BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => BM General Discussion => Topic started by: Kain on June 19, 2011, 05:35:40 PM
-
Have the game mechanics changed regarding not being able to form massive realms?
I paused my characters 4 years ago and just recently returned but I've read up on what has happend and I see what is going on now.
Before the peasants would complain if the regions you held were too far away from the capital. 3-4 duchies and the realm was an empire.
Now I see plenty of realms where you have to go 6 regions in a single direction to reach the furthest edge (of the realm) from the capital. Sirion city to Karbala city, Domus city to Fontan city, Ibladesh city to Priotness all on EC. Golden Farrow city to Itau city and Muspelheim city to Linhai on Dwilight, and so on.
The consequences of expanding more than a certain point used to be that you could only uphold a very low taxrate on all regions. A big realm had a taxrate of 10-13% while a very small one had it set to the maximum which was 25%.
Is this still the case (or its eqvivalent) with the "new" liege system?
Personally I think it is more fun where there are less empires and more mediumsized or smaller realms.
Now the small realm is pretty much extinct. Either it has 7+ regions or it is dead.
Does East Continent have a single realm with less than 7 regions? No.
Does Far East have a single realm with less than 7 regions? Yes, but only one and it has 6.
Does Atamara have a single realm with less than 7 regions? Yes, but only one and it has 5.
(I've purposely excluded Beluaterra and Dwlight because Beluaterra is invaded by monsters all the time which makes the conditions unique and dwilight is still in colony phase so I am pretty sure the same thing will happen there when all land is taken)
My point is that the realms are so big in Battlemaster these days. On some islands they always were but still.
What would you think about giving bigger realms more penalities?
- This would give smaller realms a fighting chance
- Encourage the creation of more realms
I guess I am searching for more turnover in general, without undead/monsters. More realms being created, more realms dying.
-
Ibladesh just accidentally swallowed Itorunt.
-
Yes, the larger a realm is the harder it is to maintain the regions.
Yes, the larger you are the lower you'll have to keep your tax rate.
I believe even troop recruitment cost increases the larger you get.
The larger you are the more knights you need and let me tell you, with the lowered player base getting enough isn't easy.
Being a large realm isn't easy by any means.
The problem is, most realms just don't have enough nobles to just go and found a colony. The main realm would fall apart due to lost knights.
-
Yes, the larger a realm is the harder it is to maintain the regions.
Yes, the larger you are the lower you'll have to keep your tax rate.
I believe even troop recruitment cost increases the larger you get.
The larger you are the more knights you need and let me tell you, with the lowered player base getting enough isn't easy.
Being a large realm isn't easy by any means.
The problem is, most realms just don't have enough nobles to just go and found a colony. The main realm would fall apart due to lost knights.
From what I've seen so far of the liege system, you speak plenty of truth.
So how could more realm creation be encouraged?
From what I've seen, the secessions die in the first month in most cases.
When I started playing on EC in 2005 the continent had 13 realms. Now it is down to 8. And that is including Obsidian Islands who's territory didn't even exist when I started.
Without that adding from Tom, it would only be 7 realms now, about half of 6 years ago.
But back then there were many small to medium realms; Yssaria, Avamar, Coimbra, Eleador, Rancagua and Old Rancagua. Now we only have reasonbly big ones and really big ones.
-
I dunno, I feel the size penalties pretty well. I don't think we need them to be stronger.
-
I dunno, I feel the size penalties pretty well. I don't think we need them to be stronger.
But despite them, these major empires are upheld. Realms like Ibladesh and Sirion are just too large (in a fun to play aspect).
But maybe the penalties is not where the problem lies. Maybe something else that encourages more secessions. Like somehow giving the secessions increased likelihood of surviving.
-
But despite them, these major empires are upheld. Realms like Ibladesh and Sirion are just too large (in a fun to play aspect).
But maybe the penalties is not where the problem lies. Maybe something else that encourages more secessions. Like somehow giving the secessions increased likelihood of surviving.
Player culture. They already have enough incentive to break off, but chose not to. There's a limit to how far we should go to force people to act as we think they should. If they don't want to break away, no amount of penalties will change this.
-
But despite them, these major empires are upheld. Realms like Ibladesh and Sirion are just too large (in a fun to play aspect).
Lies! ;)
But the penalties are hard enough, in my opinion. Hence forth players should be encouraged to create smaller realms, for roleplay reasons. Which at some point I am going to do with Ibladesh, but I need to resolve this rather difficult war first. Our enemies aren't friendly... maybe because I told them I would wipe them out on East Continent. 8)
I've been a big fan of ducal independence for several years now, and the devs always tell me that "it's a plan for the future". But I'm tired of waiting. Too bad. Ducal independence would tear empires to shreds in no time.
-
Lies! ;)
But the penalties are hard enough, in my opinion. Hence forth players should be encouraged to create smaller realms, for roleplay reasons. Which at some point I am going to do with Ibladesh, but I need to resolve this rather difficult war first. Our enemies aren't friendly... maybe because I told them I would wipe them out on East Continent. 8)
I've been a big fan of ducal independence for several years now, and the devs always tell me that "it's a plan for the future". But I'm tired of waiting. Too bad. Ducal independence would tear empires to shreds in no time.
Ducal independence? Isn't that, you know, a secession?
-
Ducal independence? Isn't that, you know, a secession?
No, it would mean that duchies would still wave the flag of a certain realm, but could engage in interducal wars and diplomacy. I.e. the centralized power is heavily reduced and will be replaced by several dukes with more power, that can (but therefore not should) fight amongst one another over regions or whatnot. It would inject a massive amount of fun into huge empires, I believe. I mean, imagine you would actually be fighting for your /duke/ instead of for your realm. Much more accurate, too. Medieval nobility didn't fight for their kingdom. They fought for their liege. That bond is not enough stressed in Battlemaster.
-
as someone said above.. if you have intra-realm conflict all this is moot. another way of thinking about it is... lots of smaller realms based on duchy rather than kingdom.
-
No, it would mean that duchies would still wave the flag of a certain realm, but could engage in interducal wars and diplomacy. I.e. the centralized power is heavily reduced and will be replaced by several dukes with more power, that can (but therefore not should) fight amongst one another over regions or whatnot. It would inject a massive amount of fun into huge empires, I believe. I mean, imagine you would actually be fighting for your /duke/ instead of for your realm. Much more accurate, too. Medieval nobility didn't fight for their kingdom. They fought for their liege. That bond is not enough stressed in Battlemaster.
Declare a secession and then have similar-looking flags? Agree to a supra-national government system? Wish granted?
-
Declare a secession and then have similar-looking flags? Agree to a supra-national government system? Wish granted?
Something like that, yes. I was going to suggest it to Ibladesh using the Church as the glue for the "empire". In essence the highest power would still be located in the city of Ibladesh (having the rest of the dukes as "sub-kings"), but the dukes would have their own realm to run. This would allow for many more positions opening up (requiring less effort), thus probably attracting more players. Next to that, taxes can be increased by an average of 5% without problem.
The problem is that multiple guilds would need to be established to make sure that the current message groups don't go lost. You really don't want 5 generals to cooperate in a mutual war...
-
If Arcaea ever finds itself NOT in a war, there are plans for the realm to split. The increased recruitment cost and difficulty with our regions has been a right pain for quite a while. This is also the reason the two Luarian realms on Dwilight are discussion staying separate.
-
The problem is that multiple guilds would need to be established to make sure that the current message groups don't go lost. You really don't want 5 generals to cooperate in a mutual war...
I personally despise the idea of duchies warring against duchies in the same realm. It would essentially destroys the last vestiges of team play in BattleMaster. If you want to fight another duchy, then one of you two should secede and proceed to get to fighting.
