Messages

7666

Helpline / Re: Investment

« on: June 08, 2011, 06:19:34 AM »

My family are predominately farmers, so while I can see where you are coming from, most of us rural folk accept that there must be some sort of limit to things like water/space/required gases and nutriments. While we have advanced fertilizers in the past, there is no reason to expect that there is ALWAYS a more efficient form of fertilize to develop or that the the world has infinite capacity to produce that fertiliser or water for that matter. While a single farm or group could conviceably continue the trend as you describe, it would more then likely be at the expense of other agricultural areas, as you acquire their supply of water and nutrient supplements. By the way, the world already produces enough food to solve world hunger, the issue is actually two fold

• Rich western nations spend a proportionally larger amount of useful land on products that produce lower energy/nutrient outcomes, such as meat
• Many nations destroy produce/store it or otherwise deny its movement onto the markets in order to preserve a market price point that they want to sell at.

A smaller effect is the over eating that is prevalent in our western world. All those extra calories that expand our bellies, potentially come at the cost of food that could have fed the starving.
[/list]

Not all lands are equally inhabited. As far as the economy is concerned, there's no problem with draining uninhabited lands to supply the inhabited ones. I'm not making a moral statement, nor saying anything about feeding the earth's modern or future population. Nor am I saying investments should triple a region's food productions.

All I am saying is that the argument that it is not realistic that a temporary increase in funding (an investment) would result in a temporary increase in productivity (more food being produced) is completely fallacious. It would most certainly be realistic that food production could go over 100%. Just as realistic as investments increasing gold output, really. Some people don't think it would make sense for production of food to ever rise above 100%. That normal production *is* the maximum possible production, and that no amount of investments could increase this. That's just not how the world works.

And the limit you speak of is financial, not theoretical. It's not realistic to invest past a certain point, because the reward becomes negative. You could still do it, and seek to improve production as much as possible, but you'd just go bankrupt before seeing exactly how far you can take it. Financial limits are movable, and so things you'd consider past the limit today may not be tomorrow, just as many things they considered past that limit before are now the norm.

7667

Helpline / Re: Investment

« on: June 08, 2011, 05:55:12 AM »

If we are able to invest in radical new technology to improve our rural, then the gain from investment would be permanent though. If we then continue the line of thinking that there exist no maximum limit to food production (thanks for solving world hunger by the way) then we can constantly improve our regions to the point were they can provide the required food. Sure diminished returns would make that very expensive but if you take a very long term approach, or can't source food for import then people may well want to throw cash into making super rurals.

The thing we were trying to point out is that for the purpose of the game, rural technology is stagnate and can't be advanced further within the time frame, and in abstract terms everyone is assumed to have access to the best possible practise at 100%. Perhaps Tom would consider changing this, I'm not sure its ever been brought up.

You guys clearly don't understand the history or technical of agriculture all too much. Production can *always* be increased, but that doesn't mean that the marginal cost following the investments required to increase production are actually worth it. The more you invest, the lower the reward/$, especially at the bigger amounts.

If all rural fields were run like our western fields are, then hell yea, you'd say goodbye to world hunger. However, our insanely-subsidized agriculture is EXPENSIVE AS HELL. Why doesn't a crop field in rural Mexico yield as much as one owned by a big company in the states? It's not because the technology doesn't exist, it's because that mexican farmer can't afford it.

An investment is like buying a tractor. If the extra income you make on selling the extra products this tractor will allow you to produce doesn't equal the amount you paid on the tractor, then you won't be investing in new tractors for long and your old ones will rust and degrade. This is precisely how in-game investments are handled: production is increased to higher levels because of a one-time spending, but if that investment isn't recurring then production eventually returns to normal levels.

