BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Development => Topic started by: Tom on November 03, 2011, 11:51:08 AM
-
Now that has you alarmed there, hasn't it? ;D
No, I don't want to remove takeovers. However, I would like to merge the different kinds of takeovers into one, and make the process more fluid. So instead of starting a kind of takeover, you would initiate a takeover, and get additional options that make it friendly or brutal. So there would be only one kind of takeover, but you would not just sit there while it happens, you would have the option of actually doing stuff, and what you do determines what kind of takeover it is. Basically, each turn, everyone gets the option to be brutal or friendly, or a mix. With the corresponding changes in region morale, loyalty, etc.
-
Doesn't sound bad at all. Provided friendly takeovers won't rely on the region's population anymore as per civil work. :/
-
I like this.
...Don't really have time right now for more cogent commentary ;)
-
More options to do stuff would be nice. Especially with hostile takeovers, I feel like I'm just sitting on my ass for days at a time, unable to do anything while the game decides if the takeover will work or not.
-
After just sitting through two long takeovers this is a welcomed idea.
-
I like this as well. But what happens if someone performs civil work, and some else loots? Will production go up and morale go down, but both move the process along?
-
So, one of the first things that comes to my head is that Hostile/Brutal colony takeover's would now be feasible (and thus, much more successful). That could make life much more interesting! Also, no more of this rubbish of a single renegade noble being able to fail a Friendly/Hostile takeover with a solitary act of looting. Likewise, the possibility we'll have more to do in brutal circumstances once a bare handful of occupying nobles have provoked the peasants and ensured all future looting attempts fail.
Change does sound really good to be honest. The only down side I can think of is if the decision is made to make successful takeover's dependent on widespread use of all these extra options. Just as takeovers can be immensely boring with nothing to do right now, it would be annoying if takeover's instead became a chore with so many nobles having to organise synchronised action for success.
-
"after sunset, order your men to loot! Loot the place to the ground!"
"after dawn, order your men to repair all the buildings that were mysteriously damaged in the night!"
Your men are confused and having to repair the damage they caused causes a morale drop of 10 points, on top of the 20 points from the civil work. Your men beat you up, take your gold, and go do some more looting on their way out of town.
-
I like it. Flexibility is always good.
-
Sounds like a pretty neat idea, I would definitely be supportive of hearing more about this and moving in this direction.
-
The only down side I can think of is if the decision is made to make successful takeover's dependent on widespread use of all these extra options. Just as takeovers can be immensely boring with nothing to do right now, it would be annoying if takeover's instead became a chore with so many nobles having to organise synchronised action for success.
This is something I was thinking about, too, but couldn't think of a good way to say it.
I guess I'd be concerned that we could go too far with it, and TOs could only be successful if you had a lot of nobles clicking their "Be hostile" links every turn.
-
This is something I was thinking about, too, but couldn't think of a good way to say it.
I guess I'd be concerned that we could go too far with it, and TOs could only be successful if you had a lot of nobles clicking their "Be hostile" links every turn.
Wouldn't it be easier to coopt current mechanic rather than creating a new hostile button?
I was thinking along the line of
-If there is looting - the TO works as a BTO
-If there is civil work - the TO works as a FTO
-if no one does anything - the TO works as a HTO
-If people contradict each other, the TO doesn't work and you're wasting your time.
-
So... if the region hates you, and some moron tries to do civil work, the TO fails because the game assumes you're trying to do an FTO?
-
So... if the region hates you, and some moron tries to do civil work, the TO fails because the game assumes you're trying to do an FTO?
Kind of, yes. Of course, if you have 15 nobles looting and one doing civil work, then the one doing civil work is getting drowned in the crowd. But if a good chunk of the nobles do civil work and there is not enough looting, then most likely the TO fails.
It's kind of like now: it is possible to make a mistake in how you do your TO. Except the mistake is not the sole decision of the one guy with the TO unit.
-
This is something I was thinking about, too, but couldn't think of a good way to say it.
I guess I'd be concerned that we could go too far with it, and TOs could only be successful if you had a lot of nobles clicking their "Be hostile" links every turn.
It won't be like that. As with most things in the game, the law of diminishing returns will be in effect, meaning that you will need a few nobles actually doing something for the TO to proceed nicely, but after the 3rd or so, the effects become smaller and smaller.