Having said that, the loss of the message channel to be able to talk to each other is definitely a hindrance in what you're trying to do. Then again, if you're fighting each other, that common message channel will just be filled with so much crap, it will be intolerable. We had that happen in SA. Trust me, *not* having free access for both sides of a war to send each other messages at will is a rather large boon.
-
I personally despise the idea of duchies warring against duchies in the same realm. It would essentially destroys the last vestiges of team play in BattleMaster. If you want to fight another duchy, then one of you two should secede and proceed to get to fighting.
While in the past I have been a proponent of allowing inter-realm warfare, I tend to agree with Indirik about team play, which I am increasingly convinced is important to maintaining the game.
-
The penalties on bigger realms are already quite extreme.
1. Realm control is harder.
2. Recruiting troops costs more.
3. Tax rates have to be lower.
4. Takeovers are harder.
And that's all leaving aside indirect things like it being more difficult to keep a large realm cohesive, the distance from capital penalties, the pain of mutli-front wars, etc.
The reason you don't see more smaller realms is, I think, due to communication options. To explain, let's say there's a war. Realm gets destroyed, another realm doubles in size. They don't want to colonize, because that means they can't be in the same realm as their buddies and can't talk. They don't want to secede for the same reasons. The new landholders are all friends of the Ruler, or they wouldn't have been appointed, so that reinforces the ruling faction and makes them all want to stay in the same realm with the rest of their faction.
Obviously, those are sweeping generalizations, but I think they hold reasonably true.
And the communication stuff is why you see things like SA and the CE-bloc working (religion/guild communication) when other stuff falls apart.
As for the Far East...Well, I'm trying to change that, but it's not particularly easy and requires getting a lot more power first, which these silly people don't seem to want to give me for some reason...
-
While in the past I have been a proponent of allowing inter-realm warfare, I tend to agree with Indirik about team play, which I am increasingly convinced is important to maintaining the game.
You are still part of a team, just a much smaller team, IE your Duchy. From time to time your team might ally with other teams in the realm, or not. Its not like we don't have intrigues and arguments between duchies now, just they can't be resolved in a military fashion without one or other succeeding.
-
It'll come to no surprise to those who've played with me on Dwilight that I'm a big fan of rival duchies slugging it out within the same realm. But there are already plenty of ways to do that without the use of actual intra-realm warfare. Rival dukes have a wide range of options available to !@#$ with each other. Snatching knights away, swaying lords to change allegiance, hoarding food and gold, undermining their authority and influence, using personal armies to take all the glory away from others, good old fashioned slander campaigns, et cetera. These are all things you can do that don't require anyone seceding. The kicker is that if you push things far enough, secession can be the result... but that just makes things more interesting.
-
I personally despise the idea of duchies warring against duchies in the same realm. It would essentially destroys the last vestiges of team play in BattleMaster. If you want to fight another duchy, then one of you two should secede and proceed to get to fighting.
I beg to differ, and say the opposite would happen. Take a look at Ibladesh: 90+ nobles. Ask the players there about the team spirit, and I bet about 30 characters will just say that they are following orders but don't really feel involved in a realm, or have no specific individual character line that they are currently pursuing. The realm is huge and so crowded that not everyone can be involved because that would just turn everything into one very slow and inefficient war machine (or whatnot - I'm thinking of Melhed here). Some people just follow orders and rice prestige & honour, which is always nice later. There are a lot of nobles that actually get a promotion (this would contradict the idea that new nobles don't have a chance in large realms - totally untrue) but even then the "domains" are so split up, also due to the fear of spies, that even a simple region Lord has absolutely no clue about the greater military strategy.
Now, when you chop that realm up into 4 pieces, you will see 3 smaller realms with about 20 nobles and one medium realm (two duchies, e.g.) with 30 nobles. Smaller realms have a tendency to get more "loyal" players, reducing the risk on spies, thus opening up more of the policy for a realm-wide discussion. About twenty players discussing a matter won't necessary flood you with messages each day, and thus it would be possible for more people, to feel more connected. You would have one smaller army (that raises around 10k cs) fighting another duchy, with the same power. You would be more involved in battles and in the decision making progress.
These interducal wars would not lead to the utter destruction of another duchy. The idea to avoid falling back into forming gigantic empires, is having one larger duchy (the "capital" duchy, with 2 cities preferably) having the strongest power, capable of easily squashing another duchy into submission. Combine this eventual military dominance with a mutual religion, your Church can act as the number 1 glue to ensure that no duchies swallow one another. A duke steps out of line and effectively goes against all the policies of the "combined duchies", you auto da fe him and if necessary force some rebellious nobles into submission. Doesn't it work that way, then you have a small civil war on your hands - no problem, most likely the other duchies will team up in a promise of spoils of war.
You see that I am trying to construct some "player-agreement", which would in essence be an out-of-character understanding about some ground rules. It would pretty much be an extension of the current game rules (which are also OOC). I do not have a problem with going beyond the current game-mechanics to get into an OOC-agreement, as long as it doesn't turn into an OOC-clan. But it shouldn't. Rules shouldn't be bound to a player, but to a concept, making sure that the concept is respected. Besides, if anyone would break such an OOC-rule, it would just end up in what I described in the above paragraph.
However, what I find most important about this is our misinterpreted concept of a "realm" in Battlemaster. Taking a look at the Middle Ages, it doesn't take you a lot of understanding to see that we have to drop our ideas of nationalism. We, as players, are heavily influenced by several ideological/philosophical concepts of the past two to three centuries. Freedom of speech, emancipation, antisemitism, racism, ... These are a few examples of an endless lists of things that are well settled in our mind (for good reasons), but are completely absent to most of the Middle Ages - there will always be an exception to find, but even then, you cannot name those medieval conditions with an enlightened term. Getting back to the point of this paragraph, nationalism is another idea that simply didn't exist like it does now.
Again taking Ibladesh for example, I too make the mistake of, many times, inciting players "For Ibladesh!" or whatnot (your typical nationalist slogan). In fact, it is wrong. Knights in the Middle Ages didn't fight with their greater realm (let's say France) in mind. They fought for their land, and their liege. That liege might have fought for someone higher up, etc., until you end up with the king being under god. That fighting nobility might feel some loyalty to his king, but they would mostly act out of sheer selfishness, namely the promised spoils of war or simply gathering prestige. The regular knight would fight in the army of his liege, mostly his count or something of the like.
To summarize: I don't think that the team spirit will be destroyed, but I believe the opposite. Smaller realms will enable more possibilities and create a more coherent group. I'm thinking of Thalmarkin here - they're a wonder, attracting so many players for a one-duchy realm. It would not only reinforce that true bond that is so recognizable in medieval history - the one between the knight and his liege - but also allow a greater role for religion, as it becomes the glue or the "common ground" (also very medieval).
I could go on and on about this subject, and there is much more about it that I have in mind, but until I get a chance of actually implementing this idea for real, I am still constantly evolving the concept and deepening out the historical aspect more and more.
Having said that, the loss of the message channel to be able to talk to each other is definitely a hindrance in what you're trying to do. Then again, if you're fighting each other, that common message channel will just be filled with so much crap, it will be intolerable. We had that happen in SA. Trust me, *not* having free access for both sides of a war to send each other messages at will is a rather large boon.
I'm not aware of what specific construction SA had, but I believe that these guilds should only be used in cooperation. In essence, when your "realm" fights another realm or goes on some form of crusade, you use these guilds to coordinate properly with eachother. When the duchies start fighting eachother... well, then it's time for either applying some established OOC-rules that will avoid this of happening, or a powerful figure to put an end to it (temporarily remove/disable/diffuse the situation). I think there are many ways to go around this. The idea here is not to have ALL nobles united in one guild. That should already have happened in the religion, for one, and defeats the concept of creating these smaller duchies with a more coherent group of players. Duchy first, then the "greater" realm. That summarizes the concept, really.
