BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Development => Feature Requests => Topic started by: Karlaek on January 24, 2014, 10:32:35 AM
-
I know this is a touchy subject, and will probably be rejected right off the bat but... I believe other major cities within a realm should be able to lend themselves to recruitment. Of course the capital would be the best place to recruit, but I feel it is an odd restriction and breaks away from the flavor of the game.
There are several ways to balance this, one being increase the cost of recruitment, make the average quality of troops lower, highly restrict the number of men that can be recruited this way, and perhaps because these units would have mostly green individuals make it harder for them to train/their equipment would break faster.
Possible exploits: Would disrupt the pendulum of war and give an advantage to large realms.
-
Other major cities can actually recruit troops, if they secede. :P
Another good incentive to secede.
If your realm has several major cities that you'd like to see recruits recruited in, then plot with their dukes to form another realm.
Or if that fails, join a realm that does have the conditions you like.
(atleast i would)
I'd rather see those cities fly their own flag then to fly the flag of some already massive realm being nearly useless compared to their independent state.
-
Perhaps... but it doesn't make sense to create incentive to secede just to recruit troops. You would still get better troops that way, but bigger nations shouldn't be so brutally punished for no reason, there are other ways to keep them in check with game balances, e.g. higher maintenance costs for government regions far away from capital/lower tax income.
-
Perhaps... but it doesn't make sense to create incentive to secede just to recruit troops. You would still get better troops that way, but bigger nations shouldn't be so brutally punished for no reason, there are other ways to keep them in check with game balances, e.g. higher maintenance costs for government regions far away from capital/lower tax income.
I seriously think that it would change the game considerably for bigger realms.
It simply is a huge advantage if you can shorten your full recruitment refit times, which is military the main weakness of a big realm.
Although i agree we can limit such recruitment to just the recruitment centers in that duchy or city, it would still partially remove an important aspect of warfare against or with big realms.
The game allows big realms to exist, but it doesn't wnat big realms to fight wars on the other side of the continent.
Its above all very boring for everyone invovled.
The current mechanics try to force every realm to fight an enemy close by so the war is more intense, more risky for both sides and also makes gang bangs less likley.
Above all it will help new players gain h/p much quicker, be involved in a real war and thus hopefully stay in the game.
If my first experience of BM would be for example Caligan empire attacking some realm all the way up north id take me for ever to progress in temrs of H/p.
I'd be traveling more then fighting thinking they must have picked the wrong name for this game.
In fact i joined the game in late 2004 in the middle of an intense war between Caligus and Yssria, big battles would be every two days, i traveled not more then one or two region to bash into the enemy, and this intense conflict lasted for more then a year or even two if i remember correctly.
My character quickly gained the hp needed to check out other classes, become a lord or gain other positions as wel as recruiting a unit that actually mattered in combat.
I was also sucked into an exiting conflict that just kept me exited to play for every day, i'd even wake up early just for BM :)
I am sure this will happen much less if we allow more long distance wars by implementing a feature like this.
-
I support a decentralized recruitment system. In one shot, the rules of strategic secessions and strategic realm mergers would cease to be relevant, and we'd stop having to deal with all these OOC conflicts over actions that are so ridiculously easy to pull off IG.
Cheating should be both hard and obvious, but the new duchy system has made it both easy and hazy. Decentralized recruitment is the only way to fix this.
Furthermore, we are having less and less players, which means less characters in the realms, and more and more realms that lack a critical mass of players to maintain things fun. Big realms should be favored, empires of sorts, so that people are not needlessly devided into tiny groups of scattered players that cannot properly interact with anyone.
-
In one shot, the rules of strategic secessions and strategic realm mergers would cease to be relevant
The rules against realm mergers have absolutely nothing to do with recruitment. You're thinking of strategic capital moves.
-
The rules against realm mergers have absolutely nothing to do with recruitment. You're thinking of strategic capital moves.
I disagree completely.
The rule against realm mergers was BORN when realms combined as equals in order to combine RCs and recruit from a single closer city in order to have a strategic advantage in war. The wording of the rule doesn't make this explicit, but the rule is otherwise senseless without this context. Heck, a merger can effectively result in a strategic capital move, if the ally's capital is closer to the enemy.
The RP justification for the rule is just filler. If RP was really what we cared about, then it'd be illegal for rulers to step down. After all, that's the reasonning that's been cited for realm mergers: no ruler would be willing to abdicate his throne! Why can they step down to let another realm mate rule, then? Why can dukes agree to abolish their duchies? Lords to give up their regions? It would be the only rule in BM to have nothing to do with game balance or player interaction, the logical domains for OOC rules. The argument, nested in RP that no ruler would be willing to give up his lands, is in complete conflict with the rest of the game and the very nature of RP that would state that different characters would have different ambitions and would be willing to make different levels of concessions.
