I'm not entirely sure if this is wrong but from what I've been told there is something amiss.
Under the old takeover system regions were supposed to be in control of the ones who have the takeover. As I understand it the defender is usually the one the game considers "in control" of the region. Winning a battle doesn't mean you're auto in control except to be able to loot and dismantle things. However starting a takeover has always made the one running the takeover to be the defacto defender because they are in control of the region. Doesn't make any sense otherwise surely because how could they be "taking it over" without being the dominant power for that turn. Also, regions under a takeover are not meant to be able to provide recruits.
If this is all correct then there is an issue with the current Aurvandil takeover of Madina's capital.
Every battle we've had since the takeover has started Madina has continued to have the walls. From what more experienced players have said the walls are meant to be unusable for both sides if there is a takeover running. One turn there were rogues which joined the attackers (Aurvandil) against the Madina defenders. The defenders had the walls again. The next turn no Madinians rallied and we became the defenders and got attacked by the rogues. Neither of us had the walls. The next morning after that (today) Madina has the walls again. Surely this isn't supposed to happen, and if it is it's a rather serious flaw in the new takeover system which is going to be costly for us. We're in the city, chatting the locals, and occasionally dismantling the walls, but then we decide its much more fun to go outside and use our siege engines when it comes to doing battle? ???
Second to this, if what I said earlier is true Madina shouldn't be able to recruit troops in the region because its under takeoever. I'm not sure if this changes because it's a capital but the Madinians have constantly been rallying up and recruiting up units which weren't there before. Again, if the region is under takeover how can it be used to recruit in? Surely that doesn't make any sense. Apparently under the old system you couldn't recruit in a city under a takeover but I don't have any personal experience to go off on this.
Some clarity from the Devs on this might be helpful.
Also as an end note I would say that both Aurvandil and Madina's players think the new takeoever system is pretty bad... we're getting 50+ messages every turn which are almost all the same. As much as I like knowing who is and who isn't following orders its very droll. Also the takeover doesn't seem to run the region into any negative stats so even though its 70% complete the region is still on full morale, full loyalty and so far has remained on Core control, which means there's nothing negative for the host realm who are suffering the takeoever. This doesn't seem to make much sense either. I don't know if this has simply been overlooked with the new system.
If you're doing a fully friendly takeover, how much would the region really suffer though?
I did notice as well that the new TO doesn't make the Realm running it automatically defenders though. I agree there.
A long time ago, we made the rule that in case of doubt, the owner of the region is always the defender.
The defender will usually have the walls. While it is not "realistic", simply consider it as having to conquer the city street-by-street.
There are some circumstances where the defenders don't have the walls. The most usual one is when all "defenders" have actually just arrived from a different region, i.e. they are coming in from elsewhere to break your TO.
But as long as at least one unit remains in the city, you should assume that they will have the walls.
Quote from: Tom on January 30, 2012, 03:32:54 PM
A long time ago, we made the rule that in case of doubt, the owner of the region is always the defender.
The defender will usually have the walls. While it is not "realistic", simply consider it as having to conquer the city street-by-street.
There are some circumstances where the defenders don't have the walls. The most usual one is when all "defenders" have actually just arrived from a different region, i.e. they are coming in from elsewhere to break your TO.
But as long as at least one unit remains in the city, you should assume that they will have the walls.
This may be true, Tom, but for years, when a takeover is running, no one has gotten the walls.
Quote from: Allomere on January 30, 2012, 01:05:04 PM
Also as an end note I would say that both Aurvandil and Madina's players think the new takeoever system is pretty bad... we're getting 50+ messages every turn which are almost all the same. As much as I like knowing who is and who isn't following orders its very droll. Also the takeover doesn't seem to run the region into any negative stats so even though its 70% complete the region is still on full morale, full loyalty and so far has remained on Core control, which means there's nothing negative for the host realm who are suffering the takeoever. This doesn't seem to make much sense either. I don't know if this has simply been overlooked with the new system.
