BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Development => Topic started by: JPierreD on September 16, 2012, 10:22:05 AM
-
Some recent discussions on how to make wars more attractive made me think on the factors that make conflicts unattractive.
These are two of them:
1) Big boss in the region you don't want to anger, because there is simply zero chance of surviving his/their anger. This may be even the one you want to attack.
2) Lack of personal benefits in waging a war but with risks of concrete losses. Past certain point expansion is only done indirectly, making conservative rulers/dukes prefer peace.
Both refer to the fact that there is a point in where big realms and their rulers start profiting much less from wars than they do for enforcing peace and a status quo. I believe we could attack those problems with some changes of perspective.
First is not allowing incredibly large realms in their current implementation to be feasible, but such has to be balanced according to the island. For example: North-East Dwilight. The success of the Morek Empire has killed the fun of the region. The only war/event that broke the eternal stagnation was Summerdale's suicidal crusade. And it had a very predictable end.
Now this doesn't mean realms should not be allowed to be successful, or we'd solve the first point at the expense of the second one, returning to where we began. What I propose instead is that we change the focus from warfare between realms with either conquest and 100% direct rule or colonization and 100% indirect rule, to a more medieval vassal-liege system of indirect rule but with some game-mechanics ties.
The idea would be to allow realms to be vassals of other realms, but lowering the maximum size any of those can achieve by themselves only. Being realm B's vassal would cost realm A a % of its total tax income, its ruler income, or some other form of revenue. The point of this is to create a hierarchy between the small feuds in where several are in the less comfortable position of inferiority regarding the dominating realm, which should not be in itself excessively stronger than the individual dominated ones. But being careful not to allow the mechanically-imposed tribute to be so taxing as to effectively making eventual opposition of the center of power impossible.
This would work on two fronts:
First it would make the dominating center of power a more fluid one, less rock solid. A small realm cannot hope to take on a large one, and causing it to break from inside is almost impossible when the positions are directly appointed by the ruler, the game mechanics promote a realm-focused nationalism, and the message system completely benefits the intra-realm communication. But if instead of absolutist France we are talking about the Holy Roman Empire conflict with the Emperor is much more feasible.
Secondly it would avoid the other side of the coin: lack of motivation for the rulers of such large empires to keep expanding. Past certain point they would have the option to destroy a realm they cannot keep and start a colony, which mechanics-wise are largely independent. If they could keep that kind of vassal-liege relationship increasing their own gold income, even if only slightly, but at the same time not being able to have so much direct control of the immediate vassals forming their Empire I believe we would have the best of both worlds.
Thoughts?
-
The idea would be to allow realms to be vassals of other realms, but lowering the maximum size any of those can achieve by themselves only. Being realm B's vassal would cost realm A a % of its total tax income, its ruler income, or some other form of revenue. The point of this is to create a hierarchy between the small feuds in where several are in the less comfortable position of inferiority regarding the dominating realm, which should not be in itself excessively stronger than the individual dominated ones. But being careful not to allow the mechanically-imposed tribute to be so taxing as to effectively making eventual opposition of the center of power impossible.
This is almost what the Duchy mechanics does. Dukes send x% of their revenues to the overall rulers; however Dukes retain the capacity to secede, therefore retaining some of their autonomy.
The difference is that if Duchies were vassal mini-realms, they would be able to fight each other. Now, I like this: I have always advocated for a form of intra-realms warfare. I know many people don't like this. Maybe attacking the question the other way around would work better? Don't implement intra-realm warfare, but make it easier to create HRE-like entities above the level of realms?
-
I don't think vassalage will work, because I don't think most players would willingly choose to allow their realm to be a vassal realm.
Vassalage works in reality because the ruling nation has a big stick. The vassal gets out of hand, and the master comes over and beats the crap out of them until they knuckle under. This won't be possible in the game. If you intentional put mechanics in to keep realms small, it will be too easy for the vassal to grow in size to rival the ruling realm.
-
I don't think vassalage will work, because I don't think most players would willingly choose to allow their realm to be a vassal realm.
Vassalage works in reality because the ruling nation has a big stick. The vassal gets out of hand, and the master comes over and beats the crap out of them until they knuckle under. This won't be possible in the game. If you intentional put mechanics in to keep realms small, it will be too easy for the vassal to grow in size to rival the ruling realm.
So then the vassal seeks to become the sovereign?
Sounds like a good suggestion to me.
-
I don't think vassalage will work, because I don't think most players would willingly choose to allow their realm to be a vassal realm.
The defeated players would have two options: to become a vassal of the conquering realm with chances to regrow in time and be able to challenge it again later or to be destroyed and colonized, like it happens now. The difference is that they would have the possibility of resisting later if they chose the former. While the conquerors could bet on being able to maintain them subjugated if they decide to take the easier route of not destroying and recolonizing everything.
Vassalage works in reality because the ruling nation has a big stick. The vassal gets out of hand, and the master comes over and beats the crap out of them until they knuckle under.
And that is precisely what I want to happen. Right now beatings are quire rare.
This won't be possible in the game. If you intentional put mechanics in to keep realms small, it will be too easy for the vassal to grow in size to rival the ruling realm.
Empires are not made solely by their centers of power. A HRE-like Emperor would also rely on other vassals to keep the most rebellious ones in check. The difference is that he wouldn't have that much power over them to begin with.
And are you seriously worried a realm will not be able to oppress others? When has that ever been a problem?
-
A vassal-like relationship works on the imbalance of power. You cannot have an imbalance of power when you artificially limit the size of realms. The vassal realm won't have to hit the limit to become strong enough to defy the parent realm. If the limit is 10 regions, then even a 7 region realm will probably be strong enough to tell the parent realm to go take a hike.
-
How about increasing the minimum percentage of taxes that rulers take from dukes? A 5-region realm might let the ruler take a minimum of 5%, as is the case right now. But a 10 region realm might have a minimum of 10%, and so forth. That way, the larger a realm grows, the more the dukes pay, and the more likely they are to form their own realms.
