BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => BM General Discussion => Topic started by: Azerax on January 19, 2013, 09:11:58 PM
-
Region A is in your realm for literally years always at 100%. Region is taken over, a couple days later you start taking it back and the population hates your realm when they've only been out of it for less than a week.
Anyways, just seems odd to me.
-
Region A is in your realm for literally years always at 100%. Region is taken over, a couple days later you start taking it back and the population hates your realm when they've only been out of it for less than a week.
Anyways, just seems odd to me.
Nobility overestimate peasant loyalty.
-
What's the situation around it? Diplomats, Ambassadors involved? Did the enemy Realm loot heavily before and during the TO? All those things can significantly lower loyalty to your Realm due your lack of protection. You're the one that forced that suffering on them in the first place!
-
Honestly, I'd love some sort of "culture" system added in ala CK2. Not sure how it'd really fit into the game though.
-
Can you elaborate for those that haven't played that?
-
There are cultures and subcultures in the game. Essentially say... The Greeks, with Byzantine subculture. For those under the same culture, it's easier to control the population because they aren't viewed as alien foreigners.
So let's say on EC there's the Perdanese culture group with Aixian, Ubenteese, and Westmoorian subcultures. Say Sirion invaded and annexed some Westmoorian lands and they have their own culture. Their control over the regions would be much more difficult until they managed to turn the population (something that'd take either time or boosted by various actions). Yet if Perdan took Troyes from Westmoor, the peasants would be far quicker to accept them, as they're the same culture group.
Now, the subcultures might be too hard for BM to implement but it would be a very fun addition to the game.
-
Having played CK2 a lot, while I love the culture mechanic (spreading culture is vital towards maintaining a large empire) I don't see it as very feasible in Battlemaster. It would just be an additional headache to deal with and make things needlessly complicated. CK2 is a game made to be needlessly complicated. BM is supposed to be relatively simple.
-
That's the thing, we could attempt to simplify it.
Though you have to admit, it'd be kind of awesome to have our families adopt cultures and spread them to other continents.
-
There is a government style mechanic already in place. That's the source of the dreaded "the peasants don't integrate well".
-
Draco, It would be cool, I just don't think it fits BM's style, and there are much more important things for the game to have added, at least imo.
Indirik, and all others, I think that I can safely say that Crusader Kings II is probably the mainstream game which is most similar to Battlemaster's game concept or evolution of what BM provides in some manner. At least for the politics portion/family/and that sort of thing. Granted its primarily a 1p game, but So many of its concepts are done well in that respect.
But, as I said, CK2 is needlessly complicated. Its for a very detailed strategy gamer to play.
-
Crusader Kings is on the simplistic side, actually. On the scale of complexity, CK ranks dead last when compared to Paradox's other in-house titles. Here is how I would rank them, on that scale: Victoria > Hearts of Iron > Europa Universalis > Crusader Kings.
As for as translating the culture feature into Battlemaster correctly, that is impossible. Crusader Kings justifies it's culture mechanic as a means of achieving a level of realism. It succeeds at doing so, by basing the cultures on existent historical cultures. Battlemaster does not attempt realism; it takes place entirely in a fantasy setting. Therefore an attempt at realism, such as the culture mechanic, is useless.
Furthermore, cultures in Battlemaster already exist, through the form of roleplay. Aurvandil has something called "Aurvandeux" culture (forgive me if I spelled that incorrectly); Sirion has an elf culture, although it's never explicitly mentioned; and of course there are some other cultures that are often referenced, indirectly or otherwise. So an 'official' culture system would be stepping on the toes of the roleplayed culture system already in effect.
-
Crusader Kings is on the simplistic side, actually. On the scale of complexity, CK ranks dead last when compared to Paradox's other in-house titles. Here is how I would rank them, on that scale: Victoria > Hearts of Iron > Europa Universalis > Crusader Kings.
True, but not really related. CK2 is much more complex than BM. That's really all that mattered in my statements.
-
Furthermore, cultures in Battlemaster already exist, through the form of roleplay. Aurvandil has something called "Aurvandeux" culture (forgive me if I spelled that incorrectly); Sirion has an elf culture, although it's never explicitly mentioned; and of course there are some other cultures that are often referenced, indirectly or otherwise. So an 'official' culture system would be stepping on the toes of the roleplayed culture system already in effect.
You are implying that if such a system wasn't made that it wouldn't take such things into account. I have a feeling they would certainly try to do just that simply because such RP is exactly what would fit in with the mindset of the culture system.
-
For every geographic region, a culture is assigned. Could be whatever. For realms that lie in multiple geographic zones, the majority or the culture of the capital region becomes the one the game considers. Whenever a realm tries to take a region out of the culture group, it will face integration problems, plus some sort of modifier to increase unrest, and possibility of revolting to a realm in its culture group. This would also empower smaller realms, and create reasons for tension, by giving realms valid casus belli. IMO, it should be permanent and unchanging, regardless of player actions. Forget about the subculture part, which through extremely interesting, would likely make it very complicated to code.
