Messages

61

Development / Re: Realm size vs Potential gain

« on: September 25, 2012, 12:09:27 AM »

Indeed, a trend I've started to notice is the attempt to bring realms together via guilds in order to increase the pool in which players can communicate (Sanguis Astroism, although a religion, also can work in this way).

If we could have vassal realms, resulting in the creation of multi-realm empires, a message option to "all members of the empire" could help counter the shrinking player/realm ratio to stimulate interaction.

Well, yes, unfortunately the idea would then require a message-system reworking. If you can message members of the empire in the same way as realm-mates the feature would lose its raison d'être, changing very little.

Perhaps if you could only message all of the empire members but not individual members of other realms in the empire, unless you have their contact.
See: Lurian Empire.

62

Development / Re: Sea Zones

« on: September 25, 2012, 12:00:07 AM »

Harbors are for embarking. You can land anywhere, provided there are no strong defensive forces.

Thinking about most of medieval times the population was kind of too small to patrol and defend all of the coastlines. If one wanted to land somewhere else, provided it was not a tiny island, he would be able to, if he had the ships.

I'd recommend traveling to cost gold (something like the crusades, hiring ships to move your army), and the more defended the region is the more expensive the cost to disembark (as the captains would have to be extra careful on where to land, taking more risks).

Outright blocking disembarking should be expensive and impossible most of the times. That is why the Viking and Moorish incursions where so feared: there was little they could do to prevent them from disembarking, sacking and leaving. Too much land to defend.

Perhaps there could be a small sea-region bordering the coastline which would be permanently seen by the owners of the coast regions. Beyond that there's the mysterious ocean and there would be no way to scout. This would make disembarking a two-turn move.

63

Development / Re: Realm size vs Potential gain

« on: September 22, 2012, 03:56:16 PM »

Personally, I think that would suck. And I don't think I'm the only one who thinks that. Maybe if you tripled the number of players we have now, it would work. But if you tried that now, you'd just end up with a bunch of mostly empty, mostly deathly boring realms. Most of what you'd have is political intrigue, which greatly limits the number of people that can participate, and the number of peoplle that would enjoy it.

The idea in no way requires more players. How would we get empty realms?

64

Development / Re: Realm size vs Potential gain

« on: September 21, 2012, 11:29:48 PM »

This describes every realm I've ever played in except Tara. Seriously, do you think Morek is a monolithic bloc with an iron-fisted dictator? Then you're wildly mistaken about how it works and why it's been successful.

I'm not saying there are no internal conflicts. What I would like is to see them involving more "foreigners". If you have several small realms it will be much more of a regional crisis than the attrition inside Morek between a Duke and his ruler.

If there are internal conflicts or not inside Morek didn't make any difference to Libero or Summerdale if they never knew about it, or if it never affected them.

A soft limit on realms size already exists, in that the acceptable tax rate is a function of size and distance from the capital. I think it's a good thing that this exists, but it should not be overdone.

By the existence of Astrum and Morek it is clearly not enough. Almost-30-region realms should not be possible to maintain, IMO.

In particular, it should never be more profitable for a realm to shrink all else being equal. This is something that was sometimes the case with the old estate system, and honestly a great success of the new one in my opinion.

That is a different case. In the old estate system there was a limit on how many regions you could get, and your realm was unable to expand further if without enough nobles. Given that you can theoretically have a Duchy per region or more, and a Lord can also be a Duke, restricting the size of Duchies won't be a problem in that sense.

Restricting the size of realms goes tied with the vassal-system proposal. One cannot go without the other. So you would be able to keep expanding, but just not directly.

I like these ideas, in that I like to see them implemented in the game by the players, but I think most of them already are.

A vassal-system without a realm-size limitation makes no difference.

Appointing another nations ruler should never be done game-mechanically, otherwise he isn't called a sovereign, he's a Duke and you come back to square one. However you can bully another realm to replace their current ruler by your favorite one. I've seen it done before.

Rulers are not necessarily sovereigns. In any case you can fight against the game mechanics to impose your will, but that doesn't make having the game mechanics to support it undesirable.

You can control another realm's foreign relation by forcing them to sign a federation with you. That way, they need to follow your foreign relations or you'll automatically declare war on them. Of course, if in time the balance of power shifts, then it's not clear anymore which realm is the vassal: see Astrum/Caerwyn.