-
A vassal-like relationship works on the imbalance of power. You cannot have an imbalance of power when you artificially limit the size of realms. The vassal realm won't have to hit the limit to become strong enough to defy the parent realm. If the limit is 10 regions, then even a 7 region realm will probably be strong enough to tell the parent realm to go take a hike.
A 10-region-realm can perfectly oppress several other 7-region-realms with diplomatic skills and differential vassal-tributes between them, specially if it forms an inter-realm federation and whatnot, being more the primus inter pares than the absolute monarch (in relation to the rulers of the vassal states).
Having 27-region-realms is pretty insane and unless strife happens from within them it completely stagnates the region.
-
I would say put the limit at 15 regions. That way you have a decently sized main realm, and any 7 region realm that is a vassal is properly under control. Of course, if a 15 region realm tried to make a 12 region realm their vassal, they're just asking for trouble.
-
Larger doesn't mean more wealthy or more powerful. There are many reasons a more compact realm could dominate its neighbours.
I see no reason for the need for special mechanics to determine who could and couldn't become vassals. If the vassal grows too strong, then it'd be up to them to try to change to status quo to get what they feel they deserve.
-
I love the idea of vassals on top of vassals on top of more vassals all the way up to the realm and empire size. This is one reason I love the new estate system.
That being said, I think the idea of trying to pick something so arbitrary as a number of regions to limit a realm's size is.... absolutely ridiculous.
-
I like this vassal thing, but the limit would be progressive.
For every region -or for distance to the capital- the efficiency of the taxes would go down. Is a lot more easy to get the taxes in a region neighbour with the capital than in a distant region, far, far away! 8)
-
Larger doesn't mean more wealthy or more powerful. There are many reasons a more compact realm could dominate its neighbours.
I see no reason for the need for special mechanics to determine who could and couldn't become vassals. If the vassal grows too strong, then it'd be up to them to try to change to status quo to get what they feel they deserve.
I agree with this.
-
I like this vassal thing, but the limit would be progressive.
For every region -or for distance to the capital- the efficiency of the taxes would go down. Is a lot more easy to get the taxes in a region neighbour with the capital than in a distant region, far, far away! 8)
The Chinese, if I remember, often had to send their army down to Vietnam to collect their tribute (Vietnam didn't consider itself a vassal, China considered them so).
Perhaps a mechanic forcing the central realm to move nobles (or just the ruler or an ambassador) to actually collect the funds would be interesting.
-
The Chinese, if I remember, often had to send their army down to Vietnam to collect their tribute (Vietnam didn't consider itself a vassal, China considered them so).
Perhaps a mechanic forcing the central realm to move nobles (or just the ruler or an ambassador) to actually collect the funds would be interesting.
This is not new mechanics at all. Currently, you are able to send down armies to punish realms who won't do what you tell them to, and for them to give you monetary tribute, a noble must move so that a gold transfer can be made.
-
This is not new mechanics at all. Currently, you are able to send down armies to punish realms who won't do what you tell them to, and for them to give you monetary tribute, a noble must move so that a gold transfer can be made.
Yes... I think if we put a harder limit to realms size, the vassals realms will be 'created naturally'... and the oppressor realms would want others things aside gold... a few 'selected' nobles in their capital, or a few units on their army (always the first ones in suicide attacks)...
so many possibilities! :D
-
Yes... I think if we put a harder limit to realms size, the vassals realms will be 'created naturally'... and the oppressor realms would want others things aside gold... a few 'selected' nobles in their capital, or a few units on their army (always the first ones in suicide attacks)...
so many possibilities! :D
My point was that what you describe does not require any new mechanics at all. There are already limitations to realm sizes. There is already a mechanic by which a realm can transfer gold to another one (send a noble to the central realm capital and transfer the goal). There are already mechanics for one realm to send troops to help in another realm's war (alliance). And there are already cases where these mechanics are used in a relation that is hard to describe in other terms than as a vassal-liege relation.
-
My point was that what you describe does not require any new mechanics at all.
Agreed. Mechanics would help keep some of these things more stable, but I think if someone (cough-FEI-cough) pulls it off, then you'll start seeing it done elsewhere too.
-
My point was that what you describe does not require any new mechanics at all. There are already limitations to realm sizes. There is already a mechanic by which a realm can transfer gold to another one (send a noble to the central realm capital and transfer the goal). There are already mechanics for one realm to send troops to help in another realm's war (alliance). And there are already cases where these mechanics are used in a relation that is hard to describe in other terms than as a vassal-liege relation.
The existing mechanics are so onerous that it discourages anyone from doing such a thing. If we don't see such tributes take place, it's not because nobody would like to impose a tax on the defeated foes, it's because managing such tributes are just too much work and unlikely to pay off.
-
For example: North-East Dwilight. The success of the Morek Empire has killed the fun of the region. The only war/event that broke the eternal stagnation was Summerdale's suicidal crusade. And it had a very predictable end.
I am undecided which opinion to have on this matter. You bring up a very good example, but in my (quite biased) opinion, Morek's success is the result of many repeated mistakes of its neighbours. Summerdale could have played it VERY differently, if they suicide that's not Morek's fault, and I wonder therefore whether game mechanics should somehow limit Morek's success when it comes from players choices.
On the other hand I agree with the fact that there is a concrete lack of game mechanics tools to help rulers give to any wars a more interesting outcome. Again I believe this can be solved by players (see for instance Fontan's fate on EC, they have been given a chance, too bad they wasted it), but some additional game mechanics would definitely be helpful in having interesting peace treaties.
I however also agree with most of Indirik's remarks, it's not very easy to let players play as vassals and like it.
-
I am undecided which opinion to have on this matter. You bring up a very good example, but in my (quite biased) opinion, Morek's success is the result of many repeated mistakes of its neighbours.
And I agree with you, but that's besides the point.
Summerdale could have played it VERY differently, if they suicide that's not Morek's fault, and I wonder therefore whether game mechanics should somehow limit Morek's success when it comes from players choices.