You can always have more efficient systems, regardless of available technology at your era, because the normal farm doesn't have access to infinite resources (quite the opposite, really). Your argument about plants is invalid. So what if x tomato plant has a maximum capacity of y pounds per year? Be creative and cross it with other species. You might be surprised by the outcome. You think all these specialized high-production breeds and species occurred naturally? Farmers did crossing experiments for millenniums to always come up with better and better species. With proper founding, one could afford to either do these experiments himself, or pay himself a trip and a few seeds from people who did it themselves. Need more water? The more cash you have, the more pipes you can afford to bring it from farther away, if needed. Need more nutrients? The more cash you have, the more you can import fertilizers from elsewhere.

Production will always grow with the more investment you make. As you go towards infinite investment, it will get closer and closer to a Z value, but it will never reach it. As such, one can keep investing to always increase their production, as nobody has infinite resources to spend. There is a clear difference between this and "we can raise food production to infinite", which you seem to believe I'm saying.

7668

Dwilight / Re: The Zuma

« on: June 08, 2011, 05:37:04 AM »

Really? If someone snubbed my noble I would certainly consider teaching them the proper respect due my station.

Except it isn't "someone". It's "something". And a "something" that clearly cannot be defeated. One can easily be both too proud and too pragmatic to engage in a battle he knows he will lose.

7669

BM General Discussion / Re: Sharing lords gold, whats up with that?

« on: June 08, 2011, 05:34:57 AM »

...i didn't see many people advocating food trade or taxing cities heavier XD

i think the issue in riombara is 2 folds.

more nobles in cities combined than rural/town. tax/food benefits cities, so all the more reason not to vote for changes that'll hit the cities.

no one tries to starve cities either though they can't really, as there's no 1 duke to rally around to secede for example.. it's unlikely to change

Geography plays a huge role. Riombara isn't close to any food buyers, so lords don't have anything else to do with their food either. A completely different example would be the lords of western Dwilight: if their own dukes won't pay them for their food, then they know (or should know) that D'Hara *will*, and at a considerable price. D'Hara is therefore making a pressure on all western food markets, driving food prices up regardless of where it is sent. I can't say to what extent this is actually going on right now, though, but I suspect it will only increase. After all, D'Hara mostly deals with regions directly, and not realms, as rurals often feel a lack of love from higher up.

In D'Hara, rurals and townslands are also paid the maximum allowed amount for their food. While this does indeed redistribute food to where the majority of nobles now currently resides, the main objective was to incite profit-seeking lords to maximize their food outputs for their own sakes, therefore helping the cities out.

For this, though, D'Hara is unique, and I'm becoming more and more interested by how food is actively transforming the realm and activities around it.

7670

Dwilight / Re: The Zuma

« on: June 08, 2011, 05:27:15 AM »

And if there continued unwilliness to respond is part of a greater plan? Say a plan to enrage our characters and force some sort of conflict that WE initiate with them for a change?

That'd just be dumb. Our characters won't attack the Zuma because of how mind-numbing the mere thought of it is, considering how overwhelmingly strong they are.

And the frustration is more OOC than IC.

7671

Development / Re: Treaty friction is boring

« on: June 08, 2011, 05:24:47 AM »

Just a correction on Nothoi.  It -has- a religion, just not one for the common masses or one that is acceptable to anyone else right now.

I was hoping the blood cult would set up camp, but since it's folded there is no in-game mechanic for secret cults (maybe a guild?).  Everyone from Bara'Khur knows what insane cult I'm talking about.  It's not in the wiki or listed anywhere, but rest assured there is at least one person in Beleuterra trying to cause a fifth invasion, though from a different source (sort of, maybe, depends on if all the undead come from the same place).

Not going to keep that listed on the religion page though, might make diplomacy tricky.

"Good day sir, I see you're trying to destroy the world, would you like to be allies?"

"Oh no, just purify mankind through the perfection of undeath, but sure, until my mistress returns from the grave to lead her enternal minions we can be the best of friends.  Unfortunately, you're sure to try to stop her reclaiming her throne, so then I'll have to murder you and everyone you know because you have not been made cleansed through alchemical ritual."

