What prevents game to be competitive... i.e. to be a game.

[De-Legro]

See also: Hrok Stefanovic of Luria Nova. Some of the most influential members of Luria have or have had massive loans and debts owed to him, and the man almost single handedly funded the first half of the realm's war against D'Hara -- and made a profit. Had I more time to put into playing him, I have absolutely no doubt that he could be one of the most influential (and therefore powerful) people on Dwilight... all by leveraging his position as Banker.

Unless the general is better friends with the judge than the ruler. Though, yes, it should be generally a bad policy to publicly consider rebellion unless the ruler is extremely hated. Regarding rebellions not changing anything, while I will fairly admit that I haven't seen rebellions do much since I returned, I do remember times when rebellions in a realm had continental ramifications. Of course, that was also when it was *much* easier to rebel (only needed 3 nobles, not a certain proportion of the realm). Considering how much easier it is to protest (and generally safer) than rebel, perhaps the proportion should be shifted downward slightly. Still, rebellions will always be a risky proposition. For what its worth, that risk is rewarded with extra reward in the ability to change the government system, which can't be done post-protests.

My banker absolutely disproves this. My banker currently has *vastly* more respect in her realm than the general does, who has considerable respect across the continent. Increased the realm's tax collection by 30% in one week, brought in an extra 2k gold in food deals, subsidizing various realm expenses etc. Now she's running for ruler (hopefully winning) and if she wins, the banker will become the favored position ahead of general or judge. Bankers can have power and influence if they strive for it.

There was no button to achieve all this, so obviously it is both broken, and you are lying.

[Indirik]

it is my first post in this thread i believe where i posted some propsal. i will repeat them, while some justifications can be found up there:

- rulers - much stronger exile option
- generals - ability to see all armies' orders and standing orders
- judges - they just need some additional guidance which could relieve them of apparent fear, that could possibly be done through this forum, or wiki update
- bankers - control of foreign trade - ability to impose selling/buying prices for foreign trade over lord's offers plus ability to limit or completely shut down trade with particular realms.

I actually agree with all these. They seem like reasonable requests that are not overpowering and are in line with the existing purpose of the positions.

Also, I would add that the general should get the same army status information that marshals get, but for every army. Like they used to have...

As far as judges go, we have been trying to correct this misconception regarding punishing of characters for not following orders, rumors/lies about lightning bolts, and the abuse of IRs as a blanket excuse for characters not performing their duties. It's a tough hill to climb, and takes the effort of every player to correct this erroneous belief.

- generals/marshals - ability to dismiss any noble from army (marshals limited to own army), generals also to have ability to dismiss every marshal. they should not be able to assign them to armies (except for their vassals), but should be able to ban them from armies.

I disagree with this one. The armies do not belong to the general. They belong to the sponsor, as such, the composition of the army belongs to the sponsor. If the general wants this kind of control, he should sponsor his own army.

However, these powers are good, but they should reside in the army sponsor, not the general. The sponsor can already change Marshal/VM at will. The sponsor should also have the ability to kick people out of their own armies. Just add that power, which has been frequently requested, and you have the powers you want, just in different people.

[Penchant]

However, these powers are good, but they should reside in the army sponsor, not the general. The sponsor can already change Marshal/VM at will. The sponsor should also have the ability to kick people out of their own armies. Just add that power, which has been frequently requested, and you have the powers you want, just in different people.

But it would also seem reasonable to allow army sponsor to also grant these powers to marshal and/or general if they so choose like the feature of bankers being able to have control over the regions food.

@Stue, You seem to either not completely understand the positions/features you are complaining about and/or the definition of ceremonial. I don't 100% disagree with you but I am more against than for your general complaints although your suggestions overall seem good.

@De-Legro and ^ban^, While Vita's situation is a valid example of showing the banker's powers, ban's is not. Him being banker does not affect his ability to do debts or loans to people in any positive manner. Why was he able to do those thing? Because he is rich from his other positions and can send gold to people like anyone else, although I do agree the banker has a decent amount of power to fulfill his job. Is there room for improvement? Of course, as there is with anything.

@Vita` Thanks for the good example of bankers using their powers in an important/influential manner.

--

- rulers - much stronger exile option
- generals - ability to see all armies' orders and standing orders
- judges - they just need some additional guidance which could relieve them of apparent fear, that could possibly be done through this forum, or wiki update
- bankers - control of foreign trade - ability to impose selling/buying prices for foreign trade over lord's offers plus ability to limit or completely shut down trade with particular realms.
- generals/marshals - ability to dismiss any noble from army (marshals limited to own army), generals also to have ability to dismiss every marshal. they should not be able to assign them to armies (except for their vassals), but should be able to ban them from armies.

