WAR

[Iltaran]

Out of interest Stu, do you see any room for deception in foreign affairs in BM?

[vonGenf]

What you should be doing is getting over yourself and accepting the situation. I think it's highly unlikely that Fronen will be completely destroyed... but they will have to shrink severely.

What he should be doing is figuring out why they did not correctly predict what happened, understand why that happened, fix the situation so that it doesn't happen again, and then figure out a way to turn things over so they can win the war. Nothing is inevitable in BM.

Saying "you have to accept the situation, Fronen will need to shrink" does sound like OOC influencing IC behavior. I'm not saying your character did anything wrong, mind you; I personally think this war happened for perfectly legitimate reasons, and I'm glad I had a character come back to Riombara just in time to beat Enweil again.

There is no conspiracy here. One side seems to be winning through a combination of good diplomacy and good timing. That happens, and that can change.

[Fleugs]

I was rather saying that I don't think Fronen will be destroyed in case they loose this war, and that I hope that those in Fronen will be smart enough to accept a reasonable peace treaty (if that happens). It's all because of Caerwyn, you know, I still don't understand why they were so stubborn. I guess pride is too much of a factor.

[Lorgan]

..which only shows that you are unable to differ ic and ooc.

actually, why don't you shut up? if you don't want to talk, why are you on forums?

i tried to initiate some discussion about quality of gameplay, providing some in-game fact, but instead of discussion, there is avoidance whcih locks discussion though many words are being said.

actually, we might lose 5 to 1 war, but with your approach i am pretty sure you would be obliterated  with say 2 to 1 advantage 

Dude. If we wanted that everyone knew every little detail of the alliance we signed we would've talked about it on the forum. As that is not the case however, you know whatever your character knows and maybe a little more that gets spilled here and there. And if you are in an open realm, that's probably a lot, but still not what the leaders of foreign realms do not *want* to share.
If I was to tell you that the North has started an undead-worshipping cult and needs to destroy humans to feed the armies of the Many, and that we will all help the undead destroy BT next invasion, and if that was generally acknowledged as the truth and if that was in *fact* the secret pact behind this unholy alliance, would you read it here and not have it affect the way it plays your character? Can you guarantee that others won't?
If the answer is no, then it's a good thing that we're not sharing that information with you. Why should you be able to find out more here than you can IC anyway?

The way you described the events was very crude, and you might want to stop and think that there may be a reason about why those things happened. A perfectly good reason. Be it envy, feuds or even slightly hurt feelings, they are _all_ good. Alliances don't last forever.
In fact the game would be very, VERY boring if they were, especially on BT where every once in a while everyone is united against a common enemy (in theory). AT is the only continent where you really find ever-lasting alliances to my knowledge and that is the continent you're now comparing to BT.

[Stue (DC)]

Out of interest Stu, do you see any room for deception in foreign affairs in BM?

what i see is that deception has become overly prevalent way of conducting politics, and game mechanics was set in the way that it is not punished in any way, which in my opinion disturbs main storyline of bm.

how to develop stories about traitors that win most of time?

if you look at the real background, medieval italy is one extreme example of political place where deception prevails.

if you read Machiavelli, however, you can find out that 9 of 10 of those who make deceptions eventually fail at last instance, and that those who make deceptions lose incredible amount of reputation, to the level that mighty republic of venice lost most of its power and influence with one single deception attempt.

in bm, lords lose reputation for losing regions even if they have no control over events. judges lose pile of reputation for torturing notorious assassins. rulers, however, have reputation intact even after committing continent-known deception that has major influence on the entire continent.

deception is lucrative here, and general trend is that those who are permanently using deceptions have best profit. over the fact that we lose historical background, the fact is that too few stories about brave nobles and lords, impressively long-standing loyalties, heroic acts and attitude can be developed in such situation.

treason now and than is something completely different from treason as dominant if not the only way of "pragmatic" play. actually general message sent to any player who cares for political aspects of bm is rather disturbing, something like "be liar and traitor, that's the only thing which pays off here".

[Anaris]

what i see is that deception has become overly prevalent way of conducting politics, and game mechanics was set in the way that it is not punished in any way, which in my opinion disturbs main storyline of bm.

