doesn't every nation think of themselves as "the good guys" ? And you could instead have a nation about centralized unchecked authority.. which detractors could paint as enabling corruption and abuse of power, but supporters could claim it provides strong leadership and a unified sense of direction. You can MAYBE argue that the weak flavour is so the nations are blank slates so players can control the 'feel' of a nation, but I don't think they really have the ability to do so. And if you had nations based on more complicated (and IMO more interesting) ideas then I still think there's scope for player's exploits to meaningfully impact a nation perhaps more so than currently, if you move away from the idea that nations always need to be identical to each other.

You could have a nation about commerce, where kamas played a larger role in choosing a governor.
You could have a nation about martial prowess, where PvP played a larger role in choosing a governor (Riktus clan already does this a bit, but still it's an idea to further explore).
You could have a technocracy themed nation, where mastering crafts played a larger role in choosing a governor.
(The current system could be framed as a democracy themed nation, where it relies entirely on accumulating votes)

Maybe that's a bit beyond the scope of this game but still I think making nations about idealogies makes the game more varied/interesting AND increases the strength of national allegiances. Currently players have little reason to stay loyal to a nation aside from their accumulated CP, but if you chose a nation based on your beliefs or because it benefitted you the most then maybe that means there's more at stake in national conflicts.

As for astrub, it's called the city of mercenaries but that doesn't mean it's controlled by mercenaries (Paris may be the city of light but it's not controlled by a cabal of lightbulb manufacturers, and it's the city of love but it's not controlled by the most amorous person in the land). I also don't really see a mercenary state as a plausible system of governance. If a state relies upon mercenaries militarily that doesn't mean those mercenaries have political power in that state, so it isn't a mercenary state. If mercenaries take over a region and put themselves in charge, then presumably they'd pay themselves so it's a military dictatorship and they aren't mercenaries anymore. And if you did have a people's who were all mercenaries they'd probably be nomadic rather than trying to claim territory for themselves.

And if you were trying to make a sensible lore for the game world then it's plausible that astrub would be an econimic hub in the lore for exactly the same reasons that players use it. It's easily accessible neutral territory so trading there is safer and fairer and more convenient than doing it on a rival nation's turf.






 

That's...half correct. The following is established lore that you can find...all over the place, because Ankama doesn't like making anything simple, and mostly in French:

Brakmar isn't the land of corruption. It's more like the land of sin... You can do anything there, as long as you have the money for it; and even if you don't have money, there are "other" ways to pay. Don't think, however, that they just gamble and extort their fortunes - they do those things, of course, but they also work hard mining away, making deals, collecting heads, and wronging rights.

Bonta, on the other hand, always has been the City of Good. It's pretty possessive of that title, and would probably be a threat to the whole world if not for Brakmar being the Evil to its Good to give it something to punish without involving innocents. But Bonta is also the land of intellects, with the greatest schools and universities, not to mention the greatest facilities for art and culture.

Sufokia is the last remnant of an ancient empire of explorers and engineers. Their connection to the sea is more than about "fish" - it's a spiritual union with the ocean itself. They spend their days in relative peace and make good use of their tourist economy, yet that doesn't stop them from exploring ancient ruins and coves for any remaining evidence of their past greatness.

Amakna rose to power when Bonta and Brakmar disappeared in ancient times, only to re-appear years later and involve the residents of the Amaknan Continent in their turf war. Amakna didn't like this, of course, but it didn't have the level of political and military might that its new rivals did. If not for the flood, Amakna and Astrub both would've been wiped off the face of the map amongst the conflict between the two enemy states, and possibly the Sufokian Empire if it joined the skirmish. That's all the past now, and Amakna is enjoying its separation from its nasty neighbors.

Astrub is the City of Mercenaries. It was formed back in the Dofus Era by a swell guy named Brutas - and yes, the statue of him in Wakfu is the same one you can see in Dofus, he just refused to drown with everything else! These guys love being mercenaries, absolutely love it, and that's why they give their services to other nations.

The Riktus Clan are bandits, nothing more...and nothing less. They're all over the place, terrorizing everybody, and it's a nightmare to ever see them in an army...yet they're a whole nation! They might not have much land, but they don't need it when they have bases all over the world.



As for alliances, you're totally correct. Bonta and Brakmar should never be allied, yet I think they currently are in my server. Technically the Clan shouldn't be able to ally with anyone but the dispicable Brakmar, and for the most part nobody allies with them, but I think they can ally with anyone too.

Another funny thing to realize is that most of the game isn't even released (yet). If you go back to news articles from 2011, you'll see that many other nations were planned, too.



I like your idea about making elections thematic. As I showed above, they do have themes - Sufokia is more for maritime players and those who like to RP eldritch mysteries of the deep; Amakna is a peaceful farming nation with quite a few fairy tales in the mix; Astrub is just the noob area (I hope they make it something more); Bonta is the City of Good and Do Your Homework; while Brakmar is the land of sin and opportunity. The themes exist, they just aren't made apparent.