Limited Wars

[Anaris]

I'll be interested to see how that pans out. Unless there's also some other sort of balancing effect planned, it sounds like it might make it even easier for larger realms to stomp all over smaller ones.

There are some other changes on the slate that should hopefully help to improve things more for small realms (or make it harder for large realms, I forget exactly which those are offhand).

[Vita`]

Could you clarify a bit? I am confused.

Keplerstan owns Regionville.
Keplerstan is at war with Evilstani.
Evilstani has an army in Regionville that is the region defender (the units of Keplerstan in Regionville are either scattered, retreated, or aren't in the region).
Thus, if it doesn't happen already, maybe Regionville should have no new recruits while Evilstani is the region defender/occupying Regionville. Who would be recruited while a foreign army you're at war with is in effective control of the region?

[Sacha]

It should come with some kind of minimum limit though... otherwise this would be oh so exploitable. Putting a 10 man unit in an undefended enemy region shouldn't prevent recruitment. Only a sizable army would be able to manage that.

[vonGenf]

It should come with some kind of minimum limit though... otherwise this would be oh so exploitable. Putting a 10 man unit in an undefended enemy region shouldn't prevent recruitment. Only a sizable army would be able to manage that.

I understand the principle of a limit (taken to an extreme, just dropping 1-men limitia everywhere would be abuse), but I can see it working with the limit being quite small. We have looking for solutions to make small armies desirable over large blobs for some time, and this is a very good example. A scattered army would be able to effectively 'occupy' a territory, as in denying its military use to the enemy, temporarily without immediately resorting to long and costly TOs.

1 men per 200 population seems a reasonable limit. It would set a minimum occupying force at 30 men (a small unit) for a typical 6'000 people rural, and accordingly higher limits for townslands and cities.

[Indirik]

I'll be interested to see how that pans out. Unless there's also some other sort of balancing effect planned, it sounds like it might make it even easier for larger realms to stomp all over smaller ones. Larger realms with more regions will naturally find it easier to disable many of the RC in a realm with fewer regions than a smaller realm will find it to disable enough RC in a larger realm to make any significant impact.

There are some other changes on the slate that should hopefully help to improve things more for small realms (or make it harder for large realms, I forget exactly which those are offhand).

Keep in mind that it is completely reasonable, and logical, that a significantly larger realm (or one with significantly more nobles) should find it easier  to achieve victory over a significantly smaller realm (or one with significantly fewer nobles). The changes that we are talking about are ways to help prevent total destruction, or provide incentives to end the war short of total destruction.

If you pick a fight with a significantly larger realm (i.e. Eponlyn V. Perdan in a 1v1 war), or they single you out and you can't get help, you *should* get your ass kicked. We're not here to ensure that all realms have an equal chance to win every war. If that were true, then what would be the point of struggling to become a big, powerful realm in the first place?

While we will need to evaluate this feature to ensure that larger realms can't rampantly exploit this feature to make it ridiculously easier to roflstomp smaller realms, in no way is it intended as any kind of ground-leveling feature.

[Penchant]

Keep in mind that it is completely reasonable, and logical, that a significantly larger realm (or one with significantly more nobles) should find it easier  to achieve victory over a significantly smaller realm (or one with significantly fewer nobles). The changes that we are talking about are ways to help prevent total destruction, or provide incentives to end the war short of total destruction.

Completely true.

If you pick a fight with a significantly larger realm (i.e. Eponlyn V. Perdan in a 1v1 war), or they single you out and you can't get help, you *should* get your ass kicked. We're not here to ensure that all realms have an equal chance to win every war. If that were true, then what would be the point of struggling to become a big, powerful realm in the first place?

Equal chance, no but you should get your ass kicked is an issue with me. Although I am not on the continent so I don't know the specifics. (Is Eponlyn about the same size as Carelia and Perdan=CE?)

 If so, then I say how the odds should be in CE's favor by a lot, but currently its just about impossible as I can can't think of a single viable strategy against CE if being Carelia. Carelia vs CE,  I can see Carelia never really winning the actual war, but there should be someway to end up in about a draw if Carelia had extremely good strategists and military leadership and all that. Right now, I can't think of a way with even say Caergoth helping that Carelia could end up in a draw. Should it be highly unlikely? Yes. Should be possible with a lot work, skill, and a little luck? Yes. An example would be Sun Tzu where his 30,000 men beat 200,000 men do to military expertise of Sun Tzu over his enemies. Should that particular situation truely be possible in BM? Probably not, but the idea that a smaller realm has a chance against a larger realm without just saying the solution is calling in allies should exist in BM. Am I rambling on a bit too much? Yes.

While we will need to evaluate this feature to ensure that larger realms can't rampantly exploit this feature to make it ridiculously easier to roflstomp smaller realms, in no way is it intended as any kind of ground-leveling feature.

This shouldn't be ground-leveling but it should be balanced in the sense thats its not just a tactic for big realms thats useful for big realms.

[Jaden]

Keplerstan owns Regionville.
Keplerstan is at war with Evilstani.
Evilstani has an army in Regionville that is the region defender (the units of Keplerstan in Regionville are either scattered, retreated, or aren't in the region).
Thus, if it doesn't happen already, maybe Regionville should have no new recruits while Evilstani is the region defender/occupying Regionville. Who would be recruited while a foreign army you're at war with is in effective control of the region?

hmmm, maybe we should introduce an "occupied" status to regions, maybe it should be part of the TO process too. not sure how to go about it though.

[Foxglove]

If you pick a fight with a significantly larger realm (i.e. Eponlyn V. Perdan in a 1v1 war), or they single you out and you can't get help, you *should* get your ass kicked. We're not here to ensure that all realms have an equal chance to win every war.

