Vent Thread

[vonGenf]

No, no that's not the point at all. It's the contrary of that. Take Riombara, an example we are both familiar with. Say each city now gained the possibilty to war eachother. What would happen first? Well, the duchy of Grehk, which is oversized, would probably be banged upon for a while to make sure that everyone has the regions they more or less desire. More or less because, hopefully, nobody will ever be satisfied. The dukes will or should not attempt to entirely conquer another duchy (and if need be, you can ensure that through a solid treaty that prohibits such or, if it were implanted game-mechanic wise, you could deal with it through coding). Basically the Duke of Jidington would never strife to conquer all of Riombara. First of all, at some point, the other dukes would realize that he is getting way too strong and would intervene. Secondly it is not the goal of this idea. Riombara would still "exist" and be able to wage wars with, say, an Enweil that has 4 "separate" duchies too. Some dukes fight, some dukes don't. It depends on how much they like the ruler.

It is actually pretty medieval. I love to take the larger region of France as a prime example of an exciting medieval time, and the king of France sure did not control all his dukes during the Middle Ages. Territorial strife within a "country" (because, really, our notion of nationalism should really not fit to anything related to the Middle Ages) was not so uncommon. There were no perfectly defined boundaries. It wasn't "out of the question" that a King's peers would join him in his wars; he had better be good friends with them or they would have their army sit at home behind the Duke's walls.

The core idea though is that no duchy should attempt or be allowed to swallow another duchy because that would lead to a "united-recreation" of the split-up realm. The core idea is that your realm is effectively feudalized.

I like the picture you paint. I'm not sure what mechanics would lead to that, but I like it.

[Fleugs]

I like the picture you paint. I'm not sure what mechanics would lead to that, but I like it.

I'm sure if one of us wins the lottery, we can donate enough so Tom can pay for a highly trained team of coders! Or you know, pay him enough so he doesn't have to go to work and can code it himself.

[Chenier]

No, no that's not the point at all. It's the contrary of that. Take Riombara, an example we are both familiar with. Say each city now gained the possibilty to war eachother. What would happen first? Well, the duchy of Grehk, which is oversized, would probably be banged upon for a while to make sure that everyone has the regions they more or less desire. More or less because, hopefully, nobody will ever be satisfied. The dukes will or should not attempt to entirely conquer another duchy (and if need be, you can ensure that through a solid treaty that prohibits such or, if it were implanted game-mechanic wise, you could deal with it through coding). Basically the Duke of Jidington would never strife to conquer all of Riombara. First of all, at some point, the other dukes would realize that he is getting way too strong and would intervene. Secondly it is not the goal of this idea. Riombara would still "exist" and be able to wage wars with, say, an Enweil that has 4 "separate" duchies too. Some dukes fight, some dukes don't. It depends on how much they like the ruler.

It is actually pretty medieval. I love to take the larger region of France as a prime example of an exciting medieval time, and the king of France sure did not control all his dukes during the Middle Ages. Territorial strife within a "country" (because, really, our notion of nationalism should really not fit to anything related to the Middle Ages) was not so uncommon. There were no perfectly defined boundaries. It wasn't "out of the question" that a King's peers would join him in his wars; he had better be good friends with them or they would have their army sit at home behind the Duke's walls.

The core idea though is that no duchy should attempt or be allowed to swallow another duchy because that would lead to a "united-recreation" of the split-up realm. The core idea is that your realm is effectively feudalized.

That was the idea behind Fheuv'n. And you know what? It utterly failed. Do you know why? Because the new realm lacked the critical mass to be viable, and the old realm laked the dynamic nobles to be viable. I expected the whole to be greater than the sum of the parts. The opposite was the result.

[Lorgan]

That was the idea behind Fheuv'n. And you know what? It utterly failed. Do you know why? Because the new realm lacked the critical mass to be viable, and the old realm laked the dynamic nobles to be viable. I expected the whole to be greater than the sum of the parts. The opposite was the result.

It didn't work out very well in Luria either. Then again, it has probably a better chance in a republican system. And I hear guild referenda are on the todo list.

[Draco Tanos]

Honestly, a feudal system more like Crusader Kings 2 would probably provide plenty of combat and political intrigue.  Unfortunately such systems have been shot down many times.

[Chenier]

It didn't work out very well in Luria either. Then again, it has probably a better chance in a republican system. And I hear guild referenda are on the todo list.

Enweil was democratic and Fheuv'n was republican.

Mind you, we never got around to founding a guild to better coordinate. I don't think it would have changed much though.

[Lorgan]

Enweil was democratic and Fheuv'n was republican.

Mind you, we never got around to founding a guild to better coordinate. I don't think it would have changed much though.

Well, it gives a forum where nobles of both realms can talk to eachother. As that rarely happens unless there's a specific reason to (like elections) is why I think it'd work better with a system with elections. I wouldn't know how you do that without a guild actually?

[Chenier]

Well, it gives a forum where nobles of both realms can talk to eachother. As that rarely happens unless there's a specific reason to (like elections) is why I think it'd work better with a system with elections. I wouldn't know how you do that without a guild actually?

For it to work, yes, you need a guild. And guild referenda would help a lot. I'm just saying that this alone is not enough.

The 'moot isn't a split-up realm, but it does operate kind of like this. It is hard to make people use the guild channel, though.

[Lorgan]

For it to work, yes, you need a guild. And guild referenda would help a lot. I'm just saying that this alone is not enough.

The 'moot isn't a split-up realm, but it does operate kind of like this. It is hard to make people use the guild channel, though.

Yup. And you need the leadership of each realm actively supporting it, plus spend loads on guildhouses.

[Lorgan]

On another topic:

why no warrior priests?

[Chenier]

Yup. And you need the leadership of each realm actively supporting it, plus spend loads on guildhouses.

And each realm must have the required critical mass of dynamic and active characters, prefferably also working on making this work.

[Penchant]

On another topic:

why no warrior priests?

Imbalance. Imagine an army of warrior priests going through Cantril and into Lakota bypassing the army. If you don't play on Atamara, what I said is if two armies are "staring" at each other, and the attacking army goes through the defenders region and past it without a battle taking place. It could maybe work if you had it be they gain hours like a priest but they get a max of 12 hours at time, turn travel, and hits to how much men they can command.

[vonGenf]

On another topic:

why no warrior priests?

If you mean warrior priests as in people who have access to both the warrior options and the priest options of the game mechanics, it is game imbalance. You need to pick a class. You can always switch back and forth if you have need of the warrior options now and then.

If you mean warrior priests as something like the Knights Templar, you can do that. It's called a warrior in BM, simply. Warriors can very well be Elders of their religions.

[Fleugs]

That was the idea behind Fheuv'n. And you know what? It utterly failed. Do you know why? Because the new realm lacked the critical mass to be viable, and the old realm laked the dynamic nobles to be viable. I expected the whole to be greater than the sum of the parts. The opposite was the result.

I didn't know that was the idea behind Fheuv'n. I thought the key idea was to troll the rest of Battlemaster by giving your realm a ridiculous name and an even more ridiculous abbreviation of that name, but okay. I do realize that it would be hard to achieve something like that. Therefore I think it is key that such a system can only be established through a widely supported OOC-agreement. That's probably meta-gaming and for that reason I don't see it happening any time soon.

Honestly, a feudal system more like Crusader Kings 2 would probably provide plenty of combat and political intrigue.  Unfortunately such systems have been shot down many times.

This would be ideal, yes. I don't care if it's been shut down many times; I'll keep on advocating.

[Shizzle]

Thanks for the rant, Fleugs - an interesting read. Grimbergen ftw