BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Development => Feature Requests => Topic started by: Zakilevo on September 14, 2012, 01:46:57 AM
-
Title: Speed up region recovery rate
Summary: At the moment, it takes forever for depopulated regions to recover quickly unless they are surrounded by fully populated regions. This is a big let down for new realms which were created from the regions of defeated realms. These new depopulated realms need a year of continuous courtier works to recover enough to fight a war. To make the game live up to its name, the speed of population recovery should be increased to allow regions to recover more quickly.
Details:
Make depopulated regions recover more quickly according to the followings:
(up to 50%) recovers 0.5~1% of its maximum population per day. Once the region reaches 50%, the current system can take over from there.
P.S Just throwing random numbers. But what I am actually proposing is let regions recover within 6 months.
Benefits: Allows regions that are completely depopulated to recover quickly, speeding up the game play.
Possible Exploits: Nothing I can think of... Maybe more wars?
-
This was shot down before. If recovery is too easy, then being beat down is without consequence, making wars pointless.
Furthermore, attacking realms can manage the damage they do. If they decide to turn a realm rogue before annexing it, then they should live with the consequences of their decision. Nothing's forcing them to devastate what they wish to colonize.
-
Yeah, what he said. ^^
-
The downside though of the current policy is that it encourages peace between war as realm have a long recovery period and before realms go to war they make damn sure they will win. Yes, there should be consequences, but nobody enjoys rebuilding for a long time. Well, perhaps the few nobles who use those periods to gain more influence, but certainly not the newer knights.
-
I think this is a problem mostly in the entirely settled islands like EC. There, if your city is at half production and your potential targets have their regions at full production, then it makes a lot of sense to wait, because your capabilities will increase while your targets capabilities are already maxed out.
On the other hand, in places like Beluaterra currently or Dwilight, it makes little sense two wait. Sure, maybe in six months you will be twice as strong as you are now, but so will your enemy!
I think the solution is simple: more war, and more destruction. When everyone has a large proportion of devastated regions, then everyone is equal, and there is no reason to avoid war, thus perpetuating the destruction cycle.
-
This so called 'consequences' is too severe at the moment. New people joining the game should at least get an idea of what realm they are joining. We do not want new people to end up in a realm which will not be having any kind of war for a year.
Some people in Perdan are already saying the name 'battlemaster' is misleading and I partially agree with that since we have so many stuff slowing down realms from fighting more often. Too many realms are thinking twice before they start a war. Everyone is trying to make sure they can win a war because they know if they lose they are out for a year.
-
Some people in Perdan are already saying the name 'battlemaster' is misleading and I partially agree with that since we have so many stuff slowing down realms from fighting more often. Too many realms are thinking twice before they start a war. Everyone is trying to make sure they can win a war because they know if they lose they are out for a year.
And yet, war is happening in plenty of other places. The EC has often had problems with alliance-based deadlock causing long peace. That is, in fact, what Too Much Peace was put in to combat. Now that it has been removed, surprise surprise, realms are more reluctant to go to war, and the average player suffers for it.
If regions bounce back too easily, it removes a major element of strategy from the game.
-
I think the solution is simple: more war, and more destruction. When everyone has a large proportion of devastated regions, then everyone is equal, and there is no reason to avoid war, thus perpetuating the destruction cycle.
I think you'll find that doesn't work and is certainly not fun game-play. When no one makes gold, there are no wars.
To be honest the game has not been the same since peasant numbers started affecting production. It has done nothing but add months of wait for regions to recover and that has done nothing but lead to less wars due to fears of the destruction it causes.
-
And yet, war is happening in plenty of other places. The EC has often had problems with alliance-based deadlock causing long peace. That is, in fact, what Too Much Peace was put in to combat. Now that it has been removed, surprise surprise, realms are more reluctant to go to war, and the average player suffers for it.
If regions bounce back too easily, it removes a major element of strategy from the game.