I wouldn't mind discussing this in another thread, but I don't want to go off topic in this one. What I said here was not that Morek should be punished, but that the success of /any/ realm should be limited to a less permanent kind of victory. Regardless of how and why they achieve such victory, or how deserving they are of it.
On the other hand I agree with the fact that there is a concrete lack of game mechanics tools to help rulers give to any wars a more interesting outcome. Again I believe this can be solved by players (see for instance Fontan's fate on EC, they have been given a chance, too bad they wasted it), but some additional game mechanics would definitely be helpful in having interesting peace treaties.
When things could be solved by players but are not is when it is likely that the game mechanics are not providing the right environment for that to happen. I won't comment on Fontan for I am not familiar with their situation.
I however also agree with most of Indirik's remarks, it's not very easy to let players play as vassals and like it.
And that is why realms almost always choose death before surrendering: because the winner's demands will most times be so harsh as to not allow the defeated to ever raise again from quasi-vassal status (why would a conqueror impose any less if they could avoid it?).
What I propose is that we remove the ability of the victors to impose an implicit vassalage out of which there is almost no escape, without naming it, and substitute that for en explicit vassalage that can be escaped from given enough time.
-
And I agree with you, but that's besides the point.
I wouldn't mind discussing this in another thread, but I don't want to go off topic in this one. What I said here was not that Morek should be punished, but that the success of /any/ realm should be limited to a less permanent kind of victory. Regardless of how and why they achieve such victory, or how deserving they are of it.
When things could be solved by players but are not is when it is likely that the game mechanics are not providing the right environment for that to happen. I won't comment on Fontan for I am not familiar with their situation.
And that is why realms almost always choose death before surrendering: because the winner's demands will most times be so harsh as to not allow the defeated to ever raise again from quasi-vassal status (why would a conqueror impose any less if they could avoid it?).
What I propose is that we remove the ability of the victors to impose an implicit vassalage out of which there is almost no escape, without naming it, and substitute that for en explicit vassalage that can be escaped from given enough time.
Look at Perdan. They made a comeback even after getting their asses beat to pulps. Sometimes you just have to suck it up and wait for the right moment.
-
What I propose is that we remove the ability of the victors to impose an implicit vassalage out of which there is almost no escape, without naming it, and substitute that for en explicit vassalage that can be escaped from given enough time.
I don't think your system allows that to happen. It does not change the fact that:
1) Players don't *want* to be vassals, so won't choose the vassalage option
2) Players often want to be very punitive, and impose extremely insulting and unpalatable conditions on defeated foes
3) Players find it almost impossible to accept these extremely punitive conditions
Instituting an option that garnishes X% of a realm's income to send to another realm as tribute does not seem to me to be something that will change any of those facts. If Realm A can't take all of Realm B's lands, then it can drive them rogue, and then replace Realm B with Realms C and D (as happened with Ibladesh).
-
Look at Perdan. They made a comeback even after getting their asses beat to pulps. Sometimes you just have to suck it up and wait for the right moment.
I would like to see that happening more often than it does now, that's the idea of the proposal.
I don't think your system allows that to happen. It does not change the fact that:
1) Players don't *want* to be vassals, so won't choose the vassalage option
No, it takes that into account. For a realm to expand it has two options: it either fragments itself or it grows into an Empire with a center of power and tributary states. Regardless of which, both choices create much more unstable situations, making conflicts and war a much more realistic possibility.
2) Players often want to be very punitive, and impose extremely insulting and unpalatable conditions on defeated foes
And the idea is for them to be able to impose insulting and unpalatable conditions (such as the proposed Vassalage is), but avoiding them to be permanent ones (such as 99% of the current proposals are: territorial gains).
3) Players find it almost impossible to accept these extremely punitive conditions
Because there is usually no way to come back from them. If the winning realm eats a large enough chunk of yours you are stuck as an undeclared vassal forever. If it only takes part of your income for as long as you cooperate (because it cannot eat your land nor wants to colonize it), then the option doesn't get that ugly.
Instituting an option that garnishes X% of a realm's income to send to another realm as tribute does not seem to me to be something that will change any of those facts. If Realm A can't take all of Realm B's lands, then it can drive them rogue, and then replace Realm B with Realms C and D (as happened with Ibladesh).
Yes, that is one of the possibilities, which will not always be the one conquerors want. Astrum wanted Caerwyn to remain, just without Golden Farrow. Luria Nova didn't want to destroy Fissoa, just make it a vassal. As that was impossible from current game mechanics after the war they merely turned into "associates" of the Lurian Empire. And so on.
Right now we seem to have only two acceptable options: Total destruction or return to status quo ante bellum with very little modifications. How about we add a third?
-
I don't think your system allows that to happen. It does not change the fact that:
1) Players don't *want* to be vassals, so won't choose the vassalage option
2) Players often want to be very punitive, and impose extremely insulting and unpalatable conditions on defeated foes
3) Players find it almost impossible to accept these extremely punitive conditions
Instituting an option that garnishes X% of a realm's income to send to another realm as tribute does not seem to me to be something that will change any of those facts. If Realm A can't take all of Realm B's lands, then it can drive them rogue, and then replace Realm B with Realms C and D (as happened with Ibladesh).
I guess one way out of this would be to make it more profitable for realm A to keep realm B alive and a vassal rather than destroying it completely, possibly with a profit decent enough to counterbalance the risk of having a potential enemy still around. After all it's not always possible or desirable to spawn realms C and D, and driving everything rogue does not really benefit A besides removing B.
This is probably what motivates JPierreD in proposing a vassallage system which might lead realm A to think "hey instead of proposing a humiliating treaty which will be eventually rejected, let's settle for something milder which can lead to some advantage for us". I am however unsure seizing a % of realm B's money is enough, even if that could be a starting point as periodic player-driven tributes are simply too unhandy and unreliable and are rarely considered for peace treaties.
-
I guess one way out of this would be to make it more profitable for realm A to keep realm B alive and a vassal rather than destroying it completely, possibly with a profit decent enough to counterbalance the risk of having a potential enemy still around. After all it's not always possible or desirable to spawn realms C and D, and driving everything rogue does not really benefit A besides removing B.
