Population damage and repair

[Anaris]

I don't think you understand what happened. I didn't put anyone, anywhere. My realm didn't take any actions that caused Oroya to become a wreckage of epic proportions. We have been screwed over by the realm's society, the same realm society you propose holds the answer to this predicament. You think if people just act this specific way, this problem will be solved. People do not act that way. Therefore, the game must take that into account.

He's not saying you, personally, did these things. He's saying that the realm you were a part of did them. Therefore, you, as part of that realm (at the time), share the collective blame for what was done.

Was there anything more you could have done? Maybe, maybe not. The point is, it's not the game's fault. It's the fault of the flesh-and-blood people making decisions about how to found the realm.

[Tom]

1. Sure, but they're far more destructive than they used to be. Just look at the regions near Coria that have seen the most battle and you'll see regions that have lost 6000 peasants out of an 8000 total. That's just the effects of normal, prolonged war these days and recovery of those regions will take months.

I doubt that. War itself does very little damage to regions. It is the result of looting, starvation or other side-effects. But looting is INTENDED to be destructive. That's what it is FOR.

[Chenier]

I don't think you understand what happened. I didn't put anyone, anywhere. My realm didn't take any actions that caused Oroya to become a wreckage of epic proportions. We have been screwed over by the realm's society, the same realm society you propose holds the answer to this predicament. You think if people just act this specific way, this problem will be solved. People do not act that way. Therefore, the game must take that into account.

While I can say there is some truth to 'you reap what your predecessor sowed', many of these realms, if they have alliances, are at the mercy of a single more powerful realm. In Nivemus' case, it's Sirion. In Dunnera's it was Caligus. And even though they don't have relations: In Eponllyn, it's Perdan and in Armonia, it's Caligus. The only thing not crushing those realms on some arbitrary whim is because they don't have a reason, or just simply don't want to.

Nivemus has done exactly this: take devastated region, surround with well fed regions to help immigration possibilities, and put time and money into the city. Please explain to me how THAT is wrong!

Making other realms not want to destroy you is called diplomacy. If you don't want diplomacy to be a factor, go play War Islands.

If repairing a devastated city sucks for you, then your mistake was deciding to settle there in the first place. Beggars can't be pickers.

And I don't know what "realm society" you speak of. If you mean the new game mentality, I'm not advocating it, I'm just stating as a fact that it wasn't there back then when looting didn't do damage. And that it's not going away, the mentality shift is, imo, irreversible.

I don't mean to be an !@#$%^&, but these are isolated problems that result from decisions players collectively made.

And citing an EC socio-political context doesn't justify game-wide changes. Enough changes were imposed on players throughout the years because some EC !@#$%^&s didn't care enough to create a fun environment for their peers, and because said peers couldn't be bothered to change things themselves. EC-specific issues are not mechanics problems, they are people problems.

[Uzamaki]

EC-specific issues are not mechanics problems, they are people problems.

The reason the city got devastated in the first place is a people problem. The reason it takes a year or longer to get that city back to full production is not though. There is a clear distinction there.

[Chenier]

The reason the city got devastated in the first place is a people problem. The reason it takes a year or longer to get that city back to full production is not though. There is a clear distinction there.

The city wouldn't have taken long to repair had people not decided to devastate it.

[Zakilevo]

Making regions recover faster won't bring back the old style of play, it'll just make wars meaningless.

Aren't we playing this game to fight wars? After all this game is called BATTLEMASTER. I can't stress this enough, we are not playing a medieval simulator, we are playing a game. Do we have more people than when the game was more like a game than what is currently now? Something close to a simulator? Will slowing the game down bring more people? I doubt that.

[Chenier]

Aren't we playing this game to fight wars? After all this game is called BATTLEMASTER. I can't stress this enough, we are not playing a medieval simulator, we are playing a game. Do we have more people than when the game was more like a game than what is currently now? Something close to a simulator? Will slowing the game down bring more people? I doubt that.

Whether you like it being a simulator or not, going to war for the sake of it will likely result in you getting killed.

Again, a people problem, not a mechanics problem.

I've instigated a lot of wars and conflicts myself, but they were done with specific purposes in mind. If you can't count on being able to pacify a foe in order to be able to then strike another, you are forced to always fight the same neighbor over and over again. Non-stop warfare with the same opponent gets dull.

If you think this game is just about war, then why do so many people complain when a war starts stretching for a long time? War must alternate with peace.

[LilWolf]

Making regions recover faster won't bring back the old style of play, it'll just make wars meaningless.

