BattleMaster Community

BattleMaster => Development => Topic started by: Chenier on February 12, 2018, 01:31:40 PM

Title: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
Post by: Chenier on February 12, 2018, 01:31:40 PM
Through a large number of changes over the years, demographic as well as mechanic, average knights have become less and less meaningful in the face of increasing passive mechanics and gimmicky tools available to a few.

Wars used to run over a pretty simple premise: get more nobles and organize them better and you will win, or at least make steady progress until the few passive limits came into play.

But now? Realm radius was decreased. Colony takeovers were removed. Family wealth cap was increased, which combined with lowered density and "new" (very old now) tax system make a few easily insanely rich (at the detriment of the majority) and actions like buying regions much easier, peasant militias are widespread and practically automatic, etc. The rank-n-file knight with some men used to be able to achieve significant results. Now? It's some kind of click race where, even with an appointed lord, a single noble can buy a region from under a huge coalition army.

This kind of war is not FUN. Not for everyone outside the tiny minority with access to these gimmicks.

Wars were a lot more fun in 2006.
Title: Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
Post by: CryptCypher on February 12, 2018, 02:44:19 PM
...And 2012. :)
Title: Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
Post by: Vita on February 12, 2018, 08:49:03 PM
While we probably disagree about specifics, I do endorse this.
Title: Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
Post by: Zakky on February 12, 2018, 10:56:06 PM
Doubt there will be too many changes but I do hope the game focuses on player interactions again instead of all these automatic defense stuff. Also, the game is trying too hard to force a certain type of gameplay on people. Not a big fan of that. But good luck bringing changes without bringing in people who know how to code.
Title: Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
Post by: Gildre on February 13, 2018, 01:15:04 AM
Don't worry Zakky. I am bound to win the lotto one of these days. When I do I will hire a programming team and we can gangbang them from the forums for everything we want.
Title: Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
Post by: Vita on February 13, 2018, 02:54:03 AM
Don't worry Zakky. I am bound to win the lotto one of these days. When I do I will hire a programming team and we can gangbang them from the forums for everything we want.
This somehow reminded me of Bender with hookers and blackjack, except its programmer prostitutes and battlemaster.
Title: Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
Post by: Chenier on February 13, 2018, 03:34:57 AM
1) Make it possible to TO cities with which you don't share a border, possibly automatically creating a new duchy for them, as a new version of the old CTOs
2) Bring back (the option of) communal taxes.
3) Bring back wealth tax
4) Lower the family wealth cap to 5000
5) Make any action that uses family gold for military purposes instead use personal gold
6) Make buying regions only possible in your own realm or in realms you are allied with.
7) Make religious takeovers factor in realm sympathy and a bunch of new factors to make it almost impossible to pull off, at least when done on human-held lands. Enable it anew in rogue lands.
8) Remove peasant militias completely: only player actions should stop player actions.
9) When too much looting is done, instead of peasant militias, locals should run away to nearby regions.
10) Convert 15% of all militia units to local population every week. Reduce this decay by 2% per fortification level.
11) Add a looting option that specifically targets loyalty and control.
12) Return the distance from capital radius to what it used to be, if not larger.
13) Add a "Demesne" alternative to lordships, where a region goes lordless without penalties other than a tax penalty or 100% of it going to the communal pot. Referendums don't run for it in democracies. The game has too many regions like Wasteland and the Desert of Silhouettes that don't deserve putting any nobles to them, but which in some cases must be taken for a number of other reasons.

In short, make wars about the knights again, and not about the gimmicks.
Title: Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
Post by: Zakky on February 13, 2018, 05:16:41 AM

1) Make it possible to TO cities with which you don't share a border, possibly automatically creating a new duchy for them, as a new version of the old CTOs
-- Actually any region should be possible to TO. With the distance penalty, if you try to TO a region too far away, they will revolt anyway.
2) Bring back (the option of) communal taxes.
--Why? I'd rather see redistribution of gold through region rebalancing. Less gold for cities and more gold for rural regions. We won't see any additional resources being added back to the game so might as well rebalance regions so they don't need to ask for gold all the time.
3) Bring back wealth tax
--Not sure.
4) Lower the family wealth cap to 5000
--I think just lowering it to 2.5k should do it. If people can't buy regions, there is no point on keeping it so high. Or if you want to keep it to 5k, I'd suggest making it so you can't put any gold in as long as your family gold is over 1k.
5) Make any action that uses family gold for military purposes instead use personal gold
--Actually wouldn't mind seeing people using their family gold to recruit units. Maybe make it twice as expensive or even three.
6) Make buying regions only possible in your own realm or in realms you are allied with.
--Not a bad idea.
7) Make religious takeovers factor in realm sympathy and a bunch of new factors to make it almost impossible to pull off, at least when done on human-held lands. Enable it anew in rogue lands.
--No. Just get rid of religion. The game has too few people for religions and priests.
8) Remove peasant militias completely: only player actions should stop player actions.
--Agreed
9) When too much looting is done, instead of peasant militias, locals should run away to nearby regions.
--Instead, I'd just make it impossible for people to loot a place to the ground. Let's say once a region is left with 25% or lower production, you can no longer loot in that region or something.
10) Convert 15% of all militia units to local population every week. Reduce this decay by 2% per fortification level.
11) Add a looting option that specifically targets loyalty and control.
--I think this is what the current unfinished TO will do eventually.
12) Return the distance from capital radius to what it used to be, if not larger.
--I thought it hasn't changed? I'd agree with making it larger especially on Dwilight.
13) Add a "Demesne" alternative to lordships, where a region goes lordless without penalties other than a tax penalty or 100% of it going to the communal pot. Referendums don't run for it in democracies. The game has too many regions like Wasteland and the Desert of Silhouettes that don't deserve putting any nobles to them, but which in some cases must be taken for a number of other reasons.

In short, make wars about the knights again, and not about the gimmicks.
Title: Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
Post by: Chenier on February 13, 2018, 03:08:50 PM
1) --Actually any region should be possible to TO. With the distance penalty, if you try to TO a region too far away, they will revolt anyway.
2) --Why? I'd rather see redistribution of gold through region rebalancing. Less gold for cities and more gold for rural regions. We won't see any additional resources being added back to the game so might as well rebalance regions so they don't need to ask for gold all the time.
4) --I think just lowering it to 2.5k should do it. If people can't buy regions, there is no point on keeping it so high. Or if you want to keep it to 5k, I'd suggest making it so you can't put any gold in as long as your family gold is over 1k.
5) --Actually wouldn't mind seeing people using their family gold to recruit units. Maybe make it twice as expensive or even three.
7) --No. Just get rid of religion. The game has too few people for religions and priests.
9) --Instead, I'd just make it impossible for people to loot a place to the ground. Let's say once a region is left with 25% or lower production, you can no longer loot in that region or something.
12) --I thought it hasn't changed? I'd agree with making it larger especially on Dwilight.