I am not saying regions should recover in a day or a week. They should at least recover in half a year. Cities take a year to recover. Look at Ibladesh. I wouldn't be surprised if that city takes two years. I am not against having some consequences of losing a war. Why not lower the morale and production to maybe 75% for 3 or 6 months instead of crippling a realm for a year?
What I am trying to say is the current policy is punishing losers too severely. Also, it is slowing down new realms from becoming big enough to fight a war.
-
There are plenty of people Perdan could fight, and plenty of reasons to do so. The slow recovery speed isn't what's stopping them.
-
There are plenty of people Perdan could fight, and plenty of reasons to do so. The slow recovery speed isn't what's stopping them.
For Nivemus, yes. It is one of the reasons why they are not going into war. Dunnera will most likely be stay away from fighting anything until next July until Dunnera take Krimml and wait for the city to recover.
Also, BT will be very slow for until realms recover too.
-
BT almost had a Thalmarkin/Melhed war. Probably would have, too, if Sint and OG hadn't stepped in to help Thalmarkin.
-
BT almost had a Thalmarkin/Melhed war. Probably would have, too, if Sint and OG hadn't stepped in to help Thalmarkin.
There may be some war in the south, too, though Riombara's still got plenty to do for now with taking regions and preparing for colonies...
-
BT almost had a Thalmarkin/Melhed war. Probably would have, too, if Sint and OG hadn't stepped in to help Thalmarkin.
One should note that Melhdes regions have barely been scratched while many of Thalmarkins are decimated. We(Thalmarkin) pretty much did all we could to avoid the war. Had our regions not been in a condition that would mean months of recovery, we might very well indeed have a war going now.
-
And yet, war is happening in plenty of other places. The EC has often had problems with alliance-based deadlock causing long peace. That is, in fact, what Too Much Peace was put in to combat. Now that it has been removed, surprise surprise, realms are more reluctant to go to war, and the average player suffers for it.
If regions bounce back too easily, it removes a major element of strategy from the game.
There have been PLENTY of wars since that mechanic was removed. Indeed, many places saw a rise.
If some !@#$%^& concentrated in one of the many continents don't care for fun, it shouldn't be a reason to go screw everyone else who plays the game. TMP caused a lot more harm than it did good, I'm quite glad it's gone.
-
There have been PLENTY of wars since that mechanic was removed.
I didn't say that there hadn't.
Indeed, many places saw a rise.
I think all that can be said for certain is that some realms, relieved of the burden of the badly-designed TMP penalties, were suddenly able to start wars they had been wanting to start. That is, I would call it a surge of wars (short-term), not a rise in the number (long-term).
If some !@#$%^& concentrated in one of the many continents don't care for fun, it shouldn't be a reason to go screw everyone else who plays the game. TMP caused a lot more harm than it did good, I'm quite glad it's gone.
I agree with this, as I think I've made clear before. I just think we need something to replace it as an incentive to war—nothing so heavy-handed, of course, and maybe some adjustments to region recovery should be part of it. But the problem of risk-averse rulers preventing wars because they're afraid of losing what they have is a real one.
-
I have slightly increased population growth, especially for regions that are heavily depopulated. Don't expect too much, it's not like doubled, but it should be a bit faster now to get out of heavy damage. Not too fast, or else the one causing the damage will feel like it's not worth it.
-
What about an honour/prestige based solution?
Instead of region recovery taking forever, create honour/prestige losses for lords/dukes/rulers when their regions get hurt? And for every point of prestige lost, maybe the Ruler/General/whomever of all realms at war with that realm have a chance of prestige gains?
-
What about an honour/prestige based solution?
Instead of region recovery taking forever, create honour/prestige losses for lords/dukes/rulers when their regions get hurt? And for every point of prestige lost, maybe the Ruler/General/whomever of all realms at war with that realm have a chance of prestige gains?
That sounds like a decent solution actually. Ever since population started to hurt production, things became less fun... more unnecessary micromanagement....
-
I think you'll find that doesn't work and is certainly not fun game-play. When no one makes gold, there are no wars.
