I was wondering what people go for when they lead an army / armies.
As for myself, I prefer forcing my enemies to react to my actions. I also like to hit my enemies as often as possible to give them no time to think or react. This also means I do not like having my armies in one region for too long. As those of you who played with me know well, I am a big fan of fluid tactics, hitting one front then hitting another quickly to keep things moving. I hate making armies work on take overs unless it is absolutely necessary as it makes armies stay in one region for a long time.
I care very little about tactics and strategy whenever I'm a general or a marshal. My goal is always to motivate my army and increase movement rate, as well as making sure funds are put towards big, big units. Then it's just a matter of avoiding battles you know you'll lose, fighting those you know you'll win and giving your warriors what they want: battles and gold (from funding and raiding).
Always loved marshalling a looting army. Scouting everywhere all the time, using misdirections, constantly looting while moving. Back when I had a good number of active people we did good in Riombara (back when the geopolitics allowed it, later attempts failed utterly) and incredibly against Nothoi. The damage might not have been all that big, considering it wasn't a huge army and lots of hours were spent on scouting and constantly travelling, but it appeared to be quite demoralizing for the enemy as they really had a hard time stopping us.
Looting armies need active players, though. In the later years, when I'd attempt it, no one would ever scout for me, which foiled every attempt. Scout reports are needed at turn change, and the members need to be able to revise their movement later in the turn. Nowadays, it seems like picking out the select few very active nobles just leaves the main army completely disorganized. :/
Ya, I just tried this on war island, scouting definitely was an issue as well as regular troop movement. Ended up largely just stringing the army out through several regions. Any suggestions for most effective forms of looting?
I like to keep the fighting on the enemy's lands. Movement rates are important but I don't mind spending a long period of time in one region, or eating a loss if it costs the enemy their army as well. I prefer to destroy the enemy's regions until they can't produce a military anymore.
Quote from: Mac Tir on August 03, 2014, 07:24:03 PM
Ya, I just tried this on war island, scouting definitely was an issue as well as regular troop movement. Ended up largely just stringing the army out through several regions. Any suggestions for most effective forms of looting?
Kill, rape, burn, all day erry day.
Quote from: Marlboro on August 03, 2014, 10:54:14 PM
Kill, rape, burn, all day erry day.
Ah. We had received explicit instructions against such acts by the General. Basically confined me to looting gold and food stores.
Pillage and maraud was our default looting type. If we knew taxes were close, we'd sometimes loot for gold to fill up our purses and stay on the field longer, but otherwise scarcely.
We'd also share our looting reports with each other, as well as our foraging reports. It's useful to know when a region is running out of funds, if that's what you are targeting.
The goal, for us as well, was to keep the enemy wasting his time in his own territory instead of being able to attack us, and to decrease his ability to field an army.
Be more active than them and use multis to do all your scouting without delay.
Each of my characters have different preferences when they lead the army/armies as General/Marshal/Vice Marshal. But overall here's my playstyle.
Speaking from Strategy
(A) Knowing your lands geography better than your enemies
Good for defensive play. For example, Perdan armies under Atanamir have a bigger CS force and more Infantry than Nivemus armies combined. When you are outnumbered by enemy in terms of these factors, the best you can do is play defensive strategy. This was one of the two times I outsmarted Atanamir with this strategy. I call it as the Salta trap door strategy. When Perdan elite army sitting at Gadlock driving it rogue, our realm morale was at its low moment. My character Brock decided to order his army to make 2 turns move from Oberndorf to Gadlock. We not going to sit back at Oberndorf and play staring match with Perdan army at Gadlock. Then we have some allied armies from Sirion and Eponllyn placed at Salta as late as possible along with a few of our nobles. The allies late movement to Salta would caught Atanamir off guard. As predicted, Atanamir decided to move from Gadlock to Salta, as I know Nivemus local lands very well, Gadlock to Salta travel time is 2-3 turns move. So half Perdan army was caught at battle at Salta arriving too early, another half army had to keep turn around many times between Salta and Gadlock, where Nivemus armies already reached Gadlock. Thus the trapdoor strategy was sprung up where we can place 2 almost evenly matched CS allied armies at both end of 2 regions, making the enemy stuck on the road travels trying to preserve their armies. Having Perdan armies keep moving back and forth between Salta and Gadlock with no end in sight for them to turn around anymore, they decided to face battles where they are now outnumbered. This strategy is what Lapallanch calls "forcing his enemies to react to his actions".
Another time when you see the enemy retreating from their failed assault on your capital city. Separate your armies and allied armies into two armies and move them into 2 regions where enemy would retreat next. Block them at their possible escape route, kill and destroy their Captain and long time units, with local lands Geography and any militia raised by your region lords, all these factors together can swing the battlefields.
(B) Misdirection
I am used to command army outnumbered CS by the enemy countless times. Not a surprise thing when I often joined realms that have lower military CS. In battles, if you know how to make CS do not count, that would be better. When enemy has bigger CS next door region adjacent to my position, while I waiting for my reinforcement to arrive to even the fight, I ordered misdirection to one of precious targets to the enemy. When enemy fall for the misdirection trick, we can move in for a mopping up. Also when no precious target available, we pretend to retreat but route the enemy with reinforcement from a region that is out of enemy view. That would be a bad enemy movement since they do not have scout on possible reinforcement. See point E below where the counter strategy is.
