BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Locals => Beluaterra => Topic started by: Chenier on September 20, 2012, 03:41:31 AM
-
Are new sea routes going to be added? Rines-Fronepu would be nice...
-
Tom has stated that there will be none.
(I wanted some too. :'( )
-
Tom has stated that there will be none.
(I wanted some too. :'( )
Do you know why?
-
I'm a little curious as well. Just seems strange that we'd not have new sea routes and they wouldn't even phase the realms I'm in.
-
The current setup will really suck for the South... There's nowhere for Rio to go other than Enweil, which they could easily crush (and would bring them back to square 1: unable to do anything anymore). As for Enweil, there's nothing they can do, because anything they do risks pissing off Rio, which could easily crush them.
Rio could splinter, but it's so huge that I'd have a hard time seeing any secession being able to successfully fend off the rest of Riombara, lest it be a friendly secession.
Enweil can't really splinter. It would be devastating... We've had the Fheuv'n experience, and we saw how that totally backfired.
And even if one of Rio's western cities split, attacking Creasur (the closest possible target after Enweil) would be grueling, while it would take forever for the farthest cities. For anyone else, they'd need to spend weeks travelling to bypass two realms...
Which means there's no diplomacy possible. Either Rio bores itself with nobody nearby to bully, either it swiftly stomps Enweil and then bores itself with nobody nearby to bully. Even if Enweil managed to get anyone against Rio, there's nothing anyone could do to make the conflict interesting, because of how far back they'd be.
A Rines/Fronepu passage, over the newly formed sea, would at least open up possibilities for Rio to go North, or for the North to go to Rio. And the fact that it's over a new body of water could justify why a route never existed there historically (I'd rather more routes, but that's the only one that makes sense and is balanced, imo).
-
Do you know why?
This is what he said:
And no, I won't change the geography for political reasons. Never turns out the way you hoped, and sea routes especially not. See EI.
-
EI? The only sea routes there are the ones to and from OI, are they not? I can't really see how those would be expected to make a difference. That whole realm could sink into the sea tomorrow along with the accompanying sea routes and very few people would care.
There's definitely an IG justification for creating a sea route or two, and I do think one would be beneficial at this point. I somewhat agree with Chenier's assessment of the situation in the South, though I think there is a possibility for either Fronen or Nothoi to impact a war between Enweil and Riombara.
-
Are new sea routes going to be added? Rines-Fronepu would be nice...
It would be awesome ;D
-
And no, I won't change the geography for political reasons.
But in this case, it's not political reasons, it's geographical reasons. The geography of the island really did change. If a new island were drawn like that today, certainly there would be a sea route.
-
Personally I would love to see new sea routes.
Two ideas: a) weaken the strong position Riombara does have. b) enable leapfrogging along the coast.
a) I (a miracle!) agree with Chenier. I would make it even harsher than Fronepu-Rines....for example Fronepu-Ajitmon. This would enable attacks into one direction while keeping the other direction relatively secure. It would be impossible to keep a strong guard in Ajitmon, allowing both raiding and attacks from Fronepu.
b) leapfrogging: right now we have a purely two-dimensional map in regards to travel. To leave (or enter) Riombara you /must/ travel through a long, thin corridor. If travel along the coast would be possible...for example between two rurals, for example in the north: Pella (Thal) to Qonnor (Sint). This way Sint could attack Thalmarkin (or the other way round) without having to march via Old Grehk. Create a ring of sea routes as that and a lot more possibilities open up: Fangor-Watersdown; Aesh-Kraake; Kif-Worvobaen; Eykfar-Shifgregor....and so on, right around the island.
-
a) I (a miracle!) agree with Chenier. I would make it even harsher than Fronepu-Rines....for example Fronepu-Ajitmon. This would enable attacks into one direction while keeping the other direction relatively secure. It would be impossible to keep a strong guard in Ajitmon, allowing both raiding and attacks from Fronepu.
Noooo...not mah region!
-
Noooo...not mah region!
Nice job Tan, now Anaris doesn't support new sea routes. *joking*
-
There's definitely an IG justification for creating a sea route or two, and I do think one would be beneficial at this point. I somewhat agree with Chenier's assessment of the situation in the South, though I think there is a possibility for either Fronen or Nothoi to impact a war between Enweil and Riombara.
If Rio stays united, Enweil stands no chance. Rio gained a bunch of cities, while Enweil lost Fengen and Enweilieos (Ete will take a really long time to compensate for this). Rio always had a more active and efficient army, now they also have a massive economic superiority to go with it. Even if Nothoi and Fronen and OG and Thalmarkin joined with Enweil against Rio (not gonna happen), the travel times would still mean that Rio could, if they wanted, loot Enweil to death without the others being able to do much about it.
But in this case, it's not political reasons, it's geographical reasons. The geography of the island really did change. If a new island were drawn like that today, certainly there would be a sea route.
Indeed. It's a request that doesn't stem from how the continental politics evolved, but from the greatly deformed continent that has resulted from the last invasion. It's not like people colonized a remote island and now complain it's isolated, the removal of a passage north from the east really changes possibilities, and not in a way that will stimulate fun imo.