There is always gold. You may receive 50 gold a week today, and expect to receive 80 gold a week in three months - or a city may support 4 knights now, and 12 down the road. But there is always gold.
To be honest the game has not been the same since peasant numbers started affecting production. It has done nothing but add months of wait for regions to recover and that has done nothing but lead to less wars due to fears of the destruction it causes.
When was that, a century ago? I don't remember that ever being the case, and I've been playing for quite some time.
-
There are a lot of nifty details in this game that most players don't know about. One of them is that looting is one of the few ways to actually create gold. That's because only half of what you loot is taken from that tax store, the other half is taken from the peasants - gold that the realm owning the region would not collect through taxes.
-
How long have you been playing, Zakilevo? two years? Three? There's no way you could possibly remember a time before production and population were tied together. That happened before I started playing almost 7 years ago, now.
We've had plenty of damn good wars since then.
-
What about an honour/prestige based solution?
Instead of region recovery taking forever, create honour/prestige losses for lords/dukes/rulers when their regions get hurt? And for every point of prestige lost, maybe the Ruler/General/whomever of all realms at war with that realm have a chance of prestige gains?
I don't see how this fixes anything. If you bash on a realm in order to be able to take on a stronger foe after, the first target would still be able to strike right back after their defeat regardless of their honor and prestige loss, if recovery is too rapid.
It also means that strong realms can go bully and devastate smaller realms' nobles' H/P. I really don't see how that would be fun for the invaded realm's players.
-
There are a lot of nifty details in this game that most players don't know about. One of them is that looting is one of the few ways to actually create gold. That's because only half of what you loot is taken from that tax store, the other half is taken from the peasants - gold that the realm owning the region would not collect through taxes.
But it also lowers production. ;)
-
How long have you been playing, Zakilevo? two years? Three? There's no way you could possibly remember a time before production and population were tied together. That happened before I started playing almost 7 years ago, now.
We've had plenty of damn good wars since then.
I've been playing since early 2006. Maybe I am confused with the time when we had more players and I only played on Atamara so I do not know much about other continents.
-
I could have sworn that you were a relatively newer player.
Anyway, back then, a couple regions getting destroyed didn't hurt a realm too much, as taxes were collected and distributed realm-wide. Things all around could be more centrally managed, so it was done more efficiently by the people that wanted to deal with it, and not done half-assed by people that don't want to be hassled with it.
-
I could have sworn that you were a relatively newer player.
Anyway, back then, a couple regions getting destroyed didn't hurt a realm too much, as taxes were collected and distributed realm-wide. Things all around could be more centrally managed, so it was done more efficiently by the people that wanted to deal with it, and not done half-assed by people that don't want to be hassled with it.
Probably because I never bothered to be anything else than a knight until I started the current one. Back then it was impossible for me to get anywhere near any positions... but the game was a lot more fun.
-
I'm curious, what are realms more often, at war or at peace?
-
I don't see how this fixes anything. If you bash on a realm in order to be able to take on a stronger foe after, the first target would still be able to strike right back after their defeat regardless of their honor and prestige loss, if recovery is too rapid.
No one, myself included, is proposing that you wouldn't be able to knock someone out of a war. People don't like that it can take several RL months to recover the population of a devastated city. I would think that knocking a realm out of effective production for three to six months would be more than sufficient.
It also means that strong realms can go bully and devastate smaller realms' nobles' H/P. I really don't see how that would be fun for the invaded realm's players.
I would counter this with two arguments:
1. Bigger realms should win against smaller realms, all else being equal. If you're fighting a war with someone twice your size, with no off-setting advantages, then you should lose.
2. Maybe people would actually agree to something approaching reasonable peace terms if they personally were facing H/P losses.
-
No one, myself included, is proposing that you wouldn't be able to knock someone out of a war. People don't like that it can take several RL months to recover the population of a devastated city. I would think that knocking a realm out of effective production for three to six months would be more than sufficient.
