106
Other Games / Orcs Must Die
« on: December 12, 2011, 07:04:17 PM »
Really, they must.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
107
Other Games / LandGrab
« on: November 30, 2011, 05:44:44 AM »
http://sandbox.landgrab.net/map_contest/others.html
I found this while googling. Mah old Beluaterra map!
I found this while googling. Mah old Beluaterra map!
108
Beluaterra / Annaej
« on: November 30, 2011, 12:55:31 AM »
After leading monsters against human realms, she made herself a new home in Thalmarkin, the only realm not to have sided with an invader.
Fascinating. I never thought of actually looking up on her, never would have thought she'd have been accepted anywhere.
Guess Thalmarkin wasn't all that pure, after all.
Fascinating. I never thought of actually looking up on her, never would have thought she'd have been accepted anywhere.
Guess Thalmarkin wasn't all that pure, after all.
109
Beluaterra / Sint selling out
« on: November 29, 2011, 02:41:01 AM »
We should place bets on how long until Sint sells out to the daimons. 
110
Feature Requests / Fixed price caravans
« on: November 22, 2011, 05:03:21 AM »
I have often had trouble dealing with trade because I wanted a high public price so as to tempt the random traders, but while wanting to maintain the ability to buy food cheaper. I have had many lords saying "I would be more than happy to sell food to you cheaper, will you lower the price?". However, I can't, as it could screw other inbound caravans and make them turn back.
As it is, caravans going to sell food have a minimum sell price, but not a maximum sell price, which really complicates and limits things when it comes to treaties and agreements that concern food. I would be really nice if lords would have a checkbox when sending out food so that it sells at the specified price, even if the region would be willing to pay more.
'cause as it is, I'm paying food from some people at a higher price than both of us are willing to agree for. This truly limits the potential of having treaties with some realm where one will offer cheap food in return for something else (if anything). The alternative is that I send caravans to their regions, but then the risk is that someone else picks up that food before me, as they can't reserve that food for my caravans.
As it is, caravans going to sell food have a minimum sell price, but not a maximum sell price, which really complicates and limits things when it comes to treaties and agreements that concern food. I would be really nice if lords would have a checkbox when sending out food so that it sells at the specified price, even if the region would be willing to pay more.
'cause as it is, I'm paying food from some people at a higher price than both of us are willing to agree for. This truly limits the potential of having treaties with some realm where one will offer cheap food in return for something else (if anything). The alternative is that I send caravans to their regions, but then the risk is that someone else picks up that food before me, as they can't reserve that food for my caravans.
111
Feature Requests / Combat should take place after rogue spawn and before rogue damage
« on: November 21, 2011, 06:25:03 AM »
It's really annoying whenever these hordes spawn in heavily-fortified regions and do significant damage while the army doesn't engage. Especially if they go on to damage the walls, which are costly to repair and which you'd figure would be where your army is, ready to defend.
112
This Forum / nav bar
« on: October 10, 2011, 07:47:34 AM »
Why is it gone again? The one at the top with the links to the game, the wiki, and the bugtracker that is.
113
Helpline / Distance from the capital
« on: October 08, 2011, 06:24:48 AM »Quote
Drinilla: With 8 new births and immigrations, population has been restored to former levels. Some people consider the tax rate as too high. Distance from the capital causes anarchists to prosper. Loyalty to your realm falls 4%. Rumours speak of increased unrest.
Is this based on realm size? We never got this before. We did TO a new region recently, though.
Drinilla is also just 3 regions away from the capital...
114
BM General Discussion / Strategic Secessions
« on: October 06, 2011, 05:16:18 AM »The geography of the realm is just totally not going to work, it is both too large and too thin. Maybe if it dissolved into 3-4 realms, all within an empire (similar to what Luria is going to do), we could keep being a powerhouse, but otherwise it is going to come to its knees the second a decent group of realms decide to fight us.
That sounds a lot like strategic secessions... If this wouldn't be, I have a hard time seeing what would.
115
Feature Requests / Donate food
« on: September 30, 2011, 08:09:39 AM »
It'd be really nice if people with caravans could just donate food to whatever region they are in. Sometimes, you are travelling through rogue regions that are starving, or wanting to take them over, and all of your army will starve unless everyone has caravans with them. If someone has a bunch of food, only his unit will be fed, this won't be shared.
Usually, however, these regions won't need much food to feed themselves. As it is, you can't feed them until you both take them over and then appoint a lord. In many realms, you must elect him. That's 5 days of starvation, meaning the army will decay AND the region will hate you.
It'd be nice if people with caravans (traders or not) could just give some of their food away to a region, without any income from it. Would help prevent a whole lot of headaches many people have, and would be a step towards making TOs a bit easier as they used to be.
Usually, however, these regions won't need much food to feed themselves. As it is, you can't feed them until you both take them over and then appoint a lord. In many realms, you must elect him. That's 5 days of starvation, meaning the army will decay AND the region will hate you.
It'd be nice if people with caravans (traders or not) could just give some of their food away to a region, without any income from it. Would help prevent a whole lot of headaches many people have, and would be a step towards making TOs a bit easier as they used to be.
116
Feature Requests / Tortured nobles to get the report
« on: September 26, 2011, 10:44:07 PM »
Tortured nobles should get a copy of the torture report, so that they may know what their enemies have learnt. After all, you'd know what information you leaked under the pain.
