Campaigns

[Azerax]

It should be noted that historically, to sponsor a campaign, it meant to also support it financially.  I know this is completely out of scope based on this thread, but sponsorship of a campaign is a serious thing.  Whether it's direct funding, temporarily allowing allied nobles to repair (for free?), or providing troops, it's something beyond just organised communication. (which I am all for).

It's an idea that has huge potential on many fronts.

Cheers,
Scott

[Ehndras]

...Which ALSO opens up the possibility for church-funded religious crusades, a-la Middle Ages. ;-)

[Perth]

As I am currently directly involved in the military leadership of 2 multi-realm wars (Cathay and Terran) and indirectly in the military leadership of one other (Eston), this sounds like a god-send for cooperation.

Though, of course, there is something to be said for the difficulty of planning and coordinating campaigns involving multiple realms.

[Tom]

Maybe, in order to do this, have campaigns have stated objectives?

Yes, but no game-mechanics. We've had various attempts at this over the years and the problem is that no reasonable game-mechanics can capture the complexity and intricacies of the conflicts in BM. Introducing such a system would take away from the game, because people would tend to follow the game-mechanics instead of the roleplay.

[Tom]

Though, of course, there is something to be said for the difficulty of planning and coordinating campaigns involving multiple realms.

We are not making it easier, we are shifting the required organisation. The new message system will provide fewer options for direct messaging. For example, I plan to remove the "all allies in this region" message option. This here is a replacement so you can still coordinate your campaign, but it requires your armies to be set up properly.

[GoldPanda]

I have no objections if it's free (as in, no gold cost) and fast (little or no time requirement) for the General to assign armies to campaigns and unassign them later. Being able to assign armies to multiple campaigns at once would also be good.

[Tom]

Creating a new campaign will take a bit of gold and time. I've not yet decided on assignement, it might take one hour but can contain multiple armies.

Armies can only be assigned to one campaign, and that is intentional.

[vonGenf]

Will there be a limit to how many campaigns you can join? I can almost see this being used as a way to build an "all federation" message channel for groups like the Lurians or the Veinsormoot, or possibly even Sanguis Astroism.

That's a bit of my fear. In Sanguis Astroism, for example, you would have an all-SA-realms channel where everyone is in it, whether they are in the religion or not. This would not help the religious game, and increase the power-bloc aspect of it.

In the Veinsormoot and the Lurias, this would make the guilds completely redundant. Guilds have built-in limitations that this would completely bypass.

[Perth]

That's a bit of my fear. In Sanguis Astroism, for example, you would have an all-SA-realms channel where everyone is in it, whether they are in the religion or not. This would not help the religious game, and increase the power-bloc aspect of it.

In the Veinsormoot and the Lurias, this would make the guilds completely redundant. Guilds have built-in limitations that this would completely bypass.

I agree, these could be kept around at all times to essentially simply use them as multi-realm message groups.

Perhaps they should have an upkeep cost? Perhaps the General can only form/assign armies to campaigns when the realm is in a diplomatic state of war? Maybe a time limit before they need to be renewed? Just brainstorming here.

[Tom]

I don't think they will work like that. Among other things, you have to be in the army to be part of a campaign, because only armies can join a campaign, not individual characters. That should exclude, say, priests. And many others.

You can only invite realms you are allied with into your campaign is another limit.

[Cren]

Love the idea. But wouldn't this look a bit messy to single army realms joining a campaign, to those TLs who are in the army but not participating in the campaign? Perhaps you could replace Generals assigning armies to the campaign by Generals assigning individual nobles of the realm?

[Indirik]

If they don't want to be involved in army matters, then they shouldn't be in the army in the first place. That's all there is to it.

[Tom]

Love the idea. But wouldn't this look a bit messy to single army realms joining a campaign, to those TLs who are in the army but not participating in the campaign? Perhaps you could replace Generals assigning armies to the campaign by Generals assigning individual nobles of the realm?

Perhaps that realm should clean up their military structure.

[De-Legro]

In the Veinsormoot and the Lurias, this would make the guilds completely redundant. Guilds have built-in limitations that this would completely bypass.

Not in the Lurias. The guilds allow those who WANT to be part of the political discussion to partake. Campaigns would force every member of the army to wade through messages they potentially have no interest in. The guilds also give us a RP mechanic for ranks and positions with the large Empire that I don't think the proposed campaign structure would provide.

[Azerax]

Will there be a limit to how many campaigns you can join? I can almost see this being used as a way to build an "all federation" message channel for groups like the Lurians or the Veinsormoot, or possibly even Sanguis Astroism.

There should be.  If a campaign is close to an oath (which historically it has been, ie many wars in Jerusalem) , you can only truly commit to one 100%.