On SA's political coalition: Pros, Cons, and Potential Action.

[Telamon]

Salutations,

As a long time player freshly returning to the game, and to Dwilight, i have noticed some potential issues that i would like to voice and discuss regarding SA and the Theocracies.
This is a slightly edited complaint that i voiced earlier today, OOC and in the game. The forums are a more appropriate venue for this discussion, so I would like all your feedback regarding A: If alliance is indeed taking the fun out of the game for the majority of non-decision makers and B: If something should be done. Here is my complaint:

"Stagnant nations without a direct "goal" or "enemy" wither away as the new members, without regions/responsibility, get bored and leave. I wouldn't call the enemy we can't reach in the south an "enemy" as they can't really touch us, or we them. It's like Sweden having Australia as a blood enemy. It's silly.

I know we're all very comfortable here in the "north" with our super Theocracy Alliance, but at a certain point it defeats the purpose of the game for new players. This game is at it's best when you have smaller competitive realms – with intense team spirit – fighting passionately for reachable, common, goals.  Goals that are inclusive and returns that are palpable for everyone.

As it is right now, we have a bunch of huge, bloated realms twiddling our thumbs in a huge "religious alliance" as the months pass by with the lords and leaders/dukes collecting huge tax returns.  There is no intrigue – as any insurrection would be crushed immediately by the whole – all talk is directed toward keeping the "status quo" and in expanding the "faith" despite the fact that we can't expand our faith to certain nations without direct military force, or conversation kept between leaders.

Of course this is all obvious, but perhaps it hasn't been voiced. And if it has, then maybe i haven't heard it because my character is just a lowly knight.

This game, it is actually a game, would be a lot more fun if we actually fought and argued with each other. Power gaming as a huge mass of "believers" is not fun after your reach is expended."

[Zakilevo]

The game is designed to make you fight your neighbours and you can see this by checking the various limitations imposed upon it. If you have travelled far enough with your units, you probably know that it is impossible to attack a realm on the opposite side of your realm(well at least on Dwilight).

I've heard this 'small realms' idea numerous times but every time it came up people wanted this to be played out in game not oocly and I agree with the notion. However, so far I haven't seen anyone succeed on making it happen in gamely. To my eyes, there is a major problem with the idea.

BM is a game of player created history. People spend real life years to work on strengthening, expanding, and perfecting their realms. Some of them are of course more successful than others and as a result, some realms become massive in size, wealth, and power. With those come apathy, boredom, and stagnation. Unless those realms get aggressive expansionist rulers (or rulers who try to outwit his or her peers), they will become boring and people will start complaining.

As I see it, realms go through certain stages in BM. They start off small/weak/poor/vibrant -> medium/half assed/middle/still somewhat vibrant -> big/strong/wealthy/boring. More stable your realm becomes, more boring it.

Although they become boring and stagnant, people don't want their realm to be broken into bits because they have spent months or even years working on their realm. It is just like children spending their time to build a lego castle and debating if they should destroy it to make something else.

[pcw27]

SA does have a potential Northern Enemy in the form of Asylon. They've been known to cause trouble and that's useful. One problem is realms on Dwilight tend to try and completely destroy enemy realms. This wasn't typical of real medieval warfare. So if there's another war against Asylon I'd hope they leave Asylon alive.

I'm not too worried about excessive power consolidation. At some point inevitably Mathurin is going to die, or moreover his player is going to decide it's time to let him go. This will shake things up dramatically. Everyone and their mother is going to try and claim they're the new prophet.

The game is designed to make you fight your neighbours and you can see this by checking the various limitations imposed upon it. If you have travelled far enough with your units, you probably know that it is impossible to attack a realm on the opposite side of your realm(well at least on Dwilight).

I've heard this 'small realms' idea numerous times but every time it came up people wanted this to be played out in game not oocly and I agree with the notion. However, so far I haven't seen anyone succeed on making it happen in gamely. To my eyes, there is a major problem with the idea.

