Limited Wars

[Kai]

Maybe if there wasn't infinite money, defeats would actually mean something and one side could gain an advantage after slightly less than an eternity. The winning side, then, doesn't feel they have put forward an absurdly huge amount of effort and obligation to finish the job.

[Penchant]

Maybe if there wasn't infinite money, defeats would actually mean something and one side could gain an advantage after slightly less than an eternity. The winning side, then, doesn't feel they have put forward an absurdly huge amount of effort and obligation to finish the job.

There isn't infinite money, gold is very much an issue for many realms. Some older established realms have rich dukes with large reserves but many realms do have gold issues during war.

[Kai]

Is there really a realm that can't rerecruit 2/3 of a CS loss in a week?

[Elegant]

So far, people have brainstormed and given excellent ideas about changing game mechanics to promote a "Limited War". But, I feel that most of the ideas would either prolong or quicken an ongoing war, but, will not limit them in a true sense.

I would like to quote two lines of Tom from the first post:

"What that means is that almost every war is an all-or-nothing affair, and could mean the total destruction of a realm."
"What needs to change so that more realms start small wars with their neighbours over one region, or one insult?"
"Limited wars with a specific purpose that don't blow up into World War ?"

I have played this game for fairly long time and I know how small border conflicts turn into total wipe-out war. This is because any small conflict becomes a matter of honor, prestige and ego and ends in either death or extreme weakening of a whole realm.  You may make damaging/TO any region less/more effective, but how will you control this (sense of honor and ego)? That's why nobody wants to take the risk of starting small conflicts.

Wars are limited due to the political situation of the continent. Like, USA and USSR, two opposite poles, prevented full blown wars between their supporter countries. Both sides had nukes. Wars are also limited due to pressure from other countries (UN). So, what should this game Battlemaster have which would prevent all-or-nothing wars?

[Kai]

IRL there are barely any limited wars. Maybe a few due to distance. A lot because asymmetrical.

[Jaden]

I think that part of the problem maybe that large realms have no reason to keep around the smaller realm  instead of just absorbing it or creating a colony. And the problem is feeding on itself. Realms are afraid of going into war and getting destroyed, therefore there are less wars going around. With so little war around, realms have an interest to keep the war going and destroy the opposition to keep their nobles happy.

[Tom]

If that is the main issue, the solution is easy: Limit the number of regions that realms can absorb in a short time, irrespective of realm size. So if you can only take 1 or 2 regions before half your realm blows up in unrest, you'd go for peace after that, and ready for the next war to take another 1-2 regions.

How would people circumvent this (because I know they will) ?

[Sacha]

Isn't that just taking it from one extreme to the other? I agree that wars to the death shouldn't be the norm, but to disallow them completely isn't the solution IMHO. Some situations do warrant total destruction of either party. And unless I'm missing something, this idea would only make giant realms even more powerful, since a realm with fewer regions will suffer far more from losing 1-2 than a realm that has 20+ regions to start with.

[Anaris]

If that is the main issue, the solution is easy: Limit the number of regions that realms can absorb in a short time, irrespective of realm size. So if you can only take 1 or 2 regions before half your realm blows up in unrest, you'd go for peace after that, and ready for the next war to take another 1-2 regions.

How would people circumvent this (because I know they will) ?

Well, first of all, they'd resort even more to driving regions rogue, rather than taking them.

Second of all, they'd make sure to have a large coalition of realms so they could actually take over as many regions as possible (thus making gangbangs much more the thing to do).

Third of all, it depends greatly on what you mean by "blows up in unrest"; if it ramps too slowly, then people will just sic their diplomats and courtiers on it, but if it ramps too quickly, realms will just disintegrate. Also, how long would the unrest last after the third takeover?

In general, I'm not a fan of this idea.

Actually, I'd say that since we've already got a package of changes intended to improve the warfare situation discussed and on the slate for being implemented this fall and winter, we should hold off on trying to make any more major changes to the way war works until after they're in place and we can see their effects. Some of them are going to have very large effects on the way people conduct warfare in BattleMaster already (or at least, if they don't, then we've done it wrong!).

[Revan]

If that is the main issue, the solution is easy: Limit the number of regions that realms can absorb in a short time, irrespective of realm size. So if you can only take 1 or 2 regions before half your realm blows up in unrest, you'd go for peace after that, and ready for the next war to take another 1-2 regions.

How would people circumvent this (because I know they will) ?

My guess is that after each time Realm A conquered a region from Realm B, they would give one region away to Realm C. Things would go on in that manner until Realm A had conquered the desired lands and Realm C had been properly rewarded for their trouble.

[Geronus]

How would people circumvent this (because I know they will) ?

At the moment, stopping a war requires the agreement of both sides. If one side is getting hammered by penalties, the other side may not agree to stop the war out of simple spite, or the belief that they can use the penalties to gain an upper hand and take back what they lost. If both sides are getting hammered by penalties, you still have the spite factor to worry about - it will go exactly like the Exile mechanic does. The losing realm will simply hold out as long as it can (maybe forever) just to spite the winning realm and take them down with them, and the losing realm will end up virtually (if not actually) destroyed anyway.

To accomplish this I think you have implement mechanics that will automatically end wars. This can be based on player input by allowing players to outline a specific duration when making a war dec, after which the war immediately ends, or maybe it can involve setting recognizable goals (i.e. gaining control of regions x, y and z), which once met will also automatically end the war.

[Tom]

In general, I'm not a fan of this idea.

Of course not. It's a simple solution to a complex problem, it can't work (I'm not being sarcastic, I am serious).

My point was that this is not everything it's all about. The issue is more complex than that, or we would've added a simple solution like that long ago.

[Poliorketes]

Actually, I'd say that since we've already got a package of changes intended to improve the warfare situation discussed and on the slate for being implemented this fall and winter, we should hold off on trying to make any more major changes to the way war works until after they're in place and we can see their effects. Some of them are going to have very large effects on the way people conduct warfare in BattleMaster already (or at least, if they don't, then we've done it wrong!).

I agree. if they are already decided big changes in warfare, the logical way would be to wait the effects of them, before to decide to change it even more.

If you only want ideas to prevent this kind of 'to-death' wars... Well, it could be useful some kind of 'all useful men at arms'. It could generate some big amount of free militia in the capital, with a high cost... maybe to loss a big amount of population, or production, or morale, etc... The objective would be to have a last recourse to defend your realm if its existence is endangered (it would be powerful but highly damaging for the realm), and make the destruction of a realm a very serious thing.

[Kai]

Recently TOed or rogued regions could wage actual effective guerilla warfare, that would make further progress difficult.

[Dishman]

I would like the peasants feelings toward a realm have more weight. That might be a quick-fix for stifling wars from rogueing regions and oppressive TO. If the mechanic for regions casting off the shackles of hated (or rogue) rule and joining whatever other beloved realm they had then it would be more difficult to change (and keep changed) the established realm.

Only way I could see it being gamed would be with diplomats...and I thought that was part of the point of diplomats. I could imagine the unintended consequence is border regions may start switching willy-nilly when it would be implemented.