Author Topic: Long Distance Wars Impossible?  (Read 32109 times)

Penchant

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 3121
    • View Profile
Re: Long Distance Wars Impossible?
« Reply #30: March 03, 2013, 12:02:16 AM »
It seems like then that it should be quite feasible to do. The Crusaders were successful enough to at least win on a number of occasions and even set up a Crusader Kingdom. However, of course, it should be QUITE expensive. I think that should be proper balance effect, cost--not morale.
Perhaps make merc class more expensive depending on how far away you are and merc class limits morale from going beneath a certain threshold because of distance from home.
“The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.”
― G.K. Chesterton

Bedwyr

  • Mighty Duke
  • ****
  • Posts: 1762
  • House Bedwyr
    • View Profile
Re: Long Distance Wars Impossible?
« Reply #31: March 03, 2013, 12:12:21 AM »
The Crusades worked by setting up Crusader Kingdoms.  If you want to fight a long distance war, set up puppet realms along the way, or work out an arrangement with them.
"You know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I go get and beat you with 'til ya understand who's in ruttin' command here!"

Zakilevo

  • Guest
Re: Long Distance Wars Impossible?
« Reply #32: March 03, 2013, 12:43:29 AM »
Send your knights to a kingdom near to your enemy with lots of gold.

Perth

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 2037
  • Current Character: Kemen
    • View Profile
Re: Long Distance Wars Impossible?
« Reply #33: March 03, 2013, 12:53:16 AM »
The Crusades worked by setting up Crusader Kingdoms.  If you want to fight a long distance war, set up puppet realms along the way, or work out an arrangement with them.

I'm don't think they set them up along the way, did they? They looted and pillaged along the way maybe. But they didn't set up Crusader Kingdoms until they got to the place they were trying to conquer, conquered it, and then set up the Crusader Kingdom.


Damn. Now I want to go play Crusader Kings II.
"A tale is but half told when only one person tells it." - The Saga of Grettir the Strong
- Current: Kemen (D'hara) - Past: Kerwin (Eston), Kale (Phantaria, Terran, Melodia)

Bedwyr

  • Mighty Duke
  • ****
  • Posts: 1762
  • House Bedwyr
    • View Profile
Re: Long Distance Wars Impossible?
« Reply #34: March 03, 2013, 02:04:16 AM »
I'm don't think they set them up along the way, did they? They looted and pillaged along the way maybe. But they didn't set up Crusader Kingdoms until they got to the place they were trying to conquer, conquered it, and then set up the Crusader Kingdom.


Damn. Now I want to go play Crusader Kings II.

If you take into account the fact that Battlemaster requires certain things to be done in your realm, then extrapolate "places I can do these things" to "places that are within my realm", then yes, they did.  It's not a precise business comparing BM to RL history.  Impose all kinds of military occupations, requiring tithes, recruits, logistics support, etc along the way?  Yes.  Require declarations of support for "Christendom"?  Yes.  Require that the cities and such swear allegiance to the King of France?  No.  But in BM the only way to get those things is to set up a realm.

And there were some realms set up along the way.  Pretty much anything after they sailed from Italian ports (or marched past the boundaries of "Christendom", which could get pretty murky) was at least attacked, if not outright conquered.  Constantinople sacked and made into the seat of effectively a Crusader state, etc.
"You know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I go get and beat you with 'til ya understand who's in ruttin' command here!"

Vellos

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 3736
  • Stodgy Old Man in Training
    • View Profile
Re: Long Distance Wars Impossible?
« Reply #35: March 03, 2013, 07:50:37 AM »
If you take into account the fact that Battlemaster requires certain things to be done in your realm, then extrapolate "places I can do these things" to "places that are within my realm", then yes, they did.  It's not a precise business comparing BM to RL history.  Impose all kinds of military occupations, requiring tithes, recruits, logistics support, etc along the way?  Yes.  Require declarations of support for "Christendom"?  Yes.  Require that the cities and such swear allegiance to the King of France?  No.  But in BM the only way to get those things is to set up a realm.

And there were some realms set up along the way.  Pretty much anything after they sailed from Italian ports (or marched past the boundaries of "Christendom", which could get pretty murky) was at least attacked, if not outright conquered.  Constantinople sacked and made into the seat of effectively a Crusader state, etc.

With all due respect, this is a load of bologna.

First of all, many of those things, like the sack of Constantinople, happen after several crusades of reasonable success.

Second of all, there were 14 crusades. Very few of them involved setting up puppet realms along the road. Off the top of my head, I'm unaware of any crusader state that would fit such a description other than perhaps Edessa.