Wars take months to wage. Many, many months. And the only kind of damage I have really seen do the devastation some complain about is realm-wide starvation. And even that was nerfed since. A heavily-looted realm might take a while to re-obtain maximum production, sure, but that also doesn't mean it's unable to fight in any conflict. It's too easy to blame everything else than the players choosing not to go to war themselves.
I would counter this with two arguments:
1. Bigger realms should win against smaller realms, all else being equal. If you're fighting a war with someone twice your size, with no off-setting advantages, then you should lose.
2. Maybe people would actually agree to something approaching reasonable peace terms if they personally were facing H/P losses.
1. Sure they should win. Doesn't mean they should be able to completely crush the other realms' characters' personal stats. It's outright griefing.
2. Define "reasonable". I suspect that winning realms would make much greater demands if they knew that continued war meant personal damage to the other nobles. And while production can be restored in many ways, h/p can't, and since recruitment is tied to these stats, it's even less reparable damage than what we currently have.
Lords already take h/p hits when their regions are lost. I don't think that this path would be a good one to pursue if we keep fun in mind.
-
It's too easy to blame everything else than the players choosing not to go to war themselves.
I don't think it's "too easy", I think it's a recognition that there need to be incentives, because if you are already in a strong position, you often risk more than you can gain.
1. Sure they should win. Doesn't mean they should be able to completely crush the other realms' characters' personal stats. It's outright griefing.
Please note who I was suggesting take the hits. Lords, Dukes, Rulers. Maybe Generals. I have always thought there needed to be more personal responsibility among the top leadership of a realm, and if you are in a war you don't have a chance of winning, then surrender, or accept the consequences.
2. Define "reasonable". I suspect that winning realms would make much greater demands if they knew that continued war meant personal damage to the other nobles.
Speaking from extensive personal experience in both winning and losing realms...That's not a problem we have right now. The problem we have to an absolutely insane degree is people refusing any kind of peace terms that don't involve the attacking realm effectively surrendering. I've had to utterly cripple realms, up to and including sacking their capital, causing the entire realm to starve out, TOing a city adjacent to a capital, annihilating all troops they had while they were in the capital, causing half the realm to go rogue, and having my troops loot with impunity throughout every single region in a realm before they consider anything less than pre-war borders with no conditions, and even then have the time they won't accept anything near the kinds of conditions common in the medieval world.
And while production can be restored in many ways, h/p can't, and since recruitment is tied to these stats, it's even less reparable damage than what we currently have.
See my above point about Rulers, Dukes, Lords, maybe Generals. These are not the people who are going to be seriously troop-limited by H/P losses.
-
I dislike the idea of honor losses for losing a war. You can be perfectly honorable while losing. Honor isn't a win/lose stat. It's ... honor. It's the way you conduct yourself while you are winning and losing.
Prestige, on the other hand, is a different story. I don't necessarily have a problem with losing prestige due to losing a war, or continuing to fight a losing war. Deciding who loses, how much, and under what coknditions, is the tough part. It could easily lead to griefer situations where an attacker refuses to accept a surrender in order to personally destroy their oponent's characters.
-
How about make bigger realms gain less h/p against smaller realms while smaller realms gain more against bigger realms?
As for attackers refusing to accept a surrender, give a button to surrender to rulers. Once the ruler of the losing side presses the button, make the soldiers of the winning side lose morale each passing day they are in the surrendered realm's territory. Maybe nobles can get a message saying 'soldiers are questioning the ruler' or something.
Also, instead of crippling realms through devastating them, why not make realms that lost wars suffer a penalty? Like less recruitable men for a certain period of time (3~5 months maybe)? lords can get messages like 'less soldiers are showing up due to losing a war recently'.
