Limited Wars

[egamma]

I'm just going to reiterate my suggestion because it seems to be missed.

Allow level one and two fortifications in rural regions, but only if they have core realm control and have belonged to the realm for a set amount of time.

That will make it harder to change the status quo, not easier.

Besides, it's impossible to build a 30-mile palisade. We aren't playing Romans here.

[Kwanstein]

I've never played a game that prevented map painting without resorting to draconian measures. One that did resort to such measures was the Magna Mundi mod for Europa Universalis 3, which made conquering land an extremely slow and taxing endeavour. So, in order to prevent map painting, that is probably what would have to be implemented.

[Tom]

We've had the base idea of cycles and short-term vs. long-term about 3 years ago. The problem is that some brainstorming in it quickly revealed how easily players would be able to abuse the mechanic.

The main problem we have is there is no code-wise way to determine whether a realm is really at war or just pretending to be in order to gain whatever short-term benefits we add.


We have tried to add something along this line many years ago with the RC system. The basic idea is that during peacetime, your RCs will fill up, allowing you to recruit a massive army quickly when a war starts, but as the RCs empty out, recruitment slows down.

Tell me how well that works.

[Kwanstein]

That's a good idea, it mimics the reality that resource constraints would have on crude warfare. Wars are, after all, not eternal affairs, and in a technologically limited setting where communication, industry and logistics are severely impaired, they would tend to fizzle out before a conclusive victory could be attained. In our industrialised world, amongst nations that can manage and commit resources with utmost efficiency, wars generally last about five years and can easily result in total victory; this is the kind of war that BM experiences now. Going back through time, to the age in which BM is set, you begin to find wars with excessively long durations. The Hundred Years War, the Thirty Years War, the Byzantine-Sassanid War of 602-628. These were wars that could last generations. Of course, they weren't singular wars, but rather sporadic bouts of fighting broken up by periods of peace, and that is key. The states of the world back then were so base that wars could drag on and on due to their limited capacity to wage them. This is what the type of situation that resource constraints could lead to. Conquests limited to whatever can be achieved within a controlled amount of time, via resource factors. Sounds good.

You might also want to take a page out of Machiavelli's book, The Prince. In it he mentions the difficulties states experience when trying to assert themselves in unfamiliar lands. The locals do not care for their new, foreign masters and so the new lands require expensive garrisons. These garrisons prove to be costly, perhaps resulting in a net loss, and are frail, in that they can be easily disrupted. So, relate these things to BM somehow. The ways are obvious and already done to some extent, but they can be made more extensive. Intensify the troubles that realms have in holding conquered lands far away from their capitals.

Also, Scarlett was always talking about how scorched earth style looting is unrealistic. Perhaps looting could be changed as well, so that it can only harm a region, not turn it into uninhabited wasteland.

[Bael]

I'm just going to reiterate my suggestion because it seems to be missed.

Allow level one and two fortifications in rural regions, but only if they have core realm control and have belonged to the realm for a set amount of time.

Not missed, just dismissed 

There used to be an option to build palisades in all regions, but it was removed because it made cavalry useless. Unfortunately it will not promote wars, but promote more stagnancy.

[Elegant]

I have an insane idea and I am afraid of putting it in front of you all, but, here it is anyway :

1. Introduce something like "realm honor".
2. Realms can challenge any realm which matches their total CS into a duel (due to some dispute). It can be 1 vs 1 or N vs N fight.
3. Put something at stake (like regions, gold, official apology etc...).
4. Those involved in duel can loot/kill/burn each other's regions (regions can be driven rogue, but enemy take over is not allowed) till one of the party accepts defeat.
5. The winner takes the prize which was at stake. Winner gains "realm honor" and the looser looses it.
6. If somebody rejects an equally matched challenge, then they loose "realm honor".

This is not a perfectly planned idea, but I know that intelligent and thoughtful people might be able to take little hints from this.

[jaune]

I have an insane idea and I am afraid of putting it in front of you all, but, here it is anyway :

1. Introduce something like "realm honor".
2. Realms can challenge any realm which matches their total CS into a duel (due to some dispute). It can be 1 vs 1 or N vs N fight.
3. Put something at stake (like regions, gold, official apology etc...).
4. Those involved in duel can loot/kill/burn each other's regions (regions can be driven rogue, but enemy take over is not allowed) till one of the party accepts defeat.
5. The winner takes the prize which was at stake. Winner gains "realm honor" and the looser looses it.
6. If somebody rejects an equally matched challenge, then they loose "realm honor".

This is not a perfectly planned idea, but I know that intelligent and thoughtful people might be able to take little hints from this.

I luv this idea, althought it doesnt fit too well on the "realistic" part of the game or BM at all... and it should not be CS what we compare, it should be income. CS is too easily to manipulated, disband all armies, challenge... raise army.

I dream that BM could have "sandbox" island and resources to test out diffrent things

[Chenier]

We've had the base idea of cycles and short-term vs. long-term about 3 years ago. The problem is that some brainstorming in it quickly revealed how easily players would be able to abuse the mechanic.

