Speed up region recovery rate

[Bedwyr]

It's too easy to blame everything else than the players choosing not to go to war themselves.

I don't think it's "too easy", I think it's a recognition that there need to be incentives, because if you are already in a strong position, you often risk more than you can gain.

1. Sure they should win. Doesn't mean they should be able to completely crush the other realms' characters' personal stats. It's outright griefing.

Please note who I was suggesting take the hits.  Lords, Dukes, Rulers.  Maybe Generals.  I have always thought there needed to be more personal responsibility among the top leadership of a realm, and if you are in a war you don't have a chance of winning, then surrender, or accept the consequences.

2. Define "reasonable". I suspect that winning realms would make much greater demands if they knew that continued war meant personal damage to the other nobles.

Speaking from extensive personal experience in both winning and losing realms...That's not a problem we have right now.  The problem we have to an absolutely insane degree is people refusing any kind of peace terms that don't involve the attacking realm effectively surrendering.  I've had to utterly cripple realms, up to and including sacking their capital, causing the entire realm to starve out, TOing a city adjacent to a capital, annihilating all troops they had while they were in the capital, causing half the realm to go rogue, and having my troops loot with impunity throughout every single region in a realm before they consider anything less than pre-war borders with no conditions, and even then have the time they won't accept anything near the kinds of conditions common in the medieval world.

And while production can be restored in many ways, h/p can't, and since recruitment is tied to these stats, it's even less reparable damage than what we currently have.

See my above point about Rulers, Dukes, Lords, maybe Generals.  These are not the people who are going to be seriously troop-limited by H/P losses.

[Indirik]

I dislike the idea of honor losses for losing a war. You can be perfectly honorable while losing. Honor isn't a win/lose stat. It's ... honor. It's the way you conduct yourself while you are winning and losing.

Prestige, on the other hand, is a different story. I don't necessarily have a problem with losing prestige due to losing a war, or continuing to fight a losing war. Deciding who loses, how much, and under what coknditions, is the tough part. It could easily lead to griefer situations where an attacker refuses to accept a surrender in order to personally destroy their oponent's characters.

[Zakilevo]

How about make bigger realms gain less h/p against smaller realms while smaller realms gain more against bigger realms?

As for attackers refusing to accept a surrender, give a button to surrender to rulers. Once the ruler of the losing side presses the button, make the soldiers of the winning side lose morale each passing day they are in the surrendered realm's territory. Maybe nobles can get a message saying 'soldiers are questioning the ruler' or something.

Also, instead of crippling realms through devastating them, why not make realms that lost wars suffer a penalty? Like less recruitable men for a certain period of time (3~5 months maybe)? lords can get messages like 'less soldiers are showing up due to losing a war recently'.

[Chenier]

Speaking from extensive personal experience in both winning and losing realms...That's not a problem we have right now.  The problem we have to an absolutely insane degree is people refusing any kind of peace terms that don't involve the attacking realm effectively surrendering.  I've had to utterly cripple realms, up to and including sacking their capital, causing the entire realm to starve out, TOing a city adjacent to a capital, annihilating all troops they had while they were in the capital, causing half the realm to go rogue, and having my troops loot with impunity throughout every single region in a realm before they consider anything less than pre-war borders with no conditions, and even then have the time they won't accept anything near the kinds of conditions common in the medieval world.

Not a problem we have right now, indeed. A problem we could face if such things were implemented, though.

Also, you are complaining that it's too hard to stop wars? Do you want wars or do you want peace? Because on one hand, you are saying you want it to be easier to fight wars, and on the other, you are asking for it to be easier to end them. Because you really seem to dislike having to fight wars. Small border skirmishes over a badland nobody really wants does not entertain anyone. To get players involved, they must feel the conflict is important, that the stakes are high. Small baby-steps only entertain the leaders who see the big picture, not the rank-and-file player.

[Anaris]

Not a problem we have right now, indeed. A problem we could face if such things were implemented, though.

Also, you are complaining that it's too hard to stop wars? Do you want wars or do you want peace? Because on one hand, you are saying you want it to be easier to fight wars, and on the other, you are asking for it to be easier to end them.

Yes. Exactly. There should be more, shorter wars.

