Messages

[Would reducing the density undermine the reason for its increase in the first place - encouraging active realms?]

Hey Grey,

I'm glad you've brought this up, even if I enjoy the current peace.

I feel that the easiest change would be to loosen the density limit. When I joined, it was at 1.4, meaning that even the adolescent Perleone always had the *capacity* to desire another region, even if they wouldn't immediately act out on it.

The issue with a density limit, as it is right now, is the fact that it doesn't actually do anything to incentivize realms to be more active. It just punishes realms after they've reached a point by making further expansion impossible, even if it'd make them more vulnerable and thus a better target for another realm.

To address your points in order:

• Would reducing the density undermine the reason for its increase in the first place - encouraging active realms?

I don't believe it would. The density limit as it is does nothing to incentivize inactive realms to suddenly become active; quite the opposite, really, at least from what I've seen. Overextension brings issues in and of itself, as does distance from the capital, and if your realm is inactive you won't be able to defend in wars from a foe with less wealth.

At the very least, I think the density limit doesn't do its job well.

• With existing realms with years of history, how do realms choose to govern themselves IC to not pile in or join overarching alliance blocs when their ally or common enemy is struck?

This just seems like something you'd see emerge in the player culture. If the rulers don't want to dogpile onto people and agree such a course is against a moral code, I see nothing wrong with it. It could be flavored via religions as the Gods speaking in favor of fair fights for all kingdoms of man. Perhaps make joining a war require an explanation in the same way that starting one does?

• With the risk of pile in so high, rulers are very risk-averse and are not prepared to create war, which ultimately is a large part of Battlemaster.

Addressed in the previous point -- and it's important to understand the psychology of risk aversion. If nothing is to be gained by war, why wage it?

• Would introducing new frameworks for war remove a player's agency for choice?

Having it be loose, like the current casus belli system, would stop that. Hard measures such as the density limit are in my opinion a greater threat to player agency because they are punishment and a hard cap, not an incentive.

• Finally, is peace a bad thing? Or is it only good in small doses?

In my opinion, no. Players should be capable of creating tension and/or engaging with others without the need for outright military conflict. I think the main issue here is that there aren't many game mechanics that support this. Having events pop in lordships during peacetime where the lords have to take sides without resulting in assured revolts would engage lords, as would having more control over the way they fluff their estates, recruitment centers, etc. Perhaps being able to work on a 'treasury' like in Crusader Kings could give more gameplay-focused players a treat, as could mock-battles for the army on a larger scale. [/list]

Just my opinion on the matter and some ideas.

Cheers,
House Orneithian.