I've got something on my mind I wanted to share:
Campaigns
or, in a more technical term, ArmyGroups. Basically, that's all that a Campaign is: A group of armies and a shared purpose (i.e. a text field). The cool thing is that it can have armies from several realms. And people within any of those armies could message everyone in the campaign, with scout reports, or orders.
The idea here is that I'm thinking about removing the various "allies in this region", etc. messaging options and replacing them by this. A method to organize armies on a campaign, instead of all the undirected chatter.
Also, giving campaigns a purpose might be a step towards having wars with a goal, instead of "let's kill you".
Quote from: Tom on August 04, 2012, 02:18:19 PM
The idea here is that I'm thinking about removing the various "allies in this region", etc. messaging options and replacing them by this.
Please
STOP thinking about this. It's a terrible idea, for many reasons.
Just because it'll make the message system a little purer ideologically is not a good reason to do it.
If you remove those messaging options, you will have a huge player revolt on your hands.
YES, YES, YES, YES, YES.
Can Generals be the ones responsible for making these army-level assignments? This would've been a game changer in the last invasion. Also, options to message all generals and all marshals assigned to the ArmyGroups?
I'm not wading into the debate about streamlining the message system options, because I don't agree with the premise nor see how it's related to this proposal, but as an organizational tool for Generals and to allow for more fun, I think this is a good idea.
No, Tim, it is not for coding reasons.
I actually do want to remove those options. For a multitude of reasons. One is to give more strength to proper organisations, which is why I want to replace them with army messaging options. The other is to make a more conscious divide between "us" and "everyone else" by making allies not that much easier to message than enemies.
I don't think there will be a player revolt simply because of this one option disappearing. In face, if you are so certain, I'm willing to disable it in the current code for a week and see what the reaction is.
Quote from: Tom on August 04, 2012, 02:50:20 PM
No, Tim, it is not for coding reasons.
I actually do want to remove those options. For a multitude of reasons. One is to give more strength to proper organisations, which is why I want to replace them with army messaging options. The other is to make a more conscious divide between "us" and "everyone else" by making allies not that much easier to message than enemies.
I don't think there will be a player revolt simply because of this one option disappearing. In face, if you are so certain, I'm willing to disable it in the current code for a week and see what the reaction is.
Wait: Before you were talking about removing
all the "in region" messaging options. Is this different?
Please be specific, Tom.
Quote from: Solari on August 04, 2012, 02:47:24 PM
Can Generals be the ones responsible for making these army-level assignments? This would've been a game changer in the last invasion. Also, options to message all generals and all marshals assigned to the ArmyGroups?
Yes, the care and feeding of campaigns would be in the hand of generals. And yes, there would be an option to message all marshals in the campaign as well as all the generals of the realms invited to the campaign.
Basically, one realm general would start a campaign and invite other realms in. Once a realm has been invited to a campaign, they can assign armies to it, or not, as they see fit.
Quote from: Anaris on August 04, 2012, 02:51:39 PM
Wait: Before you were talking about removing all the "in region" messaging options. Is this different?
Please be specific, Tom.
I was never talking about removing all local messaging options. Never. In a different thread I was talking about replacing them with a variety of options. Much is still in the design phase, but let me make one thing absolutely clear: There will
always be at the very least a "message everyone in my current location" option. And almost certainly others based on your current location.
Quote from: Tom on August 04, 2012, 02:53:46 PM
I was never talking about removing all local messaging options. Never. In a different thread I was talking about replacing them with a variety of options. Much is still in the design phase, but let me make one thing absolutely clear: There will always be at the very least a "message everyone in my current location" option. And almost certainly others based on your current location.
You were, at the very least, talking about replacing the "message all in region" options with a "post a message to the local signboard, that will stay there for a while" option, because the former messed with your notion of a perfect conversation system.
If you're only talking here about replacing the "all allies in region" part with this campaign-messaging system, then I fully support it. It's the kind of cross-realm military coordination system we've needed for years.
So basically, it would be a guild were you don't have to travel at a guildhouse to join, and Generals assign you to them at their leisure?
I'm trying to consider how this would have been used in the BT invasion, for example, and I can't see how it could not have degenerated into a single campaign with everyone in it. You've basically replaced the realm-wide channels by an island-wide channel.
On other islands, you may get 2 or 3 groups, but that still will re-inforce immensely the groupthink. This will make powerblocs stronger (as if they weren't strong enough) and diminish the realm-as-a-team spirit.
I think, however, that some options could be valid. Scout report sharing, for example, or easier communication between marshals, or maybe cross-realm standing orders. But a full message channel does not seem such a good idea to me.