It should be not only possible, but expected, for the end result of a war to be something less than the destruction or deep crippling of a realm.

Wars should be fought over a border region (victory condition: hold the region, convince other realm it's not worth trying to take it back). Or an insult to the ruler's honour (victory condition: other realm apologizes).  Or the beating of a priest of the realm's predominant religion (victory condition: apology, Danegeld, and preaching rights in perpetuity).

Not just "You insulted me! Now there will be war, until we have destroyed you!" Or "You hurt our neighbour! Now there will be war, until we have destroyed you!"

Or (and, as Bedwyr says, this is really the problematic part), "Apologize for your insult!" "No! Never!" (time passes, several regions are taken) "Now, apologize for your insult, and we give you back half the regions we took!" "Never! Give back everything you took, and give us two other regions of yours, too!" "WTF?!?!" (time passes, more regions taken, capital is besieged) "Now, apologize for your insult, and we give you back half the regions we took!" "Never! Give back everything you took, and five more regions of yours, too!" "Are you high??"

You know people act this way, Chénier, and it's a real problem for BattleMaster. By the time a war gets to that point, it's rarely much fun for the losing side, and often not much fun for the winning side, either. In my experience, they'd be quite happy to make peace, go home and rest up for a while—but this stupid little realm that hasn't got a snowball's chance in Hell of winning just won't stop fighting.

[Penchant]

On the last part, I would like to say from my experience (which is only two wars, so it's not much) the attacker gave  harsh demands which were mostly accepted since they we had no bargaining power since we lost majorly and in the second war (not yet over) the invading realm had two regions bordering our capital and wanted to keep the borders exactly as they were while also not having quite the strength to have the strength to be trying to force terms like that(kinda, since an ally was joint the war on the defender's side.)

[Zakilevo]

Would it be possible to implement an 'object' to start a war?

Maybe rulers can have an option to choose from four or five options?
Like...

op1) Take [select a bordering region]

op2) Take [select a bordering region1] and [select bordering region2]

op3) Take [select a bordering duchy]

op4) War to annihilate

something like that?

[Chenier]

You know people act this way, Chénier, and it's a real problem for BattleMaster. By the time a war gets to that point, it's rarely much fun for the losing side, and often not much fun for the winning side, either. In my experience, they'd be quite happy to make peace, go home and rest up for a while—but this stupid little realm that hasn't got a snowball's chance in Hell of winning just won't stop fighting.

I do know people act this way.

But I do believe that more small-scale wars would be fought if they were indeed as fun as some of you seem to put them. Not all rulers are !@#$%^&s, after all. I like to think that a good number care for the fun of their players.

In my experience, if the war doesn't seem all that crucial, participation tends to be atrocious because too many people just don't care. This isn't the case everywhere, granted, but I've seen it enough times. And I've done it myself too, at times.

And really, what was it Sun Tzu said about not attacking someone unless you can utterly cripple him? Or was it Machiavello? Attacking someone for a crap reason is really just giving him an excuse to backstab you as soon as you present a vulnerability. This is why there aren't many small-scale wars. It's because players aren't the uneducated savages that medieval nobles borderline were.

[Zakilevo]

I do know people act this way.

But I do believe that more small-scale wars would be fought if they were indeed as fun as some of you seem to put them. Not all rulers are !@#$%^&s, after all. I like to think that a good number care for the fun of their players.

In my experience, if the war doesn't seem all that crucial, participation tends to be atrocious because too many people just don't care. This isn't the case everywhere, granted, but I've seen it enough times. And I've done it myself too, at times.

And really, what was it Sun Tzu said about not attacking someone unless you can utterly cripple him? Or was it Machiavello? Attacking someone for a crap reason is really just giving him an excuse to backstab you as soon as you present a vulnerability. This is why there aren't many small-scale wars. It's because players aren't the uneducated savages that medieval nobles borderline were.

We are supposed to act like those uneducated savages!

[Indirik]

Would it be possible to implement an 'object' to start a war?

Something like that was proposed in the treaty system that was recently removed. I don't know that it would really be successful. Just because the aggressor fulfilled their conditions doesn't mean the defender will be willing to accept the outcome. The war won't end just because the aggressor can put a tick in a checkbox on his declaration.