Personally I would love to see new sea routes.
Two ideas: a) weaken the strong position Riombara does have. b) enable leapfrogging along the coast.
a) I (a miracle!) agree with Chenier. I would make it even harsher than Fronepu-Rines....for example Fronepu-Ajitmon. This would enable attacks into one direction while keeping the other direction relatively secure. It would be impossible to keep a strong guard in Ajitmon, allowing both raiding and attacks from Fronepu.
b) leapfrogging: right now we have a purely two-dimensional map in regards to travel. To leave (or enter) Riombara you /must/ travel through a long, thin corridor. If travel along the coast would be possible...for example between two rurals, for example in the north: Pella (Thal) to Qonnor (Sint). This way Sint could attack Thalmarkin (or the other way round) without having to march via Old Grehk. Create a ring of sea routes as that and a lot more possibilities open up: Fangor-Watersdown; Aesh-Kraake; Kif-Worvobaen; Eykfar-Shifgregor....and so on, right around the island.
I personally don't see any reason to add sea routes where geography hasn't changed, though. And RP-wise, sea routes make more sense from city to city, imo, at least for long distances.
-
If I was to add sea routes to BT I'd add two:
- Iato-Ofengail (Ofengail because it was next to a city and would be a likely place for a port on the west coast)
- Fronepu-Melegra (Melegra because the old bridge to Fwuvoghor could be the new 'port' for boats to land at)
Other Possibilities:
Gethsemene-Sandefur-Agyr (A northern sea route opened by the loss of some of the northern regions)
Fronepu-Rines-Grehk
Heen-Iato-Ete City
Athol Margos-Mhed
-
There will be no new sea routes, period.
Everyone who says this isn't about politics, but about geography, and then goes on to explain which effect it would have on realms is confused about what "geography" means.
The world does not adapt to realms, realms adapt to what the shape of the world looks like.
If you think one realm has an unfair advantage, gang up and wipe them out.
-
There will be no new sea routes, period.
Everyone who says this isn't about politics, but about geography, and then goes on to explain which effect it would have on realms is confused about what "geography" means.
The world does not adapt to realms, realms adapt to what the shape of the world looks like.
If you think one realm has an unfair advantage, gang up and wipe them out.
It's about gameplay. The deformation of the continent has severely modified the possibilities of players. And it isn't about adapting the world to realms, it's about adapting the world to itself. Sure, new sea routes everywhere could be nice, but that would be adapting the world to the realms in the cases where the geography hasn't changed. But the total blighting of everything between Fronen and Rio, with the resulting closing of the narrow passage that used to exist, drastically reduces possibilities.
It's not about some unfair advantage. Honestly, even though I think this has made Riombara invulnerable (to which no amount of extremely unlikely gang banging could counter), I also pity them because of how it means they have been cut off from all possibilities of fun involvement in continental politics. And, by extension, their sole neighbor.
Their isolation is neither normal, nor was it sought or the result of their own actions. I don't tend to consider that they have themselves to blame for isolating themselves (unlike how I tend to consider that northern astrocracies have only themselves to blame if they are now surrounded by nothing but friends or almost).
-
Tom, I know you've heard this before, but: I agree with Chénier.
If the problem were that there was a realm that had managed, through whatever politics, war, and other maneuvering, gotten itself in a dead end with only one way out, I would agree with you: Adding sea routes then would be silly.
But this isn't about just a realm that's gotten itself into a bad position.
This is about a whole section of the map that's entirely cut off from the rest.
No matter what realm or combination of realms are there, they won't be able to interact with the rest of Beluaterra meaningfully.
This isn't about politics, Tom. It really is about geography, and fun.
The geography of BT has changed, drastically, and while things are still doing OK during the rebuilding period, it's not going to be long before people in the cut-off tail-end of the continent are getting bored and frustrated because they can't do anything.
Looking at it from a realism perspective, yeah, it would take a while before they would do so, but people in a situation like that would absolutely create new sea routes between the cut-off lands. Unless you're going to tell us that there's still something in the ocean that makes it deadly to people (in other words, unless you're going to tell us that the Blight is still there, for all intents and purposes), people would find a way through, and open up trade with the North again.
(Heck, given enough time—and this would be on a scale of a few years, not geological timescales—Melegra or Ajitmon would become larger towns with the trade that would be going through them, and probably eventually one of them would become a port city. But that seems a bit beyond the scope of this ;D )
So, yes, I understand where you're coming from on this, and yes, I have a vested interest here, and no, changes like this should never be made common—but for goodness sake, Tom, when I'm agreeing with Dominic, I would think it would be pretty clear that there's at least something to what we're trying to say. ???
A terrible change has come over the land. People adapt to those kinds of changes, and one of the ways they adapt is by opening up new trade routes across the ocean.
-
There will be no new sea routes, period.
Everyone who says this isn't about politics, but about geography, and then goes on to explain which effect it would have on realms is confused about what "geography" means.
