BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Development => Topic started by: vonGenf on March 26, 2011, 10:46:50 PM
-
I am playing an ambassador on Dwilight, and we now have to do treaty maintenance.
The general mechanics works well, and I understand the rationale.
However, maintaining treaties is one seriously boring activity.
Basically, for those who aren't playing ambassadors, you figure out that some treaty is "38 % degraded". If it reaches 100%, the treaty gets cancelled. So you have have a button that says "maintain treaty". You click it, spend 12 hours, and now the treaty is only "32% degraded". That's it.
What it means is that realms will have to tie up people in place in order for them to perform some activity that involves no RP, no battle and no obvious increase in stats that your realm-mates could see.
I do have an idea on how to change it such that it gets more fun, but retains the basic meaning of the mechanic. The treaty maintenance rate could much slowed, but it could be made that to maintain a treaty, two ambassadors involved would have to actually meet. This would foster interaction, rather than encourage people to stay in the capital and turn into button-clickers, but it would maintain the idea that unattended treaties do degrade.
It would not work for one way treaties, but I see no reason why these would degrade: you should be at war for as long as you want to be.
-
When you maintain a Treaty, you talk to your own minor Nobility and convince them the Treaty is a good thing. In that context, one-way Treaties should also degrade as Minor Nobility becomes weary and questions the need of for example War. Nonetheless, with several Treaties per Realm if you have a full-fledged Alliance or complete War, this could possibly take a lot of 'wasted' time to maintain.
However I do not know if there any special workings for Friction (Does friction rise quicker if there are no signs of them being used?). I'm looking at Friction in DoA at the moment and the one-way Treaties seem to barely degrade (4%), which means it's no problem maintaining them. The two-way Treaties are now at 15%-30%, which isn't too bad either. The War has been ongoing for a while after all. In that light, except for some work every once in a while, it shouldn't waste too much of your time.
That said, is anything stopping us from just letting the Treaties degrade and remaking them afterwards? Except it not being in the spirit of the system then. That should be a lot less trouble then maintaining them (Send an Ambassador to the other Realm once in a while). Probably should be something in place to stop that or Friction is pretty useless.
-
It appears rather to be based on sympathies, you know, the stuff you get when you talk to locals as a diplomat. Adventurers can do that too I think.
For example, if your people hate a realm and you have an alliance with them, that treaty might increase in friction fairly quickly. On the other hand, a declaration of war might not increase in friction for a long time, if at all. I imagine the converse would be true as well.
-
It appears rather to be based on sympathies, you know, the stuff you get when you talk to locals as a diplomat. Adventurers can do that too I think.
For example, if your people hate a realm and you have an alliance with them, that treaty might increase in friction fairly quickly. On the other hand, a declaration of war might not increase in friction for a long time, if at all. I imagine the converse would be true as well.
That would make a lot of sense.
However, I am not really complaining on a justification basis. I understand why it would work that way. My argument is that it makes for poor gameplay.
-
However I do not know if there any special workings for Friction (Does friction rise quicker if there are no signs of them being used?). I'm looking at Friction in DoA at the moment and the one-way Treaties seem to barely degrade (4%), which means it's no problem maintaining them. The two-way Treaties are now at 15%-30%, which isn't too bad either. The War has been ongoing for a while after all. In that light, except for some work every once in a while, it shouldn't waste too much of your time.
My realm has 8 treaties that I care about which are more than 25% degraded. That's a lot. Basically, I could do this full time.
Maybe that's a lot of treaties, alright, but it doesn't excuse that the mechanic is boring. It would be possible to perform the same mechanic in a way that is conductive to interactions.
-
It was a feature that was added recently. So...who actually asked for it in the first place?
However, there is a fix, as diplomats, and priests, can alter sympathies, as well as courtiers to an extent. Actually, a lot of things can alter them, but diplomats just specialize in it. Now before we talk about how boring it is, this is hardly a new type of mechanic. Surveying administration is nothing to be excited about either, nor is preaching to gain a following. However, at high oratory, priests can mess with regions a lot. The same actually goes for diplomats, to a lesser extent for the most part.
-
Treaty friction was designed into the system from the start. It has only recently been actually implemented. The purpose is partly to make realms think about how many treaties they really need. Is it worth signing that alliance with the realm on the other side of the island where your troops will never actually meet? This may help encourage the break up of some of the big alliance blocks. The rate of increase and effects of maintenance may need some balancing. That's why this is all being previewed.
-
Also, some realms may want to get out of a treaty without breaking it. They will have the option to increase friction. It's only fair that the other side have the option to decrease it.
-
Treaty friction was designed into the system from the start. It has only recently been actually implemented. The purpose is partly to make realms think about how many treaties they really need. Is it worth signing that alliance with the realm on the other side of the island where your troops will never actually meet? This may help encourage the break up of some of the big alliance blocks. The rate of increase and effects of maintenance may need some balancing. That's why this is all being previewed.
Like I said, I understand the reason for friction.
If anything, I am arguing for maintenance to be more difficult than now. If two ambassadors have to meet to maintain a treaty, then it is a huge disincentive to sign treaties with faraway realms that you never visit, but it is easy if you actually do send troops there regularly.
It's not the balance that is wrong. It's that the actions implemented to maintain that balance are not fun.
-
If you don't like it, then don't be a diplomat. There's nothing saying that every class has to be interesting for every player, only that every player gets to be whatever class they desire. If sitting in the capital maintaining treaties every turn and sending messages, drafting treaties, etc, does not appeal to your particular playstyle, then play a different class that does.
-
However, maintaining treaties is one seriously boring activity.
That it is.
I do have an idea on how to change it such that it gets more fun, but retains the basic meaning of the mechanic. The treaty maintenance rate could much slowed, but it could be made that to maintain a treaty, two ambassadors involved would have to actually meet. This would foster interaction, rather than encourage people to stay in the capital and turn into button-clickers, but it would maintain the idea that unattended treaties do degrade.
If you have to meet in person to maintain the treaty that's some serious burden and you'd need to travel a lot. It'd probably become easier to just let the treaty degrade away and sign a new one each time you meet. Heck, that's probably what's going to happen with a lot of mutually agreed treaties even with the current setup.
-
This is an artificially induced mechanism that isn't logical. Treaties are agreements that can either last forever, expire, get cancelled or be ignored. Agreements are not tangible things that can degrade (except the paper on which it's signed).
If the purpose for this is to promote or reduce a justification for acts of war (casus belli) through the mood of the populace then relations would be a better idea. Relations are tangible in the sense that it can be observed in people's attitudes, feelings, etc. Relations between realms can improve or degrade. The people can either start to demand war or peace and if denied, region stats could drop or revolts could occur.
The current idea that treaties need to be maintained jars the senses.
-
This is an artificially induced mechanism that isn't logical. Treaties are agreements that can either last forever, expire, get cancelled or be ignored. Agreements are not tangible things that can degrade (except the paper on which it's signed).
If the purpose for this is to promote or reduce a justification for acts of war (casus belli) through the mood of the populace then relations would be a better idea. Relations are tangible in the sense that it can be observed in people's attitudes, feelings, etc. Relations between realms can improve or degrade. The people can either start to demand war or peace and if denied, region stats could drop or revolts could occur.
The current idea that treaties need to be maintained jars the senses.
I think the idea is that treaties can be overcome, gradually, through red tape.