(C) Spy
Banish your own noble, send spy undercover to enemy realm. When enemy suspect there is a spy in their camp and enemy decide to give a false order, I co-operate by reacting to that false order. Give your spy some credibility. For example, spy give me all enemy armies CS information. Do not share with too many people the information. Otherwise get friendly with people outside your realm. Talk with them more, share a little bit of yourself whenever possible. "Sharing is caring" strategy as I call it, this will make all players appreciate being part of the actions even if behind the scene.
(D) Looting
I aim to loot for gold and food, pillage and maraud. Reduce the enemy capability and make the enemy worry about themselves. On some occasions, I would loot and run away from the regions to avoid the peasants. No points educating the peasants who holding pitch forks and shovels high above their heads ready to swing on you, isn't it?
(E) Scout
Send a unitless noble or nobles with unit to scout, an infiltrator to wound their nobles before the big battles. Of course when the infiltrator was caught, prepare an alibi and pretend to disown the infiltrator. Then have the infiltrator come back into service. Also if you have spy as Scout as in point C above, all the better. That is how I know enemy military build up before it all happens, so that I can muster the armies and hit them before they gather together.
(F) Formations
Successful armies often depend on good formation settings that utilize the mix of the units the nobles field. When you have more Infantry than enemy, rushing headlong into the enemies and engage them in melee attacks early on with Infantry Charge formation. Of course if your armies have good range units, try Infantry Wall or place the range units further back with melee units close by.
(G) Identify chokepoint
Identify the defensive chokepoint in your realm as early as possible. You cannot always stay offensive all the time, be ready when your armies got destroyed. For example, Iglavik is a Mountainland with a Palisade wall and a good chokepoint for Oritolon realm. My character who is the region lord who is conducting homeland duty fighting against monsters and undead, she saved a lot of gold fund, let us call it as emergency war fund and place a lot of mix of Infantry and Archer militia at last minute to defend it against the combined attacks of 2 realms successfully.
Personally I like empowering my Marshals. I like to create Cohesion in the ranks. Players being Nobles, Marshals or Vice Marshals. This in turn will create activity, fast movements and a higher degree of attention to detail.
Its the little things that win big things I feel. Unit setting, individual strategies for engagements and unit types. When I was general I like to trust and reply on the other Marshals. Give them goals and let them figure it out. Step in only when needed and that should be way before anything bad happens. Give power where its handled responsibly and the whole military blooms imo.
I used to command 4 armies with a 5th in a way. Open up multiple fronts. Deep raiding tactics operating seamlessly next to sieging armies and even a patrol / scouting force. Its not so much about actual grand strategy as it is to get everyone involved and invested.
My only real problem was, I feel, was overstepping my boundaries in relation to the actual ruler of the realm.
I like controlling everything. It is one of the reasons why I get burned out so quickly.
It is good to know everything since you can give out precise orders and you know how much CS you can expect. It usually works out very well since it is the most efficient way to run things. But this method has proven to be very flawed as it counts on one individual too much.
I've been trying to change my style over a year or so and it seems to work out though I am still a long way to go.
To what are you trying to change it Lapallanch?
And what could we do to help you out? I'm sure there's plenty to draw from looking at the contributors in this thread.
Quote from: Lapallanch on August 04, 2014, 11:48:40 AM
I like controlling everything. It is one of the reasons why I get burned out so quickly.
It is good to know everything since you can give out precise orders and you know how much CS you can expect. It usually works out very well since it is the most efficient way to run things. But this method has proven to be very flawed as it counts on one individual too much.
I've been trying to change my style over a year or so and it seems to work out though I am still a long way to go.
I know that burn out well. You tend to start making mistakes because of the burnout.
Depends on the character. Enoch would micromanage everything for maximum benifit, Eoric would just keep orders updated (and look for leadership from General/council)....Orobos and Emeric haven't had a chance to shine their particular shines.
Quote from: Haerthorne on August 04, 2014, 01:29:51 PM
I know that burn out well. You tend to start making mistakes because of the burnout.
I don't make too many mistakes. Usually I start making them when I get cocky after winning multiple battles in a row.
When I burn out I don't even want to log on send orders out because I feel so exhausted. I haven't left military positions due to my burn out yet though. Unless RL stuff happens, I usually still stick around to send orders out.
I've been trying to create a system to have multiple marshals leading different armies but I made a big mistake on that idea. People live in different time zones... It is really hard to get discussions going when one guy logs in at 10 pm o clock while the other guy logs in at 6 am. Need to figure something out but it is good to know that no style works perfectly.
Quote from: Lapallanch on August 05, 2014, 12:28:35 AM
I don't make too many mistakes. Usually I start making them when I get cocky after winning multiple battles in a row.
When I burn out I don't even want to log on send orders out because I feel so exhausted. I haven't left military positions due to my burn out yet though. Unless RL stuff happens, I usually still stick around to send orders out.
I've been trying to create a system to have multiple marshals leading different armies but I made a big mistake on that idea. People live in different time zones... It is really hard to get discussions going when one guy logs in at 10 pm o clock while the other guy logs in at 6 am. Need to figure something out but it is good to know that no style works perfectly.
The only way for things like that to work can be almost as much work. You need to look back to how armies ran in RL before the advent of rapid communication for the answer, when plans were long range and general in nature so that each group had some idea of their role in the greater campaign regardless of the communication barriers, and did not rely on orders from the top to know if a change was required.