-
I've wanted to do a certain change for years now. Maybe this is the time:
Basically, a TO would work on two axis now - fear and loyalty. You can win the region either way. Brutality will increase fear, but lower loyalty while friendly acts will increase loyalty, but reduce fear. So trying both at the same time will be counter-productive, but a single or a few nobles going against the group will be drowned out.
What I would really love is for these two values to persist. Much like loyalty already persists, fear should as well.
This would allow realms to plan long-term - if you plan to take over a region by fear, you can ramp it up by going in an looting it a couple times during the war.
From the coding, it would be comparatively easy - we would add a 2nd column to the tables that already store loyalty.
-
I've wanted to do a certain change for years now. Maybe this is the time:
Basically, a TO would work on two axis now - fear and loyalty. You can win the region either way. Brutality will increase fear, but lower loyalty while friendly acts will increase loyalty, but reduce fear. So trying both at the same time will be counter-productive, but a single or a few nobles going against the group will be drowned out.
What I would really love is for these two values to persist. Much like loyalty already persists, fear should as well.
This would allow realms to plan long-term - if you plan to take over a region by fear, you can ramp it up by going in an looting it a couple times during the war.
From the coding, it would be comparatively easy - we would add a 2nd column to the tables that already store loyalty.
This gets bacl to the question I had before. I thought sympathy and loyalty were different values. I'll go on a limb and say that they should be if they're not!
http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,1470.0.html
-
This gets bacl to the question I had before. I thought sympathy and loyalty were different values. I'll go on a limb and say that they should be if they're not!
They are not, and it doesn't make much sense for them to be.
The value is simply how much the peasantry like Realm X. When Realm X owns those peasants, it's called loyalty; otherwise, it's called sympathy.
-
Agreed with Anaris, and please don't hijack the thread.
-
I very much like the idea, and the strategy possibilities it opens. Machiavelli would be quite pleased... ;D
One question: would Fear and Loyalty be two separate values, which you could theoretically max at the same time? Such would make sense to me.
-
One question: would Fear and Loyalty be two separate values, which you could theoretically max at the same time? Such would make sense to me.
Yes, two seperate values. Since most actions that raise one will lower the other, however, maxing both is mostly a theoretical possibility. Minimizing both, however, will be more easy (they neither respect nor fear you).
-
Wouldn't it be easier to coopt current mechanic rather than creating a new hostile button?
I was thinking along the line of
-If there is looting - the TO works as a BTO
-If there is civil work - the TO works as a FTO
-if no one does anything - the TO works as a HTO
-If people contradict each other, the TO doesn't work and you're wasting your time.
So...exactly the same as now, but with even more possibilities for the takeover to fail and still nothing for nobles to do in hostile takeovers? Let's not.
I like Tom's idea, but would like multiple ways to affect fear and loyalty during a takeover, just for the variety. So it's not just, "Loot to increase fear, civil work to increase loyalty". Perhaps to increase loyalty a noble could spend 4 hours speaking to a local alderman, while to increase fear a noble could have that alderman strung up in the village square. To increase loyalty a noble might spend 6 hours hunting down a group of bandits that has been plaguing a village (it would just be a button click, with success determined by unit size and training), while to increase fear a unit could spend 8 hours patrolling the streets at night, enforcing a curfew. And so on.
-
Thinking about it, would it not be better to have the values be named Fear and Love/Sympathy, with a third value that would result from both, called Loyalty?
That is because loyalty comes from many sources, not only from love/sympathy, but also from fear. It would make no sense in some situations that people get less loyal when you prove them you can hurt them if you want to. But you can have loyalty with fear only, with love only, with both, but never with none of them.
-
Valid point. With the USSR for instance, many were loyal to the government out of fear of their families and/or themselves being executed. Especially under Uncle Joe.
-
Valid point. With the USSR for instance, many were loyal to the government out of fear of their families and/or themselves being executed. Especially under Uncle Joe.
Err... that is fear, not loyalty. This is exactly what the value "fear" should represent. Yes, we could rename "loyalty" to "love". But really, let's not re-write the entire game. I thought by having two different values named "fear" and "loyalty" it would be obvious that they're not the same thing.
-
I don't get why we're talking about Love here, especially for our period. When the English were being rebellious against William the Conqueror he just went up North and absolutely savaged the place. Twenty years later it was still in smithereens according to Domesday Book. But that didn't matter, because no longer was anyone challenging Norman rule. I doubt our Wills was losing any sleep over peasant hatred for that. All that mattered to him was their ultimate loyalty.