My opinion on suggestions:
Rulers-yes, because the current favors exilee.
Generals-Standing orders definitely, but I am less sure on the all armies' orders
Judges-Whether or not it is needed, it definitely can't hurt given its explained properly so it seems good
Bankers-I would suggest something like the judges ability to make things illegal, it doesn't prevent it but you get reports on it and can do what you want with it from there. It could even replace the current inability to trade with realms you are at war with, but making it default still for it to not allow trading with warring realms. (<-Might be confusing for others but I think the devs will get what I mean). Another benefit is it would give an initial use for the blackmarket.

[^ban^]

The sponsor should also have the ability to kick people out of their own armies. Just add that power, which has been frequently requested, and you have the powers you want, just in different people.

I disagree. Let the Marshal kick people out. His job is to manage the army, so let him.

[^ban^]

Why was he able to do those thing? Because he is rich from his other positions and can send gold to people like anyone else, although I do agree the banker has a decent amount of power to fulfill his job.

Wrong. Hrok got his positions - and gold - after he stepped up to become Banker. His position as Banker has allowed him to claim insane things as under his jurisdiction -- everything from trade to dereliction of a lord's responsibilities have come under his domain of power at various times.

You requested money for your unit? Hrok knows your income. Hrok knows you've you been wasting your gold; no money for you.

Failed to make even a token effort at feeding your own region? Planning rebellion against the crown? Hrok has shot them down.

In fact, unless I'm mistaken (please correct me if I am, Delvin/whoever), Hrok has been - through his position as Banker - directly involved in every single Lurian exile for the last two years. The trick is to realize that, like in the real world, you can distill any situation down to one single element: money.

And it's the Banker's job to control the money.

[Penchant]

Wrong. Hrok got his positions - and gold - after he stepped up to become Banker. His position as Banker has allowed him to claim insane things as under his jurisdiction -- everything from trade to dereliction of a lord's responsibilities have come under his domain of power at various times.

You requested money for your unit? Hrok knows your income. Hrok knows you've you been wasting your gold; no money for you.

Failed to make even a token effort at feeding your own region? Planning rebellion against the crown? Hrok has shot them down.

In fact, unless I'm mistaken (please correct me if I am, Delvin/whoever), Hrok has been - through his position as Banker - directly involved in every single Lurian exile for the last two years. The trick is to realize that, like in the real world, you can distill any situation down to one single element: money.

And it's the Banker's job to control the money.

Couple of things, the game does not in any way portray the idea that the Banker's job is to control the money. Not saying its bad for you to make it your job, but thats false to say it is. Knowing people's income is something everyone can know with a bit of work (and almost none for those above knight) and whether or not they wasted their gold is not something being banker affects. As well, related to my first point, the ability to become powerful in certain, rare circumstances, does not equate to the position having the ability to commonly become powerful. You being a great player and making it possible is great, but you can't be like I did something so everyone else can too, the position is fine. Vita's examples cover things any banker can do, thus great examples. Thinking of it in a bit of statistical manner, your case would seem to simply be an outlier, perhaps with lurking variables that caused it, but nonetheless looking at bankers overall, an outlier. (I did say seem covering myself in case I somehow turn out to be wrong btw).

[Geronus]

See also: Hrok Stefanovic of Luria Nova. Some of the most influential members of Luria have or have had massive loans and debts owed to him, and the man almost single handedly funded the first half of the realm's war against D'Hara -- and made a profit. Had I more time to put into playing him, I have absolutely no doubt that he could be one of the most influential (and therefore powerful) people on Dwilight... all by leveraging his position as Banker.

You don't need to be the Banker to do any of this. The only way I even see the Banker position being slightly connected to this strategy is if you're obtaining the money to lend out by stealing it using that option Bankers have to cook the books. The rest of it is all simply good RP and political savvy. Any rich Duke could do the same thing.

You do have access to some extra information as the Banker that it sounds like you actually bother to use, but I have some doubts as to whether that really made much of a difference here. Information is power, but only if you are active enough as a player to make use of it. But then again, if you're that active you'll likely be powerful anyway - that's how the game works.

[Stue (DC)]

I disagree with this one. The armies do not belong to the general. They belong to the sponsor, as such, the composition of the army belongs to the sponsor. If the general wants this kind of control, he should sponsor his own army.

However, these powers are good, but they should reside in the army sponsor, not the general. The sponsor can already change Marshal/VM at will. The sponsor should also have the ability to kick people out of their own armies. Just add that power, which has been frequently requested, and you have the powers you want, just in different people.

if sponsors would be allowed to ban nobles from the army, and generals would be allowed to ban marshals - to block some noble to hold marshal position in the realm - that could possibly be even more sophisticated while not giving too much power to anyone.
yet marshals should have at least something more than now, they do so much of hard work. maybe at least perks that could be visible only to sponsors, nobles in question and their lords, and maybe to generals as well. perks could not have any direct mechanical influence, but could act as some sort of noble's rating in terms of martial affairs.

the general idea attempted over all this proposals is to give some more power to positions, just to allow them to have more weight in power clashes and more opportunity to initiate power clashes, not to allow them to take ultimate command.