The main problem we have is there is no code-wise way to determine whether a realm is really at war or just pretending to be in order to gain whatever short-term benefits we add.


We have tried to add something along this line many years ago with the RC system. The basic idea is that during peacetime, your RCs will fill up, allowing you to recruit a massive army quickly when a war starts, but as the RCs empty out, recruitment slows down.

Tell me how well that works.

I fear it would just make wars even more lopsided: the stronger enemy, with more RCs, has an even easier time to totally destroy his enemy, because his troop "stocks" will last longer.

[Tom]

I fear it would

Uh, "would"? This is the way the RC system has worked for... years... probably coming to a decade now.

[de Aquitane]

I fear it would just make wars even more lopsided: the stronger enemy, with more RCs, has an even easier time to totally destroy his enemy, because his troop "stocks" will last longer.

But if you give a minor boost to the war time recruitment speed of smaller realms, a group of small realms has an easier time of fighting a large realm. What I'm afraid of is that this would give a new reason to be afraid to go to war again. You're using up your soldiers, and some other realm might abuse that - now for a lengthier period of time.

[Indirik]

I've never played a game that prevented map painting without resorting to draconian measures.

I'm not sure what "map painting" means...

[Indirik]

Also, Scarlett was always talking about how scorched earth style looting is unrealistic. Perhaps looting could be changed as well, so that it can only harm a region, not turn it into uninhabited wasteland.

Anaris has long had an idea for a way to do this, by adding a new "Infrastructure" stat. Infrastructure would then be the condition of the physical structures used to produce things, both crops and goods. This stuff would be hard for an invading army to destroy, and would thus be difficult to  affect too significantly without a long, concerted effort by a lot of soldiers. Production would then become the current, instantaneous, ability to use that infrastructure to produce things, either crops or goods. The production value would be easy to produce reduce through looting (you're driving the workers into hiding, so they aren't producing anything), and easy to restore (you're rounding up the workers, and sending them back to work). In this way you could drive down the production of a region to deprive your enemy of its use, without destroying it completely. If you drive the invaders out, you could quickly restore production.

But if the enemy made a long term effort to really tear up a region's infrastructure, it could take a lot of time and effort to restore it.

[Kwanstein]

I'm not sure what "map painting" means...

In any strategy game of this sort there is a snowball effect that as a player gains land he gains power and with that power it becomes easier for him to gain more land and it eventually he reaches a point where he's simply conquering land with impunity -- painting the game map, if you will, with his faction's colours or emblem.

Battlemaster functions much the same way, despite it being a unique game in many aspects. Look at game worlds today versus five or more years ago. It's most obvious on the Colonies, but is present on all other maps except Dwilight and Beluaterra. Some realms have grown increasingly large, massive even, and the overall number of realms has fallen. On Colonies you can see that where once there was a realm for every city and then one, now there are three realms each controlling 2-3 cities and then some podunk realm up North that only exists because it has no city for anyone to bother to take.

[Valast]

It's most obvious on the Colonies, but...

To be fair... the Colonies became this way because of IC reasions... but also a refusal to step away from IC to make sure the game was supported long term.  Once a mental shift took place (realizing what was happening due to dwindling player base) realms were allowed to reclaim capitols.  But your point is still valid considering I had to use the word "allowed"...

A better example of painting is the war islands game.  Where once a realm has reached a tipping point there really is no reason not to hit the surrender button...your going to loose.

So this brings something to mind.  HOW do you make it not just OK but sweetly awesome for a family to loose?  In other words you have a character or even family who has been ruling a realm for a long time...how do you make it exciting/profitable/encouraged to step away from that?  Or on the reverse how do you make it more outstanding for someone to attempt a rebellion?

Remember that we as human, want to win...want to encourage our 'team' to 'win'.

I think the answer is in rewarding the behavior we want to see take place.  You want more rebellions then we must reward those with the nuts to attempt it...not just win at it.  Same thing for creating a realm from another... They may fail at it and be absorbed again into the mother realm but how do you reward the effort of trying?

(odd ball idea...  Let family wealth increase at a higher rate for noble families who become news worthy.  In other words...every action you take in game adds a ticker to your family name so that they become famous as whatshisnames family.... more successful business takes place, more money in the family pockets that can make its way to the characters)

[Kwanstein]

A better example of painting is the war islands game.  Where once a realm has reached a tipping point there really is no reason not to hit the surrender button...your going to loose.

I recall a truly epic game of War Islands, where my opponent achieved 170~ production while I was only at 100~. He maintained his advantage for a very long time and at the height of his power his armies outnumbered mine by nearly 2:1. Through clever movements and luck I was able to claw my way back from defeat. He'd concentrate his forces taking a region I left totally undefended, while I'd send small strike forces to do the same across multiple of his regions. He'd follow up by splitting his forces into small strike forces, but I would anticipate that and beat some of them down. Through this cost efficient play I was able to effectively nullify his production advantage, and in time the scales tipped into my favour.

Never surrender. When the enemy has an advantage on you, get riskier. You will still probably lose, but with enough luck and gumption you can still have a chance. At the very least, the enemy could go AFK for three turns and forfeit.