RL example: Free trade agreement is signed. Yay, we can trade freely! Of course, the Consumer Protection Agency wants the childrens toys inspected for lead. And of course, the company doing the importing should pay for the inspection, right? And then we need to scan the containers for nuclear weapons, so let's tack on a $50 "security charge" to every container, to pay for the guy to run the scanning equipment. Pretty soon, the 'free' trade agreement is costing companies in the other country more than they would have paid under the tariff system that was in place previously. Treaty is, for all practical purposes, destroyed.
-
I think the idea is that treaties can be overcome, gradually, through red tape.
RL example: Free trade agreement is signed. Yay, we can trade freely! Of course, the Consumer Protection Agency wants the childrens toys inspected for lead. And of course, the company doing the importing should pay for the inspection, right? And then we need to scan the containers for nuclear weapons, so let's tack on a $50 "security charge" to every container, to pay for the guy to run the scanning equipment. Pretty soon, the 'free' trade agreement is costing companies in the other country more than they would have paid under the tariff system that was in place previously. Treaty is, for all practical purposes, destroyed.
Yes, I agree with the idea of degrading treaties too. It's just the mechanism of it that I would like to be changed, not the underlying idea.
-
When you think of ambassadors historically, you'd think of someone who is constantly discussing political matters with equals, right? Maybe a seperate system should be made for ambassadors where they actively have to discuss and agree upon matters to maintain the treaties and relations or something, to create a bigger difference between courtiers and ambassadors.
-
Halfway between courtiers and ambassadors ... How about diplomats?
-
This is an artificially induced mechanism that isn't logical. Treaties are agreements that can either last forever, expire, get cancelled or be ignored. Agreements are not tangible things that can degrade (except the paper on which it's signed).
If the purpose for this is to promote or reduce a justification for acts of war (casus belli) through the mood of the populace then relations would be a better idea. Relations are tangible in the sense that it can be observed in people's attitudes, feelings, etc. Relations between realms can improve or degrade. The people can either start to demand war or peace and if denied, region stats could drop or revolts could occur.
The current idea that treaties need to be maintained jars the senses.
I think the idea is that treaties can be overcome, gradually, through red tape.
RL example: Free trade agreement is signed. Yay, we can trade freely! Of course, the Consumer Protection Agency wants the childrens toys inspected for lead. And of course, the company doing the importing should pay for the inspection, right? And then we need to scan the containers for nuclear weapons, so let's tack on a $50 "security charge" to every container, to pay for the guy to run the scanning equipment. Pretty soon, the 'free' trade agreement is costing companies in the other country more than they would have paid under the tariff system that was in place previously. Treaty is, for all practical purposes, destroyed.
That means it was signed and then ignored. A treaty isn't going to decay by some arbitrary means. Whether the signers of the treaty follow the treaty is another story, and doesn't affect the treaty itself but the relations between the two signers instead. They may decide to then cancel the treaty, which is a decision made by the government, not by some arbitrary number.
-
That would make a lot of sense.
However, I am not really complaining on a justification basis. I understand why it would work that way. My argument is that it makes for poor gameplay.
Agreed, if, as sole ambassador of one of the realms I play in (or perhaps even both, though I doubt it for Enweil (which would be negated anyways by the amount of people the realm must have dealings with), this looks like it will become a full-time job. Clicking to lower friction of said treaties.
Who the hell thought this would actually be fun? I've got enough with region maintenance and religion maintenance, I need to have treaty maintenance added on top of it all?
Also, some realms may want to get out of a treaty without breaking it. They will have the option to increase friction. It's only fair that the other side have the option to decrease it.
Sucks to be them! Treaties, if they lack a clause stating when they end, are permanent in nature. They can't just be dropped as null for being old. You either respect them, renegotiate them, or break them. There's no other way. It is in no way fair that a faction can weasel their way out of a treaty by using friction. If they want out, then have them break it.
If you don't like it, then don't be a diplomat. There's nothing saying that every class has to be interesting for every player, only that every player gets to be whatever class they desire. If sitting in the capital maintaining treaties every turn and sending messages, drafting treaties, etc, does not appeal to your particular playstyle, then play a different class that does.
We don't have enough diplomats to deal with friction as it is, imo. What is the system gonna look like if people switch out because of how lame the mechanic is?
I think the idea is that treaties can be overcome, gradually, through red tape.
RL example: Free trade agreement is signed. Yay, we can trade freely! Of course, the Consumer Protection Agency wants the childrens toys inspected for lead. And of course, the company doing the importing should pay for the inspection, right? And then we need to scan the containers for nuclear weapons, so let's tack on a $50 "security charge" to every container, to pay for the guy to run the scanning equipment. Pretty soon, the 'free' trade agreement is costing companies in the other country more than they would have paid under the tariff system that was in place previously. Treaty is, for all practical purposes, destroyed
Treaties can degrade, but they don't just stop existing. It's not because the free trade isn't really free that all these laws about it stop having effect.
When you think of ambassadors historically, you'd think of someone who is constantly discussing political matters with equals, right? Maybe a seperate system should be made for ambassadors where they actively have to discuss and agree upon matters to maintain the treaties and relations or something, to create a bigger difference between courtiers and ambassadors.
Too few ambassadors to have anything rely upon them. Many realms don't have any, many realms' sole ambassador is their ruler.
Honestly, devs, what are you thinking? We've been making treaties since god knows how long? Since the game started, I assume? We saved them on our hard drives, we saved them on the wiki. If the game treaties are such a royal pain in the arse, why the hell would we switch over to them? Why would we stop making wiki treaties? We'll have the few treaties we need to have actually in-game mechanics impacts, and for the rest, we'll stay the hell away from that system.
This is a shame. I honestly though that the new treaty system would simply better formalize what was already being done while allowing extra complexity. But you are turning diplomacy into such a dreadful chore. Actually getting a treaty signed is so painful, I really disliked the deed every time I did it, there was nothing exciting about it, just a great many days lost to traveling. But hey, what are a few days in a lifetime? Treaty permenancy is the *only* thing that can compensate for the hassle that signing treaties is. Friction only makes a bad thing worse.
-
This is a shame. I honestly though that the new treaty system would simply better formalize what was already being done while allowing extra complexity. But you are turning diplomacy into such a dreadful chore. Actually getting a treaty signed is so painful, I really disliked the deed every time I did it, there was nothing exciting about it, just a great many days lost to traveling. But hey, what are a few days in a lifetime? Treaty permenancy is the *only* thing that can compensate for the hassle that signing treaties is. Friction only makes a bad thing worse.
I have to say I disagree with this; I quite like the fact that someone needs to be physically present to sign a treaty. It leads to an increase of inter-realm relations among players who are not rulers.
It's the maintenance I disagree with, not the signing process.
-
I quite like the fact that someone needs to be physically present to sign a treaty. It leads to an increase of inter-realm relations among players who are not rulers.
It's the maintenance I disagree with, not the signing process.
I agree with this.
-
Seconded.
-
Wouldn't that be "thirded"?
-
Depends on who I'm agreeing with, you or the post you agreed with. 8)
-
I have to say I disagree with this; I quite like the fact that someone needs to be physically present to sign a treaty. It leads to an increase of inter-realm relations among players who are not rulers.
It's the maintenance I disagree with, not the signing process.
I think you might have misunderstood me. I'm not saying travel should not be part of the deal. I'm just saying it's enough of a hassle in itself not to warrant anything more.