Yeah, the messages are probably excessive. But then you have a special situation. 50 messages? Are you really running a TO with 50 people? Or do you run one with 20 people and everyone does 3 different TO actions per turn? Then let me tell you that is a bad decision. Like all things in BM, doing the same thing twice for half the hours
always results in less result than doing it once with full hours.
And it is intentional that the TO does not damage the region. If you want to do damage, loot.
Quote from: Allomere on January 30, 2012, 01:05:04 PM
Also the takeover doesn't seem to run the region into any negative stats so even though its 70% complete the region is still on full morale, full loyalty and so far has remained on Core control, which means there's nothing negative for the host realm who are suffering the takeoever. This doesn't seem to make much sense either. I don't know if this has simply been overlooked with the new system.
No taxes are collected or given out to the nobles of the region while it is being taken over. That is a huge negative if you ask me. At least this is the case in BT, on tax day got a message that I don't get tax because a TO is currently running in my region. The TO never succeeded so we will have to wait to see what happens next tax day.
Quote from: Anaris on January 30, 2012, 03:44:39 PMThis may be true, Tom, but for years, when a takeover is running, no one has gotten the walls.
This was my understanding, and experience, as well. When a takeover is running, the force running the takeover is
always the defender. Anyone trying to break the takeover must attack them, without the benefit of the walls, even if they are the region owner.
I am unsure of the recruitment issue, as I don't have much experience with my own capital being under takeover.
Quote from: Telrunya on January 30, 2012, 01:47:54 PM
If you're doing a fully friendly takeover, how much would the region really suffer though?
Control should surely suffer, you're killing or kicking out officials and the like. Its an entire change of government. Loyalty should suffer too, surely. I mean; especially under a friendly takoever which is suceeding. The people are choosing to be less loyal, that is the definition of a friendly takoever. All of which would mean they can't draft and the like.
Quote from: Tom on January 30, 2012, 03:47:16 PM
Yeah, the messages are probably excessive. But then you have a special situation. 50 messages? Are you really running a TO with 50 people? Or do you run one with 20 people and everyone does 3 different TO actions per turn?
We've got 42 chevaliers doing roughly one takeover action per turn. Add that to a very few letters, scout reports or demolishion reports and it's just sheer monotony. It's worse than looting because looting has a limit afterall.
Quote from: Anaris on January 30, 2012, 03:44:39 PM
This may be true, Tom, but for years, when a takeover is running, no one has gotten the walls.
Yeah, this is quite a big problem then. I can understand fighting street to street, but then the streets don't have Walls and barbicans all along them. Its unfortunate we seem to be one of the first few to take on a city, and a Capital at that, when this is going through testing. I fear we might lose the takeover because of this, when Madina was pretty much totally beaten.
What about the recruitment issue? A few of the older players have said they're pretty sure you can't recruit in the capital when the capital is under a takeover. We're not entirely sure though.
Quote from: Indirik on January 30, 2012, 05:31:32 PM
I am unsure of the recruitment issue, as I don't have much experience with my own capital being under takeover.
Ah, this addresses the last bit in my reply. Thanks.
Quote from: Allomere on January 30, 2012, 05:40:04 PM
What about the recruitment issue? A few of the older players have said they're pretty sure you can't recruit in the capital when the capital is under a takeover. We're not entirely sure though.
Don't know if it was ever changed, but way back in the day, I am sure I could recruit both militia and a unit in my capital while a TO was running. How else would you manage to break a TO if you can't recruit at all?
We managed to win the battle, but they did have the walls again.
Quote from: Allomere on January 30, 2012, 05:40:04 PM
Control should surely suffer, you're killing or kicking out officials and the like. Its an entire change of government. Loyalty should suffer too, surely. I mean; especially under a friendly takoever which is suceeding. The people are choosing to be less loyal, that is the definition of a friendly takoever. All of which would mean they can't draft and the like.
That last part is a non-sequitur. Drafting is not hindered by low loyalty.
And no, you are not making anyone less loyal. You are making them love
you more. There are actions in the game that specifically lower loyalty, such as certain priest or diplomat actions.