-
@Fleugs: I agree completely with the idea of Ducal Independence. For historical reasons, and the idea of creating smaller more cohesive realms. Obviously if you were warring, with that kind of political status, all contact between you would be neutralized except for at the very highest levels.
I've a similar concept rolling in my mind lately that I've put up on the wiki in a really rough draft. http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Darkhollow (http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Darkhollow)
-
However, what I find most important about this is our misinterpreted concept of a "realm" in Battlemaster. Taking a look at the Middle Ages, it doesn't take you a lot of understanding to see that we have to drop our ideas of nationalism. We, as players, are heavily influenced by several ideological/philosophical concepts of the past two to three centuries. Freedom of speech, emancipation, antisemitism, racism, ... These are a few examples of an endless lists of things that are well settled in our mind (for good reasons), but are completely absent to most of the Middle Ages - there will always be an exception to find, but even then, you cannot name those medieval conditions with an enlightened term. Getting back to the point of this paragraph, nationalism is another idea that simply didn't exist like it does now.
As much as I agree with this I just can't see a way to make people drop their nationalistic ideas. The main problem is that nationalism is great tool for leaders trying to gain power. Asking people not utilize nationalism is asking people not gain power is... yeah... not gonna happen.
-
As much as I agree with this I just can't see a way to make people drop their nationalistic ideas. The main problem is that nationalism is great tool for leaders trying to gain power. Asking people not utilize nationalism is asking people not gain power is... yeah... not gonna happen.
Not entirely true. If you start telling people that there's more in it for them (let's think medieval here), then they might be more easily swayed to drop their nationalistic ideas. I think it's an attitude that you have to take as a player, too. In the past I tried not to be part of the entire nationalism-battlemaster-game, but it is impossible unless your duke recognize the bond he has with you (I was a knight).
In Ibladesh I tried implementing a better bond between knight and duke to have the duke be responsible for the actions of his knights, and to give him the ability to determine the punishment. The problem here is that most dukes didn't care enough, because they were rusticated into their passive position. Which it is not. A ducal seat should be the most active position ever.
-
but it is impossible unless your duke recognize the bond he has with you (I was a knight).
Exactly.
Asking people not to use nationalism is to ask Dukes to gain power from their position rather than pass all power to the ruler. It should happen, but often the people who become Dukes are also reliant on their rulers, and must allow that kind of nationalism to stay safe in their position.
Nationalism is the natural consequence of seeing the Ruler as the apex of the social ladder. With Dukes being more powerful than rulers in many case, it should not happen so much.
That being said, I dislike the idea of using OOC agreements. I think this is very much part of the gameplay as it actually is.
-
Hey guys, here's something to think about: Does greater realism really make the game more interesting for significantly more people than would a slightly less realistic system of an "umbrella realm"?
-
Hey guys, here's something to think about: Does greater realism really make the game more interesting for significantly more people than would a slightly less realistic system of an "umbrella realm"?
Well the issue seems to be, partially, that new players are not involved enough or that the prospects for becoming "someone" are too small in large realms. When you have multiple small realms, there are simply way more positions to hand out... for starters. Next to that, it just sounds like fun to me. I mean, no huge battles and such, but rather smaller clashes. I think it would intensify the "feel of play" for many people, because they can relate more to a smaller realm.
-
There are two main things I have against the model of small realm conflict with an emphasis on the relative ease of subverting your own realm.
First, if we were to make a bunch of small realms fighting, then I think eventually (perhaps not very long of a time either) we just see a conglomerate of small realms that federate unconditionally, serving as pretty much a single realm but with separate capitals and the ability to repair damage in their federated cities. Maybe slightly inconvenient at first, but there will be a natural tendency in most people in power to desire sticking to that power. The methods to do so may change but the intent is still unwavering.
Next, just how interesting is it for people anyway? On this forum, mind you, are pretty much only the most vocal with rare exceptions of newer players. There are hundreds more, and they don't talk for the most part, feeling fine to go travel where you tell them and set their units to the correct settings. Are you sure they're really into your whole political revolutionary bombastic speech? Backs-and-forths among established characters and/or brash upstarts who have a strange idea that being as vocal and obnoxious as possible is the way to go to gain power?
Sure, they're good people to manipulate into your designs, but then you're probably being fairly selfish. I can name right now several families that are like that, who seek to increase their own ambitions, which is fine ICly, but for some reason may or may not OOCly believe that it would be as fun for many other people.
Truth is, as one of the people who started off in Fontan, for my first 1.5 years doing not much else beyond setting my unit and going into battles, it's not fun. The letters were either long, or pointless, but all of them were stupid. At a certain point I just filtered types to orders because I knew I wasn't missing out on anything else. I will make a gamble in the belief that what people like seeing is their unit, as part of a bigger group, crush other people's groups, in actual tangible ways.
All this stuff with words flying around is where the real battles are, that is true. That is realistic. That is in fact the "right" way to go. But as a game, I don't think it is the way that most players would really care to play.
I don't say not to do it. But I do say that even if you are going to do it, try to actually get some regular battles going. The most exciting time I had in all of my BM experience actually came during my first 1.5 years in Fontan when we faced off 24/7 against OR, Sirion, later Caligus and Perdan. That meant a nearly endless amount of battles where winning really does make everything feel better. I didn't care one bit about what the council and lords and people who pretended like they had power in the realm said. I just really liked how there was a rush from standing alongside other guys with units, and beating the crap out of our enemies. And that was also when I actually didn't like having my crap beaten out.
Now, in Arcaea is about the only place where I'm militarily active anymore. And that does have some excitement to it as for the most part people aren't screaming their big inflated heads off trying to gain power, which is good because if they were I'd probably either get in on the action and scream just as much, or just shrug and do my own thing, depending on how worthwhile the realm is. (Arcaea I'd count as a worthwhile realm, but there is really not much screaming.) For some places, like Nothoi (Boy why do I hate Notoi so much? I have good reasons I assure you.) when we were getting hammered by undead everywhere I was like "Meh, serves you right you idiots". And that actually occurred because BK split when Wudenkin went to Fronen, and in order to "distance themselves from the legacy of Bara'Khur", Reeds split off to form the Greek word for "bastard" or something.
Are they still nobles? Bastards are like, adventurers huh? Hm...
But yeah, anyway, the thing is, I think most people who play this game by vast majority like the actual battles between units.
-
But yeah, anyway, the thing is, I think most people who play this game by vast majority like the actual battles between units.
I think the idea of ducal independence is that a duchy could declare war on a duchy in another realm, and go fight them--an actual battle between units, and you don't have to wait for the king to decide he wants to war.
-
Yes, that would work well, maybe. Depends. The king sometimes still selects the duke and can still force secede him. There might also be things to iron out so a stupid duke (and they're quite common mind you) doesn't get all trigger happy and keep fighting other duchies for the hell of it while a foreign army smack them to the ground. Or at least don't make it too easy to use it as only for subversive means.
Although, if you mean that duchies can fight foreign duchies (which you are), that would be great. For duchies in the same realm, it should be considerably harder, and there should probably come with penalties, so that if you must go against each other, you better have good reason for it.
-
I think the idea of ducal independence is that a duchy could declare war on a duchy in another realm, and go fight them--an actual battle between units, and you don't have to wait for the king to decide he wants to war.
Exactly. A federation would kill that. The entire point of ducal independence is having dukes fight against each other over insults, small pieces of land, or just plain boredom (anybody recalls the Darka-Eston friendly war? Good solution, in my opinion).
-
One of the problem with secession is the complete cut it makes with other realms. Even with religious or guild message groups, people don't go back and forth between realms.
If you look at the middle ages, drafting people who lived in other realms but had the right connections/bloodlines/ideas to become leader of a realm was almost the norm rather than the exception. I would really like to see, for example, the ruler of a vassal "realm" resigning because he has been offered the position of Duke of the capital of the mother "realm", or the general of a frontier realm getting called back home to become marshal of the Imperial Guard, or the Imperial Judge being delegated to bring back order into a frontier march.