Quote from: vonGenf on August 04, 2012, 03:09:13 PM
So basically, it would be a guild were you don't have to travel at a guildhouse to join, and Generals assign you to them at their leisure?
Uh, no. It would have nothing in common with a guild. No member ranks, no guildhouses, nothing that makes up a guild.
QuoteI'm trying to consider how this would have been used in the BT invasion, for example
That's not really typical of the BM experience, so it's not a very good example. And I don't think there would've been one campaign. Would have resulted in way too much noise.
Quote from: Anaris on August 04, 2012, 02:56:56 PM
You were, at the very least, talking about replacing the "message all in region" options with a "post a message to the local signboard, that will stay there for a while" option, because the former messed with your notion of a perfect conversation system.
Yes, and that's still coming. But as an additional option. There will be one channel that sticks around and one that doesn't (i.e. works like the one we currently have).
Campaigns sound interesting. Will they be tied to diplomacy, or will they have an effect on the way forces line up on the battlefield?
Will there be a limit to how many campaigns you can join? I can almost see this being used as a way to build an "all federation" message channel for groups like the Lurians or the Veinsormoot, or possibly even Sanguis Astroism.
Would the "sponsor" of the campaign be able to kick out member realsm/armies? Or would you have to dissolve the campaign and start a new one?
It will be very cool. I'm working on an implementation right now, but it will come together with the new message system.
This is great for eliminating the super-annoying communication issues when fighting in groups or giving orders to various armies at once. LOVE IT.
Quote from: Tom on August 04, 2012, 02:18:19 PM
Also, giving campaigns a purpose might be a step towards having wars with a goal, instead of "let's kill you".
Maybe, in order to do this, have campaigns have stated objectives? The general that creates it has to name a county/duchy/realm to attack, and receives bonuses to attacking those locations. County-specific objectives would have very large bonuses and realm-specific objectives would have much smaller ones. Defensive campaigns could do the same thing. In order to balance this you'd obviously need to make campaign objectives public.
In order to prevent people from just switching the objective of a campaign, maybe make it so that a general has to close a campaign, wait some period of time, and form a new campaign at his capital in order for objectives to switch?
It should be noted that historically, to sponsor a campaign, it meant to also support it financially. I know this is completely out of scope based on this thread, but sponsorship of a campaign is a serious thing. Whether it's direct funding, temporarily allowing allied nobles to repair (for free?), or providing troops, it's something beyond just organised communication. (which I am all for).
It's an idea that has huge potential on many fronts.
Cheers,
Scott
...Which ALSO opens up the possibility for church-funded religious crusades, a-la Middle Ages. ;-)
As I am currently directly involved in the military leadership of 2 multi-realm wars (Cathay and Terran) and indirectly in the military leadership of one other (Eston), this sounds like a god-send for cooperation.
Though, of course, there is something to be said for the difficulty of planning and coordinating campaigns involving multiple realms.
Quote from: Slapsticks on August 05, 2012, 12:56:07 AM
Maybe, in order to do this, have campaigns have stated objectives?
Yes, but no game-mechanics. We've had various attempts at this over the years and the problem is that no reasonable game-mechanics can capture the complexity and intricacies of the conflicts in BM. Introducing such a system would take away from the game, because people would tend to follow the game-mechanics instead of the roleplay.
Quote from: Perth on August 05, 2012, 08:04:38 AM
Though, of course, there is something to be said for the difficulty of planning and coordinating campaigns involving multiple realms.
We are not making it easier, we are shifting the required organisation. The new message system will provide fewer options for direct messaging. For example, I plan to remove the "all allies in this region" message option. This here is a replacement so you can still coordinate your campaign, but it requires your armies to be set up properly.
I have no objections if it's free (as in, no gold cost) and fast (little or no time requirement) for the General to assign armies to campaigns and unassign them later. Being able to assign armies to multiple campaigns at once would also be good.
Creating a new campaign will take a bit of gold and time. I've not yet decided on assignement, it might take one hour but can contain multiple armies.
Armies can only be assigned to one campaign, and that is intentional.
Quote from: Indirik on August 04, 2012, 05:03:39 PM
Will there be a limit to how many campaigns you can join? I can almost see this being used as a way to build an "all federation" message channel for groups like the Lurians or the Veinsormoot, or possibly even Sanguis Astroism.
That's a bit of my fear. In Sanguis Astroism, for example, you would have an all-SA-realms channel where everyone is in it, whether they are in the religion or not. This would not help the religious game, and increase the power-bloc aspect of it.
In the Veinsormoot and the Lurias, this would make the guilds completely redundant. Guilds have built-in limitations that this would completely bypass.