Also, while yes, in principle, it encourages non-rulers to talk with each other, I have not seen any significant difference between now and before. Ambassadors usually come once the treaty is already drafted and formalized, and their travel is for the sole purpose of clicking the "propose treaty" button, and then off they go. I've seen many ambassadors motivate themselves to doing grand diplomatic trips, but I never saw these yielding anything, except in cases where they intentionally held off discussion for their arrival (which would have otherwise been done just as easily from afar). Usually when these ambassadors left, they didn't have in mind that their hosts would have other things to do than to just sit in a region for days without end as they come to some sort of agreement.
So really, honestly, I saw just as many ambassadors doing all the same kind of interactions before the subclass was ever brought into the game as after. The thought behind it is good, but I don't think it has much impact on encouraging non-rulers to talk with foreigners. All the treaties pass by the rulers sooner or later anyways, as these can break the treaty and demote the ambassador whenever they want.
-
As a ruler of two different realms, I never wrote a treaty myself. I always told the ambassador or diplomat to write it, and signed whatever they wrote. (After reading it, of course.) After all, that's their job. And I'm all about offloading the work to those who are supposed to be the ones doing it.
-
As a ruler of two different realms, I never wrote a treaty myself. I always told the ambassador or diplomat to write it, and signed whatever they wrote. (After reading it, of course.) After all, that's their job. And I'm all about offloading the work to those who are supposed to be the ones doing it.
You are lucky to have always had ambassadors to do it for you.
That being said, you could have just as easily did this before the treaty system. Treaties are not a new invention, they are just a recent addition to the code of the game. Ambassadors were just as possible before as they are now. Even more so, as it wasn't a subclass with unit restrictions as it is now so people could negotiate with large units to back them up.
-
As a ruler, the couple ambassadors that I've appointed have all just eventually gotten bored with the class.
Sure, there are treaties to write and negotiate every now and then, but it just isn't something you get to go and do every day of the week. Especially like now in Atamara where it's one alliance vs. another alliance and not much is changing every day because wars take time.
The ambassadors got bored and felt they were wasting their subclass, I suppose.
-
As a ruler, the couple ambassadors that I've appointed have all just eventually gotten bored with the class.
Sure, there are treaties to write and negotiate every now and then, but it just isn't something you get to go and do every day of the week. Especially like now in Atamara where it's one alliance vs. another alliance and not much is changing every day because wars take time.
The ambassadors got bored and felt they were wasting their subclass, I suppose.
Alot of the fun of being an ambassador is the RP value. If you can't make use of that, then yes it is a pretty boring class. Every now and then you write a treaty, other then that you have slightly better diplo actions.
-
Alot of the fun of being an ambassador is the RP value. If you can't make use of that, then yes it is a pretty boring class. Every now and then you write a treaty, other then that you have slightly better diplo actions.
Diplomacy is done by exchanging words, not by pressing a ton of buttons on a screen. The game will require that someone press some buttons eventually, but it does not be the same ones who do the talking.
Ambassadorship is like priesthood. For as long as priests aren't made an essential part of the realm, I don't see why ambassadors should.
-
Diplomacy is done by exchanging words, not by pressing a ton of buttons on a screen. The game will require that someone press some buttons eventually, but it does not be the same ones who do the talking.
Ambassadorship is like priesthood. For as long as priests aren't made an essential part of the realm, I don't see why ambassadors should.
Ha...? Priest...Ambassador... Hm...
For the theocracy, or the deeply religious realms, maybe the priest has a larger role in things. For the more secular realms (Which is pretty common since trying to force-feed people to go along with certain strictly Medieval stuff often leads to bad results), ambassador outweighs priest.
Why is this? Right now, because of the mechanic, yes... Priests also have some pretty good options too. Yeah, you lose followers when you try them. Is it really that bad though? For good oratory priests and the correct regions, they can demolish about half or more of the total population with 16 hours of fanaticism. With great power...and all that. Use wisely but in moderation, yeah?
Ambassador has fewer options and generally a smaller effect. They just have the ability to sign (what will someday have actual effect) treaties, because someone has to do it. And the ruler is only one person.
-
Ha...? Priest...Ambassador... Hm...
For the theocracy, or the deeply religious realms, maybe the priest has a larger role in things. For the more secular realms (Which is pretty common since trying to force-feed people to go along with certain strictly Medieval stuff often leads to bad results), ambassador outweighs priest.
Why is this? Right now, because of the mechanic, yes... Priests also have some pretty good options too. Yeah, you lose followers when you try them. Is it really that bad though? For good oratory priests and the correct regions, they can demolish about half or more of the total population with 16 hours of fanaticism. With great power...and all that. Use wisely but in moderation, yeah?
Ambassador has fewer options and generally a smaller effect. They just have the ability to sign (what will someday have actual effect) treaties, because someone has to do it. And the ruler is only one person.
You can't kill half the population one shot as a priest, that's just not how it works. You need followers to kill other followers, and not all followers participate. And when you do persecutions, then you basically lose half your followers to paganism while you are at it, and have high risks of capture. Yes, you can do great damage, but not as you put it.
Also, you completely misunderstood my point. I wasn't talking about their powers at all. I was saying if one specialty class is to be required to make realms run smooth, then why not another, as religion was a fundamental part of medieval Europe and the religion game is way more inclusive than the diplomacy game. From a RP perspective, makes little sense, and from a gameplay perspective, it makes none at all.
Specialty classes should enhance the realm when present, not cripple it when absent.
-
That might have more to do with a respect for the fact that no matter what, we are still modern humans. Diplomacy is something we all more or less understand and take as granted in the game. Religion? Not so much. For evidence you only need to find how many people still insist that they are atheists in the game.
Now that I think about it, it makes sense. A lot of the incongruities in the game that differ from a true Medieval recreation comes from the fact that we are modern humans. In many of our countries, religion simply does not play a major role in the government. The United States has the separation of church and state, China does not endorse any state religion, and I'm sure those more familiar with different countries' systems would know more examples.
In-game, this means that you can see how many realms say they have no state religion either. PoZ, last I heard, said they would allow freedom of religion, and furthermore that it would mean no religion could get a foothold on the realm. Nothoi also practices freedom of religion. To name realms that actually "matter", even Sirion, surprisingly enough, does not have a state religion, in that lords are still free to choose their faith and their regions' faith. It just so happens that one religion is more prevalent, but does not appear to interfere with the political side.
Besides, I've noticed that Chenier seems to like more realism in religion. But above all else, this is a game, and we could make the diplomat class less time intensive. Making the religions more realistic might not actually work in this game, since the majority of interactions should be roleplayed, and it doesn't sound like that many people are really into it except maybe for the rare exceptions. Ok? So? We have only a handful of major religions in this world, and the top three all happen to be monotheistic and originate from the Middle East.
Now, we do have a system to make priests more important. They are called theocracies, but beyond that, it's up to you to get support to have your power. That's what real power is, no matter where you go or what you are.
-
That might have more to do with a respect for the fact that no matter what, we are still modern humans. Diplomacy is something we all more or less understand and take as granted in the game. Religion? Not so much. For evidence you only need to find how many people still insist that they are atheists in the game.
Now that I think about it, it makes sense. A lot of the incongruities in the game that differ from a true Medieval recreation comes from the fact that we are modern humans. In many of our countries, religion simply does not play a major role in the government. The United States has the separation of church and state, China does not endorse any state religion, and I'm sure those more familiar with different countries' systems would know more examples.
