BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => BM General Discussion => Topic started by: Fleugs on December 28, 2012, 08:00:39 PM
-
It is time. I've been complaining on IRC long enough, but I think I might as well start venting out what troubles me in BM and do it on the forum. What really grinds my gear - Battlemaster Edition. I may complain about the realms I am in, I may complain about continents and I may complain about the general state of affair in Battlemaster. For obvious purposes: I wish to make clear to new(er) players that this post is in no way meant to discourage you from playing the game, but rather to make a good choice as to which realm you should join, and what the essence of this game is (for me). Consider this some advanced-playing rant that you would probably not fully understand.
Nowadays most rulers are pussies.
Let me start by saying that there are still some decent rulers out there. Rulers who know what this game is about: war. I would like to congratulate them on putting in an effort to entertain the people playing in their realm. For what is there to do, really, if you are but a simple noble in a realm? Do not think though that all realms that are at war are instantly absolved of my whining, no sir! I shall come back to that later.
What seems to me to be a clear tendency lately is that rulers are in fact power-hungry people who, through a stroke of luck or by making false promises, have achieved the ultimately position one can have in a realm. In most realms they hold all the power and even if they are subject to the will of the rest of nobility (i.e. republics or democracies). Kings, dictators, tyrants or pontifices who are at peace are the perfect example of scared ducks sitting on a throne. I know plenty realms where the ruler can easily get into war if only he would have the balls to do so.
Let's pause and look at East Continent. Once my favourite continent, I now think it is about the best example of what Battlemaster is not about. I admit I had my own hand in what EC looks like now - even greatly, maybe. But at least I put my balls on the chopping block and went for some crazy round of "let's see who's man enough". Turns out my realm wasn't. To the point though: have you looked at East Continent lately? I'm sorry. Peace Continent! Dobby, in conspiracy with some other courage-lacking rulers of realms there, are absolutely trying their best to keep all realms at peace. Perdan, Caligus, Sirion: your local threesome of peace! Surprises me they aren't growing weed yet or handing out shrooms to keep the players subdued. I recall Tom once called upon the Gods of this magnificent browser game and shook up the East Continent, because there was peace. I call upon him to do that again, rather sooner than later, so that this fine continent may once again know the burning of commonfolk and the plundering of cities, as it should be.
I will not stop at East Continent though. I'll (vaguely) refer to people, too, and I will frankly not care if people will not like me for that. So if your name is called by me and I start tossing mud your way, feel free to toss mud back any time, or otherwise explain why my accusations are wrong. I am reasonable and, frankly, this is mostly a rant. Moving on, I can't say much for Atamara. I went to Darka, I remembered that once I liked Atamara (and Darka) too, then I figured out we had to travel almost two weeks to see one battle, and I left. Probably I picked the wrong realm, for Atamara knows plenty of war and since I'm not part of that continent, well, there's really no point for me to say anything about it. I am part of Far-East Island though.
We once had fun on FEI. I can't really remember when. It wasn't that long ago. Some good north-south war was going on and, sure, people were complaining about it being some gangbang but it wasn't, really. It didn't feel like it. You should know I am in Arcaea. How can I best picture Arcaea for those who do not know it? 't Is gigantic. Truly amazing how huge it is. But the waste of potential is painful. If it wouldn't be cause to some giant diplomatic riot that would end up in me losing my region, I would join Sorraine with my region and help them in the frontline. But I can't, really, because Arcaea would never tolerate a region leaving them. Why should they? That's not the point. The point is that Arcaea isn't at war. I don't even understand why. Sometimes it is beneficial to be simple of mind and when you are, you just have to look to realms bordering Arcaea and you'll think: "Hey, there's plenty of realms to go to war with!" But we aren't. Why not? Beats me. I think Velax is scared of seeing his Bentley getting scratched in the process. Maybe Arcaea just needs to stop caring about having good relations with their (southern) neighbours and decide that, well, it's time to offer the players of their realm some fun, and go to war. You think that is a stupid reason? It is what I did with Ibladesh, and even though that realm is now gone, I am proud to say that I offered all people who played in Ibladesh entertainment for as long as the war lasted. They took our lands but they didn't take our fun. Luckily the lands don't vanish into thin air. The fun does though.
So having bashed at FEI and Velax a little (I'm sorry man, you're actually a good player), allow me to address Beluaterra real quickly. An interesting continent, because I can bash myself a little for that - I am after all the ruler of Riombara. I should feel a little good about myself though, because my character there (and, basically, me as a player) is one that will look for trouble. Currently we are making Enweil squirm without even drawing a sword. That's a shame. Perhaps we should draw swords anyway and if it were up to me and me alone, we would. We would go smack Enweil around the ears so hard their left and right ear would swap places, and then we would move on to Fronen. Why do I say Fronen? Well their ruler lashed out, and in moments of peace, everybody not agreeing with your perspective is a completely valid target for war. I'm sorry, do I sound like a dictator? At least dictators bring war! That's what this game is about. So if Riombara were a kingdom that elected me, by now we would be at least warring Enweil and making plans to colonize Creasur and Fronepu. You see, thinking like a megalomaniac allows you to make a lot of enemies. Enemies bring war. War brings fun for those players that decide you were the one to lead them.
Sadly enough Riombara is no kingdom. Even more so, everything is voted upon in Riombara. I'm positive that war will come, though, as it appears that many nobles feel like I do - it's time for fun! It is much like Melhed, you know, only that Riombara actually knows what war is. Melhed: do you even war? The daimons don't even count. Or your way-too-late pathetic involvement in Fronen. You had your chance to attack Thalmarkin but you pussied out. Good riddance. I really hope half of your nobles decide to ditch you because of that. They should, you know. As soon as another realm goes to war I hope they migrate like a herd of antelopes crossing some or another Great African Plain. There are things equally horrible as Melhed though. Fronen. A month or so ago Fronen suggested a SIX MONTH PEACE TREATY for all realms on Beluaterra. I (not entirely friendly) thanked them for that suggestion and they gave me a very good laugh, but the scary thing is that their Doge actually meant it. He, or she, was actively trying to lock all realms of BT into a half-year peace. We might as well just delete our characters because I'm pretty sure Tom would do it otherwise. It are things exactly like that which brought me to writing all of this nonsense-rant. People should not even be seriously considering that. No, just no. Actually, like when you are taming animals, BT's rulers should have collectively agreed in an OOC-fashion that this was the most ridiculous proposal ever, and should have simply marched over there and either whipped Fronen into humiliation, or toss taunting letters over their walls. Not sure what would have been most fun.
In general, though, I like Beluaterra the most. The invasion was brilliant and all people who were involved in that should be applauded. It was one of these moments of Battlemaster that I will never forget. I know the aftermath is made out of rebuilding but I'm pretty sure wars are to come, if they aren't even on our doorstep yet. Whatever I can personally do to make a war happen, I will. Otherwise this entire topic would be hypocritical.
Do allow me to move on to Dwilight, the continent that you can easily call my nemesis. The concept of Dwilight is great and when it was made I was really excited. That excitement has been brutally murdered in the three times I tried to play on that continent. The people who have steered, or are steering, Dwilight have either no idea what they are doing or are simply selfish. SA really is one giant block and when I was in Corsanctum I quickly started to hate it because, damn, that realm has seriously no outlook to war. They claim to be the holy house of their religion or whatever other RP it was and it all sounded so nice but never, ever, will that realm be interesting if they don't actually behave like the centre of SA. Don't even get me started on SA. Hats off to those who made it big, but I put my hat back on when I see how horribly unpromising their hegemony is coming to be. The perfect recipe for the most boring region ever. Spreading out your religion and such is perfectly acceptable but it should not come at the cost of peace. Yes, peace. If you wish to convert an entire continent to one faith, go ahead, but don't have everybody cuddle eachother. Let's learn from the Christians during the Dark Ages and embrace the fact that smashing eachother's head in is fun too. Now I should be honest and say that it's been a while since I actually got interested in the goings of SA. They may perfectly well be warring eachother and in that case, congratulations, keep on going! Also, tell me which realm I should join then because I am about to ditch Luria Nova (and they ARE at war).
Ah, the Lurias. I learned from the Lurias that I should never trust it when people have these cool plans on IRC and ask me to join. We were going to colonize D'Hara but, hey, the requirement is actually being able to defeat D'Hara. Now we're warring Luria Vesperi and it's all fun and games, but the apathy that is growing in Luria Nova is horrible, and it is something which Fulco should really act upon. Being the ruler it is your duty to entertain the players of your realm. At least make them interested in the war - do so by sending out propaganda! People who are elected to be ruler should not see that as a "gift", but as a job. "Congratulations, you are now ruler! Everything bad about this realm is now your fault and you should mend it." That's not even far off from the truth. You owe it to each and every player with a character in your realm to provide for them an atmosphere that is entertaining. People do not play Battlemaster to be bored. The fact that LN's general is going to abandon the realm is... damn, shame on you LN. Shame on you. You have a war going and you can't even keep a general interested? I heard all about these "great Lurian intrigue in politics" but I'm starting to think it's just a group of players circlejerking on old feuds.
It is about time I conclude my (first) rant and if you have been able to read all of it, I both pity and congratulate you. I fully realize that by posting this I will take a lot of flak but I don't care. I'm nearing my 10th anniversary in Battlemaster and it is about damn time that I had my say. This game is great, and will remain great, but once in a while it doesn't hurt to remind some people what their "duties" are. I wasn't gentle and when I rant again here, I will not be gentle. This is Battlemaster and war is the crucial part of this game. The lack of it makes me rage.
-
Play War Islands, then?
-
I've been playing BM (this time around) for a bit over two years, the whole time spent in Arcaea, and we've been at war for probably 80% of that time. During that time there have been, by my count, ten different wars in the FEI and Arcaea has been directly involved in six of them, three of them since Velax took over as ruler - one of those a continent-wide war. How much war do you frigging want?
-
Mentioned dwilight- didn't mention Aurvandil. christmas miracle.
-
I've been playing BM (this time around) for a bit over two years, the whole time spent in Arcaea, and we've been at war for probably 80% of that time. During that time there have been, by my count, ten different wars in the FEI and Arcaea has been directly involved in six of them, three of them since Velax took over as ruler - one of those a continent-wide war. How much war do you frigging want?
Possibly true, and I've heard people say that Arcaea once fought this epic war (for survival). Can I ask you though, do you think Arcaea is ready for war or not? If you are ready, why are you not fighting? Dynamics - the coming and going of realms - is something that has always intrigued me. It allows for new ideas to rise, new players to get opportunities and get involved. Peace does not bring that promise. Should you be afraid to overplay your hand, or overstretch your realm, up to the point that it disintegrates into small "warring factions"? I know that when you are a ruler you get the feeling that often things are happening. But that doesn't go for the more average noble, even if he or she is a lord. Hunting monsters is only fun for a short amount of time.
Maybe another invasion wouldn't be a bad idea. But this game is not about fighting "NPC" (although invasion forces are player-guided), it is basically about some large-scale pvp. At least that is what it is to me.
-
Play War Islands, then?
War Islands is not Battlemaster. This post has nothing to do with War Islands, they are two very different games.
-
Apologies for the double post (I feel like two different things should be discussed in two different replies), but I want to jump in on what Fleugs said about rulers being too cautious. Would it not make sense IC for a ruler to be cautious? I suppose it would depend on the character, but as a ruler your whole job is to keep the realm together. Not wanting to get your realm destroyed makes perfect sense coming from the perspective of individual characters.
-
I don't know many of these examples you complain about, but it's true that for big realms with enough military strength to bully their neighbours, it should be all about searching for an elaborate RP or IC excuse to declare war (or make its neighbour declare war on it). But it would be just simplistic; this is a game of intrigue and politics too, and I think over time it's been created a quite rich background that maybe just feeds many players, who enjoy improving endlessly their realms.
Of course it's really amusing warring, and when wars involve huge realms, war is something that can provide fun with not too many awful consequences for any of the contenders, since they're too strong to be destroyed by the other easily. I don't know exactly how has been your experience in the realms you've quoted, but maybe you should have picked weak ones to start, if you didn't. If you pick huge and crowded realms just because you expect to be quickly crashing cranes, you've got some chances to be disappointed. But small realms I think usually face which in my opinion are the most exciting wars, wars for survival.
-
Apologies for the double post (I feel like two different things should be discussed in two different replies), but I want to jump in on what Fleugs said about rulers being too cautious. Would it not make sense IC for a ruler to be cautious? I suppose it would depend on the character, but as a ruler your whole job is to keep the realm together. Not wanting to get your realm destroyed makes perfect sense coming from the perspective of individual characters.