This is probably what motivates JPierreD in proposing a vassallage system which might lead realm A to think "hey instead of proposing a humiliating treaty which will be eventually rejected, let's settle for something milder which can lead to some advantage for us". I am however unsure seizing a % of realm B's money is enough, even if that could be a starting point as periodic player-driven tributes are simply too unhandy and unreliable and are rarely considered for peace treaties.
Spawning realms C and D requires a great number of nobles that realms I have played in have not had available in many many years. Such colonies drain a realm of their nobles, which ends up hurting the realm badly (as Fheuv'n did to Enweil). Hence why utter destruction of an enemy becomes more and more desirable, because both colonization and annexation is practically impossible in most cases, and tributes are extremely onerous to maintain under the current system.
-
Right now we seem to have only two acceptable options: Total destruction or return to status quo ante bellum with very little modifications. How about we add a third?
If I think of the modern period, I can find many historical examples of states that became client states through economic/military domination, however that is outside the scope of BM. Thinking about the medieval period, I have a hard time thinking about any other mechanism than simply oaths.... Is there a specific example you have in mind and would like to see reproduced in BM? From there, it may be easier to work out the mechanism to make it happen.
-
If I think of the modern period, I can find many historical examples of states that became client states through economic/military domination, however that is outside the scope of BM. Thinking about the medieval period, I have a hard time thinking about any other mechanism than simply oaths.... Is there a specific example you have in mind and would like to see reproduced in BM? From there, it may be easier to work out the mechanism to make it happen.
I think that's what is being requested. A vassal realm would have its ruler swear fealty to the crown of another realm.
-
I think that's what is being requested. A vassal realm would have its ruler swear fealty to the crown of another realm.
Well, you can already do that. You can sign a treaty that says "I swear fealty to you". The question is how to enforce that status.
-
The question is how to enforce that status.
That's up to the players to enforce.
-
That's up to the players to enforce.
And as people will have pointed out, that's very onerous, to use another person's wording, for players to do.
-
Why should it be easy? If you want to oppress another realm, why shouldn't you have to work for it? Besides, it's not like the oppressor has to do much. Just bark out some demands to your vassal realm every now and then demanding your tribute payment. They're the ones that have to do all the work.
-
Why should it be easy? If you want to oppress another realm, why shouldn't you have to work for it? Besides, it's not like the oppressor has to do much. Just bark out some demands to your vassal realm every now and then demanding your tribute payment. They're the ones that have to do all the work.
The idea would be to balance out an invader's options. So that, you know, the only sane outcome of conflicts ceases to be utter destruction of the defeated realm?
-
Why should it be easy? If you want to oppress another realm, why shouldn't you have to work for it? Besides, it's not like the oppressor has to do much. Just bark out some demands to your vassal realm every now and then demanding your tribute payment. They're the ones that have to do all the work.
What I guess is being argued about is that this method is unreliable, and therefore almost never considered an option. Yes, in principle it is indeed feasible, but everyone with a bit of experience perfectly knows that this kind of things break down very quickly: while on the one hand you can think this is nice for subsequent wars, no sane ruler would sign an agreement which leads to many problems and little gains.
-
What I guess is being argued about is that this method is unreliable, and therefore almost never considered an option. Yes, in principle it is indeed feasible, but everyone with a bit of experience perfectly knows that this kind of things break down very quickly: while on the one hand you can think this is nice for subsequent wars, no sane ruler would sign an agreement which leads to many problems and little gains.
Indeed.
Outside of Dwilight, where there are many unperfectly aligned blocs and realms that die mostly have to really ask for it, the most strategic solution to end a war is usually to utterly destroy the enemy.
Because really, if you take a few regions, you'll piss them off and they'll backstab you as soon as they can. Making one wonder if those few regions were really worth the eventual backstab. Managing an onerous tribute system under the current mechanics sure doesn't feel worth the eventual backstab.
-
But you think they will accept a 10% tithe of their total income, and formal vassalage, without the urge to rebel against their masters?
-
I do not think the problem is how upsetting can be for the losing realm to accept the peace treaty/tribute/vassallage/whatever this feature turns out to be. The core of this potential feature should be to make it balanced enough so that the winner is willing to take the risk of the defeated coming back for the advantage the victory may give him.
For instance:
- realm A defeats realm B and has the potential to wipe it out of the map. realm A decides it can afford to take a duchy off realm B, but not more. Realm A can follow three routes: 1) take the duchy and let realm B live. 2) take the duchy and drive everything else rogue. 3) take the duchy and force realm B to sign some agreement where they regularly pay realm A or do other fancy stuff for them.
1) does not have ANY advantage for realm A over 2), if not for a matter of time and/or political shifts in neighbouring realms. Yes, a clever politician may choose 1) with the hope to turn realm B into a potential ally for the future, but that's quite a rare event I would say.
The relationship between 2) and 3) is not so straightforward, but as I said before 3) is simply too unreliable to be considered most of the times. The result? Almost all wars end with scenario 2), which we all agree is pretty detrimental to the game.
For this reason I agree with the OP that adding some game mechanics to make 3) more reliable would make it much more a viable option for peace treaties, so that one can really imagine a situation like "ok guys we know realm B is going to come back at us at some point, but if we do not destroy them we would provide us a benefit which might be just what we needed to kick the ass of realm C, which I think can be done before realm B fixes itself enough to threaten us again".
As I said I still believe players could drive all these events without the help of game mechanics (especially the ruler of the defeated realm, if he wants to save his ass he can get creative and try to beg for mercy, but it's not always possible), but I did not see it happening a lot so far, and therefore believe some game mechanics support could be useful. It is not yet clear to me whether a simple tribute in gold could be enough to justify the risk, though. Probably not really.
-
But you think they will accept a 10% tithe of their total income, and formal vassalage, without the urge to rebel against their masters?
Sure they'll want to eventually rebel. But until then, at least the victor can satisfy himself with an easy additional income, instead of having to work hard to make a complicated tribute system work. Victory shouldn't feel like more work.