In-game, this means that you can see how many realms say they have no state religion either. PoZ, last I heard, said they would allow freedom of religion, and furthermore that it would mean no religion could get a foothold on the realm. Nothoi also practices freedom of religion. To name realms that actually "matter", even Sirion, surprisingly enough, does not have a state religion, in that lords are still free to choose their faith and their regions' faith. It just so happens that one religion is more prevalent, but does not appear to interfere with the political side.
Besides, I've noticed that Chenier seems to like more realism in religion. But above all else, this is a game, and we could make the diplomat class less time intensive. Making the religions more realistic might not actually work in this game, since the majority of interactions should be roleplayed, and it doesn't sound like that many people are really into it except maybe for the rare exceptions. Ok? So? We have only a handful of major religions in this world, and the top three all happen to be monotheistic and originate from the Middle East.
Now, we do have a system to make priests more important. They are called theocracies, but beyond that, it's up to you to get support to have your power. That's what real power is, no matter where you go or what you are.
You persist on misunderstanding my point. This thread isn't "give more power to religions!", but rather titled "Treaty friction is boring", with my point being that it doesn't make sense to have this one particular specialist class required for smooth realm running. Especially since the player base is declining. And since ambassadors and the new treaty system don't actually bring anything new to the game, other than restrictions.
And though you will likely interpret this last statement as being my main point, when it's really just a side comment, theocracies do not add any power to priests. They work just the same as democracies or any other government system, as far as priests are concerned. Players give the power they want to priests, regardless of their realm's government system. It's just easier to defend giving more power to priests when your government calls itself a theocracy, but nothing would prevent you from having a theocracy without any state religions or a democracy with a single authorized religion.
-
I am misinterpreting because you are being imprecise with your arguments, something that I do as well, which opens up to comments on things that were not our original points. To avoid this, limit the scope of the argument, or make examples that are not so easy to confuse as the main point.
-
You can't kill half the population one shot as a priest, that's just not how it works.
Oh, in the right situation, you can. I've killed about 90% of the population of a region in one go -- get your followers to rise up when they can't possibly succeed, and most get killed. If you have 99% followers and good oratory, then. . . .
-
Oh, in the right situation, you can. I've killed about 90% of the population of a region in one go -- get your followers to rise up when they can't possibly succeed, and most get killed. If you have 99% followers and good oratory, then. . . .
If you have little following, then yours will die, and the others will remain. If you have strong following, then yours will survive, and the others will die. If you have as much following as dissent, then a part of both will die, but I have never seen proportions to indicate this could lead to 50% casualties in one go. It tended to result in more followers turning pagans then heretics being slain.
-
The Evans player is probably referring to a situation in which you call up a religious uprising but there are a ton of enemy troops in the region.
-
Just a correction on Nothoi. It -has- a religion, just not one for the common masses or one that is acceptable to anyone else right now.
I was hoping the blood cult would set up camp, but since it's folded there is no in-game mechanic for secret cults (maybe a guild?). Everyone from Bara'Khur knows what insane cult I'm talking about. It's not in the wiki or listed anywhere, but rest assured there is at least one person in Beleuterra trying to cause a fifth invasion, though from a different source (sort of, maybe, depends on if all the undead come from the same place).
Not going to keep that listed on the religion page though, might make diplomacy tricky.
"Good day sir, I see you're trying to destroy the world, would you like to be allies?"
"Oh no, just purify mankind through the perfection of undeath, but sure, until my mistress returns from the grave to lead her enternal minions we can be the best of friends. Unfortunately, you're sure to try to stop her reclaiming her throne, so then I'll have to murder you and everyone you know because you have not been made cleansed through alchemical ritual."
Yeah. Not good PR.
-
Just a correction on Nothoi. It -has- a religion, just not one for the common masses or one that is acceptable to anyone else right now.
I was hoping the blood cult would set up camp, but since it's folded there is no in-game mechanic for secret cults (maybe a guild?). Everyone from Bara'Khur knows what insane cult I'm talking about. It's not in the wiki or listed anywhere, but rest assured there is at least one person in Beleuterra trying to cause a fifth invasion, though from a different source (sort of, maybe, depends on if all the undead come from the same place).
Not going to keep that listed on the religion page though, might make diplomacy tricky.
"Good day sir, I see you're trying to destroy the world, would you like to be allies?"
"Oh no, just purify mankind through the perfection of undeath, but sure, until my mistress returns from the grave to lead her enternal minions we can be the best of friends. Unfortunately, you're sure to try to stop her reclaiming her throne, so then I'll have to murder you and everyone you know because you have not been made cleansed through alchemical ritual."
Yeah. Not good PR.
Secret societies fit the bill, unless you want a priest in which case you are out of luck. Then again it would be hard to hide the fact that your religion has a sizable peasant faith base.
-
Just a correction on Nothoi. It -has- a religion, just not one for the common masses or one that is acceptable to anyone else right now.
I was hoping the blood cult would set up camp, but since it's folded there is no in-game mechanic for secret cults (maybe a guild?). Everyone from Bara'Khur knows what insane cult I'm talking about. It's not in the wiki or listed anywhere, but rest assured there is at least one person in Beleuterra trying to cause a fifth invasion, though from a different source (sort of, maybe, depends on if all the undead come from the same place).
Not going to keep that listed on the religion page though, might make diplomacy tricky.
"Good day sir, I see you're trying to destroy the world, would you like to be allies?"
"Oh no, just purify mankind through the perfection of undeath, but sure, until my mistress returns from the grave to lead her enternal minions we can be the best of friends. Unfortunately, you're sure to try to stop her reclaiming her throne, so then I'll have to murder you and everyone you know because you have not been made cleansed through alchemical ritual."
Yeah. Not good PR.
I had a long reply to this. And then the server told me "!@#$ you", and I lost it. These "too many server requests" are really getting annoying...
Basically, I said that I had the intention to found a new religion, but decided it wasn't worth it. Religions are huge money pits, and one can compensate for the lack of one through a variety of cheap and low-effort policies and actions. As such, I'm quite comfortable working with "unofficial" religions from now and, and even making theocracies around them if necessary.
If the devs can't be bothered to make religions worth it, I won't be bothered to try to do it myself anymore. Priests are more of a liability than a boon, really, as just a few days without one and all your investments are gone, permanently. Or some elder leaving at an inopportune time without properly planning his replacement, and the religion goes in chaos. Why even bother? Unofficial religions have no risk of loss, no costs, and most of the gains with only marginal drawbacks.
-
One problem I see is not jut the treaty friction...the whole ambassador/diplomat sub-class should be re-thinked.
Right now there is no actuall advantage on beeing an diplomat or ambassador.
Some things I believe that should change are:
1- Let rulers sign their own treaties. Rulers should be able to draft treaties and sign them. Most initial proposals and contacts are made by rulers, if they don´t have ambassadors the realm has a big problem. In smaller realm that has no Ambassador they´ll basicly have to depend on other realms to draft the treaties.
The way it is now, either one noble joins the ruler an take on the role of Ambassador or the realm is in big trouble. And kind of takes the right of the player to choose what class he want´s to take.
2- It would be interesting, and bring a more medieval atmosfere, if to become an ambassador, instead of choosing the diplomat sub-class, the ruler could appoint Lords to it. It would be a great honor the ruler to choose Lord A or B instead of other lords, to be Ambassadors.
In Theocracies, priests could take the role of Ambassadors(adding something to the class), after all in Theocracies, priests should have all power.