-
The rule against realm mergers was BORN when realms combined as equals in order to combine RCs and recruit from a single closer city in order to have a strategic advantage in war. The wording of the rule doesn't make this explicit, but the rule is otherwise senseless without this context. Heck, a merger can effectively result in a strategic capital move, if the ally's capital is closer to the enemy.
No, that's simply false. You may have interpreted it that way, but Tom was quite clear that the reason for the "no realm mergers" rule was because (paraphrasing) "rulers would never simply agree to make their realm no longer a sovereign realm."
Unless, of course, they were surrendering. Which is why that's an exception.
If you really want, Chénier, I can probably dig up quotes from Tom on this point, but I'd rather not hijack this thread (even if it's a feature request that doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell).
-
No, that's simply false. You may have interpreted it that way, but Tom was quite clear that the reason for the "no realm mergers" rule was because (paraphrasing) "rulers would never simply agree to make their realm no longer a sovereign realm."
Unless, of course, they were surrendering. Which is why that's an exception.
If you really want, Chénier, I can probably dig up quotes from Tom on this point, but I'd rather not hijack this thread (even if it's a feature request that doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell).
Yes, he said said that. That doesn't change the fact that the rule was created when a case arose of realms merging for purely strategic reasons.
It's also a ridiculous thing to say. Nations have merged peacefully. It might not be the norm, but nor would it be in BM. If people in a realm don't want to belong to that realm anymore, it makes no sense to try to force them to remain or to give up everything in order to leave. Additionally, it simply does not apply to a large portion of the realm merger cases that arise, because in many of them, DUKES are responsible for the realm mergers, not RULERS. Thefore, the duke doesn't give up anything at all, he's just destroying a sovereignty that wasn't his to begin with anyways. Yet it still yields guilty verdicts.
-
perhaps allow the capitol city build an outpost recruitment center somewhere (maye within X regions), but offer poor quality troops.
-
Unless Tom has lessened on this point and I'm unaware, I do believe this is one of those 'frequently requested; frequently rejected; stop asking' requests and should probably be closed by a mod.
-
Unless Tom has lessened on this point and I'm unaware, I do believe this is one of those 'frequently requested; frequently rejected; stop asking' requests and should probably be closed by a mod.
I believe it was, but that was determined long, long ago. And then, it was fine. But with the duchy changes, and the whole lot of problems that are generated from it (I suspect more and more realm merger cases will arise as time progresses, not less), I think it's a natural and necessary evolution of the game. Recruitment in the capital only was fine when every city was its own duchy and it was practically impossible to merge realms in the vast majority of cases, because precisely breaking the rules was hard and obviously exploitive. Now breaking the rules is neither, so it's time to just make it so the rule no longer has a reason to exist.
-
I like the outpost idea... in any case I think we should change something about either Duchies or recruitment. I love BM as is, but I think it can be improved.
-
I like the outpost idea... in any case I think we should change something about either Duchies or recruitment. I love BM as is, but I think it can be improved.
Maybe put restrictions like can only recruit troops with equipment 50/50 or less with 3~4 times the cost plus some high morale penalty? 8)
-
I know this is a wild tangent, but couldn't a region be stacked with militia and be used by the general to refit from assigned militia? It sounds mechanic-abuse, but it would be less invasive than reworking the way recruiting works.
-
That is possible. But there are restrictions On that ability, specifically to prevent what you just described. Assigning units is an option that is very unpredictable. Not something you can count on, especially for refitting an entire army.
-
I believe your militia units cannot be attacked for at least two weeks. If monsters spawn in lets say your city where you have stationed 20k CS worth of militia. Then you won't be able to assign 20k CS militia until 2 weeks later. But of course this period will restart if your militia units enter a battle again.
-
So there are failsafes in militia assignment, neat. Has anyone tried to refit an army as general in a well militia-stacked region? How much CS could you pump right back into the front lines?
-
I mean... heroes can already pump up their units for free in certain regions, can't we do something on that scale but for pay?
-
I mean... heroes can already pump up their units for free in certain regions, can't we do something on that scale but for pay?
With heroes its random when they can and limited effects. Its also a part of class that has otherwise little benefits but is the only way to be able to die in battle and it can not be reversed so its not like heroes being able to do it is a casual minor thing. As well its been explicitly stated that recruitment in regions other than the capital is not wanted, so suggesting something to circumvent that is obviously not wanted.
I am all for discussion and suggestions, but suggestions that try to circumvent mechanics are not very helpful.
-
Well what can we do to address the general problem? It seems like if this is frequently requested then maybe lots of players want it and it should be reconsidered from time to time.