-
It's not work for the winner. For the winner, it's super-easy. You just send a letter saying "Give us gold or else." If the victor is the one doing the work, then you're doing it wrong.
-
Is there a specific example you have in mind and would like to see reproduced in BM? From there, it may be easier to work out the mechanism to make it happen.
Think about the HRE or Medieval France in where the ruler did not directly control every territory, but through the feudal system had to share power with many other nobles instead.
My recommendation would be to limit the size of the realms and duchies so that those who want to control much can only do it indirectly. That together with a way to establish a link between the realms that is not annexation but gives some power over them (automatic tribute collection, limit/control their foreign relations, maybe even appoint their ruler) would diminish the amount of nearly constant hegemonic power centers that paralyze the game, giving way to more and smaller ones. And the more people you have in power the less easy it is to reach a consensus, and the more likely to trigger some conflict.
Think about it this way: If one's interest is to hold power being the sole royal duke of the realm is the best way to go, even better than being ruler. Now if you limit the size of the duchy you force the power-seeker to value more the crown, which can hold control over a larger area. If you limit the size of the realms and implement a vassalage-system between them you get a ruler who can control large extensions of lands only through proxies, having to trust them. Then you have a much higher conflict potential.
To simplify it: Rulers are playing something resembling Europa Universalis. I propose Crusader Kings.
You say rulers can already demand tribute and force vassalage? Yes, but why would they do that if they can simply control the lands directly?
-
I totally agree! ;D
A realm of ten regions is acceptable, one of 20-25 regions is a monolithic monster! The 'far away' regions would try to secede almost constantly... it would be very hard to maintain control over this distant regions.
The people will make vassals states if is the best/easy option they can find... if not, they will destroy the enemy realm and avoid problems...
Another matter is the really easy ways to destroy a realm!... How many realms were totally destroyed in history? I could be wrong, but I think not many... but we can make any region to 'go rogue' so easily!... a little push and we send a whole medieval realm go to the stone age in no time! 8)
Maybe we have two matters here: Enormous realms, and the easy possibility to destroy your enemy realms!... Why would we make politics if we can eat them or kill them (or both)?
-
It's not work for the winner. For the winner, it's super-easy. You just send a letter saying "Give us gold or else." If the victor is the one doing the work, then you're doing it wrong.
And if the payments are late? If one needs to constantly nag every time to remind? If the realm is some time away, forcing delays between when the gold is collected and can be distributed? If the gold is too spread out and it takes time to gather the gold into the hands of a single person?
Threats are also meaningless if your army has moved on to other things. For many realms, simply re-mobilizing the forces back into war-mode is a challenge in itself.
There is also the 50 gold charge every time which ends up amounting to significant amounts.
-
mmm... there is another matter... You are a noble of a realm, a Duke of a city maybe... you are losing a war, your regions are looted, your subjects killed, some regions go rogue, etc... and you Prestige (or/and honour) only go up? :P
At least for rulers and dukes, the 'damage' suffered in your lands must have a cost in Prestige... If your realm is going to loss the war, maybe it could be convenient to make peace even if it's as a vassal realm. :-[
-
Think about the HRE or Medieval France in where the ruler did not directly control every territory, but through the feudal system had to share power with many other nobles instead.
This describes every realm I've ever played in except Tara. Seriously, do you think Morek is a monolithic bloc with an iron-fisted dictator? Then you're wildly mistaken about how it works and why it's been successful.
My recommendation would be to limit the size of the realms and duchies so that those who want to control much can only do it indirectly..
A soft limit on realms size already exists, in that the acceptable tax rate is a function of size and distance from the capital. I think it's a good thing that this exists, but it should not be overdone. In particular, it should never be more profitable for a realm to shrink all else being equal. This is something that was sometimes the case with the old estate system, and honestly a great success of the new one in my opinion.
That together with a way to establish a link between the realms that is not annexation but gives some power over them (automatic tribute collection, limit/control their foreign relations, maybe even appoint their ruler) would diminish the amount of nearly constant hegemonic power centers that paralyze the game, giving way to more and smaller ones. And the more people you have in power the less easy it is to reach a consensus, and the more likely to trigger some conflict.
I like these ideas, in that I like to see them implemented in the game by the players, but I think most of them already are.
Appointing another nations ruler should never be done game-mechanically, otherwise he isn't called a sovereign, he's a Duke and you come back to square one. However you can bully another realm to replace their current ruler by your favorite one. I've seen it done before.
You can control another realm's foreign relation by forcing them to sign a federation with you. That way, they need to follow your foreign relations or you'll automatically declare war on them. Of course, if in time the balance of power shifts, then it's not clear anymore which realm is the vassal: see Astrum/Caerwyn.
As for automatic tribute collection, I have nothing against it and I think it would be nice to have, but as has been pointed out I doubt it would solve all the things you want changed.
Think about it this way: If one's interest is to hold power being the sole royal duke of the realm is the best way to go, even better than being ruler. Now if you limit the size of the duchy you force the power-seeker to value more the crown, which can hold control over a larger area. If you limit the size of the realms and implement a vassalage-system between them you get a ruler who can control large extensions of lands only through proxies, having to trust them. Then you have a much higher conflict potential.
What makes you think that vassals going against their Overlord's will would be more common than Dukes seceding are today?
-
And if the payments are late? If one needs to constantly nag every time to remind? If the realm is some time away, forcing delays between when the gold is collected and can be distributed? If the gold is too spread out and it takes time to gather the gold into the hands of a single person?
Threats are also meaningless if your army has moved on to other things. For many realms, simply re-mobilizing the forces back into war-mode is a challenge in itself.
Oh no! You have to actually be able to make good on your threats? You may have to send an extra letter or two every now and then? How horribly unfair that repressing and vassalizing another realm should be so tedious.
There is also the 50 gold charge every time which ends up amounting to significant amounts.
50 gold a transfer? Pfft... If 50 gold is too much overhead for your tribute to absorb, then your tribute is symbolic, and the amount is irrelevant. It's the act of paying that counts, not the trivial amount of gold you are forcing them to pay.