Yeah.  Not good PR.

I had a long reply to this. And then the server told me "!@#$ you", and I lost it. These "too many server requests" are really getting annoying...

Basically, I said that I had the intention to found a new religion, but decided it wasn't worth it. Religions are huge money pits, and one can compensate for the lack of one through a variety of cheap and low-effort policies and actions. As such, I'm quite comfortable working with "unofficial" religions from now and, and even making theocracies around them if necessary.

If the devs can't be bothered to make religions worth it, I won't be bothered to try to do it myself anymore. Priests are more of a liability than a boon, really, as just a few days without one and all your investments are gone, permanently. Or some elder leaving at an inopportune time without properly planning his replacement, and the religion goes in chaos. Why even bother? Unofficial religions have no risk of loss, no costs, and most of the gains with only marginal drawbacks.

7672

Feature Requests / Re: Limiting unjustified diplomatic actions

« on: June 08, 2011, 04:58:42 AM »

Alliances need to be maintained, and I don't mean by that stupid treaty friction. If you don't make your ally care for the alliance as much as you do, then don't go expecting much of it.

7673

Beluaterra / Re: What did we lose? What did we gain? 4th Inv aftermath

« on: June 08, 2011, 04:55:48 AM »

I think you're the one missing the point a little bit. That's your own insiders perspective. Iltaran's touched upon the truth of things, but let me expand. Most Beluaterran outsiders see/saw the Blood Cult as an influential faction in Enweil. This was helped very much by the actions of Mesh. Indeed, when I actually got one of my characters to Mesh and became ruler there, I was totally unprepared for the strength of feeling on the matter. They hated the Cult.

I'm not disputing that the Blood Cult was powerful/well spread/influential etc. But over a period of years Mesh and others very successfully smeared the Blood Cult. The Blood Cult itself did little to help it's cause. Consider things like founding a theocracy in Athol Margos during an Enweilian campaign in Riombara. Plenty linked the Cult and Enweil together.

You mentioned Fronen, but they don't/didn't really have any strong personalities at all. The Blood Cult might have been active there, but you didn't hear about it or come across any of it. When there was the big Grehk/Fronen war Mesh was moaning about Cultists there but no-one cared as you hardly knew they existed. No-one listened because to most minds, the Cult was already one with Enweil.

It's always been the House of Chenier whose name has been in various states of repute/disrepute as a Cultist throughout Beluaterra. And where has the House of Chenier been active most in Beluaterra? For how long has a Chenier been either General/Ruler of Enweil? In that sense, it's always come across very strongly that the Cult has a big power base in Enweil and that Enweil happily supports Cultists.

You can say what you want, but my Beluaterra char has definitely spent the last four years or so associating the Blood Cult most strongly with Enweil.

I'd bring a few nuances to the interesting points you bring forth.

First, the cultists in Enweil wanted you to hate Enweil. Secondly, many who hated Enweil wanted you to hate the Cult. It's a conflict (factions of) both parties wanted. In the end, before the invasion, the Blood Cult had managed to sway the whole continent into a huge multi-front war, which basically consisted of the anti-cult realms (and their friends) and those more tolerant or supportive of the Cult. And this was done because it was considered that the second faction was stronger, and that so after a long and destructive war, the anti-cult factions would be decimated. It wasn't a lopsided conflict, but the conflict on most fronts was either favorable to us or in a stalemate, so it was calculated that those who win their wars could then be re-directed at tie-breakers on other fronts.

That's why Fronen didn't show up in the debate as much. Their government was much less vocally militant, but for the greater part of the Cult's history, that's where all the elders were concentrated. When the Cultist priests tore down the Republic of Fwuvoghor near the end, most of them were based in Fronen, knowing full well that RoF could not afford to declare war on Fronen (as it would give an excuse for its military to come in) and that therefore they could operate with impunity. If you read up the Cult's RP archives, you'll see most of the radical stuff is from Fronenites. Or mostly everyone other than Enweilians, who were generally rather tame.