3- No more treaty friction, a treaty unless specified is forever. If a realm wants to get rid of the treaty, then break it. Like it was said, it is easier to just sign a new treaty than to do treaty maintenence.
-
Right now there is no actuall advantage on beeing an diplomat or ambassador.
Well, there are game-mechanic actions available, and the extra signature is not to be underestimated in the right places.
-
Well, there are game-mechanic actions available, and the extra signature is not to be underestimated in the right places.
Yeah but until this system goes into action, there is no actuall use for it.
-
Which is why I have been ignoring all those "Treaty in jeopardy" warnings I've been getting.
-
Yeah but until this system goes into action, there is no actuall use for it.
The Diplomacy actions affect control, not just treaties.
-
The way it is now, either one noble joins the ruler an take on the role of Ambassador or the realm is in big trouble. And kind of takes the right of the player to choose what class he want´s to take.
2- It would be interesting, and bring a more medieval atmosfere, if to become an ambassador, instead of choosing the diplomat sub-class, the ruler could appoint Lords to it. It would be a great honor the ruler to choose Lord A or B instead of other lords, to be Ambassadors.
In Theocracies, priests could take the role of Ambassadors(adding something to the class), after all in Theocracies, priests should have all power.
Rulers already appoint the ambassadors. Since Lords and Priest can both take the diplomat sub class both of these are possible if the realm wants it. In terms of things to do, my Diplomat is currently very busy propping up region stats with his diplomat actions, as well as occasionally working to make a region we wish to TO like us that little bit more.
-
Priest/Diplomat(Ambassador) is possibly the most kickass class combination. Full skill overlap (Oratory), 16 hour max time (and other Priest benefits) make for a really fast way to 100% Oratory.
-
For the sake of adding some numbers for the treaty friction, this is the treaty situation of Morek:
North Eastern Free Movement Pact military Passage Rights Libero Empire 2010-06-21 76% details
Military co-operation with Corsanctum. military Defense Pact Corsanctum 2010-06-14 76% details
Corsanctum-Xinhaian facilities sharing economic Facilities Sharing Corsanctum 2010-06-14 74% details
Xinhai-Corsanctum Passage Rights military Passage Rights Corsanctum 2010-11-12 76% details
Port rights military Passage Rights D'Hara 2010-07-18 66% details
Open Borders between the brotherly realms military Passage Rights Astrum 2010-09-29 99% details
Sharing of facilities between the brotherly realms economic Facilities Sharing Astrum 2010-09-29 98% detail
The Nifel Handshake - Annex I military Passage Rights Summerdale 2011-05-07 24% details
The Nifel Handshake - Annex II economic Facilities Sharing Summerdale 2011-05-07 24% details
I receive every turn 5 advices that a treaty needs maintenance. We recently lost one alliance treaty to friction and we'll soon lose two more. Morek has 2 ambassadors and 1 diplomat, that don't want to spend time on treaty friction right now cause they say the effect is more or less negligible for the amount of hours they waste on it.
Perhaps we're doing something wrong and I should whip them into working hard to maintain treaties, but I don't really see how can we do it. If one checks carefully you can see that the treaty with D'Hara has a reasonable friction even if it was signed almost 1 year ago. Conversely treaties with Astrum are really decaying faster, I guess because some of our current regions were looted by Astrum during the war against the Raivan Empire. Should we take care of this by raising sympathy? Perhaps it's a solution, but still I don't possibly see how can one realm maitain steadily the 10 or so treaties one needs with all friendly realms.
-
Heh, solution: Don't make so many treaties.
-
For the sake of adding some numbers for the treaty friction, this is the treaty situation of Morek:
North Eastern Free Movement Pact military Passage Rights Libero Empire 2010-06-21 76% details
Military co-operation with Corsanctum. military Defense Pact Corsanctum 2010-06-14 76% details
Corsanctum-Xinhaian facilities sharing economic Facilities Sharing Corsanctum 2010-06-14 74% details
Xinhai-Corsanctum Passage Rights military Passage Rights Corsanctum 2010-11-12 76% details
Port rights military Passage Rights D'Hara 2010-07-18 66% details
Open Borders between the brotherly realms military Passage Rights Astrum 2010-09-29 99% details
Sharing of facilities between the brotherly realms economic Facilities Sharing Astrum 2010-09-29 98% detail
The Nifel Handshake - Annex I military Passage Rights Summerdale 2011-05-07 24% details
The Nifel Handshake - Annex II economic Facilities Sharing Summerdale 2011-05-07 24% details
I receive every turn 5 advices that a treaty needs maintenance. We recently lost one alliance treaty to friction and we'll soon lose two more. Morek has 2 ambassadors and 1 diplomat, that don't want to spend time on treaty friction right now cause they say the effect is more or less negligible for the amount of hours they waste on it.
Perhaps we're doing something wrong and I should whip them into working hard to maintain treaties, but I don't really see how can we do it. If one checks carefully you can see that the treaty with D'Hara has a reasonable friction even if it was signed almost 1 year ago. Conversely treaties with Astrum are really decaying faster, I guess because some of our current regions were looted by Astrum during the war against the Raivan Empire. Should we take care of this by raising sympathy? Perhaps it's a solution, but still I don't possibly see how can one realm maitain steadily the 10 or so treaties one needs with all friendly realms.
I though part of the whole point of the system was to ensure that you would have fewer treaties and fewer truly friendly realms. It is suppose to prevent large alliances, like the SA alliance that formed for the war, from being able to EASILY exist.
-
Rulers already appoint the ambassadors. Since Lords and Priest can both take the diplomat sub class both of these are possible if the realm wants it. In terms of things to do, my Diplomat is currently very busy propping up region stats with his diplomat actions, as well as occasionally working to make a region we wish to TO like us that little bit more.
Yes, but what I am saying is:
Don´t have a Diplomat subclass, leave the subclass open only for lords and in the case of theocracies priests. or leave it open fro anyone (think how fun it would be to have an infiltrator as ambassador).
Doing this you open the cards a little more, create a even better medieval atmosfere and increase the RP factor also.
A realm could send a warrior/cavalier/hero to a realm as ambassador to force the realm to accept a treaty of go to war, or send a courtier to find more peacefull terms...
The ruler could chose ANYONE from the realm to be Ambassador and part of the diplomacy, a good indication for a sucessor...
During a war, a marshal or even the general could be asigned as ambassadors to discuss surrender terms with the other realm.
Leaving the way it is, when you have to take a diplomat subclass narrow things down and makes it hard for small realms, and gives only few options to players...
-
Well, the person drafting the treaty doesn't have to be the person doing the negotiation (you could assign a diplomat as an aide to the Cavalier you send to talk), but I still tend to agree. Making a subclass necessary for a realm to function is a bit of a problem (although every Priest should be a diplomat, and every realm should have at least one Priest...)
-
Heh, solution: Don't make so many treaties.
So we have two contradictory roles: on one hand, we want to give people more to do, and on the other, the thing we want to make them do is something we want less of?
Putting so much emphasis on game-generated treaties is stupid. Realms will be friends or will be foes, regardless of what the game says. As people abandoned allies in the past, they will be able to just as much in the future. Just as realms created new friendships overnight in the past, they will just as much in the future. Even if it takes 5 months to get all the stupid paperwork done.
The big alliances weren't caused by the fact that diplomacy is static unless one party changes its mind. That big AT alliance was, you know, because some guy got all of his buds in the top spots of the world? Want to tell me how treaty friction will change anything to such a scenario?