Not only do I never see that in federation of small realms, I am pretty sure a lot of these transfers are actually forbidden by game mechanics.
If there were decentralized bigger realms, rather separated small realms, this is the kind of thing that I would like to see.
(And at some point pigs will fly, I know. It's nice to dream.)
-
I personally despise the idea of duchies warring against duchies in the same realm. It would essentially destroys the last vestiges of team play in BattleMaster.
I agree with that. I like the realm vs realm fighting, it is fun. I just wish the realms were smaller and secessions stayed alive more often (which would accomplish the very same thing).
-
You are still part of a team, just a much smaller team, IE your Duchy. From time to time your team might ally with other teams in the realm, or not. Its not like we don't have intrigues and arguments between duchies now, just they can't be resolved in a military fashion without one or other succeeding.
That's not team play. Realm v. Realm warfare is team play. Duchy V. Duchy warfare is a political intrigue game.
Team play is "Us vs. Them". It's not "Us vs. them them for today, with us allying against them tomorrow, and then backstabbing them the day after, all while paying lip service to our supposed ream ruler, who no one really listens to anyway because we're too busy fighting among ourselves."
You don't have teams when the team you're on changes every week. You need stability and constancy in the power structures that make up realms in order to have the background against which to play as a team. This does not mean that the same people need to be holding the positions in that structure. But the structures themselves have to have just enough stability and continuity to keep the game itself stable, but enough change and fluidity to keep the game from totally stagnating. Too much fluidity results in chaos and confusion, and lack of fun for the players. Especially the newer players who don't understand the background and political landscape.
-
I beg to differ, and say the opposite would happen. Take a look at Ibladesh: 90+ nobles. Ask the players there about the team spirit, and I bet about 30 characters will just say that they are following orders but don't really feel involved in a realm, or have no specific individual character line that they are currently pursuing. The realm is huge and so crowded that not everyone can be involved because that would just turn everything into one very slow and inefficient war machine (or whatnot - I'm thinking of Melhed here). Some people just follow orders and rice prestige & honour, which is always nice later. There are a lot of nobles that actually get a promotion (this would contradict the idea that new nobles don't have a chance in large realms - totally untrue) but even then the "domains" are so split up, also due to the fear of spies, that even a simple region Lord has absolutely no clue about the greater military strategy.
I understand completely about large realms, and realms with lots of players. You "90+ nobles" is only half of what we had in Perdan back in 2006. And Abington peaked at over 200. So, yeah, I know how things work in big realms. You're right, not everyone can participate in every decision. But then again, not everyone *wants* to participate in every decision. There are plenty of people that are quite content to mach along and follow orders. And to tell the truth, you *need* this. If everyone tries to be involved in everything you get chaos. You need the sheeple to do the things that the leaders determine needs to be done. Sometimes you play the leaders, and sometimes you play the sheeple.
However, what I find most important about this is our misinterpreted concept of a "realm" in Battlemaster. Taking a look at the Middle Ages, it doesn't take you a lot of understanding to see that we have to drop our ideas of nationalism. We, as players, are heavily influenced by several ideological/philosophical concepts of the past two to three centuries. Freedom of speech, emancipation, antisemitism, racism, ... These are a few examples of an endless lists of things that are well settled in our mind (for good reasons), but are completely absent to most of the Middle Ages - there will always be an exception to find, but even then, you cannot name those medieval conditions with an enlightened term. Getting back to the point of this paragraph, nationalism is another idea that simply didn't exist like it does now.
You're not ever going to be able to get rid of the sense of nationalism in BattleMaster. You have too wide of a player base, and too much of a continuous influx of new players. Trying to force everyone to get rid of their nationalistic tendencies is like trying to hold back the incoming tide with a sieve. You just can't do it. Continually fighting it is fighting a losing battle.
To summarize: I don't think that the team spirit will be destroyed, but I believe the opposite. Smaller realms will enable more possibilities and create a more coherent group. I'm thinking of Thalmarkin here - they're a wonder, attracting so many players for a one-duchy realm. It would not only reinforce that true bond that is so recognizable in medieval history - the one between the knight and his liege - but also allow a greater role for religion, as it becomes the glue or the "common ground" (also very medieval).
Smaller realms? Sure. They could increase the sense of team play among players. But fighting among your own team-mates? No. That doesn't build a team, it destroys it. It contradicts the entire sense of being on a team, if you're fighting what are supposed to be your own team mates. And this all results from the fact that the game itself defines the "your team" as "your realm".
Let's face it, "realm as team" is ingrained in the deepest structures of the game. And it is also ingrained in the habits of the players. I'm not an "Ohioan", I'm an "American". And other players are Canadians, Germans, Australians, etc. So when we all start characters, we don't join "Krimml", we join "Fontan". We aren't taxed by our lord or by our duchy, we're taxed by our realm. We don't fight based on what our duke or lord tells us to do, we fight based on what our ruler says. The game provides us an easy communications channel to reach a decent number of players: The "everyone in your realm" channel. And if we're honest, the "everyone in your duchy" channels reach a minuscule number of players, and are mostly dead anyway. We have so many duchies, and so few players, that restricting communications to within your duchy would isolate us to an extreme degree. All but the largest duchies would have few players at all.
Just for comparison, my characters would have access to, not including myself:
Fontan: Krimml duchy: 15 nobles (tbh, this will get bigger, I hope, when Fontan is reduced to a single duchy)
Darka: Siver Duchy: 10 nobles
Ohnar West: Akanos duchy: 6 nobles
Astrum: Libidizedd duchy: 12 nobles
So if we swapped to Duchy-based communications, I'd be stuck with the largest pool of players as 15 people. Wee... :( I pity the new player who would end up in a duchy of 5 or 6 people.
So that leaves us with realm-based communications. And since BattleMaster is heavily based on communications, people will tend to identify with the natural borders of their communications, which is the realm. You can fight it all you wan,t but you won't break the habit without substantially altering the underlying framework of the game.
-
What exactly is so wrong about being nationalistic anyway? Sure, maybe it's not that realistic, but seriously, who actually thinks it detracts in such a way that BM can't be a low-fantasy Medieval-period game?
Haven't any of us watched those period dramas? I know there are a bunch of ancient Chinese period dramas where people seriously did not dress like that, did not talk like that, and did not act like that (incidentally, no matter how good their kung fu, no one could fly back then). But why is it that way? For one thing, the real thing is kind of boring. As Indirik said, a duchy-focused group is really small. Sometimes, it fosters community. more often than not you'd feel like you're the only living person in the entire place. Heck, even some realms feel dead, and not all of them single duchy either.
-
What exactly is so wrong about being nationalistic anyway? Sure, maybe it's not that realistic, but seriously, who actually thinks it detracts in such a way that BM can't be a low-fantasy Medieval-period game?
Haven't any of us watched those period dramas? I know there are a bunch of ancient Chinese period dramas where people seriously did not dress like that, did not talk like that, and did not act like that (incidentally, no matter how good their kung fu, no one could fly back then). But why is it that way? For one thing, the real thing is kind of boring. As Indirik said, a duchy-focused group is really small. Sometimes, it fosters community. more often than not you'd feel like you're the only living person in the entire place. Heck, even some realms feel dead, and not all of them single duchy either.
Then I'll just rename my idea to the United Nations and get on with it!
-
Well, sure go ahead, but choose a better name. What exactly do you think CE/Tara is?
-
The point I was trying to make is that I don't take tv-series as a representative of Battlemaster. You want your all-is-cool-and-awesome medieval setting of the television? Go watch Game of Thrones. The real setting is not boring whatsoever. The name "middle ages", "dark ages", or "medieval" is about the most horrible name that could be given to the period. The Middle Ages were a period in which new empires rose, new techniques came to light, society evolved, intercultural contacts were established, ... It's not dark. At all.