1) No, you need a border. The exception to this is Testing, with sea regions, as realms with coastal regions can take other coastal regions with which they don't share a land border. That doesn't allow inland TOs, and that doesn't apply to Stable.
2) Some rebalancing of the regions could be good, but that does nothing about the fact that some regions can be devastated which will have an extreme effect on the few who settle there. Equally, few people want to be lords of some key regions or border regions, because the war, militia, or other factors make it that they make little income. On Dwi, this is even worse, where many regions are completely depopulated, but that also exists on EC and BT. Manual transfers are tedious and unfun, giving realms at least the option to use either a balanced or a mostly communal system would help keep everyone engaged in realm activities, and not leave poor knights and lords (of sometimes potentially rich regions) just missing out because they tire of begging and their region gives them no taxes.
4) Sure? I mean, the cap used to be 10k, which was raised afaik to 20k. The logic behind it I'm not sure, other than "a lot of people reached the cap, so might as well raise it". I have always hated family wealth. It's the result of parasitic nobles funneling gold from where it could be used to achieve something fun to a barely touchable safe haven abroad where, if it is used, will likely be used by another realm.
5) I would mind it a lot. As per the previous point, nobles squatting high titles to farm gold in order to finance the activities of another realm on another continent are not only unfun for that other realm's competitors, as there's nothing they can directly do about it, but are also unfun for the sponsor realm's other nobles, who see the realm parasitized and left with little to do something with. Family wealth could be used, like fame, to give new characters a higher starting h/p, and better starting unit stats, but should otherwise absolutely not have a direct use in warfare.
7) That's clearly not going to happen. A softer approach would be adding a new subclass (Cleric, Crusader, Inquisitor, something of the like), available to all classes (including priests, warriors, and adventurers), that gives non-priests a greater ability to involve themselves in the religion game. Especially with the new limit of 1 noble per continent, the "you cannot have a unit" restriction on priests makes it extremly unappealing, even to people who would want to involve themselves in the religious game.
9) I'm actually in favor of being able to loot a region to the ground, but would also like a way to bring it back up. I think wars would be a lot more interesting if you could more reliably bring production to zero, but if such extensive damage could be fixed in about 2 months. Perhaps a forced deportation looting option. As a mix of this point and another, I don't think regions should ever revolt on their own, there should be a lower cap under which stats will not go on their own, but player actions should be more easily able to make the stats go below this cap and revolt.
12) It was significantly reduced, which has absurd effects on some realms.
Title: Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
Post by: Anaris on February 13, 2018, 06:49:10 PM
1) Make it possible to TO cities with which you don't share a border, possibly automatically creating a new duchy for them, as a new version of the old CTOs

Ehhh...maybe. I'd rather just reimplement CTOs.

Quote
2) Bring back (the option of) communal taxes.

In some form, maybe. The way they used to be, no.

Quote
3) Bring back wealth tax

Strongly supported.

Quote
4) Lower the family wealth cap to 5000

Nope. I'm not going to do anything that's just going to take thousands of gold from mostly long-running families.

I might well put in some things that act differently when your family gold is high, though. Like increasing ransom dramatically, having bandits sometimes actually capture you and try to ransom you from your family, that sort of thing.

Quote
5) Make any action that uses family gold for military purposes instead use personal gold

...Which military actions use family gold now? I can't recall offhand. I'd rather have them use army gold.

Quote
6) Make buying regions only possible in your own realm or in realms you are allied with.

That's the opposite of the direction we went a while ago, and though I won't say "no," I certainly won't say "yes" either. This, I think, needs a detailed explanation & discussion.

Quote
7) Make religious takeovers factor in realm sympathy and a bunch of new factors to make it almost impossible to pull off, at least when done on human-held lands. Enable it anew in rogue lands.

I would say not almost impossible, but a lot harder than it's been. Otherwise, yes, I support this.

Quote
8) Remove peasant militias completely: only player actions should stop player actions.

I presume you mean the automatic type that pops up on looting? Yeah, I'm still not happy with those, or with the consequences of looting generally. I might open a topic about this for general discussion and brainstorming.

Quote
9) When too much looting is done, instead of peasant militias, locals should run away to nearby regions.

See, like that. That's a fantastic idea! ;D

Quote
10) Convert 15% of all militia units to local population every week. Reduce this decay by 2% per fortification level.

Mmm, no, I think not, though I do have some Thoughts on changes to how militia work that would, at least in a geographic sense, drastically reduce their prominence.

Quote
11) Add a looting option that specifically targets loyalty and control.

I don't think that's looting. I think that's some kind of propaganda engine. Which I have some ideas for, too.

Quote
12) Return the distance from capital radius to what it used to be, if not larger.

So we can have huge hollowed-out realms again? I lean toward "no," but I also lean toward "I have ideas for making that restriction much more nuanced."

Quote
13) Add a "Demesne" alternative to lordships, where a region goes lordless without penalties other than a tax penalty or 100% of it going to the communal pot. Referendums don't run for it in democracies. The game has too many regions like Wasteland and the Desert of Silhouettes that don't deserve putting any nobles to them, but which in some cases must be taken for a number of other reasons.

I have a plan in mind that's very similar to this—and if you can tell me why you call it "Demesne", I might even use that name for it, because I didn't have a good name yet.

Quote
In short, make wars about the knights again, and not about the gimmicks.

That's great to say, but always hard to actually implement.
Title: Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
Post by: Chenier on February 13, 2018, 07:15:27 PM
Ehhh...maybe. I'd rather just reimplement CTOs.

In some form, maybe. The way they used to be, no.

Strongly supported.

Nope. I'm not going to do anything that's just going to take thousands of gold from mostly long-running families.

I might well put in some things that act differently when your family gold is high, though. Like increasing ransom dramatically, having bandits sometimes actually capture you and try to ransom you from your family, that sort of thing.

...Which military actions use family gold now? I can't recall offhand. I'd rather have them use army gold.

That's the opposite of the direction we went a while ago, and though I won't say "no," I certainly won't say "yes" either. This, I think, needs a detailed explanation & discussion.

I would say not almost impossible, but a lot harder than it's been. Otherwise, yes, I support this.

I presume you mean the automatic type that pops up on looting? Yeah, I'm still not happy with those, or with the consequences of looting generally. I might open a topic about this for general discussion and brainstorming.

See, like that. That's a fantastic idea! ;D

Mmm, no, I think not, though I do have some Thoughts on changes to how militia work that would, at least in a geographic sense, drastically reduce their prominence.

I don't think that's looting. I think that's some kind of propaganda engine. Which I have some ideas for, too.

So we can have huge hollowed-out realms again? I lean toward "no," but I also lean toward "I have ideas for making that restriction much more nuanced."

I have a plan in mind that's very similar to this—and if you can tell me why you call it "Demesne", I might even use that name for it, because I didn't have a good name yet.

That's great to say, but always hard to actually implement.

1) Maybe. They were always awkwards, though. A city in the middle of enemy lands is hard to make a viable realm in off the bat. No RCs, no economy, right next door to the rest of the enemies...

2) Maybe simpler, less-gamey, and more hybrid form. Ex: allow rulers to give to all troop leaders half of their realm share taxes, which when selected, also allows them to double the max tax rate they can impose on their dukes (and so on down the line).

