31
BM General Discussion / Re: BM Logo
« on: August 13, 2013, 01:21:55 AM »
The watcher's eye...
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.
32
BM General Discussion / Re: Favourite class
« on: August 12, 2013, 07:23:04 AM »
Cavalry is good, maybe even the best (tough choice, it and ranged special forces), but only if the people using it know what they are doing. All of the generals I remember serving under treated cavalry as infantry; disposable mooks, to be thrown around haphazardly. They neglect to keep their cavalry behind their infantry for more than a single combat round, or to give their cavalry low retreat settings. The result is that they take DAMAGE. DAMAGE, on cavalry, I cannot believe it.
Cavalry do tons of upfront damage, on their first combat round, when their enemies are held in position so that they get their charge off guarenteed. Allowing cavalry to charge ahead can jeopardize that charge. It also allows them to sustain damage that could otherwise be avoided. Cavalry should not do that. What it should do is deal their charge damage, sustain minimal damage in return, retreat, and then do it all over again the next day. A simple concept that many people get wrong.
Geronus, you are in Astrum (judging by your emblem). Astrum has a general that knows how to use cavalry, so lucky you! That is one thing about Astrum that really impressed me. Prior to engaging you guys, I always figured you were some sleepy realm of AFKs. Maybe you are. But one thing is for sure, you have, at least, some people who are not only active but strategically competent as well. Bravo. Bravo.
My thoughts on cavalier is that it's great. The best class, really. As someone mentioned, there's tons of gold nowadays, and the honour + increased cavalry limit lets you put more of a dent in your stockpile. The lack of looting is no big deal. Only a dozen or so nobles are able to loot before the peasants rise up anyway, so chances are your own contribution would be unnecessary (unless you're running around lone wolf -- a good tactic but not always possible). Because of this I consider cavalier a superior class to warrior, with two exceptions.
Bureaucrat is a good class in peace time. It slowly gains you honour (which is important in peace-locked realms) and allows regions to sustain high-maximum tax rates, depending on your skill. Though, in order to achieve that second boon you either need a region yourself, or you need a lord who's willing to co-operate with you. Oddly, the former is easier to achieve than the latter. I've been given a dozen regions, but no lord seems to care when I offer to double his tax rate. Meh, in that case you can still gain honour, so might as well survey the administration in some region with perfect stats for eternity.
Cavalry do tons of upfront damage, on their first combat round, when their enemies are held in position so that they get their charge off guarenteed. Allowing cavalry to charge ahead can jeopardize that charge. It also allows them to sustain damage that could otherwise be avoided. Cavalry should not do that. What it should do is deal their charge damage, sustain minimal damage in return, retreat, and then do it all over again the next day. A simple concept that many people get wrong.
Geronus, you are in Astrum (judging by your emblem). Astrum has a general that knows how to use cavalry, so lucky you! That is one thing about Astrum that really impressed me. Prior to engaging you guys, I always figured you were some sleepy realm of AFKs. Maybe you are. But one thing is for sure, you have, at least, some people who are not only active but strategically competent as well. Bravo. Bravo.
My thoughts on cavalier is that it's great. The best class, really. As someone mentioned, there's tons of gold nowadays, and the honour + increased cavalry limit lets you put more of a dent in your stockpile. The lack of looting is no big deal. Only a dozen or so nobles are able to loot before the peasants rise up anyway, so chances are your own contribution would be unnecessary (unless you're running around lone wolf -- a good tactic but not always possible). Because of this I consider cavalier a superior class to warrior, with two exceptions.
Bureaucrat is a good class in peace time. It slowly gains you honour (which is important in peace-locked realms) and allows regions to sustain high-maximum tax rates, depending on your skill. Though, in order to achieve that second boon you either need a region yourself, or you need a lord who's willing to co-operate with you. Oddly, the former is easier to achieve than the latter. I've been given a dozen regions, but no lord seems to care when I offer to double his tax rate. Meh, in that case you can still gain honour, so might as well survey the administration in some region with perfect stats for eternity.