I don't disagree entirely, the new TO system is not yet integrated fully and there should be some effects - but you seem to want the simple act of starting a TO to act like a super-weapon - disable use of walls, disable recruitment, damage all kinds of stats - and that is just dramatically unbalanced.
Quote from: Allomere on January 30, 2012, 05:40:04 PM
What about the recruitment issue? A few of the older players have said they're pretty sure you can't recruit in the capital when the capital is under a takeover. We're not entirely sure though.
That is nonsense. You can recruit in the capital when it is under takeover. There are many things you can't do after you have lost a battle, and recruitment is among those. Maybe that causes the confusion. But that has nothing to do with TO or not, it's simply a consequence of your unit having to rally.
Actually how much the people love Aurvandil has decreased since we started the takeover according to the stats. The region has gone from Loyal to Indifferent to us, and yet the takoever says it is succeeding and is nearly complete, so if its just a case of making the people like you more it's not entirely squared by what the game actually says to you in the stats. Even if a priest or a diplomat is working against us the stats should surely also be influenced by the takoever and show the people moving to liking us more rather than disliking us. That was more my point. If the opposite was true how can the takeover be succeeding .. there has to be a shift in relation somewhere.
No, I'm not advocating takeover being a super-weapon whatsoever ... look, I'm fairly new to all this anyway, which is why I'm asking not telling. We just seem to understand that a region under a takoever doesn't give you recruits, so since the new system has already failed us regarding the walls it's not too hard to also move to asking if its not got a fault somewhere else, and then the point was made about recruitment.
It does seem logically flawed that recruits which are clearly in the capital when you hire them are suddenly unavailable if a region 200 miles away they happen to come from has enemies trying to take it over, yet when those very same actions are being taken by an enemy army in that city where you are suddenly every man in the region is still up for hire, and the takeover force isn't doing something to neutralise possible recruitment despite the fact its happening in that very location. I know you can demolish RC's to stop that, but only the ones in the region at the time. So there are still soldiers for hire mulling around, and the conquerors being totally fine with knights walking along and taking them under their banner and readying them to fight in the next battle.
Hence, I don't think its much of an unreasonable question to ask. Thanks for clearing it up though.
Quote from: Allomere on January 30, 2012, 07:31:38 PM
Actually how much the people love Aurvandil has decreased since we started the takeover according to the stats.
That is, for the moment, an unrelated stat. I've posted that in the New TO System topic when it was activated.
Quote from: Allomere on January 30, 2012, 07:31:38 PM
It does seem logically flawed
Yes.
The whole recruitment system is entirely artificial and works the way it does mostly for game-balance reasons, not for realism reasons, however:
Quote from: Allomere on January 30, 2012, 07:31:38 PM
and the conquerors being totally fine with knights walking along and taking them under their banner and readying them to fight in the next battle.
That is where you make a faulty assumption. You see, you are
not yet in control of the region. You have won on the battlefield, but you are not in control of the region. Ask any veteran from Iraq if you don't see what the difference is. The TO is the action by which you establish that control. So it's not like people would walk into the barracks right under your nose.
Quote from: Tom on January 30, 2012, 07:49:56 PM
That is where you make a faulty assumption. You see, you are not yet in control of the region. You have won on the battlefield, but you are not in control of the region. Ask any veteran from Iraq if you don't see what the difference is. The TO is the action by which you establish that control. So it's not like people would walk into the barracks right under your nose.
I'm aware what the difference is, but in this particular case we're talking about something, let's be honest, entirely different from Iraq. The two aren't even comparable. The army is in the Stronghold, which isn't a big city (or indeed a city at all) but which is the only place soldiers from all over the realm are apparently gathered awaiting hire. We've been there almost a week, our army is 24% of the entire regional population so it's not like we're thinly spread, considering a good number of them won't be in the castle anyway. So if the defender knights are in the rather small, militarily occupied, takeover-almost-complete castle, with every other person there being their enemy, it's highly unlikely to think they could wander along and hire men who would surely have been neutralised anyway.
