New Sea Routes

[Charles]

While they would be neat, I think ports and the creation of sea regions will be a no-go.
Tom, the problem with keeping the rule that maps do not change is that you already broke that rule by erasing large segments of BT.  Most places I think the change has worked out, the few northern losses just make the coastline different, the same thing goes for most southern changes as well.  Food should now be rather abundant as most lost regions were cities.
If you do not like sea routes, maps need to be created in such a way as to not need them.  Until now, BT was.

[DamnTaffer]

There will be no new sea routes, period.

Everyone who says this isn't about politics, but about geography, and then goes on to explain which effect it would have on realms is confused about what "geography" means.

The world does not adapt to realms, realms adapt to what the shape of the world looks like.

If you think one realm has an unfair advantage, gang up and wipe them out.

Sea routes are man made things, the world is not changing. Realms are adapting by building ports in coastal locations and using boats for travel and trade its not like we're requesting you change the ocean or advance the tech level of available boats currently we can travel from one continent to another using any port we want going to any port we choose, why is it possibly to do for emmigration but not trade. It makes utterly no logical sense for sea routes to not be implimented. Most trade in basically all of history was done via boat using rivers and sea routes, why should battlemaster be any different? Should we assume for roleplay purposes that trade can only happen by caravan on bel?

[Penchant]

Sea routes are man made things, the world is not changing. Realms are adapting by building ports in coastal locations and using boats for travel and trade its not like we're requesting you change the ocean or advance the tech level of available boats currently we can travel from one continent to another using any port we want going to any port we choose, why is it possibly to do for emmigration but not trade. It makes utterly no logical sense for sea routes to not be implimented. Most trade in basically all of history was done via boat using rivers and sea routes, why should battlemaster be any different? Should we assume for roleplay purposes that trade can only happen by caravan on bel?

No offense but you are the only one debating about this for trade, and its not that hard to say why there are only certain ports with sea routes; the rest of the ports only have boats fit for ignoble people but the nobles are willing to suffer if they want to get off the continent.

@ Tom you want to wait for there to be problems but as others have said that's trying to fix political problems that way, whereas doing it now is fixing a geographical problem.

[Charles]

Tom, out of curiosity, what is it you dislike about sea routes?  Perhaps there are certain issues with sea routes that could be considered in order to make them less evil?

[DamnTaffer]

No offense but you are the only one caring about this for trade, and its not that hard to say why there are only certain ports with sea routes; the rest of the ports only have boats fit for ignoble people but the nobles are willing to suffer if they want to get off the continent.

I am the only one whom has suggested it, not the only one whom cares and boats for intercontinental travel would have to be sizable if the continents were far enough away to be prohibitive to actual trade ventures and made the continents insular like they seem to be. Which suggests that there are many large ports as well as smaller ports and nobles are not fools, if given a choice between not doing something and having to deal with less than idea living arrangements for travel a sensible noble will pick to suffer slightly and even then any ship larger than a longboat or large enough for a captains cabin will have room for a noble to sit away from the commoners.

And actually, trade makes sea routes the vast percentage of sea travel has always been trade. Merchants invest in maps atleast as often as raiders and likely use there boats to help chart them. Cultures in ancient and medieval times tended to be mediocre without sea trade with some of the greatest being built on it. Having lots of sea routes not only holds a precident historically but adds huge ammounts of roleplay value, benefits for traders, and its tactical value.

[fodder]

there is trade in bt?!

i thought most rogue rurals recently captured have a ton of stock that'll last the few populated cities for yonks.

and everyone and their dog are still pretty much allied.

[Sypher]

there is trade in bt?!

i thought most rogue rurals recently captured have a ton of stock that'll last the few populated cities for yonks.

and everyone and their dog are still pretty much allied.

Every realm in BT is producing a surplus of food. Its not surprising considering a disproportionate number of the regions lost were cities.

[Zakilevo]

Trade won't happen :p Too much food and BT will only get more. Maybe they should export to other continents!

[Penchant]

Trade won't happen :p Too much food and BT will only get more. Maybe they should export to other continents!

i would buy it from them with my Dwilight character.

[Sypher]

well, new possibilities for trade might eventually become useful (if we ever get other resources to buy/sell). But, what I think most are saying is that sea routes connecting different parts of the island make it a more dynamic place by adding possibilities for new conflicts or new strategic possibilities within a war.

 I wouldn't add sea routes just between cities either, I'd want shorter sea routes between rural regions when it makes sense. I could see sea travel developing between Heen & Eykfar for people that want to avoid traveling through the desert. I can imagine short sea routes hopping across the western coast.

[Penchant]

I wouldn't add sea routes just between cities either, I'd want shorter sea routes between rural regions when it makes sense. I could see sea travel developing between Heen & Eykfar for people that want to avoid traveling through the desert. I can imagine short sea routes hopping across the western coast.

The thing is, and Tom will probably like someone agreeing with this at least, it will never make sense for their to be sea routes between rural region because if it had a port it wouldn't be a rural, it would be a city or stronghold, maybe a townsland. Ports were not made everywhere and just because farmer joe goes fishing near shore in his little boat doesn't mean you could dock a real ship there to go back and forth to some other random rural.

[Geronus]

Let's not get off topic here. We had a very nice consensus going about adding a sea route to link the southern appendage of BT (and it really is a tail end at this point) to what now is basically the rest of BT. This is not a discussion about implementing navies, or sea zones, or multitudes of coastal routes. This is about adding one region to region connection in order to improve gameplay in light of the new and drastically different geography of BT.

[Sypher]

If regions did change it would make sense for new townslands/cities to develop over time along the areas that have been drastically changed. Places that *had* big coastal cities suddenly don't. Shifgrethor (townsland) to Heen I suppose would be a possibility for a sea route along the west coast. Would help explain why Shifgrethor is a townsland.

Let's not get off topic here. We had a very nice consensus going about adding a sea route to link the southern appendage of BT (and it really is a tail end at this point) to what now is basically the rest of BT. This is not a discussion about implementing navies, or sea zones, or multitudes of coastal routes. This is about adding one region to region connection in order to improve gameplay in light of the new and drastically different geography of BT.

I agree that connection is needed but still think more sea routes would be a net benefit to the game.

[Penchant]

If regions did change it would make sense for new townslands/cities to develop over time along the areas that have been drastically changed. Places that *had* big coastal cities suddenly don't. Shifgrethor (townsland) to Heen I suppose would be a possibility for a sea route along the west coast. Would help explain why Shifgrethor is a townsland.
I agree that connection is needed but still think more sea routes would be a net benefit to the game.

Maybe other sea routes would be beneficial but Geronus is right we need to focus on the proposed one for Riombara's area.

[Tom]

Sea routes ARE changes to the world because they connect place A to place B. Basically, you could just as well change the map so that A and B touch each other, that's the effect that sea routes have.

And that is why sea routes suck, because they connect A to B, but not A2 to B, even though you could make the same argument for A2 as you made for A. So either it is tons of sea routes all over the place, which makes everything connect to everything and makes coastal cities totally vulnerable towards naval invasions, or you don't.

All you guys arguing historically are forgetting an important detail: There are no actual sea routes in this game. Nowhere. We simulate them by having connections between unconnected regions, but the game doesn't know these are sea routes. It doesn't know that landing your soldiers in an enemy city by sea is not the same as marching in by land. It doesn't know that you could be attacked by an enemy navy at sea. It doesn't know about weather, it doesn't know about ports, it doesn't know about the fact that sea routes should be limited by the number of available ships, it knows bugger all.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.