4) Gold past the new lowered cap need not be completely removed. You could have a decay of maybe 10% of the excess per week, during which time half of the decayed gold is shared between the active characters of the family. Gotta remember, though, people with 20k gold are people who horded key positions in their realm, and instead of helping their realms do stuff, they were parasites that funneled funds elsewhere. BM would probably have seen a lot more wars if the super rich had nowhere to send their gold other than in-realm (especially if wealth taxes were back).

5) Buying regions, namely. On Dwi it got pretty silly how widespread it was used. On EC too. I vaguely seem to recall something else, but it's not coming to mind right now.

6) Yea, I think it does need discussion. An alternative to buying regions would be to bribe referendum results, but I'm not sure if undermining elections is something we really want to do. In any case, my general feeling is that one-player gimmicks should not easily undermine the collective actions of a large number of players.

8 ) I am referring to two things: peasant militias that spring up in reaction of looting, and peasant militias that spring up for the mere presence of enemy nobles from realms they hate. On EC, one priest/ambassador in particular has gone to a few regions and made them utterly hate every single SA realm, and utterly love every single northern realm. Just entering those regions causes 10k of militia to appear, and holding them after a TO is practically impossible due to the insane amount of protest debuffs. We are starting to counter with out own ambassador work, but it's super gimmicky that one noble can build an impenetrable trench line that even one of the largest armies of the continent sitting in the region doing police work and civil work cannot stabilize it and prevent it from revolting.

9) Fight or flight! The natural response of people towards invaders is to flee. If peasant militias defending their homes really needs to be a thing, I think it should be a form of drafting where the lord pays a lot of gold for it, and where it does huge region stat penalties.

11) Propaganda or simply killing off all the loyal government officials (without bothering to put new ones in place). Could use TO mechanics, but easier and not limited by having a border.

12) and 13) These points are actually intertwined. I'm still in favor of density, in some form, but just not for the sake of it. Density is a tool, not an end in itself. Thus the idea is to allow realms to continue expanding into each other, otherwise once the density sweet spot is reached all incentives to fight a neighbor are almost gone, without necessarily giving a title to everyone for it. In other words, realms could keep expanding to 10, 20, 30 regions, even if they only have 15 nobles, but they would either be dissuaded or prevented from appointing all 15 nobles to the various lordships. And that even when all nobles have the titles they can have, the realm still has incentives to acquire new regions, because these would feed the communal taxes, and thus make everyone richer. Remember, the goal of increased density is, among other things, make sure that realms don't become filled with people that have nothing more to gain. But the current density mechanics kind of still do this in an indirect way (on Dwi).

As for why that specific word, I looked up "crown lands" or something like that in Google, and was offered that as an synonym. It seemed feudal yet less overtly monarchic, thus better fitting with non-monarchy government flavors. In the early days of the new estate system, there were imperial regions that relayed directly from the ruler, who could be a region lord without being a duke. It's somewhat inspired from that, but also mechanically very different.


Quote
de·mesne
dəˈmān/
nounhistorical
noun: demesne; plural noun: demesnes

    1.
    land attached to a manor and retained for the owner's own use.
        the lands of an estate.
        archaic
        a region or domain.
        "she may one day queen it over that fair demesne"
Title: Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
Post by: Vita on February 13, 2018, 07:34:19 PM
I should point out that it's already approved to bring back wealth and property taxes as *options* for governments, not mandatory like before.

Also approved, but never implemented, are the option to have council shares of ruler/realm distribution. It's not a big jump from that to my preferred form of reimplementing communal taxes being having the government option of subsidizing classes and subclasses from the ruler/realm distribution. Yes, currently those are nil, but I don't think it'd be impossible to have public pressure on dukes to contribute more heavily if it was subsidizing the realm. And pressure from council members if it boosted their incomes.

I like the idea of high wealth families being more subject to kidnapping and extortion attempts, reimplementing a system allowing for simpler new realm creation than secessions but am neutral on CTO vs Chenier-suggestion, opposed to lowering family wealth limit, opposed to reducing distance from capital limit, and I'm in the same boat as Anaris regarding buying regions in-realm or in-alliance realm. Anything not specifically mentioned can best be described as being considered, ambivalent, apprehensive but not rejecting, needs further discussion et cetera.
Title: Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
Post by: Chenier on February 13, 2018, 07:47:49 PM
I should point out that it's already approved to bring back wealth and property taxes as *options* for governments, not mandatory like before.

Also approved, but never implemented, are the option to have council shares of ruler/realm distribution. It's not a big jump from that to my preferred form of reimplementing communal taxes being having the government option of subsidizing classes and subclasses from the ruler/realm distribution. Yes, currently those are nil, but I don't think it'd be impossible to have public pressure on dukes to contribute more heavily if it was subsidizing the realm. And pressure from council members if it boosted their incomes.

I like the idea of high wealth families being more subject to kidnapping and extortion attempts, reimplementing a system allowing for simpler new realm creation than secessions but am neutral on CTO vs Chenier-suggestion, opposed to lowering family wealth limit, opposed to reducing distance from capital limit, and I'm in the same boat as Anaris regarding buying regions in-realm or in-alliance realm. Anything not specifically mentioned can best be described as being considered, ambivalent, apprehensive but not rejecting, needs further discussion et cetera.

Optional is fine by me. Not sure the communal taxes would need to be as complicated as before, with the option for more "weight" to some (sub)classes or titles than others. I don't think government members really need extra gold either, though I guess that the increased income for them could help increase competition. Then again, with more customization comes greater player agency. As long as there's something to help ince into realm activities, at the very least, the extremely poor (lords/knight of regions that are either terrible by design, forced to be filled with militia for strategic region, or utterly devastated into non-production).
Title: Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
Post by: Chenier on February 13, 2018, 07:51:56 PM
Also in line with this topic: https://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,8082.0.html

Removing some of the intent-based rules to let people just lug it out without regards to how good they are at weaseling legalese into being granted the right to do something others would not.

Additionally, a return on the realm radius issue: with a declining player base, it's much easier to maintain a large per-realm noble count with sprawling empires, which limits the number of council positions and thus increases competition, than with a large number of tiny realms that don't have much leadership potential and where many completely delegate many responsibilties to foreign parties. Large does not always equate stagnant and hollow.
Title: Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
Post by: Anaris on February 13, 2018, 08:10:11 PM
1) Maybe. They were always awkwards, though. A city in the middle of enemy lands is hard to make a viable realm in off the bat. No RCs, no economy, right next door to the rest of the enemies...

Yeah; something different needs to be done, and perhaps some of my other ideas about changes in region ownership should play into them—with the basic idea be that you essentially half-take-over the city and some surrounding regions, then declare them en masse to be a new colony.

Quote
2) Maybe simpler, less-gamey, and more hybrid form. Ex: allow rulers to give to all troop leaders half of their realm share taxes, which when selected, also allows them to double the max tax rate they can impose on their dukes (and so on down the line).