How so? I doubt anyone in the game starts a war with the goal of "I want to destroy all the regions so they're of no use to anyone for months". What they do start wars over are all sorts of diplomatic reasons, grudges and so on. None of those would disappear if regions weren't so fragile. There would still be the same goals to accomplish.

I doubt that. War itself does very little damage to regions. It is the result of looting, starvation or other side-effects. But looting is INTENDED to be destructive. That's what it is FOR.

But that's pretty much what all wars are now. You loot and destroy everything, save for the 1-2 regions you might actually be able to take. Killing peasants is very easy once they start to rise up as militia every turn(why do they do that anyway? They're never any use and only make the damage worse). You can literally slaughter a thousand of them in just a few turns even in a rural region. Compound those damages over the course of a war that rages for months and the region is dead pretty quickly and thoroughly.

[Chenier]

How so? I doubt anyone in the game starts a war with the goal of "I want to destroy all the regions so they're of no use to anyone for months". What they do start wars over are all sorts of diplomatic reasons, grudges and so on. None of those would disappear if regions weren't so fragile. There would still be the same goals to accomplish.

Because if you eventually want to move on against your neighbor's friend, odds are you want to make sure that this neighbor won't backstab you the moment you do so. If there's the possibility to cripple him for a while, then you can start a war against him first while the other guy's distracted (or not quite as committed as the first target would have been to his friend). If you succeed in putting him down, you then know you have enough time to launch a war against the other guy without having to seriously fear the first guy. If your ambitions are greater than a meager addition of a rural to one's realm, knowing you can incapacitate another is important. Because seriously, gaining a rural region is of little interest to realm-wide prosperity and to ambitious people's agendas. The ones that have the most to gain from small border skirmishes are usually those who don't have a say over whether a war will take place or not.

[Zakilevo]

I am pretty sure people would run instead of forming militia to fight a big well armed army. People's emotion can only take them so far against something much more powerful. Unless you corner them and leave them without a choice, people tend to look for an exit.

Also, Chenier, I don't know about you but I don't think many people actually start a war just to completely devastate a few regions. When a realm attacks another realm, they will either do it to gain regions or for political regions not to cause genocide to depopulate a chunk of a map.

[Zakilevo]

Because if you eventually want to move on against your neighbor's friend, odds are you want to make sure that this neighbor won't backstab you the moment you do so. If there's the possibility to cripple him for a while, then you can start a war against him first while the other guy's distracted (or not quite as committed as the first target would have been to his friend). If you succeed in putting him down, you then know you have enough time to launch a war against the other guy without having to seriously fear the first guy. If your ambitions are greater than a meager addition of a rural to one's realm, knowing you can incapacitate another is important. Because seriously, gaining a rural region is of little interest to realm-wide prosperity and to ambitious people's agendas. The ones that have the most to gain from small border skirmishes are usually those who don't have a say over whether a war will take place or not.

Will the neighbour's sit idly while you stomp their friend? I doubt it. You will get attacked from two sides instead. Nice theory though.

[Chenier]

Will the neighbour's sit idly while you stomp their friend? I doubt it. You will get attacked from two sides instead. Nice theory though.

Diplomacy, my friend. There are often parties more willing to defend their friend than their friend is willing to defend them. Then there's timing: one of them can be busy with something else, or be blocked by a treaty that hasn't yet expired. Then there's diplomatic strategy.

Also, Chenier, I don't know about you but I don't think many people actually start a war just to completely devastate a few regions. When a realm attacks another realm, they will either do it to gain regions or for political regions not to cause genocide to depopulate a chunk of a map.

Had the daimons not interfered and resumed their invasive ways, Nicolas Chénier would have successfully genocided a good chunk of Beluaterra. 

Genocide starts to be the only viable strategy, once your noble count is too low to justify colonies.

[Ketchum]

Cities recover quite slow from war. Is there a mating season so that peasants in all regions nearby city can go on to populate the city?

[Chenier]

Cities recover quite slow from war. Is there a mating season so that peasants in all regions nearby city can go on to populate the city?

I always was in favor of a system that allows to increase growth somehow, though. As long as it's costly and not really effective.

[Poliorketes]

I always was in favor of a system that allows to increase growth somehow, though. As long as it's costly and not really effective.

It sounds wonderful... as a mean to spend big amounts of gold for nothing! 

Really, the thing is when you loot a region, (or is under 'local' hunger), the people would not to die in enormous amounts, but to flee to neighbour regions (or hide in the woods), and come back to their region when the situation got better. I can understand destruction of production, or even the destruction of a City, but usually the people is hard to exterminate... they usually don't wait for death but flee!    Maybe this would be a bit more realistic and better for the game.

Honestly, I can't see as realistic a region go from 3000 pop. to 20... or even 1!!!