33
BM General Discussion / Re: stopping ForumMaster from destroying BattleMaster
« on: August 11, 2013, 02:56:52 PM »
The players who post on these forums are generally very active in-game as well. If you send a message to a character of Glaumring, Vellos, Valast, etc. you will probably receive a response. So cutting them off from the forums in order to force them use in-game messages isn't necessary, as they already use in-game messages.
As far as the lack of in-game messaging goes, I think it has more to do with people not being very active. I've been going around messaging Dukes about something, and you'd think that Dukes, being in important positions, would be some of the more active players. But apparently not, because the ones I messaged didn't reply back and when I looked at their character locations they never moved either. Also, when I was in Perdan there was some Duke who lost his position due to idleness every other week, but the ruler kept on reappointing him. It happened many times. So, if you're going to blame something for lack of messages, you should blame Dukes... or just inactivity I guess.
As far as the lack of in-game messaging goes, I think it has more to do with people not being very active. I've been going around messaging Dukes about something, and you'd think that Dukes, being in important positions, would be some of the more active players. But apparently not, because the ones I messaged didn't reply back and when I looked at their character locations they never moved either. Also, when I was in Perdan there was some Duke who lost his position due to idleness every other week, but the ruler kept on reappointing him. It happened many times. So, if you're going to blame something for lack of messages, you should blame Dukes... or just inactivity I guess.
34
BM General Discussion / Land of the Active Dukes
« on: August 11, 2013, 01:19:11 AM »
Well my character has been looking around awhile for a Duke who will respond to messages, but with no luck. Maybe someone on this forum could direct me to a realm with active dukes in it? I don't think it's so much to ask.
35
BM General Discussion / Re: Limited Wars
« on: August 09, 2013, 09:23:08 PM »A better example of painting is the war islands game. Where once a realm has reached a tipping point there really is no reason not to hit the surrender button...your going to loose.
I recall a truly epic game of War Islands, where my opponent achieved 170~ production while I was only at 100~. He maintained his advantage for a very long time and at the height of his power his armies outnumbered mine by nearly 2:1. Through clever movements and luck I was able to claw my way back from defeat. He'd concentrate his forces taking a region I left totally undefended, while I'd send small strike forces to do the same across multiple of his regions. He'd follow up by splitting his forces into small strike forces, but I would anticipate that and beat some of them down. Through this cost efficient play I was able to effectively nullify his production advantage, and in time the scales tipped into my favour.
Never surrender. When the enemy has an advantage on you, get riskier. You will still probably lose, but with enough luck and gumption you can still have a chance. At the very least, the enemy could go AFK for three turns and forfeit.
36
BM General Discussion / Re: Limited Wars
« on: August 09, 2013, 07:09:05 PM »I'm not sure what "map painting" means...
In any strategy game of this sort there is a snowball effect that as a player gains land he gains power and with that power it becomes easier for him to gain more land and it eventually he reaches a point where he's simply conquering land with impunity -- painting the game map, if you will, with his faction's colours or emblem.
Battlemaster functions much the same way, despite it being a unique game in many aspects. Look at game worlds today versus five or more years ago. It's most obvious on the Colonies, but is present on all other maps except Dwilight and Beluaterra. Some realms have grown increasingly large, massive even, and the overall number of realms has fallen. On Colonies you can see that where once there was a realm for every city and then one, now there are three realms each controlling 2-3 cities and then some podunk realm up North that only exists because it has no city for anyone to bother to take.