-
This describes every realm I've ever played in except Tara. Seriously, do you think Morek is a monolithic bloc with an iron-fisted dictator? Then you're wildly mistaken about how it works and why it's been successful.
I'm not saying there are no internal conflicts. What I would like is to see them involving more "foreigners". If you have several small realms it will be much more of a regional crisis than the attrition inside Morek between a Duke and his ruler.
If there are internal conflicts or not inside Morek didn't make any difference to Libero or Summerdale if they never knew about it, or if it never affected them.
A soft limit on realms size already exists, in that the acceptable tax rate is a function of size and distance from the capital. I think it's a good thing that this exists, but it should not be overdone.
By the existence of Astrum and Morek it is clearly not enough. Almost-30-region realms should not be possible to maintain, IMO.
In particular, it should never be more profitable for a realm to shrink all else being equal. This is something that was sometimes the case with the old estate system, and honestly a great success of the new one in my opinion.
That is a different case. In the old estate system there was a limit on how many regions you could get, and your realm was unable to expand further if without enough nobles. Given that you can theoretically have a Duchy per region or more, and a Lord can also be a Duke, restricting the size of Duchies won't be a problem in that sense.
Restricting the size of realms goes tied with the vassal-system proposal. One cannot go without the other. So you would be able to keep expanding, but just not directly.
I like these ideas, in that I like to see them implemented in the game by the players, but I think most of them already are.
A vassal-system without a realm-size limitation makes no difference.
Appointing another nations ruler should never be done game-mechanically, otherwise he isn't called a sovereign, he's a Duke and you come back to square one. However you can bully another realm to replace their current ruler by your favorite one. I've seen it done before.
Rulers are not necessarily sovereigns. In any case you can fight against the game mechanics to impose your will, but that doesn't make having the game mechanics to support it undesirable.
You can control another realm's foreign relation by forcing them to sign a federation with you. That way, they need to follow your foreign relations or you'll automatically declare war on them. Of course, if in time the balance of power shifts, then it's not clear anymore which realm is the vassal: see Astrum/Caerwyn.
And you are also forced to follow their foreign relations or you'll automatically declare war on each other, and on the other federated partners, messing things up.
As for automatic tribute collection, I have nothing against it and I think it would be nice to have, but as has been pointed out I doubt it would solve all the things you want changed.
By itself alone, no. Together with the realm-size limitation yes. Or at least I think it would.
What makes you think that vassals going against their Overlord's will would be more common than Dukes seceding are today?
The messaging system is not limited by duchies, but by realms. If each duchy was a realm you'd have much smaller power groups, and the realm-nationalism we see now would be more duchy-focused.
It is much easier to oppose/hate foreign oppressors/enemies than it is to do it with native ones with which your communication is much greater. In general, naturally.
Check the newly-implemented Duchies map. Think about if all of those were mini-realms on their own, having to interact with each other. How much more dynamic would the politics be?
-
Personally, I think that would suck. And I don't think I'm the only one who thinks that. Maybe if you tripled the number of players we have now, it would work. But if you tried that now, you'd just end up with a bunch of mostly empty, mostly deathly boring realms. Most of what you'd have is political intrigue, which greatly limits the number of people that can participate, and the number of peoplle that would enjoy it.
-
Personally, I think that would suck. And I don't think I'm the only one who thinks that. Maybe if you tripled the number of players we have now, it would work. But if you tried that now, you'd just end up with a bunch of mostly empty, mostly deathly boring realms. Most of what you'd have is political intrigue, which greatly limits the number of people that can participate, and the number of peoplle that would enjoy it.
The idea in no way requires more players. How would we get empty realms?
-
The idea in no way requires more players. How would we get empty realms?
Some duchies have very few people in them—well below the threshold necessary to sustain interesting interaction.
-
Some duchies have very few people in them—well below the threshold necessary to sustain interesting interaction.
Many realms themselves barely have enough nobles to sustain interesting interaction. Many don't even have that. Breaking up smaller would worsen the problem.
-
What Chenier and Anaris said. With the current number of players and duchies, separating all the duchies into individuall realms would create a bunch of empty realms. You have to have a certain critical mass of players to make a sustainable, viable realm. You'd most likely see a lot of consolidation into much larger single-duchy realms.
-
What Chenier and Anaris said. With the current number of players and duchies, separating all the duchies into individuall realms would create a bunch of empty realms. You have to have a certain critical mass of players to make a sustainable, viable realm. You'd most likely see a lot of consolidation into much larger single-duchy realms.
Indeed, a trend I've started to notice is the attempt to bring realms together via guilds in order to increase the pool in which players can communicate (Sanguis Astroism, although a religion, also can work in this way).
If we could have vassal realms, resulting in the creation of multi-realm empires, a message option to "all members of the empire" could help counter the shrinking player/realm ratio to stimulate interaction.
-
Many realms themselves barely have enough nobles to sustain interesting interaction. Many don't even have that. Breaking up smaller would worsen the problem.
More characters plox >.>
I mean really, what would be the harm of families having one noble per continent plus one other roaving noble and 1 adventurer as a maximum...
-
Dividing people's attention too much will tend to counter the increase in a player/realm ratio.
I do think it's a good idea, however.
-
That is a good point. More characters squeezed into the same play time = less attention to each individual character.
-
That is a good point. More characters squeezed into the same play time = less attention to each individual character.
However, some people do have the time and will to play more characters.
IMO, we'd have a lower involvement/character ratio, but more characters and more involvement overall.
That being said, being able to have two nobles on all continents would be bad, and we can't really remove the right to play two characters on two continents each we currently have. I'd think it possible to be able to allow players to have either one of the two, but it'd be complicated, and would remove the reward system that was established where older and more prestigious families get more active characters they can play.
-
I personally think that having to wait years before you can play five players like everyone who's been in the game since 2005 is ridiculously prejudiced against newcomers.
-
I personally think that having to wait years before you can play five players like everyone who's been in the game since 2005 is ridiculously prejudiced against newcomers.
The limit used to be lower for ALL players. It's not like newbies were taken away something that was left for older players...