-
Speaking from extensive personal experience in both winning and losing realms...That's not a problem we have right now. The problem we have to an absolutely insane degree is people refusing any kind of peace terms that don't involve the attacking realm effectively surrendering. I've had to utterly cripple realms, up to and including sacking their capital, causing the entire realm to starve out, TOing a city adjacent to a capital, annihilating all troops they had while they were in the capital, causing half the realm to go rogue, and having my troops loot with impunity throughout every single region in a realm before they consider anything less than pre-war borders with no conditions, and even then have the time they won't accept anything near the kinds of conditions common in the medieval world.
Not a problem we have right now, indeed. A problem we could face if such things were implemented, though.
Also, you are complaining that it's too hard to stop wars? Do you want wars or do you want peace? Because on one hand, you are saying you want it to be easier to fight wars, and on the other, you are asking for it to be easier to end them. Because you really seem to dislike having to fight wars. Small border skirmishes over a badland nobody really wants does not entertain anyone. To get players involved, they must feel the conflict is important, that the stakes are high. Small baby-steps only entertain the leaders who see the big picture, not the rank-and-file player.
-
Not a problem we have right now, indeed. A problem we could face if such things were implemented, though.
Also, you are complaining that it's too hard to stop wars? Do you want wars or do you want peace? Because on one hand, you are saying you want it to be easier to fight wars, and on the other, you are asking for it to be easier to end them.
Yes. Exactly. There should be more, shorter wars.
It should be not only possible, but expected, for the end result of a war to be something less than the destruction or deep crippling of a realm.
Wars should be fought over a border region (victory condition: hold the region, convince other realm it's not worth trying to take it back). Or an insult to the ruler's honour (victory condition: other realm apologizes). Or the beating of a priest of the realm's predominant religion (victory condition: apology, Danegeld, and preaching rights in perpetuity).
Not just "You insulted me! Now there will be war, until we have destroyed you!" Or "You hurt our neighbour! Now there will be war, until we have destroyed you!"
Or (and, as Bedwyr says, this is really the problematic part), "Apologize for your insult!" "No! Never!" (time passes, several regions are taken) "Now, apologize for your insult, and we give you back half the regions we took!" "Never! Give back everything you took, and give us two other regions of yours, too!" "WTF?!?!" (time passes, more regions taken, capital is besieged) "Now, apologize for your insult, and we give you back half the regions we took!" "Never! Give back everything you took, and five more regions of yours, too!" "Are you high??"
You know people act this way, Chénier, and it's a real problem for BattleMaster. By the time a war gets to that point, it's rarely much fun for the losing side, and often not much fun for the winning side, either. In my experience, they'd be quite happy to make peace, go home and rest up for a while—but this stupid little realm that hasn't got a snowball's chance in Hell of winning just won't stop fighting.
-
On the last part, I would like to say from my experience (which is only two wars, so it's not much) the attacker gave harsh demands which were mostly accepted since they we had no bargaining power since we lost majorly and in the second war (not yet over) the invading realm had two regions bordering our capital and wanted to keep the borders exactly as they were while also not having quite the strength to have the strength to be trying to force terms like that(kinda, since an ally was joint the war on the defender's side.)
-
Would it be possible to implement an 'object' to start a war?
Maybe rulers can have an option to choose from four or five options?
Like...
op1) Take [select a bordering region]
op2) Take [select a bordering region1] and [select bordering region2]
op3) Take [select a bordering duchy]
op4) War to annihilate
something like that?
-
You know people act this way, Chénier, and it's a real problem for BattleMaster. By the time a war gets to that point, it's rarely much fun for the losing side, and often not much fun for the winning side, either. In my experience, they'd be quite happy to make peace, go home and rest up for a while—but this stupid little realm that hasn't got a snowball's chance in Hell of winning just won't stop fighting.
I do know people act this way.
But I do believe that more small-scale wars would be fought if they were indeed as fun as some of you seem to put them. Not all rulers are !@#$%^&s, after all. I like to think that a good number care for the fun of their players.
In my experience, if the war doesn't seem all that crucial, participation tends to be atrocious because too many people just don't care. This isn't the case everywhere, granted, but I've seen it enough times. And I've done it myself too, at times.