Yeah, something along those lines—optional, like Vita says, and working with the new system, not trying to replace it.

Quote
4) Gold past the new lowered cap need not be completely removed. You could have a decay of maybe 10% of the excess per week, during which time half of the decayed gold is shared between the active characters of the family. Gotta remember, though, people with 20k gold are people who horded key positions in their realm, and instead of helping their realms do stuff, they were parasites that funneled funds elsewhere. BM would probably have seen a lot more wars if the super rich had nowhere to send their gold other than in-realm (especially if wealth taxes were back).

I'd still rather not just make the excess gold decay away.

Frankly, it sounds to me like what you really want isn't so much the removal of family gold, but the removal of the "buy region" option, and that's something I am open to, though I'd like something to replace it with—not necessarily another way to take a region, but something that's sneaky and highly disruptive.

Quote
6) Yea, I think it does need discussion. An alternative to buying regions would be to bribe referendum results, but I'm not sure if undermining elections is something we really want to do. In any case, my general feeling is that one-player gimmicks should not easily undermine the collective actions of a large number of players.

No, I definitely don't want to start undermining referenda. But yes, I tend to agree with your general feeling.

However, I would also say this: If the one-player gimmick required a lot of time and effort to set up, its payoff should be proportional to that. So if there were an infiltrator option that required several days or even a week or two of RL time for setup, but that allowed you to, say, wound all or most of the troops in a region (simulating poisoning a water supply or something similar), that is something that I would consider as probably viable.

Quote
8 ) I am referring to two things: peasant militias that spring up in reaction of looting, and peasant militias that spring up for the mere presence of enemy nobles from realms they hate. On EC, one priest/ambassador in particular has gone to a few regions and made them utterly hate every single SA realm, and utterly love every single northern realm. Just entering those regions causes 10k of militia to appear, and holding them after a TO is practically impossible due to the insane amount of protest debuffs. We are starting to counter with out own ambassador work, but it's super gimmicky that one noble can build an impenetrable trench line that even one of the largest armies of the continent sitting in the region doing police work and civil work cannot stabilize it and prevent it from revolting.

There are a few different things going on here, and yes, I think all of them need some kind of overhaul.

One thing that would help a lot is to increase the game's memory further—not as in RAM, but its ability to remember what happened when. Then we wouldn't be working with simple numbers like loyalty and morale all on their own quite so much.

Quote
12) and 13) These points are actually intertwined. I'm still in favor of density, in some form, but just not for the sake of it. Density is a tool, not an end in itself. Thus the idea is to allow realms to continue expanding into each other, otherwise once the density sweet spot is reached all incentives to fight a neighbor are almost gone, without necessarily giving a title to everyone for it. In other words, realms could keep expanding to 10, 20, 30 regions, even if they only have 15 nobles, but they would either be dissuaded or prevented from appointing all 15 nobles to the various lordships. And that even when all nobles have the titles they can have, the realm still has incentives to acquire new regions, because these would feed the communal taxes, and thus make everyone richer. Remember, the goal of increased density is, among other things, make sure that realms don't become filled with people that have nothing more to gain. But the current density mechanics kind of still do this in an indirect way (on Dwi).

So I have the first outline of a way to strongly encourage, without mandating, dense realms. The basic gist is this: A fully-controlled (non-city; cities should be handled at least slightly differently) region is one that has at least a Lord and one knight. If the capital has even one non-fully-controlled region (of those belonging to the realm) adjacent to it, all non-capital regions suffer a certain amount of penalty. If the capital is fully surrounded, then check if all those regions have fully-controlled regions around them. If not, then all regions beyond that first ring suffer similar penalties, and so on.

Essentially, it puts strong pressure on a realm to concentrate its Lords and knights in the regions around the capital.

However, as I said, in addition to adding this higher control state, I would also like to add a lower control state, like demesne or crown lands, or possibly call it hinterlands, that more or less consists of regions that your realm claims, and can extract a small amount of benefit from, but doesn't really own in any very meaningful sense. As soon as someone else comes in and stakes a claim with a military presence, the region becomes part of their demesne.

So if you can only really hold regions with a Lord and a knight, and those have to be concentrated around the capital or you risk unrest and red tape, but you can extend your realm's influence with very little limit, that makes warfare a much more dynamic experience, not measured in weeks spent taking over each border region as you tediously push through your enemy's outer regions, but in days marching across them, planting your flag and briefly intimidating the peasants, and moving on toward the lands they are actually willing and able to hold onto in the face of an army...

I think that makes it much more about the knights and the fun.

Edit:

Had another idea about family gold (or remembered an idea I had some time ago): Right now, once gold goes to the family, it is essentially removed from the game until it is spent.

What if it existed just the way gold getting ready for taxes did?

It shouldn't be anywhere near as easy to steal, but families need to have a home (and if they don't have one, we can force them to pick one, or just pick one for them, if they're dragging their feet about it), so shouldn't their gold be there?

Perhaps we should even let families have estates, that exist as regular estates within a region, help with efficiency, and generate gold (at a vastly reduced rate, due to expenses) for the family, but don't confer the same benefits that having a knight there does (like my fully-controlled regions above). Then the family gold is divided between all the various family estates, and if you happen across one when you're looting, you have the opportunity to try to rob its vault.
Title: Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
Post by: Chenier on February 13, 2018, 09:29:40 PM
Yeah; something different needs to be done, and perhaps some of my other ideas about changes in region ownership should play into them—with the basic idea be that you essentially half-take-over the city and some surrounding regions, then declare them en masse to be a new colony.

Yeah, something along those lines—optional, like Vita says, and working with the new system, not trying to replace it.

I'd still rather not just make the excess gold decay away.

Frankly, it sounds to me like what you really want isn't so much the removal of family gold, but the removal of the "buy region" option, and that's something I am open to, though I'd like something to replace it with—not necessarily another way to take a region, but something that's sneaky and highly disruptive.

No, I definitely don't want to start undermining referenda. But yes, I tend to agree with your general feeling.

However, I would also say this: If the one-player gimmick required a lot of time and effort to set up, its payoff should be proportional to that. So if there were an infiltrator option that required several days or even a week or two of RL time for setup, but that allowed you to, say, wound all or most of the troops in a region (simulating poisoning a water supply or something similar), that is something that I would consider as probably viable.

There are a few different things going on here, and yes, I think all of them need some kind of overhaul.

One thing that would help a lot is to increase the game's memory further—not as in RAM, but its ability to remember what happened when. Then we wouldn't be working with simple numbers like loyalty and morale all on their own quite so much.

So I have the first outline of a way to strongly encourage, without mandating, dense realms. The basic gist is this: A fully-controlled (non-city; cities should be handled at least slightly differently) region is one that has at least a Lord and one knight. If the capital has even one non-fully-controlled region (of those belonging to the realm) adjacent to it, all non-capital regions suffer a certain amount of penalty. If the capital is fully surrounded, then check if all those regions have fully-controlled regions around them. If not, then all regions beyond that first ring suffer similar penalties, and so on.