The world does not adapt to realms, realms adapt to what the shape of the world looks like.
If you think one realm has an unfair advantage, gang up and wipe them out.
So... If When the lands of Beluaterra went under sea, a portion of the map were left totally isolated of the rest of the island... (it could had happened!)
Then these people must play totally isolated on their four-five region's island?... If Riombara were left on a separate island, they must to play totally isolated from the rest of Beluaterra?... or if Beluaterra were been cut in half?
I can understand the rule of 'not to change islands!'... It logical! But this is not the case, this is to 'complete' a new island... because this is not Beluaterra, this is New-Beluaterra. If other islands were made with sea routes, why not New-Beluaterra?
-
I think it will sort out itself. Riombara and Enweil have plenty of history, which may evolve past just Riombara - Enweil. Either Riombara will implode or they will start becoming very meddling with the Northern Realms, there is potential for both possibilities. Riombara's defensive location also allows it to send her armies further up north to be annoying without worries.
All in all, it's theories. Beluaterra hasn't been given enough time to show IF the complaints are true. What I really want to say is: At least give Beluaterra a chance to sort itself out before asking such changes.
-
What Telrunya says.
If there are any actual problems that show up, we can have this discussion again. But not because of hypothetical problem. And yes, anything right now is a hypothetical problem. Let's wait how things play out first. Lots of things could happen.
-
If there are any actual problems that show up, we can have this discussion again. But not because of hypothetical problem. And yes, anything right now is a hypothetical problem. Let's wait how things play out first. Lots of things could happen.
I see things the other way around.
Right now, there is no political reasons to add or not add new sea routes, because the politics of New-Beluaterra haven't really crystallized yet. This is the perfect timing to change things to make the island make more sense from a purely geographical point of view. Maybe some people think of politics at the same time but you can safely ignore them: they're wrong.
If you wait six months to see how things evolve, then it will be impossible to discard politics, because everyone will have had ample time to see the effect of the new geography and adapt their politics to the geography. And if then you realize that this leads to stagnation, there will be nothing you can do without half the realms crying foul.
-
Creating sea routes now, are a way to realms adapt to the shape of the world.
If we consider, IC, that with reconstruction the people will start to trade again, they would try the best way to achieve this, now, if a trader from realm A wanted to trade with realm C, he would prefer to use a safe sea route to realm C, that does not pass through realm B. Why? Many reasons, the realms aren't friends, more taxes to pay, etc.
This is a realm adapting to the shape of the world.
It is logical that people from Riombara would try to create sea routes to Melhed, because they are friendly realms, it would be dangerous for them to pass through Enweil because the have a history of hate towards each other.
Or Sint creating one better route to Thalmarkin that does not move though OG.
The creation of Sea Routes here are logical and an adaptation of the realms to the new island shape. If we, the players, had the power to do it, we would end up doing it, because it is a logical step to adapt and to continue to have a fun island for everyone. But we can't so we have to ask for them.
Even if done slowly (like, when the city reaches a X number of population or the ruler has the option to build a port) it is an adaptation of the realms to the shape of the world.
And like vonGenf said, it is better to do it now that everything is quiet and in a recovery state than when there is war and the nobles can complain about a sea route been created to reach their city.
-
I think it will sort out itself. Riombara and Enweil have plenty of history, which may evolve past just Riombara - Enweil. Either Riombara will implode or they will start becoming very meddling with the Northern Realms, there is potential for both possibilities. Riombara's defensive location also allows it to send her armies further up north to be annoying without worries.
All in all, it's theories. Beluaterra hasn't been given enough time to show IF the complaints are true. What I really want to say is: At least give Beluaterra a chance to sort itself out before asking such changes.
Speaking hypothetically, it's a hell of a slog for Riombara to go up north and have adventures. With 60 men and no siege engines, it would take me 18 turns to reach Wudenkin from my current location in Ardmore, and that's only half the trip. While it is therefore possible for Riombara to send its army north, it's also not very much fun. You spend more than two weeks just traveling back and forth for however many limited days of action you can get in before equipment damage and lack of funds force you to return. Personally, this does not sound even remotely appealing to me.
-
Speaking hypothetically, it's a hell of a slog for Riombara to go up north and have adventures. With 60 men and no siege engines, it would take me 18 turns to reach Wudenkin from my current location in Ardmore, and that's only half the trip. While it is therefore possible for Riombara to send its army north, it's also not very much fun. You spend more than two weeks just traveling back and forth for however many limited days of action you can get in before equipment damage and lack of funds force you to return.
Riombara: The Darka of Belauterra.
-
Riombara: The Darka of Belauterra.
Right, because Darka is completely isolated down a long corridor of land completely surrounded by sea, and in order to reach more than a single other realm from their farthest-in-the-corner region, they would have to travel at least a full week.
There's a massive difference between "we've made alliances that mean we need to travel a long way to fight against someone" and "any realm here, no matter how the politics was set up, would have to travel a long way just to meet someone else".