Like Penchant, this is also something with which I'd take issue. Going from the historical point-of-view, there are many examples of smaller medieval nations/armies defeating larger ones. In BM, there's no possibility to do anything akin to the Battle of Sterling Bridge (5000 English killed because the theoretically weaker Scots used unconvential tactics). It's been said a few times that BM doesn't simulate unconventional tactics because most battles took place by prior arrangement on a fixed field of battle, but even then there are historical cases of smaller armies defeating bigger ones (e.g. Agincourt, famously). Something which is impossible in BM.

Setting the historical argument aside, there's also the simple enjoyment of the game argument. Part of the reason why there are fewer wars is because it takes an awful lot of effort to set anything up that won't just be a stomp-fest. Many times while fighting for smaller realms I've felt as though I'm doing charity work so that the players of large or giant realms have something to do. Quite a few times now, I've seen players just give up and move on because they know that the realm they're in will have no chance at all. But Indirik and I have been on opposite sides of this debate before.

This shouldn't be ground-leveling but it should be balanced in the sense thats its not just a tactic for big realms thats useful for big realms.

And that right there is the key point, as far as I'm concerned.

[Indirik]

Equal chance, no but you should get your ass kicked is an issue with me. Although I am not on the continent so I don't know the specifics. (Is Eponlyn about the same size as Carelia and Perdan=CE?)

Eponlyn has, I think, 5 regions, including one small city. Perdan has 25 or so, including three rich cities, and about 4-5 times as many nobles.

So not quite an exact parallel, but close enough, I guess.

If so, then I say how the odds should be in CE's favor by a lot, but currently its just about impossible as I can can't think of a single viable strategy against CE if being Carelia. Carelia vs CE,  I can see Carelia never really winning the actual war, but there should be someway to end up in about a draw if Carelia had extremely good strategists and military leadership and all that. Right now, I can't think of a way with even say Caergoth helping that Carelia could end up in a draw. Should it be highly unlikely? Yes. Should be possible with a lot work, skill, and a little luck?

Not unless CE was ridiculously incompetent, sabotaging themselves, and Carelia were full of hyperactive, late-logging geniuses.

This shouldn't be ground-leveling but it should be balanced in the sense thats its not just a tactic for big realms thats useful for big realms.

....which is kinda what I said.

[Poliorketes]

The only way to give a small army a chance of victory over bigger armies would be to use a General/Marshal skill bonus system. Maybe there will be something of this in the new changes in warfare? 

[vonGenf]

Like Penchant, this is also something with which I'd take issue. Going from the historical point-of-view, there are many examples of smaller medieval nations/armies defeating larger ones. In BM, there's no possibility to do anything akin to the Battle of Sterling Bridge (5000 English killed because the theoretically weaker Scots used unconvential tactics). It's been said a few times that BM doesn't simulate unconventional tactics because most battles took place by prior arrangement on a fixed field of battle, but even then there are historical cases of smaller armies defeating bigger ones (e.g. Agincourt, famously). Something which is impossible in BM.

There are numerous cases of smaller armies defeating larger armies in BM. A highly trained 30-men SF unit would trounce a badly equipped freshly recruited 100 men archer unit. Conveniently, however, the SF unit would also have a similar or higher CS value. The calls for a smaller army to be able to defeat a larger army are not related to medieval examples where small number of men beat a larger number; they ask for more differentiated tactics to be available in the face of a high CS differential.

[Kai]

I really don't think anyone here was counting army 'size' by number of men, or else peasant militia would be the best army around.

[Poliorketes]

There are numerous cases of smaller armies defeating larger armies in BM. A highly trained 30-men SF unit would trounce a badly equipped freshly recruited 100 men archer unit. Conveniently, however, the SF unit would also have a similar or higher CS value. The calls for a smaller army to be able to defeat a larger army are not related to medieval examples where small number of men beat a larger number; they ask for more differentiated tactics to be available in the face of a high CS differential.

The problem here is We KNOW almost exactly the force of the enemy, (and because the Generals/Marshals and even Heroes are irrelevant... ) So when a small but strong force defeat a big but weak force, we know before the battle the relation of forces... and we know the small force had the upper hand!... So, no surprises here...

Is very strange that to know what is doing our own army, in the same region, we MUST use a scout... but even more strange is to send a scout to the enemy army and KNOW every unit and very accurately their strength.... THE SAME INFORMATION, AND EQUALLY ACCURATE THAN THE ONE ABOUT OUR OWN ARMY?

IMHO for a scout of enemy armies a approximation to the number of men (and only MAYBE a estimation of their quality) would be enough!
400-600 (average) Infantrymen, 200-300 (weak) archers and 100 (light) cavalry.

[egamma]

The problem here is We KNOW almost exactly the force of the enemy, (and because the Generals/Marshals and even Heroes are irrelevant... ) So when a small but strong force defeat a big but weak force, we know before the battle the relation of forces... and we know the small force had the upper hand!... So, no surprises here...

Is very strange that to know what is doing our own army, in the same region, we MUST use a scout... but even more strange is to send a scout to the enemy army and KNOW every unit and very accurately their strength.... THE SAME INFORMATION, AND EQUALLY ACCURATE THAN THE ONE ABOUT OUR OWN ARMY?

IMHO for a scout of enemy armies a approximation to the number of men (and only MAYBE a estimation of their quality) would be enough!
400-600 (average) Infantrymen, 200-300 (weak) archers and 100 (light) cavalry.

The cost for making your own troops appear weaker/stronger on scout reports was adjusted downward sometime in the past year. People simply don't use that as a frequent tactic.

[vonGenf]

The cost for making your own troops appear weaker/stronger on scout reports was adjusted downward sometime in the past year. People simply don't use that as a frequent tactic.

Or if they do so successfully, then no one knows, which is the point!