And the Athol Margos colony was actually established by the prophet who had, until then, lived in Melhed for a very long time. It was a secession from Melhed, and maintained awkward links with it for the duration of its short life. Really, the Blood Cult in Enweil was just 1 noble for the longest time.

7674

Beluaterra / Re: the conflict looming

« on: June 08, 2011, 04:43:52 AM »

Well, I can give one information from within Riombara - believe it or not, they do not want a conflict with Enweil. If they would, they would have attacked Enweil weeks ago - Riombara was basically stable and (apart from a few infrastructure buildings) did not need any real growth to be ready for war. While Enweil was beset by monsters and still had a long way to go to become stable. Riombara was very much aware at that time that they were in a position of considerable strength in relation to Enweil (roughly twice their army size, smaller territory while having a larger income, less dark borderlands) - a difference which they knew would vanish within 2-4 months (depending on monster attacks). They chose peace with and helping Enweil. Riombara is basically waiting if Enweil attacks them or not - hoping its the latter.

It would be a nice change.. though I am sure that Chenier has an explanation all on his own for that...which basically revolves around Riombara being both too strong and too weak while still being highly aggressive and their help being nonexistent, not asked for, plus with Riombara  not receiving _any_ attacks from the borderlands it still needs to be premetively attacked by Enweil on a peace mission...grin.

Riombara is indeed being complacent... Doesn't mean we don't resent it for taking Fwuvoghor from us. Our recovery would likely be going a lot better if we had that city back. Ete City was also a big part of our economy, and that's not coming back... I wouldn't expect Enweil to go knocking on Riombara's door any time soon.

So while Fwuvoghor is a major irritant and old insults are not forgotten, Riombara *did* help (and most importantly, didn't exploit our position of weakness) and vengeance for perceived ills (the previous war was to get Delvin's head for Katia's murder, which was never achieved) is not feasible, so Enweil will likely maintain the peace as well. I see no love for Riombara, but not calls for conflict either.

7675

Dwilight / Re: The Zuma

« on: June 08, 2011, 04:35:06 AM »

Well yeah, if they are deliberately meant to be all mysterious then sure. But if that's the case then why the hell did they originally interact so much with humans and spend a lot of time engaging in RP with pretty much anyone who tried to speak to them? People went there and found out a LOT about their culture and customs. Now, if they suddenly have a change of heart then sure, that's reasonable.

But if so then a simple one line in an RP when they attacked D'Hara would have sufficed. For example: "We no longer permit inferior beings to question us."

Or if they were always capricious and inconsistent then "It is not for inferior beings to question the motivations of the Zuma."

Because at the moment that's what the root cause of all the griping is. Inconsistency. If these are going to be capricious, inconstant creatures then fine - just let us know. If they're going to be the big bogeyman then fine as well. If they're going to be friendly and peaceful then fine as well. But they should either be consistent or we should be tossed a single, solitary bone to let us know that they're inconsistent and can change their minds at the drop of a pin. Either option would be interesting for the game as long as we have even a faint clue as to what is going on.

At least on Beluaterra we had a rough idea what to expect - slaughter and disaster but at least it's consistent.

The Zuma on the other hand, currently seem to be in a permanent state of schizophrenia.

What was probably done in order to create a feeling of "mystery" ended up creating a feeling of nothing but lameness. I was the ambassador who dined with Vates in their halls, and hosted their ambassador Custos in ours. The latter wasn't as warm as the former, but not cold either. What was the lamest was that we could never get any answers. When we followed them back to their homelands, we never got a response. They acted as if there was nobody there. In one RP, they have a full city with a flowering civilization (albeit somewhat primitive), and in the next, nobody's there. That's lame. I also wouldn't have expected to get all my answers if mystery is what they wanted, but ignoring outright just gave out the wrong message.