Yes, yes it does. In fact, that's a core business of a ruler. I encourage rulers to engage into war, though. Not to destroy realms entirely. Actually, that's another tendency in battlemaster that might need... change. But that should totally go in another oversized post of me.
Lychaeon captures a part of the truth that small realms have fun wars. Wars for survival can be lengthy and afterwards give great satisfaction, given your realm still exists. Nevertheless Battlemaster still has plenty of huge realms, particularly several continents. Battlemaster is indeed a game of intrigue and politics, too. There's two ways to approach this statement:
1) You declare war based on what you know is a fabricated claim or bogus reason and everybody punishes you in their white knight spirit.
2) Another opportunistic realms sees that your realm is taking a lot of the attention away and decides they might as well jump in and claim some land of your enemies because, well, their armies are at the front lines fighting off you armies - so they can go no a rampage. Those are always fun.
The ideal situation is that everybody is like number 2 and before you know it your entire continent is an exploding powder keg.
Maybe the everything above "peace" should just be abolished. That would make it fun!
-
I think an easy thing to describe how Battlemaster is far to often would be to think of WWI as that was caused basically by an action that pissed off one realm so they declared war then all of their allies joined in. Having this every once in awhile is good but every war just being everyone calls in their allies gets old.
-
The fact that LN's general is going to abandon the realm is... damn, shame on you LN. Shame on you. You have a war going and you can't even keep a general interested?
That's not really anyone's fault but my own. I've just been in a BM-funk lately and when I do stuff for BM, it's usually for Thalmarkin since that's simply the realm that I care most about. That and I have plans that don't involve LN. And it's not really a challenging war to sink my teeth into that nevertheless takes a lot of time to complete...
Those are not the right ingredients to get me out of my funk.
I think an easy thing to describe how Battlemaster is far to often would be to think of WWI as that was caused basically by an action that pissed off one realm so they declared war then all of their allies joined in. Having this every once in awhile is good but every war just being everyone calls in their allies gets old.
The source of that problem is that most realms sit around and wait for stuff to happen. In stead of actively looking for conflict they wait for such an incident where conflict is handed to them on a silver platter. Perhaps IC it makes sense to be careful as a ruler because there's a lot at risk and your realm may die but then if it's not at war, is it really alive? The only times I would consider replying "yes" to that are either if there is a whole bunch of lethal intrigue going on inside the realm, or if it is actively preparing for war. Anything that is not just existing.
-
War Islands is not Battlemaster. This post has nothing to do with War Islands, they are two very different games.
That's my point. BattleMaster is a game of politics.
If he wants just war, then there are better games for him.
But even then, he complains when he has war. Seems he must also win said wars. Because as he said, LN is in war. With an enemy at a distance, and next door too.
Man you'd have been disappointed had you had your wish of colonising D'Hara. Seriously. You want to do nothing but fighting, and of all he lands, you want D'HARA?
And then you complain about EC... Seriously? EC's been a bore-fest since at least half a decade. It is KNOWN for being peace-prone. Why do you even bother playing there, if endless and mindless war is all you want?
And what do you care what other realms do of themselves? Want Melhed to go to war? Then declare war on them, and you'll solve two "problems" at once. Only Melites have a right to complain about Melite peace.
Honestly, I get the feeling the only reason you liked the invasion was because it left your realm amazingly overpowered while it utterly crippled your only neighbor. Because you seem to have an issue with things not going your way. You seem to want absolute control, not only over what other characters do, but what they feel as well. You seem frustrated that other players don't desire everything you desire.
I may be rude, but honestly your rant was rude to a lot a players as well. Because your suggestion that removing everything above "peace" is simply stupid. You seem to call for mindless war, war for the sake of war. You also seem to want nothing but pawns. Because that's what war tends to do. Forces everyone to abandon individual initiatives in order to join up the war effort, where one guy shouts orders and the rest just click on travel and recruit as mindless automatons.
If you want war and only war, if you hate politics as much, if you want the ones below you do follow your instructions with awe, then you are simply playing the wrong game, and I repeat my previous statement: go play War Islands, or some other Risk! emulator.
Because if the lack of war can be boring in BM, the presence of it doesn't necessarily cure it either. Because war and fun are not one and the same. There are many avenues for fun, and war is just one of them. And for many people, there's very little of interest in war. And if there's no RP to back it up, that "war for the sake of war" is the only thing behind the politics involved, that's not making for a very exciting realm for many.
Your characters are mobile. Instead of trying to force your play style on others, perhaps you should just migrate to a place where they already have it? There are plenty of wars going on right now, and there's absolutely nothing preventing you from migrating to one of the realms involved in them.
-
Play War Islands, then?
I'm certain many people enjoy WI, but it really has nothing to do with Battlemaster. It's a completely different game. It is not a replacement for the old SEI and SWI and does not work as such.
Not that I want them back either. I want RPed wars, not wars imposed from above.
About the rant, I mostly agree. I think, however, that the situation is the logical outcome of long-existing relationships people work hard to create and maintain. I think these relationships are a very interesting part of the game, you can't swipe them away just like that.
What seems to be happening now in Beluaterra is a great example of how to bring war, because it is also based on the same relationships. Just lightning bolting rulers or sending other players to WI would not be playing the game... It would be like tossing the board out of frustration.
TL;DR: you're right about the problem, and it is a question of culture change. Simple solutions won't work.
-
Man you'd have been disappointed had you had your wish of colonising D'Hara. Seriously. You want to do nothing but fighting, and of all he lands, you want D'HARA?
I disagree. It's central, fortified and rich. D'Hara may not see it as the outstanding military bulwark that it is but the leaders of that planned colony certainly did. In fact, we saw D'Hara as a waste of space in THE prime location on Dwilight for a warmongering, bloodthirsty, battle-hymn singing realm.
-
I disagree. It's central, fortified and rich. D'Hara may not see it as the outstanding military bulwark that it is but the leaders of that planned colony certainly did. In fact, we saw D'Hara as a waste of space in THE prime location on Dwilight for a warmongering, bloodthirsty, battle-hymn singing realm.
Soldiers don't eat gold.
And if you saw that, then no wonder you are doing such a horrible job as general. D'Hara's an atrocious place to defend. Once the old sea routes are removed, it'll be better, sure, but the sea travel is a new feature.
Had I been a foreign general of a realm that wanted to see D'Hara dead, I would have had the time to destroy D'Hara a thousand times over by today. It was a frigging linear realm, that couldn't scout its borders due to them being sea roads, and that granted far-away kingdoms the ability to launch a surprise attack and begin a takeover before any troops could be mobilized, with the sieging force likely cutting off half of the defenders from accessing the capital to recruit.
We never had a big army because we didn't feel like it. But to think that the islands would have made for a viable warmongering realm is just ridiculous. Even with contracts all over the continent feeding the realm was a bitch. And all it takes for months of efforts to go down the drain is just 1 week of harsh winter. Then you've got a ton of months of no income ahead to rebuild.
But then again, you couldn't even defeat a starved out D'Hara with nothing left but a stronghold and a crappy badland city, with all the might of Solaria and Luria Nova at your disposal. And somehow you'd think you'd be able to make a viable warmongering colony on the isles?
And you say central as if it was some kind of advantage. All it means is that "distance from home" is likely to kick in no matter who you attack and that anybody can backstab you from anywhere at any time.
Perhaps other rulers aren't the problem here, but the ridiculous expectations you make yourselves and your inability to achieve anything with the things you do have.
-
But even then, he complains when he has war. Seems he must also win said wars. Because as he said, LN is in war. With an enemy at a distance, and next door too.
That's not true. I didn't say that. I actually enjoyed loosing a war on the condition that said war entertained me. LN's war is not entertaining for various reasons, although this turn's attack of D'Hara/Luria Vesperi made me laugh out loud. That's rare for BM.
And then you complain about EC... Seriously? EC's been a bore-fest since at least half a decade. It is KNOWN for being peace-prone. Why do you even bother playing there, if endless and mindless war is all you want?
What? The entire bottom of that continent was at war for at least a year and a half. The longest war I have ever known and be part of in Battlemaster. It wasn't endless, it wasn't mindless. At all. It was just lengthy. I never had anyone complaining to me that it was boring and the fact that the noble count only rose during that war - even up until the end - proves that it was what players sought for their characters, even if it was just an excuse to quickly gain h/p.
Honestly, I get the feeling the only reason you liked the invasion was because it left your realm amazingly overpowered while it utterly crippled your only neighbor. Because you seem to have an issue with things not going your way. You seem to want absolute control, not only over what other characters do, but what they feel as well. You seem frustrated that other players don't desire everything you desire.
Yes, Riombara is amazingly overpowered. I totally like it. No, Enweil isn't Riombara's only neighbour. We'd be in Fronen or Melhed within three days. The sea regions opened up so much possibilities. I don't want to "mind control" other people or coerce them into what I want, but I do think that my entire rant hits a critical spot: why our player base is declining. People are getting bored. Because players that do hold positions are seemingly content and are less encouraged to entertain those "underneath" them.
I may be rude, but honestly your rant was rude to a lot a players as well. Because your suggestion that removing everything above "peace" is simply stupid. You seem to call for mindless war, war for the sake of war. You also seem to want nothing but pawns. Because that's what war tends to do. Forces everyone to abandon individual initiatives in order to join up the war effort, where one guy shouts orders and the rest just click on travel and recruit as mindless automatons.
I was rude and I said I would be and feel free to return the rudeness to me. Perhaps some uncensored shouting would... resolve things. My suggestion to remove anything above peace was sarcasm though, that should have been obvious. No, I do not want everyone to become my pawns. The core message of my rant is that I wish to call upon rulers or players with power to take up their responsibilities and provide fun for everyone. It's like a socialist Battlemaster! I know where you are aiming at, with the pawns and all. It's about what I have in mind with Enweil. Perhaps I should tell you now that the concept here is that Enweil is basically an insurance for future war, in case we are bored of travelling half way up the continent. There you have it.
Besides wars do not work with one persons giving orders to "drones". You have a general, marshals and whatnot all involved to make sure your realms run smoothly. Tell me though what a general and marshals do in times of peace? I know! They carry their titles. That's it.
If you want war and only war, if you hate politics as much, if you want the ones below you do follow your instructions with awe, then you are simply playing the wrong game, and I repeat my previous statement: go play War Islands, or some other Risk! emulator.
Because if the lack of war can be boring in BM, the presence of it doesn't necessarily cure it either. Because war and fun are not one and the same. There are many avenues for fun, and war is just one of them. And for many people, there's very little of interest in war. And if there's no RP to back it up, that "war for the sake of war" is the only thing behind the politics involved, that's not making for a very exciting realm for many.
If you can make up RP for all kind of things, it should not be hard to make up RP for war. Whatever way you put it I am certain that war is essential to Battlemaster. It is the most crucial part of this game and all the rest is just sweet decoration. I could toss back your suggestion about BM:WI, to say that if you want RP so much, you might as well go join a text-based RP forum.
Your characters are mobile. Instead of trying to force your play style on others, perhaps you should just migrate to a place where they already have it? There are plenty of wars going on right now, and there's absolutely nothing preventing you from migrating to one of the realms involved in them.
My rant does not come out of the blue. I have been migrating. For a long time now. I've had enough of that. And I will not quit BM.
-
I disagree. It's central, fortified and rich. D'Hara may not see it as the outstanding military bulwark that it is but the leaders of that planned colony certainly did. In fact, we saw D'Hara as a waste of space in THE prime location on Dwilight for a warmongering, bloodthirsty, battle-hymn singing realm.
Central and fortified sure but definitely not rich at the moment. My character with 500 gold is considered rather wealthy at the moment, at least that is what it seems like with the lack of anybody else giving funds to others that often. Ironically he is not even a lord. As to the perfect place for warmongering, yes and no. You can attack plenty of people but if you plan to live long, you have to be careful with diplomacy so you don' piss off too many people at once. That and you can be attacked anywhere in your realm with no way to scout at the moment is not that great for D'hara either. So if you kept all your fights in the realm you are fighting, you were only fighting one realm, and your economy was good with good recruitment centers while this was going on, D'hara might do a decent job as a bloodthirsty warmongering realm. Also, D'hara will never be as rich as it once was because not only will we have to pay a plenty of food but now we have large amounts of gold going just to sea travel.
Edit: Some of this is a repeat of what Chenier said.