BM is a game of *interaction*. Treaty friction's sole purpose is to *discourage* interaction. It's lame, and I'll just continue using wiki treaties and ignoring IG treaties as I do now if that's how it's going to be, and I suspect others will too, since the actual game mechanics of said treaties are very rarely required for anything.
-
So we have two contradictory roles: on one hand, we want to give people more to do, and on the other, the thing we want to make them do is something we want less of?
Putting so much emphasis on game-generated treaties is stupid. Realms will be friends or will be foes, regardless of what the game says. As people abandoned allies in the past, they will be able to just as much in the future. Just as realms created new friendships overnight in the past, they will just as much in the future. Even if it takes 5 months to get all the stupid paperwork done.
The big alliances weren't caused by the fact that diplomacy is static unless one party changes its mind. That big AT alliance was, you know, because some guy got all of his buds in the top spots of the world? Want to tell me how treaty friction will change anything to such a scenario?
BM is a game of *interaction*. Treaty friction's sole purpose is to *discourage* interaction. It's lame, and I'll just continue using wiki treaties and ignoring IG treaties as I do now if that's how it's going to be, and I suspect others will too, since the actual game mechanics of said treaties are very rarely required for anything.
It is my understanding that you can have as many unofficial allies and such as you want. The treaties I think they are trying to limit are things like passage rights or repair rights that are game mechanic related. I supposed it is to prevent a large alliance all using the closest realm as a repair based for pursuing a war. I would be far happy if there was no automatic treaty friction, and that friction was only applied by diplomats. The more treaties a realm has, the bigger the effect diplomatic friction would have, and as a consequence actions again friction would have reduced effect.
Also my feeling is that they want more interaction in terms of quality, IE much more frequent and in depth interaction between 1 or two realms, rather then more interaction in terms of quantity.
In terms of how friction would stop the large alliances, it only really has an effect for things like war I guess. A large alliance generally needs multiple passage rights/ repair rights treaties, which will require significant dedication to maintain. Without them the military effectiveness of the alliance should be questionable, but I'm not sure that it will have a massive effect as things stand.
-
It is my understanding that you can have as many unofficial allies and such as you want. The treaties I think they are trying to limit are things like passage rights or repair rights that are game mechanic related. I supposed it is to prevent a large alliance all using the closest realm as a repair based for pursuing a war. I would be far happy if there was no automatic treaty friction, and that friction was only applied by diplomats. The more treaties a realm has, the bigger the effect diplomatic friction would have, and as a consequence actions again friction would have reduced effect.
Also my feeling is that they want more interaction in terms of quality, IE much more frequent and in depth interaction between 1 or two realms, rather then more interaction in terms of quantity.
In terms of how friction would stop the large alliances, it only really has an effect for things like war I guess. A large alliance generally needs multiple passage rights/ repair rights treaties, which will require significant dedication to maintain. Without them the military effectiveness of the alliance should be questionable, but I'm not sure that it will have a massive effect as things stand.
Except you never really need to use the facilities of 10 realms at the same time. Just sign an unofficial treaty with them all, and only bother to sign/maintain it officially when it's of any use. Same benefits as having one with 10 realms for 99% of the cases.
-
Except you never really need to use the facilities of 10 realms at the same time. Just sign an unofficial treaty with them all, and only bother to sign/maintain it officially when it's of any use. Same benefits as having one with 10 realms for 99% of the cases.
Yes but the realm everyone is using for repairs needs to have a treaty with everyone that wants to perform repairs in their realm, as well as the accompanying rights of passage. They then either need to maintain them all themselves or rely on the treaty partners to do it. Once you also have the treates required for military co-operation in the field, you are looking at significant treaties
Then imagine that you have 1 or 2 rogue diplomats somewhere in the alliance. They can speak against the treaty, which generates a message but does nothing to identify who is committing the act. They might easily be able to quickly destroy treaties given the accumulated friction effect.
-
Heh, solution: Don't make so many treaties.
That's certainly one option. But it's a very poor one.
The problem is that on order to do almost anything, you need to have a treaty to do it.
Oh look, your neighbor has a starving city, and you want to cash in by selling some food at highway robbery level prices. Well, we better send some right over!
- Want to send a caravan of food to your neighbor? Sign a trade agreement treaty!
- Well, I'll just send a trader instead. Better sign a passage rights treaty so the traders guards wont' get attacked by the other realm's soldiers.
- Well, I'll just send him without troops. Better sign an open borders so he doesn't just get arrested when traveling alone.
What's that, your other neighbor has some monsters that need to be vanquished, and your troops are growing bored?
- Better sign a passage rights treaty so we're allowed to move our troops through their lands.
- And while we're at it, looks like we need a peace treaty so our troops don't attack each other. Or wait, is that covered by a Passage Rights? Not sure, better sign both. Oh, and while we're at it, a mutual defense treaty to make sure our troops actually fight together.
- Oh crud, Sir Kepler's infantry got wiped out in the battle. Better sign an open borders so he doesn't get arrested on his way home while traveling alone.
- Accumulated some heavy equipment damage and want to repair before you come home, because there's a monster group that wandered into one of your own border regions along the way? Better sign a Facilities Sharing treaty, too.
These are not unreasonable scenarios for peaceful relations with your neighbors. Anything you want to do requires a treaty. Unless you want to be a hermit realm and just sit within your own borders, ignoring the world. Peaceful relations with two bordering realms could easily suck up 8 to 10 treaties. Now contemplate going to war with one of them against a third realm. Tack on some facilities sharing treaties, a war declaration, maybe even a free-form to formalize the arrangement, and you can easily hit 14-15 treaties without even stretching.
Don't get me wrong, I like the new treaty types. The ability to control your relations to such a fine degree is very nice. But it is turning out that the amount of work required to maintain even a modest network of treaties among a small number of realms is quite burdensome. That's why I proposed some form of automated treaty maintenance, where treaties that are actually being used are either not subject to treaty friction, or accumulate friction at a much slower rate. That way the treaties that are used stay in pace, and the "fluff" treaties that are signed only as diplomatic ploys but never get used need actual maintenance by a player to keep in place.
-
I though part of the whole point of the system was to ensure that you would have fewer treaties and fewer truly friendly realms. It is suppose to prevent large alliances, like the SA alliance that formed for the war, from being able to EASILY exist.
It was a 3 realm alliance (astrum corsanctum morek). Does not sound particularly big. Also, those treaties are the few needed to allow morek soldiers to cross astrum corsanctum and summerdale peacefully (and vice versa) and repair there. For every ally you have, you must include a passage rights open border and shared facilities. 2 allies all in one alliance alone give 7 treaties. Perhaps in the average situation on other islands one does not have so many passage rights issued, since armies don't really go around so much, I can agree on that, but still as Indirik said you easily reach around 10 treaties quickly. Or perhaps I didn't understand how treaties work and alliance by itself includes all the others.
I guess that there is already something like that but could be nice to create multiple treaties if friction is not tuned. One signature for multiple effects. Less fine grained control, but less troubles from friction.
Consider that I signed way less treaties than I need in Morek. Perhaps that was the aim but what's the point in allowing people to fine tune their realm when they can't anyway keep such fine tuning for a decent amount of time?
-
With the talk about how awesome bandit realms would be with their lawlessness, apparently a lot of people actually want more order. I wonder which is it?