Essentially, it puts strong pressure on a realm to concentrate its Lords and knights in the regions around the capital.

However, as I said, in addition to adding this higher control state, I would also like to add a lower control state, like demesne or crown lands, or possibly call it hinterlands, that more or less consists of regions that your realm claims, and can extract a small amount of benefit from, but doesn't really own in any very meaningful sense. As soon as someone else comes in and stakes a claim with a military presence, the region becomes part of their demesne.

So if you can only really hold regions with a Lord and a knight, and those have to be concentrated around the capital or you risk unrest and red tape, but you can extend your realm's influence with very little limit, that makes warfare a much more dynamic experience, not measured in weeks spent taking over each border region as you tediously push through your enemy's outer regions, but in days marching across them, planting your flag and briefly intimidating the peasants, and moving on toward the lands they are actually willing and able to hold onto in the face of an army...

I think that makes it much more about the knights and the fun.

Edit:

Had another idea about family gold (or remembered an idea I had some time ago): Right now, once gold goes to the family, it is essentially removed from the game until it is spent.

What if it existed just the way gold getting ready for taxes did?

It shouldn't be anywhere near as easy to steal, but families need to have a home (and if they don't have one, we can force them to pick one, or just pick one for them, if they're dragging their feet about it), so shouldn't their gold be there?

Perhaps we should even let families have estates, that exist as regular estates within a region, help with efficiency, and generate gold (at a vastly reduced rate, due to expenses) for the family, but don't confer the same benefits that having a knight there does (like my fully-controlled regions above). Then the family gold is divided between all the various family estates, and if you happen across one when you're looting, you have the opportunity to try to rob its vault.

4) I really dislike both the "buy region" option and the amassing of family wealth. I never liked the amassing of family wealth, because it encourages people to have secondary characters who have no other purpose than to farm gold. These characters are parasites that decreases the realm's ability (and will) to take risks and go to war. As for "other things to do with family gold", I know there was calling family aid, that I just remembered. I think that was nerfed since Thulsoma abused the hell out of it, but I think it still allows for one character to fund another on another continent. Continents should work independantly, I don't like the idea of some people on some continents helping other people on other continents. All continents need war, and all realms need their tax gold for it.

6) I think that would be way overpowered. Balancing great gains with great risks only goes a certain way, it still comes down to "risking/wasting 1 noble to potentially destroy a realm". Because if you can wound a whole foreign army without even fighting them, and you prepared for it, in many cases you can outright kill them, or just about. And I don't think a few weeks of RL time to setup is all that much either, compared to typical refit times.

One player gimmicks, in my opinion, should target one other player. Like assassination attempts. A key strike can have a huge impact, but it's still only just affecting one player, and largely works around how much power people are concentrating. I'm fine with the existence of specialists who can do things that maybe the masses can't do, but I also think that their impacts should be, overall, small compared to the masses of troop leaders.

12/13) I think the details for any system addressing this will probably be tricky to sort out.  There's also the issue of balancing them around changing demographics. Some features that didn't make sense back in the days could work now, and vice versa, just because of how many (active) players we have now vs then.

I'm not sure how I think about very quick TOs. Seems like to could be rather demoralizing to players if everything they have can be taken in a week.

Then again, if regions were less binary in control, maybe it wouldn't be a big deal. For example, taking over a region takes only 3 days instead of about 7, but when the TO is "finished", you only have 30% control, which means you only get 30% of the taxes you otherwise would. If you really want to, you can continue "takeover options" to bring it to 100%, or you can move on to the next region. Regions could directly work from control: takeovers first deplete the current control pool, and then begin to fill your own, but having low control doesn't mean it will revolt and that all your work will be wasted, just means that the region won't give much until control is increased.
Title: Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
Post by: Zakky on February 13, 2018, 10:48:18 PM
I'd just reduce the capability of family gold in general.

Investment should only be limited to your estate. Too often family gold is used to funnel gold from one continent to another. May the way it is used should change completely. Maybe instead of family investment increasing the gold output, it should maybe used to increase loyalty and control so there is no financial gain from using family gold but to help your realm overall by aiding them in stabilizing unstable regions.

Or be used to get your new character off the low honor and prestige status quickly. When you spend a large sum of gold, you can quickly gain honor and prestige to get to the point where you can change to any class like cavalier.

Or like Vita's idea, after getting rid of the inability to read letters in prison, maybe increase the time you are held in prison by a lot. Like 2 weeks if you are a member of a wealthy family. If you are a new family you are probably broke so get them released sooner (maybe after 2-3 days. Same goes for poor families as well I guess.). After all medieval people held other nobles to get ransoms and some people had to be stuck in a place for a very long time because they refused to pay. Maybe this will make people less likely to send thousands of gold to their families.

As for control, maybe lower your control over a region, the faster TO should be conducted. Core regions requiring 100% while regions that don't even have a lord and lack any control should only require 20%.

As for war, it should definitely be overhauled. I'd try to make people fight more often but shorter wars. Make recruits lose training and morale as the war progresses. Make training and morale don't recover until the war ends. While there is a war going on, then every time RCs produce new recruits, make training and morale drop slightly. The longer the war, the more drop they suffer since the penalty accumulate over time. Maybe if a war lasts for a very long time, RCs should produce less recruits as well.
Title: Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
Post by: Chenier on February 14, 2018, 03:00:52 AM
Oh yea, investments. That's a third way where family wealth can directly help in a war effort, along with calling in family aid and buying regions.

The possibility to tax/raid/interact with family homes more would be interesting, but would need proper thought.

I'm not sure we really want to force people to end ongoing wars through fatigue mechanics. Ideally, yea, more shorter wars sound fun, but inertia is so huge in this game, and it's so hard to get a war going... that you really don't want to end it sooner than it has to, because making the war shorter won't necessarily make the inter-war peace any shorter.
Title: Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
Post by: Zakky on February 14, 2018, 05:31:39 AM
Oh yea, investments. That's a third way where family wealth can directly help in a war effort, along with calling in family aid and buying regions.

The possibility to tax/raid/interact with family homes more would be interesting, but would need proper thought.

I'm not sure we really want to force people to end ongoing wars through fatigue mechanics. Ideally, yea, more shorter wars sound fun, but inertia is so huge in this game, and it's so hard to get a war going... that you really don't want to end it sooner than it has to, because making the war shorter won't necessarily make the inter-war peace any shorter.

You are talking about the same inertia that drives people to fight until they demolish a realm.
Title: Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
Post by: Bronnen on February 14, 2018, 03:43:38 PM
I had an idea of some things to do with family gold.

Allow the family itself to have control of recruitment centers. Have these centers be able to send troops out to family members for a massive premium, but the center is tied to the family itself and cannot be used by anyone else, does not have an upkeep, and cannot be disbanded as militia.  Think of it as a private bodyguard that your family pays for.

Allow people with family gold to use that gold to purchase more votes in elections. Would give more opportunities for people to suspect elections of being rigged and cause more strife within realms.