-
Give older players a second continent they can have two nobles in? And just because I could have a player in every continent doesn't mean I would, i've no interest at all in playing everywhere. I would also assume that if a player didn't have time to maintain all there characters they would get rid of some or just play them as some silent order following noble.
Or perhaps just create more boundaries for active characters so that old players keep there bonuses?
-
Give older players a second continent they can have two nobles in? And just because I could have a player in every continent doesn't mean I would, i've no interest at all in playing everywhere. I would also assume that if a player didn't have time to maintain all there characters they would get rid of some or just play them as some silent order following noble.
Or perhaps just create more boundaries for active characters so that old players keep there bonuses?
Older players being able to have two characters on one continent, and then two when even older seems fair to me.
-
Older players being able to have two characters on one continent, and then two when even older seems fair to me.
I'd feature request it but I've a feeling the dev team would just lolno me.
-
I'd feature request it but I've a feeling the dev team would just lolno me.
I have the same impression. You can still try, though.
-
Indeed, a trend I've started to notice is the attempt to bring realms together via guilds in order to increase the pool in which players can communicate (Sanguis Astroism, although a religion, also can work in this way).
If we could have vassal realms, resulting in the creation of multi-realm empires, a message option to "all members of the empire" could help counter the shrinking player/realm ratio to stimulate interaction.
Well, yes, unfortunately the idea would then require a message-system reworking. If you can message members of the empire in the same way as realm-mates the feature would lose its raison d'être, changing very little.
Perhaps if you could only message all of the empire members but not individual members of other realms in the empire, unless you have their contact.
See: Lurian Empire.
-
That is a good point. More characters squeezed into the same play time = less attention to each individual character.
About this, in all of the realms I've played in it seems like <10% of the players participate amongst themselves while everyone else is locked out or too apathetic to join in. I doubt things could get any worse than the current situation.
I'd place the blame mainly on realm size and the inability of knights and Lords to meaningfully participate in gameplay. Currently only council members and Dukes have any real power, and council members are severely limited due to entire Islands being consolidated by half a dozen super realms. Furthermore it's hard to feel any sort of connection to these uber realms because they're so big. The difference between a large realm and a small realm in this way is like the difference between a Walmart and a small, local business.
I think the proposal in the opening post is a good idea if only to break up these mega realms into smaller realms, as that would make more council positions available and allow for more individual participation.
-
About this, in all of the realms I've played in it seems like <10% of the players participate amongst themselves while everyone else is locked out or too apathetic to join in. I doubt things could get any worse than the current situation.
I'd place the blame mainly on realm size and the inability of knights and Lords to meaningfully participate in gameplay. Currently only council members and Dukes have any real power, and council members are severely limited due to entire Islands being consolidated by half a dozen super realms. Furthermore it's hard to feel any sort of connection to these uber realms because they're so big. The difference between a large realm and a small realm in this way is like the difference between a Walmart and a small, local business.
I think the proposal in the opening post is a good idea if only to break up these mega realms into smaller realms, as that would make more council positions available and allow for more individual participation.
The problem with small realms is that, often, barely anyone cares to run for any form of office. Often, if you scrap those with you clearly can't trust with the positions, you have no candidates at all.
You end up with everyone having titles, but the titles being meaningless and the title-holders doing no more than the average knight of a large realm would 'cause the only one who put his name in during elections couldn't be arsed to actually do his job.
You also end up having much less of the active people who stimulate action and discussion, reducing the activity of those who would be willing to react without wishing to initiate anything themselves.
-
The really funny part about your claims, Kwanstein (I'm not trying to ridicule you or anything, you just happened to be the one to make the claim), is that these "mega realms" can't hold a candle to the way it was six years ago. Back then, having 90 or 100 nobles in your realm was *average*. The "mega realms" were dangerously close to 200 nobles. And the "feeling powerless" thing? Back then *everything* was centrally controled. And back then you only had three characters, not five, per player. (Four if you donated.)
The thing is, all of your claims are completely erroneous based on historical data. The more freedoms and distributions of power that people were given, the *fewer* players we have. IMNSHO, this is because all that stuff, while it might seem nice in theory, destroys the "us vs. then" team aspect of the game, and turns it almost into a "me vs. everyone else" mentality.
IMO we need *more* reasons to return to realm-based team focus.
-
IMNSHO, this is because all that stuff, while it might seem nice in theory, destroys the "us vs. then" team aspect of the game, and turns it almost into a "me vs. everyone else" mentality.
Not joining in in that trend is the mark of successful realms, large or small.
-
I started playing about 8 years ago and I can't say I remember 90 characters being normal for a realm. Of course it all depends on what realms you were exposed to, but for my part I mainly played on the East continent and I only remember the mega realms there (Sirion and Perdan) having so many characters. Avamar, Coimbra, Old Rancagua and later Obsidian Isles had quite a bit less iirc, especially the last three.
But I agree that as the game has gotten more complicated it's started to lose it's charm. The complication that stands out most to me was the initial implementation of the liege/estate system, where you had to go seek out some Lord, send him an Oath offer and hope he'd take it. It was a big hassle that didn't increase my enjoyment, and I dearly missed the old tax system where (iirc) everyone but the King just got a base amount. Even now that the tax system has been refined and improved I still think the old one would be better.
As far as the Us vs Them mentality goes - I felt that strongly when I first joined Coimbra, but eventually I realised it was futile as the game world was just too static, with mega realms always maintaining the status quo regardless of how many smaller realms arose and fell around them.
-
The really funny part about your claims, Kwanstein (I'm not trying to ridicule you or anything, you just happened to be the one to make the claim), is that these "mega realms" can't hold a candle to the way it was six years ago. Back then, having 90 or 100 nobles in your realm was *average*. The "mega realms" were dangerously close to 200 nobles. And the "feeling powerless" thing? Back then *everything* was centrally controled. And back then you only had three characters, not five, per player. (Four if you donated.)
The thing is, all of your claims are completely erroneous based on historical data. The more freedoms and distributions of power that people were given, the *fewer* players we have. IMNSHO, this is because all that stuff, while it might seem nice in theory, destroys the "us vs. then" team aspect of the game, and turns it almost into a "me vs. everyone else" mentality.