In BM since we are used to being able to message everyone in the realm instantly, most plans are designed to need constant updates to react to what is occurring, and we tightly integrate the roles of the individual parts. Assuming that the constituent parts can react to the updates, then this is efficient so long as the decision process is rapid, which requires either a highly centralised decision, or for high availability of whatever council at the correct times. To go to a truly distributed system it is incumbent on the General or high military council to design the campaign in a completely different manner, where changes to the over all plan should be infrequent and non-time critical once the implementation phase has begun. Most importantly people must accept that under this system sometime the individual decision elements will make decisions that conflict and lead to a non-optimal outcome.
That's irrelevant because even communication of units in the same region is restricted by activity. The "individual decision element" is literally a single player. Overlooking such facts is understandable when being distracted by a historical hardon.
Quote from: Kai on August 05, 2014, 06:43:29 AM
That's irrelevant because even communication of units in the same region is restricted by activity. The "individual decision element" is literally a single player. Overlooking such facts is understandable when being distracted by a historical hardon.
Not irrelevant at all. If a single player, say the general is making the decisions, then there is one activity point that matters. Sure he needs info from the battle lines ASAP, but then so does a council. The difference is a council has discussion, conversation back and forwards as they reach a decision, thus time zones become even more important as the progress of the decision is impacted by people being available over a period of time to contribute.
The Historical context I suggested is a framework to maintain a "single player" as the individual decision element, while including more people in the entire decision process. It retains the effectiveness of single player decisions to some degree by making people responsible for decisions along the tree, rather then trying to have a council quickly and efficiently make all the decisions and then still get out timely orders.
Quote from: Lapallanch on August 05, 2014, 12:28:35 AM
I don't make too many mistakes. Usually I start making them when I get cocky after winning multiple battles in a row.
When I burn out I don't even want to log on send orders out because I feel so exhausted. I haven't left military positions due to my burn out yet though. Unless RL stuff happens, I usually still stick around to send orders out.
I've been trying to create a system to have multiple marshals leading different armies but I made a big mistake on that idea. People live in different time zones... It is really hard to get discussions going when one guy logs in at 10 pm o clock while the other guy logs in at 6 am. Need to figure something out but it is good to know that no style works perfectly.
I found that problem exactly. It seems like it is either rule by committee where everything gets confusing, or micromanage. The best thing though is the find the third way I think where you have only a few marshals and armies who are essentially your right hand men/women while you set a firm and definitive plan and slam your fist every now and then. You don't have to delegate too much, but you give allowances of what might happen and what they should do in that case if they don't hear from you before they need to make a decision quick.
Quote from: De-Legro on August 05, 2014, 07:09:56 AM
Not irrelevant at all. If a single player, say the general is making the decisions, then there is one activity point that matters. Sure he needs info from the battle lines ASAP, but then so does a council. The difference is a council has discussion, conversation back and forwards as they reach a decision, thus time zones become even more important as the progress of the decision is impacted by people being available over a period of time to contribute.
The Historical context I suggested is a framework to maintain a "single player" as the individual decision element, while including more people in the entire decision process. It retains the effectiveness of single player decisions to some degree by making people responsible for decisions along the tree, rather then trying to have a council quickly and efficiently make all the decisions and then still get out timely orders.
As far as I can tell you're saying that orders can be given to armies which are far away from each other (or otherwise not requiring turn by turn coordination) using only scouts from the regions around them and possibly with different people giving each order. I think this is obvious. Did I miss something?
Quote from: Kai on August 05, 2014, 08:41:53 AM
As far as I can tell you're saying that orders can be given to armies which are far away from each other (or otherwise not requiring turn by turn coordination) using only scouts from the regions around them and possibly with different people giving each order. I think this is obvious. Did I miss something?
Yes, distance of the armies is irrelevant. Typical BM military organisation has the general making decisions every turn. There is a large emphasis on scouting as soon as a turn occurs so that the general has information from all front quickly, and is able to issue orders to all elements of the army quick enough to have a reasonable expectation of decent movement. This generally leads to burn out for various reasons but mostly because of the activity strain it places on a single player.
As has been mentioned military councils generally, though not always, fail due to not being able to put out orders fast enough. In theory it should spread responsibility among multiple players and help reduce burn out, but since in most cases it sticks to the concept of updated plans every turn, the collaborative nature often proves inefficient.
So there are two solutions usually seen. The first is a hierarchy such that if the general has not issued orders there is a clear chain for who will step in and do so. The second is a move away from realm level military changes every turn. Instead a plan of engagement is draw up, rules of engagement formulated. This is the generals domain and provides the framework for others. Instead of every turn this should really only be updated every few days as objectives are either achieved or failures are evident.
The chain of command then is responsible for the more regular updates. Marshals for example are able to consult the plans, contingencies and general rules, examine the local situation they are in and make a decision independent of others. A good framework would provide a reasonable expectation that the outcome of this would at least be good, if not the absolute optimal. This of course has its own problems, it is often more feasible to find a decent general then several decent marshals as well.
I find myself agreeing a lot with De-Legro. What he is describing is how I attempted to run things when I was the Imperial Marshal for Luria Nova. I worked quite well I believe. It was different for some players who were used to the more traditional, centralized command of a single player but it allowed a far wider playing field, deployment zone and drawing on the various qualities our realm was rich in.
Making mini Generals in a sense. Assign scouting bodies to armies that fluctuated. Outline general strategies, set goals, give resources to manage, short and long term objectives.