As much as its a faulty assumption game-wise, it is by no means illogical when given some context, especially if you think of it in terms of a RL situation. Thats why it's not really a ridiculous question to ask when you have no idea of how that particular part of the game works.
I'm not trying to
challenge that part of the game, I'm fine if thats how it's coded to be, I just wanted clarity on
if that actually was how it worked.
Yes, that is how it works, and how it is apparently supposed to work. As others have pointed out, if they couldn't recruit, then it would be trivially easy to kill a realm just by occupying its capital. Realms should be harder to kill than that.
just imagine there's an inner keep that you can't breach and where the defenders withdraw to (you breach it when you've TO'ed the region)
I've sometimes wondered whether a region that is just a stronghold that shows a tower really is just that tower. Because, you know...that would mean those towers are HUGE.
I think the control of the walls part is still the most relevant for the discussion and has been a bit overlooked. I have played bm since 5 years by now and as far as I can remember taking over a region ALWAYS disabled the chance for defenders to have the walls. That's a strategic key fact that every proper general knew and that hugely influenced several wars.
I do not have currently a definite opinion on whether would be right or wrong to keep or remove that feature, because I also think it makes sense what Tom says about simulating in a sense a fight street by street. I would just like to stress that this is no little change in the strategic-combat side of the game and should be thought thoroughly. Conquering a city will become extremely hard (as it certainly should be, but one should think whether it would become impossible), and that's particularly relevant with places such as dwilight with sea routes chokepoints that would reduce wars to a bunch of sieges.
Quote from: Peri on January 30, 2012, 10:56:54 PM
I think the control of the walls part is still the most relevant for the discussion and has been a bit overlooked. I have played bm since 5 years by now and as far as I can remember taking over a region ALWAYS disabled the chance for defenders to have the walls. That's a strategic key fact that every proper general knew and that hugely influenced several wars.
I do not have currently a definite opinion on whether would be right or wrong to keep or remove that feature, because I also think it makes sense what Tom says about simulating in a sense a fight street by street. I would just like to stress that this is no little change in the strategic-combat side of the game and should be thought thoroughly. Conquering a city will become extremely hard (as it certainly should be, but one should think whether it would become impossible), and that's particularly relevant with places such as dwilight with sea routes chokepoints that would reduce wars to a bunch of sieges.
The main problem as I see it, is it is a real shock when you first encounter the change. Once you know about it strategic plans can change to accomidate it, but that first time could be a real disaster.
Quote from: Allomere on January 30, 2012, 08:12:14 PM
I'm aware what the difference is, but in this particular case we're talking about something, let's be honest, entirely different from Iraq. The two aren't even comparable. The army is in the Stronghold, which isn't a big city (or indeed a city at all) but which is the only place soldiers from all over the realm are apparently gathered awaiting hire.
It would be more realistic for all those recruits to serve as militia, manning the walls when you attack. But you probably wouldn't like all those 'free' soldiers defending, would you?
Quote from: egamma on January 31, 2012, 12:59:57 AM
It would be more realistic for all those recruits to serve as militia, manning the walls when you attack. But you probably wouldn't like all those 'free' soldiers defending, would you?
Yes, this "realism" would make it pretty much 100% impossible to take over a capitol of a realm without first destroying the entire rest of the realm.
Quote from: De-Legro on January 30, 2012, 11:13:39 PM
The main problem as I see it, is it is a real shock when you first encounter the change. Once you know about it strategic plans can change to accomidate it, but that first time could be a real disaster.
You are probably right for cities. I couldn't easily imagine situation in taking over a city where there would be a large difference, besides taking over the capital perhaps. For townslands things could be different. After all, most of the times they are not garrisoned with enough troops to fend of a frontal assault, and the chance to use the walls even if the enemy broke in may make their defense not as primary as before.
However Tom also said that if the defenders move in without any other defending unit in the region they would not be defenders anyway - so that walls would not be usable most of the times anyway I think. How are militia and partisans considered in this case? Because having the difference between using or not using the walls in the hands of a scattered remaining militia unit is a bit unbalancing.