IMO we need *more* reasons to return to realm-based team focus.
Just put something out there... I've been on this account for two years and still only have 3 characters. It isn't as easy as you say to get to where you have four or five characters, which for a college student who has little money, is something of a problem if you want to donate your way.
-
Just put something out there... I've been on this account for two years and still only have 3 characters. It isn't as easy as you say to get to where you have four or five characters, which for a college student who has little money, is something of a problem if you want to donate your way.
You couldn't get 20 fame and 5 medals over two years?...
-
Uhm... no.
-
The thing is, all of your claims are completely erroneous based on historical data. The more freedoms and distributions of power that people were given, the *fewer* players we have. IMNSHO, this is because all that stuff, while it might seem nice in theory, destroys the "us vs. then" team aspect of the game, and turns it almost into a "me vs. everyone else" mentality.
I don't know. A lot of people like to say this lately; that the "us. vs. them / team play" mentality is leaving the game. I don't really buy that. Show me a single realm that doesn't have that. Every realm I play in, that is involved in a war, has a pretty huge "we're the good guys, they're the bad guys" vibe going. Look at Atamara, EC, or Far East. Those islands especially are solidly locked in the team play mentality. Hell, the war in Atamara that's been going for two years now was the ultimate culmination of that: "Hey the Cagilan Bloc is evil! Let's get them!" splitting the whole island into Two Teams. The Far East has that happening right now as well, North v. South. Dwilight is extremely dominated by team play and mentality: the power blocs (Astroism, 'Moot, Luria, Aurvandil) and there is precious little conflict between those "teams", or even the individual realms, outside of the Lurias.
There will always be internal conflict and politicking among (almost always) the very dedicated and active players, however those players are always in the minority. The rest remain pretty steadfast in the team play mentality, and don't see how the game has moved far from that mentality at all.
-
I don't know. A lot of people like to say this lately; that the "us. vs. them / team play" mentality is leaving the game. I don't really buy that. Show me a single realm that doesn't have that. Every realm I play in, that is involved in a war, has a pretty huge "we're the good guys, they're the bad guys" vibe going. Look at Atamara, EC, or Far East. Those islands especially are solidly locked in the team play mentality. Hell, the war in Atamara that's been going for two years now was the ultimate culmination of that: "Hey the Cagilan Bloc is evil! Let's get them!" splitting the whole island into Two Teams. The Far East has that happening right now as well, North v. South. Dwilight is extremely dominated by team play and mentality: the power blocs (Astroism, 'Moot, Luria, Aurvandil) and there is precious little conflict between those "teams", or even the individual realms, outside of the Lurias.
There will always be internal conflict and politicking among (almost always) the very dedicated and active players, however those players are always in the minority. The rest remain pretty steadfast in the team play mentality, and don't see how the game has moved far from that mentality at all.
That's exactly why I don't see the team mentality as such a good thing.
-
I don't know...
This begun with a discussion about big-realms(25 reg.) vs. small-realms(10 reg.), now it's about team-work vs. 'individualism'...
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think we are discussing how to make this game as fun as possible, and I think all kind of things who cause conflicts, will cause interaction between the players... and interaction is FUN!!!
Three 10-reg realms will usually cause more conflicts than one 30-reg realm, a realm full of individualist nobles will cause more troubles (and fun) than one with a excellent team-work!... BUT in the end, the 30-reg realm with team work will destroy the three 10-reg realms full of individualist nobles!!! They will be death boring, but are more efficient! And efficiency win wars! ... in some way BM award boring gaming.
I don't know how, but I think BM would have more 'personal goals', and a lot more... 'noble conflict'.
Right now, what can do a noble?
-Go to war: YES. If you realm is in war. It's not very detailed, but It's funny... in fact, it's one of the best things to do right now in the game.
-Fight monsters: YES. Not bad, but after a while can be a bit boring... You don't really gain much (a bit honour/prestige).
-Recover some relic: NOT. The more likely is a unique item. Only recovered by Adventurers.
-Duel other nobles: NOT. Even with just reasons, the offender noble don't have to duel, so this is totally unused!
-Bribe for/buy some position: NOT. As is now, it totally impossible do this.
-To murder some rival: IMPOSSIBLE? You could do it only with Infiltrators, and for what reason? rival on what matter?
-To be rich: YES and NOT. Yes, you can get all the gold you want, but for what?... Gold don't have many uses in the game.
-To be Famous/Powerful: Even more useless than to be rich!!! Honestly, the Powerful men in BM are really very little powerful!
In short, nobles have almost no goals, even worse, these little goals they have don't conflict with the other nobles goals!
If you let me make a political comparison: This game is a bit like communism, all people is almost equal, not matter position or wealth... and this is good! But if all people is almost equal... for what, are you going to fight for?
-
It all depends on what you consider fun, Poliorketes. I had a lot of fun working as only 1 of 150 nobles in Perdan back in 2006 when we were pretty much the single most powerful realm on the island. We didn't have much serious internal realm conflict. But what we had was a LOT of war. There wasn't much opportunity for personal gain or achievement. Back then most realms were very full, so the chance for advancement was pretty small. But it mostly didn't matter. We had a hell of a lot of fun fighting against our enemy, and cooperating in doing so. Even though we had a general and a few marshals (which was mostly an empty honorific), the military council had 20 or so people that all worked together, and any one could give orders, not just the marshal. It was a lot of teamwork and cooperation.
It just seems to me like everything has been so decentralized, and so much effort has been put into empowering individuals, that we've somehow lost that cooperative spirit. Or maybe I'm just not playing in realms where it still exists.
-
I don't really know, but maybe in 2006 did not exist this real-time-online-war-games so abundant this times! :P
Don't misunderstand me, BM is funny!!! (if not, I will not be here!) But I think it could be good to diversify the game-possibilities of the 'standard' noble... and maybe to give some power-advantages to some positions... It's really strange than in some realms the council positions can be left vacant! :o