-
Soldiers don't eat gold.
Yes they do.
Anyway, supported by a decent mainland empire that provides food, like northern luria or what you tried to have with the moot, food should not be an issue.
And if you saw that, then no wonder you are doing such a horrible job as general. D'Hara's an atrocious place to defend. Once the old sea routes are removed, it'll be better, sure, but the sea travel is a new feature.
Because having the only invasion-routes be through a line of heavily fortified regions is a luxury we all have.
And with the new system... have you /tried/ landing in a region with troops (oh wait you did, how did that work out for you again)? And have you /tried/ doing it in a fortified region? You guys have the best defensive position in the game. Better than Arcaea even. Especially once sea zones kick in in the FEI. Who cares if you need food for it? Make friends with the right people then fight everyone else.
And if you saw that, then no wonder you are doing such a horrible job as general
Battle in Shinnen Purlieus
Total combat strengths: 7152 vs. 9607
The defenders take up positions inside the Motte and Bailey (2).
'Nuff said.
But not really though. You know that we're not coming after you. We're just assimilating LV so we can move on and do stuff that matters, you're the one prolonging this boring war. IF we were to come after you though, I'd imagine we'd run into a bunch of militia when trying to land. If not, who's the idiot?
And you say central as if it was some kind of advantage. All it means is that "distance from home" is likely to kick in no matter who you attack and that anybody can backstab you from anywhere at any time.
No it means you can fight all over the continent with less of a distance from home penalty than others have. And to really backstab you, one needs a massive army. Because remember: forts, militia and naval travel. D'Hara must only fear a mainland invasion from Aurvandil, an SA-bloc or a Luria that isn't distracted at home and looks the same way for once. Anyone else just does not have the resources to bring a successful invasion force to the islands, not alone.
Perhaps other rulers aren't the problem here, but the ridiculous expectations you make yourselves and your inability to achieve anything with the things you do have.
Come again? Luria is a place where dreams go to die, I fully agree with that. There's a whole lot of grand plans than a bunch of whining and peacocking and then nothing happens. But remember you're also talking to the guy that claimed Overlord's horns at the beginning of the invasion, to his face, and now enjoys refreshing beverages from nothing but those horns.
Luria's problem is a problem of characters and culture and I would say that D'Hara's problem is much the same. Just the fact that you insist that D'Hara has a terrible defensive position proves this point. They are however not my problems.
-
Whether EC had a war or not lately is beside the point. Whenever there's complaints about too much peace, or the game being boring because of politics, 90% of the time it comes from the East Continent. That continent's a !@#$hole. That's the one that should have been sunk, not SEI.
Fronen and Melhed are realms within reach, not neighbors.
As for decline, current statistics suggest a slight increase in active members. In any case, it can't be said for sure what causes it. The extremely more complex nature of the game than back then could explain it just as well. After all, wars create losers, and many people quit because they can' stand defeat.
My "pawns" comment has nothing to do with whatever you have in mind for Enweil. I just utterly hate being a rank-and-file troop leader. And have for a very long time. Giving me war won't make me any more interested in a realm if I'm just a rank-and-file troop leader.
Many realms have a general/marshal. One guy in charge of barking out all of the others. Or a marshal does that as much, with a general that does nothing. Or vice versa. Most wars involve a very limited number of people barking out red paper to a bunch of rank-and-file troop leaders.
-
This is going a little off topic, but since we're discussing problems with player mentality I feel it's worth mentioning
My character with 500 gold is considered rather wealthy at the moment, at least that is what it seems like with the lack of anybody else giving funds to others that often.
Why is that not normal? I see this everywhere "Send gold requests to the council." Why is it the norm for dukes and rulers to be giving their wealth away to lesser nobles? That doesn't make any sense to me. Knights get taxes from their lords. If they don't get enough to pay their soldiers, perhaps the knight should find a new lord that can actually pay them what they deserve.
I get spreading that wealth around makes your realm's army better, but it just never made sense to me IC and I'm pretty sure it didn't use to be like that.
-
Central and fortified sure but definitely not rich at the moment. My character with 500 gold is considered rather wealthy at the moment, at least that is what it seems like with the lack of anybody else giving funds to others that often. Ironically he is not even a lord. As to the perfect place for warmongering, yes and no. You can attack plenty of people but if you plan to live long, you have to be careful with diplomacy so you don' piss off too many people at once. That and you can be attacked anywhere in your realm with no way to scout at the moment is not that great for D'hara either. So if you kept all your fights in the realm you are fighting, you were only fighting one realm, and your economy was good with good recruitment centers while this was going on, D'hara might do a decent job as a bloodthirsty warmongering realm. Also, D'hara will never be as rich as it once was because not only will we have to pay a plenty of food but now we have large amounts of gold going just to sea travel.
Edit: Some of this is a repeat of what Chenier said.
Of course D'Hara isn't in the best shape right now, the long winter raped you guys harder than anyone else and while Luria is also still recovering from it, D'Hara has proportionally MUCH more regions that need to recover. It has however immense economic potential. And that's what I'm talking about, not the current reality but the objective potential of your geography.
Obviously you need to be good enough at PR to not be seen as a warlike maniac by others. Don't mindlessly attack anyone who looks funny but if you've got a smart aggressive realm with a geography like D'Hara's, you can do great things militarily.
But really, if you set out to do great things, it's usually best to be smart about it.
-
Yes they do.
Anyway, supported by a decent mainland empire that provides food, like northern luria or what you tried to have with the moot, food should not be an issue.
No, they don't. And yes, it would. You really are clueless as to D'Hara's food needs. At least the population rebalance helped things out a little, but still... That was plenty compensated by the ridiculous rot that is always in effect nowadays, regardless of warehouses. D'Hara imported food from the rest of the 'moot AND all corners of the continent. And it wasn't enough. No, Luria alone could not supply a decent enough food supply for D'Hara.
Because having the only invasion-routes be through a line of heavily fortified regions is a luxury we all have.
And with the new system... have you /tried/ landing in a region with troops (oh wait you did, how did that work out for you again)? And have you /tried/ doing it in a fortified region? You guys have the best defensive position in the game. Better than Arcaea even. Especially once sea zones kick in in the FEI. Who cares if you need food for it? Make friends with the right people then fight everyone else.
Right... Because the sea routes that lead to D'Hara aren't also as defended? And because 2000 CS behind lvl 3-5 walls is so DIFFICULT to defeat? Sure, the long sea routes USED to make it difficult for armies to arrive together... somewhat. But with the new delay arrival mechanic, that's not much of a concern.
The sea routes help make D'Hara more defensible, because it makes invasions costly in terms of embarking costs and disembarking casualties, but also especially because it allows D'Haran forces to move from one part of D'Hara to another regardless of having any region occupied by an enemy (previously, having a single region occupied meant that our realm was cut in half). So sure, the new sea travel makes us a bit more defendable... But it also makes participating in ANY conflict a hell of a lot more expensive.
Battle in Shinnen Purlieus
Total combat strengths: 7152 vs. 9607
The defenders take up positions inside the Motte and Bailey (2).
'Nuff said.
But not really though. You know that we're not coming after you. We're just assimilating LV so we can move on and do stuff that matters, you're the one prolonging this boring war. IF we were to come after you though, I'd imagine we'd run into a bunch of militia when trying to land. If not, who's the idiot?
What's your point? You act as if I somehow had anything to do with that battle. I've not been in any way even remotely involved in any battle. LV, +1 D'Haran noble, launched a stupid attack. So what? Lurians doing typical Lurian-style attacks.
Don't act as if the conflict is young. Or Luria's desire to attack D'Hara. This current war is plenty old. And your plans to invade are years old. LV got involved quite late in the war. We had barely anything left waving our flag. And now, we basically got it all back from the days of our peak. And we've been regaining land since before LV did anything.
No it means you can fight all over the continent with less of a distance from home penalty than others have. And to really backstab you, one needs a massive army. Because remember: forts, militia and naval travel. D'Hara must only fear a mainland invasion from Aurvandil, an SA-bloc or a Luria that isn't distracted at home and looks the same way for once. Anyone else just does not have the resources to bring a successful invasion force to the islands, not alone.
No, it means that unlike anyone else, we don't have any neighbors we could attack without having the distance from home penalty. Anyone, anywhere, is able to launch battles far away. Not just D'Hara. We just happen to not have anyone close to our capital, just a whole bunch of nothing (sea).
Forts are expensive. Militia is expensive. Naval travel is expensive. Food is expensive. And somehow, you think you have funds left after all of that to launch a sensible war? Did you even think of the costs of sailing BACK to the islands after any campaign? Because if you invade D'Hara, and somehow succeed, you can be pretty damn sure you aren't getting Paisly as a harbor on the western continent. Because if sailing from a friendly port with an army is expensive, sailing back from a hostile port is ridiculously more.
And stop citing "distractions" and not being united. D'Hara had nothing but a few regions left after unprecedented starvation, that's when Luria Nova and Solaria attacked us. And we fended you off on our own. You lost because Lurian military sucks. Not because of how awesome the isles are: we barely had any of it remaining under our control.
Come again? Luria is a place where dreams go to die, I fully agree with that. There's a whole lot of grand plans than a bunch of whining and peacocking and then nothing happens. But remember you're also talking to the guy that claimed Overlord's horns at the beginning of the invasion, to his face, and now enjoys refreshing beverages from nothing but those horns.
Luria's problem is a problem of characters and culture and I would say that D'Hara's problem is much the same. Just the fact that you insist that D'Hara has a terrible defensive position proves this point. They are however not my problems.
You can't seriously be taking any credit for your successes in the invasion... Invasions are a roll of the die. With the possibility of damning yourself or, like Enweil, being damned by others. Rio's had it nice many invasions in a row. Not because of how godly you were.
Luria's problem is its culture? Funny thing, the only good thing I ever hear about Luria is precisely its culture.
D'Hara's problem is the same? Who said we had a culture problem? That we considered our culture problematic? Or that our culture was in any way similar?
As for D'Hara's defenses, you obsess so much with the dazzling walls that you ignore all of the vulnerabilities. I guess we just did an awesome job hiding them for all of these years. I'm not saying that D'Hara can't fend off any invasion. I'm saying that it had weaknesses that could have been exploited to disastrous impacts. And most of all, I'm saying it makes for an atrocious warmongering realm. Having a bunch of walls doesn't mean you can launch successful invasions, or that you should even try.
-
This is going a little off topic, but since we're discussing problems with player mentality I feel it's worth mentioning
Why is that not normal? I see this everywhere "Send gold requests to the council." Why is it the norm for dukes and rulers to be giving their wealth away to lesser nobles? That doesn't make any sense to me. Knights get taxes from their lords. If they don't get enough to pay their soldiers, perhaps the knight should find a new lord that can actually pay them what they deserve.
I get spreading that wealth around makes your realm's army better, but it just never made sense to me IC and I'm pretty sure it didn't use to be like that.
You incorrectly assume that all regions are able to provide a similar income for everyone. Relying on estates alone is pretty sure to guarantee some people with too much gold and many people with barely any.
-
This is going a little off topic, but since we're discussing problems with player mentality I feel it's worth mentioning
Why is that not normal? I see this everywhere "Send gold requests to the council." Why is it the norm for dukes and rulers to be giving their wealth away to lesser nobles? That doesn't make any sense to me. Knights get taxes from their lords. If they don't get enough to pay their soldiers, perhaps the knight should find a new lord that can actually pay them what they deserve.
I get spreading that wealth around makes your realm's army better, but it just never made sense to me IC and I'm pretty sure it didn't use to be like that.
You incorrectly assume that all regions are able to provide a similar income for everyone. Relying on estates alone is pretty sure to guarantee some people with too much gold and many people with barely any.
Besides that, when a realm is at war and a troop leader says I need 50 gold or my troops will abandon me, do you seriously expect the wealthier people to just say !@#$ you find your own gold? The reason my character likes to give gold which is extremely historically accurate is doing it to show his wealth through his generosity. If you look in the background section of the forum where the more scholar type things are said, it was shared that was the key difference between nobility and commoners who got rich, and the quality was called largesse which was a stat considered to be used for when the stats system of prestige and honor is changed so yes wealthy nobility giving to the less fortunate nobility is quite historically accurate, especially during wartime.
-
That was plenty compensated by the ridiculous rot that is always in effect nowadays, regardless of warehouses.
No, sorry; rot is less now than it used to be. You just think it's a lot because now it actually tells you what's rotting instead of it just disappearing silently into the aether all the time.