Besides the game mechanics already try to be more accurate. As mentioned above you can message to everyone in your duchy, but nobody does. It seems the game just needs a helping hand.
-
A good game never tries to force players into doing something just for the sake of realism if the players demonstrate that they will not want to do it. Forcing it will only make people begrudgingly go along, but who knows, maybe some people might see it as the only reality in this game, thus have no problems with it.
Right now there are a lot of players who understand that such is by far not the only system, and most of them probably believe that it is not the system they would like to be restricted to. Now the interesting point you make about how the Middle Ages were an interesting time period is itself also steeped in fantasy. I'm sure no one has yet RP'd his knight as being properly accurate for the time period by relieving himself of his bodily wastes during a long battle. You aren't getting out of armor in the middle of battle because it's too hard to do it yourself and you'd be a dead moron when an enemy arrow pierces your chest. So if you drank a bit too much mead or had a bad pork chop the night before guess where you do your business?
Oh, and let's see...Mathematics finally started developing once people stopped using I's and V's and X's to count but I'm pretty sure the reality wasn't as cool as having an epic journey from across the Middle East back to Europe to bring back the great gift of Arabic numerals.
What about decorum? I see a ton of messages that seriously break any sort of acceptable speech that a noble of the time period would have been allowed to say without being laughed out of court or worse.
But hey, we can't give people lessons in proper etiquette, nor are we all PhDs in Medieval Studies, nor do people like it when we decide to be a bit too accurate and graphic with the events of the time period. All acceptable. What makes this stuff about realm organization unacceptable? I see nothing wrong, since it is easily accessible to people now. They can actually understand realm level government. Relatively fewer people of the modern age understand the system of duchies. It would simply be a new mechanic for them to learn, if anything., and achieve possibly no real RP value.
-
Well then we return to the original topic, namely huge realms that kinda pull the plug out of the game too.
-
Well then, Mr. "I run the largest realm in the entire friggin' game", why don't you bust that massive "sucking the fun out of the entire game" monstrosity of a realm up into smaller bits? Surely that would be more fun for everyone, right? Somebody has to start the trend.
-
That's entirely not the point, Indirik. Nor is it the largest realm of the game. It is however true that I had this system for Ibladesh in mind.
-
I just checked EC, FEI, AT, and Dwilight. Ibladesh has the most regions of any realm on any of those islands. So, unless there is a bigger realm on BT or the colonies...
And, really, it is the point. You're here complaining that realms are too big, and that players should make smaller realms to increase the fun factor. Yet you run the biggest realm in the entire game. So there must be some reason why you're not busting it up. Perhaps those same reasons apply to everyone else, too?
-
There's nothing wrong with wanting to hold on to a ton of power. Heck, I think just about everyone dreams of being ruler over a huge realm.
-
Yeah, right, I'll do it in the middle of a war. Should be a walkover for Caligus and Perdan then.
-
You had plenty of opportunities to break up Ibladesh between the fall of Itorunt and the start of the most recent war. Why didn't you take advantage of the opportunities then?
I'm being serious here. If you think that realms need to break up into smaller ones, then there needs to be some incentive. And in order to do that, we need to find out why realms are not breaking up. So, when you had the opportunity to break Ibladesh into smaller realms, why didn't you?
-
Yeah, right, I'll do it in the middle of a war. Should be a walkover for Caligus and Perdan then.
You do realize the reason for the continuation of the war is the size of Ibladesh? Perdan and Caligus probably won't stop until Ibladesh is down to reasonble size.
So breaking Ibaldesh up might actually shorten the war by a lot. Now if Ibladesh will be alive afterwards, that I don't know. The new realm(s) probably will be though :D
-
A valid question.
First of all, I had been talking about these ideas on irc before. When I asked about ducal independence, I was told that it would eventually get implemented. So hence why I was waiting. This, however, before I became ruler of Ibladesh. Back then I was already the judge of Ibladesh... but judges can't make those decisions, now can they?
Secondly, albeit Itorunt being conquered, the regions were in such a horrible shape that it took them nearly a year to recover (as in, they have recovered by now - but these are recent events). Next to that I was duke of Semall myself, and proposing the whole idea as a duke might come over wrong... although, clearly, this one does too.
Thirdly, another goal of mine was to turn Ibladesh into a more rigid Theocracy where religion would play a central role. I believe that has now been achieved, and hence there's room for the next step. We have managed to convert all of our regions and expand all of our necessary temples.
-
Ducal diplomacy/independence has been on the *very* long range radar for quite some time. It has serious problems, both in balance and implementation. I wouldn't even think about holding off any IG plans while waiting for it. In fact, I don't think I'd hold off any IG plans waiting for any particular coding feature to implemented. Things are always too uncertain to ever count on anything.
Beyond that, though, what kind of incentives do you think would work to help break up these large realms, assuming that it is determined that large realms are a problem? (Of which I am by no means convinced.)
-
Beyond that, though, what kind of incentives do you think would work to help break up these large realms, assuming that it is determined that large realms are a problem? (Of which I am by no means convinced.)
I don't know. Mine would be near to purely a roleplay incentive. I think it would contribute a lot to the day-to-day aspect of Battlemaster for all characters involved. Okay, most likely no more epic huge battles... but there's still enough fun, honour and prestige left in two minor armies fighting one another. Besides that it is mostly just something I wish to experiment with: see how it goes. I expect that eventually all will turn back into one realm again, because at a given point, a certain character (~player) decides he wants all the power again.
Nor do I believe that big realms are a problem. I can imagine that it's a bummer if they decide to fight you, but big realms have a tendency of collecting a lot of enemies real fast, so that shouldn't be too big an issue. I can imagine though that being in a big realm is a bit... empty, for some people. I mean, you're one of a hundred, right? Who cares what you think. And then they just go in "order-reading" mode, which I don't like.
-
Beyond that, though, what kind of incentives do you think would work to help break up these large realms, assuming that it is determined that large realms are a problem? (Of which I am by no means convinced.)
Large realms are sometimes a problem, but maybe not as much as the lack of small realms.
We've already talked about how smaller realms makes you feel more involved, and that is why smaller realms are great in a "player fun perspective".
-
Hm, is that really the case? Asylon, Barca, D'Hara, Aurvandil, Madina, Libero Empire, are those actually fun?
-
D'Hara has been tons of fun :)
-
I think all of Dwilight is just iffy. Boring players there.
-
Hm, is that really the case? Asylon, Barca, D'Hara, Aurvandil, Madina, Libero Empire, are those actually fun?
I think you've been accostomed to the bm-standard of what a small realm is. When I'm saying small realm, I mean 1-5 regions or so.
If it has 7 like Medina and D´Hara or 10 like Libero Empire, it is not small, more like medium.
13+ is large. 20+ is huge empires. 25+ is insane.
You are correct that Asylon, Barca and Aurvandil are small realms (in my opinion) but I am mostly speaking about EC, FEI and Atamara now since Dwilight and Beluaterra has special conditions (all the monsters/undead and still colonizing).
-
So...the backwater place called Obsidian Islands? The broken Fontan? The breaking SoA? I might not be among the inner circle (or even in the outer circle) for those realms, but the feeling I'm getting is that OI is a boring as all heck place that barely has any money to go around (But it's as small as small can get on EC), and Fontan is licking its wounds and stuff. Maybe SoA is a bit better because they can actually fight for real, though they aren't exactly "small" either since they have two duchies. Hey, neither is Fontan, because they also have 2 duchies now! Ok, so OI. Yeah, for some reason I don't think I would ever want to recommend anyone to play there.
-
Dude, OI is just sitting on a pile of dump, not land. It's not even a decent example.