37
BM General Discussion / Re: Limited Wars
« on: August 09, 2013, 10:20:37 AM »
That's a good idea, it mimics the reality that resource constraints would have on crude warfare. Wars are, after all, not eternal affairs, and in a technologically limited setting where communication, industry and logistics are severely impaired, they would tend to fizzle out before a conclusive victory could be attained. In our industrialised world, amongst nations that can manage and commit resources with utmost efficiency, wars generally last about five years and can easily result in total victory; this is the kind of war that BM experiences now. Going back through time, to the age in which BM is set, you begin to find wars with excessively long durations. The Hundred Years War, the Thirty Years War, the Byzantine-Sassanid War of 602-628. These were wars that could last generations. Of course, they weren't singular wars, but rather sporadic bouts of fighting broken up by periods of peace, and that is key. The states of the world back then were so base that wars could drag on and on due to their limited capacity to wage them. This is what the type of situation that resource constraints could lead to. Conquests limited to whatever can be achieved within a controlled amount of time, via resource factors. Sounds good.
You might also want to take a page out of Machiavelli's book, The Prince. In it he mentions the difficulties states experience when trying to assert themselves in unfamiliar lands. The locals do not care for their new, foreign masters and so the new lands require expensive garrisons. These garrisons prove to be costly, perhaps resulting in a net loss, and are frail, in that they can be easily disrupted. So, relate these things to BM somehow. The ways are obvious and already done to some extent, but they can be made more extensive. Intensify the troubles that realms have in holding conquered lands far away from their capitals.
Also, Scarlett was always talking about how scorched earth style looting is unrealistic. Perhaps looting could be changed as well, so that it can only harm a region, not turn it into uninhabited wasteland.
You might also want to take a page out of Machiavelli's book, The Prince. In it he mentions the difficulties states experience when trying to assert themselves in unfamiliar lands. The locals do not care for their new, foreign masters and so the new lands require expensive garrisons. These garrisons prove to be costly, perhaps resulting in a net loss, and are frail, in that they can be easily disrupted. So, relate these things to BM somehow. The ways are obvious and already done to some extent, but they can be made more extensive. Intensify the troubles that realms have in holding conquered lands far away from their capitals.
Also, Scarlett was always talking about how scorched earth style looting is unrealistic. Perhaps looting could be changed as well, so that it can only harm a region, not turn it into uninhabited wasteland.
38
BM General Discussion / Re: Limited Wars
« on: August 09, 2013, 06:57:20 AM »
I've never played a game that prevented map painting without resorting to draconian measures. One that did resort to such measures was the Magna Mundi mod for Europa Universalis 3, which made conquering land an extremely slow and taxing endeavour. So, in order to prevent map painting, that is probably what would have to be implemented.
39
BM General Discussion / Re: Player Statistics
« on: August 08, 2013, 10:43:22 AM »
Battlemaster is different from other games in that the time you can invest into it is limited to a few minutes per day. You can not spend all night playing Battlemaster the way you can with Alpha Centauri. So, rather than lump sums, time spent on this game is made through many short semi-scheduled daily payments. The average overall amount is probably still pretty good, but it's surely nothing spectacular.
40
BM General Discussion / Re: stopping ForumMaster from destroying BattleMaster
« on: August 08, 2013, 10:26:04 AM »I completely disagree! No map is finished... Look at how much Atamara has changed. Dont forget that Coria was/is in the CE block too. So not only the north has changed. Sooner or later there will be more changes. And we as players are the only people that should make the changes happen.
As soon as game features/GMs interfere more with the game, I will quit this game. I already see some of the features limiting the game. Make a new island (war islands) if you want resets. But resetting a place where I have built fictional history for 7 years makes sure that I have no ties and can quit without hesitation.
But that all is off topic. The topic was about forums. Delete it and some other place will fill the void and the circle is even smaller than it is now. OOC communication and discussion will not end. Atleast the forum is public and people have to consider their thoughts a bit more than in IM conversations.
Most players stick around for 0-3 years, so if the goal is to increase player count then they are who ought to be taken into consideration. Players who've stuck around for 7+ years are statistically not very significant.