And really, what was it Sun Tzu said about not attacking someone unless you can utterly cripple him? Or was it Machiavello? Attacking someone for a crap reason is really just giving him an excuse to backstab you as soon as you present a vulnerability. This is why there aren't many small-scale wars. It's because players aren't the uneducated savages that medieval nobles borderline were.
-
I do know people act this way.
But I do believe that more small-scale wars would be fought if they were indeed as fun as some of you seem to put them. Not all rulers are !@#$%^&s, after all. I like to think that a good number care for the fun of their players.
In my experience, if the war doesn't seem all that crucial, participation tends to be atrocious because too many people just don't care. This isn't the case everywhere, granted, but I've seen it enough times. And I've done it myself too, at times.
And really, what was it Sun Tzu said about not attacking someone unless you can utterly cripple him? Or was it Machiavello? Attacking someone for a crap reason is really just giving him an excuse to backstab you as soon as you present a vulnerability. This is why there aren't many small-scale wars. It's because players aren't the uneducated savages that medieval nobles borderline were.
We are supposed to act like those uneducated savages!
-
Would it be possible to implement an 'object' to start a war?
Something like that was proposed in the treaty system that was recently removed. I don't know that it would really be successful. Just because the aggressor fulfilled their conditions doesn't mean the defender will be willing to accept the outcome. The war won't end just because the aggressor can put a tick in a checkbox on his declaration.
-
Something like that was proposed in the treaty system that was recently removed. I don't know that it would really be successful. Just because the aggressor fulfilled their conditions doesn't mean the defender will be willing to accept the outcome. The war won't end just because the aggressor can put a tick in a checkbox on his declaration.
I guess the biggest problem is that some players just hate losing and just won't accept the consequences...
-
To get players involved, they must feel the conflict is important, that the stakes are high. Small baby-steps only entertain the leaders who see the big picture, not the rank-and-file player.
Just because the stakes are high, doesn't mean the war has to be long. One of the reasons I love love love the new TO system is that assuming you keep military control over a region, you will take it eventually. No more of these random revolts screwing everything up. I've had that screw over three wars that I personally started (and had it save my realm once), where even if it would have taken two weeks to take a city, that would have been fine, and the war would have been over less than two months later, one way or the other.
Here's the other thing about my suggestion: It encourages declared wars, because you can't get prestige gains without declaring a war.
How about make bigger realms gain less h/p against smaller realms while smaller realms gain more against bigger realms?
I like this.
As for attackers refusing to accept a surrender, give a button to surrender to rulers. Once the ruler of the losing side presses the button, make the soldiers of the winning side lose morale each passing day they are in the surrendered realm's territory. Maybe nobles can get a message saying 'soldiers are questioning the ruler' or something.
"The soldiers are uneasy about massacring a people who no longer have the heart to resist."
The realm that pushed the surrender button would then actively avoid battles (don't provoke fights or even align on defenders side of a battle the other side tries to start unless attackers are on murderous, say).
Also, instead of crippling realms through devastating them, why not make realms that lost wars suffer a penalty? Like less recruitable men for a certain period of time (3~5 months maybe)? lords can get messages like 'less soldiers are showing up due to losing a war recently'.
I don't like this. We're trying to make "winning" and "losing" more vague, so people can say to themselves "we didn't lose we just made some temporary arrangement".
-
I don't like this. We're trying to make "winning" and "losing" more vague, so people can say to themselves "we didn't lose we just made some temporary arrangement".
Unfortunately this is usually not possible. There are several reasons. Among them is that past certain demands the realm cannot really recover something resembling the previous geopolitical power, no matter for how long it stays at peace rebuilding, and will have to choose between becoming a permanent quasi-vassal and fighting to the death. Unfortunately the former is rarely fun, so people go with the latter. And that is because war demands don't only cost current power, but also hurt potential one.
Examples: Summerdale, Libero and Morek. The one you referred to, which I assume were Arcachon and Arcaea. Caerwyn and Astrum/SA. And so on.
