BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Development => Feature Requests => Topic started by: Vivalas on March 22, 2017, 07:49:43 PM
-
Another small idea I had:
In Messages the ability to send letters and whatnot to allied military leaders, which includes realm military leaders as well as military leaders of all allied realms. (Perhaps this could be limited to military leaders of the realm).
Also the ability to send messages to all allied military leaders in the region, instead of just all allied nobles.
This might help a bit with coordination between marshalls, generalls, vice-marshalls etc. of different realms.
-
great idea, always wondered why it wasn't already implemented.
-
Sounds nice.
-
I disagree. Players should have to build guilds etc. for this purpose. Provides a social platform that can provide communication for all nobles in multiple realms, not just the guys that already tend to talk in closed channels more than they need to.
-
I certainly support the construction of guilds for this purpose—realms have been doing that for over a decade now.
I also will certainly not provide a way to communicate with only allied military leaders in a given region; if you want to communicate locally, communicate with all your allies there. Don't leave people out.
The rest, I'm currently on the fence about.
-
Well... it just switches from checking boxes on "contact some foreign generals" to the game doing it for you. The "contact allied military leaders" version, at least. If anything, that would involve more people than checking the boxes would, because most realms tend to have alliances that aren't immediately relevant, and their generals would typically not get checked in.
Do military guilds really involve more people? I don't really remember them doing that.
The game also dissuades using guilds for this function, because the guild titles are tied to characters, not titles. Whoever founds the guild has total say of what happens to it. If he's protested out a month later? Well... gotta start over... Managing the guild to take into account elections/departures of allied (and local) generals, rulers, marshals, and vice-marshals becomes a tedious administrative task.
Guilds can and have been used for this purpose, but I still don't think it's really a great fit.
-
I'm also on the fence. I think both Dodger and Chenier have good points. On one hand, I like that a realm has to 'invest' in maintaining infrastructure with its allies and actively seek cooperation, providing a soft strategic advantage to alliances able to cooperate more efficiently. On the other hand, I like the idea of providing more alliance-wide military contacts akin to an alliance-wide battlegroup, taking the pressure off any one person to respond with orders promptly.
-
I'm also on the fence. I think both Dodger and Chenier have good points. On one hand, I like that a realm has to 'invest' in maintaining infrastructure with its allies and actively seek cooperation, providing a soft strategic advantage to alliances able to cooperate more efficiently. On the other hand, I like the idea of providing more alliance-wide military contacts akin to an alliance-wide battlegroup, taking the pressure off any one person to respond with orders promptly.
A compromise would be a new guild type where positions can be tied to titles instead of (or as well as) characters. Gets ride of the tediousness clerk job burden on players to keep all the guild ranks up to date, without removing the costs and logistics around founding, enlarging, and maintaining such an institution.