-
So, yes, I understand where you're coming from on this, and yes, I have a vested interest here, and no, changes like this should never be made common—but for goodness sake, Tom, when I'm agreeing with Dominic, I would think it would be pretty clear that there's at least something to what we're trying to say.
When Tim and I both agree with Dominic on something, clearly the world (almost) came to an end, and apocalyptic end scenarios need to be considered.
Can I imagine scenarios where this turns out to be a non-issue? Sure, I can. Do any of them seem even remotely likely? Not really. Civil wars only last so long before one side or the other wins and drives the others out. And the space is too limited for the three, four, or more way alliance tangles that could make for interesting external politics.
We could completely rewrite how the whole island works, and turn the south into a Crusader State (be it on religious, philosophical, or political lines), sending out troops to harass others or support colonies, but the sheer distances involved are frankly mindboggling to me.
-
Riombara: The Darka of Belauterra.
Over my dead body.
-
There will be no new sea routes, period.
Everyone who says this isn't about politics, but about geography, and then goes on to explain which effect it would have on realms is confused about what "geography" means.
The world does not adapt to realms, realms adapt to what the shape of the world looks like.
If you think one realm has an unfair advantage, gang up and wipe them out.
But any realm in Riombara spot will always have an unfair advantage unlike anywhere else in BM . The ruler, ( I believe tan serrai Is ruler but I am not on Beluterra) of Riombara has even suggested routes to weaken riombaras spot. There are several things in this game that are only there for game balance and this should be one as its not one realm having an advantage its whoever owns that land does which is why it's not political but geographical need for it.
-
I think it will sort out itself. Riombara and Enweil have plenty of history, which may evolve past just Riombara - Enweil. Either Riombara will implode or they will start becoming very meddling with the Northern Realms, there is potential for both possibilities. Riombara's defensive location also allows it to send her armies further up north to be annoying without worries.
All in all, it's theories. Beluaterra hasn't been given enough time to show IF the complaints are true. What I really want to say is: At least give Beluaterra a chance to sort itself out before asking such changes.
How long do we wait before being able to say "Okay, this sucks, we got nothing to do"? But mainly, the thing I have against waiting is that *then* it would become political. "Where do we make the route?" will become quite political once the rebuilding phase is over and alliances crumble, wars begin. It would seem infinitely fairer to determine an appropriate route before political and strategic interests come in play.
Yes, the lack of a route will force adaptations. But the adaptations will be limited. And such adaptations only create a whole lot more frustration than anything. I don't see the point of isolating the South-East so much. After all, it's not like a sea route to the north-east would make them suddenly accessible to all.
-
I don't really understand... the islands are as they are, and will not be touched or changed!... ok
But half of Beluaterra is in the bottom of sea, and is ok, but to put some sea routes is not possible? to make disappear a region is right while to put a sea route is wrong? :P
-
But half of Beluaterra is in the bottom of sea, and is ok, but to put some sea routes is not possible? to make disappear a region is right while to put a sea route is wrong? :P
The islands do not usually change, that was a total exception. As for the sea routes - look at the maps. All existing sea routes cover narrow straights, not the open ocean.
-
The islands do not usually change, that was a total exception. As for the sea routes - look at the maps. All existing sea routes cover narrow straights, not the open ocean.
I don't know about that, there are some pretty long sea routes on Dwilight... Sure most of them hug the coast, but I don't see why we couldn't do something similar here. Port Nebl to Mimer, Port Nebel to Giask, Paisly to Madina, those are all pretty long sea routes.
-
The islands do not usually change, that was a total exception. As for the sea routes - look at the maps. All existing sea routes cover narrow straights, not the open ocean.
My Dwilight realm has nothing but the opposite of what you just stated. What other continents have is mostly small sea routes from unimportant regions to unimportant regions. What Dwilight has is many long sea routes from big cities to big cities. Hence why the suggestion was for a new long sea route from a big city (Rines) to another big city (Fronepu).
-
It seems to me the sinking of half the island should have taken into account the long term political viability of the island. What other island has an Abington sized area with a 2 region wide chokepoint into it?
-
The islands do not usually change, that was a total exception. As for the sea routes - look at the maps. All existing sea routes cover narrow straights, not the open ocean.
the island changing was an exception and this should be too.
-
If there are any actual problems that show up, we can have this discussion again. But not because of hypothetical problem. And yes, anything right now is a hypothetical problem. Let's wait how things play out first. Lots of things could happen.
If we wait till there are actual problems, then it becomes a political fix. I believe that was something you wanted to avoid. Right now it could still be considered a change with the big change that occured with the blight.
-
If we wait till there are actual problems, then it becomes a political fix. I believe that was something you wanted to avoid. Right now it could still be considered a change with the big change that occured with the blight.
This echoes my sentiments as expressed above.
-
That said, I am not thrilled with Fronepu being suddenly accessible by Rio.
-
That said, I am not thrilled with Fronepu being suddenly accessible by Rio.
Melhed and Rio have never, afaik, been at war, nor do they currently have any reason to be. It's also not too far north, meaning that it wouldn't be too much shorter than it used to be (before the blight).