Outline clearly and regularly who is in control of what and who their second's are. Request updates and reports. Inform the realm in general ways and entrust marshals to inform their armies and allocate their resources. This freed up a lot of time for me, the actual general to move the piece on the theoretical chessboard. Not having to fuss over the details anymore.
The issue I ran into is that the Ruler was used to something different and felt the need ( I think ) to step in at times which led to the military leaders to make a choice who to listen to. Often this led to some minor friction at first but in the end I gained the trust of the people and ruler.
This way of command also allows for mistakes to be more easily absorbed. One element fails then you other can be moved in to do damage control or make a second attempt.
Quote from: De-Legro on August 05, 2014, 09:43:22 AM
Yes, distance of the armies is irrelevant. Typical BM military organisation has the general making decisions every turn. There is a large emphasis on scouting as soon as a turn occurs so that the general has information from all front quickly, and is able to issue orders to all elements of the army quick enough to have a reasonable expectation of decent movement. This generally leads to burn out for various reasons but mostly because of the activity strain it places on a single player.
The distance was only relevant as one of the reasons that armies may not care about the other.
QuoteAs has been mentioned military councils generally, though not always, fail due to not being able to put out orders fast enough. In theory it should spread responsibility among multiple players and help reduce burn out, but since in most cases it sticks to the concept of updated plans every turn, the collaborative nature often proves inefficient.
So there are two solutions usually seen. The first is a hierarchy such that if the general has not issued orders there is a clear chain for who will step in and do so. The second is a move away from realm level military changes every turn. Instead a plan of engagement is draw up, rules of engagement formulated. This is the generals domain and provides the framework for others. Instead of every turn this should really only be updated every few days as objectives are either achieved or failures are evident.
The chain of command then is responsible for the more regular updates. Marshals for example are able to consult the plans, contingencies and general rules, examine the local situation they are in and make a decision independent of others. A good framework would provide a reasonable expectation that the outcome of this would at least be good, if not the absolute optimal. This of course has its own problems, it is often more feasible to find a decent general then several decent marshals as well.
This is a restatement of what I didn't miss earlier. You've begun thinking about the problem but it is worse. Anyone that can function in the way you describe is competent enough to give orders to any of the armies. A realm operating in that way is simply lucky enough to have multiple generals. It is not difficult to see how this can be used to reduce order delay. Assigning such a person to a single army is just tradition and probably just inefficient, because if each such person is aware of the general plan, then they could give orders to any army.
BM is truly not large enough to benefit from a complicated chain of command.
Renodin: you sound like a management buzzword library.
Quote from: Kai on August 05, 2014, 11:05:32 AM
Renodin: you sound like a management buzzword library.
Professional life butting in, Guilty!
Quote from: De-Legro on August 05, 2014, 09:43:22 AM
Yes, distance of the armies is irrelevant. Typical BM military organisation has the general making decisions every turn. There is a large emphasis on scouting as soon as a turn occurs so that the general has information from all front quickly, and is able to issue orders to all elements of the army quick enough to have a reasonable expectation of decent movement. This generally leads to burn out for various reasons but mostly because of the activity strain it places on a single player.
As has been mentioned military councils generally, though not always, fail due to not being able to put out orders fast enough. In theory it should spread responsibility among multiple players and help reduce burn out, but since in most cases it sticks to the concept of updated plans every turn, the collaborative nature often proves inefficient.
So there are two solutions usually seen. The first is a hierarchy such that if the general has not issued orders there is a clear chain for who will step in and do so. The second is a move away from realm level military changes every turn. Instead a plan of engagement is draw up, rules of engagement formulated. This is the generals domain and provides the framework for others. Instead of every turn this should really only be updated every few days as objectives are either achieved or failures are evident.
The chain of command then is responsible for the more regular updates. Marshals for example are able to consult the plans, contingencies and general rules, examine the local situation they are in and make a decision independent of others. A good framework would provide a reasonable expectation that the outcome of this would at least be good, if not the absolute optimal. This of course has its own problems, it is often more feasible to find a decent general then several decent marshals as well.
I'm not in total agreement.
If the general is responsible for everything, then yes, it is burdensome for him. However, if you split the turn-by-turn responsibilities between, say, four marshals, then each of these marshals will not have but a fourth of the burden the general had. They will have nearly just as much. Yes, the more you manage, the more data you have to analyze and the more orders you need to send out, but that's not the core of the burden. The burden is actually being there early enough to give out orders. In fact, it's easier to manage an army of 30 nobles than an army of 7, because odds of getting early scout reports are significantly better with a larger army than a small one. And often, one can't/won't issue orders before having these scout reports.
Yes, distributing responsibilities lessens the general's burden. But it's more of a multiplication and transfer than a diffusal. Instead of having one guy who is so active and risks burnout, you'll need to find many. And as a general, whenever I would try to use this diffusal of responsibilities rhetoric, I'd often have to give up because I couldn't find anyone to do a decent job at it.
And I tend to view time zones as irrelevant. What matters is turn change, and being able to log in at that time. People wake up, work/study, and go to bed at different times, even within the same time zone, the player base is not homogenous. What's important is when the player will log on, not what time of day it is in his part of the world when he does.
Quote from: Chénier on August 05, 2014, 02:11:16 PM
I'm not in total agreement.