Quote from: Peri on January 31, 2012, 10:31:30 AM
However Tom also said that if the defenders move in without any other defending unit in the region they would not be defenders anyway - so that walls would not be usable most of the times anyway I think. How are militia and partisans considered in this case? Because having the difference between using or not using the walls in the hands of a scattered remaining militia unit is a bit unbalancing.
This is also the case with peasant militia that rise up to prevent looting will grant walls to the region owner. This is why as a general you wait for the peasants to rise up before attacking. It has also been "abused" in the past where a duke would raise militia in the city at the same time a relieving force moved in from another region to grant the defenders walls. This is not new, I have not been a general for a couple of years and this was happening back then.
Quote from: Eithad on January 31, 2012, 04:35:05 PM
This is also the case with peasant militia that rise up to prevent looting will grant walls to the region owner. This is why as a general you wait for the peasants to rise up before attacking. It has also been "abused" in the past where a duke would raise militia in the city at the same time a relieving force moved in from another region to grant the defenders walls. This is not new, I have not been a general for a couple of years and this was happening back then.
It was also extensively discussed and rules to not be an abuse.
Quote from: Tom on January 30, 2012, 03:47:16 PM
Like all things in BM, doing the same thing twice for half the hours always results in less result than doing it once with full hours.
What about looting after the peasant militia has formed? Looting in three-hour blocks gives you more chances to slip past them, rather than looting in a single big block.
Quote from: Velax on January 31, 2012, 08:50:48 PM
What about looting after the peasant militia has formed? Looting in three-hour blocks gives you more chances to slip past them, rather than looting in a single big block.
Uh, no it doesn't?
Quote from: Velax on January 31, 2012, 08:50:48 PM
What about looting after the peasant militia has formed? Looting in three-hour blocks gives you more chances to slip past them, rather than looting in a single big block.
Quote from: Tom on January 31, 2012, 09:19:04 PM
Uh, no it doesn't?
The assumption here is that since you are performing more actions, you have more chances to slip past. The argument against it is that every action that is successful is less effective due to the reduced hours. In the end it should pretty much balance out.
Quote from: Tom on January 31, 2012, 09:19:04 PM
Uh, no it doesn't?
Well, the hope was that if I, and the many others who subscribe to this belief, were wrong, you might explain why. Too much to ask for?
Quote from: Velax on January 31, 2012, 10:07:00 PM
Well, the hope was that if I, and the many others who subscribe to this belief, were wrong, you might explain why. Too much to ask for?
Probability. The chance of each individual action succeeding does not change because of the hours spent. A single 3 hour looting has the same chance as a single 12 hour loot. What people rely on is that four 3 hour loots have a better chance of at least 1 succeeding. However that mission will be less successful, and in general with BM a 3 hour action is less effective then 1/4 of the 12 hour effect. Given a big enough sample group, the total amount of hours that are successful shouldn't change, but if you employed 12 hour lootings instead of 3 hour loots, the effects of those hours would be greater.
At least that is my take on it.
Quote from: Velax on January 31, 2012, 10:07:00 PM
Well, the hope was that if I, and the many others who subscribe to this belief, were wrong, you might explain why. Too much to ask for?
Because the game isn't intended to have game-able loopholes like that.
If you think you've found something of that nature—for instance, that training at the academy in three blocks of four hours is always better than two blocks of six hours, or that paying your troops every three days means you pay them less than if you pay them every seven—well, first of all, it's almost certainly wrong, so make sure you get
at least a dozen data points to back up your claims. But if you can prove it with real data, it's almost certainly a bug, and should be reported as such.
Quote from: Anaris on January 31, 2012, 10:16:29 PM
Because the game isn't intended to have game-able loopholes like that.
What he says.
For years, I have been trying to eliminate any "gamey" aspect where you'd do something that makes no sense otherwise just because due to some game-mechanics it is better to do it this way than the other one.
Quote from: Anaris on January 31, 2012, 10:16:29 PM
Because the game isn't intended to have game-able loopholes like that.