Last thing, embargoes. People with incredibly wealthy families would in theory have massive trade routes everywhere in the world. Allow families to embargo realms at a penalty to their family gold, would impact tax gold of the realm itself by a percentage. I know this one would require a lot more coding and a lot more effort to make workable but i think it's pretty cool.
Title: Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
Post by: Eduardo Almighty on February 14, 2018, 05:05:07 PM
BM evolved... we moved from bearded Vikings behind a shield wall to rich, well-dressed nobles leading a sea of archers. Of all the natural changes that have happened, this is the one I hate the most since I came back to play.
Title: Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
Post by: Chenier on February 14, 2018, 10:01:40 PM
You are talking about the same inertia that drives people to fight until they demolish a realm.

I don't think that's fair at all. First of all, that inertia at least gives people something to do. Second of all, the inertia that leads to realm destruction is usually based on the losers refusing to accept defeat, preferring death to surrender. You can't ban people from being suicidal...

As for Bronnen's suggestions, I'm firmly opposed to allowing characters in one continent from sponsoring characters on another, which is what all these family gold mechanics are.
Title: Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
Post by: Bronnen on February 14, 2018, 10:41:04 PM
I think those ideas would give people a way bigger incentive to actually use their family gold and actually lose it for maybe no gain. Right now we've got so many people with almost maxed out or actually maxed out gold, which yes would give those people an advantage, but only until they've spent enough that they're equal with everybody else. It would force another bit of strategy to the game.
Title: Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
Post by: Chenier on February 15, 2018, 01:00:58 AM
I think those ideas would give people a way bigger incentive to actually use their family gold and actually lose it for maybe no gain. Right now we've got so many people with almost maxed out or actually maxed out gold, which yes would give those people an advantage, but only until they've spent enough that they're equal with everybody else. It would force another bit of strategy to the game.

I don't think you get my beef with family gold and its usage for war purposes.

If player A has a city duke in realm A and another in realm B, and realm A is at war so he constantly pulls out family gold to help it, and his noble in realm B keeps funneling gold out to him to help him, then
1) The enemies of realm A can do absolutely nothing about what's going on in realm B (on another continent)
2) Realm B is deprived of a huge % of its wealth, and thus is greatly disincentivized from taking any risks, both passively by maintaining low war preparation indicators (mobile CS, RCs, other infrastructure, etc.), and actively by making the one of the most powerful nobles of that realm not WANT war because that player NEEDS that gold for his other character in another realm.

Allowing players to use family gold in wars increases anti-war inertia in the sponsoring realms. And it's really unfair to the players of the sponsoring realms because most of them probably have no clue about their peers funneling gold away from the realm.

If players had no way to stash their gold, then they'd end up having to spend it locally, or amass it locally. If they amass it locally, eventually when a crisis sparks up they might go "well, I've got 50 000 gold on hand if we really want to teach them a lesson", and if they just end up autopausing, that wealth goes back to the realm.

Though we probably don't really want players amassing 50k or more either, though, because that can also be kinda cheesy.
Title: Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
Post by: GustavKuriga on February 15, 2018, 01:13:17 AM
I don't think that's fair at all. First of all, that inertia at least gives people something to do. Second of all, the inertia that leads to realm destruction is usually based on the losers refusing to accept defeat, preferring death to surrender. You can't ban people from being suicidal...

That's anecdotal at best. I highly doubt that the ratio is any more than 60/40 one way or the other. Usually it's ridiculous terms from both sides and an inability to settle for anything more than complete and total victory. See the Sirion war against Oligarch, where until Greater Xavax nobles joined there was literally no way that Sirion would have the forces to break Oligarch. Yet they refused to settle for anything but the destruction of Oligarch.

The players of this game on both sides of any war generally have little sense of what is a sensible negotiation.
Title: Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
Post by: Chenier on February 15, 2018, 01:56:11 AM
That's anecdotal at best. I highly doubt that the ratio is any more than 60/40 one way or the other. Usually it's ridiculous terms from both sides and an inability to settle for anything more than complete and total victory. See the Sirion war against Oligarch, where until Greater Xavax nobles joined there was literally no way that Sirion would have the forces to break Oligarch. Yet they refused to settle for anything but the destruction of Oligarch.

The players of this game on both sides of any war generally have little sense of what is a sensible negotiation.

Anecdotal? I'd place it between 80% and 95% of realm deaths due the losing realms digging their own graves, at least 75% due to the dying realms refusing reasonable offers being made to them, the rest dying because they did their best to make their enemies utterly despise them.

People are proud. They'd rather keep their OOC pride than keep some virtual holdings. A lot of things RL people would be delighted to accept as surrender conditions would just never be considered by BM players for this very reason.
Title: Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
Post by: Bronnen on February 15, 2018, 02:14:54 AM
My thinking though is that if a character does that, that would then give incentive to the realm to get rid of that one character.
Title: Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
Post by: GustavKuriga on February 15, 2018, 02:21:26 AM
Anecdotal? I'd place it between 80% and 95% of realm deaths due the losing realms digging their own graves, at least 75% due to the dying realms refusing reasonable offers being made to them, the rest dying because they did their best to make their enemies utterly despise them.

People are proud. They'd rather keep their OOC pride than keep some virtual holdings. A lot of things RL people would be delighted to accept as surrender conditions would just never be considered by BM players for this very reason.

You say this, but you've yet to provide anything other than your word, and I've brought nothing but my word. Thus I would be skeptical about taking anything said by either of us at face value. In all likelihood it's biased one way or the other.
Title: Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
Post by: Zakky on February 15, 2018, 04:00:41 AM
Are we even talking about the same game here? People rarely accept terms in this game. The winners usually want a city at least. Losers don't want to give up anything. Even when a sensible guy is on the throne and is willing to accept terms, players of that guy's realm sometimes overthrow the guy for accepting terms. Since you don't really lose much, people don't willingly give up. I think there should be a huge penalty for getting your realm destroyed like losing 90% of your honor and prestige you've earned in that realm upon your realm's destruction. Even after you run, this penalty should track you down. Maybe people will think twice about fighting to the end. Then again I doubt that will stop people since people quit once their realms get destroyed.
Title: Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
Post by: GustavKuriga on February 15, 2018, 07:47:34 AM
Are we even talking about the same game here? People rarely accept terms in this game. The winners usually want a city at least. Losers don't want to give up anything. Even when a sensible guy is on the throne and is willing to accept terms, players of that guy's realm sometimes overthrow the guy for accepting terms. Since you don't really lose much, people don't willingly give up. I think there should be a huge penalty for getting your realm destroyed like losing 90% of your honor and prestige you've earned in that realm upon your realm's destruction. Even after you run, this penalty should track you down. Maybe people will think twice about fighting to the end. Then again I doubt that will stop people since people quit once their realms get destroyed.

This is a perspective piece, not anything that tells us what actually happens. It's what you "feel" happens.
Title: Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
Post by: Zakky on February 15, 2018, 08:48:07 AM
This is a perspective piece, not anything that tells us what actually happens. It's what you "feel" happens.