-
Yes but the realm everyone is using for repairs needs to have a treaty with everyone that wants to perform repairs in their realm, as well as the accompanying rights of passage. They then either need to maintain them all themselves or rely on the treaty partners to do it. Once you also have the treates required for military co-operation in the field, you are looking at significant treaties
Then imagine that you have 1 or 2 rogue diplomats somewhere in the alliance. They can speak against the treaty, which generates a message but does nothing to identify who is committing the act. They might easily be able to quickly destroy treaties given the accumulated friction effect.
The war is likely not to last long enough to friction to really matter, and that target realm is where everyone passes by anyways so renewing it would not be the slightest problem. In this case, friction is made useless because of the ease of replacement granted by the context. And in most cases, there are few alliance members on the same front, even in the case of gang bangs. If half the alliance strikes from the west, the other from the east, than both factions don't need any formal game treaty to effectively carry out their alliance. And the closer they come to needing one, the more convenient it becomes to travel to that realm to sign a treaty, because it means you are both operating in the same area.
That's certainly one option. But it's a very poor one.
The problem is that on order to do almost anything, you need to have a treaty to do it.
Oh look, your neighbor has a starving city, and you want to cash in by selling some food at highway robbery level prices. Well, we better send some right over!
- Want to send a caravan of food to your neighbor? Sign a trade agreement treaty!
- Well, I'll just send a trader instead. Better sign a passage rights treaty so the traders guards wont' get attacked by the other realm's soldiers.
- Well, I'll just send him without troops. Better sign an open borders so he doesn't just get arrested when traveling alone.
What's that, your other neighbor has some monsters that need to be vanquished, and your troops are growing bored?
- Better sign a passage rights treaty so we're allowed to move our troops through their lands.
- And while we're at it, looks like we need a peace treaty so our troops don't attack each other. Or wait, is that covered by a Passage Rights? Not sure, better sign both. Oh, and while we're at it, a mutual defense treaty to make sure our troops actually fight together.
- Oh crud, Sir Kepler's infantry got wiped out in the battle. Better sign an open borders so he doesn't get arrested on his way home while traveling alone.
- Accumulated some heavy equipment damage and want to repair before you come home, because there's a monster group that wandered into one of your own border regions along the way? Better sign a Facilities Sharing treaty, too.
These are not unreasonable scenarios for peaceful relations with your neighbors. Anything you want to do requires a treaty. Unless you want to be a hermit realm and just sit within your own borders, ignoring the world. Peaceful relations with two bordering realms could easily suck up 8 to 10 treaties. Now contemplate going to war with one of them against a third realm. Tack on some facilities sharing treaties, a war declaration, maybe even a free-form to formalize the arrangement, and you can easily hit 14-15 treaties without even stretching.
Don't get me wrong, I like the new treaty types. The ability to control your relations to such a fine degree is very nice. But it is turning out that the amount of work required to maintain even a modest network of treaties among a small number of realms is quite burdensome. That's why I proposed some form of automated treaty maintenance, where treaties that are actually being used are either not subject to treaty friction, or accumulate friction at a much slower rate. That way the treaties that are used stay in pace, and the "fluff" treaties that are signed only as diplomatic ploys but never get used need actual maintenance by a player to keep in place.
That seems to be the spirit of the mechanic: to encourage everyone to live isolated in his own realm because of how impractical inter-realm relations are to become. Treaty friction at its best.
-
Well, I can definitely say that was not the intent. Treaty friction was supposed to prevent eternal alliances and the resultant diplomatic stagnation. But it seems as if the current mechanics are turning out to be more burdensome than useful. People don't seem to want to deal with treaties, and the work of maintaining/signing them.
And to be fair, I can see the point. Astrum currently has several that are on the verge of imploding. The people that we had to create them are too busy to go back to diplomat and fix them. And Morek's diplos are busy doing other stuff to deal with them either. And should treaties really up and disappear in the middle of a war like that?
The treaty system is in preview status right now to help us work out some of this, and get feedback from players. And it definitely looks, to me anyway, that it needs some rebalancing.
-
Realm gets passive lower rate of friction increase for each diplomat in realm. Ambassadors have greater effect. Still need to decrease/manually increase actively, but maybe once every couple of weeks or month rather than daily.
-
Make the action to decrease friction more complicated: for example, make two diplomats actually meet, or make it cost lots of gold. But, when you do it, you should be able to reset treaty friction to zero, or a low value, maybe like between 0 and 25% depending on skill, within one turn. Then you can go on and do other things.
-
Make the action to decrease friction more complicated: for example, make two diplomats actually meet, or make it cost lots of gold. But, when you do it, you should be able to reset treaty friction to zero, or a low value, maybe like between 0 and 25% depending on skill, within one turn. Then you can go on and do other things.
It does cost gold when you perform the action out side of your realm as I understand it. I think the idea is that if you travel to the other realm mentioned in the treaty, the effect of your actions are greater, though I'm not 100% sure on that. Making Diplos need to travel to meet each other might make what is already quiet a boring task, well even more boring.
-
My point is that I would prefer to spend 200 gold in one shot every six months rather than 5 gold a day every day.
Travelling is not boring! Sitting in your capital clicking buttons is boring. But, I see how it could cause problems.
-
Traveling to do something totally unexciting is boring...as the description implies. Ever notice how rare legit traders are?
I think some people would be happier with essentially autopilot treaty maintenance. Like the lord game, maybe to an extent, but you still need to do something. Maybe there just isn't enough material incentive for players to put up with the boring task.
-
My point is that I would prefer to spend 200 gold in one shot every six months rather than 5 gold a day every day.
Travelling is not boring! Sitting in your capital clicking buttons is boring. But, I see how it could cause problems.
Treaty maintenance inside your own realm is free is it not?
-
Realm gets passive lower rate of friction increase for each diplomat in realm. Ambassadors have greater effect. Still need to decrease/manually increase actively, but maybe once every couple of weeks or month rather than daily.
I agree. Making treaty maintenance an occasional task and not something that fills diplomats schedule to the point of not leaving them much else to do could really help.
-
Not sure that's such a great idea. It greatly benefits larger realms, as they are more likely to be able to have more ambassadors. So even if they do nothing, the mere fact that they exist will help them, while smaller realms will be struggling to find someone just to be an ambassador.
-
Not sure that's such a great idea. It greatly benefits larger realms, as they are more likely to be able to have more ambassadors. So even if they do nothing, the mere fact that they exist will help them, while smaller realms will be struggling to find someone just to be an ambassador.
Uhm I quoted the entire message while I was just referring to making maintenance something necessary only seldom and not often. How to do it is another matter.
-
Don't stack the bonuses? Who knows. The point is I'm getting the feeling that most people just want an autopilot system more or less.
-
Uhm I quoted the entire message while I was just referring to making maintenance something necessary only seldom and not often. How to do it is another matter.
Yeah, I noticed after I posted that it wasn't clear what I was referring to. I meant that basing it on the number of diplos you have wasn't a good idea.
-
The point is I'm getting the feeling that most people just want an autopilot system more or less.
I agree. I have proposed something among the devs that I think will do the trick. Not sure if it will be accepted, though.
-
Make friction slower for smaller realms--this solves the small realm complaint, doesn't it? And it makes more sense that a smaller realm would have fewer disagreements/red tape/etc
Make friction faster for realms with more treaties. This helps the massive, eternal alliance problem.
-
Make friction slower for smaller realms--this solves the small realm complaint, doesn't it? And it makes more sense that a smaller realm would have fewer disagreements/red tape/etc
Make friction faster for realms with more treaties. This helps the massive, eternal alliance problem.