If you think you've found something of that nature—for instance, that training at the academy in three blocks of four hours is always better than two blocks of six hours, or that paying your troops every three days means you pay them less than if you pay them every seven—well, first of all, it's almost certainly wrong, so make sure you get at least a dozen data points to back up your claims. But if you can prove it with real data, it's almost certainly a bug, and should be reported as such.
Quote from: Tom on January 31, 2012, 10:26:41 PM
What he says.
For years, I have been trying to eliminate any "gamey" aspect where you'd do something that makes no sense otherwise just because due to some game-mechanics it is better to do it this way than the other one.
To be fair, these aren't exactly high priority bugs... and I know of at least one that's been around since the last major code revision...
What about for provoking additional militias after the first so you lower the region's population faster? With experience one of my characters is having right now, it only takes 1, at most 2 successful loots after the first militia forms to provoke a second one even using three-hour blocks. So the more chances you have to get those successes, the more likely you are to provoke more militia.
As a side note, pay two healers every day and it costs you 7 gold a week instead of 10.
Quote from: Velax on January 31, 2012, 10:34:42 PMWhat about for provoking additional militias after the first so you lower the region's population faster? With experience one of my characters is having right now, it only takes 1, at most 2 successful loots after the first militia forms to provoke a second one even using three-hour blocks. So the more chances you have to get those successes, the more likely you are to provoke more militia.
This. When looting a region to do significant damage, the intention is almost always to make militia pop, then kill them to depopulate the region. Killing 600 peasants is *way* more damaging that doing than lowering production by 2%, or stealing the last 2 gold from the tax coffers. And once you get that first militia to pop, the rest come pretty easily. So, yeah, a 3 hour looting may not do much Production/gold/etc. damage to the region, but a 3 hour looting pops as big of a militia unit as a 12 hour looting. And if all you care about is slaughtering the peasants, then the more *chances* you get to pop that militia, the better off you are.
Quote from: Indirik on February 01, 2012, 02:33:36 AM
This. When looting a region to do significant damage, the intention is almost always to make militia pop, then kill them to depopulate the region. Killing 600 peasants is *way* more damaging that doing than lowering production by 2%, or stealing the last 2 gold from the tax coffers. And once you get that first militia to pop, the rest come pretty easily. So, yeah, a 3 hour looting may not do much Production/gold/etc. damage to the region, but a 3 hour looting pops as big of a militia unit as a 12 hour looting. And if all you care about is slaughtering the peasants, then the more *chances* you get to pop that militia, the better off you are.
Yes, this is very true. I imagine we will need to discuss if it is intended or if it needs to change in some way. There are still places like this were you can "game" the system with hours. When they are brought up they can be addressed.
Is it really gaming the system, though? I just think of it as attempting to loot several different places. If there are too many peasants guarding one particular spot, we try another.
If you fail a loot due to militia, doesn't it just take three hours anyways no matter how many hours you were trying to devote? So if you fail a twelve hour loot, then it just costs three hours, so you just do a nine hour attempt, then a six, then your last three if for some reason none of the others go through...
Currently, your realm has about 0% of the fear and 101% of the sympathy you need to complete the takeover.
(actions done this turn are not yet included in this estimate)
Um..
Quote from: Allomere on February 01, 2012, 07:14:21 AM
Currently, your realm has about 0% of the fear and 101% of the sympathy you need to complete the takeover.
(actions done this turn are not yet included in this estimate)
Um..
What you didn't realize it was impossible to actually defeat Madina? lol...jk
Quote from: Allomere on February 01, 2012, 07:14:21 AM
Currently, your realm has about 0% of the fear and 101% of the sympathy you need to complete the takeover.
(actions done this turn are not yet included in this estimate)
Um..
Read the the actual page of the takeover, it says very clearly why on there.
"the actual page"
.......
The takeover actions page, the page where you choose what actions to take to support the takeover, it explains very clearly what you need to do for the takeover to progress and succeed.