Of course. Do you think anyone knows what actually happens? But we can derive some stuff from the results of past wars. Luria Boreal for example. The war would have ended if they simply surrendered and apologized. What happened instead? They fought to the end and got destroyed. Didn't even put up a fight to be honest. However look at Farronite Republic. They surrendered when Farrowfield got sacked and they did not need to give up anything in return because they were smart about it.

Here are few other examples:

Perdan - Refused to give up their namesake city. Forced the ruler who was willing to accept the terms. After a couple battles, they accepted the same terms they originally refused.

Ibladesh - fought to the end. Got their realm split in two.

GX - fought to the end and got destroyed.

Caligus - lost a bunch of regions. Trying to get back what they lost. They probably won't since the north can't seem to win any battles recently. Maybe they will fight to the end too.
Title: Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
Post by: Bronnen on February 15, 2018, 03:39:16 PM
In my ten years of battlemaster, I can count on 1 hand the amount of wars that didn't end with the destruction of one realm or another.

Title: Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
Post by: GustavKuriga on February 15, 2018, 06:07:58 PM
Of course. Do you think anyone knows what actually happens? But we can derive some stuff from the results of past wars. Luria Boreal for example. The war would have ended if they simply surrendered and apologized. What happened instead? They fought to the end and got destroyed. Didn't even put up a fight to be honest. However look at Farronite Republic. They surrendered when Farrowfield got sacked and they did not need to give up anything in return because they were smart about it.

Here are few other examples:

Perdan - Refused to give up their namesake city. Forced the ruler who was willing to accept the terms. After a couple battles, they accepted the same terms they originally refused.

Ibladesh - fought to the end. Got their realm split in two.

GX - fought to the end and got destroyed.

Caligus - lost a bunch of regions. Trying to get back what they lost. They probably won't since the north can't seem to win any battles recently. Maybe they will fight to the end too.

Do you think that reasonable terms were provided to GX? That was a war of extermination from the get-go by a hugbox of realms that were scared that GX was going to become the "next Ibladesh/CE" despite the fact that it was repeatedly stated that they did not want more land, thank you, they just wanted Robb Starfall out of power for being a duplicitous ass please (please note I mean the character, not the player).

I know for a fact that the one who instigated the whole mess in the first place definitely wasn't going to settle for a meaningful peace. I was in his realm where he openly talked about it.

The issue regarding peoples viewpoints of GX is that most only saw one side or the other in that war. I got to see both. Trust me when I say that Robb wanted them dead and was convincing the realms around them that GX was a threat that couldn't be left alive.
Title: Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
Post by: Zakky on February 15, 2018, 07:49:03 PM
On what bases should I trust your words? If GX merely wanted to get Robb out of the way, they shouldn't have attacked Perleone to try and take Ibladesh. I am sorry but GX didn't just focus on getting rid of Robb. They tried to expand and become a larger realm. Also, let's not forget GX's internal problems also spilled out. Kellen Dodger once was a member of GX then joined Perdan to see GX destroyed after GX went through some power struggles.

I don't know what was so unfair about dividing a realm that wanted to expand into two. GX would still have done fine even after being split in half. Also, when a realm becomes ridiculously large in noble count, people do tend to be afraid.
Title: Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
Post by: GustavKuriga on February 15, 2018, 08:35:54 PM
On what bases should I trust your words? If GX merely wanted to get Robb out of the way, they shouldn't have attacked Perleone to try and take Ibladesh. I am sorry but GX didn't just focus on getting rid of Robb. They tried to expand and become a larger realm. Also, let's not forget GX's internal problems also spilled out. Kellen Dodger once was a member of GX then joined Perdan to see GX destroyed after GX went through some power struggles.

I don't know what was so unfair about dividing a realm that wanted to expand into two. GX would still have done fine even after being split in half. Also, when a realm becomes ridiculously large in noble count, people do tend to be afraid.

So your proof that GX wanted to expand was that they attacked the city of someone they were at war with? That's definitely a certain kind of "logic". Considering the only way to knock either Alara or Perleone out of the early war would have been to take out their city anyways, as they weren't surrendering. GX went through some power struggles because Robb straight up lied to GX about allying them (thus saying that GX wanted to expand in that direction is [email protected]#$, they were trying to ally starting out and Robb pulled one over on the ruler at the time), and the Kellan Dodger started off a rebellion against the then ruler. A rebellion specifically aimed at putting someone who would attack Alara for betraying GX's trust into power.

Do you want to know how I know this? I was the one who was General of Alara when the ruler explained what he planned. When Sayuki reacted poorly to this plan of his, he banned my character and claimed Sayuki (my character) was a spy of GX. He wasn't a spy of GX, he had no proof of anything, but it got me out of his way. What he forgot was that my character knew everything about his plan of his, and that my character was the lord of one of the regions bordering GX. So when I switched over to GX, my region came with me, and I proceeded to tell Kellan Dodger about what Robb was planning. Magnus, then the ruler of GX, wasn't having it and believed I was trying to foment discord between Alara and GX. That's why the rebellion kicked off. I was approached by then Duchess Selenia about joining the loyalist faction if I pledged my loyalty to her, which my character did.

After the rebellion failed, Kellan Dodger was banned for the obvious act of fomenting rebellion, yadayada, ended up in Perdan. The reason Perdan even got involved likely had much to do with Kellan Dodger (the character) blatantly lying about what actually happened in order to get some revenge.

The reason that GX became so large in noble count anyways comes to two reasons. A) The people there did a wonderful job creating a realm culture and recruiting players. B) They weren't afraid to take risks. They didn't try and gangbang the smallest realm with a bunch of allies, they fought against a coalition of all the old-guard players who wanted the status-quo of CE on East Island. That was Robb's whole shtick you see...
Title: Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
Post by: Zakky on February 15, 2018, 09:04:20 PM
We warned GX not to attack Perleone several times. Wasn't really my problem when GX decided to ignore that warning. Perleone never sent any army into GX. Why would I trust your words over Robb's when you did nothing to show your trustworthiness? I don't know how poorly you've reacted to Robb's plan but it was enough to guarantee a ban apparently. Robb has been pretty trustworthy throughout the war at least enough to get the support of Perdan and Vix. GX on the other hand...didn't really show any sign of backing down. Plus some GX members constantly badmouthing Selena probably didn't help.

I honestly never bothered with all the crap flying between GX and south. I just didn't like the fact Vita used a healing scroll to revive her. So I wanted to destroy GX for it. Was pretty easy to throw mud at the whole Perdan peacing out of the war by marrying Selena as Caspian couldn't handle all the criticisms. Protested him day and night until he just quit the game. So yeah at least for Perdan while I ruled, I wanted GX destroyed completely. Didn't really care about other people having fun at least I could throw mud at that XD. As for Kellan, he was hellbent on getting rid of Selena. Never bothered why he was mad at her but at least he was mad enough to try his hardest to finish GX off. I think Vix was worried about GX's noble count plus had to defend Perleone. After all Vix was created out of their disagreement with Perdan's desire to reintegrate Perleone. As for Minas Nova, not sure why they joined.