[Stue (DC)]

Unless the general is better friends with the judge than the ruler. Though, yes, it should be generally a bad policy to publicly consider rebellion unless the ruler is extremely hated. Regarding rebellions not changing anything, while I will fairly admit that I haven't seen rebellions do much since I returned, I do remember times when rebellions in a realm had continental ramifications. Of course, that was also when it was *much* easier to rebel (only needed 3 nobles, not a certain proportion of the realm). Considering how much easier it is to protest (and generally safer) than rebel, perhaps the proportion should be shifted downward slightly. Still, rebellions will always be a risky proposition. For what its worth, that risk is rewarded with extra reward in the ability to change the government system, which can't be done post-protests.

i have strong feeling that rebellions faded away once landed nobles, especially dukes, learned that it is safest to stay neutral even if they strongly support some option. maybe it has become circumventing, maybe not, it's not up to me to decide, but if for instance, winning rebel ruler would be allowed to strip all feuds, maybe rebellions would have much more weight. dukes would still have time to secede if they want, but they will have to make some decisions during rebellions, instead of simply staying neutral.

My banker absolutely disproves this. My banker currently has *vastly* more respect in her realm than the general does, who has considerable respect across the continent. Increased the realm's tax collection by 30% in one week, brought in an extra 2k gold in food deals, subsidizing various realm expenses etc. Now she's running for ruler (hopefully winning) and if she wins, the banker will become the favored position ahead of general or judge. Bankers can have power and influence if they strive for it.

i admit that i had no opportunity to learn much about new banker features. since they were implemented i was banker only once in totally indolent realm where no-one wanted to give access to granaries even when regions starved. yet i believe some additional tweaks as mentioned could make banker very attractive.
this is particularly interesting for game-wide pluralism: if players prone to economic game would have more fun and incentive, they would be able to compete prevailing warriors more.

[Vita`]

To get access to granaries, I stole an idea from another player, even if a basic idea. Basically, those who allow access to their granaries, in addition to the banker being able to quickly feed the starving region or move food away from looting armies or monsters in the region, would receive a portion of all the food profits from the banker's trading. I cut it pretty simple as 50% to a realm treasury the banker holds and 50% divided by the lords, by proportion of how much their region contributed that month.

[egamma]

To get access to granaries, I stole an idea from another player, even if a basic idea. Basically, those who allow access to their granaries, in addition to the banker being able to quickly feed the starving region or move food away from looting armies or monsters in the region, would receive a portion of all the food profits from the banker's trading. I cut it pretty simple as 50% to a realm treasury the banker holds and 50% divided by the lords, by proportion of how much their region contributed that month.

...and the lords weren't smart enough to realize that they could have sold the food themselves, for 100% of the profits?

[Anaris]

...and the lords weren't smart enough to realize that they could have sold the food themselves, for 100% of the profits?

• They might not actually have been able to, if the Banker is brokering trades across a long distance.
• They might not actually have been able to, if they were off fighting a war when the trades went through.
• Even if they could in fact have made the trades themselves, there's a lot to be said for paying for convenience. The Banker wants to be doing this stuff, the Lords may or may not think it's a totally unnecessary hassle.

[Vita`]

Pretty much what Anaris said, but to detail my specific situation...

My banker has a long-term trade deal for as much food as can be sold for 50 gold/100 bushels on the other side of the continent, thus requiring monthly trips that take about half a month to travel there and back. The best trade deals in the realm's vicinity is 35 gold/100 bushels, with most being lower, in the 20-30 gold range. So, to do it themselves, they might cut an average of something between 20-30 and there'd be nothing for the realm treasury. With the banker, the first month's average gold per 100 bushels was about 44 gold iirc, so thats an average of 22 gold/100 bushels (with some reginos contributing over 1k bushels), plus another few thousand gold for the realm treasury on top of that.

[Carl]

To be competitive it is essential for all players to operate on the same time scale. The fundamental time unit of the game is the "turn" and there should be no way that the timing of a character's activity within that  unit is significant. That is to say "real time" factors should not influence the gameplay.   
One obvious way they do is the obsession for early military orders. There can be no doubt orders issued early in the turn will be received by more characters than late ones and therefore overall response rate will probably be influenced.
The simple answer is for all actions, including messaging, to be resolved at the start of the next turn.

[Tom]

The simple answer is for all actions, including messaging, to be resolved at the start of the next turn.

I think this deserves an addition to the frequently rejected list.

Message delays will have one primary effect: People will move their communications outside the game.