That is a quote directly from the takeover page. We know what needs to be done to proceed the takeover, we've been doing it for almost a week. The point is we're already apparently over 100% sympathy in a sympathy takeover and it has not concluded.
Because you need both.
You can't do, the two different set of actions clearly massively counter-act each other, and how can a Sympathy takeover require fully the same amount of Fear/hostile actions as an actual Hostile takeover. A lot of our actions have raised fear as well but the fear stat hasn't even increased by 1%, yet the Sympathy is reportedly more than 100%.
Also, if that is the case and we need 100% in both then the region will take a full 28 turns to complete. Which means with anything less than 2000 men and more than 40 nobles is is nigh impossible to take a region like this. And since few other armies will comprise that many men and 24,000 CS I don't think that is a workable system at all.
Either the takeover still needs to conclude at the coming turn, having this turn only just gone over 100%, or there is actually an issue in the system as a whole. Either way, it shouldn't be saying there is 101% Sympathy if there actually isn't, nor should it require there to be more than 100%, because that is just madness.
Quote from: Draco Tanos on February 01, 2012, 09:46:17 AM
Because you need both.
No you don't. Please don't post answers when you don't know them. You require only Love or Fear to reach 100%. Solaria took Dantooine with 100% Love and 0% Fear.
Quote from: Allomere on February 01, 2012, 09:57:38 AM
Also, if that is the case and we need 100% in both then the region will take a full 28 turns to complete. Which means with anything less than 2000 men and more than 40 nobles is is nigh impossible to take a region like this. And since few other armies will comprise that many men and 24,000 CS I don't think that is a workable system at all.
On Dwilight maybe. On other islands 24k CS is not so rare. But that doesn't matter, you are correct that the TO should only need one or the other to complete.
I led the army taking Vozzessdor and Wudenkin on BT (believe Vozz was the old system and only Wudenkin the new, but I'm fuzzy on that part). We used Sympathy, but NEEDED a small percentage of Fear, otherwise it would not work.
I doubt you could have 100% of both, due to their counteracting. Would require a ton of work to keep the one up at 100% while the other rose as well.
Quote from: Draco Tanos on February 01, 2012, 10:42:23 AM
I led the army taking Vozzessdor and Wudenkin on BT (believe Vozz was the old system and only Wudenkin the new, but I'm fuzzy on that part). We used Sympathy, but NEEDED a small percentage of Fear, otherwise it would not work.
I doubt you could have 100% of both, due to their counteracting. Would require a ton of work to keep the one up at 100% while the other rose as well.
Looking at the code, it is simply NOT true that you need both, or even a small percentage of one. In the future Tom has stated that you will be required to balance Love and Fear or once the TO is complete you will have side effects. But right now all you need to do it hit either the required Love or the required Fear. Something else seems to be going on with this particular Takeover.
*shrugs* Well, we have about 5 to 10% Fear during our Sympathy takeover. It worked.
Quote from: Draco Tanos on February 01, 2012, 11:00:50 AM
*shrugs* Well, we have about 5 to 10% Fear during our Sympathy takeover. It worked.
And like I said, when I led the Solarian Force to take Dantooine we had NONE. Know what, it worked also. You know why? Cause fear is currently irrelevant to a Love takeover.
Well as long as the takeover works by evening turn I won't complain ;D if not ...
... Might just order we burn the whole place to the ground.
Quote from: Allomere on February 01, 2012, 11:12:06 AM
Well as long as the takeover works by evening turn I won't complain ;D if not ...
... Might just order we burn the whole place to the ground.
I'm not all that confident of your chances of the TO ending this turn. It might just be a rounding error, but I doubt it. I've been looking through the code but can't see the problem. I don't have access to the live DB so I can't check the current totals against the required level to see if something weird is going on there.
Quote from: Allomere on February 01, 2012, 07:14:21 AM
Currently, your realm has about 0% of the fear and 101% of the sympathy you need to complete the takeover.
(actions done this turn are not yet included in this estimate)
Um..
Two reasons. One, it is an estimate. Two, if factors influencing not your progress, but how much you need change during the turn, that will be factored in. So yes, you can go above 100%. The TO should complete at the next turn.
