Messages

31

Helpline / Re: Looting Feedback

« on: January 12, 2015, 11:21:54 PM »

More interestingly, I could envision an actual letter of marque being issued to a specific army, granting that army permission to loot in a specific realm, and returning some percentage of the takings to the Crown.

This would not require a declaration of war, just a lack of a peace treaty. It would also not permit any takeovers, just looting.

This sounds a lot like the scrapped new diplomacy system that allowed narrow declarations of war - such as declarations that would only allow looting, or declarations that automatically expired once a limited objective was achieved.

I liked that system except for the treaty friction part. The taxation part is really not necessary for it to work.

32

BM General Discussion / Re: Seasons

« on: January 07, 2015, 11:13:22 PM »

If seasons were everywhere, I would believe this. They are not and this disaster does not routinely happen.

I will be frank. The food game is in theory a wonderful thing. The reality is most players do whatever they can to ignore it. We can talk about all the theoretical things it introduces, like raiding fertile lands to bring a realm to its knees, however how often do we see it? It is possible, but in most cases not practical. I am proposing the review of these systems because the hypothetical situations they add to the game are simply not being seen frequently, thus the complications they bring must be weighed against not what they COULD bring to the game, but what they actually bring to the game.

I'm speaking as someone who plays a banker in a realm with seasons, and I think I would not like it as much in a realm without seasons. This does not mean it's impossible to manage food without seasons, only that it seems to me the interactions food brings are more interesting when seasons exist.

Also, I was considering the opportunity to remove the season mechanics but to keep the rest of the food game as it is. A complete removal of the food game would be an entirely different matter. While I personally enjoy it, I can see a rationale for removing it entirely.

33

BM General Discussion / Re: Seasons

« on: January 07, 2015, 10:55:57 PM »

But with seasons, a well-timed raid on your realm will starve it when it otherwise wouldn't have.

Well, that's a good thing. Well-timed raids should be more devastating than randomly-timed ones.

Or a drought in the wrong regions at the wrong time. Seasonality also increases rot and bring a greater need for investing in granaries.

Droughts are one thing I wouldn't be sorry to see disappear. They're completely unpredictable, so unplayable. They'll just kick you in the nuts when you need it the least for no good reason.

34

BM General Discussion / Re: Seasons

« on: January 07, 2015, 10:29:38 PM »

Yes, which would actually lead to them either needing to rectify it, or they would collapse and let other realms destroy them or remove land they can not feed, or sacrifice them to rogue. That is in my opinion preferable to a constant cycle of JUST scrapping by and doing nothing else.

With seasons, if you're in trouble you're only in trouble for a short time, then you have three months where you can direct your attention somewhere else and attempt to rectify the problem before it reoccurs.

Without seasons, you can't do that. Your realm is collapsing right now, and it won't give you a breather. You don't have time to go declare a war to grab more rural regions and bring them up to shape so they produce enough food to feed your city - it will have starved before that.

35

BM General Discussion / Re: Seasons

« on: January 07, 2015, 09:55:33 PM »

Personally I would prefer to see realms concentrate on power struggles and wars rather then sit idle because they know they will have troubles over winter and spend much of the rest of the year trying to repair regions.

My point was that seasons help in that regard. A realm which currently has problems only in winter would have problems all year long if food production was equalized.

36

BM General Discussion / Re: Character Classes

« on: January 07, 2015, 04:35:47 PM »

One could then combine the three non-combat classes of Courtier, Diplomat and Trader. The Courtier would be the base with equal gain in all skills. Diplomats gain a boost in oratory, Traders gain a boost in Trading and the new administrator would gain a boost in Bureaucracy.

One could consider something similar with the combatant classes. Combine Warrior, Cavalier, and Hero (minus the mortality). Warrior is the base with equal gain in all skills. Have three specializations: Cavalier boosts Jousting, Hero boosts Swordfighting and the new Officer specialization that boosts Leadership.

Then make mortality something all players can chose to opt in on - not just heroes.

Priests would just stay priests I guess which would kind of suck for the Priest/Diplomats out there.