-
Here's the thing:
Sea routes are massively political because they connect specific regions to specific other regions. I am, quite frankly, unhappy with almost all sea routes in the game and consider them an evil necessity.
-
Here's the thing:
Sea routes are massively political because they connect specific regions to specific other regions. I am, quite frankly, unhappy with almost all sea routes in the game and consider them an evil necessity.
Though I'd rather more realistic naval mechanics requiring the construction of ships and allowing more flexibility in the landing zones, I'd tend to consider a Rines-Fronepu sea route a greater necessity than many existing sea routes.
-
Here's the thing:
Sea routes are massively political because they connect specific regions to specific other regions. I am, quite frankly, unhappy with almost all sea routes in the game and consider them an evil necessity.
So... just like any other region....
-
Here's the thing:
Sea routes are massively political because they connect specific regions to specific other regions. I am, quite frankly, unhappy with almost all sea routes in the game and consider them an evil necessity.
Well, unless you're planning on implementing ports, sea regions, and naval battles within the next few months, I don't see this as a rational argument against adding sea routes to the shattered Beluaterra.
-
Well, unless you're planning on implementing ports, sea regions, and naval battles within the next few months, I don't see this as a rational argument against adding sea routes to the shattered Beluaterra.
Especially since it's just like any region that is adjacent to another region. They can become massively political either way...
-
Here's the thing:
Sea routes are massively political because they connect specific regions to specific other regions. I am, quite frankly, unhappy with almost all sea routes in the game and consider them an evil necessity.
mmm... well... yes... they, obviously, connect regions... is 'their job'... I think of them the same as land routes... (in fact, they work exactly as land routes)
Why are you so unhappy with them? The island with more sea routes (and longers) is Dwilight... well, they are not fantastic, but to be unhappy? :o
Do you want to make them more... different? faster but more dangerous? not 'scout-ables'? Sea-Monsters? ;D
-
While they would be neat, I think ports and the creation of sea regions will be a no-go.
Tom, the problem with keeping the rule that maps do not change is that you already broke that rule by erasing large segments of BT. Most places I think the change has worked out, the few northern losses just make the coastline different, the same thing goes for most southern changes as well. Food should now be rather abundant as most lost regions were cities.
If you do not like sea routes, maps need to be created in such a way as to not need them. Until now, BT was.
-
There will be no new sea routes, period.
Everyone who says this isn't about politics, but about geography, and then goes on to explain which effect it would have on realms is confused about what "geography" means.
The world does not adapt to realms, realms adapt to what the shape of the world looks like.
If you think one realm has an unfair advantage, gang up and wipe them out.
Sea routes are man made things, the world is not changing. Realms are adapting by building ports in coastal locations and using boats for travel and trade its not like we're requesting you change the ocean or advance the tech level of available boats currently we can travel from one continent to another using any port we want going to any port we choose, why is it possibly to do for emmigration but not trade. It makes utterly no logical sense for sea routes to not be implimented. Most trade in basically all of history was done via boat using rivers and sea routes, why should battlemaster be any different? Should we assume for roleplay purposes that trade can only happen by caravan on bel?
-
Sea routes are man made things, the world is not changing. Realms are adapting by building ports in coastal locations and using boats for travel and trade its not like we're requesting you change the ocean or advance the tech level of available boats currently we can travel from one continent to another using any port we want going to any port we choose, why is it possibly to do for emmigration but not trade. It makes utterly no logical sense for sea routes to not be implimented. Most trade in basically all of history was done via boat using rivers and sea routes, why should battlemaster be any different? Should we assume for roleplay purposes that trade can only happen by caravan on bel?
No offense but you are the only one debating about this for trade, and its not that hard to say why there are only certain ports with sea routes; the rest of the ports only have boats fit for ignoble people but the nobles are willing to suffer if they want to get off the continent.
@ Tom you want to wait for there to be problems but as others have said that's trying to fix political problems that way, whereas doing it now is fixing a geographical problem.
-
Tom, out of curiosity, what is it you dislike about sea routes? Perhaps there are certain issues with sea routes that could be considered in order to make them less evil?
-
No offense but you are the only one caring about this for trade, and its not that hard to say why there are only certain ports with sea routes; the rest of the ports only have boats fit for ignoble people but the nobles are willing to suffer if they want to get off the continent.
I am the only one whom has suggested it, not the only one whom cares and boats for intercontinental travel would have to be sizable if the continents were far enough away to be prohibitive to actual trade ventures and made the continents insular like they seem to be. Which suggests that there are many large ports as well as smaller ports and nobles are not fools, if given a choice between not doing something and having to deal with less than idea living arrangements for travel a sensible noble will pick to suffer slightly and even then any ship larger than a longboat or large enough for a captains cabin will have room for a noble to sit away from the commoners.
And actually, trade makes sea routes the vast percentage of sea travel has always been trade. Merchants invest in maps atleast as often as raiders and likely use there boats to help chart them. Cultures in ancient and medieval times tended to be mediocre without sea trade with some of the greatest being built on it. Having lots of sea routes not only holds a precident historically but adds huge ammounts of roleplay value, benefits for traders, and its tactical value.