-
Well what can we do to address the general problem? It seems like if this is frequently requested then maybe lots of players want it and it should be reconsidered from time to time.
Why are capitals the only spot recruiting can be done? Its incredibly unbalanced to have it not be that way for one, in a variety of different ways. If its frequently requested and constantly rejected, perhaps it is because there is good reason for it not being implemented?
-
Has it ever been tested at least? I don't think it'd be incredibly unbalanced if you could only recruit a small amount and had other limitations.
-
The Frequently Requested, Frequently Rejected list doesn't exist so that people can ask the devs a different way and suddenly they will agree to it, it exists so that people stop asking. The list is not as public as it once was though as people don't visit the wiki often so I will make a sticky with it on there.
Edit: The list is directly linked in the Rules for Submitting a Feature Request thread so actually I am wondering why this was even requested. The feature as stated in your request gives an advantage to large realms, which is all it does when large realms already have dozens of other advantages over small realms, I don't see the Dev Team considering adding features that are explicitly an advantage to large realms any time soon.
-
Well what can we do to address the general problem?
Nothing, because it doesn't exist. This is only a problem for players who are unwilling to accept it is a basic game mechanic of BattleMaster. It's the same kind of "problem" as not having assault rifles in WoW is - yeah, sure, you can argue for days about the advantage of having ranged weapons with limited ammunition and whatever, but at the end of day, WoW is a game without assault rifles, and that's that.
BattleMaster is a game with centralized realm structures. There's one capital and many things are only possible in the capital and that's that. I could explain for the 20th time why it was designed that way intentionally, but please understand that I kind of lost the patience to do it after the 15th or so time, so please use the search function because at least 5 of them are sure to be here in the forum somewhere.
-
Nothing, because it doesn't exist. This is only a problem for players who are unwilling to accept it is a basic game mechanic of BattleMaster. It's the same kind of "problem" as not having assault rifles in WoW is - yeah, sure, you can argue for days about the advantage of having ranged weapons with limited ammunition and whatever, but at the end of day, WoW is a game without assault rifles, and that's that.
BattleMaster is a game with centralized realm structures. There's one capital and many things are only possible in the capital and that's that. I could explain for the 20th time why it was designed that way intentionally, but please understand that I kind of lost the patience to do it after the 15th or so time, so please use the search function because at least 5 of them are sure to be here in the forum somewhere.
BattleMaster WAS a game with centralized realm structures. It is less and less so. Recruitment in the capital only has become inconsistent with the new duchy mechanics. The arguments that were fully valid back then, in my opinion, are not anymore today.
-
Well it is Tom's game and he wants the capital to be the only place where you can recruit.
Some people might argue the game has changed over the years but Tom doesn't believe it is a sufficient reason to change the core game mechanic.
I think this request has been rejected and time for us to move on 8)
-
Well it is Tom's game and he wants the capital to be the only place where you can recruit.
Some people might argue the game has changed over the years but Tom doesn't believe it is a sufficient reason to change the core game mechanic.
I think this request has been rejected and time for us to move on 8)
Thank You! ;D
-
And we'll just keep getting more and more and more and more realm merger and strategic secessions cases.
I wouldn't be surprised if there's been as many realm merger accusations in the last year as there were in the previous ten.
-
And we'll just keep getting more and more and more and more realm merger and strategic secessions cases.
I wouldn't be surprised if there's been as many realm merger accusations in the last year as there were in the previous ten.
You are free to think that, but frankly whether or not you are right it really doesn't matter.
-
And we'll just keep getting more and more and more and more realm merger and strategic secessions cases.
I wouldn't be surprised if there's been as many realm merger accusations in the last year as there were in the previous ten.
Rehashing the request over and over again won't change this. We will end up with the same amount of merger cases (assuming the logic here is correct) plus threads like this that will just be shot down. Unless there is a massively compelling new reason to put to Tom this system isn't going to change. Know we all know the burn out people suffer from having feature request threads knocked back, and this affects everyone that contributed not just the original poster.
So the real end result, system remains, any cases arising from that system continue to be raised, and we possibly burn out a few more active forum dweller to the point they don't bother contributing to the forum any more. If there is a compelling new reason or argument sending it directly to Tom might be a better idea, since he is the man that needs to be convinced about this.
Finally rehashing a frequently rejected feature request is actually counter productive unless there is a very compelling change. Things quickly get to the stage where they will be rejected instantly simply because they have been rejected so many times before.
-
Instead of trying to directly change it maybe you should come up with a reason that will satisfy Tom. It doesn't matter how many people on the forum you convince. At the end, it is Tom's game and unless you convince him nothing will happen. And you already know 'recruiting in other places' doesn't go well with Tom's idea of BM.
