Friends and Enemies

[Norrel]

Intrarealm conflict => Why have more than 1 duchy?

In fact, why have more than 1 duchy with the ruler being duke and margrave?  Creating a new duchy can only lead to a weaker realm.

Well conflict does not necessarily entail combat. I'm a big fan of intrarealm competition. If I wanted to play a war game, I would play one that didn't have mediocre-at-best combat mechanics. What this game excels at is intrigue and politiking, the warfare itself is largely formulaic.

Anyways, dukes can already secede and stage a civil war. Why have more than 1 duchy indeed, now that cities and duchies are no longer linked?

[Ehndras]

Meh, same reason as history. Duchies/Etc aren't necessary, they simply give a less broad and more concise method of territorial control. There isn't really a need to De-centralize government though its always a possibility.

[vonGenf]

I think the effects should be limited to actions that actually involve your family. I want to retain the possibility to create a character who is the younger son who hates his father and is jealous of his older brother, or any of the like. If these were implemented:

No transfer of bonds between enemies.
An inability to vassalise or pledge allegiance to enemies.
An inability to end hatred diplomatic status with another realm if it is led by an enemy.
An inability to form an alliance with another realm if it is led by an enemy.
An inability to sign treaties if they are drafted/proposed by an enemy.
An automatic premium gets added to the price of trades if you have to purchase food from an enemy.
If you lead a secret society, other guild elders aren't able to bring your enemies into the fold.
Troops recruited from a region led by your enemy will have a lower base morale due to their bitterness at having to serve their lord's enemy.

Then it would be impossible.

There are not many mechanics that involve your family, so here are a few ideas:

-Your family is unable to pledge ransom to a Judge that belongs to an enemy clan, but the ransom is lower/comes more quickly if the Judge is from a friendly family
-Investments work better in regions where the Lord is friendly/impossible if he is an enemy
-Certainly something with the family home, can't think of what at the moment.

What other mechanics uses the family?

[Tom]

From the things posted so far, an effect on the ransom depending on relations between the families is the one I like best.
Doesn't mean I don't like any of the others, but this is the one that yelled "this!" at me.

[egamma]

I would also like for my character to specifically seek out a hated enemy family in battle, rather than the current random pairings we have.

[fodder]

that's all rather exploitable though...

"enemy ruler in battle..."
"everyone declare him an enemy"
*splat*

[Draco Tanos]

Make choosing your own friends/enemies an inalienable right.  Part of that problem solved.

[fodder]

no it won't. some people will do it whether it's ordered or not.

it's not so much the ordering, but the fact that it's a "win" thing. generals? judges? sponsors? marshals? *splash* ruler.. maybe slightly less so. heroes could have it bad too.

it needs tempering if it's added.. like you can't get targeted by more than 1 enemy or something, especially not ranged. (can still get hit by multiple enemy, but only on the normal rules)

[Ehndras]

I mean obviously we're not pulling a Senate-shanks-Caesar situation, but I do think it should definitely be done.

Of COURSE if multiple Lords hate the ruler of an enemy nation they'll try to wade through the melee to get the one they hate. They'll incur more losses in the meantime but there's also a slight chance of them targeting the hated individual which might incur injuries or death. It was done in real life it can be done in BM ;-)

What this game needs is more danger and intrigue. Everything has become too controlled, too adamant, too set in stone... A bit of chaos will do us a world of good.

[Gustav Kuriga]

I mean obviously we're not pulling a Senate-shanks-Caesar situation, but I do think it should definitely be done.

Of COURSE if multiple Lords hate the ruler of an enemy nation they'll try to wade through the melee to get the one they hate. They'll incur more losses in the meantime but there's also a slight chance of them targeting the hated individual which might incur injuries or death. It was done in real life it can be done in BM ;-)

What this game needs is more danger and intrigue. Everything has become too controlled, too adamant, too set in stone... A bit of chaos will do us a world of good.

I agree here. I also really hate the realm as a team mentality that a lot of people feel should be set in stone, rather than come about as hard work. There are other teams besides the realm. There's your duchy, your religion. But that's all for another thread, I think. I'm just saying that certain places (Atamara, for one) would be a lot more interesting if the realms weren't so predictably stable.

[Perth]

I also really hate the realm as a team mentality that a lot of people feel should be set in stone, rather than come about as hard work. I'm just saying that certain places (Atamara, for one) would be a lot more interesting if the realms weren't so predictably stable.

This. The "realm as a team" mentality is what leads to extremely stable continents and realms with little change in power structures. Why are so many rulers/dukes in their positions for years and years? Because the realm is a team and why would you want to get rid of your teammate.

[Anaris]

If you deliberately set out to sabotage the "realm as team" mentality systematically, gamewide, you will destroy the game. Period.

You and I and most of the regulars on the forum are happy to make our own teams and push aggressively for whatever goals and groups we wish to advance.

But we're no more than about 10% of the players. Probably less.

The game thrives because there are people who want the realm to be their team, and enjoy that team play.

A lot of people are turned off by the highly acrimonious intra-realm conflict that goes on in, say, the Lurias (especially Pian en Luries of old). A lot of people. Way more than enjoy politicking and backstabbing. They just want to have fun as part of a team, and that's a very important part of BattleMaster.

[Ehndras]

Then they should find a realm that values teamwork ,but why should those who'd like to stage rebellion or have their own political intrigue get stuck having the same thing day in and out for all eternity in nations that are purposely less-stable?

Terran for example. There's no one in Terran that would call bloodfeud on each other nor attempt civil war, despite our differences, because we seek to understand and respect each other. Other nations I've played in though, they really milk the intra-realm conflict RP even though the mechanics aren't there, and it makes things AWESOME. I LOVE Terran's unity but I also LOVE the chaos certain other realms have at heart. I made new characters on other continents specifically because the one-sided nature of Dwilight politics is boring as absolute f*ck and would honestly kill the game for me. About a month back I was going to quit because I was so annoyed at how much everyone is accustomed to landlocking each other. Blockades are boring and don't bring anything to the game. Massive power-blocs that never actually fight is boring. Religions controlling entire swathes of the world without any resistance is boring. So on and so forth.

Its a strategy-war roleplaying game! We need more reason for war and most of all, more reason for strategy! The roleplay will come to pass as a result of better mechanics and broader decisions and possible scenarios

The war with Aurvandil is pretty much the saving grace because otherwise it would have been a slow and painful spiral into starvation and misery with everyone too damn weak to go to war.

[Anaris]

Don't misunderstand me: all the things we have right now that enable intra-realm conflict are fine. I'm not even trying to say that allowing, essentially, one-on-one battles between enemies in a realm would be a bad thing. I don't know whether it would or not.

I'm trying to let Perth and Gustav Kuriga know that it's not productive to be saying things like, "I also really hate the realm as a team mentality." (And yes, I know I quoted it out of context. I'm exaggerating for effect )

[Ehndras]

Ah. I'm pretty damn sure they both don't mean they want the entire realm structure to die off, only to allow for more dynamics within the current system by reshaping what it means to be a realm - which is of course more realistically reflective of real-world politics from the Dark Ages to the post-Feudal era.