-
I brought Love into the equation because Machiavelli talked about it in The Prince, on the question of the benefits of being a loved or feared ruler. Chapter 17 according to the Wikipedia (I read the book some time ago, don't remember the exact words).
-
That's exactly where I take the idea. Basically, you can rule by being feared or by being loved.
-
This will be very interesting. But I doubt many realms will try to rule with fear.
-
This will be very interesting. But I doubt many realms will try to rule with fear.
I think most will. The idea is that it is a lot easier to do it via fear, but it requires constant upkeep (you have to go around occasionally reminding people why they rightfully fear you). And as it is troublesome to switch one for the other, many people will conquer via fear and then get stuck with it.
-
I think most will. The idea is that it is a lot easier to do it via fear, but it requires constant upkeep (you have to go around occasionally reminding people why they rightfully fear you). And as it is troublesome to switch one for the other, many people will conquer via fear and then get stuck with it.
As long as you can rule by fear. BTO's are a pain in the ass right now because it's almost always worth it to take the region nicely to cut down on rebuilding time, and because there's no possible way to have a region kept in check by, for instance, hanging rebels and still have anything resembling good production.
-
As long as you can rule by fear.
Totally. There will be options to produce fear that don't crush production. :-)
-
Totally. There will be options to produce fear that don't crush production. :-)
I am sure you will come up with some awesome options. Like beating down a random peasant? lol
-
I am sure you will come up with some awesome options. Like beating down a random peasant? lol
Then the takeover should be lot slower and harder then a normal bt.
-
No thanks. Recently took an enemy capital with a brutal takeover. It took three weeks. Don't really want it any longer or harder than that, thanks.
-
I would imagine using fear as a way of rapidly controlling a region. So, hanging rebels, police raids, rape and killings, would inspire fear fairly quickly and thus being able to pummel the population into your realm. The downside is that fear would be reduced faster. If your not inspiring fear, than the population would rather start wanting to rebel. Loyalty on the other hand would be much harder to earn, but it would last much longer. Realm's would want to use fear during war to quickly takeover regions and deny their enemy resources, but if peace came, loyalty would be more viable since maintaining the regions would cost less.
-
Exactly. Taking a region through fear will be relatively fast. But then you are stuck with it, and switching it over to loyalty is going to be painful and take a bit of work. Or you can just stick with fear and go there reminding them every now and then. That's the easy road. But there's a risk: If you find yourself in a war and have nobody to go around beating the peasants, you could have rebelling regions at the worst possible time...
-
I really like it, as it can add flavour to realms and lords. There becomes a real RP launching point in the difference between the "Dread Lords" and the more traditional nobles around them.
-
I really like it, as it can add flavour to realms and lords. There becomes a real RP launching point in the difference between the "Dread Lords" and the more traditional nobles around them.
The way some people have suggest we all must behave as would go in the first option - Dread Lords :D
-
The way some people have suggest we all must behave as would go in the first option - Dread Lords :D
Well, at least it would be a worthwhile option. Right now, unless your forced to use brutal or hostile takeovers, you would want to use friendly takeovers because they offer the best option of loyalty right now. In the new system your offered to path each with a different benefits. If you want to roleplay a chivalrous noble, you'll have to earn their loyalty. If you want to roleplay a Dreadlord, you'll have to make sure they fear you, or they'll rebel later on. As Heq said, this will make a good distinction between Dreadlords and regular nobles.
-
Also regions ruled be fear would be taken over much easier by enemy realms using friendly takeover option.The invaders would be seen as liberators and the population would gladly join them.
-
Also regions ruled be fear would be taken over much easier by enemy realms using friendly takeover option.The invaders would be seen as liberators and the population would gladly join them.
That's what the americans thought many times, and gosh were they wrong most of them. No, a fearful population is likely to watch everyone with distrust. It won't be easier to take oppressed regions, because until you've proven otherwise (i.e. TO via loyalty), they will assume you're just like the others.
-
Exactly. Taking a region through fear will be relatively fast. But then you are stuck with it, and switching it over to loyalty is going to be painful and take a bit of work. Or you can just stick with fear and go there reminding them every now and then. That's the easy road. But there's a risk: If you find yourself in a war and have nobody to go around beating the peasants, you could have rebelling regions at the worst possible time...