Third, let's be clear: they were able to march to Israel, and fight multiple battles and sieges. Even if we adjust for BM tactics which are very different (campaigns don't usually feature more than just a very few major battles), morale losses should not be so crippling as to force armies to withdraw before entering combat.

We're not talking about a vast overland journey here. We're talking about a journey by ship through friendly, inland seas (certainly friendly than the Medieval Mediterranean for most of the way). The army should not be deserting at first landfall, or even soon after.

I fully grasp the importance of these types of mechanics: I'm just suggesting that maybe the specifics need revisiting. Yes, mounting long-range campaigns should be a major task of great expense which can only be carried out by powerful, stable realms. A realm that could field 20,000 CS on its border might only be able to field 5,000 CS on such a campaign. But such a thing should still be possible. As of now, our multiple attempts to make it work on Dwilight suggest that... it kind of isn't. It really doesn't matter your settings, your preparation, your provisions or whatever– your army is going to start deserting you very, very soon after landing. Certainly before you could ever finish a TO and hold off an army trying to break that TO.
"A neutral humanism is either a pedantic artifice or a prologue to the inhuman." - George Steiner

Zakilevo

  • Guest
Re: Long Distance Wars Impossible?
« Reply #36: March 03, 2013, 08:02:24 AM »
Based on what I've seen, not being able to attack your distant enemy is slowing the game down.

Dante Silverfire

  • Mighty Duke
  • ****
  • Posts: 1786
  • Merlin (AT), Brom(DWI), Proslyn(DWI)
    • View Profile
Re: Long Distance Wars Impossible?
« Reply #37: March 03, 2013, 08:46:44 AM »
But such a thing should still be possible. As of now, our multiple attempts to make it work on Dwilight suggest that... it kind of isn't. It really doesn't matter your settings, your preparation, your provisions or whatever– your army is going to start deserting you very, very soon after landing.

Why should this be possible? As far as I can tell, realms were never meant to ever be able to fully effect change through war all the way across the continent from themselves.

Why does it even matter to those who live in the furthest reaches of the north, to fight those who live in the furthest reaches of the south? Do you think the troops you have trained would honestly want to fight against someone who has literally zero reason to ever want to fight him, AND is so far away to not even be able to do so reasonably if he wanted to?

Of course your troops would desert. They have no reason to fight that war. Their homes aren't threatened. They are risking death, for what? Because you told them to? That's ludicrous.

If you want to fight a war, fight someone that is next to you, or even reasonably close to you. Why? Because they are the only ones who could actually ever be worthy of fighting. They are the only ones that could possibly harm your realm, so they're the only ones who need to be fought. This goes both ways. Aurvandil certainly can't conquer the entirety of Dwilight, let alone the northern realms of SA, so why should SA be able to fight them?

The only reason anyone is complaining about this is because SA has literally created a terrible situation of stagnation in the north, and no one is willing to make things interesting up there for fear of losing their positions. Instead, they try and manufacture a war against Aurvandil in the south, while Aurvandil could care less about y'all. If you care THAT MUCH about fighting Aurvandil, then move to Terran and go fight them. If you don't care that much, then you really don't have a right to complain about it, because your characters truly do want to be where they are. Which is a place safe from Aurvandil attack, and thus no reason to fight Aurvandil other than boredom.

Long Distance Wars should be impossible. Not only are they not realistic, but they aren't fun. They lead to a bad game atmosphere, that allows a single power-bloc to ruin the fun for everyone else because they've shut down everything in their corner of the game already. So they go and dabble in fights which aren't theirs to fight. As to the realism point: The only reason that the Crusades were even able to be fought is because a religious fervor had been established to such an extent that a reason was developed to overcome any other morale considerations. No religion in BM can come close to the religious fanaticism that was evident during those times. Even still, the reasons for war were essentially made up.
"This is the face of the man who has worked long and hard for the good of the people without caring much for any of them."

Vellos

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 3736
  • Stodgy Old Man in Training
    • View Profile
Re: Long Distance Wars Impossible?
« Reply #38: March 03, 2013, 09:04:30 AM »
Nice IC perspective.

Let's return to the OOC world.

Even if a BM religion did gain such fervor, it wouldn't solve the morale issue.

Thus, your point is moot: because even under the conditions you describe, a crusade would be impossible.
"A neutral humanism is either a pedantic artifice or a prologue to the inhuman." - George Steiner

Dante Silverfire

  • Mighty Duke
  • ****
  • Posts: 1786
  • Merlin (AT), Brom(DWI), Proslyn(DWI)
    • View Profile
Re: Long Distance Wars Impossible?
« Reply #39: March 03, 2013, 09:19:22 AM »
Nice IC perspective.