If the general is responsible for everything, then yes, it is burdensome for him. However, if you split the turn-by-turn responsibilities between, say, four marshals, then each of these marshals will not have but a fourth of the burden the general had. They will have nearly just as much. Yes, the more you manage, the more data you have to analyze and the more orders you need to send out, but that's not the core of the burden. The burden is actually being there early enough to give out orders. In fact, it's easier to manage an army of 30 nobles than an army of 7, because odds of getting early scout reports are significantly better with a larger army than a small one. And often, one can't/won't issue orders before having these scout reports.
Yes, distributing responsibilities lessens the general's burden. But it's more of a multiplication and transfer than a diffusal. Instead of having one guy who is so active and risks burnout, you'll need to find many. And as a general, whenever I would try to use this diffusal of responsibilities rhetoric, I'd often have to give up because I couldn't find anyone to do a decent job at it.
And I tend to view time zones as irrelevant. What matters is turn change, and being able to log in at that time. People wake up, work/study, and go to bed at different times, even within the same time zone, the player base is not homogenous. What's important is when the player will log on, not what time of day it is in his part of the world when he does.
That is the nature of responsibility in any form and situation. Taking the responsibility of one person at work for instance and splitting it between four people does not result in each shouldering 1/4 of a burden either. The burden that is directly affected however is not really the planning, but the pressure to never miss a turn.
We've been trying to use a military council for orders in Sandalak, like we used to do in Perdan back in '06/'07. In Perdan the council would work out orders collectively within the first hour after the turn. Then when the hour was up, whoever was there would send the orders. Everyone would follow them. Worked great. The load was spread out over 10/12 people for each turn change, and there was *always* someone there to do it.
We're trying something like this in Sandalak, and it's not working very well, except for short periods at a time. You'd think that everyone would like the help. The non-leaders would like getting orders in a timely manner, and the marshals/general would appreciate not having to be there for every turn change. What we've found is that the players have not been able to adjust to anything other than the usual selfish behavior and the protecting of their personal authority that occurs on every other island.
From my point of view, the problems we run into are this:
1) You have to have clear direction from above on the overall strategy. Your ruler/general has to provide the long and medium term strategy that will be used. It could be "take region X", or "stop the enemy TO in region Y". Without a clear goal, people waffle around and go 10 different directions.
2) Multiple, sometimes conflicting, orders are being given. We've had cases where some people have gotten up to 5 different orders in one turn. People have to remember to copy their orders to the council. You wouldn't believe how many people bitch about having to copy/paste their army orders to the council. But if no one reports that the orders were sent, then no one knows they were sent, and they get reissued, possibly different than the first. Or the individual armies get different line settings/formations.
3) People not willing to make the final decision. You get 6 or 7 people taking about "we could do this" or "what do you think about this" for 2 hours. At the end no one makes the call and says "Do this!"
4) Marshals getting pissy about someone else giving orders that apply to their army. (But wait until they can't be there for a turn, and then get mad about all the army members asking why they didn't send orders!) This goes along with #5:
5) Army members getting pissy about taking orders from someone other than their marshal/vm. (And then when the marshal doesn't give orders because, you know, they have a life, they get pissed off that no one gave orders!) These two go along to create #6:
6) People getting pissy about orders not being out on time.
wtf people?! These last three, put together, just make life hell for the military leaders. Marshals don't want anyone else ordering their army, armies don't want anyone but their marshal giving them orders, and everyone gets angry when the one person from whom they will accept orders can't be there so they scream that the whole military command sucks!
And this doesn't even get into all the individual idiots who say things like "I won't accept orders from anyone who won't face me in a duel to the death!". Or the aggressive insulters who insist that they are god's gift to military strategy and everyone else is a moron.
You can design whatever kind of campaign you want. Make it as distributed as you want. Empower everyone with whatever authority you want to make whatever decisions. It's all pointless if the players won't buy in to it. So long as you have problems #4, #5, and #6 above, all your brilliant planning goes down the crapper as soon as one Marshal decides to go toss down a few beers with his buddies instead of mashing the reload button on his browser while he waits for sunrise.
Council *should* help with the whole process. It should spread out the load, allowing any of 20 or so people to make the decisions. At least until you run into problem #3: People unwilling to make the call on what to do. Sometimes it's because they're afraid they'll get yelled at for it, and sometimes because they don't want to cut other people out of the decision making process. But what's usually been happening is that you get a lot of questions and proposals, and not a lot of decisions.
The South Island is supposed to be heavily strategy dependent. A realm that can work out how to manage the work load inherent in fighting an active multi-front war against two enemies that are both trying to wipe you out, should be able to gain a significant advantage. (BTW - Have Ikalak and Taselak ever fought even a single battle against each other? It seems like they have focused exclusively on Sandalak from the very beginning.) People need to realize that things will work different on the South Island. Your orders may not come from your Marshal or VM. Just because you're not a Marshal or VM doesn't mean you can't give orders. You need to *gasp* COOPERATE.
I had hoped that the War Island would help rebuild some of the team spirit that we lost over the years. What I've found is that a vocal minority of the players seem to think that "War Island" means that you're supposed to play some bad-ass short-fused super-warrior who threatens everyone with death duel challenges over meaningless trivialities, that some people feel that the RP tag has no place on the War Island, and that people who like to play in a civil environment without gratuitous profanity are apparently supposed to play only on Dwilight.