-
No, sorry; rot is less now than it used to be. You just think it's a lot because now it actually tells you what's rotting instead of it just disappearing silently into the aether all the time.
Less rot than two years ago?
-
What's your point? You act as if I somehow had anything to do with that battle. I've not been in any way even remotely involved in any battle. LV, +1 D'Haran noble, launched a stupid attack. So what? Lurians doing typical Lurian-style attacks.
One minor correction, this last battle is entirely D'hara's though I am unsure why what happened. Maybe poor communication between realms but their are enough D'harans sitting in Shinnen that they could have caused D'hara to win the battle if they had attacked, or at least made it a lot closer of a battle. Normally I wouldn't reveal any troop placements but if LN doesn't know about the D'harans being there it's kinda pathetic, so I assume they know.
-
One minor correction, this last battle is entirely D'hara's though I am unsure why what happened. Maybe poor communication between realms but their are enough D'harans sitting in Shinnen that they could have caused D'hara to win the battle if they had attacked, or at least made it a lot closer of a battle. Normally I wouldn't reveal any troop placements but if LN doesn't know about the D'harans being there it's kinda pathetic, so I assume they know.
Just goes to prove that I have absolutely nothing to do with any D'Haran military operations.
-
The lack of war bothers me, but what I really take issue with is the consolidation of land on many Islands. The Colonies started with 9 (I believe) realms. Now there are only three. East Continent when I started playing (2004~) had 13 realms. Now there are 8. So over the years we've seen the smaller realms gobbled up by empires. Empires of boring. Most of the huge realms have been around forever and will likely continue forever as well. Lack of change is boring. Dwindling number of realms kills off opportunities for fun. And not least of all is that waging war as a large realm is inherently less exciting because the stakes are lower and the distance you have to travel to refit is higher than in a small realm.
I started playing in Coimbra and it was hella fun, battles constantly going on; desperately scraping together scarce gold in order to recruit a new unit; the threat of destruction always looming over the horizon. Then Coimbra was destroyed and I decided to continue the fight against Oligarch by joining Sirion... but it was hella boring. It was just triumph after triumph, our future victory was always certain. Battles were less frequent and gold was always on hand. It lacked the fast pace and tension of Coimbra. The consolidation of realms has essentially destroyed all of the Coimbras out there and left nothing but Sirions. So the game is much less interesting now than it once was...
-
Chenier,
I don't know about you but the part of EC I was in fought five realms for years. I don't know which EC you were playing on but on EC I was playing on, it has only gotten boring about a couple months ago.
-
Ah Fleugs, funny, the timing of this topic. For those who might have missed the event, Fulco stepped down today in Luria Nova. Why? To put it simple, I couldn't motivate myself anymore to spend enough time on the character. Well, certainly not enough motivation to pull a realm of 44 nobles out of their apathy. I do disagree with you fleugs that its only up to a ruler to make a realm interesting. There are plenty of leading positions in a realm and it's the collective job of everyone with responsibility to do their best and create something. If it's only up to a ruler than he or she will lose their motivation at some point. Also, your character has not put any effort in making somehting of his time in LN, he was just as passive as the most random newb.
But I agree rulers should seek conflict more, create wars, it doesn't matter if you lose, as long as you have fun. This game is designed to have conflicts, to fight and also to play it with all. Politics are nice, but if it means that at some point 95% of your nobles just sit around and do nothing, than somehting is wrong. At the same moment rulers also need some reaction from their nobles. If you bring up events, choices and ask your nobles for their opinion, and nobody responds, even the most willing ruler will give up at some point. And it are not only the new players who are too afraid to speak up, but also the more experienced ones who don't bother to talk. There is a limitation to what rulers can do, at some point others have to stand up and make clear IC they want action, or else they have to rebel, protest or do something. If you just sit back and wait for the ruler to act, you are just as much to blame as the ruler itself.
-
I think what stops many people from starting wars is that the fact if they lose they lose everything.
Losing evenly matched wars are perfectly fine to me but fighting a gigantic empire with one city realm doesn't sound fun at all and this game has turned into just that. Big realms crushing smaller realms.
-
Chenier,
I don't know about you but the part of EC I was in fought five realms for years. I don't know which EC you were playing on but on EC I was playing on, it has only gotten boring about a couple months ago.
I don't play on EC. Haven't since ages. Why would I? Whenever people complain about the state of the game, 90% of the time they mention the EC. Why on earth would I go play on such a continent?
-
I don't play on EC. Haven't since ages. Why would I? Whenever people complain about the state of the game, 90% of the time they mention the EC. Why on earth would I go play on such a continent?
If you haven't played on EC for ages, don't try to pretend you know what is happening on EC :p
-
The lack of war bothers me, but what I really take issue with is the consolidation of land on many Islands. The Colonies started with 9 (I believe) realms. Now there are only three. East Continent when I started playing (2004~) had 13 realms. Now there are 8. So over the years we've seen the smaller realms gobbled up by empires. Empires of boring. Most of the huge realms have been around forever and will likely continue forever as well. Lack of change is boring. Dwindling number of realms kills off opportunities for fun. And not least of all is that waging war as a large realm is inherently less exciting because the stakes are lower and the distance you have to travel to refit is higher than in a small realm.
I started playing in Coimbra and it was hella fun, battles constantly going on; desperately scraping together scarce gold in order to recruit a new unit; the threat of destruction always looming over the horizon. Then Coimbra was destroyed and I decided to continue the fight against Oligarch by joining Sirion... but it was hella boring. It was just triumph after triumph, our future victory was always certain. Battles were less frequent and gold was always on hand. It lacked the fast pace and tension of Coimbra. The consolidation of realms has essentially destroyed all of the Coimbras out there and left nothing but Sirions. So the game is much less interesting now than it once was...
The threat of destruction is an important part of the fun, therefore realms must actually get destroyed once in a while. However, I would like to see more secessions occur. And not only planned friendly secessions, but real ones.
-
I think what stops many people from starting wars is that the fact if they lose they lose everything.
Losing evenly matched wars are perfectly fine to me but fighting a gigantic empire with one city realm doesn't sound fun at all and this game has turned into just that. Big realms crushing smaller realms.
similar to what someone else said though that's not entirely true, it's also been said big realms are less fun to be in during war because there is no edge, worry, or feeling like you need to act.
-
The threat of destruction is an important part of the fun, therefore realms must actually get destroyed once in a while. However, I would like to see more secessions occur. And not only planned friendly secessions, but real ones.
A recurring theme is more realms/smaller realms.
-
If you haven't played on EC for ages, don't try to pretend you know what is happening on EC :p
I don't have a clue what's happening on EC. I just know that people always whine about it, and that a bunch of crappy features were forced upon everyone over the years because of problems that could only be found on that continent.
Atamara also has some chronic issues, but East Continent ranks #1 at whining about the boring state of the game, hands down.
The threat of destruction is an important part of the fun, therefore realms must actually get destroyed once in a while. However, I would like to see more secessions occur. And not only planned friendly secessions, but real ones.
Only if you feel attached. MI looks like it will get pwnt. That doesn't make me care any more about the realm, or find it any more exciting. Otherwise, the threat is destruction is just something you are powerless about and therefore don't care much about.
A recurring theme is more realms/smaller realms.
More realms need more players. I've seen many realms, small and medium, that simply lacked the required number of characters to keep interesting exchanges going. Concentration into larger realms is a natural response to a decreasing noble/realm count.
-
stuff
This is quickly becoming a time-sink. D'Hara's core-regions and the regions I am talking about are heavily fortified (1 +5 fort, 2 level 5 forts, 2 level 2 forts and 1 no fort) and you're relatively close to much more of the continent than anyone else. Secondly, they're rich (6 regions = 5065 gold, try to find that sort of concentration elsewhere). The downsides are travel costs, travel distance, scouting and food. Of those food is the only concern that does not fully go both ways, and yes it's hard to get that food but then you also get quite something for it in return. Our views just differ at how to use what you get in return.
As for the conflict... I really don't care to go into it. D'Hara set out to keep everything they had and you're doing a good job at it. Luria is squashing that little rebellion and not going for D'Hara anymore and when we did go for D'Hara we failed miserably because of reasons that you're going to turn around into excuses so whatever. I don't feel responsible for them anyway as I've only been general since the merge and have never even tried to go after D'Hara, it's been made clear from the start that that's not my goal.
But really this specific conflict is arguing besides the point. The point is that D'Hara /is/ an excellent spot for a militaristic realm. You do with your realm what you want but that's how I'd run a realm in such a fortified, rich, central location.
You can't seriously be taking any credit for your successes in the invasion... Invasions are a roll of the die. With the possibility of damning yourself or, like Enweil, being damned by others. Rio's had it nice many invasions in a row. Not because of how godly you were.
There's an element of randomness in everything, just an element though.
But anyway, I wasn't talking about Rio, I wasn't very much involved in what Rio did this invasion. As for having had it nice for a few invasions in a row... let's see.. off the top of my head:
1st and 2nd invasion: can't remember which one but rio died in one of those two.
3d invasion: ravaged by daimons, lost the islands.
4th invasion: got ripped apart by secession, lost the islands before the invasion was well underway, stood alone against the monsters. Survived because of the Light, everything outside grehk destroyed.
5th invasion: fought most of the invasion on our own against the southern daimon lord. Managed to hold him off but didn't make much progress. Lost Grehk and Fwuvoghor. Lots of kills towards the end.
So anyway, Enweil may have been targeted by Overlord this invasion (which was sort of their own fault) but then so was the realm that I was actually talking about, Thalmarkin, and that was 100% our own fault. My point being not one realm is responsible for the survival of BT, we're all responsible, but you can't argue the extent of Thalmarkin's involvement in BT's victory throughout the entire invasion. We set out to keep BT alive and have as much fun possible doing so and we succeeded.
-
A recurring theme is more realms/smaller realms.
There was talk of Riombara splitting in two at some point. OOCly, I think it will happen eventually and it will be good for the game, however my character will not abide the thought and will hate whoever causes it to happen.
Which is good. Tension and hatred leads to actual, meaningful wars.
-
Ah Fleugs, funny, the timing of this topic. For those who might have missed the event, Fulco stepped down today in Luria Nova. Why? To put it simple, I couldn't motivate myself anymore to spend enough time on the character. Well, certainly not enough motivation to pull a realm of 44 nobles out of their apathy. I do disagree with you fleugs that its only up to a ruler to make a realm interesting. There are plenty of leading positions in a realm and it's the collective job of everyone with responsibility to do their best and create something. If it's only up to a ruler than he or she will lose their motivation at some point. Also, your character has not put any effort in making somehting of his time in LN, he was just as passive as the most random newb.
But I agree rulers should seek conflict more, create wars, it doesn't matter if you lose, as long as you have fun. This game is designed to have conflicts, to fight and also to play it with all. Politics are nice, but if it means that at some point 95% of your nobles just sit around and do nothing, than somehting is wrong. At the same moment rulers also need some reaction from their nobles. If you bring up events, choices and ask your nobles for their opinion, and nobody responds, even the most willing ruler will give up at some point. And it are not only the new players who are too afraid to speak up, but also the more experienced ones who don't bother to talk. There is a limitation to what rulers can do, at some point others have to stand up and make clear IC they want action, or else they have to rebel, protest or do something. If you just sit back and wait for the ruler to act, you are just as much to blame as the ruler itself.
+1 I have been trying to revive a religion so I provide suggestions of things we do to make the religion and reformations of the beliefs but I get no feedback or almost none, including from those that helped come up with the idea, that though I was really dedicated at the beginning to make the religion great I am starting think I should just give up on it.
-
I'm not even gonna bother debating the invasion issues.
However, it's ridiculous to simply look at gross income to determine wealth and military capacity. When we were forced to pay food at market price because of bad seasons in the West, Paisly went BANKRUPT. It had basically no militia, and it went BANKRUPT. Due to food sales ONLY.
And then you chose to ignore the costs of war. "It makes a great realm to attack everyone" despite the fact that all attacks cost 3x as much as anyone's else's attack. D'Hara CAN make a lot of gold... as long as you don't spend any on militia, nor on invading others.
GROSS income, sure, D'Hara beats most realms, perhaps all. Net income? Absolutely not.
-
@D'Este: yup, sad timing. It's true I didn't do much to change it, though, but don't forget that I was in LN before and I did try back then, which only resulted in me OOC-ragequitting your realm. Looking back at it LN is probably the seed for this thread, but certainly not the subject.
