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

[Shizzle]

So really what we need is a way to truly profit from wars that doesn't revolve around taking regions?

Taking captives? kidnapping trainers at RC's?

[D`Este]

What about...

Rulers are supposed to lead the realm, handle most diplomacy and are most of the times responsible for creating a war. If we would create a rule that if a realm doesn't fight in a war for "for example" 3 months, the ruler will be automatically be removed from his position so a new more war like ruler can be appointed. This should encourage rulers to make more effort to create a war if they want to keep their position.

Make a hard realm size rule, limit the size of a realm to prevent the current empire's we have at this moment, so that there won't be a huge difference between realms on the continent and wars become more "fair" with both sides having at least a chance on surviving. Let the size depend on the continent, so large continents can have larger realms. This would also allow for more colonies at defeated realms can only be taken over on that way.

Limit the amount of alliances and federations a realm can have to prevent powerblocks and incase a lot of informal alliances are made, let a titan act on it, we need to make the game competative and enjoyable and complete unbalanced wars don't help with that.

[Solari]

What about...

Rulers are supposed to lead the realm, handle most diplomacy and are most of the times responsible for creating a war. If we would create a rule that if a realm doesn't fight in a war for "for example" 3 months, the ruler will be automatically be removed from his position so a new more war like ruler can be appointed. This should encourage rulers to make more effort to create a war if they want to keep their position.

Make a hard realm size rule, limit the size of a realm to prevent the current empire's we have at this moment, so that there won't be a huge difference between realms on the continent and wars become more "fair" with both sides having at least a chance on surviving. Let the size depend on the continent, so large continents can have larger realms. This would also allow for more colonies at defeated realms can only be taken over on that way.

Limit the amount of alliances and federations a realm can have to prevent powerblocks and incase a lot of informal alliances are made, let a titan act on it, we need to make the game competative and enjoyable and complete unbalanced wars don't help with that.

Maybe, yes and yes.  I like the concept behind the first idea, but might be addressed by the other two, though.  Realm sizes need some work; just look at Toupellon.  And we can all point to AT as an example where realm size and diplomatic cockblocks conspire to kill fun.

[Shizzle]

It would move BM even more towards strategy though, further away from role-play. And it still won't make people /want/ to go to war, which was kind of the point, no?

[D`Este]

It would move BM even more towards strategy though, further away from role-play. And it still won't make people /want/ to go to war, which was kind of the point, no?

It would remove reasons like, " we won't fight because we would have no chance to survive/win" as sides would be more balanced.

[Sacha]

Perhaps a start would be to make battles more appealing? If we can make that happen, then perhaps people will be more eager to get into the fight, and push their realm leaders to seek out new wars. One idea: Maybe victorious units could replenish their losses with captured/deserted enemy soldiers. Such a thing was not uncommon in the middle ages, I believe.

Another issue with TMP is that it punished the entire realm, which in effect ended up punishing the lower ranked nobles more than anyone, when it could just be a select few high ranked nobles blocking wars to protect their own selfish interests. Perhaps more personal punitive measures for realm leaders avoiding war would give them more incentive to find wars. Give rulers honor/prestige penalties if their realms are at peace for too long, maybe.

[fodder]

....define peace within the context of the new treaty system?

[Lorgan]

Maybe, yes and yes.  I like the concept behind the first idea, but might be addressed by the other two, though.  Realm sizes need some work; just look at Toupellon.  And we can all point to AT as an example where realm size and diplomatic cockblocks conspire to kill fun.

For the first idea: how about giving rulers a (invisible) personal glory stat which would give all kind of bonuses for their realm? For example: slightly better chance for good RCs (I know many are frustrated by the ridiculous amount of below average RCs get built), morale bonus when he's participating in battles, etc...

[vonGenf]

....define peace within the context of the new treaty system?

The old treaty system should be phased out first. Maybe the more fine-grained new system will be helping?

[Tom]

The old treaty system should be phased out first. Maybe the more fine-grained new system will be helping?

At this time, we're afraid the new system is too fine-grained. For example, it makes things that the game-engine needs to know a bit tricky, like answerting the question "who are enemy troops"?

[De-Legro]

At this time, we're afraid the new system is too fine-grained. For example, it makes things that the game-engine needs to know a bit tricky, like answerting the question "who are enemy troops"?

Everyone, simple and effective.

[loren]

At this time, we're afraid the new system is too fine-grained. For example, it makes things that the game-engine needs to know a bit tricky, like answerting the question "who are enemy troops"?

How is this not solvable by an internal state check for hostilities?  If there is some sort of declaration between realms, it will check through other agreements and sort itself out pre-turn?

[loren]

How is this not solvable by an internal state check for hostilities?  If there is some sort of declaration between realms, it will check through other agreements and sort itself out pre-turn?

Or an internal state that says X is not an enemy would do the same thing...

[De-Legro]

Or an internal state that says X is not an enemy would do the same thing...

It has to do with multiple treaties, conflict treaties, defence treaties and the like. The code to decide who attacked, who defended and who fought was complicated enough when you could only have one treaty with each realm.

[loren]

All right, simple enough.  A treaty cannot by definition occur during a turn change, so it'll make modifying the database rather trivial.

Each region has an encounter setting matrix that defines what happens if people, or troops are encountered by each realm at the turn change.  This is modified by the various treaty types during each round before the turn.  The matrix is actually multiple nested cells of arrays.

So for instance lets have three realms.  With only three regions.  I'll use matlab notation as its what I'm most familiar with.  {region ID; owner ID}{1,nobles(1);troops(2)}(1:3,1:3)

So we're in region 1 owned by realm 1 and we want to know if we should arrest a noble from realm 2  So we go

Code: [Select]

If {1,:}{1,1}(1,2}==1 then Arrest End  If its combat for the same then it's just {1,:}{1,1}(1,2)==1 Then Blligerancy=1
You can use this then to set the belligerancy of any troops who would then enter into combat.  You could even have it check who should be attacking and defending when setting that boolean.

To change a treaty you can then go through and look for regions that are owned by 1.

Code: [Select]

If {x,2}==realm ID then {x,1}{1,:}(1,2)=1 {x,1}{1,:}(2,1)=1 Lets say that 3 has a defense treaty with 1.  When 2 declares on 1 the code can check to see if there is a defense treaty between 1 and any other realm.  If a region changes hands at the turn change it simiply copies the encounter matrix of any already owned region by the conquering realm, no need to recalculate it.

Any similar scheme would work.  It's just a matter of doing encounters on a region by region basis.
[/code]