And you are also forced to follow their foreign relations or you'll automatically declare war on each other, and on the other federated partners, messing things up.

As for automatic tribute collection, I have nothing against it and I think it would be nice to have, but as has been pointed out I doubt it would solve all the things you want changed.

By itself alone, no. Together with the realm-size limitation yes. Or at least I think it would.

What makes you think that vassals going against their Overlord's will would be more common than Dukes seceding are today?

The messaging system is not limited by duchies, but by realms. If each duchy was a realm you'd have much smaller power groups, and the realm-nationalism we see now would be more duchy-focused.

It is much easier to oppose/hate foreign oppressors/enemies than it is to do it with native ones with which your communication is much greater. In general, naturally.

Check the newly-implemented Duchies map. Think about if all of those were mini-realms on their own, having to interact with each other. How much more dynamic would the politics be?

65

Development / Re: Realm size vs Potential gain

« on: September 21, 2012, 05:44:16 AM »

Is there a specific example you have in mind and would like to see reproduced in BM? From there, it may be easier to work out the mechanism to make it happen.

Think about the HRE or Medieval France in where the ruler did not directly control every territory, but through the feudal system had to share power with many other nobles instead.

My recommendation would be to limit the size of the realms and duchies so that those who want to control much can only do it indirectly. That together with a way to establish a link between the realms that is not annexation but gives some power over them (automatic tribute collection, limit/control their foreign relations, maybe even appoint their ruler) would diminish the amount of nearly constant hegemonic power centers that paralyze the game, giving way to more and smaller ones. And the more people you have in power the less easy it is to reach a consensus, and the more likely to trigger some conflict.

Think about it this way: If one's interest is to hold power being the sole royal duke of the realm is the best way to go, even better than being ruler. Now if you limit the size of the duchy you force the power-seeker to value more the crown, which can hold control over a larger area. If you limit the size of the realms and implement a vassalage-system between them you get a ruler who can control large extensions of lands only through proxies, having to trust them. Then you have a much higher conflict potential.

To simplify it: Rulers are playing something resembling Europa Universalis. I propose Crusader Kings.

You say rulers can already demand tribute and force vassalage? Yes, but why would they do that if they can simply control the lands directly?

66

Development / Re: Realm size vs Potential gain

« on: September 18, 2012, 08:01:49 PM »

Look at Perdan. They made a comeback even after getting their asses beat to pulps. Sometimes you just have to suck it up and wait for the right moment.

I would like to see that happening more often than it does now, that's the idea of the proposal.

I don't think your system allows that to happen. It does not change the fact that:

1) Players don't *want* to be vassals, so won't choose the vassalage option

No, it takes that into account. For a realm to expand it has two options: it either fragments itself or it grows into an Empire with a center of power and tributary states. Regardless of which, both choices create much more unstable situations, making conflicts and war a much more realistic possibility.

2) Players often want to be very punitive, and impose extremely insulting and unpalatable conditions on defeated foes

And the idea is for them to be able to impose insulting and unpalatable conditions (such as the proposed Vassalage is), but avoiding them to be permanent ones (such as 99% of the current proposals are: territorial gains).

3) Players find it almost impossible to accept these extremely punitive conditions

Because there is usually no way to come back from them. If the winning realm eats a large enough chunk of yours you are stuck as an undeclared vassal forever. If it only takes part of your income for as long as you cooperate (because it cannot eat your land nor wants to colonize it), then the option doesn't get that ugly.

Instituting an option that garnishes X% of a realm's income to send to another realm as tribute does not seem to me to be something that will change any of those facts. If Realm A can't take all of Realm B's lands, then it can drive them rogue, and then replace Realm B with Realms C and D (as happened with Ibladesh).

Yes, that is one of the possibilities, which will not always be the one conquerors want. Astrum wanted Caerwyn to remain, just without Golden Farrow. Luria Nova didn't want to destroy Fissoa, just make it a vassal. As that was impossible from current game mechanics after the war they merely turned into "associates" of the Lurian Empire. And so on.

Right now we seem to have only two acceptable options: Total destruction or return to status quo ante bellum with very little modifications. How about we add a third?

67

Development / Re: Realm size vs Potential gain

« on: September 18, 2012, 06:41:00 PM »

I am undecided which opinion to have on this matter. You bring up a very good example, but in my (quite biased) opinion, Morek's success is the result of many repeated mistakes of its neighbours.