There was talk of Riombara splitting in two at some point. OOCly, I think it will happen eventually and it will be good for the game, however my character will not abide the thought and will hate whoever causes it to happen.
Which is good. Tension and hatred leads to actual, meaningful wars.
Yes, that was my idea. Before and after I became ruler. But there was some protest against that and the main supporter, JPierreD, has vanished into thin air. By the way I'm actually rather worried about that player vanishing into nothingness and I would really love to hear that he's fine.
The entire splitting up idea fits in something that I wanted to apply to Ibladesh too, but I regret not doing: making each duchy a realm on itself. Ideally I would like to see inter-ducal wars enabled (within realms) but I understand that this is too much coding. I asked Santa to code it for me but he really is old fashioned and doesn't know much about modern technology. I strongly believe, and this fits perfectly with the "smaller realm" idea, that splititng up your own land will more easily lead to tension. You know, because Duke A thinks that adding a region from Duke B would just be marvellous! The problem is that I still want these duchies to be united under "the same flag", i.e. they form a realm although they are technically, according to the game mechanics, all different realms. You could do so through a federation but that beats the point of having Duchy A fight Duchy B (as it would get all duchies involved, something you do not want). Next to that it would demand some form of OOC-commitment to at least somewhat act as "one united realm" and for all I know humans are prone to lying and OOC-commitments kinda fall under the "clanning" thing.
Fighting these smaller wars may at the same moment also give each player the sense that he or she is more involved in the war, because his or her presence does make a difference. Nevertheless I fear that I will have to win the lottery first, before it will be coded into the game (yes I would totally donate enough money to Tom to see that happen).
@Penchant: good luck trying to revive your religion. If you succeed, can you please try not to be like most religions? Most of them focus on "POWAH MUST CONVERT THE EVERYTHING" and forget that a content-driven religion that is actively maintained will automatically lead to a greater base and more "success". There certainly are some beauties out there but they all need a lot of maintenance.
-
I strongly believe, and this fits perfectly with the "smaller realm" idea, that splititng up your own land will more easily lead to tension. You know, because Duke A thinks that adding a region from Duke B would just be marvellous! The problem is that I still want these duchies to be united under "the same flag", i.e. they form a realm although they are technically, according to the game mechanics, all different realms. You could do so through a federation but that beats the point of having Duchy A fight Duchy B (as it would get all duchies involved, something you do not want). Next to that it would demand some form of OOC-commitment to at least somewhat act as "one united realm" and for all I know humans are prone to lying and OOC-commitments kinda fall under the "clanning" thing.
But if you do that, then the point of each small realm is to re-create the original, big realm. You will not get people to break up just to recreate what they already had but be all friendly in the face of outside enemies: that is just not SMA (and even outside Dwilight is just meta-gaming).
-
But if you do that, then the point of each small realm is to re-create the original, big realm. You will not get people to break up just to recreate what they already had but be all friendly in the face of outside enemies: that is just not SMA (and even outside Dwilight is just meta-gaming).
No, no that's not the point at all. It's the contrary of that. Take Riombara, an example we are both familiar with. Say each city now gained the possibilty to war eachother. What would happen first? Well, the duchy of Grehk, which is oversized, would probably be banged upon for a while to make sure that everyone has the regions they more or less desire. More or less because, hopefully, nobody will ever be satisfied. The dukes will or should not attempt to entirely conquer another duchy (and if need be, you can ensure that through a solid treaty that prohibits such or, if it were implanted game-mechanic wise, you could deal with it through coding). Basically the Duke of Jidington would never strife to conquer all of Riombara. First of all, at some point, the other dukes would realize that he is getting way too strong and would intervene. Secondly it is not the goal of this idea. Riombara would still "exist" and be able to wage wars with, say, an Enweil that has 4 "separate" duchies too. Some dukes fight, some dukes don't. It depends on how much they like the ruler.
It is actually pretty medieval. I love to take the larger region of France as a prime example of an exciting medieval time, and the king of France sure did not control all his dukes during the Middle Ages. Territorial strife within a "country" (because, really, our notion of nationalism should really not fit to anything related to the Middle Ages) was not so uncommon. There were no perfectly defined boundaries. It wasn't "out of the question" that a King's peers would join him in his wars; he had better be good friends with them or they would have their army sit at home behind the Duke's walls.
The core idea though is that no duchy should attempt or be allowed to swallow another duchy because that would lead to a "united-recreation" of the split-up realm. The core idea is that your realm is effectively feudalized.
-
No, no that's not the point at all. It's the contrary of that. Take Riombara, an example we are both familiar with. Say each city now gained the possibilty to war eachother. What would happen first? Well, the duchy of Grehk, which is oversized, would probably be banged upon for a while to make sure that everyone has the regions they more or less desire. More or less because, hopefully, nobody will ever be satisfied. The dukes will or should not attempt to entirely conquer another duchy (and if need be, you can ensure that through a solid treaty that prohibits such or, if it were implanted game-mechanic wise, you could deal with it through coding). Basically the Duke of Jidington would never strife to conquer all of Riombara. First of all, at some point, the other dukes would realize that he is getting way too strong and would intervene. Secondly it is not the goal of this idea. Riombara would still "exist" and be able to wage wars with, say, an Enweil that has 4 "separate" duchies too. Some dukes fight, some dukes don't. It depends on how much they like the ruler.
It is actually pretty medieval. I love to take the larger region of France as a prime example of an exciting medieval time, and the king of France sure did not control all his dukes during the Middle Ages. Territorial strife within a "country" (because, really, our notion of nationalism should really not fit to anything related to the Middle Ages) was not so uncommon. There were no perfectly defined boundaries. It wasn't "out of the question" that a King's peers would join him in his wars; he had better be good friends with them or they would have their army sit at home behind the Duke's walls.
The core idea though is that no duchy should attempt or be allowed to swallow another duchy because that would lead to a "united-recreation" of the split-up realm. The core idea is that your realm is effectively feudalized.
I like the picture you paint. I'm not sure what mechanics would lead to that, but I like it.
-
I like the picture you paint. I'm not sure what mechanics would lead to that, but I like it.
I'm sure if one of us wins the lottery, we can donate enough so Tom can pay for a highly trained team of coders! Or you know, pay him enough so he doesn't have to go to work and can code it himself. 8)
-
No, no that's not the point at all. It's the contrary of that. Take Riombara, an example we are both familiar with. Say each city now gained the possibilty to war eachother. What would happen first? Well, the duchy of Grehk, which is oversized, would probably be banged upon for a while to make sure that everyone has the regions they more or less desire. More or less because, hopefully, nobody will ever be satisfied. The dukes will or should not attempt to entirely conquer another duchy (and if need be, you can ensure that through a solid treaty that prohibits such or, if it were implanted game-mechanic wise, you could deal with it through coding). Basically the Duke of Jidington would never strife to conquer all of Riombara. First of all, at some point, the other dukes would realize that he is getting way too strong and would intervene. Secondly it is not the goal of this idea. Riombara would still "exist" and be able to wage wars with, say, an Enweil that has 4 "separate" duchies too. Some dukes fight, some dukes don't. It depends on how much they like the ruler.
It is actually pretty medieval. I love to take the larger region of France as a prime example of an exciting medieval time, and the king of France sure did not control all his dukes during the Middle Ages. Territorial strife within a "country" (because, really, our notion of nationalism should really not fit to anything related to the Middle Ages) was not so uncommon. There were no perfectly defined boundaries. It wasn't "out of the question" that a King's peers would join him in his wars; he had better be good friends with them or they would have their army sit at home behind the Duke's walls.
The core idea though is that no duchy should attempt or be allowed to swallow another duchy because that would lead to a "united-recreation" of the split-up realm. The core idea is that your realm is effectively feudalized.
That was the idea behind Fheuv'n. And you know what? It utterly failed. Do you know why? Because the new realm lacked the critical mass to be viable, and the old realm laked the dynamic nobles to be viable. I expected the whole to be greater than the sum of the parts. The opposite was the result.
-
That was the idea behind Fheuv'n. And you know what? It utterly failed. Do you know why? Because the new realm lacked the critical mass to be viable, and the old realm laked the dynamic nobles to be viable. I expected the whole to be greater than the sum of the parts. The opposite was the result.
It didn't work out very well in Luria either. Then again, it has probably a better chance in a republican system. And I hear guild referenda are on the todo list. :)
-
Honestly, a feudal system more like Crusader Kings 2 would probably provide plenty of combat and political intrigue. Unfortunately such systems have been shot down many times.
-
It didn't work out very well in Luria either. Then again, it has probably a better chance in a republican system. And I hear guild referenda are on the todo list. :)
Enweil was democratic and Fheuv'n was republican.
Mind you, we never got around to founding a guild to better coordinate. I don't think it would have changed much though.
-
Enweil was democratic and Fheuv'n was republican.
Mind you, we never got around to founding a guild to better coordinate. I don't think it would have changed much though.
Well, it gives a forum where nobles of both realms can talk to eachother. As that rarely happens unless there's a specific reason to (like elections) is why I think it'd work better with a system with elections. I wouldn't know how you do that without a guild actually?
-
Well, it gives a forum where nobles of both realms can talk to eachother. As that rarely happens unless there's a specific reason to (like elections) is why I think it'd work better with a system with elections. I wouldn't know how you do that without a guild actually?
For it to work, yes, you need a guild. And guild referenda would help a lot. I'm just saying that this alone is not enough.
The 'moot isn't a split-up realm, but it does operate kind of like this. It is hard to make people use the guild channel, though.
-
For it to work, yes, you need a guild. And guild referenda would help a lot. I'm just saying that this alone is not enough.
The 'moot isn't a split-up realm, but it does operate kind of like this. It is hard to make people use the guild channel, though.
Yup. And you need the leadership of each realm actively supporting it, plus spend loads on guildhouses. :)
-
On another topic:
why no warrior priests?
-
Yup. And you need the leadership of each realm actively supporting it, plus spend loads on guildhouses. :)
And each realm must have the required critical mass of dynamic and active characters, prefferably also working on making this work.
-
On another topic:
why no warrior priests?
Imbalance. Imagine an army of warrior priests going through Cantril and into Lakota bypassing the army. If you don't play on Atamara, what I said is if two armies are "staring" at each other, and the attacking army goes through the defenders region and past it without a battle taking place. It could maybe work if you had it be they gain hours like a priest but they get a max of 12 hours at time, turn travel, and hits to how much men they can command.
-
On another topic:
why no warrior priests?
If you mean warrior priests as in people who have access to both the warrior options and the priest options of the game mechanics, it is game imbalance. You need to pick a class. You can always switch back and forth if you have need of the warrior options now and then.
If you mean warrior priests as something like the Knights Templar, you can do that. It's called a warrior in BM, simply. Warriors can very well be Elders of their religions.
-
That was the idea behind Fheuv'n. And you know what? It utterly failed. Do you know why? Because the new realm lacked the critical mass to be viable, and the old realm laked the dynamic nobles to be viable. I expected the whole to be greater than the sum of the parts. The opposite was the result.
I didn't know that was the idea behind Fheuv'n. I thought the key idea was to troll the rest of Battlemaster by giving your realm a ridiculous name and an even more ridiculous abbreviation of that name, but okay. I do realize that it would be hard to achieve something like that. Therefore I think it is key that such a system can only be established through a widely supported OOC-agreement. That's probably meta-gaming and for that reason I don't see it happening any time soon.
Honestly, a feudal system more like Crusader Kings 2 would probably provide plenty of combat and political intrigue. Unfortunately such systems have been shot down many times.
This would be ideal, yes. I don't care if it's been shut down many times; I'll keep on advocating.
-
Thanks for the rant, Fleugs - an interesting read. Grimbergen ftw
-
Yeah i actually liked to read it and fully agree on most points.
Do mind that alot of peace also comes due to large alliance blocks bullying single realms.
Most nobles in Melhed are actually quite the warmonger, but if your about to march to war and hear that three realms with all individualy more nobles in them will be waiting on the other side of the river, you chicken out nor would that be a war to last.
Still beluaterra has an excuse for not much good human wars.
Yet much will change very soon now realms like Riombara and Fronen have recovered enough to wage war.
What used to make EC so good where the long wars who where balanced in a way that kept it fun.
The whole continent fought the same war (kind off) and neither realm could easily defeat the other.
Gang bang alliances are all part of the scared ducks phenomena as Fluegs mentioned.
-
To talk about LN as an example.