Quote from: vonGenf on August 05, 2012, 01:03:57 PM
That's a bit of my fear. In Sanguis Astroism, for example, you would have an all-SA-realms channel where everyone is in it, whether they are in the religion or not. This would not help the religious game, and increase the power-bloc aspect of it.
In the Veinsormoot and the Lurias, this would make the guilds completely redundant. Guilds have built-in limitations that this would completely bypass.
I agree, these could be kept around at all times to essentially simply use them as multi-realm message groups.
Perhaps they should have an upkeep cost? Perhaps the General can only form/assign armies to campaigns when the realm is in a diplomatic state of war? Maybe a time limit before they need to be renewed? Just brainstorming here.
I don't think they will work like that. Among other things, you have to be in the army to be part of a campaign, because only armies can join a campaign, not individual characters. That should exclude, say, priests. And many others.
You can only invite realms you are allied with into your campaign is another limit.
Love the idea. But wouldn't this look a bit messy to single army realms joining a campaign, to those TLs who are in the army but not participating in the campaign? Perhaps you could replace Generals assigning armies to the campaign by Generals assigning individual nobles of the realm?
If they don't want to be involved in army matters, then they shouldn't be in the army in the first place. That's all there is to it.
Quote from: Cren on August 05, 2012, 07:43:59 PM
Love the idea. But wouldn't this look a bit messy to single army realms joining a campaign, to those TLs who are in the army but not participating in the campaign? Perhaps you could replace Generals assigning armies to the campaign by Generals assigning individual nobles of the realm?
Perhaps that realm should clean up their military structure.
Quote from: vonGenf on August 05, 2012, 01:03:57 PM
In the Veinsormoot and the Lurias, this would make the guilds completely redundant. Guilds have built-in limitations that this would completely bypass.
Not in the Lurias. The guilds allow those who WANT to be part of the political discussion to partake. Campaigns would force every member of the army to wade through messages they potentially have no interest in. The guilds also give us a RP mechanic for ranks and positions with the large Empire that I don't think the proposed campaign structure would provide.
Quote from: Indirik on August 04, 2012, 05:03:39 PM
Will there be a limit to how many campaigns you can join? I can almost see this being used as a way to build an "all federation" message channel for groups like the Lurians or the Veinsormoot, or possibly even Sanguis Astroism.
There should be. If a campaign is close to an oath (which historically it has been, ie many wars in Jerusalem) , you can only truly commit to one 100%.
Giving marshals and vice marshals an option to message some/all allied marshals, vice marshals and generals would pretty much cover this. Maybe restrict it to federation only.
Quote from: pcw27 on August 06, 2012, 07:44:02 AM
Giving marshals and vice marshals an option to message some/all allied marshals, vice marshals and generals would pretty much cover this. Maybe restrict it to federation only.
I think you are missing the point. The new system is trying to move away from enforced message groups and allow some measure of customization.
the more armies there are, the higher the cost? adding armies will incur cost? is there upkeep?
I'm still working out the details.
Quote from: Tom on August 05, 2012, 04:17:21 PM
Among other things, you have to be in the army to be part of a campaign, because only armies can join a campaign, not individual characters. That should exclude, say, priests. And many others.
Priests can join armies.
Quote from: vonGenf on August 06, 2012, 09:15:03 AM
Priests can join armies.
Can lead them too, well sort of.
That's not really intentional. Priests should be removed from armies upon class change, and barred from joining them.
Quote from: Anaris on August 06, 2012, 03:29:41 PM
That's not really intentional. Priests should be removed from armies upon class change, and barred from joining them.
:'(
And if I want to use priests strategically as part of a theocracy?
Go ahead. Just do it outside the army.
Can't this be done simply by guilds or even religion(Theocracy)?
Quote from: Anaris on August 06, 2012, 03:29:41 PM
That's not really intentional. Priests should be removed from armies upon class change, and barred from joining them.
Pity, I really liked my Warrior Priest leading his army, even if you know he couldn't lead any troops himself, or actually enter the battlefield to use marshal settings.
Quote from: De-Legro on August 07, 2012, 12:27:12 AM
Pity, I really liked my Warrior Priest leading his army, even if you know he couldn't lead any troops himself, or actually enter the battlefield to use marshal settings.
Historically, priests have acted outside the authority of the military because the Vatican has been so powerful. The priest would not lead the army, but would indeed hold a very high position among the advisers to the military campaign (and probably provided much of the financial support).
(yes, I know, this isn't a history simulator)
Quote from: swholmes@gmail.com on August 07, 2012, 02:07:43 AM
Historically, priests have acted outside the authority of the military because the Vatican has been so powerful. The priest would not lead the army, but would indeed hold a very high position among the advisers to the military campaign (and probably provided much of the financial support).