[Zakilevo]

Something like that was proposed in the treaty system that was recently removed. I don't know that it would really be successful. Just because the aggressor fulfilled their conditions doesn't mean the defender will be willing to accept the outcome. The war won't end just because the aggressor can put a tick in a checkbox on his declaration.

I guess the biggest problem is that some players just hate losing and just won't accept the consequences...

[Bedwyr]

To get players involved, they must feel the conflict is important, that the stakes are high. Small baby-steps only entertain the leaders who see the big picture, not the rank-and-file player.

Just because the stakes are high, doesn't mean the war has to be long.  One of the reasons I love love love the new TO system is that assuming you keep military control over a region, you will take it eventually.  No more of these random revolts screwing everything up.  I've had that screw over three wars that I personally started (and had it save my realm once), where even if it would have taken two weeks to take a city, that would have been fine, and the war would have been over less than two months later, one way or the other.

Here's the other thing about my suggestion: It encourages declared wars, because you can't get prestige gains without declaring a war.

How about make bigger realms gain less h/p against smaller realms while smaller realms gain more against bigger realms?

I like this.

As for attackers refusing to accept a surrender, give a button to surrender to rulers. Once the ruler of the losing side presses the button, make the soldiers of the winning side lose morale each passing day they are in the surrendered realm's territory. Maybe nobles can get a message saying 'soldiers are questioning the ruler' or something.

"The soldiers are uneasy about massacring a people who no longer have the heart to resist."

The realm that pushed the surrender button would then actively avoid battles (don't provoke fights or even align on defenders side of a battle the other side tries to start unless attackers are on murderous, say).

Also, instead of crippling realms through devastating them, why not make realms that lost wars suffer a penalty? Like less recruitable men for a certain period of time (3~5 months maybe)? lords can get messages like 'less soldiers are showing up due to losing a war recently'.

I don't like this.  We're trying to make "winning" and "losing" more vague, so people can say to themselves "we didn't lose we just made some temporary arrangement".

[JPierreD]

I don't like this.  We're trying to make "winning" and "losing" more vague, so people can say to themselves "we didn't lose we just made some temporary arrangement".

Unfortunately this is usually not possible. There are several reasons. Among them is that past certain demands the realm cannot really recover something resembling the previous geopolitical power, no matter for how long it stays at peace rebuilding, and will have to choose between becoming a permanent quasi-vassal and fighting to the death. Unfortunately the former is rarely fun, so people go with the latter. And that is because war demands don't only cost current power, but also hurt potential one.

Examples: Summerdale, Libero and Morek. The one you referred to, which I assume were Arcachon and Arcaea. Caerwyn and Astrum/SA. And so on.

[vonGenf]

Unfortunately this is usually not possible. There are several reasons. Among them is that past certain demands the realm cannot really recover something resembling the previous geopolitical power, no matter for how long it stays at peace rebuilding, and will have to choose between becoming a permanent quasi-vassal and fighting to the death. Unfortunately the former is rarely fun, so people go with the latter. And that is because war demands don't only cost current power, but also hurt potential one.

Examples: Summerdale, Libero and Morek. The one you referred to, which I assume were Arcachon and Arcaea. Caerwyn and Astrum/SA. And so on.

Becoming a permanent quasi-vassal isn't that bad. From experience, 3 months down the road the vassal status will be as good as forgotten (see: Morek/Aquilegia). It should be somewhat acceptable when faced with the alternative of total destruction.

In the case of Summerdale, they decided they would rather be full vassals to Astrum than quasi-vassals to Morek. Is this better? Maybe - it was their decision.

[JPierreD]

Becoming a permanent quasi-vassal isn't that bad. From experience, 3 months down the road the vassal status will be as good as forgotten (see: Morek/Aquilegia). It should be somewhat acceptable when faced with the alternative of total destruction.

In the case of Summerdale, they decided they would rather be full vassals to Astrum than quasi-vassals to Morek. Is this better? Maybe - it was their decision.

Some of them decided they would be part of Astrum, and the rest that they would simply emigrate.

Pre-war Summerdale was boring as hell, the same as Libero Empire before and after the war, I suspect. No matter if the vassal status exists or not in theory.