LN is an example of a realm that won, but lost at the same time, the challenge is gone. In the last 1-2 years all those who had a different opinion than fulco were ousted, the moment malus and he decided to work together was also the moment there were no real enemies left. Those that remained either had no true power or were nice and calm followers. It's an ideal situation for a ruler, nice and comfortable position, no threats and boring as hell. The Lurian area should consist out of city realms, who constantly plot against each other and forget about the rest of the continent. Battles over regions, rather than cities, rebellions when realms become to large and a war not further away than a couple of days. The moment you have to march for a week to a battle truly means your enemies are too far away. You will have a battle once every 2-3 weeks, for who is that fun? Heck, the entire dhara war, equipment damage and starvation were our largest enemies as it took ages to travel.
And let us look at realms in general. Small realms who want to expand normally have to fight a much larger realm, a realm that can smack them with ease and likely with good allies. Large realms don't have the need to expand as they have barely the nobles to keep their current amount of regions. The result that there is little reward to fight. Best case senario you gang bang a realm and get a few regions, worst case senario you lose. But always you will need months to recover the regions in which is fought, long boring months.
Add harsher penalties to realm sizes, limit the size of alliances/federations and increase region recovery. And reconsider an option as TMP when realms after those changes are still hesistant to go to war.
-
Why does LN not attack Morek? The Treaty of the South Divide has been in place forever. If it's to far, just start a new colony around Flowrestown (like Aquilegia)... All Luria has done for years now is bicker amongst themselves, apart from a quick skirmish against Fissoa.
Dividing PeL into different parts to incite war was a good idea, but now you're just one big blob again.
Not that I really care, just saying. :)
-
Why does LN not attack Morek? The Treaty of the South Divide has been in place forever. If it's to far, just start a new colony around Flowrestown (like Aquilegia)... All Luria has done for years now is bicker amongst themselves, apart from a quick skirmish against Fissoa.
Dividing PeL into different parts to incite war was a good idea, but now you're just one big blob again.
Not that I really care, just saying. :)
all in due time.
The great big blob will rid the lands of the heathen begar king in Candiels first.
Then it may return to its age old traditions.
-
What it really comes down to is that realms need to learn to mind their own business, and keep their noses out from where they don't belong. Stop trying to line up 4 allies before you go to war with your neighbor. Be willing to accept small gains and small losses, rather than dish out crippling damage.
-
What it really comes down to is that realms need to learn to mind their own business, and keep their noses out from where they don't belong. Stop trying to line up 4 allies before you go to war with your neighbor. Be willing to accept small gains and small losses, rather than dish out crippling damage.
Its too late for that, everybody else would be in their alliance block, you attack one without getting allies, they are still going to all attack you.
-
At least the Sorraine/Ohnar West war was kept one-on-one, despite Sorraine having allies.
-
You guys would love me as a ruler... the one time my character was ruler of a realm (5 or so years ago) he declared war on two of his larger neighbours, nabbed one region from both of them and then died fighting his banker in a duel to the death. This was all in the span of one or two months. I don't think any other ruler has ever seen so much ambition in such a short period of time...
-
Do mind that alot of peace also comes due to large alliance blocks bullying single realms.
Most nobles in Melhed are actually quite the warmonger, but if your about to march to war and hear that three realms with all individualy more nobles in them will be waiting on the other side of the river, you chicken out nor would that be a war to last.
Nor would the 170k pop relatively unscathed realm vs the 50k pop genocided and bankrupt realm war have lasted long. :)
Sure we could've not pushed your buttons like we did considering our weakness but then we'd have a nice and stable neighbourly relationship... who wants that?
-
At least the Sorraine/Ohnar West war was kept one-on-one, despite Sorraine having allies.
Sure, you could call it a one-on-one war. So long as you ignore the influx of large amounts of foreign gold.
-
Sure, you could call it a one-on-one war. So long as you ignore the influx of large amounts of foreign gold.
Well, it's also 1 city vs 3 cities... Sorraine doesn't get to complain about the foreign gold in my opinion. :)
-
We get complain about everything. It's our Sartan-given right!
-
Losing to OW... never thought it was possible...
-
I prefer to think of it as "Losing to Arcachon V2.0". I mean, is there really anyone left in OW that was there from before the secessions that formed Toupellon?
-
I remember several years ago, when AT got boring, Darka & Eston got into a sort of "friendly border war", in which they would exchange blows with their armies but not actually try to take regions or loot.
I wonder if this would still be acceptable to do today.
-
I remember several years ago, when AT got boring, Darka & Eston got into a sort of "friendly border war", in which they would exchange blows with their armies but not actually try to take regions or loot.
I wonder if this would still be acceptable to do today.
This would be acceptable:
"You have insulted our King and culture, and now you refuse to take it back! We will meet you on the field of battle and trounce your armies again and again until you yield!"
This would not:
"Hey, dude, my people want some war, and so do yours. Why don't we have a nice friendly little war between us, promising not to take any regions or loot or anything like that?"
-
Folcard's so soft. ;D
Here I was expecting like a thousand lashes or something. Nah. Just exile and some no-fly list. Guillaume was so aroused, now he's so disappointed to not see any whip. :'(
-
You guys would love me as a ruler... the one time my character was ruler of a realm (5 or so years ago) he declared war on two of his larger neighbours, nabbed one region from both of them and then died fighting his banker in a duel to the death. This was all in the span of one or two months. I don't think any other ruler has ever seen so much ambition in such a short period of time...
My ruler back in the day was a bit of a character, ascending to the throne in a time when the realm was at war with most of the realms on the continent, and he declared war on all the rest. Before that, as judge, he personally tortured and executed five nobles. As king he accused two nobles who angered him of not having noble blood, and falsely accused his former mentor of plotting rebellion. There was a secession, followed by a failed rebellion, then two more secessions and another rebellion, during which he murdered his own son plus the captain of his guards. He fled the continent. At the time he was crowned his realm was the biggest and most powerful on the continent; by the time he left it was destroyed. Fun times! for me anyway.
-
@Fleugs: that never happened.
-
Losing to OW... never thought it was possible...
My characters are never trusting House Kuriga again!
-
I gotta say, though, that for a guy who loves war so much, trying to eliminate one of the main driving force for conflicts on BT for the last few years instead of trying to use him as a weapon doesn't make much sense. You seem to claim to like conflict, but you seek to eliminate the sole conflictual force in your sole neighbor.
-
My characters are never trusting House Kuriga again!
Sorry that I didn't have time for a major war. I've been busy dealing with family, and can mostly get on my phone, which is a pain if I want to type any kind of major command, as well as the fact that the map takes a god awful amount of time to load on the TRAVEL screen. If this war had began in the summer, I would have had a lot more time to put into this game. I don't have that time now.
-
...can mostly get on my phone, which is a pain if I want to type any kind of major command...
I can sympathize with that. Any kind of military planning or strategy on a phone-based browser is a total pain in the ass. Practically unworkable.
-
I gotta say, though, that for a guy who loves war so much, trying to eliminate one of the main driving force for conflicts on BT for the last few years instead of trying to use him as a weapon doesn't make much sense. You seem to claim to like conflict, but you seek to eliminate the sole conflictual force in your sole neighbor.
Stop thinking the world revolves around you Chénier. It doesn't, I don't care one bit for you.
-
I prefer to think of it as "Losing to Arcachon V2.0". I mean, is there really anyone left in OW that was there from before the secessions that formed Toupellon?
Except for that Arcachon was often a very dangerous foe
-
... which was kinda my point ...
-
Stop thinking the world revolves around you Chénier. It doesn't, I don't care one bit for you.
I don't care if you care about me or not. I've got other continents I play on, after all, and I sure could use a slack moneysink to finance some of my other activities.
So I don't know if you are trying to provoke war with Enweil by pushing too much (won't happen), or expect me to simply create another character on BT to stir things up (likely not to happen), or think that any other figure in Enweil has even an ounce of the ambition my characters have (they absolutely do not)... But unless you aren't willing to agree that I've been rocking BT politics for many years, creating huge wars over chunks of the land that otherwise would definately never have initiated anything of their own, you are whining about lack of conflict and doing your best to eliminate the sources of conflict at the same time.
But as I said, I don't really care for the future of my characters on BT for the time being. This isn't about victimization. This is just about you whining about stuff you contribute to create.
-
I don't care if you care about me or not. I've got other continents I play on, after all, and I sure could use a slack moneysink to finance some of my other activities.
So I don't know if you are trying to provoke war with Enweil by pushing too much (won't happen), or expect me to simply create another character on BT to stir things up (likely not to happen), or think that any other figure in Enweil has even an ounce of the ambition my characters have (they absolutely do not)... But unless you aren't willing to agree that I've been rocking BT politics for many years, creating huge wars over chunks of the land that otherwise would definately never have initiated anything of their own, you are whining about lack of conflict and doing your best to eliminate the sources of conflict at the same time.
But as I said, I don't really care for the future of my characters on BT for the time being. This isn't about victimization. This is just about you whining about stuff you contribute to create.
I don't expect anything from you in particular. This entire discussion is not revolving around one or two players, but it wishes to address the much needed change of mentality. I don't want this topic to turn out into yet another place for people to discuss a particular realm or war; that would fit under other boards. So this is not about BT, not about Enweil and again, entirely not about you.
-
I don't expect anything from you in particular. This entire discussion is not revolving around one or two players, but it wishes to address the much needed change of mentality. I don't want this topic to turn out into yet another place for people to discuss a particular realm or war; that would fit under other boards. So this is not about BT, not about Enweil and again, entirely not about you.
Indeed, it's about players with positions of leadership who make decisions without considering the impacts it may have fun-wise for the players they play with.
It just happens I find that you fit a lot of the descriptions you were bitching about in the original post. On BT and elsewhere.
-
Indeed, it's about players with positions of leadership who make decisions without considering the impacts it may have fun-wise for the players they play with.
It just happens I find that you fit a lot of the descriptions you were bitching about in the original post. On BT and elsewhere.
For you I do my utmost best to ruin all your fun. Special treatment.
-
For you I do my utmost best to ruin all your fun. Special treatment.
I already stated this had nothing to do with my personal fun.
My experience on BT, and elsewhere, has been that unless I rock the boat, nobody will. And sometimes, I need to rock it really hard for anything to happen.
This isn't about the boat rocker's feelings. It's about not having anyone else to rock the boat afterwards.
I took gambles, I took risks to create fun for the people around me. Due to bugs, !@#$ luck, and otherwise overwhelming forces I have no power over, I lost my gambles. I can live with defeat. It just really sucks for the people left behind. I don't recall the last time any other Enweilian ruler strove for anything else than the status quo.
Sure, you can sabotage the negotiations, and provoke war if you want. I'm sure stomping a crippled realm will be ever so amazing. And I'm sure that your 3 refugees will have a blast rebuilding a tiny city for the next year or two, just by themselves.
What annoys me isn't so much what you are doing IG, but that you have the audacity to come to the forums whine and bitch OOC about other players when you are no better yourself. You are perfectly entitled to to whatever you want IC, but if there's one thing I really hate, it's hypocrisy. And I consider you to be a great hypocrit. You judge other players as if you held the absolute truth, as if YOU knew what fun was and what it wasn't, as if we should all play by your standards of what is proper and what isn't, and as if you did everything right and others didn't. Because they are all pussies, and you are such a great player. You make the simple-minded equation that war=fun, when war isn't a requirement for fun and that not all wars are fun. And then come here to enlighten us all about how everyone's a bad player other than you. Except that you admit to responsibility for the problems you attribute to EC. On FEI, you admit to have the potential to do things differently, but don't. On BT, you threaten to revive the same damn old wars who have been done to death and that a ton of people can't stand the thought of doing yet AGAIN. On Dwilight, you made idiotic plans for a far-off colony when your realm had plenty of closer neighbors to could stir trouble with. From what I heard, you participated in the consolidation of power in what used to otherwise be a very tumultuous and exciting place for many. You blame the ruler for not making people care, but you show no signs of having put significant efforts yourself, as if the ruler was the only one able to make things fun for people.
In other words, I think the sole constant in all of the crappy situations you describe is you. And it greatly irritates me that you still have the audacity to come here and lecture other players on how they should play, and scorn them for how bad they've been playing.
-
I think, Dominic, that even you must agree that it's something of a conflict of interest to claim that trying to get rid of your character will decrease fun for the continent.
Beyond that, how do you know that what Riombara does once the Chéniers are gone from the continent won't make things much more fun? Delvin's not around anymore, and Riombara's not the cautious, would-be-diplomatic, anti-imperialist realm it once was.
