What is your playstyle as a general/marshal?

[Indirik]

There are some good ideas here. Some may go just a bit too far.

1) I am in favor of removing the ability to send cross-realm messages for all except council positions. Exception: You should always be able to talk to people in the same region with you. Those messages, however, are already restricted in that they have to be sent to everyone in the region. We would need to remove the private reply link. Possibly just add a check to the message editor screen that gives an error message if you do try to send a private message to someone outside your realm.

2) Continuing with #1, does anyone other than the ruler really need to be able to send messages to their counterparts? I can't really think of a reason for the banker to be sending messages. Maybe judges for prisoner agreement kind of things. Generals could possibly set the Rules of Engagement. But then again, rulers could handle all that kind of stuff, too. But then again, is removing the ability from the entire council really just a knee-jerk over-reaction?

3) I *think* that the winning team on SI got some kind of minor reward. A tip-of-the-hat, really. Scaling it to how long you've been in the realm isn't a bad idea.

4) I'm not sure we really need to remove the ability of nobles to switch realms. Sometimes it does make sense. But should we remove the ability to take your region with you?

5) Restoring autobans for allegiance changes... maybe only if you take your region with you?


Also, isn't this really the wrong place for this discussion? I didn't mean to derail the thread with a tirade against the SI situation.

[Indirik]

I think the sky must be falling, because I am in complete agreement with Kai

How about all three of us?

Characters/families have no real ties to realms or lands. They can just move to another realm on a whim, losing nothing, except perhaps an ephemeral lordship that can be easily replaced. In an environment where things are easily replaced, things have no meaningful value.

So, what can be done to provide that meaningful value? Do we want to really try to create that meaningful value?

[Eirikr]

Disclaimer: I haven't read the rest of this thread yet.

My playstyle is not to let other realms know my strategies.

Seriously, though, I'll put up some stuff... someone just had to make the joke.

EDIT: Still haven't read the rest of the thread, but...

I like to test my enemy's initial strategies and concoct something completely on the other end of the spectrum. Big army? I'll break mine up into smaller ones and go around you. Small armies? Force you into a choke point or just go for the throat. I'm also a big fan of distractions, primarily that of sending some units into a more sensitive area to force the other army to respond. A good example was when I sent a raiding party into the mountains of the CE instead of joining the fight in Cantril (waste of time anyway). With a force about a fifth their size, I delayed the CE from returning to Cantril for somewhere between three days to a week. I actually lucked out -- I didn't realize the travel times would be so severe from all sides. Whereas we (the Barony) could throw away our units and walk back home without one, the CE needed to retain their units or face a breakthrough by Eston.

[Constantine]

4) I'm not sure we really need to remove the ability of nobles to switch realms. Sometimes it does make sense. But should we remove the ability to take your region with you?

It's not about switching realms. It's about crippling your original realm while at it. I believe it's the most important step for damage control.
Rogue nobles pretty much plundered Ikalak, transferring regions with knights to other realms. We had our treasury stolen by Bankers two times, for crying out loud.
If SI's purpose is a war game with minimum internal intrigue, it's absolutely important to disallow nobles from doing this kind of stuff.
Spies can't do even half that damage.

If you think this discussion derails the thread, maybe you could branch this discussion into SI subforum?

[Gabanus family]

So, what can be done to provide that meaningful value? Do we want to really try to create that meaningful value?

I also tend to like the noble's individualistic nature from time to time. Many still hold close to their realms however.

I do like the idea of expanding your family however, making your mansion more real. Perhaps even make it possible for people to loot the family mansions of others and the requirement to hide your money etc. Have you build secondary mansions on other continents where you store part of the family wealth etc. Then if you switch, you would need to ensure your entourage/family etc also escapes or face the consequences. Something like this.

[Gabanus family]

I like to test my enemy's initial strategies and concoct something completely on the other end of the spectrum.

This is also an interesting strategy, but can also be very dangerous. I've played multiple Generals and often my strategy depended on the situation and my enemies. In the case of Sirion now I chose a very defensive strategy, let the enemy make mistakes by being overconfident and then creating the upperhand slowly but steadily.

Concerning my Marshals I was forced to give them more space than I've done in the past for instance. But that was also because my General was a very young char and the Marshals very respected nobles.

[Chenier]

This is also an interesting strategy, but can also be very dangerous. I've played multiple Generals and often my strategy depended on the situation and my enemies. In the case of Sirion now I chose a very defensive strategy, let the enemy make mistakes by being overconfident and then creating the upperhand slowly but steadily.

Concerning my Marshals I was forced to give them more space than I've done in the past for instance. But that was also because my General was a very young char and the Marshals very respected nobles.

I'd adjust my unit settings to my enemies, but not my strategies.

You'd be surprised how often the same armies re-use the same unit settings for every single battle. If you know how the enemy will deploy, you can use it against him.

[Gabanus family]

I'd adjust my unit settings to my enemies, but not my strategies.

You'd be surprised how often the same armies re-use the same unit settings for every single battle. If you know how the enemy will deploy, you can use it against him.

I sometimes make the mistake of keeping my settings the same for too long, although that's also getting less and less so.

I do adjust my strategy however, I find it useful from time to time. Mostly on the entire context however and not just my enemy.

[flames]

I adjust my strategy to everything - situation in my realm, my enemy, my allies, etc.

[Haerthorne]

My playstyle is pretty relaxed. I'll focus on making sure everyone knows what to do and where we should be. I can see how useful some mechanical aspects of play are, but I'm not normally the one to see them until they're pointed out by someone else since I tend to keep my eyes on the personal interactions between nobles and how motivated they are. It pays off since I don't want to micromanage everything and having other people pick up my slack shows me who would be best suited to replace me if I were to disappear.

As much of being a General is politics, and people don't give that enough credit. Particularly I've found that on the War Island where because everyone wants to be involved but in their own way you really have to convince them that the current path is the right one. Choose where to compromise and where not to. And when to just trust that crazy guy inside of you saying "attack".

[Sacha]

Maybe judges for prisoner agreement kind of things.

Ugh... I wouldn't mind if those got removed as well.

[Chenier]

Ugh... I wouldn't mind if those got removed as well.

Game mechanics favor these things. Every judge action drains H/P. If a judge can get away with not actually doing any, by saying it's to protect his peers, he just got himself a free ride, because freed peers will be grateful, freed prisoners will not launch a personal vendetta against you, and if in a large war your h/p won't be drained to zero within a month, all while being able to say the job is being done.

Remove the h/p costs to judge actions, and you'd see less of these prisoner agreements.

[Sacha]

Yep, good point. I mean, they're enemies, who gives a !@#$ what you do to them? WI only of course.