-
Unfortunately this is usually not possible. There are several reasons. Among them is that past certain demands the realm cannot really recover something resembling the previous geopolitical power, no matter for how long it stays at peace rebuilding, and will have to choose between becoming a permanent quasi-vassal and fighting to the death. Unfortunately the former is rarely fun, so people go with the latter. And that is because war demands don't only cost current power, but also hurt potential one.
Examples: Summerdale, Libero and Morek. The one you referred to, which I assume were Arcachon and Arcaea. Caerwyn and Astrum/SA. And so on.
Becoming a permanent quasi-vassal isn't that bad. From experience, 3 months down the road the vassal status will be as good as forgotten (see: Morek/Aquilegia). It should be somewhat acceptable when faced with the alternative of total destruction.
In the case of Summerdale, they decided they would rather be full vassals to Astrum than quasi-vassals to Morek. Is this better? Maybe - it was their decision.
-
Becoming a permanent quasi-vassal isn't that bad. From experience, 3 months down the road the vassal status will be as good as forgotten (see: Morek/Aquilegia). It should be somewhat acceptable when faced with the alternative of total destruction.
In the case of Summerdale, they decided they would rather be full vassals to Astrum than quasi-vassals to Morek. Is this better? Maybe - it was their decision.
Some of them decided they would be part of Astrum, and the rest that they would simply emigrate.
Pre-war Summerdale was boring as hell, the same as Libero Empire before and after the war, I suspect. No matter if the vassal status exists or not in theory.
-
We are supposed to act like those uneducated savages!
That's a player problem, not a mechanics problem.
I guess the biggest problem is that some players just hate losing and just won't accept the consequences...
I agree.
Just because the stakes are high, doesn't mean the war has to be long. One of the reasons I love love love the new TO system is that assuming you keep military control over a region, you will take it eventually. No more of these random revolts screwing everything up. I've had that screw over three wars that I personally started (and had it save my realm once), where even if it would have taken two weeks to take a city, that would have been fine, and the war would have been over less than two months later, one way or the other.
I'm not opposed to the new takeover system. I'm quite fine with taking multi-week takeovers out of the game. And imo, it means that takeovers can be done with less collateral damage, hence reducing recovery time. I'm all in favor of small wars being possible... as long as it is also possible to royally screw over another realm and, after months of pounding on them, cripple them for at least as long as it took you to bring them there.
"The soldiers are uneasy about massacring a people who no longer have the heart to resist."
The realm that pushed the surrender button would then actively avoid battles (don't provoke fights or even align on defenders side of a battle the other side tries to start unless attackers are on murderous, say).
Winning is arbitrary, I really don't like mechanics that would work with such things. What would the "surrender" box do. If it gives morale penalties to the invading troops, wouldn't the defending realm want to insta-surrender while continuing to push the war, just abusing this mechanic for a strategic advantage? Sure, some things could be thought of to reduce abuse, but I think it's too vague and therefore would never be perfectible.
-
The one you referred to, which I assume were Arcachon and Arcaea. Caerwyn and Astrum/SA. And so on.
And Arcaea and Ethiala. And Arcaea and Greater Aenilia. And, heck, Arcaea and Soliferum, Arcaea and Mosesadelphia.
And permanent vassalage doesn't work. There has to be some way for the center of the empire or whatever to change, which is what I started moving toward (and Velax has continued) on the FEI.
-
Winning is arbitrary, I really don't like mechanics that would work with such things. What would the "surrender" box do. If it gives morale penalties to the invading troops, wouldn't the defending realm want to insta-surrender while continuing to push the war, just abusing this mechanic for a strategic advantage? Sure, some things could be thought of to reduce abuse, but I think it's too vague and therefore would never be perfectible.
You're surrendering. Your troops don't fight, unless the attacking realm forces it with murderous settings, and they don't prevent looting or takeovers. Add in a cooldown of a month or three before you can "uncheck" the surrender box, and it's pretty much something you would never use unless you were really, truly surrendering.