Recruitment related to diplomatic relations

[Stue (DC)]

How complex would it be if diplomatic relations would influence recruitment abilities?

Details
When realm A is in war with realm B, in regions where peasants hate realm B recruits would have higher morale, and more recruits would be trained per day. Counter-effect is bellowed realm is attacked.
Of course, when realm is also in war with realm C, who is loved by some peasants, in such regions effect would balance each other.
It is only my assumption that it's not overly complex to code when there are already peasants' diplomatic mood in place for every region.

Benefits
It would add little more depth and complexity, and most importantly, it would put more weight on diplomacy in overall. That would not actually be revolutionary change, but just enhancement of existing "regional diplomacy" feature

[Anaris]

Nope. People would just declare empty wars against whoever their peasants hated most so as to get the benefits.

Any mechanic that relies on player-defined diplomacy to give a bonus or penalty (aside from stuff that's specifically related to the act of fighting or supporting an ally) is likely to be highly exploitable in similar manners. Sorry.

[Buffalkill]

Nope. People would just declare empty wars against whoever their peasants hated most so as to get the benefits.

Any mechanic that relies on player-defined diplomacy to give a bonus or penalty (aside from stuff that's specifically related to the act of fighting or supporting an ally) is likely to be highly exploitable in similar manners. Sorry.

It wouldn't necessarily be an empty war if all the peasants of Realm A hate Realm B.

[Indirik]

It is an empty war when players declare the war without intending to fight it. As Anaris says, this is very game-able. Also, it gets us more into the business of managing peasants in order to play the game. We don't want be in the peasant management business that heavily. In my opinion, we already do too much of it. (Which is one reason I'm not all that fond of diplomats.)

[egamma]

Also, it gets us more into the business of managing peasants in order to play the game. We don't want be in the peasant management business that heavily. In my opinion, we already do too much of it. (Which is one reason I'm not all that fond of diplomats.)

"War Islands! War Islands!"

[Stue (DC)]

that makes no sense to me at all.

i don't know what "empty war" should mean? would someone count how many battles are waged within a week to declare some war is "empty" or not?

currently i am involved in at least two realms in war where there were no a single battle in a month time for different in-game reasons.

instead of giving weight to player-tailored diplomacy, we have situation where majority of diplomacy influence is related to random-generated peasants mood toward realms. diplomats should spend majority of their time to fight brainless ai-machinery.

not only with diplomacy, the same things is with building shutting down in regions for no any traceable reason. and on top of it there is "wounds worsening", which looks as designed to repel players from bm, at least that is how i feel it.

[Indirik]

i don't know what "empty war" should mean?

It is usually referred to as a situation where a war is declared without any intention to ever fight it, in order to garner some benefit from game mechanics.

Say, for example, that having a diplomacy status of War with a realm would cause your realms to generate 10% more taxes. In this case, you could be sure that realms would make sure that they declared war with at least one other realm, for their mutual benefit, without ever intending to fight that war. i.e. Sirion and Eponllyn declaring war, or Strombran and Minas Leon, or Niselur and Grand Duchy of Fissoa, etc.

These are the kinds of things that we have to watch out for when considering new game mechanics. It results in everyone avoiding the proposed penalty, or gaining the proposed bonus, by acting in a way that makes no IC sense. Essentially, all you do is implement a penalty that no one suffers, or a bonus that everyone gets, and make the game make a little less sense.

would someone count how many battles are waged within a week to declare some war is "empty" or not?

currently i am involved in at least two realms in war where there were no a single battle in a month time for different in-game reasons.

That's really the whole point. Game mechanics couldn't really tell whether it was a "real" war or not, without making the wrong decision from time to time. That's why these types of mechanics, that rely on nothing more than a player-declared state, are not good mechanics. They are easily gamed.

instead of giving weight to player-tailored diplomacy, we have situation where majority of diplomacy influence is related to random-generated peasants mood toward realms. diplomats should spend majority of their time to fight brainless ai-machinery.

I tend to agree. We do too much peasant management in the game. One of the things the dev team is discussing is ways to remove the peasant-oriented focus.

the same things is with building shutting down in regions for no any traceable reason.

That is implemented to introduce a bit of randomness into the game. With the recent bug fixes to buildings stockpiling paraphernalia, it shouldn't have as much of an effect as it used to. Perhaps with the exception of the smithy. But then again, you can always build a second smithy to reduce the down time.

and on top of it there is "wounds worsening"

Along the same lines, it introduces some randomness. It also makes it more painful to play older characters, and provide incentive to retire them and start new, younger ones. This helps break up the power structures, and let some new characters take their place.