And I agree with you, but that's besides the point.

Summerdale could have played it VERY differently, if they suicide that's not Morek's fault, and I wonder therefore whether game mechanics should somehow limit Morek's success when it comes from players choices.

I wouldn't mind discussing this in another thread, but I don't want to go off topic in this one. What I said here was not that Morek should be punished, but that the success of /any/ realm should be limited to a less permanent kind of victory. Regardless of how and why they achieve such victory, or how deserving they are of it.

On the other hand I agree with the fact that there is a concrete lack of game mechanics tools to help rulers give to any wars a more interesting outcome. Again I believe this can be solved by players (see for instance Fontan's fate on EC, they have been given a chance, too bad they wasted it), but some additional game mechanics would definitely be helpful in having interesting peace treaties.

When things could be solved by players but are not is when it is likely that the game mechanics are not providing the right environment for that to happen. I won't comment on Fontan for I am not familiar with their situation.

I however also agree with most of Indirik's remarks, it's not very easy to let players play as vassals and like it.

And that is why realms almost always choose death before surrendering: because the winner's demands will most times be so harsh as to not allow the defeated to ever raise again from quasi-vassal status (why would a conqueror impose any less if they could avoid it?).

What I propose is that we remove the ability of the victors to impose an implicit vassalage out of which there is almost no escape, without naming it, and substitute that for en explicit vassalage that can be escaped from given enough time.

68

Development / Re: Realm size vs Potential gain

« on: September 16, 2012, 07:57:02 PM »

A vassal-like relationship works on the imbalance of power. You cannot have an imbalance of power when you artificially limit the size of realms. The vassal realm won't have to hit the limit to become strong enough to defy the parent realm. If the limit is 10 regions, then even a 7 region realm will probably be strong enough to tell the parent realm to go take a hike.

A 10-region-realm can perfectly oppress several other 7-region-realms with diplomatic skills and differential vassal-tributes between them, specially if it forms an inter-realm federation and whatnot, being more the primus inter pares than the absolute monarch (in relation to the rulers of the vassal states).

Having 27-region-realms is pretty insane and unless strife happens from within them it completely stagnates the region.

69

Other Games / Re: Faery Tale Online

« on: September 16, 2012, 04:51:53 PM »

Not really... it's the only way to really get food by yourself. I was told so by the people I was rp'ing with. So long as you drop the container and use some common sense, like not taking EVERYTHING, then you'll be fine.

Oh, I assumed you were talking about arming yourself. :p
In the third week you can not only feed yourself, though, but also others. Just forage until then, and cook lots of food after.

70

Development / Re: Realm size vs Potential gain

« on: September 16, 2012, 04:25:42 PM »

I don't think vassalage will work, because I don't think most players would willingly choose to allow their realm to be a vassal realm.

The defeated players would have two options: to become a vassal of the conquering realm with chances to regrow in time and be able to challenge it again later or to be destroyed and colonized, like it happens now. The difference is that they would have the possibility of resisting later if they chose the former. While the conquerors could bet on being able to maintain them subjugated if they decide to take the easier route of not destroying and recolonizing everything.

Vassalage works in reality because the ruling nation has a big stick. The vassal gets out of hand, and the master comes over and beats the crap out of them until they knuckle under.

And that is precisely what I want to happen. Right now beatings are quire rare.

This won't be possible in the game. If you intentional put mechanics in to keep realms small, it will be too easy for the vassal to grow in size to rival the ruling realm.

Empires are not made solely by their centers of power. A HRE-like Emperor would also rely on other vassals to keep the most rebellious ones in check. The difference is that he wouldn't have that much power over them to begin with.

And are you seriously worried a realm will not be able to oppress others? When has that ever been a problem?

71

Feature Requests / Re: Speed up region recovery rate

« on: September 16, 2012, 10:45:42 AM »

Becoming a permanent quasi-vassal isn't that bad. From experience, 3 months down the road the vassal status will be as good as forgotten (see: Morek/Aquilegia). It should be somewhat acceptable when faced with the alternative of total destruction.

In the case of Summerdale, they decided they would rather be full vassals to Astrum than quasi-vassals to Morek. Is this better? Maybe - it was their decision.

Some of them decided they would be part of Astrum, and the rest that they would simply emigrate.