Even from my own perspective, as someone who's known this game since 2005 or so, I care nothing for the so-called history that you and Tom preach. A sense of history, like that of any fantasy setting, is of course important. But that sense is functionally the same whether it's based on eleven years of game play, just two, or entirely made up. It's not like the game world would seem any less fleshed out if it were younger.
Again from my own perspective, my main concern is game play. What I care about are Islands that are at peace most of the time, constantly leaking players; players who are functionally inactive, never bothering to write or move; geopolitical structures that have, for the most part, remained unchanged for years on end. Those things are what have an impact on my playing experience. History, the type that you speak of, has no bearing on my enjoyment at all. It's documented on the wiki anyway.
41
BM General Discussion / Re: stopping ForumMaster from destroying BattleMaster
« on: August 08, 2013, 07:43:55 AM »
There is an undue focus on CE. If CE, it's allies and Darka weren't dominant, than some other group of realms would be. As Qyasogk and Dante note, there is a lack of unpredictability to this game. There is nothing to knock down power structures except bigger power structures, which cannot be form under existing power structures. Power structures can only form at the beginning of maps, when there is a vacuum to be filled. Essentially maps begin with a scramble for dominance and end with with a status quo. Once the scramble is over, the map is finished. This is it what happened on Atamara, as well Colonies and East Continent.
There is only one method for prolonging this game beyond the initial scrambles, without introducing destabilising features into the core game play, and that is to routinely switch up the map pool. This method has been shot down, and there is not enough support to code destabilising features, so, unless those things change, there will be no future for this game. Deleting random islands and shoving all of the players together won't accomplish anything, except to temporarily ease character density. Deleting the forums won't do anything either, as the forums have nothing to do with this game's longevity. The methods being considered will be ineffectual.
There is only one method for prolonging this game beyond the initial scrambles, without introducing destabilising features into the core game play, and that is to routinely switch up the map pool. This method has been shot down, and there is not enough support to code destabilising features, so, unless those things change, there will be no future for this game. Deleting random islands and shoving all of the players together won't accomplish anything, except to temporarily ease character density. Deleting the forums won't do anything either, as the forums have nothing to do with this game's longevity. The methods being considered will be ineffectual.
42
BM General Discussion / Re: Responses to things people would change
« on: August 07, 2013, 08:41:37 PM »If you go individually against a power block, it's not a surprise. But if there truly are so many people who dislike the status quo, it should be easy to oppose the alliance with an alliance. I'm not saying everyone is stupid to not have thought of that. I'm saying that you might be underestimating the amount of people who are actually in favour of the current status. That you demean them as sheeple is a good indicator that you don't take that opinion seriously.
People who don't like the status quo leave the game. Players started leaving en masse around the time the status quos set in. That is why there is a problem with player retention that we are discussing right now.
43
BM General Discussion / Re: If I change one thing to make Battlemaster better, I would...
« on: August 06, 2013, 08:37:21 PM »
Introduce new maps while retiring old ones every few years. The goals would be to reduce stagnation and to maintain the pioneer spirits that players on new maps initially posses.
44
BM General Discussion / Re: stopping ForumMaster from destroying BattleMaster
« on: August 04, 2013, 09:01:52 PM »
I remember that back when Aurvandil invaded Terran D-day style, Vellos and Kale reported it on the forum but neglected to tell anyone in-game. The result was that few players and fewer characters, even in Terran itself, knew what was going on. So there is a tendency to use the forum as a surrogate for in-game discussion.
45
BM General Discussion / Re: Closing Islands ?
« on: August 04, 2013, 07:33:02 PM »
You lost half the player base already, when you decided on using the same maps, no resets, for over a decade. Things don't stay fresh that long, you shouldn't expect them to, and it's evident that things, beginning around 2009-2011, got real tired out. There was suddenly a lack of enthusiasm amongst the player base, with less wars, less realms, less players. This is the most obvious reason for the decline, and it ought to be what you address if you intend on fixing things.