Infiltrators

[songqu88@gmail.com]

I think your "training missions" would be stuff at the academy that you're supposed to RP. That's about as safe as you can get. If you want to do something so safe that it barely does anything, it's better off not even being an option. Why?

On one hand, if it's really safe, but gives a higher chance of skill gain than academy training, and maintains skill each time you use it, then it'll easily allow someone to go to 100% infiltration, no problem.

On the other hand, if there's no skill gain or maintenance, then you're just wasting time and effort doing something that would barely be noticeable. Better off investing the time and money in the academy.

However, what could work is a skill gain limit to certain "safe" actions. This means that once you reach, say, 40%, then doing something like "sneak into the baron's sister's bedchambers", would provide you with no chance of skill gain.

[Chenier]

Chénier, what do you think about the idea of having low-risk options have a much higher fail rate, but also much lower capture chance?

I think it'd be fair. Don't they have the choice to play it safe? Imo, they could be playin' it a little more safe, if you know what I mean, on some missions.

Though to think of it, isn't part of the problem the fact that *all* infiltrator actions can cause bans? On one side, one can loot, initiate takeovers, and kill in battle, but will never be able to be banned. On the other, one can simply play around with road signs and then get banned for life, risking death on his next capture. Seems a little unjust, no? Maybe having it so that infils caught cannot be banned unless they were caught red-handed, such as with a bloody knife in their hands or purses full of gold, while being caught sneaking around not being enough would be a better alternative. After all, isn't plausible deniability the thing we are going for with infils nowadays? They should be able to plausibly deny their way out of a ban, then, should they not?

[Bedwyr]

I think it'd be fair. Don't they have the choice to play it safe? Imo, they could be playin' it a little more safe, if you know what I mean, on some missions.

Though to think of it, isn't part of the problem the fact that *all* infiltrator actions can cause bans? On one side, one can loot, initiate takeovers, and kill in battle, but will never be able to be banned.

Heck with battles and looting, you can commit high treason by defecting with the capital and still not be banned.

[Chenier]

Heck with battles and looting, you can commit high treason by defecting with the capital and still not be banned.

True enough.

Mind you, I think switching your region's allegiance really ought to cause a ban. I mean, simply switching realms as a knight used to do this in the past... While that was a bit extreme, I think it's more than warranted if you take a region along with you.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

We're not commoners, and the lord of the region can go swear to whatever duchy he pleases. Who knows how "realistic" this is, but it would sure as heck make a lot of people mad that they either must get banned or stay with an enemy realm in case something weird causes their region to join an enemy realm while they stay on as lord. This has happened occasionally in the past.

[Lorgan]

How about you add more options? Like Very low risk and very high risk? That would allow low-skill infils to enjoy the class they've chosen already, get a little preview and training and allow very skilled infils to risk it all in order to do major damage to a region, or a noble.

On banning, I completely agree that it's a bit ridiculous that you can be banned for burning down a granary yourself but not if you order your men to do it. Who *really* cares about one granary anyway? In the greater scheme of things, it's not worth a ban I think.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

When it's your men it's an act of war. Your men, paid low class soldiers, are doing it under noble orders. For some realms, it could even be an honorable tradition.

When you dirty your own hands doing it, you are a criminal. Hey, the logic might be a bit screwy by modern standards, but it sounds alright for its time period. Besides, your judge can ban you for looting or fine you. And when you have at least five soldiers with you who have won the most recent battle, if any, a bunch of peasants sure won't be too keen to stop you. When they do they'll have numbers and be loosely organized as a giant mob. But they wouldn't be too eager to die piecemeal against your professional soldiers outside a warehouse.

When you're alone, the peasants know they stand a much better chance. This isn't a game like Assassin's Creed where you're a superhuman fighting machine. You can escape, yes, but sometimes you're surrounded. You can take out maybe even a dozen. Then how many more before your body feels tired?

Two things to keep in mind: Swords are heavy. Infiltrators specialize in stealth and ambush attacks, not sustained overt combat.

[Chenier]

We're not commoners, and the lord of the region can go swear to whatever duchy he pleases. Who knows how "realistic" this is, but it would sure as heck make a lot of people mad that they either must get banned or stay with an enemy realm in case something weird causes their region to join an enemy realm while they stay on as lord. This has happened occasionally in the past.