[Stue (DC)]

well, if there is any interest to further think on that, a wider discussion could be open.

if you find out exploiting scenario as you mention, would it not be incentive to make some other changes to diplomacy system. for instance, weight could be mostly given to neighboring realms, not distant realms. relations to distant realms are anyhow quite senseless - in my personal view - similarly to "teleport" wars.

was it ever discussed that realms, for instance, cannot wage wars within anyone else but neighbors? that could possibly remove some current "illogical" things in diplomacy. among the worst in current situation - though i could count more than one - are weak small realms that are inferior to neighbors, but have all neighbors as friends. instead of senseless sending troops over the whole continent width just to find some amusement to nobles, such realms should either try to ally with one neighbor against another - or simply disappear, which should be much more logical course of events than it is now - in my view.

as regards to wounds worsening, with all good intention in trying to see it as  intent to give more realistic feel, i feel nothing else but thorn in my side. previously you would be wounded little or much, which is random, and than you would have some stable course of healing. currently it really feels as harassment - after few days of healing wounds worsen again, and that lasts for the whole week effectively putting character out of any game.

i personally feel it would be much more fair to simply kill character through random game mechanics, than harass it just to create - in my view - fake feeling how player has a choice. there are some of my characters which i would never shut down naturally, and if i do so only because i cannot stand game-created harassment, i really don't feel it was my choice - i was forced to do that because of mechanics' bullying.

it is even worse that i do not see that only old characters suffer from that. every of my chars which are even moderately experienced suffer from wounding most of time. that practically means my characters are forced to leave the game right in the moment when they gained sensibly high skills, recognition within some realm etc. at the age of 40.
that does not make sense, really, that is in vile contraction with any attempt to develop stable long-term career, which is "promised" by many other game elements. i see only glum atmosphere where nobles in age of 35 are making last attempts to accomplish something before being sentenced to endless wounding. moreover, what accomplishments should there be? i am pretty sure i am not the only player who finds no joy in quick rush after titles.

[pcw27]

What about making it dependent on realm loyalty?

[Chenier]

It is usually referred to as a situation where a war is declared without any intention to ever fight it, in order to garner some benefit from game mechanics.

Say, for example, that having a diplomacy status of War with a realm would cause your realms to generate 10% more taxes. In this case, you could be sure that realms would make sure that they declared war with at least one other realm, for their mutual benefit, without ever intending to fight that war. i.e. Sirion and Eponllyn declaring war, or Strombran and Minas Leon, or Niselur and Grand Duchy of Fissoa, etc.

These are the kinds of things that we have to watch out for when considering new game mechanics. It results in everyone avoiding the proposed penalty, or gaining the proposed bonus, by acting in a way that makes no IC sense. Essentially, all you do is implement a penalty that no one suffers, or a bonus that everyone gets, and make the game make a little less sense.
That's really the whole point. Game mechanics couldn't really tell whether it was a "real" war or not, without making the wrong decision from time to time. That's why these types of mechanics, that rely on nothing more than a player-declared state, are not good mechanics. They are easily gamed.
I tend to agree. We do too much peasant management in the game. One of the things the dev team is discussing is ways to remove the peasant-oriented focus.
That is implemented to introduce a bit of randomness into the game. With the recent bug fixes to buildings stockpiling paraphernalia, it shouldn't have as much of an effect as it used to. Perhaps with the exception of the smithy. But then again, you can always build a second smithy to reduce the down time.
Along the same lines, it introduces some randomness. It also makes it more painful to play older characters, and provide incentive to retire them and start new, younger ones. This helps break up the power structures, and let some new characters take their place.

Not sure what I think of this either way, but a "has the two realms fought any battles against each other?" check could help determine if the war was real or not...

[De-Legro]

Not sure what I think of this either way, but a "has the two realms fought any battles against each other?" check could help determine if the war was real or not...

Battles of what size? How recently?

[Tom]

Not sure what I think of this either way, but a "has the two realms fought any battles against each other?" check could help determine if the war was real or not...

No, it wouldn't.

We've been literally thinking about this for years now. Whatever simple solution anyone comes up with, chances are very good we've thought about it as well and found ways to exploit, abuse or circumvent it.

[Chenier]

Battles of what size? How recently?

Does size really matter? If there are battles, there is bound to be some frustration created. Nobody likes losing. Be it the battle itself, or some men, or region damage.