BM is a game of player created history. People spend real life years to work on strengthening, expanding, and perfecting their realms. Some of them are of course more successful than others and as a result, some realms become massive in size, wealth, and power. With those come apathy, boredom, and stagnation. Unless those realms get aggressive expansionist rulers (or rulers who try to outwit his or her peers), they will become boring and people will start complaining.

As I see it, realms go through certain stages in BM. They start off small/weak/poor/vibrant -> medium/half assed/middle/still somewhat vibrant -> big/strong/wealthy/boring. More stable your realm becomes, more boring it.

Although they become boring and stagnant, people don't want their realm to be broken into bits because they have spent months or even years working on their realm. It is just like children spending their time to build a lego castle and debating if they should destroy it to make something else.

I disagree. I often find small realms are just as dull because they lack the strength to risk a war. I think part of what gives us big powerful dull realms is the fact that most players seem to play romanticized nobles rather then historical nobles. Big realms form into alliances and all implicitly trust each other. In real medieval politics there was always suspicion even between supposedly allied nations.

[Telamon]

You may be right in regards to the interior drama of SA, however, the instigating reason i wrote this complaint was because the theocracies are now making peace with Asylon.

We mounted at least 26 nobles at the border from a variety of nations at against Asylon and the ruling decision makers decided to call it off right before the potential battle, as they could not find a "true reason to justify the battle".

The general nobility seemed very put off as they were unaware of peace negotiations and were ready for a battle they were waiting months for.

[Telamon]

But essentially you're saying we have to wait for Mathurin to die? A few hundred players waiting for one extraordinarily powerful character to die? That's crazy.

[Daimall]

It is true that Asylon is a potential enemy, but it is highly unlikely that they will mount an attack on either Niselur or Astrum in any capacity, with the other theocracies watching and waiting for that. It is likely that in the foreseeable future that outside intervention is not the force that will bring down the SA coalition at the very least.

[Telamon]

Asylon isn't an enemy if Astrum, the realm i am a part of, actively avoids battle and makes peace.

[pcw27]

You may be right in regards to the interior drama of SA, however, the instigating reason i wrote this complaint was because the theocracies are now making peace with Asylon.

We mounted at least 26 nobles at the border from a variety of nations at against Asylon and the ruling decision makers decided to call it off right before the potential battle, as they could not find a "true reason to justify the battle".

The general nobility seemed very put off as they were unaware of peace negotiations and were ready for a battle they were waiting months for.

Is that what happened? If that many people are pissed well there's your answer, start a rebellion over it! Destabilize Astrum and you're all set.

[Anaris]

But essentially you're saying we have to wait for Mathurin to die? A few hundred players waiting for one extraordinarily powerful character to die? That's crazy.

Particularly when there's actually no guarantee that he will. Death is still pretty much up to the player.

[Chenier]

Join D'Hara or Fissoa, problem solved.

[Telamon]

Join D'Hara or Fissoa, problem solved.

This isn't exactly just about me, i'm concerned about the overall gameplay for new players and everyone.

[Telamon]

Is that what happened? If that many people are pissed well there's your answer, start a rebellion over it! Destabilize Astrum and you're all set.

That would indeed be interesting! However, that number is including nobles of allied realms, and SA has taken too long to build what it has to let one of their main countries be destabilized by a small incident like this.

[Chenier]

This isn't exactly just about me, i'm concerned about the overall gameplay for new players and everyone.

Direct them to D'Hara or Fissoa.

The only place the northerners ever spread SA was to the North. Lurians brought it to Luria, and Marrocidians brought it to the West. Now there's the far South still... If you want to be pro-active for a change, organize an expedition, join the southern realms en-masse, and try to drive out the orvando-saxon heathens.

[Solari]

Attributing any stagnation to Mathurin is simply misguided. He's not standing in the way of the kind of conflict being described here. Blame your ruler first and foremost.

[Solari]

Direct them to D'Hara or Fissoa.

God, shut up. Can you avoid turning any thread into an extension of your own IC propaganda?