So TMP is gone. Are you enjoying all the new wars?

[Tom]

Why should a realm be punished for staying in a war footing for a long time? The solution to too much peace is certainly not punishing realms for fighting all the time. And if a realm is being ganged up on, it may not have any choice but to keep fighting indefinitely.

And how come the Devs almost always reach for the stick first rather than the carrot? I often hear from Devs about how we ought to punish this, and ought to punish that, and almost never about rewarding the players for something.

We are considering all that, which makes the design process take a while.

And we aren't reaching for sticks. When we say "punish this" you could just as well read "reward the opposite". What we're doing is changing aspects of the game so that some things that we want to encourage are more advantageous than other things that we want to discourage. Calling it a stick or a carrot is purely a matter of perspective.

[egamma]

What about...repair costs? Lower pay for troops away from home (since they can loot in their spare time!)?

[Shizzle]

What about...repair costs? Lower pay for troops away from home (since they can loot in their spare time!)?

That's interesting. Afaik, armies were often kept in the field with the spoils of war. This would make war less expensive. Also, it would mean mockery wars, meaning simply being at war without any actual fighting), would not gain any bonuses.

Of course, those extra incomes could be used to strengthen the armies beyond the limits of the realm income, providing a bonus in fighting strength as well.

[Indirik]

What about...repair costs? Lower pay for troops away from home (since they can loot in their spare time!)?

That would mean the army would damage whatever region they were in. All that extra gold doesn't come out of nowhere.

[egamma]

That would mean the army would damage whatever region they were in. All that extra gold doesn't come out of nowhere.

I refer to that as realism, and an additional incentive to remove that army.

[Tom]

That's an interesting idea - looting a region in order to repair and feed your unit (you can already pay it that way).

[Indirik]

I refer to that as realism, and an additional incentive to remove that army.

It doesn't bother me too much. But your allies are really going to hate it when your army starts destroying your countryside while they help you fight. Especially annoying if you can't stop your own troops from looting your allies to support themselves.

This is sure to be an unpopular "feature".

[Geronus]

And we aren't reaching for sticks. When we say "punish this" you could just as well read "reward the opposite". What we're doing is changing aspects of the game so that some things that we want to encourage are more advantageous than other things that we want to discourage. Calling it a stick or a carrot is purely a matter of perspective.

A matter of perspective yes, but one that relies heavily on how it is presented by the game mechanics. The old TMP for example: I suppose one way to look at it is that you get a bonus to your peasants' tax tolerance for going to war, but there was nothing overt to queue players that their serfs' tax tolerance was rising. You might not even realize at all that you could safely raise your taxes during a war, particularly if you were not the kind of player who learns about mechanics by coming to this forum. However, it was made quickly and *painfully* clear when that 'bonus' went away, as if you weren't paying close attention, region morale could suddenly plummet drastically within a few days due to your taxes suddenly being far too high. This made the effect feel like a penalty for peace, not a bonus for war.

A simple adjustment to the daily region maintenance messages could have reframed this. A simple notice that the peasants eagerness to contribute to the war effort causes tax tolerance to increase, for example, coupled with warning messages about the bonus going away prior to when the morale penalties would kick in. Perception can be strongly influenced by the way the mechanic is presented, and whatever new alternative arises to replace TMP, careful thought should be given to how the effects are presented to the players via the game interface.

[Geronus]

It doesn't bother me too much. But your allies are really going to hate it when your army starts destroying your countryside while they help you fight. Especially annoying if you can't stop your own troops from looting your allies to support themselves.

This is sure to be an unpopular "feature".

Agreed, but very realistic. It was a truism of warfare for a long time that no matter which side was winning, the peasants were losing. Armies often supported themselves by living off the countryside, whether they were in 'friendly' territory or not.

[Shizzle]

Agreed, but very realistic. It was a truism of warfare for a long time that no matter which side was winning, the peasants were losing. Armies often supported themselves by living off the countryside, whether they were in 'friendly' territory or not.

Add in a unit setting? "Allow auto-looting?" If turned on, your units would use a few hours every turn to find their own wages, no matter where they are. If turned off, all the costs would be added to their pay check.

It would even let Lords loot their own peasants if they'd want to.

[Indirik]

Agreed, but very realistic. It was a truism of warfare for a long time that no matter which side was winning, the peasants were losing. Armies often supported themselves by living off the countryside, whether they were in 'friendly' territory or not.

Oh I agree. It does fit in with the popular conception and depiction of armies. (And I would concede that it is historically accurate, although I really don't have any specific knowledge to support it.) It's just... not fun within the context of the game to  have your own armies damaging your ally's lands as you march across the countryside to help him fight off the Evil Empire. It adds a negative component to marching to war. We don't want negatives. We want more reason for people to march to war, not more reasons to stay at home. So, yeah, it may be realistic. But so was dying of dysentery, and we don't put that in the game.

[Solari]

We don't want negatives. We want more reason for people to march to war, not more reasons to stay at home. So, yeah, it may be realistic. But so was dying of dysentery, and we don't put that in the game.

[egamma]

Oh I agree. It does fit in with the popular conception and depiction of armies. (And I would concede that it is historically accurate, although I really don't have any specific knowledge to support it.) It's just... not fun within the context of the game to  have your own armies damaging your ally's lands as you march across the countryside to help him fight off the Evil Empire. It adds a negative component to marching to war. We don't want negatives. We want more reason for people to march to war, not more reasons to stay at home. So, yeah, it may be realistic. But so was dying of dysentery, and we don't put that in the game.

Advantages:
Discourages gangbangs
Discourages blob armies
Encourages attacking realms closer to your own (well, you're not marching through allied territory if they're your enemy, right?)

[vonGenf]

A matter of perspective yes, but one that relies heavily on how it is presented by the game mechanics. The old TMP for example: I suppose one way to look at it is that you get a bonus to your peasants' tax tolerance for going to war, but there was nothing overt to queue players that their serfs' tax tolerance was rising. You might not even realize at all that you could safely raise your taxes during a war, particularly if you were not the kind of player who learns about mechanics by coming to this forum. However, it was made quickly and *painfully* clear when that 'bonus' went away, as if you weren't paying close attention, region morale could suddenly plummet drastically within a few days due to your taxes suddenly being far too high. This made the effect feel like a penalty for peace, not a bonus for war.

The reason for this, in my opinion, is that many realms are, in fact, often at war. Therefore the ressources a realm has during wartime are defined as the "normal level", whether you want to call them bonuses or not.

The problem with TMP was not so much starting wars, it was what happened when they stopped. A realm that had been at war for a long time would get used to its war status. At some point, a realm could (*gasp*!) win the war. At that point it would be at peace. However TMP made winning look like a punishment. Moreover, because the realm had been at war prior and was used to it, it feels like it cannot go to war anymore because it is now not as strong as it was.

I think the idea of a war footing/peace footing as presented shows great promise to solve that problem. I think it is absolutely fine to give a bonus to a realm when it declares war - this would indeed incite realms to start wars. However, if this bonus diminishes with time, then actually winning the war will not feel like a punishment because nothing will be changing at that point. Moreover, starting a new war will not look impossible, it will look easier as intended.

[egamma]

I think surrender may be the missing piece. There's no easy way of providing reparations, for one.