In a more complete notice:
For the moment, you need either value to pass 100% to complete the TO. However, I plan to add a third option for a balanced TO. Basically, if the sum of your efforts sums up to more than 100%, you got it. But that's not yet implemented.
Quote from: Tom on February 01, 2012, 11:57:20 AM
In a more complete notice:
For the moment, you need either value to pass 100% to complete the TO. However, I plan to add a third option for a balanced TO. Basically, if the sum of your efforts sums up to more than 100%, you got it. But that's not yet implemented.
So why all the TO action options. People will and already have been ordered to perform a single TO action repeatedly that maximises one and completely ignore the other value.
The idea is that eventually there will be different "types' of TOs. And that maxing one while ignoring the other will cause problems post-TO. So players are therefore offered a blend of options, in order to allow them to tailor the TO to their needs, and the "flavor" of their realm. Things are being discussed to perhaps convert regular region control to work along the fear/love scale as well. You can then choose to ruler your realm with an iron fist of fear, or through popular support and love. Or perhaps a mix of both.
Quote from: Eithad on February 01, 2012, 04:13:43 PM
So why all the TO action options. People will and already have been ordered to perform a single TO action repeatedly that maximises one and completely ignore the other value.
Yes, I know I should probably explain more about them. Feel free to copy this to the Wiki or something, with the caveat that this is the current status and may change in the future:
Those options are not just on a scale from most fear- to most love-producing. They also differ in other aspects, for example in the risk they contain (i.e. the spread). Some are slow but reliable, others are more risky but can speed things up. But the main effect is that very soon now, they will have lasting consequences, and you may want to refrain from the extreme options because it means much more work to patch things up after the TO.
Region Taken (11 minutes ago)
message to all nobles of Aurvandil
We have successfully convinced the people of Tower Fatmilak to raise our banner and abandon their old allegiance to Madina.
The region joins the duchy of Candiels.
;D ;D ;D
.. and then there's this -
Out-of-Character from Mendicant Anhangar (just in)
Message sent to everyone in your realm (43 recipients)
Will some one be able to go on the forum for me and report a bug? I cannot appoint a new lord in Tower Fatmilak, it only gives me an error message on the drop down list.
http://imageshack.us/f/52/dfe.png/ (http://imageshack.us/f/52/dfe.png/)
Ackerson Cole
Do you know how long (days/turns) it took to finish the TO?
Quote from: Allomere on February 01, 2012, 06:27:30 PM
Region Taken (11 minutes ago)
message to all nobles of Aurvandil
We have successfully convinced the people of Tower Fatmilak to raise our banner and abandon their old allegiance to Madina.
The region joins the duchy of Candiels.
;D ;D ;D
.. and then there's this -
Out-of-Character from Mendicant Anhangar (just in)
Message sent to everyone in your realm (43 recipients)
Will some one be able to go on the forum for me and report a bug? I cannot appoint a new lord in Tower Fatmilak, it only gives me an error message on the drop down list.
http://imageshack.us/f/52/dfe.png/ (http://imageshack.us/f/52/dfe.png/)
Ackerson Cole
What Duchy is the Tower now part of? If it is part of his Duchy then he will only be able to appoint someone that currently has no estate. If everyone has an estate that might cause the error when he tries to open the drop down list.
If it is part of another Duchy, then as Ruler he can appoint a Duke, but not a lord of the region. I'm thinking it is the first one though.
Quote from: Allomere on February 01, 2012, 06:27:30 PM
Will some one be able to go on the forum for me and report a bug? I cannot appoint a new lord in Tower Fatmilak, it only gives me an error message on the drop down list.
Bugs should be reported to the bugtracker, not the forum. Nevertheless, I've fixes this one, the fix will upload with the next update.
Quote from: Tom on February 01, 2012, 11:53:24 PM
Bugs should be reported to the bugtracker, not the forum. Nevertheless, I've fixes this one, the fix will upload with the next update.
People are confused about this because we had the bug thread for the big update.