-
there is trade in bt?!
i thought most rogue rurals recently captured have a ton of stock that'll last the few populated cities for yonks.
and everyone and their dog are still pretty much allied.
-
there is trade in bt?!
i thought most rogue rurals recently captured have a ton of stock that'll last the few populated cities for yonks.
and everyone and their dog are still pretty much allied.
Every realm in BT is producing a surplus of food. Its not surprising considering a disproportionate number of the regions lost were cities.
-
Trade won't happen :p Too much food and BT will only get more. Maybe they should export to other continents! ;)
-
Trade won't happen :p Too much food and BT will only get more. Maybe they should export to other continents! ;)
i would buy it from them with my Dwilight character.
-
well, new possibilities for trade might eventually become useful (if we ever get other resources to buy/sell). But, what I think most are saying is that sea routes connecting different parts of the island make it a more dynamic place by adding possibilities for new conflicts or new strategic possibilities within a war.
I wouldn't add sea routes just between cities either, I'd want shorter sea routes between rural regions when it makes sense. I could see sea travel developing between Heen & Eykfar for people that want to avoid traveling through the desert. I can imagine short sea routes hopping across the western coast.
-
I wouldn't add sea routes just between cities either, I'd want shorter sea routes between rural regions when it makes sense. I could see sea travel developing between Heen & Eykfar for people that want to avoid traveling through the desert. I can imagine short sea routes hopping across the western coast.
The thing is, and Tom will probably like someone agreeing with this at least, it will never make sense for their to be sea routes between rural region because if it had a port it wouldn't be a rural, it would be a city or stronghold, maybe a townsland. Ports were not made everywhere and just because farmer joe goes fishing near shore in his little boat doesn't mean you could dock a real ship there to go back and forth to some other random rural.
-
Let's not get off topic here. We had a very nice consensus going about adding a sea route to link the southern appendage of BT (and it really is a tail end at this point) to what now is basically the rest of BT. This is not a discussion about implementing navies, or sea zones, or multitudes of coastal routes. This is about adding one region to region connection in order to improve gameplay in light of the new and drastically different geography of BT.
-
If regions did change it would make sense for new townslands/cities to develop over time along the areas that have been drastically changed. Places that *had* big coastal cities suddenly don't. Shifgrethor (townsland) to Heen I suppose would be a possibility for a sea route along the west coast. Would help explain why Shifgrethor is a townsland.
Let's not get off topic here. We had a very nice consensus going about adding a sea route to link the southern appendage of BT (and it really is a tail end at this point) to what now is basically the rest of BT. This is not a discussion about implementing navies, or sea zones, or multitudes of coastal routes. This is about adding one region to region connection in order to improve gameplay in light of the new and drastically different geography of BT.
I agree that connection is needed but still think more sea routes would be a net benefit to the game.
-
If regions did change it would make sense for new townslands/cities to develop over time along the areas that have been drastically changed. Places that *had* big coastal cities suddenly don't. Shifgrethor (townsland) to Heen I suppose would be a possibility for a sea route along the west coast. Would help explain why Shifgrethor is a townsland.
I agree that connection is needed but still think more sea routes would be a net benefit to the game.
Maybe other sea routes would be beneficial but Geronus is right we need to focus on the proposed one for Riombara's area.
-
Sea routes ARE changes to the world because they connect place A to place B. Basically, you could just as well change the map so that A and B touch each other, that's the effect that sea routes have.
And that is why sea routes suck, because they connect A to B, but not A2 to B, even though you could make the same argument for A2 as you made for A. So either it is tons of sea routes all over the place, which makes everything connect to everything and makes coastal cities totally vulnerable towards naval invasions, or you don't.
All you guys arguing historically are forgetting an important detail: There are no actual sea routes in this game. Nowhere. We simulate them by having connections between unconnected regions, but the game doesn't know these are sea routes. It doesn't know that landing your soldiers in an enemy city by sea is not the same as marching in by land. It doesn't know that you could be attacked by an enemy navy at sea. It doesn't know about weather, it doesn't know about ports, it doesn't know about the fact that sea routes should be limited by the number of available ships, it knows bugger all.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
-
Sea routes ARE changes to the world because they connect place A to place B. Basically, you could just as well change the map so that A and B touch each other, that's the effect that sea routes have.
And that is why sea routes suck, because they connect A to B, but not A2 to B, even though you could make the same argument for A2 as you made for A. So either it is tons of sea routes all over the place, which makes everything connect to everything and makes coastal cities totally vulnerable towards naval invasions, or you don't.