As a few English kings rudely discovered to their dismay with Scotland and wales ;D
-
great idea, always wished for using looting, killing, burning and raping as region 'maintenance'.
Also the whole idea in general makes takeovers more logical and easy to understand.
Another step towards making the game more accessible.
-
This is definitely an interesting prospect, and as another person who has spent the past couple weeks doing TO's, I wouldn't mind a change like this too much.
But...
How will Cavalier's be effected by this change? They can't loot OR do civil/police work. Does that mean they will basically still remain sideline watchers so far as TO's go?
Will Hero's still be unable to perform civil and police work as well? Which means they are only good for the fear based TO's?
Also, will warriors be more skilled at looting and courtiers more skilled at civil work?
Will RTO's be loyalty based?
And if most realm's will probably switch to Fear based ruling anyways, won't that make Ambassadors a little outdated?
-
How will Cavalier's be effected by this change? They can't loot OR do civil/police work. Does that mean they will basically still remain sideline watchers so far as TO's go?
Didn't I say that there would be TO-specific actions added?
-
On a side note, cavaliers can do police work, right?
-
Didn't I say that there would be TO-specific actions added?
Oh, my bad, I must have missed it.
-
I'm making progress on this and it will go live soon, together with a large update that I've been holding back for a while. There will likely be a bit of breaking, but I am thrilled at the new takeover mechanics. Here are some highlights:
- No more "takeover units" - the total amount of troops you have in the region matters, not the one unit starting the process
- Active participation - you can't just sit there and wait. Well, you can, but if you do, your takeover will take literally forever, because only the new Takeover Actions will make it proceed
- No more pesky peasant uprisings - unless you leave the region, your TO will "stay on". If the enemy realm wants to stop you, they will have to haul their asses over and kick you out.
- More reasonable times - no more spending three days to TO a region with 50 people in it. Especially depopulated rogue regions can easily be taken in a day now. But if you plan to conquer a large place that loves its current realm, you better bring a huge army - or spend a really, really long time.
- Is it better to be feared or loved? - you decide. Conquer a region by oppression or by liberation. Your actions decide. You can even change your mind halfway through (though that's not exactly going to make things easier).
-
Nice. :)
-
Yay!
-
Niiiice ;D
-
I'm making progress on this and it will go live soon, together with a large update that I've been holding back for a while. There will likely be a bit of breaking, but I am thrilled at the new takeover mechanics. Here are some highlights:
- No more "takeover units" - the total amount of troops you have in the region matters, not the one unit starting the process
- Active participation - you can't just sit there and wait. Well, you can, but if you do, your takeover will take literally forever, because only the new Takeover Actions will make it proceed
- No more pesky peasant uprisings - unless you leave the region, your TO will "stay on". If the enemy realm wants to stop you, they will have to haul their asses over and kick you out.
- More reasonable times - no more spending three days to TO a region with 50 people in it. Especially depopulated rogue regions can easily be taken in a day now. But if you plan to conquer a large place that loves its current realm, you better bring a huge army - or spend a really, really long time.
- Is it better to be feared or loved? - you decide. Conquer a region by oppression or by liberation. Your actions decide. You can even change your mind halfway through (though that's not exactly going to make things easier).
Will there be a continental variable? Some continents have a much higher noble density than others, making providing very large numbers much easier in some continents than others. It'd be nice if a variable in the formula was added to take into considering nobles/owned regions, though without necessarily making TOs twice as easy in continents with twice the density, but just as a small adjustment. This would also help automatically scale the difficulty a bit as the player base either increases or (more likely) declines.
-
Sounds that Cats whiskers that does Tom :)
-
That's what the americans thought many times, and gosh were they wrong most of them. No, a fearful population is likely to watch everyone with distrust. It won't be easier to take oppressed regions, because until you've proven otherwise (i.e. TO via loyalty), they will assume you're just like the others.
Following this metaphor though, the population will be *glad* to get rid of their old rulers. I would say that a loyalty based TO of a region that's been ruled through fear should proceed more quickly BUT that when it succeeds, the starting loyalty to the new realm will be tenuous at best. You will have to work very hard to keep their trust or they will quickly become rebellious.