The message sent wasn't "we must be careful when dealing with them, they are unpredictable", but rather "it's not even worth dealing with them, they can't ever be arsed to give any form of reply except when they already feel like it, even if only in RP and not as IC interactions".

Because you WANT a explanation. You want the answer handed to you when the intent would appear to be to make us think about all possible answers and make the IG effort to try and establish the truth. To me its like saying at the beginning of the invasions that we as "players" want to know the general path of the invasion so that we are not as confused as our characters.

No. Sucks to not know why they did it, but that's not what was asked. What was asked was that if they come all the way down to loot us, that they at least bother to react to us. And that they entertain us with some RPs when we arrived in their capital, regardless of the answers granted (or not). Not that they simply go AFK and that we be denied any RP opportunity.

I honestly don't really care why they did it anymore. I just find that the way they did it really sucked.

7676

Dwilight / Re: Madina needs YOU!

« on: June 08, 2011, 04:19:58 AM »

Sure seems like Fissoa values it's principles

And I value your food.

7677

Dwilight / Re: Cordatus Bestiarium

« on: June 08, 2011, 04:19:09 AM »

I know there is discussion going on in Dwilight university about the new religion in Asylon, but as I am not currently part of DU i don't know what they are saying. Here is the religion page so far: http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Cordatus_Bestiarium consider it a rough draft to be built on by followers of the religion.

More of a "Heh, some border people took a liking to daimons" than anything. You could perhaps turn it into more than that if you joined up and promoted or talked about it, but not that much discussion going on in the university over that. Daimons are a subject most people are better off ignoring.

7678

Dwilight / Re: What is and what should be SMA?

« on: June 08, 2011, 04:03:01 AM »

I believe the date range Tom mentioned goes from 700 to 1300. The latter date may be off (1500? I can find it again tomorrow), but I do remember the earlier date specifically. So any justification for things that are reasonable should demonstrate to have been applicable during that specific time period. No justifications of "The Greeks did it this way in 300AD" or "the Romans had this in 300BC" unless it was still being done by 700 AD. It also means nothing that was invented in 1585, let alone 1985. And even if it occurred in 300 AD and then again in 1800 AD, if it didn't happen during 700-1300, then it's out. So no Roman war chariots.

A lot of BM feudalism or encouraged behaviour fitted more 1500 europe than 1300 or prior. BM's a mix of many things, and isn't true to any one precise historical period or society. Bits and pieces from western european society between 900 and 1500 mostly, I'd say. Borderline 1600 even, perhaps, for some elements.

7679

Feature Requests / Re: Navies?

« on: June 07, 2011, 02:28:53 AM »

Well, not a whole army. A single unit... the feature I proposed would prevent moving large amounts of troops, of course.

At least you cannot say it's unrealistic for a noble to hire a ship and crew, and ask them to drop him off anywhere along the coast, possibly taking along an infantry unit.

Sure you can. If the unit is 4 archers, then maybe not... But equipment is heavy, and cumbersome. If you couldn't find a place to dock, you had to send paddle boats to land. Horses don't fit, and the boats of the times weren't big enough to have 10 paddle boats on them. Consider all of the natural harbours as having been already settled by those port cities.

As for without a unit... well, coding restrictions, what can one say?

7680

Development / Re: Treaty friction is boring

« on: June 07, 2011, 02:19:41 AM »

Oh, in the right situation, you can.  I've killed about 90% of the population of a region in one go -- get your followers to rise up when they can't possibly succeed, and most get killed.  If you have 99% followers and good oratory, then. . . .

If you have little following, then yours will die, and the others will remain. If you have strong following, then yours will survive, and the others will die. If you have as much following as dissent, then a part of both will die, but I have never seen proportions to indicate this could lead to 50% casualties in one go. It tended to result in more followers turning pagans then heretics being slain.