P.S Looks like the thread got derailed. This reply will be my final two cent about GX. I won't add anything else after except regarding War Overhaul.
Title: Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
Post by: Chenier on February 16, 2018, 02:20:01 AM
Are we even talking about the same game here? People rarely accept terms in this game. The winners usually want a city at least. Losers don't want to give up anything. Even when a sensible guy is on the throne and is willing to accept terms, players of that guy's realm sometimes overthrow the guy for accepting terms. Since you don't really lose much, people don't willingly give up. I think there should be a huge penalty for getting your realm destroyed like losing 90% of your honor and prestige you've earned in that realm upon your realm's destruction. Even after you run, this penalty should track you down. Maybe people will think twice about fighting to the end. Then again I doubt that will stop people since people quit once their realms get destroyed.

Hmm, an interesting idea, but that would lkikely cause increased defections when the boat is sinking, maybe even more realm deaths.

In my ten years of battlemaster, I can count on 1 hand the amount of wars that didn't end with the destruction of one realm or another.

Really...?

Sint, Hetland, Riombara, and Kingdom of Alluran vs. Enweil did not result in any realm dying.
Republic of Fwuvoghor vs. Avalon did not result in any realm dying.
D'Hara vs. Pian en Luries did not result in any realm dying.
Pian en Luries vs. Fissoa did not result in any realm dying.
Caerwyn vs. D'Hara did not result in any realm dying.
Astrum vs. Westgard did not result in any realm dying.
Swordfell vs. Astrum did not result in any realm dying.

And I can think of a bunch of other wars where I'm just not sure enough of the specifics anymore.

Wars don't frequently end in the destruction of a realm, but when they do, it's almost always the loser's fault.

Dwilight vs. Thulsoma, they were just really happy to trigger the religious folk with their blasphemy and everyone in general with their blatant exploits
Half of Dwilight vs. Aurvandil, for being such an obnoxious bunch of blatant multicheaters
SA vs. NA (Caligus), almost went for the kill, did not yet, but had we done it... well Caligus completely refused to negotiate, even if down to 1 city

Plus all the ill-fated colonies that were just never meant to be.
Title: Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
Post by: Zakky on February 16, 2018, 04:31:19 AM
Astrum vs Westgard never happened. Westgard got scared and backed out when Hemmings chickened out by pausing. (might have deleted not sure)

Westgard's new ruler (who is the current ruler now) decide to apologize and normalize the situation. Dragomir accepted and moved on.

It was simple really. Unlike now, monsters were being funneled into Westgard so they really couldn't afford to fight Astrum. Hemmings was just stupid to think he could take on Astrum.




Realms started to survive more wars as the player base shrunk. People could no longer afford to set up colonies to replace existing realms. With the game stuck at 400 players, I doubt people want to destroy any realm but they probably still want to take at least a city or few regions.
Title: Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
Post by: GustavKuriga on February 16, 2018, 07:33:25 AM
Hmm, an interesting idea, but that would lkikely cause increased defections when the boat is sinking, maybe even more realm deaths.

Really...?

Sint, Hetland, Riombara, and Kingdom of Alluran vs. Enweil did not result in any realm dying.
Republic of Fwuvoghor vs. Avalon did not result in any realm dying.
D'Hara vs. Pian en Luries did not result in any realm dying.
Pian en Luries vs. Fissoa did not result in any realm dying.
Caerwyn vs. D'Hara did not result in any realm dying.
Astrum vs. Westgard did not result in any realm dying.
Swordfell vs. Astrum did not result in any realm dying.

And I can think of a bunch of other wars where I'm just not sure enough of the specifics anymore.

Wars don't frequently end in the destruction of a realm, but when they do, it's almost always the loser's fault.

Dwilight vs. Thulsoma, they were just really happy to trigger the religious folk with their blasphemy and everyone in general with their blatant exploits
Half of Dwilight vs. Aurvandil, for being such an obnoxious bunch of blatant multicheaters
SA vs. NA (Caligus), almost went for the kill, did not yet, but had we done it... well Caligus completely refused to negotiate, even if down to 1 city

Plus all the ill-fated colonies that were just never meant to be.

I completely disagree with what I view is a biased viewpoint on your part, but we're not going to change each other's minds here, so let's just drop it.

Truce?
Title: Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
Post by: CryptCypher on February 16, 2018, 12:34:22 PM
Gustav:

You're right about a few things, sadly. Magnus (I) didn't want to believe you (Sayuki) because he thought Robb was a friend and actually meant what he had promised. As a player I was cynical but as a character, Magnus' personality dictated his reaction.

Starfall straight up informed me OOC that he'd be pursuing an alliance with Caligus to wreck GX due to us pulling out of the alliance negotiations due to that ill-advised referendum after the no-allies faction got loud, and did roughly the same IC albeit more veiled. Apologies were said both ways, and we parted. To each his own.

Robb never liked Selenia, nor her personality or playstyle, nor did a number of other people. I was warned (for reasons I did not comprehend at the time) not to let a JeVondair take power for what it'd do to Xavax, but Selenia was my 2nd-in-command and the only person I could trust not to completely derail Xavax and erase its history&culture.

Also, for the record, Xavax had a secret faction super-early-on that wanted to conquer Ibladesh, so you're only half-right. They put pressure on certain key figures, including Magnus, in exchange for favors and support. I dunno what went on after Magnus abdicated early, but I doubt they just abandoned their entire plot-arc of reconquering Ibladesh and founding a Xavax-Ibladeshi satellite realm just because Selenia took power. I, at least, had convinced them to do it my way rather than overthrow the government and gun for Ibladesh right off the bat. They were even open to peaceful religious conversion, so long as their religion ended up being in charge of Ibladesh.

That one noblewoman was their leader, I forget who else was part of the faction though. God, we had so many factions... Too many influential, powerful players used to running the show.

Too many leaders, not enough followers. Probably what screwed us in the end.
Title: Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
Post by: Chenier on February 16, 2018, 02:51:26 PM
Realms started to survive more wars as the player base shrunk. People could no longer afford to set up colonies to replace existing realms. With the game stuck at 400 players, I doubt people want to destroy any realm but they probably still want to take at least a city or few regions.

Yes, I'll agree that realm survival increased with time.

The feasability in colonies is one factor, but there was also a culture shift, fed by a specific "anti-destruction" movement on the d-list and then forum and an increasing individualism and anti-coalition sentiment that encouraged realms to go on their own paths instead of following their bloc all the time.
Title: Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
Post by: Chenier on February 18, 2018, 06:42:19 PM
Here's an idea for family wealth...

How about: remove the ability for players to send any gold to their families, and replace it completely with a greater passive growth. The passive growth could cap at 5k, and it could be based on the amount of traveling the nobles of the family are making (because it makes IC sense and because it's a good proxy for activity and desirable behavior).
Title: Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
Post by: CryptCypher on February 20, 2018, 10:46:34 AM
Hmm. Good idea. Prevents abuse from people siphoning gold to enrich their family coffers, and makes things more intelligent.

Would be cool to slate a few more passive growth messages too. Make it feel more intimate/connected.