Politics is deception.

Anyone who says otherwise is selling something.

...And is probably a politician.

[jaune]

Dear Stue (DC)

Planning carefully and doing surprise attack has been very good way to start war from very very beginning of humanity.

It is also known fact, that winners write history... Winners were right and did right things. Losers were evil baby eating bastards...

Overall, this brings back memories from times of ArAgyr, when we assaulted Vore and great war started where ArAgyr and Melhed were against rest of the continent(excluding Old Grehk which were "neutral"). And oh boy we owned that war until invasion begun and Melhed surrendered... then our spine got broken and Fronen & Enweil were looting our regions while we fought against monsters at Northern ArAgyr... So, my family have very legit reason to pee on Fronen & Enweils cerials... Just wait when OO or SS becomes king of Thalmarkin... sock sucking will be offered a lot.

Long Live Julma Jaune, Long Live Piru Petteri, Long Live Urpo, Long Live Thalmarkin!

[vonGenf]

which in my opinion disturbs main storyline of bm.

What "main" storyline? Is there a storyline that is more deserving than others? Why?

in bm, lords lose reputation for losing regions even if they have no control over events. judges lose pile of reputation for torturing notorious assassins. rulers, however, have reputation intact even after committing continent-known deception that has major influence on the entire continent.

Are you talking about H/P, or more generally about reputation?

I would not be adverse to see a ruler's honour drop when he breaks an alliance. That would seem to make sense. it would not prevent wars, but it would make them think twice before signing an alliance they have no intention of honoring.

[Stue (DC)]

Dude. If we wanted that everyone knew every little detail of the alliance we signed we would've talked about it on the forum. As that is not the case however, you know whatever your character knows and maybe a little more that gets spilled here and there. And if you are in an open realm, that's probably a lot, but still not what the leaders of foreign realms do not *want* to share.
If I was to tell you that the North has started an undead-worshipping cult and needs to destroy humans to feed the armies of the Many, and that we will all help the undead destroy BT next invasion, and if that was generally acknowledged as the truth and if that was in *fact* the secret pact behind this unholy alliance, would you read it here and not have it affect the way it plays your character? Can you guarantee that others won't?
If the answer is no, then it's a good thing that we're not sharing that information with you. Why should you be able to find out more here than you can IC anyway?

The way you described the events was very crude, and you might want to stop and think that there may be a reason about why those things happened. A perfectly good reason. Be it envy, feuds or even slightly hurt feelings, they are _all_ good. Alliances don't last forever.
In fact the game would be very, VERY boring if they were, especially on BT where every once in a while everyone is united against a common enemy (in theory). AT is the only continent where you really find ever-lasting alliances to my knowledge and that is the continent you're now comparing to BT.

again, i do not care for deep background (in which i do not put much trust, btw), but for pretty awkward events seen to anyone.
if you see something is really unnatural in ic way and than ten pages of forum explanations are needed to back it, that only proves it is awkward.

mentioning atamara, for me it is actually the brightest example of good warring currently. the fact that rulers follow some of their ic predeterminations gives somewhat balanced and unpredictable war, and there are no any signs of gang-bang dangers as rulers do not change their loyalties with speed of few clicks, which does not mean that changes will not happen in some future.

i last bt war there were only few realms who were undetermined about their loyalties, and continent was by far the most interesting one, with no complete certainty anywhere on the map.

[Anaris]

again, i do not care for deep background (in which i do not put much trust, btw), but for pretty awkward events seen to anyone.

So, in other words, if you didn't hear about it IC, it didn't really happen.

That explains so much about your posts.

[Fleugs]

again, i do not care for deep background (in which i do not put much trust, btw), but for pretty awkward events seen to anyone.
if you see something is really unnatural in ic way and than ten pages of forum explanations are needed to back it, that only proves it is awkward.

