Recruit in places other than capital.

[De-Legro]

And we'll just keep getting more and more and more and more realm merger and strategic secessions cases.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's been as many realm merger accusations in the last year as there were in the previous ten.

Rehashing the request over and over again won't change this. We will end up with the same amount of merger cases (assuming the logic here is correct) plus threads like this that will just be shot down. Unless there is a massively compelling new reason to put to Tom this system isn't going to change. Know we all know the burn out people suffer from having feature request threads knocked back, and this affects everyone that contributed not just the original poster.

So the real end result, system remains, any cases arising from that system continue to be raised, and we possibly burn out a few more active forum dweller to the point they don't bother contributing to the forum any more. If there is a compelling new reason or argument sending it directly to Tom might be a better idea, since he is the man that needs to be convinced about this.

Finally rehashing a frequently rejected feature request is actually counter productive unless there is a very compelling change. Things quickly get to the stage where they will be rejected instantly simply because they have been rejected so many times before.

[Zakilevo]

Instead of trying to directly change it maybe you should come up with a reason that will satisfy Tom. It doesn't matter how many people on the forum you convince. At the end, it is Tom's game and unless you convince him nothing will happen. And you already know 'recruiting in other places' doesn't go well with Tom's idea of BM.

[Penchant]

Instead of trying to directly change it maybe you should come up with a reason that will satisfy Tom. It doesn't matter how many people on the forum you convince. At the end, it is Tom's game and unless you convince him nothing will happen. And you already know 'recruiting in other places' doesn't go well with Tom's idea of BM.

Great advice and attitude.

[Indirik]

Non-capital recruitment is something that even the dev team has discussed from time to time. Our best idea was to tie it to duchies. Make it so that in the duchy's city (this was back before the new allegiance system, and back then city=duchy) was a place where nobles of that duchy could recruit troops trained in regions that belonged to that duchy. The problem with this is that anyone who doesn't like this restriction can completely avoid it by swapping regions into the duchy closest to the enemy. (That's even easier now that duchies don't need to be contiguous, you could just move around regions with high-demand RCs.) Any noble who's lord doesn't want to swap duchies can just grab an estate in a region of the strategically-placed duchy. Gold is no object, since they can be given as much gold as they need by anyone in the realm who has it. So you have a mechanic that only limits people who allow themselves to be limited.

The usual response to this is to say something like "No they won't!" Or "Not everyone will do that." Or "Put in restrictions on duchy size, or a duchy efficiency, or a distance-from-duchy-capital penalty, etc." i.e. in order to make this system work we have to make it more complex by adding new mechanics to address the loopholes it opens. Like, for instance, limits on how often you can swap duchies, or severe morale/loyalty/control penalties for swapping duchies. Or we can add arbitrary OOC restrictions on recruitment, such as only crappy troops nobody would want anyway, or only 10 troops/RC/day. i.e. add enough limitations that the non-capital recruiting is nerfed so bad it's useless. And then we have people complaining about the borked non-capital recruitment, and calling the system broken and worthless, which it would be, and why the hell did we bother spending dev time to implement such an f'ed up system anyway?

And all these the extra mechanics make the system more and more complex, less transparent, and more bug-prone. Or we just don't add them, and implement a system where the only people that are limited are those who voluntarily submit to the limits, and even then this is unlikely to limit everyone.

And if we try to regulate it by rules, then we open up other possible abuses like "strategic duchy swaps/creations" or even "strategic oath abuses" or other such nonsense.

[Eldargard]

This is just a "what if" question and not an attempt to change anyones mind.

How would things change in terms of large realm/small realm power balance if troops had to be recruited in the region they are trained and if the max quality of troop is set on a region by region basis?

My thoughts:

* With some regions capable of producing awesome troops and others limited to basic troops, regions have a third point of value. Why maintain that badlands that produces 3 gold and 2 food? Because they make the best archers on the continent!

* Travel times to recruit quality troops could be closer or farther to the enemy depending on current realm borders. Depending on the location of their enemy a big realm might benefit from this model but will more likely be unaffected or hurt by it while small realms should see little difference.

* There would be more reason for nobles of a realm to visit places other the capital.

* It would incentivize realms to pour resources into protecting regions capable of producing high quality troops.

* It would be more Realistic?

[Tom]

* With some regions capable of producing awesome troops and others limited to basic troops, regions have a third point of value. Why maintain that badlands that produces 3 gold and 2 food? Because they make the best archers on the continent!
[...]
* It would incentivize realms to pour resources into protecting regions capable of producing high quality troops.

Uh, both of these are already true with the existing system?


I was put well above. This is on the frequently rejected list for a reason. Unless someone brings a better reason than "I think it's neat" or "maybe you want to think about it again?", I don't even see why it needs to be discussed. If anyone wants to convince me otherwise, the least I expect is that it's worth the time to them to dig out the old topics on this, find the various arguments against it, and address them.

[Zakilevo]

* With some regions capable of producing awesome troops and others limited to basic troops, regions have a third point of value. Why maintain that badlands that produces 3 gold and 2 food? Because they make the best archers on the continent!

I am pretty sure people already keep bad regions around if those regions have a good center. Also, bad regions are bad for a reason. Maybe they aren't meant to be taken. Maybe they are intended to used as a natural border?

* Travel times to recruit quality troops could be closer or farther to the enemy depending on current realm borders. Depending on the location of their enemy a big realm might benefit from this model but will more likely be unaffected or hurt by it while small realms should see little difference.

It won't hurt big realms in any means. You can still recruit in the capital. You still need to visit cities to repair your equipment.

* There would be more reason for nobles of a realm to visit places other the capital.

You still need to visit cities and townslands to repair your equipment + to pick up SEs + to use the bank. Also, you don't need a full refit all the time.

* It would incentivize realms to pour resources into protecting regions capable of producing high quality troops.

People already do that.

* It would be more Realistic?

This is a game not a medieval simulator. Also, many features are not realistic in this game like the instant message system. If you want more realism, we'd have to change that so it takes one turn per region for your message to travel.