All you guys arguing historically are forgetting an important detail: There are no actual sea routes in this game. Nowhere. We simulate them by having connections between unconnected regions, but the game doesn't know these are sea routes. It doesn't know that landing your soldiers in an enemy city by sea is not the same as marching in by land. It doesn't know that you could be attacked by an enemy navy at sea. It doesn't know about weather, it doesn't know about ports, it doesn't know about the fact that sea routes should be limited by the number of available ships, it knows bugger all.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Well, a) That's just plain wrong. The game does know they're sea routes, and that's how it can prevent you from scouting along them. It also knows about weather; we just don't happen to have weather affect sea travel.
And b) None of that matters. It's all still totally and completely irrelevant to the point at hand.
You know why?
Because unless you're planning to either remove every single existing sea route from the game, thus isolating a lot of people form each other, or implement full-fledged sea travel, all this is saying is "Our system for this is imperfect," while totally ignoring the fact that we actually have a system for this.
If you're never ever going to give us a sea route from the isolated tail-end of SE Beluaterra to the rest of the continent just because you don't want to, then please, Tom, just say so. Stop hiding behind BS justifications like this that make no sense whatsoever.
Or, better yet, just add one. It's not hard. It doesn't take a lot of work in the DB or on the map image. Hell, I'll do all the DB work if you want.
Trying to argue that the maps don't change that way is stupid, because the BT map has already changed massively.
Trying to argue that sea routes are a terrible hack is stupid, because we have over a dozen already on Dwilight alone.
Trying to argue that we shouldn't make these decisions for political reasons is stupid, because either all the existing sea routes are political, or none of them are. This one is needed because there's no other place in the game that you have such an isolated piece of land, and it's bad game design to allow it to remain.
Trying to argue that we should wait and see how things develop is stupid, because we know that there's no realistic way that piece of land can do anything but stagnate over the long term if it's left isolated like this.
It really, really feels like either you really want to eliminate sea routes in BM entirely and replace them with proper sea travel—which would be fine as a solution to this, if it were going to happen some time in the next few months—or there's some kind of deeper reason that you don't want to add this sea route, but you don't want to admit to it, so you keep covering it up with increasingly confusing and illogical justifications.
-
I must say that we have to admit that we do not know the exact effects of leaving the map as it is or adding sea routes.
However, the more variables the higher the chance that things change or intresting stuff happens.
With more acces for realms, it thus increases this chance.
If sea travel is indeed faulty or missing mechanics, then lets fix it!
I know for sure that most people will like new sea routes beeing established in BT.
and the main goal for a game is it to be found fun, if most of us think this will add to the fun, then lets give it a try.
On the other hand, isolating the south from the north could characterize the lands more, create two independent political grounds, who will perhaps grow in culture, completely apart from each other, greating other intresting situations.
-
Well, a) That's just plain wrong. The game does know they're sea routes, and that's how it can prevent you from scouting along them. It also knows about weather; we just don't happen to have weather affect sea travel.
Oh yeah. We have a road type that's called "sea route". Still, the game uses the same mechanics for sea routes as it does for roads, and aside from a few if calls for a tiny fraction of what the actual differences are, everything I wrote is true.
all this is saying is "Our system for this is imperfect," while totally ignoring the fact that we actually have a system for this.
No, we don't. We have an ugly hack.
Trying to argue that sea routes are a terrible hack is stupid, because we have over a dozen already on Dwilight alone.
Yes, because the map would be total suck without. Doesn't mean they aren't a terrible hack, it just means the alternative was worse.
It really, really feels like either you really want to eliminate sea routes in BM entirely and replace them with proper sea travel—which would be fine as a solution to this, if it were going to happen some time in the next few months—or there's some kind of deeper reason that you don't want to add this sea route, but you don't want to admit to it, so you keep covering it up with increasingly confusing and illogical justifications.
I would love to hav actual sea travel, and I've started code on that several times. It never worked out well, but with the new polygon map system, it just might.
The reason is right here: Sea routes as we have them are terrible, the suck, they destroy way too many strategic points, allow backdoor entrances into cities, are not actually anything even resembling sea, and they're an ugly hack. That is why I don't want proliferation on them.
-
The reason is right here: Sea routes as we have them are terrible, the suck, they destroy way too many strategic points, allow backdoor entrances into cities, are not actually anything even resembling sea, and they're an ugly hack. That is why I don't want proliferation on them.
And not one single bit of this is a good counterargument to all the reasons—stated pretty well in this thread, so I'm not going to repeat them all—why there should be just one more sea route on Beluaterra, after the biggest change to a continent's geography in the history of BattleMaster has happened and left one part of the continent extremely isolated and likely to end up way less fun than most of the rest of the game without such a route.
-
And not one single bit of this is a good counterargument to all the reasons—stated pretty well in this thread, so I'm not going to repeat them all—why there should be just one more sea route on Beluaterra, after the biggest change to a continent's geography in the history of BattleMaster has happened and left one part of the continent extremely isolated and likely to end up way less fun than most of the rest of the game without such a route.
I'm not sure if I am talking to a wall here.
Adding one route only would be the absolute worst possible scenario. It would instantly make the two regions on its ends 10 times as important as they are now.
I am not happy with how BT turned out, either. But adding some random sea route is NOT the correct solution.
-
I'm not sure if I am talking to a wall here.