Pre-war Summerdale was boring as hell, the same as Libero Empire before and after the war, I suspect. No matter if the vassal status exists or not in theory.

72

Development / Realm size vs Potential gain

« on: September 16, 2012, 10:22:05 AM »

Some recent discussions on how to make wars more attractive made me think on the factors that make conflicts unattractive.

These are two of them:
1) Big boss in the region you don't want to anger, because there is simply zero chance of surviving his/their anger. This may be even the one you want to attack.
2) Lack of personal benefits in waging a war but with risks of concrete losses. Past certain point expansion is only done indirectly, making conservative rulers/dukes prefer peace.

Both refer to the fact that there is a point in where big realms and their rulers start profiting much less from wars than they do for enforcing peace and a status quo. I believe we could attack those problems with some changes of perspective.

First is not allowing incredibly large realms in their current implementation to be feasible, but such has to be balanced according to the island. For example: North-East Dwilight. The success of the Morek Empire has killed the fun of the region. The only war/event that broke the eternal stagnation was Summerdale's suicidal crusade. And it had a very predictable end.

Now this doesn't mean realms should not be allowed to be successful, or we'd solve the first point at the expense of the second one, returning to where we began. What I propose instead is that we change the focus from warfare between realms with either conquest and 100% direct rule or colonization and 100% indirect rule, to a more medieval vassal-liege system of indirect rule but with some game-mechanics ties.

The idea would be to allow realms to be vassals of other realms, but lowering the maximum size any of those can achieve by themselves only. Being realm B's vassal would cost realm A a % of its total tax income, its ruler income, or some other form of revenue. The point of this is to create a hierarchy between the small feuds in where several are in the less comfortable position of inferiority regarding the dominating realm, which should not be in itself excessively stronger than the individual dominated ones. But being careful not to allow the mechanically-imposed tribute to be so taxing as to effectively making eventual opposition of the center of power impossible.

This would work on two fronts:
First it would make the dominating center of power a more fluid one, less rock solid. A small realm cannot hope to take on a large one, and causing it to break from inside is almost impossible when the positions are directly appointed by the ruler, the game mechanics promote a realm-focused nationalism, and the message system completely benefits the intra-realm communication. But if instead of absolutist France we are talking about the Holy Roman Empire conflict with the Emperor is much more feasible.
Secondly it would avoid the other side of the coin: lack of motivation for the rulers of such large empires to keep expanding. Past certain point they would have the option to destroy a realm they cannot keep and start a colony, which mechanics-wise are largely independent. If they could keep that kind of vassal-liege relationship increasing their own gold income, even if only slightly, but at the same time not being able to have so much direct control of the immediate vassals forming their Empire I believe we would have the best of both worlds.

Thoughts?

73

Feature Requests / Re: Speed up region recovery rate

« on: September 16, 2012, 09:37:54 AM »

I don't like this.  We're trying to make "winning" and "losing" more vague, so people can say to themselves "we didn't lose we just made some temporary arrangement".

Unfortunately this is usually not possible. There are several reasons. Among them is that past certain demands the realm cannot really recover something resembling the previous geopolitical power, no matter for how long it stays at peace rebuilding, and will have to choose between becoming a permanent quasi-vassal and fighting to the death. Unfortunately the former is rarely fun, so people go with the latter. And that is because war demands don't only cost current power, but also hurt potential one.

Examples: Summerdale, Libero and Morek. The one you referred to, which I assume were Arcachon and Arcaea. Caerwyn and Astrum/SA. And so on.

74

Dwilight / Re: There are rich pirates in D'Hara

« on: September 15, 2012, 11:29:50 PM »

which brings me to my next question that I should have asked first what is in the risks compared to other nobles?

Priests only have a very small chance of being robbed if they are not in their realm (maybe worse if in rogue or hostile regions, but not sure) and they carry large amounts of gold with them.

Warriors and Courtiers without units risk losing what little cash gold they have all the time.

75

Other Games / Re: Faery Tale Online

« on: September 15, 2012, 10:56:18 PM »

look for amphora's, crates, and things of that sort in the objects list. hover over the magnifying glass, and you'll see what's inside them. Pick them up, and click on the shopping cart by them when they're in the inventory, and select what things you want to be in your inventory. Then drop the crate/amphora/etc.

That's a shortcut to getting slain.