Infiltrator could be a subclass for anything except for priests.

I think I like that!

37

Beluaterra / Re: The War.

« on: January 07, 2015, 03:15:42 PM »

P.S.: Actually, reading over that thread I wonder... what happened to the player of Sassan? Can't find him on the character list anymore. Anyone in Rio that can fill me in?

He paused, came back for a while but not as active as before, and he autopaused again a few weeks ago.

38

BM General Discussion / Re: Character Classes

« on: January 07, 2015, 03:12:36 PM »

Something I have thought about for a while is to get rid of subclass and have instead specialisations. The specialisation in general would not add more abilities, but boost the relevant ones. So as you say a courtier would have the non-combat skills and be able to fulfil all those roles, with a small advantage in their area of specialisation.

I can see how you could merge Courtier, Trader and Diplomat into a single non-combat (sub)class with specializations.

However, priests and infiltrators maybe should remain as separate choices, for both RP reasons and gameplay reasons. They have a much different feel to them.

39

BM General Discussion / Re: Seasons

« on: January 07, 2015, 02:23:01 AM »

As far as looting goes, there are two options that only show up in summer and fall that do extra food damage.

So that's why they appear and disappear! I never linked the two.

40

BM General Discussion / Re: Seasons

« on: January 07, 2015, 12:11:29 AM »

I like seasons.

I like that travel is different from time to time. I don't necessarily like that it consistently longer everywhere, especially with the lower density and larger realms we have now this can be hindrance. But I like for example that mountain regions are passable in summer become impassable in winter. It makes the game-play change on a slower time scale and allows for better strategy ("we can't spare an army as our flank would be exposed, but we'll never be invaded in winter from that side so we can prepare an attack then!").

I think it would be better if there were some things to balance game-play options in winter. For example, rivers could be easier to cross when frozen, or looting options could be different as there are no fields to burn.

I like that the food consumption becomes cyclic. This means that realms with a small food deficit only have to figure out a way through that small amount of time in the spring. If you can manage to get food during this 1-2 week where your stores are empty through buying or looting, you'll be fine when summer comes and you'll have a full 3-month in RL to find a solution before hunger appears again. When there are no seasons, the deficit is smaller but it will eat consistently at your stores until you have to let a city starve.

41

Dwilight / Re: How to help Dwilight.

« on: January 06, 2015, 08:21:43 PM »

I was having a lot of fun when I played in D'Hara. Eventually my character died, as characters doing fun things sometimes do. I joined Luria because it looked fun too. And it is! And I'm sure D'Hara still is!

They're all fun places to be. People play wherever they like.

42

Beluaterra / Re: The War.

« on: December 09, 2014, 06:50:52 PM »

Only 1,062 hits? That must be a pretty bad example of what that unit can do. I've seen more hits than that with just 29 SF.

Unless it's remarkably crappy SF.

It's ranged SF, so it hit twice in the same round.

Crazy Insane Ballistic Hooligans (11) fire on Foederatis (4), scoring 1751 hits.
Crazy Insane Ballistic Hooligans (11) score 1062 hits on Invasion Levee (5).

The troop leader of Foederatis also was wounded in the same round.

43

Beluaterra / Re: The War.

« on: December 09, 2014, 06:01:32 PM »

How strong is his unit, these days?

Crazy Insane Ballistic Hooligans   Bob   Ar Agyr   120 SF   line     1990
Crazy Insane Ballistic Hooligans (11) score 1062 hits on Invasion Levee (5).
Jos von Genf, High Chancellor of Riombara, Royal of Riombara, Duke of Grehk, Margrave of Grehk has been wounded by Crazy Insane Ballistic Hooligans (11).

Credit where credit is due, this is one nice unit.

44

Helpline / Re: Can a duchy with a stronghold but no city secede?

« on: December 09, 2014, 04:17:23 PM »

 

45

Helpline / Can a duchy with a stronghold but no city secede?

« on: December 09, 2014, 03:54:00 PM »

Since strongholds can be capitals it seems to me that they should but the question has been raised and now I am uncertain.