-
Following this metaphor though, the population will be *glad* to get rid of their old rulers. I would say that a loyalty based TO of a region that's been ruled through fear should proceed more quickly BUT that when it succeeds, the starting loyalty to the new realm will be tenuous at best. You will have to work very hard to keep their trust or they will quickly become rebellious.
The difficultly encountered in several wars with Heart and Mind campaigns to win over oppressed people would suggest this is not the case. When a population has been subject to severe oppression, they do not give their trust to a new group easily, they live in constant fear, they doubt the sincerity of their new masters, they worry that it is just the beginning of some new form of oppression. You know you are sincere and truly wish to earn their loyalty, they are just waiting for the whip to return.
They also have a hard time accepting that they are truly free of their Old masters, or that their old masters won't come back.
-
The difficultly encountered in several wars with Heart and Mind campaigns to win over oppressed people would suggest this is not the case. When a population has been subject to severe oppression, they do not give their trust to a new group easily, they live in constant fear, they doubt the sincerity of their new masters, they worry that it is just the beginning of some new form of oppression. You know you are sincere and truly wish to earn their loyalty, they are just waiting for the whip to return.
They also have a hard time accepting that they are truly free of their Old masters, or that their old masters won't come back.
Indeed, but this is exactly what I am saying. They would be quick to get rid of their old ruler, but slow to trust the new one.
-
Indeed, but this is exactly what I am saying. They would be quick to get rid of their old ruler, but slow to trust the new one.
On the contrary, if the fear for reprimand of their old masters, they would likely be more hesitant to switch, because that would both leave them at the mercy of the new guys and at the mercy of the old guys' wrath.
-
What Dom said, history has shown that heavily repressed people will often resist liberation and attempt to retain the hated power structure. Various reasons exist, like fear of punishment of the old rulers regain power. Think of it as large scale Stockholm Syndrome.
-
Because no matter how bad you have it, it could always be worse.
-
Which is why even regions ruled by fear will not switch on the first sight of someone new. They are not even necessarily easier to take.
It is easier and faster to take over a region by fear - how easy it is to take a region ruled by fear depends on how well it is ruled. The thing about fear (in the future, once it's used for more than the TO itself) is that you have to keep it up, while sympathy lasts longer without active reminders.
For the moment, it's largely irrelevant, it's just two ways of taking the region, they have advantages and disadvantages.
-
So I also posted this in the thread about bugs related to the update that this went to Testing in, but in case it's actually working as designed I thought I'd also mention it here.
In Fronen on BT, we are being told that it will take just over 2,000 men to initiate a TO of Tindle, which is a medium to large rural region. needless to say, 2,000 men is a hell of a lot for any realm to produce. For some realms, I'd go so far as to say it's impossible. And it's probably not feasible for most realms in the aftermath of a battle.
So, I guess I'm saying that I think the numbers could use some adjustment here...
-
That is definitely a bug. It should be around 10% or 200 soldiers for a region like Tindle. I'll try to find out what's going on.
-
Muchos Gracias :)
-
Can you test again, please? And report the numbers? It should be much better now.
-
Looks good now. Thanks Tom!
Out-of-Character from Jord Jorvik (47 minutes ago)
Message sent to everyone in your realm (31 recipients)
Seems ok now in Tindle :
here are too few soldiers of your realm here to even attempt a takeover. You will need at least 274 soldiers of your realm available (in the region, not travelling, not wounded, not retreated or rallying, etc.) to initiate a takeover.
Thor Stroobants
star [reply to sender] | [ignore] | [userdetails] | [give medal: Trust medal Roleplaying medal]
-
So if you crush an enemy's mobile force and stand in their capital, then assuming they can't afford to recruit a big enough force to dislodge you, it's impossible for the takeover to fail as long as you've got the gold to stay in the field and keep doing the TO actions?
-
You Need to keep a minimum amount of troops in the region or the TO will still fail. But if you can do that, then yes.
-
Good news. And does the TO instantly fail if you drop below that number of troops, or are there warnings first? And is that required number displayed anywhere?
-
Good news. And does the TO instantly fail if you drop below that number of troops, or are there warnings first? And is that required number displayed anywhere?
Yes, no, no.
-
I am raising this thread from the dead so its more recent and I don't forget it exists. Because there is still TODO with this.
-
I didn't notice the post date at first and was kind of confused.
-
TODO. is that similar to a moto or less fuzzy and cuddling?
-
To Do. To Be Done.