-
So...the backwater place called Obsidian Islands? The broken Fontan? The breaking SoA? I might not be among the inner circle (or even in the outer circle) for those realms, but the feeling I'm getting is that OI is a boring as all heck place that barely has any money to go around (But it's as small as small can get on EC), and Fontan is licking its wounds and stuff. Maybe SoA is a bit better because they can actually fight for real, though they aren't exactly "small" either since they have two duchies. Hey, neither is Fontan, because they also have 2 duchies now! Ok, so OI. Yeah, for some reason I don't think I would ever want to recommend anyone to play there.
I agree, bad example.
A medium or big realm is not necessarily militarily strong all the time. Fontan is not strong because their regions are messed up. Krimml has 3500 people living in it, how messed up is that for a city? I also think morale sucks in a realm where everything goes downhill.
A realm can have many regions but still be poor because the regions they hold are monetarily crap. OI is a perfect example of crappy regions indeed.
-
Hey, neither is Fontan, because they also have 2 duchies now!
Only temporarily.
Fontan is a ghost town. If it ever recovers, it will take months, and months. I doubt it will be an interesting place to be, except for those interested in internal politics, for quite some time.
-
no matter how large realms became large, their size proves some competence, despite many limitations large realms have.
putting more pressure on them would be punishment for that competence. people miss incentive anyhow, and what motivation would they find knowing that they are severely limited in expansion.
there is, however, another issue, big issue with large realms - the fact that so many realms with 80-100 nobles never ever have any internal struggles.
the larger the realm, the more possibility for internal struggles and tension? yes that could be normally expected and that could be natural self-regulation of realm size.
but that does not happen, which is really unnatural and bad. put 80 good friends together for some time, and some sparkles would always happen in rl, and we have absolute harmony in many or almost all large realms. that is somthing fishy... related to other posts and subjects so i would not elaborate it much here, in short that shows how game mechanics undesirably mitigates tensions (while, sadly, trying to recreate it at the same time thorough "too much peace").
-
Well, apparently, we are not to abandon nationalism as a concept... so I see no problem with up to 100 nobles all being "friends" in one realm. That's nationalism for you, right there.
The fact that great realms have acquired their size through competence might be through, but I don't think they are limited in their abilities to grow larger. With Ibladesh we established a colony in Aix to expand our influence. That's the point where the game is right now: you are huge and it tells you you cannot possibly take another city. I believe the game should say way sooner that such a centralized form of government is impossible in a medieval setting.
A note on your point about "tensions": such tensions would be invoked if there was a form of ducal independence. Of course, there are always tensions in a big realm (somebody doesn't like somebody else), but once a higher authority steps in and tells both parties to play nice, it mostly puts a stop to it. With ducal independence, you'd have a nice fight over such discussion.
-
A note on your point about "tensions": such tensions would be invoked if there was a form of ducal independence. Of course, there are always tensions in a big realm (somebody doesn't like somebody else), but once a higher authority steps in and tells both parties to play nice, it mostly puts a stop to it. With ducal independence, you'd have a nice fight over such discussion.
Dukes can always play hell with a realm if they don't want to support the government. Pull your army back from the front lines. Refuse to provide gold for the ruler's pet projects. Reassign all your knights to your own army and make yourself the Marshal, then keep them home to do police work and defend your duchy. Have all your lords sell their food to you, and not to your neighbors. All of this, of course, depends on your ability to influence your lords and knights. But then, if you can't do that, then you're not a powerful duke after all. You're just a figurehead.
-
Dukes can always play hell with a realm if they don't want to support the government. Pull your army back from the front lines. Refuse to provide gold for the ruler's pet projects. Reassign all your knights to your own army and make yourself the Marshal, then keep them home to do police work and defend your duchy. Have all your lords sell their food to you, and not to your neighbors. All of this, of course, depends on your ability to influence your lords and knights. But then, if you can't do that, then you're not a powerful duke after all. You're just a figurehead.
Can indeed, but since the Dukes have been put their by showing their loyalty to the ruler, I think most just stick with that character trait.
-
Well, apparently, we are not to abandon nationalism as a concept... so I see no problem with up to 100 nobles all being "friends" in one realm. That's nationalism for you, right there.
that has very little to do with grand plans or global concepts, and i doubt majority of players care for theoretical background of their actions, but that is related to the fact that among 80-100 people there must be enough ambitious/nasty/drama-loving players who would do something over endless obedience, if they have chance.
this does not mean large realms would disappear, but if such unnatural element is removed, leader of such large realms would have about equal headache with outside war and interior rebellious groups.
A note on your point about "tensions": such tensions would be invoked if there was a form of ducal independence. Of course, there are always tensions in a big realm (somebody doesn't like somebody else), but once a higher authority steps in and tells both parties to play nice, it mostly puts a stop to it. With ducal independence, you'd have a nice fight over such discussion.
all about dukes. we apparently agree that thing revolve about dukes, but i have completely opposite opinion of what should happen. dukes have all bloody options in the world to do whatever they want, and the only reason for not using it is that they are so protected and untouchable in their posts that it is simply not practical for them to take risks when they can only lose.
if, for instance many times mentioned option to apply city direct taxing would go alive, i believe things would be completely different.
nobody simpy should go on forums and dev threads talking what is nationalism, and what is medieval landed lord rights - that would be resolved in-game, not on dev's desks.
rulers - put very large taxes if you want; dukes - secession, rebellion, protest, plot etc. etc. that is natural reason for ic conflict, which does not need any intervention, and i really don't know whether any talk on nationalism is needed, no devs to decide which side will win, as they did not in realm middle age, isn't it. city where i am writing this is formed through secession ca. 900 years age because that time soveriegn put too high taxes on them, they seceded and defended, why some duke should tryt todo the same in lightweight where nobody will be beheaded for real.
dukes are untouchable, they don't need more options, others need more options to press them. in super-centralized realms, dukes are heavy taxed? they need to organize, do something about that. only one duke is overtaxed as ruler dislikes him? he needs to plot, form rebellious party, anyways he needs to do something.
-
I hardly believe your city was created through secession. ;)
-
Well the issue seems to be, partially, that new players are not involved enough or that the prospects for becoming "someone" are too small in large realms. When you have multiple small realms, there are simply way more positions to hand out... for starters. Next to that, it just sounds like fun to me. I mean, no huge battles and such, but rather smaller clashes. I think it would intensify the "feel of play" for many people, because they can relate more to a smaller realm.
Big monolithic realms tend to have lower social mobility and such new characters have a hard time going up the ladder of power, but I believe divided and conflicted realms tend to scare most new players and don't integrate them as well. Theoretically, I would think it should be the opposite, but I guess that's just because of my style of play. Instead of being excited about all the strife going on, they seem to just be too confused and intimidated, with a general feeling that the realm is basically too incompetent to work together for a common goal. Most of the new players from which I had feedback that started with some characters in divided realms seem to react like this. They don't feel like they are part of a smaller team, they simple feel there isn't any team at all.
Personally, though, I tend to prefer smaller realms. I've grown a liking to Enweil, in part because of the power it allows me to wield, but overall I feel small realms are best. But nationalism is something you just can't defeat by saying it's bad, because every ruler and council member has every reason in the world to promote it. It is usually the easiest way to get anything done. And really, it's just a pejorative word for team spirit. If you want to end nationalism, it means you want to end team play being on the realm level. At which point you are basically turning the duchies into realms. How far down should we kill nationalism?
I think you've been accostomed to the bm-standard of what a small realm is. When I'm saying small realm, I mean 1-5 regions or so.
If it has 7 like Medina and D´Hara or 10 like Libero Empire, it is not small, more like medium.
13+ is large. 20+ is huge empires. 25+ is insane.
You are correct that Asylon, Barca and Aurvandil are small realms (in my opinion) but I am mostly speaking about EC, FEI and Atamara now since Dwilight and Beluaterra has special conditions (all the monsters/undead and still colonizing).