I think you just can't expect the same level of respect, trust and focus that existed in Perdan between players that knew eachother for many years and had an established power base as in Sandalak where you've all been thrown in the pit together just a couple of months ago.
Quote from: Lorgan on August 05, 2014, 06:15:06 PM
I think you just can't expect the same level of respect, trust and focus that existed in Perdan between players that knew eachother for many years and had an established power base as in Sandalak where you've all been thrown in the pit together just a couple of months ago.
I don't think that has to be the case, though. I'd really love to create an environment where trust is the default, not suspicion and an insistence on being #1 from at least 1/3 of the players.
Quote from: Lorgan on August 05, 2014, 06:15:06 PM
I think you just can't expect the same level of respect, trust and focus that existed in Perdan between players that knew eachother for many years and had an established power base as in Sandalak where you've all been thrown in the pit together just a couple of months ago.
To be honest despite getting along with everyone very well there are only two people I'd trust to the extent of co-operating with them completely and utterly. It makes everything else starkly surprising.
I don't think you can make something as "trust" the default in a game, it's a human connection, it takes time.
But perhaps you could find a way to make it more obvious that in this social experiment of a game, trust is the key to success.
Quote from: Anaris on August 05, 2014, 06:24:52 PM
I don't think that has to be the case, though. I'd really love to create an environment where trust is the default, not suspicion and an insistence on being #1 from at least 1/3 of the players.
You should have tweaked the rules correspondingly then.
In Ikalak people were doing (still doing btw) absolutely crazy stuff out of spite or just for no reason. I know I can trust maybe half a dozen people there and inevitably it leads to secret councils and minimizes delegation of power.
Quote from: Lorgan on August 05, 2014, 06:15:06 PM
I think you just can't expect the same level of respect, trust and focus that existed in Perdan between players that knew eachother for many years and had an established power base as in Sandalak where you've all been thrown in the pit together just a couple of months ago.
See, that's a problem. Your default *should* be to trust your realm-mates. They are your team. The SI is a team-based island. Innumerable people have been saying that from the beginning. Yet quite a few of the people that have been saying that continue to play on SI as if it was a single-player game, and they are the central, most important part of the entire realm. Where's the cooperation?
Quote from: Constantine on August 05, 2014, 07:03:15 PM
In Ikalak people were doing (still doing btw) absolutely crazy stuff out of spite or just for no reason. I know I can trust maybe half a dozen people there and inevitably it leads to secret councils and minimizes delegation of power.
I can't even begin to recall the complete list of Ikalaks who have contacted Sandalak and offered to betray their realm for one reason or another.
Not to mention the fact that all of the SI realms are riddled with spies, sending as much info as they can to other realms. Really disappointing. It kind of dilutes the entire purpose of the island.
Quote from: Constantine on August 05, 2014, 07:03:15 PM
You should have tweaked the rules correspondingly then.
Tweaked the rules how?
If you've got suggestions, I'm open to them.
Well if you expect trust to be a given you just do away with the politics aspect of the game. You need to make the right decisions and make your nobles happy if you want their trust.
At least that's how it should work, and in my experience it's always worked like that.
Edit:
Granted I'm not on the war islands just because I do enjoy the politics aspect and especially the diplomacy aspect and thought there wouldn't be much of either on SI.
Also, of course there's always exceptions and people you just can't work with. That's what the banhammer is for.
Quote from: Lorgan on August 05, 2014, 07:54:02 PM
Well if you expect trust to be a given you just do away with the politics aspect of the game. You need to make the right decisions and make your nobles happy if you want their trust.
At least that's how it should work, and in my experience it's always worked like that.
But that's a very absolutist way of looking at it—as if "trust" were something you either gave completely, or not at all. And I certainly see that there are people who treat it that way.
But in reality, it can be much more nuanced than that. To take a very simple example, you can choose to trust new players and new characters in your realm, welcoming them rather than instantly suspecting them—but still not giving them access to your most secret counsels. In general, players
should trust their realm-mates, but this
does not preclude a certain amount of politicking, and even spying.
An attitude has arisen in the past several years—and I think it is due, at least in part, to the rise of SMA—that the default position of every noble should be to be out for their own good, and screw everyone else who gets in their way.
Personally, I find that to be an
exhausting way to play the game. I've done it, and done well—Alanna Anaris held the throne of Pian en Luries for
years in an environment that was practically a distillation of that attitude—but I don't think it's what we want for the game. It's not, for most people,
fun. And fun
for most people is what we should be striving for. Not fun that has to be fought for, but fun that's given—and, more importantly, shared.
One small step on the war island might be to remove the ability to talk directly to another realm unless you're in office. You could still have region speech enabled so that armies could banter with each other.
Remove the ability to talk to someone outside your realm unless you are in the same region. Period.
Quote from: Indirik on August 05, 2014, 08:09:17 PM
Remove the ability to talk to someone outside your realm unless you are in the same region. Period.
On the SI, that might actually be workable. It would require some changes to prevent replies to old messages, though, as well as blocking the addition of contacts from outside the realm.
Quote from: Anaris on August 05, 2014, 07:59:39 PM
But that's a very absolutist way of looking at it—as if "trust" were something you either gave completely, or not at all. And I certainly see that there are people who treat it that way.
But in reality, it can be much more nuanced than that. To take a very simple example, you can choose to trust new players and new characters in your realm, welcoming them rather than instantly suspecting them—but still not giving them access to your most secret counsels. In general, players should trust their realm-mates, but this does not preclude a certain amount of politicking, and even spying.