(yes, I know, this isn't a history simulator)
Historically for the Christian/Catholic church yes. Though some rebellions have been lead by Priest.
Quote from: De-Legro on August 07, 2012, 02:37:55 AM
Historically for the Christian/Catholic church yes. Though some rebellions have been lead by Priest.
Name one? In every major religion the church has held separate power from the state. (Yes, the church has declared the war, but has still been separate from the military force it raised.)
Quote from: swholmes@gmail.com on August 07, 2012, 02:53:39 AM
Name one? In every major religion the church has held separate power from the state. (Yes, the church has declared the war, but has still been separate from the military force it raised.)
Mexico early 1800's for example where Catholic priest lead rebel "armies" of leading armies of mestizos and Indians.
Thomas Becket was Archdeacon of Canterbury and had other ecclesiastical offices included a number of benefices, prebends at Lincoln Cathedral and St Paul's Cathedral, and the office of Provost of Beverley when he became Lord Chancellor for Henry the second, and on occasion in that role lead the kings Armies before going on to become Archbishop of Canterbury.
If you want to go further back Judah Maccabee who lead the Maccabees Jewish rebel army against the Seleucid Empire was a Kohen. He was regarded as one of the greatest warriors of Jewish history and Hanukkah commemorates the restoration of Jewish worship at the temple instituted by him
Huldrych Zwingli a leader of the church reformations in Switzerland died in battle with many reformation pastors to be found in the Zurich army, though I'm not sure if he lead that army. He had previously been called upon state the terms of armistice for the First Kappel War
Yup, and we can list the Jedis leading the Republican Clone Army against the separatists.
Unfortunelly, we are talking about something that only occurs in BM by roleplays: interactions between an independent thing (religion) and other (military) mechanics. I always thought the priest could ever been no a class, but a trait, something a warrior (a.k.a. paladin) could be. But, honestly, the way BM goes is better. Today, we can do horrible things, like drive dozen of fanatics to break up the production and kill many peasants, conduct an "Auto-da-fé" to punish unbelievers, even a religious take over. Imagine combine this with the possibility to carry an army. If we have this, I believe theocracies will appear everywhere.
To do what you want, we can simply have a religious warrior. We don't need a military priest, neither someone gainning hours like a priest and driving a large army through enemy lands.
Quote from: Alasteir on August 07, 2012, 05:22:20 AM
Yup, and we can list the Jedis leading the Republican Clone Army against the separatists.
Unfortunelly, we are talking about something that only occurs in BM by roleplays: interactions between an independent thing (religion) and other (military) mechanics. I always thought the priest could ever been no a class, but a trait, something a warrior (a.k.a. paladin) could be. But, honestly, the way BM goes is better. Today, we can do horrible things, like drive dozen of fanatics to break up the production and kill many peasants, conduct an "Auto-da-fé" to punish unbelievers, even a religious take over. Imagine combine this with the possibility to carry an army. If we have this, I believe theocracies will appear everywhere.
To do what you want, we can simply have a religious warrior. We don't need a military priest, neither someone gainning hours like a priest and driving a large army through enemy lands.
I'm not asking for Priest to lead units or any other changes. I simply pointing out that I had fun having my Priest be a (mostly useless) marshal and General and glad I was able to do it before any code changes to prevent Priest being in armies.
Quote from: Blue Star on August 06, 2012, 11:55:09 PM
Can't this be done simply by guilds or even religion(Theocracy)?
Depends on how you define simply. Guilds and religions have built-in limitations, the most important of which being that you need to travel to a guildhouse/temple or meet an Elder to join them and that maintenance of the structure is required.
If Campaigns replicate that mechanics for warriors, in particular if warriors need to travel to some sort of headquarters to join them, then I fully agree with them.
The only useful military (?) position for a priest is army sponsor, general for those self serving, shallow, money hoarding, <insert more>, priests.
I can understand a functional restriction on Priests being Marshals or VMs, because they need to be present at the battle to do anything, and you can't be present without a unit. Priests as generals, however, seem entirely plausible (and awesome).
Are there council position restrictions on priests still?
Quote from: egamma on August 10, 2012, 02:57:32 PM
Are there council position restrictions on priests still?
You can definitely appoint Priests as General. I've been both General and a Priest with Askarn for the past six months on BT.
As Solari should know.
Interesting idea.
I have the same concern as a few of the others in the thread, that this will greatly enhance the power and cohesion of existing power blocs. I would like to see a mechanic that encourages campaigns to be a time-limited construct, i.e. they are created for a specific purpose and then relatively quickly disbanded once that purpose is fulfilled. I would not care to see them hang around indefinitely.