The first point is valid. The second is just overkill as friction is already higher in such realms as diplomats have to spread their work on more treaties than others.
I just don't like the mechanic at all, though. I think it's pretty bad RP. Treaties aren't things that cease to exist because they are unpopular, they remain permanently until either their term is up or they are actively broken by the head of states.
Something that would make more RP sense would be that the treaties don't break, but that low treaty maintenance causes region stat drops. Though more realistic, in terms of gameplay I'd judge it even worse. I think we are trying to control how people play way too much with this mechanic. And basic psychology says that incentives always work better than dissuasive. Personally, I do not see any continent have peace problems right now, and I haven't in a while. Why don't we just wait 'till such problems occur again before bringing out the big guns? Because imo, treaty friction is lowering the average fun level in order to boost the minimum fun level. If there's no one at the minimum fun level to benefit from this change, why lower the average fun level?
-
Something that would make more RP sense would be that the treaties don't break, but that low treaty maintenance causes region stat drops. Though more realistic, in terms of gameplay I'd judge it even worse.
What? I don't see how that makes any sense at all. How does, for example, Riombara having an old Passage Rights treaty with Sint make the peasants of Avengmil less productive or loyal?
-
Make friction slower for smaller realms--this solves the small realm complaint, doesn't it? And it makes more sense that a smaller realm would have fewer disagreements/red tape/etc
And if a small realm has a treaty with a big realm? Does it generate friction faster or slower?
Rather than just tweak friction rates, I really think that friction itself needs a more significant overhaul.
-
I just don't like the mechanic at all, though. I think it's pretty bad RP. Treaties aren't things that cease to exist because they are unpopular, they remain permanently until either their term is up or they are actively broken by the head of states.
There are plenty of other aspects of BM that don't make a lot of sense IC, but are necessary for game balance.
One of the stated purposes of the treaty system is to make sure that you do not get the eternal pointless alliances that people have been known to keep. The only way to ensure that is to cause treaties that are not actively used decay.
-
Traveling to do something totally unexciting is boring...as the description implies. Ever notice how rare legit traders are?
I used to play one and had fun, but maybe that's just me. Travelling and meeting people are opportunities for RP, clicking buttons alone in your corner is not.
I think some people would be happier with essentially autopilot treaty maintenance. Like the lord game, maybe to an extent, but you still need to do something. Maybe there just isn't enough material incentive for players to put up with the boring task.
Maybe so. I'd like to think we can come up with something more imaginative.
-
There will be people who will always complain about the feature so long as it requires any amount of attention, because a lot of people are lazy. I think most people would be happier to set things up once and forget about it. If that can't be achieved, then they would be happier if there was something good that happened from the attention to treaties.
For lords, paying attention to the region gives money, and good reputation. Being a good lord can make people notice you more and respect your abilities more. Right now, you get not much notice if you are a good treaty maintainer (notice I did NOT say diplomat/ambassador, because even though that's the subclass that does treaty maintenance, that has no bearing on actual diplomatic skills as in actually writing to people). Really, have you ever heard anyone get credit for doing a good job keeping all the treaties at low friction?
-
There will be people who will always complain about the feature so long as it requires any amount of attention, because a lot of people are lazy. I think most people would be happier to set things up once and forget about it. If that can't be achieved, then they would be happier if there was something good that happened from the attention to treaties.
I honestly don't think the old system to be that bad. It's really not a system problem, but an occasional people problem. It's not as if treaties are hard to break, you just click a button and they are gone.
The new treaty system, without any friction at all, is basically just adding nice customization options and RP potential to the previous system.
'cause honestly, the current system isn't favoring continental alliances in any way. The only way they can work is by having a set of tightly-knit rulers in all/most realms, and the way I see it treaty friction isn't going to create any more wars if such a context re-occurs. The problem is with rulers all being friends, not with alliances continuing until cancelled.
For lords, paying attention to the region gives money, and good reputation. Being a good lord can make people notice you more and respect your abilities more. Right now, you get not much notice if you are a good treaty maintainer (notice I did NOT say diplomat/ambassador, because even though that's the subclass that does treaty maintenance, that has no bearing on actual diplomatic skills as in actually writing to people). Really, have you ever heard anyone get credit for doing a good job keeping all the treaties at low friction?
Since treaties don't actually change anything yet, I doubt many people really care for bothering to maintain them, so the comparison wouldn't apply.
-
'cause honestly, the current system isn't favoring continental alliances in any way.
It very strongly is, because you cannot be at war with the ally of your ally. Yes, you can drop to neutral and fight, but you cannot take territory and it just gets silly. That right there has caused more problems in the last year on the FEI than I want to think about.
-
It very strongly is, because you cannot be at war with the ally of your ally. Yes, you can drop to neutral and fight, but you cannot take territory and it just gets silly. That right there has caused more problems in the last year on the FEI than I want to think about.
Honestly, that's why I don't sign any more alliances with D'Hara as I have. I know that if I lock myself in alliances, I'll be in trouble if the nobles of my realm ever demand some action. Or why I didn't seek for more alliances when I was king of RoF than I did, or why I rarely ever push to form alliances when in other positions.
Alliances have their benefits, but their drawbacks. Unless your goal is to avoid wars at all costs, and you have foreigners to back you up should rebellions brew, it's very much in the ruler's best interests to keep some possibilities of war open.
And if an old ruler was too eager to sign alliances, they are pretty easy to break anyhow.
Alliances don't prevent wars, the rulers who signed them and the panzy rulers who won't dear lower relations to peace with common allies or who can't sway his ally to lower his relations with your foe is the problem. In my experience, the "can't declare war on an ally's ally" limited the number of alliances that were agreed upon, as otherwise almost everyone would jump from peace to alliance.
-
Speaking of which, Federations are always interesting. Federates always federate a new federate. Breaking it makes the other federates turn against the breaker. This leads to strange diplomatic stances sometimes.
Best just to leave it at peace if one wants some calm stuff.
-
Federates always federate a new federate.
This is only partially true: http://bugs.battlemaster.org/view.php?id=5897
Being only partially transitive, you can end up with some weird behavior. Such as Westmoor being allied to Perdan and Federated with Ibladesh, while Perdan and Ibladesh are at war. ???
-
No no, that doesn't disprove what I said depending on the sequence. If Westmoor had already been Federates with Ibladesh when they got alliance with Perdan, then the Federation wouldn't kick in because the Alliance takes precedence.
Er, too difficult. Head hurt. Not trying to explain anymore.
-
No no, that doesn't disprove what I said depending on the sequence. If Westmoor had already been Federates with Ibladesh when they got alliance with Perdan, then the Federation wouldn't kick in because the Alliance takes precedence.
That wouldn't have been allowed. Perdan was at war with Ibladesh. If Westmoor was federated to Ibladesh, then they could not have allied with Perdan because of the Perdan/Ibby war.
The federation transience bug only kicks in when two separately federated groups try to merge. If A/B are federated, and C/D are separately federated. In this case if B and C federate, then A/C become federated, as do B/D. However, A/D do NOT become federated, and could theoretically even be at war. Thus A/B/C are federated, as are B/C/D. But A/D are at war. This particular arrangement should be impossible, given the way diplomacy is supposed to work.
-
Man...head hurts. Too complicated. In my mind it's war or not war. That's pretty much my idiot's reduction, which probably works just as well anyway.