-
Instead of trying to directly change it maybe you should come up with a reason that will satisfy Tom. It doesn't matter how many people on the forum you convince. At the end, it is Tom's game and unless you convince him nothing will happen. And you already know 'recruiting in other places' doesn't go well with Tom's idea of BM.
Great advice and attitude.
-
Non-capital recruitment is something that even the dev team has discussed from time to time. Our best idea was to tie it to duchies. Make it so that in the duchy's city (this was back before the new allegiance system, and back then city=duchy) was a place where nobles of that duchy could recruit troops trained in regions that belonged to that duchy. The problem with this is that anyone who doesn't like this restriction can completely avoid it by swapping regions into the duchy closest to the enemy. (That's even easier now that duchies don't need to be contiguous, you could just move around regions with high-demand RCs.) Any noble who's lord doesn't want to swap duchies can just grab an estate in a region of the strategically-placed duchy. Gold is no object, since they can be given as much gold as they need by anyone in the realm who has it. So you have a mechanic that only limits people who allow themselves to be limited.
The usual response to this is to say something like "No they won't!" Or "Not everyone will do that." Or "Put in restrictions on duchy size, or a duchy efficiency, or a distance-from-duchy-capital penalty, etc." i.e. in order to make this system work we have to make it more complex by adding new mechanics to address the loopholes it opens. Like, for instance, limits on how often you can swap duchies, or severe morale/loyalty/control penalties for swapping duchies. Or we can add arbitrary OOC restrictions on recruitment, such as only crappy troops nobody would want anyway, or only 10 troops/RC/day. i.e. add enough limitations that the non-capital recruiting is nerfed so bad it's useless. And then we have people complaining about the borked non-capital recruitment, and calling the system broken and worthless, which it would be, and why the hell did we bother spending dev time to implement such an f'ed up system anyway?
And all these the extra mechanics make the system more and more complex, less transparent, and more bug-prone. Or we just don't add them, and implement a system where the only people that are limited are those who voluntarily submit to the limits, and even then this is unlikely to limit everyone.
And if we try to regulate it by rules, then we open up other possible abuses like "strategic duchy swaps/creations" or even "strategic oath abuses" or other such nonsense.
-
This is just a "what if" question and not an attempt to change anyones mind.
How would things change in terms of large realm/small realm power balance if troops had to be recruited in the region they are trained and if the max quality of troop is set on a region by region basis?
My thoughts:
* With some regions capable of producing awesome troops and others limited to basic troops, regions have a third point of value. Why maintain that badlands that produces 3 gold and 2 food? Because they make the best archers on the continent!
* Travel times to recruit quality troops could be closer or farther to the enemy depending on current realm borders. Depending on the location of their enemy a big realm might benefit from this model but will more likely be unaffected or hurt by it while small realms should see little difference.
* There would be more reason for nobles of a realm to visit places other the capital.
* It would incentivize realms to pour resources into protecting regions capable of producing high quality troops.
* It would be more Realistic?
-
* With some regions capable of producing awesome troops and others limited to basic troops, regions have a third point of value. Why maintain that badlands that produces 3 gold and 2 food? Because they make the best archers on the continent!
[...]
* It would incentivize realms to pour resources into protecting regions capable of producing high quality troops.
Uh, both of these are already true with the existing system?
I was put well above. This is on the frequently rejected list for a reason. Unless someone brings a better reason than "I think it's neat" or "maybe you want to think about it again?", I don't even see why it needs to be discussed. If anyone wants to convince me otherwise, the least I expect is that it's worth the time to them to dig out the old topics on this, find the various arguments against it, and address them.
-
* With some regions capable of producing awesome troops and others limited to basic troops, regions have a third point of value. Why maintain that badlands that produces 3 gold and 2 food? Because they make the best archers on the continent!
I am pretty sure people already keep bad regions around if those regions have a good center. Also, bad regions are bad for a reason. Maybe they aren't meant to be taken. Maybe they are intended to used as a natural border?
* Travel times to recruit quality troops could be closer or farther to the enemy depending on current realm borders. Depending on the location of their enemy a big realm might benefit from this model but will more likely be unaffected or hurt by it while small realms should see little difference.
It won't hurt big realms in any means. You can still recruit in the capital. You still need to visit cities to repair your equipment.
* There would be more reason for nobles of a realm to visit places other the capital.
You still need to visit cities and townslands to repair your equipment + to pick up SEs + to use the bank. Also, you don't need a full refit all the time.
* It would incentivize realms to pour resources into protecting regions capable of producing high quality troops.
People already do that.
* It would be more Realistic?
This is a game not a medieval simulator. Also, many features are not realistic in this game like the instant message system. If you want more realism, we'd have to change that so it takes one turn per region for your message to travel.