-
I think, Dominic, that even you must agree that it's something of a conflict of interest to claim that trying to get rid of your character will decrease fun for the continent.
Do you challenge my claim? Yes, it's my character. But last I checked, my characters had key roles to play in all of the major wars on BT for quite a few years. Conflict of interest doesn't automatically make everything I say false or inaccurate. It just means it deserves scrutiny.
Beyond that, how do you know that what Riombara does once the Chéniers are gone from the continent won't make things much more fun? Delvin's not around anymore, and Riombara's not the cautious, would-be-diplomatic, anti-imperialist realm it once was.
Well, there's the fact that Fleugs stated he was advocating just picking up the easiest and/or overdone wars possible. And that's assuming Riombara was ever the cautious, would-be-diplomatic, anti-imprialist realm you claim it was. Sure, it might have changed. I don't doubt it, considering the power it now wields. But in any case, I'm not judging Riombara, I'm judging Fleugs. Riombara might end up doing things, that may end up being really cool. I'm judging Fleugs because he badmouths other players, and yet when given the power over some of his enemies, he doesn't ask himself "is Beluaterra more fun or less fun with the Chénier family on it?" If Delvin was in power and doing the same thing as Fleugs is, you wouldn't hear me complain about it on the forums. Same if anyone else was trying to do so, really. Because Fleugs did his whiny rant, not you Timothy. And I really can't stand people who whine about things they have power to change, or about others when they do no better themselves.
You could argue that Riombara will do something really cool later, something it couldn't have done was Guillaume around, and that was justifying your choice OOC. But I've heard nothing from him that would even remotely suggest that he even asked himself the question. 'cause heck, while I doubt it it could be true. After all, I'm not the only guy on the continent to shake things up, even if I am perhaps the most notorious one. And I am not trying to convince anyone that BT would suck if I'm not on it. All I'm saying, really, is that Fleugs isn't one to talk, and that he's every bit as bad as the people he slanders.
-
I do not directly challenge your claim; however, I cannot deny that something about it doesn't seem to be entirely solid, logically speaking. I can't quite put my finger on it right now, but I'm afraid I'm not at my best (long story; don't ask).
I think it's something along the lines of:
OK, so, Guillaume has been a source of conflict on the continent for a while now (and so have other Chéniers). This, I don't dispute. But a) who says that this guarantees he's creating fun? b) who says that this guarantees he'll continue to create conflict and/or fun? and c) even supposing (a) and (b) are stipulated in your favour, who says that Guillaume gets to continue to be the one who takes this role, rather than letting someone else step up?
Put another way:
I have a problem with the idea that from "we need to create conflict, rather than do all in our power to prevent it, because conflict is the main source of fun in the game" necessarily follows, "any character that is good at creating conflict should get a free pass".
-
Beyond that, how do you know that what Riombara does once the Chéniers are gone from the continent won't make things much more fun?
Forward planning only goes so far. At some point you need not only to think of the future, but of the fun you could have right now. If you always have fun right now, then you never get to the point where you worry at all.
And trying to get rid of Guillaume is inherently a fun thing to do, for a lot of people. Whether it works out or not, I can only see fun in the process. And if it works, you can always have other characters.
-
I agree with everything Fleugs has said, for the most part. I add that caveat because I didn't read all seven pages of this thread, and I'm sure he said something really offensive or hateful. That part I don't agree with. But the part about a ruler's first (and really only) job being to provide fun for the whole realm, you bet. The game is called BattleMaster. Not TradeMaster, nor PrayMaster, nor even TaxMaster. Every piece of code, every option in the game, is supposed to allow you to bludgeon the !@#$ out of your enemies. Creatively, with style, asymmetrically, however. But conflict is central to the game, and for awhile now it seems like conflict is found almost exclusively within realms, because it's easier to starve your own city or create a civil war than it is to starve or siege another realm. If you have no enemies, you're doing it wrong. If you've got a bunch of allies because you really like certain people in other realms, consider joining the same realm and beating the hell out of everyone else.
-
I do disagree however that this is solely the part of the Ruler and politics can be great fun as well. On top of that, "praymaster" for instance can be turned into crusades which in turn should provide a lot of fun.
Even without mediate war you can have a lot of fun planning a war or a rebellion even or preparing for a religious war or rise to power.
I do not believe you should go to war because you can, and consider many different people have different characters. A king could in fact only be after more power for himself, screwing his own realm over to get it (could be fun). Another may wish to turn his realm into a religious powerhouse in stead. Both can be great fun for everyone (what if you don't want to join X religion?). Others may indeed just want their realm to be strong and survive. But even then someone under him (general?) may disagree and prefer to war another realm over safety.
-
I do not directly challenge your claim; however, I cannot deny that something about it doesn't seem to be entirely solid, logically speaking. I can't quite put my finger on it right now, but I'm afraid I'm not at my best (long story; don't ask).
I think it's something along the lines of:
OK, so, Guillaume has been a source of conflict on the continent for a while now (and so have other Chéniers). This, I don't dispute. But a) who says that this guarantees he's creating fun? b) who says that this guarantees he'll continue to create conflict and/or fun? and c) even supposing (a) and (b) are stipulated in your favour, who says that Guillaume gets to continue to be the one who takes this role, rather than letting someone else step up?
Valid questions to ask.
Put another way:
I have a problem with the idea that from "we need to create conflict, rather than do all in our power to prevent it, because conflict is the main source of fun in the game" necessarily follows, "any character that is good at creating conflict should get a free pass".
Well, I tend to be a lot more lenient to characters I consider generate fun myself. Doesn't mean they get scotch-free, though, I will scold them and all if they act against my character's interests. But I still will do my best to keep them around.
Forward planning only goes so far. At some point you need not only to think of the future, but of the fun you could have right now. If you always have fun right now, then you never get to the point where you worry at all.
And trying to get rid of Guillaume is inherently a fun thing to do, for a lot of people. Whether it works out or not, I can only see fun in the process. And if it works, you can always have other characters.
Good for them, I guess, if it's creating fun. Not many interactions going on now. I'm mostly waiting for some kind of list to be provided or otherwise have something to reply to.
Because if they are expecting a challenge, it won't happen. I've already made plans for what happens next, and it's not another character on BT. Not yet. I'm just waiting to sign the deal and get it over with. I'm not letting Enweil sink because of me. And heck, even if you decide to break your word and attack it anyhow, I wouldn't really have any reason to come back, given how pointlessly futile the battle would be.
Thinking only short-term is a great way to butt yourself at an impasse. Sure, you can't disregard the present, but if you disregard the future, you are doing it wrong. Because some actions can have consequences for years, and you better consider them.
As for Solari, I think there's a general consensus that invoking the name of the game is an extremely weak argument for anything. Yea, there are battles. But the game is more than just battles. The name reflects the days where the government controlled EVERYTHING that EVERYONE did. You were managed like pawns. Sure, we lost a lot to the game since, but we also won a lot. The game has evolved. It's not just a big chess game anymore. And focusing on just one things means disregarding the things that make the game fun for a whole lot of players.
-
Not to toot my own horn, but I'd like to point to Terran and the Moot's conflict with Aurvandil as an example of how you can have all the fancy-shmansy priest game and trademastering and politicking... and use them as components of a war.
OOCly, I can think of many ways the Moot could have made peace with Aurvandil (and probably a fairly reasonable peace). The problem is that I, the player, know where that leads. The Moot isn't going to have a civil war (especially with powerful neighbors next door). The Moot won't plausibly be able to crush/colonize the Lurias. The peace settlement with Kabrinskia was ridiculously friendly and it's difficult to conceive of motive for war.
Bashing Asylon could be amusing, but, again, seems like a dead end in any long-term thinking.
So I exerted all my IC efforts at war with Aurvandil: and a big, bloody, nasty, religio-politically significant one, where we can all play our seperate NounMaster games towards the common end of tossing Mendicant naked and bloody into the Strait of Candiels. And I've exerted my OOC efforts explaining to people how completely boring it will be for Terran and the Moot if we don't have a big war with at least semi-epic aims. Now, Hireshmont is no longer ruler, but he's still influential (and was ruler at a formative time in all this).
In sum– Fleugs, come play in Terran, or Barca, or D'hara. We don't have constant battle just due to seasons and travel times, but we do have fighting, we do have a sense of "playing for the team," and we do have players in power who think it's their OOC job to make sure fun things keep happening. I can't guarantee you're going to always have fun, but I can guarantee it's a place where folks are trying.
-
We don't have constant battle
That's an understatement...
-
That's an understatement...
We've had a slow patch around the holidays, sure, but that's normal.
-
We've had a slow patch around the holidays, sure, but that's normal.
Depends on your realm, too. D'Hara's been seeing a lot more battles than... ever, though.
However, if we do care for the fun of our nobles, I've always considered that D'Hara was not for everyone. D'Hara's a jewel, a rare gem created by its geography and it's eternal dependance on others.
-
Depends on your realm, too. D'Hara's been seeing a lot more battles than... ever, though.
However, if we do care for the fun of our nobles, I've always considered that D'Hara was not for everyone. D'Hara's a jewel, a rare gem created by its geography and it's eternal dependance on others.
The moot I would say is perfect funwise as depending in what you like, is what would determine which realm you should join.Military-Terran, Food-D'hara, Quiet-Barca, though that blends some, like Barca use to be a major food seller, Terran helps with food, and D'hara has a two front war going on compared to the others only having one front though really D'hara three fronts which is quite a pain.
-
The moot I would say is perfect funwise as depending in what you like, is what would determine which realm you should join.Military-Terran, Food-D'hara, Quiet-Barca, though that blends some, like Barca use to be a major food seller, Terran helps with food, and D'hara has a two front war going on compared to the others only having one front though really D'hara three fronts which is quite a pain.
D'Hara and Barca are seeing a fair amount of fighting these days too– Terran's military is actually fairly quiet right now.
-
D'Hara and Barca are seeing a fair amount of fighting these days too– Terran's military is actually fairly quiet right now.
Barca is kind of isolationist as I never see them work with D'hara and Terran, though I do see their military doing things military occasionally, but yes D'hara is seeing a fair amount of fighting for sure as they participate in most of the battles in the both of its wars now.
-
In response to the original posters post, I think the job of the ruler is to be a pussy. His job is to lead diplomacy and ensure the prosperity of the realm. Unless victory is certain and damage to infrastructure is minimal, I wouldn't expect a ruler to be gung-ho for a war. There might be exceptions for good RP rulers starting a fight, but it isn't the job of a ruler. Honestly, it's the marshals job to be gung-ho for war.
It's the idle nobility's prerogative to start something the realm might not be able to finish. Demand an opportunity for loot, vengeance, or glory. If the rulers say no, dissent and/or start something on your own. Protest if you feel like people may rally behind you, and if you nothing else works then just march yourself into someones territory and pick a fight. The 'murderous' setting isn't just there for show.
-
Unless victory is certain and damage to infrastructure is minimal, I wouldn't expect a ruler to be gung-ho for a war.
This attitude is precisely the problem.
90% of the time, the only way that's possible is if you have 5 realms of the same size as the 1 realm getting beat down on all attacking at once.
Also, 90% of the time, an idle noble charging into a region on murderous settings just gets banned and nothing else happens.
-
Also, 90% of the time, an idle noble charging into a region on murderous settings just gets banned and nothing else happens.
Agreed. The only way the murderous charge starts a war is if one side already wants war, and is looking for a publicly acceptable way to declare it. That is very rare.
-
Also, 90% of the time, an idle noble charging into a region on murderous settings just gets banned and nothing else happens.
Exactly what I thought when I read that too. Charging into another realm with murderous troops will only get you a ban, unless most other people from your realm want to fight as well. That's why most of the time you don't have a choice to do anything but sit around and twiddle your thumbs when there are no wars, unless you choose to be an infiltrator.
-
Agreed. The only way the murderous charge starts a war is if one side already wants war, and is looking for a publicly acceptable way to declare it. That is very rare.
It depends who you are. Brance wouldn't get banned if he did it. Of course, a 19 year old knight no one knows much about would get banned in a heartbeat.
-
Nobody wants to have a random nobody decide politics for them and shove them in conflicts they had no say in getting involved in. What else would you expect?
-
Nobody wants to have a random nobody decide politics for them and shove them in conflicts they had no say in getting involved in. What else would you expect?
That's exactly my point. The murderous setting is useful if you are politically in a position where you can use it. That's the point of the game.
-
This attitude is precisely the problem.
90% of the time, the only way that's possible is if you have 5 realms of the same size as the 1 realm getting beat down on all attacking at once.