To be honest, I feel the same way.
Adding one route only would be the absolute worst possible scenario. It would instantly make the two regions on its ends 10 times as important as they are now.
A) Why is that so terrible?
B) Isn't that better than letting the entire southeast of Beluaterra just wither away and become a place where whatever realm or realms exist there struggle to find some kind of fun by marching weeks to do something with the rest of the continent?
I am not happy with how BT turned out, either. But adding some random sea route is NOT the correct solution.
Then for the love of Great Cthulhu, propose something else. Or at least give us some kind of hint that you're considering doing something else, rather than just saying, "Nope, the situation's terrible, no one's going to have any fun there, but if I were to actually do the obvious thing that would fix that, it would cause this TERRIBLE HORRIBLE CATASTROPHE—that is, it would make 2 regions super important!!!"
-
I don't have a solution or I would've posted it.
But I know it when I see a proposal that will cause more trouble than it solves, and this is one of them. And since everything on BT is still running for the rogue regions, I don't see why we absolutely have to solve this TODAY. There is time enough to come up with a real solution instead of some stupid hack.
And yes, that goes for Dwilight, etc. as well. Sea routes as we have them right now suck, they are absolutely horrible, and I don't remember what messed up my brain when Dwilight was launched the way it is today with those terrible routes between major cities that totally nuke any defensive strategy the donut regions were intended to add. We shot ourselves in the foot with a bazooka there.
-
But I know it when I see a proposal that will cause more trouble than it solves, and this is one of them. And since everything on BT is still running for the rogue regions, I don't see why we absolutely have to solve this TODAY. There is time enough to come up with a real solution instead of some stupid hack.
This, I certainly agree with. It's going to be a few months before we start seriously running into problems.
As long as we're spending that time looking for solutions, instead of just seeing how things develop, I'm content to accept not implementing anything now.
That said, I'm still not sure I see why adding a sea route would be massively worse than the situation as it stands. What, exactly, are the problems you foresee from doing so? Bearing in mind that, for instance, Melegra was always the one region that connected the islands back to the rest of the continent, through the now-sunken Fwuvoghor.
And yes, that goes for Dwilight, etc. as well. Sea routes as we have them right now suck, they are absolutely horrible, and I don't remember what messed up my brain when Dwilight was launched the way it is today with those terrible routes between major cities that totally nuke any defensive strategy the donut regions were intended to add. We shot ourselves in the foot with a bazooka there.
Well, do you think it would be feasible to tweak them to come from the donut regions, instead, at this point?
Honestly, that would actually make them more militarily viable in some ways, since no one really wants to try traveling a week by ship to assault level 5 walls with massive militia behind them. Being able to land in the townsland, where there's actually some chance of succeeding in an assault, would be much preferable.
-
Yes, because the map would be total suck without. Doesn't mean they aren't a terrible hack, it just means the alternative was worse.
Which is exactly what our argument is for adding this one. Couldn't have stated it better myself.
We're not asking you to add new sea routes to a map that has been the way it is for a long time. We are petitioning (begging) you to apply the workaround we have to address the exact situation that it was designed to address.
The reason is right here: Sea routes as we have them are terrible, the suck, they destroy way too many strategic points, allow backdoor entrances into cities, are not actually anything even resembling sea, and they're an ugly hack. That is why I don't want proliferation on them.
Adding one route only would be the absolute worst possible scenario. It would instantly make the two regions on its ends 10 times as important as they are now.
Practically speaking, adding a sea route from Melegra to Fronepu would be almost no different than the situation that existed before the map was blown up. Melegra to Fwuvoghor was still a one region wide bottleneck blocked by a city at one end. We'd be changing the city that is the bottleneck, but everything else about the situation would remain effectively identical, with the islands having that one tenuous connection to the northern half of the map. As opposed to the current status quo, where they are basically a dead end no-fun zone with only one way off and on.
-
http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,3210.msg74376.html
-
http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,3210.msg74376.html
May I request that, until a sea travel alternative is worked out and pushed live, we have the sea route, following the old rules, established?
I too preffer actual sea travel as proposed rather than the current road over sea mechanics, but when can this new system be expected for?
-
May I request that, until a sea travel alternative is worked out and pushed live, we have the sea route, following the old rules, established?
No. End of discussion.
-
Tom, you seem to be getting increasingly defensive and combative over changes everyone else seems to agree on. Case in point, the forum thread that Indirik recently closed regarding the duke situation. Everyone else was discussing the situation civilly, while you were getting more and more antagonistic with each post. Is it so much to ask that you follow your own statement, from that thread? See below, I'm sure the words will seem familiar to you:
You are simplifying the argument and thus missing the answer. If you go through the full process of how these happen, you see immediately why.
I'm sick and tired of having arguments on this forum. If you have a suggestion, make it and it will be accepted or rejected. This constant bickering back and forth and arguing for arguments sake is causing frustration and nothing else. So to save everyone the frustration: Bad luck, this is how it is, I will not change it, period, end of discussion.
-
And this thread is done, too.