Let's return to the OOC world.

Even if a BM religion did gain such fervor, it wouldn't solve the morale issue.

Thus, your point is moot: because even under the conditions you describe, a crusade would be impossible.

Good. It should be. Period.
"This is the face of the man who has worked long and hard for the good of the people without caring much for any of them."

Dante Silverfire

  • Mighty Duke
  • ****
  • Posts: 1786
  • Merlin (AT), Brom(DWI), Proslyn(DWI)
    • View Profile
Re: Long Distance Wars Impossible?
« Reply #40: March 03, 2013, 09:34:55 AM »
Only because I believe this is highly relevant to most of the discussions which have occurred here, see my thoughts in this new thread I made: http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,3937.0.html

Also, a more on-topic note:

Morale SHOULD devastate an army fighting this far from home. As I mentioned two posts above, this war should not under any circumstances be possible. It is not fun for any of the parties involved, including the aggressors. There are plenty of opportunities for conflict through other means, people just aren't choosing to take them.

IF a crusade is truly wanted it would be VERY easy for SA to pull it off. Have every SA realm send 5-10 nobles to join Terran. A Terran with 100 nobles will stomp Aurvandil quickly. Then, after a few months of destroying Aurvandil, these nobles simply all return home OR perhaps they'd choose to stay. THAT is what a Crusade was like.
"This is the face of the man who has worked long and hard for the good of the people without caring much for any of them."

Vellos

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 3736
  • Stodgy Old Man in Training
    • View Profile
Re: Long Distance Wars Impossible?
« Reply #41: March 03, 2013, 09:40:26 AM »
Only because I believe this is highly relevant to most of the discussions which have occurred here, see my thoughts in this new thread I made: http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,3937.0.html

Also, a more on-topic note:

Morale SHOULD devastate an army fighting this far from home. As I mentioned two posts above, this war should not under any circumstances be possible. It is not fun for any of the parties involved, including the aggressors. There are plenty of opportunities for conflict through other means, people just aren't choosing to take them.

IF a crusade is truly wanted it would be VERY easy for SA to pull it off. Have every SA realm send 5-10 nobles to join Terran. A Terran with 100 nobles will stomp Aurvandil quickly. Then, after a few months of destroying Aurvandil, these nobles simply all return home OR perhaps they'd choose to stay. THAT is what a Crusade was like.

Right.

They all renounced their lands in France and became subjects of Byzantium.

Not.

What is this amazing chip you have on your shoulder all of a sudden?
"A neutral humanism is either a pedantic artifice or a prologue to the inhuman." - George Steiner

Dante Silverfire

  • Mighty Duke
  • ****
  • Posts: 1786
  • Merlin (AT), Brom(DWI), Proslyn(DWI)
    • View Profile
Re: Long Distance Wars Impossible?
« Reply #42: March 03, 2013, 09:50:46 AM »
What is this amazing chip you have on your shoulder all of a sudden?

I have no chip on my shoulder. I just think players shouldn't complain about game mechanics causing problems, when the problem isn't game mechanics. The game mechanics involved defend the fun of the game, they don't prevent it. The conflict which is healthy for the game (that occurring near your realm) is being prevented by players.

Also, why is this about me? Discuss my argument not the person making it.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2013, 10:05:26 AM by Dante Silverfire »
"This is the face of the man who has worked long and hard for the good of the people without caring much for any of them."

Tom

  • BM Dev Team
  • Exalted Emperor
  • *
  • Posts: 8228
    • View Profile
    • BattleMaster
Re: Long Distance Wars Impossible?
« Reply #43: March 03, 2013, 11:08:47 AM »
We will NOT make wars across distances like this easier. Period.

I will, however, look into the massive morale drops. I agree that 60% in one turn is a bit on the heavy side. We might cap it at 40% or so. Or maybe add a "soft cap" beyond 30%. I'm open to discussing that.

Poliorketes

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 276
    • View Profile
Re: Long Distance Wars Impossible?
« Reply #44: March 03, 2013, 01:00:46 PM »
It's a shame, we'll never see Vikings raids!  :P

If it's a design decision... well, then there is nothing left to say. But it is not because is a 'realist' decision. Mercenary medieval armies care nothing about where they go, as they had their gold. And Yes, ancient realms were totally capable of make very distant campaigns, although usually they were not interested in it... too much gold expended for very little profit.

But if they wanted they were very capable: From the Phoenicians to Alexander, Vikings, Crusades... and the Conquistadors!...