Not really. A region is only more or less a lord's property. Really, he's just a manager for the guy above him that gets to profit from most of its spoils, and so all the way up the ladder to the Sovereign. To swtich allegiance is to break your oath and steal what was taken from you. I dare say it very much is treason and worthy of a ban.

How about you add more options? Like Very low risk and very high risk? That would allow low-skill infils to enjoy the class they've chosen already, get a little preview and training and allow very skilled infils to risk it all in order to do major damage to a region, or a noble.

On banning, I completely agree that it's a bit ridiculous that you can be banned for burning down a granary yourself but not if you order your men to do it. Who *really* cares about one granary anyway? In the greater scheme of things, it's not worth a ban I think.

Burning food stores can often do quite some damage. If you are caught burning food, I think that warrants a ban. But say you are just counting the gold and caught empty-handed, or just caught playing with the signs, or otherwise just caught before them doing any damage. Plausible deniability should prevent bans in those cases.

[Anaris]

When it's your men it's an act of war. Your men, paid low class soldiers, are doing it under noble orders. For some realms, it could even be an honorable tradition.

When you dirty your own hands doing it, you are a criminal.

This is pretty much it.

[LilWolf]

One of the issues is how banishment are handled. It's actually one of those few things in the game where the turn junkies get the upper hand.

If the banishment option for infiltrators captured in low risk operations was tweaked so that the time the option appears is random(say, at some point during a 3-4 turn time frame, not tied to turn changes) you'd maybe get a chance or two to try and escape. Why random? Well, maybe it takes more time to actually investigate a low risk case and determine what actually happened and whether it's appropriate to banish the noble suspected of it.

[Anaris]

One of the issues is how banishment are handled. It's actually one of those few things in the game where the turn junkies get the upper hand.

If the banishment option for infiltrators captured in low risk operations was tweaked so that the time the option appears is random(say, at some point during a 3-4 turn time frame, not tied to turn changes) you'd maybe get a chance or two to try and escape. Why random? Well, maybe it takes more time to actually investigate a low risk case and determine what actually happened and whether it's appropriate to banish the noble suspected of it.

I dunno...I think that might cause more problems than it's worth.

What I'd really prefer to do is remove the click-war aspect altogether.

OK, here's a somewhat crazy, chocolate-fueled idea for rebalancing prison, bans, and executions:

• Within the first 2 days of prison, the Judge has the ability to rescind ransom.  That is, state that he'll no longer accept any ransom for this prisoner, and he'll have to stay the entire time.  This gives the Judge as much of an honour/prestige hit as executing the prisoner.
• If the Judge does not rescind the ransom, he cannot steal gold or execute (or ban? not sure) a prisoner on the third day, unless the prisoner has explicitly acknowledged the ransom and declined to pay it at that time. (Prisoners on the third day will be given only a pair of links, Pay Ransom or Decline Ransom, and an explanation that they'll still be able to pay the ransom on subsequent days.)
• If the Judge does rescind the ransom, the prisoner will have significantly increased chances of escape, including an increased chance of escape at execution.
• If the Judge's honour is too low, the "rescind ransom" option will no longer be available (or possibly will cause him to instantly lose his position), as the act will simply be seen as too low for him to be able to retain his Judgeship after doing it.
• When there is no Judge, the escape chances will also be increased.

This puts a significant, but double-edged power in the Judge's hands, and makes honour really matter for a Judge.  However, if the Judge chooses not to employ this power, the prisoner has a guarantee that he will be able to pay the ransom on the third day without threat of execution—assuming he has enough money.

What do you think? Does this seem balanced, from both sides?

[songqu88@gmail.com]

If neither acts within the two day period, then default to "judge does not rescind ransom, prisoner declines to pay ransom".

[Anaris]

If neither acts within the two day period, then default to "judge does not rescind ransom, prisoner declines to pay ransom".

Well, yes; that's how it acts now, so I figured that would be assumed as the default.

[fodder]

surely if ban/execute/escape, etc, are resolved at the turn change after link clicked instead of at the moment link is clicked, you'll get rid of the click war.

then you deal with balance between judge/infil

[Anaris]

surely if ban/execute/escape, etc, are resolved at the turn change after link clicked instead of at the moment link is clicked, you'll get rid of the click war.

So if the Judge clicks "execute" and the infiltrator clicks "ransom" or "escape" during the same turn...what then?