I agree, I don't consider D'Hara to be a "small realm", especially considering that 3 of its 7 regions are decently-sized cities. That being said, I like medium realms as well, they tend to hold most of the small realms' characteristics, but on a larger scale.
Can indeed, but since the Dukes have been put their by showing their loyalty to the ruler, I think most just stick with that character trait.
When the western duchies of Enweil got neglected by the central government time after time after the invasion, it got organized. Despite being tiny border cities with big control problems, constant spawns, and a whooping 3 regions in their 2 duchies, they pulled all of their nobles out of the main army and created the Western Defenders army, which also got knights from the duchy of Fengen belonging to its western regions. Now, the army is moving in an organized matter, the constant rogue spawns are dealt with almost always immediately, Iato has fully recovered from its long rogue occupations and regions are being added to the west to allow its duchies to grow. Since the Army of Fengen was still big enough to deal with all the rogues of the east and north, the Western Defenders just don't bother with these anymore, sticking purely to their area.
Most stick with blind following, but to a certain extent. I've seen others organize whenever they see their duchies in trouble, as being duke grants considerable power and wealth (not to mention being a permanent position as long as the city doesn't revolt) and nobody wants to lose this. Not so much motivation for most lords, but there is considerable incentives for dukes to say "shove it" to the rest of the realm if they feel neglected.
As such, from my experiences, dukes of stable cities tend to be very loyal to the ruler as such obedience guarantees that their reign is not threatened. However, if their risk of losing their duchy is greater from staying loyal than from standing up, then we see a lot more dukes actually standing up for themselves. Isolated, neglected, starving and/or revolting cities were the source of a great number of the game's secessions, I believe. Dukes often prefer a secession than having their cities turn rogue (and then risking not getting it back).
-
Truth is, as one of the people who started off in Fontan, for my first 1.5 years doing not much else beyond setting my unit and going into battles, it's not fun. The letters were either long, or pointless, but all of them were stupid. At a certain point I just filtered types to orders because I knew I wasn't missing out on anything else. I will make a gamble in the belief that what people like seeing is their unit, as part of a bigger group, crush other people's groups, in actual tangible ways.
Same here. Lot of adrenaline over these battles, and knowing if we'd succeed or not, how many men I'd lose, what would the next orders be and so forth. Every little battle was an event worthy to mark on the calendar.
-
One question now that we say Dukes have so much power. Can the ruler still doubt the nobility of anyone not of royal rank? Because if that still exists then the duke is not very safe anyway?
-
Let's face it, "realm as team" is ingrained in the deepest structures of the game. And it is also ingrained in the habits of the players. I'm not an "Ohioan", I'm an "American". And other players are Canadians, Germans, Australians, etc.
I'm not Canadian, I'm Québécois! 8)
-
One question now that we say Dukes have so much power. Can the ruler still doubt the nobility of anyone not of royal rank? Because if that still exists then the duke is not very safe anyway?
Short answer: no, he can't anymore. Judges can still ban all non-royals, though.
-
I'm not Canadian, I'm Québécois! 8)
Which perhaps explains why your characters are compulsively annoying.
Big monolithic realms tend to have lower social mobility and such new characters have a hard time going up the ladder of power,
Something I have also generally assumed; but I wonder: is it actually true? With enough data we could test it. Get the account IDs for every position (lord, marshal, council) in every realm on a continent, and find their distributions within and across realms.
Yeah... I have a lot of free time... but not THAT much free time.
-
Which perhaps explains why your characters are compulsively annoying.
Something I have also generally assumed; but I wonder: is it actually true? With enough data we could test it. Get the account IDs for every position (lord, marshal, council) in every realm on a continent, and find their distributions within and across realms.
Yeah... I have a lot of free time... but not THAT much free time.
Neither do I, but quick checks at time in realm of the people with government positions offers a good hint. Many/most realms have a "next in line" mentality, and it just happens that there are a lot more people in line when your realm has 200 nobles than when it has 15.
From my experiences, mobility really is greater in smaller realms. Not saying that there is no mobility at all in big realms, as that depends on various circumstances (it wouldn't be too hard to become a lord in Enweil, for example, because of the amount of nobles killed off in the invasion and the number of adjacent rogue regions). But generally-speaking, the smaller the realm, the easier it is to go up. Something that may factor in this is the low maintenance of small realms and their greater ease to expand, whereas large realms face harsher and harsher penalties for growing and therefore a lower and lower desire to actually do so.
-
I'm not Canadian, I'm Québécois! 8)
Aussies only refer to ourselves as such when dealing with other nationalities. Amongst ourselves we either identify with our home state, or our home city which ever seems more appropriate at the time. For instance I refer to myself as a novocastrian, though I am at risk of becoming a Melbournian if I remain here much longer.
-
Just relooked at the forum after months upon months, and reading through this thread, I find it odd that it wasn't mentioned that larger realms also tend to get the vast majority of new nobles from newer players from my own personal experience at least. I'm a part of large and small realms but nobles almost always seem to be joining new into large realms while not as much in small realms. I think that is likely one reason large realms stay large. They get more nobles to join them, then smaller realms some times. Yes, sometimes good small realms can retain their nobles more for reasons, but there are other times that realms just start falling apart because the lack of nobility prevents them from doing anything else compared to the large realms around them. My example here is Coria, although it may not be considered a small realm by other continent standards, it certainly is in Atamara, at least by number of nobles.
-
I think the political progression system depends on the realm. Some realms are inherantly more anarchistic then others so progression is easier.
Political identity is a hard thing to get, as it is historically more religious and racial then regional. I'll use Chenier and myself as modern examples. Compared to other nations we are Canadian, except in reference to our "home" (say, France and Ireland) countries, to whom we are provincial (Quebecois or Avalonian), however, while we are clearly from different areas, the term RoC (Rest of Canada) is a shared concept.
A French Catholic is Quebec has more in common with a Catholic Avalonian then a Protestant Avalonian has with that same Catholic Avalonian who grew up two blocks away. Eastern Canada is vastly more progressive then any state represented in battlemaster and while I wouldn't want mechanical forces put in play, I'm really of the mind that there should be a mental pecking order for many nobles.
1. Same religion
2. Political advantage
3. Regional allies
This will solve the "big realm" issue as say, Dutchy #1 in the north will constantly be trying to keep Dutchy #2 in the sotuh from gaining position and power, which will eventually lead to either a political or scessionistic throwdown. I'd love to see more Dukes pushing "their guy", rather then "who's the best".
-
That's not team play. Realm v. Realm warfare is team play. Duchy V. Duchy warfare is a political intrigue game.
it's still teamplay, just different sort of teams. instead of a polity that's kingdom size, you have a polity that's duchy size. basically the same thing but automatically have everything shrunk. a duchy can be made into the equivalent of a small realm via change in game mechanics.
just like you can stick a layer on top of kingdom and call it empire. or what is more commonly known as alliances in the game.