117
Helpline / Assigning knights to an army
« on: September 26, 2011, 05:59:47 PM »
Where do we do this in the new estates system? I don't see it anywhere.
118
Feature Requests / New option for bankers: check tax levels
« on: September 15, 2011, 05:24:24 AM »
It would be useful to be able to know what tax rates every region in the realm is running at any time. Would fit well for the banker to have the ability to check all regions in list, so that he may guide certain lords if they are having trouble deciding upon a proper tax rate.
119
BM General Discussion / New Estates and Lordly Protection
« on: September 14, 2011, 12:24:37 AM »
So marks are leaving. Sure, no problem there, they were rather pointless in most cases anyways.
And so is the protection from bans for having 3 good marks, and therefore I suppose the possibility to force a duke to secede at 3 bad marks?
While I can understand where you are coming from, I must say I liked the balance that was created by the lordly protection. It was a hinderence to the judge, but did not leave him without any options at all (the only problem I had with it, however, was that good marks stayed regardless of what happens to the lord, I believe, and that therefore one knight could have been given over 9000 good marks over the years and would have therefore never been possible to ban even if the lord wanted so).
The reason I liked it was because it wasn't a restriction decided upon by game mechanics, such as when we couldn't loot allies or how traders may only hire mercenary troops. It was the result of someone higher in the hierarchy deciding that he was willing to risk himself for his vassal, therefore pitting the judge against the lord instead of the knight who has way less contacts and means to defend himself against wrongful accusations or radical judgements. With the lordly protection, his liege could easily say "yes, he might deserve punishment, but nothing more than X, or you'll have to pass through me", offering a more moderate stance in his conflict against the judge. However, for most lords, this would basically mean drawing a huge target on yourself and hoping you stand well enough among the other nobles so that if he does take a shot at you they'll have his throat for it. It allows more experienced players to cover for newbs against unruly judges, and for manipulative or ambitious lords to protect their trouble-making cronies until they are ready for something bigger.
I think it was a good mechanic, as it allowed for some cases where the judge would have to pick on someone closer to their caliber if they want to use their full power. It created more opportunities for conflict and tensions, if you ask me, and a modified version would be a nice addition to the new system. Like, say, a proclamation of protection that takes two days to take effect and two to cancel? Or instantaneous?
It also brings the question about forcing the duke to secede. This too I believe was a good thing, and unless an alternative equivalent is put in place, will disappear much like lordly protection.
And so is the protection from bans for having 3 good marks, and therefore I suppose the possibility to force a duke to secede at 3 bad marks?
Quote
[14:11] <+Sacha> so no more invulnerability from judges from getting 3 good marks?
[14:12] <@_Tom_> Sacha: No invulnerability. One of the changes in this system is that we have a lot fewer game-mechanics restrictions and rely more on players checking what happens to them. So you can resize a knights estate or kick him out and the game doesn't stop you, but unless he's a pussy, there should be consequences.
[14:21] <@_Tom_> Ramiel: Yes, there is - but not a game mechanic. One change is that I hope that added flexibility will also make you the players pass laws, rules, regulations that you enforce yourselves. I find laws that can be broken and thus have consequences a lot more interesting than a "you can't do this" message from the game engine.
[14:21] <@_Tom_> So basically, the idea is that a lord should stand up for his knights. But he has to do it himself instead of hiding behind game-mechanics.
While I can understand where you are coming from, I must say I liked the balance that was created by the lordly protection. It was a hinderence to the judge, but did not leave him without any options at all (the only problem I had with it, however, was that good marks stayed regardless of what happens to the lord, I believe, and that therefore one knight could have been given over 9000 good marks over the years and would have therefore never been possible to ban even if the lord wanted so).
The reason I liked it was because it wasn't a restriction decided upon by game mechanics, such as when we couldn't loot allies or how traders may only hire mercenary troops. It was the result of someone higher in the hierarchy deciding that he was willing to risk himself for his vassal, therefore pitting the judge against the lord instead of the knight who has way less contacts and means to defend himself against wrongful accusations or radical judgements. With the lordly protection, his liege could easily say "yes, he might deserve punishment, but nothing more than X, or you'll have to pass through me", offering a more moderate stance in his conflict against the judge. However, for most lords, this would basically mean drawing a huge target on yourself and hoping you stand well enough among the other nobles so that if he does take a shot at you they'll have his throat for it. It allows more experienced players to cover for newbs against unruly judges, and for manipulative or ambitious lords to protect their trouble-making cronies until they are ready for something bigger.
I think it was a good mechanic, as it allowed for some cases where the judge would have to pick on someone closer to their caliber if they want to use their full power. It created more opportunities for conflict and tensions, if you ask me, and a modified version would be a nice addition to the new system. Like, say, a proclamation of protection that takes two days to take effect and two to cancel? Or instantaneous?
It also brings the question about forcing the duke to secede. This too I believe was a good thing, and unless an alternative equivalent is put in place, will disappear much like lordly protection.
120
Other Games / Cossacks: Back to War
« on: September 05, 2011, 06:54:42 PM »
If anyone plays it, I'd be more than willing to test my skills against fellow human players. Bots are just too easy on random maps despite their insane cheating (because of the poor AI).