An attitude has arisen in the past several years—and I think it is due, at least in part, to the rise of SMA—that the default position of every noble should be to be out for their own good, and screw everyone else who gets in their way.
Personally, I find that to be an exhausting way to play the game. I've done it, and done well—Alanna Anaris held the throne of Pian en Luries for years in an environment that was practically a distillation of that attitude—but I don't think it's what we want for the game. It's not, for most people, fun. And fun for most people is what we should be striving for. Not fun that has to be fought for, but fun that's given—and, more importantly, shared.
I agree completely. But I think that by not just expecting trust from characters you don't know but knowing you have to work for it with the tools you have (and that doesn't mean overwhelming them with private messages or all your realm's information necessarily, but does necessarily mean making them feel accepted and involved) is the best way to combat that attitude of distrust in an SMA BM.
The extreme self interest powergaming is often justified by character, but apparently all of these characters are psychopaths who have no family or ties to a realm that would cause them to want to see it prosper. That is, it is unrealistic and unhistorical.
The problem is also that the concentration of the attitude tends to increase because trust-default people leave the game as concentration of selfish people rises. This is even theoretically seen in prisoner's dilemma between TFT and always betray strategy.
Quote from: Kai on August 06, 2014, 12:43:55 AM
The extreme self interest powergaming is often justified by character, but apparently all of these characters are psychopaths who have no family or ties to a realm that would cause them to want to see it prosper. That is, it is unrealistic and unhistorical.
The problem is also that the concentration of the attitude tends to increase because trust-default people leave the game as concentration of selfish people rises. This is even theoretically seen in prisoner's dilemma between TFT and always betray strategy.
I think the sky must be falling, because I am in complete agreement with Kai :)
What's needed is a cultural shift. I'm trying to come up with ideas for how to begin nudging people in the right direction for it.
Quote from: Anaris on August 05, 2014, 07:25:01 PM
Tweaked the rules how?
If you've got suggestions, I'm open to them.
As has already been said, my very short stay on SI was enough to demonstrate an atrocious spy problem. Removing inter-realm communications is a must. Heck, even for government members, may as well make it hard. Slap a 50 gold cost to every inter-realm communication a government member wants to send. Alternatively, don't bother putting a ton of custom restrictions for normal nobles, and just slap the 50 gold cost to everyone: that, in itself, should cut inter-realm communications significantly. Or have it be even higher: 100 gold, 250 gold! That way, it'll have to be something very important, and no one will be able to afford leaking orders every turn.
My stay in Sandalak has also shown a weak hierarchy. This was also pointed out: the realms are composed of a ton of nobles mashed together just a few months ago. From players who are used to getting positions easily. For years, a minimum of activity would get you a lordship. In most places, even a government position isn't all that hard. They come to SI expecting to have it their way, because they always do. But because there aren't as much positions to throw around, "competition" for these greatly increases. Peers are turned into rivals. What's the solution? I can't think of one right now, but the governments need some kind of "divine" legitimacy. If people were presented with the cold fact that they could not replace it to better suit their ambitions (ego), then maybe they'd just cease wanting to pursue them.
In the same line of thought, loyalty is equally weak. Nobles seem to switch from one side to the other at whim. In the old days, doing so would result in an immediate ban. Might be time to bring this back, at least for SI. And reduce the H/P cost of executions. But punishing lack of loyalty isn't enough: a reward system might help as well. Not sure what kind of reward would be appropriate, but something that is only granted to the players of the winning realm and that scales with how long they've been there might help.
Quote from: Anaris on August 05, 2014, 07:25:01 PM
Tweaked the rules how?
If you've got suggestions, I'm open to them.
Simple. Disallow switching realms.
Hate Ikalak? Retire your character and start a new one in a chosen realm.
There are some good ideas here. Some may go just a bit too far.
1) I am in favor of removing the ability to send cross-realm messages for all except council positions. Exception: You should always be able to talk to people in the same region with you. Those messages, however, are already restricted in that they have to be sent to everyone in the region. We would need to remove the private reply link. Possibly just add a check to the message editor screen that gives an error message if you do try to send a private message to someone outside your realm.
2) Continuing with #1, does anyone other than the ruler really need to be able to send messages to their counterparts? I can't really think of a reason for the banker to be sending messages. Maybe judges for prisoner agreement kind of things. Generals could possibly set the Rules of Engagement. But then again, rulers could handle all that kind of stuff, too. But then again, is removing the ability from the entire council really just a knee-jerk over-reaction?
3) I *think* that the winning team on SI got some kind of minor reward. A tip-of-the-hat, really. Scaling it to how long you've been in the realm isn't a bad idea.
4) I'm not sure we really need to remove the ability of nobles to switch realms. Sometimes it does make sense. But should we remove the ability to take your region with you?
5) Restoring autobans for allegiance changes... maybe only if you take your region with you?
Also, isn't this really the wrong place for this discussion? I didn't mean to derail the thread with a tirade against the SI situation.
Quote from: Anaris on August 06, 2014, 01:45:06 AM
I think the sky must be falling, because I am in complete agreement with Kai :)
How about all three of us?
Characters/families have no real ties to realms or lands. They can just move to another realm on a whim, losing nothing, except perhaps an ephemeral lordship that can be easily replaced. In an environment where things are easily replaced, things have no meaningful value.