-
I hardly believe your city was created through secession. ;)
it is city where i live now, not actually my city. and yes, when large-empire sovereign imposed too heavy taxes on them, they declared his rule null and void which equals secession, beforehand they made heavily defended city fort, and established good working diplomatic ties with others in surrounding, which created noble republic eventually, beginning at about 1200's, finishing with Napoleon occupation.
as far as i know there are many examples how cities are fighting with royals over taxes. many royals asked cities to accept some level of taxing to avoid military occupation and overthrowing of local command, and if we want to have realms as political facts, city taxing would be their major power.
and that has nothing to do with modern time nationalism, rulers were spreading their rule through either conquering or agreeing taxes with cities, which particularly applies to city in Mediterranean surrounding, which were mostly formed in roman times, some of them even in greek times, and medieval rulers appeared at very beginning of medieval times, where sign of their presence were taxes and army service obligations imposed, and who opposed that had to fight and either lose command or obey.
actually, "nationalism" existed over whole middle age, where Holy Roman Empire is - to my limited knowledge - the most extreme example of weak rulers vs. strong dukes, and even there rulers spent centuries in constant struggles to gain more power.
historically, the never manage it and Westphalia peace was ultimate admission of surrender, but if we are recreating history in BM, in simplified manner, we should be allowed to recreate that conflict.
maybe i can say it in simpler manner: in rl, dukes were always stronger than rulers holy roman empire, but struggle existed all the time, and there would be no struggle if rulers knew they will never win over dukes.
if devs announce duke's historical victory in advance, than there is nt struggle, history is resolved in advance. and that very much explains lack of conflict mentioned in some other posts. dukes were more powerful than rulers, but they had to fight for that power all the time. and they won in holy roman empire, they did not win in french realms, nor in east european realms, while in england they got even more, later, so all kinds of outcomes were present, and all-time internal fights were present.
is it not good background for bm, where proponents of ducal power should fight proponents of royal power all the time, in-game.
that is my thoughts only...
-
it is city where i live now, not actually my city. and yes, when large-empire sovereign imposed too heavy taxes on them, they declared his rule null and void which equals secession, beforehand they made heavily defended city fort, and established good working diplomatic ties with others in surrounding, which created noble republic eventually, beginning at about 1200's, finishing with Napoleon occupation.
The point was, your city already was there before it "seceded". It's not like it came out of nowhere. By the way, which city? I like medieval European history somewhat... although I loathe the Catholic aspect of it. ;)
as far as i know there are many examples how cities are fighting with royals over taxes. many royals asked cities to accept some level of taxing to avoid military occupation and overthrowing of local command, and if we want to have realms as political facts, city taxing would be their major power.
That's true. Plenty of "city revolts" had to do about taxing. However, taxing wasn't steady and continuous as it is now. It was, mostly, based on a year-to-year principle. The more power the monarch had, however, the more he was able to impose "continuous" taxes... which then, later on, would most likely lead to a new revolt.
and that has nothing to do with modern time nationalism, rulers were spreading their rule through either conquering or agreeing taxes with cities, which particularly applies to city in Mediterranean surrounding, which were mostly formed in roman times, some of them even in greek times, and medieval rulers appeared at very beginning of medieval times, where sign of their presence were taxes and army service obligations imposed, and who opposed that had to fight and either lose command or obey.
Now, this is a very good example of how the fall of the Roman Empire is, mostly, believed to be a radical break (and thus the beginning of the Middle Ages), but it is not. Many medieval kings, certainly before the year 1000, saw themselves as the heir to the Roman Empire. They considered themselves Emperor of Rome. The Church had assumed the spiritual part of the "roman population" (ergo, the Pope could be considered the Spiritual Emperor). As such the changes that went through history cannot be defined as "medieval" or "roman", but are more gradual. The first "medieval" kings - "barbarians" - only managed to maintain their power by conquering and rewarding their warriors. When they got to the point that they lost battles or could not reward their followers, revolt was likely to happen, and several more kingdoms were created that would battle eachother (disputed succession etc.).
actually, "nationalism" existed over whole middle age, where Holy Roman Empire is - to my limited knowledge - the most extreme example of weak rulers vs. strong dukes, and even there rulers spent centuries in constant struggles to gain more power.
A particular case: the Holy Roman Emperor (from German Nobility) were mostly interested in conquering Italian states. Hence why this has always been such a "weak" country, in comparison to France or whatnot. They simply shifted their attention to Northern Italy and that gave the local leaders a bigger chance of asserting their own power.
historically, the never manage it and Westphalia peace was ultimate admission of surrender, but if we are recreating history in BM, in simplified manner, we should be allowed to recreate that conflict.
It would be more fun to see history created "by chance". By which I mean it is not the target, but it just so happens to resemble a historic war.
-
it is city where i live now, not actually my city. and yes, when large-empire sovereign imposed too heavy taxes on them, they declared his rule null and void which equals secession, beforehand they made heavily defended city fort, and established good working diplomatic ties with others in surrounding, which created noble republic eventually, beginning at about 1200's, finishing with Napoleon occupation.
..... Mainz? Moscow?
Man, that is a though one. Any more clues?
-
if devs announce duke's historical victory in advance, than there is nt struggle, history is resolved in advance. and that very much explains lack of conflict mentioned in some other posts. dukes were more powerful than rulers, but they had to fight for that power all the time. and they won in holy roman empire, they did not win in french realms, nor in east european realms, while in england they got even more, later, so all kinds of outcomes were present, and all-time internal fights were present.
is it not good background for bm, where proponents of ducal power should fight proponents of royal power all the time, in-game.
that is my thoughts only...
well.. the thing is.. those kings are not just kings. they are dukes and counts and what not too. just like a duke isn't just a duke of squat, they are counts of lots of what not too. which bm doesn't allow really.
what if the base unit for bm is count/equivalent? and you become a duke after beating up the other counts and getting them of acknowledge you are duke? similarly if you are a duke and get other dukes to submit to you and you become king?
ie.. it's not even necessary to have kings
what if we scale things back even more? where there's a lord per region with the new map we have a knight per region/subregion and build things up to more than 1 knight per lord. say 1 lord has 10 knights, so on and so forth?
-
Just relooked at the forum after months upon months, and reading through this thread, I find it odd that it wasn't mentioned that larger realms also tend to get the vast majority of new nobles from newer players from my own personal experience at least. I'm a part of large and small realms but nobles almost always seem to be joining new into large realms while not as much in small realms. I think that is likely one reason large realms stay large. They get more nobles to join them, then smaller realms some times. Yes, sometimes good small realms can retain their nobles more for reasons, but there are other times that realms just start falling apart because the lack of nobility prevents them from doing anything else compared to the large realms around them. My example here is Coria, although it may not be considered a small realm by other continent standards, it certainly is in Atamara, at least by number of nobles.
This is absolutely true. New players are attracted by the power of large realms. If they are anything like I was, they seek powerful realms to be able to do a lot of things collectively, without consideration of personal advancement opportunities. People like winning battles, and you suspect you'll win more by joining the large realms.
The game should perhaps give a brief intro to newcommers to describe general trends on social mobility, and present the good aspects of small realms that they might have not otherwise thought of. Encouraging new players to small realms would likely be a good idea, because I don't think the idea of joining a tiny struggling realm to sound very alluring to them, despite the great opportunities for advancement they present.
I think the political progression system depends on the realm. Some realms are inherantly more anarchistic then others so progression is easier.
Political identity is a hard thing to get, as it is historically more religious and racial then regional. I'll use Chenier and myself as modern examples. Compared to other nations we are Canadian, except in reference to our "home" (say, France and Ireland) countries, to whom we are provincial (Quebecois or Avalonian), however, while we are clearly from different areas, the term RoC (Rest of Canada) is a shared concept.
A French Catholic is Quebec has more in common with a Catholic Avalonian then a Protestant Avalonian has with that same Catholic Avalonian who grew up two blocks away. Eastern Canada is vastly more progressive then any state represented in battlemaster and while I wouldn't want mechanical forces put in play, I'm really of the mind that there should be a mental pecking order for many nobles.
1. Same religion
2. Political advantage
3. Regional allies
This will solve the "big realm" issue as say, Dutchy #1 in the north will constantly be trying to keep Dutchy #2 in the sotuh from gaining position and power, which will eventually lead to either a political or scessionistic throwdown. I'd love to see more Dukes pushing "their guy", rather then "who's the best".
I've found it quite fun to grow my ducal power bases whenver I got them. I am slowly building Iato, a tiny remote ravaged border-city, into a powerful regional entity. I brought the duchy of Paisly a long way as well, from a brand new pack of ruins into D'Hara's most prosperous city and duchy (it now has full population). Fun stuff. Dukeships are something you can easily build upon, I find, through a wide variety of means.