Yes, ten pages on the forum. Probably because you are not privileged to everything in character. Which is a good thing, most certainly if I see you acting like you do in this thread. In fact, what is awkward is your endless complaining about how unfair this entire war is. Get over yourself, please. So you're on the unlucky side of the war, tough luck. No need to come and try to change things here by complaining about "unfair gameplay" and then trying to cite "Machiavelli" in the same post where you point out on historical correctness (you even know when Machiavelli lived? If so, please look up which period is called the Middle Ages).

mentioning atamara, for me it is actually the brightest example of good warring currently. the fact that rulers follow some of their ic predeterminations gives somewhat balanced and unpredictable war, and there are no any signs of gang-bang dangers as rulers do not change their loyalties with speed of few clicks, which does not mean that changes will not happen in some future.

My suggestion: only play on Atamara, if you think it's so great. If you can't deal with other islands, then don't try to impose your little AT-picture on everything else. You can impossibly compare BT to AT. BT knows invasions, and it gets shaken up each time this happens. Nothing is certain on BT. I also hardly doubt that "loyalty" of rulers changes all that often; you're just throwing some mud. In fact, a ruler that would change sides so often, would just be the next target for whatever side is the victor. Would you trust someone like that?

i last bt war there were only few realms who were undetermined about their loyalties, and continent was by far the most interesting one, with no complete certainty anywhere on the map.

You find no complete certainty interesting? That includes no defined loyalty - the thing you love about Atamara. You are contradicting yourself. May I ask if you're delusional, because you don't seem to know what you like and you don't? Perhaps it is time for you to be fair, and just admit that you are not liking the fact that your realm is on the short end of the rope.

[Stue (DC)]

What "main" storyline? Is there a storyline that is more deserving than others? Why?

"general" storyline would be better term, something like noble who earn their glory through honorable life based on principles of chivalry etc. of course, there is always some level of lie and treason, but it it totally prevails, than i believe such general storyline is disturbed

Are you talking about H/P, or more generally about reputation?

I would not be adverse to see a ruler's honour drop when he breaks an alliance. That would seem to make sense. it would not prevent wars, but it would make them think twice before signing an alliance they have no intention of honoring.

exactly.

any burden which would be imposed to them (h/p penalty as the best one), would make them think at least a little about weight of their decisions which clearly contradict with principles of honor.

[Anaris]

"general" storyline would be better term, something like noble who earn their glory through honorable life based on principles of chivalry etc. of course, there is always some level of lie and treason, but it it totally prevails, than i believe such general storyline is disturbed

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

AHAHAHAHA!

Hahahahaaa....

Thanks, man, I needed a good laugh this morning.

Seriously, though, you really need to check your assumptions about what BattleMaster is about.  Because that is so completely not it.

BattleMaster is about letting people play the roles of medieval nobles—who were a bunch of self-important, greedy, egotistical powermongers.

If you want a story about the power of chivalry and goodness triumphing over all, you have so very seriously come to the wrong place.

[Fleugs]

"general" storyline would be better term, something like noble who earn their glory through honorable life based on principles of chivalry etc. of course, there is always some level of lie and treason, but it it totally prevails, than i believe such general storyline is disturbed

The common medieval nobleman was not a knight as we know it from the romanticised versions. There were books about these knights in the Middle Ages, and there might have been a few trying to live up to it, but the most common nobleman would be called a merciless brute in this modern age.

By now I think you are completely deluded into a fantasy-world where nobody lies and everybody plays nice and makes sure you get this feeling of being victorious! Reality check, Stue. You can't force people to play their character as you wish, and if they choose to be lying bastards that stab you in the back, then you will just have to accept it (and probably never trust that character again).

[Nosferatus]

Yes but there where social standards however.
But they only count if people would know you broke them

You can still stab another noble in the back, while praying, in the middle of a church as long as it doesn't go public that you did it.

Alot of motiviation of a nobleman could be religious, but that probably means some priest is using him.
The few that are truly 'good' are too naieve and fall in the hands of a charming manipulator.

what i see is that deception has become overly prevalent way of conducting politics, and game mechanics was set in the way that it is not punished in any way, which in my opinion disturbs main storyline of bm.
breaking social norms does, you lose ALOT of prestige when people find out your a back stabber, a torutrer or even executioner of nobles.
Vulgar behavior also gets punished.
What more would we need?