So, what can be done to provide that meaningful value? Do we want to really try to create that meaningful value?
Disclaimer: I haven't read the rest of this thread yet.
My playstyle is not to let other realms know my strategies. :P
Seriously, though, I'll put up some stuff... someone just had to make the joke.
EDIT: Still haven't read the rest of the thread, but...
I like to test my enemy's initial strategies and concoct something completely on the other end of the spectrum. Big army? I'll break mine up into smaller ones and go around you. Small armies? Force you into a choke point or just go for the throat. I'm also a big fan of distractions, primarily that of sending some units into a more sensitive area to force the other army to respond. A good example was when I sent a raiding party into the mountains of the CE instead of joining the fight in Cantril (waste of time anyway). With a force about a fifth their size, I delayed the CE from returning to Cantril for somewhere between three days to a week. I actually lucked out -- I didn't realize the travel times would be so severe from all sides. Whereas we (the Barony) could throw away our units and walk back home without one, the CE needed to retain their units or face a breakthrough by Eston.
Quote from: Indirik on August 06, 2014, 02:43:12 PM
4) I'm not sure we really need to remove the ability of nobles to switch realms. Sometimes it does make sense. But should we remove the ability to take your region with you?
It's not about switching realms. It's about crippling your original realm while at it. I believe it's the most important step for damage control.
Rogue nobles pretty much plundered Ikalak, transferring regions with knights to other realms. We had our treasury stolen by Bankers two times, for crying out loud.
If SI's purpose is a war game with minimum internal intrigue, it's absolutely important to disallow nobles from doing this kind of stuff.
Spies can't do even half that damage.
If you think this discussion derails the thread, maybe you could branch this discussion into SI subforum?
Quote from: Indirik on August 06, 2014, 02:48:09 PM
So, what can be done to provide that meaningful value? Do we want to really try to create that meaningful value?
I also tend to like the noble's individualistic nature from time to time. Many still hold close to their realms however.
I do like the idea of expanding your family however, making your mansion more real. Perhaps even make it possible for people to loot the family mansions of others and the requirement to hide your money etc. Have you build secondary mansions on other continents where you store part of the family wealth etc. Then if you switch, you would need to ensure your entourage/family etc also escapes or face the consequences. Something like this.
Quote from: Eirikr on August 06, 2014, 07:11:45 PM
I like to test my enemy's initial strategies and concoct something completely on the other end of the spectrum.
This is also an interesting strategy, but can also be very dangerous. I've played multiple Generals and often my strategy depended on the situation and my enemies. In the case of Sirion now I chose a very defensive strategy, let the enemy make mistakes by being overconfident and then creating the upperhand slowly but steadily.
Concerning my Marshals I was forced to give them more space than I've done in the past for instance. But that was also because my General was a very young char and the Marshals very respected nobles.
Quote from: Quintus Ennius on August 11, 2014, 01:30:10 PM
This is also an interesting strategy, but can also be very dangerous. I've played multiple Generals and often my strategy depended on the situation and my enemies. In the case of Sirion now I chose a very defensive strategy, let the enemy make mistakes by being overconfident and then creating the upperhand slowly but steadily.
Concerning my Marshals I was forced to give them more space than I've done in the past for instance. But that was also because my General was a very young char and the Marshals very respected nobles.
I'd adjust my unit settings to my enemies, but not my strategies.
You'd be surprised how often the same armies re-use the same unit settings for every single battle. If you know how the enemy will deploy, you can use it against him.
Quote from: Chénier on August 11, 2014, 01:40:10 PM
I'd adjust my unit settings to my enemies, but not my strategies.
You'd be surprised how often the same armies re-use the same unit settings for every single battle. If you know how the enemy will deploy, you can use it against him.
I sometimes make the mistake of keeping my settings the same for too long, although that's also getting less and less so.
I do adjust my strategy however, I find it useful from time to time. Mostly on the entire context however and not just my enemy.
I adjust my strategy to everything - situation in my realm, my enemy, my allies, etc.
My playstyle is pretty relaxed. I'll focus on making sure everyone knows what to do and where we should be. I can see how useful some mechanical aspects of play are, but I'm not normally the one to see them until they're pointed out by someone else since I tend to keep my eyes on the personal interactions between nobles and how motivated they are. It pays off since I don't want to micromanage everything and having other people pick up my slack shows me who would be best suited to replace me if I were to disappear.
As much of being a General is politics, and people don't give that enough credit. Particularly I've found that on the War Island where because everyone wants to be involved but in their own way you really have to convince them that the current path is the right one. Choose where to compromise and where not to. And when to just trust that crazy guy inside of you saying "attack".
Quote from: Indirik on August 06, 2014, 02:43:12 PM
Maybe judges for prisoner agreement kind of things.
Ugh... I wouldn't mind if those got removed as well.
Quote from: Sacha on August 12, 2014, 11:01:07 PM
Ugh... I wouldn't mind if those got removed as well.
Game mechanics favor these things. Every judge action drains H/P. If a judge can get away with not actually doing any, by saying it's to protect his peers, he just got himself a free ride, because freed peers will be grateful, freed prisoners will not launch a personal vendetta against you, and if in a large war your h/p won't be drained to zero within a month, all while being able to say the job is being done.
Remove the h/p costs to judge actions, and you'd see less of these prisoner agreements.
Yep, good point. I mean, they're enemies, who gives a !@#$ what you do to them? WI only of course.