Crusader Kings is on the simplistic side, actually. On the scale of complexity, CK ranks dead last when compared to Paradox's other in-house titles. Here is how I would rank them, on that scale: Victoria > Hearts of Iron > Europa Universalis > Crusader Kings.
Victoria's also the best ;D
-
You want the culture okf a region to be permanent and unchanging? I.e. take the current relams as they stand, and say "these are the natural borders of realms, and trying to do any different will be increasingly difficult"?
Also, not only would this make it more difficult for large realms to take regions from small realms, it would also make it nearly impossible for small realms to take things from bigger realms.
-
One way I could see this working is give each realm it's own culture, and then the culture can be spread by ambassadors, allowing for claims to be made on foreign regions or ambassador wars escalating into real wars.
-
Don't we already have this, with the sympathy stat? How would this differ from that?
-
Don't we already have this, with the sympathy stat? How would this differ from that?
Nobody is going to say "Your peasants like us, give us your region!" and expect to get away with it. But to free your own people from the yoke of another culture, who may just have been oppressing your own age-old traditions, that's generally a more acceptable casus belli.
P.S.: Also I'd limit it to regions adjacent to regions with your predominant culture already. It'd make for war on a smaller scale as if you go to war with that casus belli, it's harder to explain pushing much further.
-
Historically, culture has proven to be very resilient. Over the course of decades, the Russian Empire attempted to assimilate many of the cultures amidst it's captured territories; however this proved ineffective, and today Russia is still one of the most multicultural countries in the world. Battlemaster cultures are crudely modelled after the likes of which the Russian Empire sought to destroy, therefore it doesn't make sense that they could be exchanged so easily, in such a short amount of time, purely through the works of a single diplomat.
-
If anything like this were to happen, cultures would not be added with any particular relation to current realm borders. They would be added with relation to geographic borders.
This means that, for instance, it is likely that the island with Madina on it would have one culture, and the western mainland up to the Zuma area would have another.
Culture is not created by nobles. It can be influenced by them, but you can't just state that "because our realm has conquered all the regions out to here, that means that all these regions share the same culture!"
-
Well, no... I was looking at it from a gameplay point of view to create more conflict. I don't think there will be more conflict if the cultures are fixed to geographic regions.
-
Well, no... I was looking at it from a gameplay point of view to create more conflict. I don't think there will be more conflict if the cultures are fixed to geographic regions.
Exactly and anyways realms have controlled most of their regions to have a culture put in place in all of them already.
-
Something like this would have to be something that could be changed over time.
But... I'm still not sure if this is just needlessly over-complicating things. What does this really add to the game, beyond frustration for conquerors, and supporting the status quo? Seems like it would just be another means of making wars harder.
-
Well, no... I was looking at it from a gameplay point of view to create more conflict. I don't think there will be more conflict if the cultures are fixed to geographic regions.
I didn't say it would be fixed to geographic regions. I said that's how it would start.
Something like this would have to be something that could be changed over time.
But... I'm still not sure if this is just needlessly over-complicating things. What does this really add to the game, beyond frustration for conquerors, and supporting the status quo? Seems like it would just be another means of making wars harder.
Yeah; I do like the idea, as an idea, but I'm really not sure it's something that would add enough to BM at the moment to be worthwhile.
-
Responding to the OP, seems like abandoning them to the enemy isn't exactly loyalty inspiring.
-
You want the culture okf a region to be permanent and unchanging? I.e. take the current relams as they stand, and say "these are the natural borders of realms, and trying to do any different will be increasingly difficult"?
Also, not only would this make it more difficult for large realms to take regions from small realms, it would also make it nearly impossible for small realms to take things from bigger realms.
No, I meant make it based on the climate zones or geographic zones. Not the realms. If the realm covers multiple culture zones, its becomes difficult for it to appease the different cultures. So, harder to maintain big realms, plus an incentive to run smaller realms. Realm is assigned an accepted culture based on the culture in its capital so while it may encompass many cultural regions, only one culture group enjoys first class status.
If a realm, say Simville, is small in such a scenario, it'd likely be because a larger realm like Badville had taken regions from Simville's culture group. So it's easier for Simville to retake those regions, because the peasants just like em more. Unless of course, both realms have the same primary culture.
-
Historically, culture has proven to be very resilient. Over the course of decades, the Russian Empire attempted to assimilate many of the cultures amidst it's captured territories; however this proved ineffective, and today Russia is still one of the most multicultural countries in the world. Battlemaster cultures are crudely modelled after the likes of which the Russian Empire sought to destroy, therefore it doesn't make sense that they could be exchanged so easily, in such a short amount of time, purely through the works of a single diplomat.
+1
-
I dislike setting up pre-defined areas of "culture" that help define what should be realm boundaries. That is counter to the long-standing policy of letting the realms develop however they want, and however they can. We're not interested in incentivizing small realms, or making it hard to maintain larger realms.
Again, I really don't see what big, positive change this brings to Battlemaster.