I agree with you, but I'm not sure it's just an attitude problem. It's really hard to rebuild. It's expensive in terms of time and gold. It's boring. All of the different metrics by which a realm judges its health or aptitude for conflict incentivize lengthy planning and conservative play.
-
Nobody wants to have a random nobody decide politics for them and shove them in conflicts they had no say in getting involved in. What else would you expect?
Well, there are things between total war and total cuddling. In the real world, incidents like that often escalate a bit, and then either de-escalation and diplomacy finds a way and some solution is found, or the escalation continues until it turns into a reason for war.
-
It took me a couple of weeks to setup a good RP reason, but I'm about to test the hypothesis that a greenhorn knight can't start a war the rulers don't want. Pissed off the Judge and Ruler of the neutral realm, even routed that realm's general. Granted he had a pitiful unit, but I can't imagine a medieval kingdom letting some uppity youngin' foreigner smack down their military leader and not start something.
If nothing else, after two weeks of silence there's a bit of activity going on. The ban will be worth it.
-
It took me a couple of weeks to setup a good RP reason, but I'm about to test the hypothesis that a greenhorn knight can't start a war the rulers don't want. Pissed off the Judge and Ruler of the neutral realm, even routed that realm's general. Granted he had a pitiful unit, but I can't imagine a medieval kingdom letting some uppity youngin' foreigner smack down their military leader and not start something.
If nothing else, after two weeks of silence there's a bit of activity going on. The ban will be worth it.
Are you Eoric?
-
Are you Eoric?
Guilty. I'm also Willy, the murdering adventurer who hid in Armonia. Was a bit afraid that their judge would just hang Willy and end the drama there and then. I tried to set it up that he had the option, but IC tried my hardest to make sure he wouldn't take it. May have pressed your judge a little too hard, though. How irate is he?
No OOC hard feelings about trying to start a war with your realm? :-*
-
Well, there are things between total war and total cuddling. In the real world, incidents like that often escalate a bit, and then either de-escalation and diplomacy finds a way and some solution is found, or the escalation continues until it turns into a reason for war.
When american troops do friendly fire and kill canadian troops, you don't get hordes invading parliament hill. And I don't even know what kind of reprimand the american troops get, if any.
IG, these things seem to be treated exactly the same way. Haters will use it in their propaganda, most people will resent it. But overall, one incident is unlikely to shake things up, unless one of the sides was already just looking for a pretext.
-
Guilty. I'm also Willy, the murdering adventurer who hid in Armonia. Was a bit afraid that their judge would just hang Willy and end the drama there and then. I tried to set it up that he had the option, but IC tried my hardest to make sure he wouldn't take it. May have pressed your judge a little too hard, though. How irate is he?
No OOC hard feelings about trying to start a war with your realm? :-*
Haha, no. Your actions are hilarious. And somehow it might even be working... as long as you aren't banned from Perdan, of course.
-
When american troops do friendly fire and kill canadian troops, you don't get hordes invading parliament hill. And I don't even know what kind of reprimand the american troops get, if any.
IG, these things seem to be treated exactly the same way. Haters will use it in their propaganda, most people will resent it. But overall, one incident is unlikely to shake things up, unless one of the sides was already just looking for a pretext.
What if Indian troops friendly fired on Chinese troops? That has happened before and it did in fact escalate into a larger conflict. I believe similar has happened between USSR and China, Pakistan and India.
-
What if Indian troops friendly fired on Chinese troops? That has happened before and it did in fact escalate into a larger conflict. I believe similar has happened between USSR and China, Pakistan and India.
They're not exactly allies
-
When american troops do friendly fire and kill canadian troops, you don't get hordes invading parliament hill. And I don't even know what kind of reprimand the american troops get, if any.
IG, these things seem to be treated exactly the same way. Haters will use it in their propaganda, most people will resent it. But overall, one incident is unlikely to shake things up, unless one of the sides was already just looking for a pretext.
True, but if troops from the US marched on Cuba could you say the same thing? Allies are one thing. Those you probably couldn't instigate in the slightest alone. Those you are at peace with a little less so. Two countries who are on neutral terms and have had previous hostility, though? All it should really take is a match to set everything on fire.
I'm not saying that every noble should be able to control diplomacy at a whim, but smart troublemakers should be able to create serious problems. It's still in the hands of the rulers to decide how to react, but nobles can afford lots of matches.
-
True, but if troops from the US marched on Cuba could you say the same thing? Allies are one thing. Those you probably couldn't instigate in the slightest alone. Those you are at peace with a little less so. Two countries who are on neutral terms and have had previous hostility, though? All it should really take is a match to set everything on fire.
I'm not saying that every noble should be able to control diplomacy at a whim, but smart troublemakers should be able to create serious problems. It's still in the hands of the rulers to decide how to react, but nobles can afford lots of matches.
Well, the US trained foreign troops and sent them against Cuba, and did bomb targets in Cuba for a while. Cuba didn't declare war on the US for it.
Syrian missiles hit Turkey, and they (surprisingly) didn't go to war over it.
I never said such incidents couldn't escalate, neither in RL nor IG. But they often don't. Both in RL and IG. My position is simply that there's nothing out of the ordinary about how such situations are handled, because it reflects pretty well how things like it evolve IRL.
-
Wow chenier, could you pick a less offensive example to use?
-
Wow chenier, could you pick a less offensive example to use?
Which one? The Syrian one or the Cuban one?
Or would you rather an example of a state going to war against another for the acts of a few: Say, like, the US going to war against Afghanistan because of alleged links with Al-Qaida? Or, say, Israel's war against Lebanon?
And I really fail to see anything offensive about any example I used. Do you contest that these events happened? I'm citing historical events, not passing judgement. But I can certainly pass a lot of that, if you want.
-
A troop leader leading his unit into enemy territory and slaughtering their general's unit would be like a Canadian battalion going into America and razing the pentagon.
-
A troop leader leading his unit into enemy territory and slaughtering their general's unit would be like a Canadian battalion going into America and razing the pentagon.
Not really since the equilavent of what you are saying is razing fortifications while attacking the general and marshals IMO.
-
Wow chenier, could you pick a less offensive example to use?
Something more similar to what is being proposed in game is the death of a US ambassador in Libya by Islamic Extremists.
-
Something more similar to what is being proposed in game is the death of a US ambassador in Libya by Islamic Extremists.
I wouldn't say so. BM characters don't die. Non-heroes, at least, and both the ambassador and hero subclasses are exclusive.
Another example, if you want, would be US ships fighting Somalian pirates. That doesn't cause a war between the US and Somalia either.
Or the US sending troops in Pakistan to take out Ossama and his men. This caused unrest, but no war.
There are many examples in which rogue/accidental/unordered attacks do not cause any escalation, as there are many examples where they do. However, they usually don't unless the side attacked was looking for war. And it usually doesn't happen when the side attacked is the weakest of the two, as it tends to be: being at the top grants you the power to whack everyone a bit, with everyone being too afraid of the risks of relation to make any kind of serious fuss about it.
-
True, but if troops from the US marched on Cuba could you say the same thing? Allies are one thing. Those you probably couldn't instigate in the slightest alone. Those you are at peace with a little less so. Two countries who are on neutral terms and have had previous hostility, though? All it should really take is a match to set everything on fire.
I'm not saying that every noble should be able to control diplomacy at a whim, but smart troublemakers should be able to create serious problems. It's still in the hands of the rulers to decide how to react, but nobles can afford lots of matches.
See "Terran vs. Kabrinskia War" for more details.
-
I do have but one problem with all of this. All these examples are of a more modern era. I believe in the Dark Ages people tended to go to war (not all out destructive war, but surely landgrabbing etc) much faster than they do now.
Although the concept of partial war (only for a few regions etc rather than total destruction) is a less used concept in BM.
-
Because, unfortunately, with lack of death for all but heroes, there is little option to try to limit bloodshed if it's not an all-out war.
-
I do have but one problem with all of this. All these examples are of a more modern era. I believe in the Dark Ages people tended to go to war (not all out destructive war, but surely landgrabbing etc) much faster than they do now.
Although the concept of partial war (only for a few regions etc rather than total destruction) is a less used concept in BM.
People had a lot more to gain in the days than our characters do. Our potential power is capped: can't have more than one region, than one duchy, can't rule more than one realm, etc. Which means that the people at the top, those with the most say on whether we go to war or not, have very little to gain in most cases from going to war. A margrave can't hope to get his hands on another city, for example. A ruler can't hope to grab a vassal tax from a vassal realm, etc.
Only those with little have something to gain. And in many realms, they are more people with titles than people without. Why expand if you are richer with your efficient estate as a knight than you would be as a lord alone in his wildlands? Not to mention that growing decreases tax tolerance, therefore hindering everyone who already have regions.
I'm not saying that the law of diminishing returns is a bad thing, but I do think it's one of the major demotivators for war.
-
I do have but one problem with all of this. All these examples are of a more modern era. I believe in the Dark Ages people tended to go to war (not all out destructive war, but surely landgrabbing etc) much faster than they do now.
Although the concept of partial war (only for a few regions etc rather than total destruction) is a less used concept in BM.
Again, please refer to "Terran vs. Kabrinskia war"
Reason 753 why Terran rocks: we're happy to fight small-scale wars with limited aims.
-
Although the concept of partial war (only for a few regions etc rather than total destruction) is a less used concept in BM.
Yes it happens sometimes, but very rarely and I believe Chenier (whoo what?) and Draco have adequately explained why this is often the case. Added to this is the fact that land grabbing etc is frowned upon in BM (unfortunately). Most rulers will look weary on you if you do so to a realm (even if it's not theirs) as if it is something unbecoming of a noblemen...
-
Funnily enough, in the end both Terran and Kabrinskia ended up ahead, thanks to the rash actions of Asylon at the time.
-
Again, please refer to "Terran vs. Kabrinskia war"
Reason 753 why Terran rocks: we're happy to fight small-scale wars with limited aims.
This seems respectable to me. Not a 'friendly war', but one that keeps your idle nobles from getting bored as well as getting a chance to loot the hell out of a neighbor. Idle warriors will eventually either leave or try to usurp you, rich neighbors can hold power over you. There are more benefits to war than just land grabs and total destruction of your rivals.
-
However, the "limited war" is usually only possible with two neighbors who are of about equal strength, otherwise the side who is going to win will be looking to escalate it at fast as possible by bringing in other realms.
Hence why the Terran-Kabrinskia conflict was such a rare gem; they were of equal strength AND geography naturally limited the war.
-
And had neighbors willing to let them fight it out.
-
And had neighbors willing to let them fight it out.
And/or unwilling to have the war escalate.
-
Let's pause and look at East Continent. Once my favourite continent, I now think it is about the best example of what Battlemaster is not about. I admit I had my own hand in what EC looks like now - even greatly, maybe. But at least I put my balls on the chopping block and went for some crazy round of "let's see who's man enough". Turns out my realm wasn't. To the point though: have you looked at East Continent lately? I'm sorry. Peace Continent! Dobby, in conspiracy with some other courage-lacking rulers of realms there, are absolutely trying their best to keep all realms at peace. Perdan, Caligus, Sirion: your local threesome of peace! Surprises me they aren't growing weed yet or handing out shrooms to keep the players subdued. I recall Tom once called upon the Gods of this magnificent browser game and shook up the East Continent, because there was peace. I call upon him to do that again, rather sooner than later, so that this fine continent may once again know the burning of commonfolk and the plundering of cities, as it should be.
Hmm, I cannot speak for other continents that I not play on. Even Atamara island I not into it deep enough.
Okay, about East Continent. Yes, it has been pretty calm and peace all over this island. After the last war Caligus realm destroyed the new realm, Dunnera. But then again, what is war without rebuilding? My character in Nivemus realm has been in rebuilding lands mode. Wars caused devastation. When Sirion defeated SoA, the northern lands are pretty much in bad shape. Lot of buildings and infrastructure are destroyed, population need time to recover. Let us look at Armonia and Eponllyn. This 2 recent realms(seceded from fallen Ibladesh realm) are still recovering from war against Caligus, and the recent war against each other.
Remember, there is only calm before the storm. Soon the war will start again. There will be action soon, maybe you not in the loop? ;D
War->Rebuilding->War->Process Repeat
Add on. If you wish to do player-driven reset initiative, you are welcome to do this Empire proposal thingie that is currently being discussed IC and on forum. The island is Colonies, surprise? :P
http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,3643.0.html (http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,3643.0.html)