Time obviously does matter, though. A bonus could be done proportional to the size of one's army and fading with time. For example, if the fade limit is one month, and a realm had 10 000CS total, then having a battle with 5 000 CS would grant a +.5X bonus to recruitment (X being whatever factor deemed balanced), which would fade to being a mere +.25X bonus after two weeks, and +0X bonus after a month.

Because as I said above, even if two rulers agree to "game" this for their purposes... it will end up pissing off some of their nobles. And even if it doesn't... the losses of war are likely to compensate the increase in recruitment, so why bother "abusing" this?

[Indirik]

Does size really matter?

Yes. Otherwise each side will sacrifice a unit of 5 infantry. Hell, one side could even involve a militia unit.

Time obviously does matter, though. A bonus could be done proportional to the size of one's army and fading with time. For example, if the fade limit is one month, and a realm had 10 000CS total, then having a battle with 5 000 CS would grant a +.5X bonus to recruitment (X being whatever factor deemed balanced), which would fade to being a mere +.25X bonus after two weeks, and +0X bonus after a month.

How do you deal with the fact that total CS changes over time? Sometimes radically, such as after a huge battle. Does this include militia, or only mobile? If it includes mobile only, then small realms under siege from larger ones are screwed, because they rely on large amounts of militia. If it includes militia, then just about everyone is screwed, as nearly every realm has significant militia forces somewhere.

But to get the full bonus (or avoid the penalty) in your proposal, you have to have your entire army constantly involved in battle. We already get enough complaints that war isn't exciting enough, and nothing but a continuous cycle of refit/smash/repeat. Doing something like this enforces, or even mandates, this undesirable cycle.

Any way you slice it, this type of proposed mechanic will really slow things down, and is sure to screw over someone who's not fighting the type of war you are spec'ing out with your proposal.

[Chenier]

Yes. Otherwise each side will sacrifice a unit of 5 infantry. Hell, one side could even involve a militia unit.
How do you deal with the fact that total CS changes over time? Sometimes radically, such as after a huge battle. Does this include militia, or only mobile? If it includes mobile only, then small realms under siege from larger ones are screwed, because they rely on large amounts of militia. If it includes militia, then just about everyone is screwed, as nearly every realm has significant militia forces somewhere.

But to get the full bonus (or avoid the penalty) in your proposal, you have to have your entire army constantly involved in battle. We already get enough complaints that war isn't exciting enough, and nothing but a continuous cycle of refit/smash/repeat. Doing something like this enforces, or even mandates, this undesirable cycle.

Any way you slice it, this type of proposed mechanic will really slow things down, and is sure to screw over someone who's not fighting the type of war you are spec'ing out with your proposal.

I might have missed something in the initial proposal, but who cares how attainable the "full bonus" is? Even if you could have gotten more, you'd still have gotten one, thus not much to complain about.

If the bonuses stack (as long as they cap), two battles would mean the same as one of twice the size. No way to abuse this. Also, war in BM IS a continuous cycle of refit/smash/repeat. What else do you expect in a system where you can only recruit in your capital (and repair/cash in bonds in your realm's cities, most likely to be your capital) and where moral penalties are inflicted for being away from your lands too long? It always was such a cycle, and will remain as long as recruiting in capital restrictions remain. Bonuses due to conflict don't change anything in this regards.

The rest of the issues you bring up are trivial design issues, not balance issues. The result is pretty much the same in the end, as long as you select the base factor and cap accordingly.

Let's take your example: What would happen if a small realm is under siege and has a lot of militia, if only mobile troops are counted? Let's say they have 7500 CS of militia, and 2500 CS of mobile forces in their capital, and get attacked: 100% of their mobile forces are engaged, thus, they'd get the full 1X bonus to recruitment. If militia is counted? 100% of their troops are defending the capital, so full 1X bonus again. Being a small realm with their capital under siege, they are unlikely to have militia and troops elsewhere.

Now, big realm gets attacked in a region where it has 5000CS mobile and 2500CS militia, out of a total realm-wide of 10000CS mobile and 12500CS militia. Mobile only: the realm gets .5X bonus. With militia counted, they get .25X instead. Without considering the "echo" battles on the next rounds. The big realms get screwed over, you say, because it is harder to get the full bonus? Who cares for the full bonus? They are big, even if the bonus multiplier is small, the effect is bigger than a bigger multiplier in a small realm.

And how would more recruitment slow things down?

Now, I can't say I'm convinced this mechanic would really bring anything worthwhile to the game, but I really have a hard time seeing it as overly complicated or game-breaking either.