Author Topic: Distance from the capital and anarchists  (Read 211 times)

Chenier

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 7395
    • View Profile
Distance from the capital and anarchists
« Topic Start: May 15, 2017, 12:45:54 PM »
How is it calculated? Bird's eye? Hours to travel? Miles to travel? If travel distance, using only the realm's region, or the shortest route? Number of regions?

In Westgard, Gaston Farms and Gaston seemingly have this problem, which leaves me perplex. Is this because of the doughnuts? I've seen realms way bigger than this, and more stretched than this, without anarchist issues. Are these things that are variable through time or through realms? Because just on Dwilight today, most realms are at least this stretched if not more; are they all plagued with anarchists?

Quote
Duchy Report for Gelene   (6 hours, 26 minutes ago)
message to the duke and nobles of Gelene

Gaston

        With food distribution at its lowest level, the population's only consolation is that they're not yet starving.
        The distance to the capital causes anarchists to prosper, and the people not to feel like part of the realm.
        Production is very low and in desperate need of aid.

Gaston Farms

        Though food distribution has returned to normal, the peasants don't quickly forget having their rations decreased.
        The distance to the capital causes anarchists to prosper, and the people not to feel like part of the realm.

When we had anarchists in Crotona, now that wasn't much of a surprise. But Gaston? It's but a few regions away from the capital: Gelene, Gelene Outskirts, Sabadell, Forguthrie, Gaston Farms, Gaston.

DeVerci

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 183
    • View Profile
Re: Distance from the capital and anarchists
« Reply #1: May 15, 2017, 02:11:27 PM »
When we held onto Eidulb and Eidulb Outskirts(briefly  :'( ), we got anarchists there too. I am pretty sure we also had the message pop up in Sabadell and Ammando a few times.

Anaris

  • BM Dev Team
  • Honourable King
  • *
  • Posts: 7405
    • View Profile
Re: Distance from the capital and anarchists
« Reply #2: May 15, 2017, 02:18:24 PM »
Without looking at the code, I'm 95% sure it's just straight-line distance between the centers of the regions.
Timothy Collett

"The only thing you can't trade for your heart's desire...is your heart." "You are what you do.  Choose again, and change." "One of these days, someone's gonna plug you, and you're going to die saying, 'What did I say? What did I say?'"  ~ Miles Naismith Vorkosigan

Chenier

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 7395
    • View Profile
Re: Distance from the capital and anarchists
« Reply #3: May 15, 2017, 02:27:36 PM »
Are all realms on Dwi getting anarchist problems right now?

Because if we measure Gelene to Gaston as 230 pixels, then Mimer to Eidulb is 238, Port Nebel to the desert is 275 (I don't remember the Desert having anarchist issues when I played in D'Hara), to Girich 235, to Mattan Dews 290. Just to measure a few.

Most apparently long distances were less pixels than anticipated, though, and I only measured for the northern part. But do all these regions have anarchist issues? Because I remember playing in some larger realms without these issues at equivalent distances.

daviceroy

  • Knight
  • **
  • Posts: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Distance from the capital and anarchists
« Reply #4: May 20, 2017, 07:18:07 PM »
I can confirm for you that in D'Hara has that problem with it's far flung areas.

Desert of Silhouettes

        The large distance to the capital causes anarchists to prosper greatly, and the people feel as if the realm does not care about them.

Mattan Dews

        The large distance to the capital causes anarchists to prosper greatly, and the people feel as if the realm does not care about them.

---

One thing I always wondered.  Would it be better to have it calculate for the Ducal Seat?  After all, the Ducal seat should represent the Realm?  Just a random thought


Anaris

  • BM Dev Team
  • Honourable King
  • *
  • Posts: 7405
    • View Profile
Re: Distance from the capital and anarchists
« Reply #5: May 20, 2017, 11:49:32 PM »
The game has no particular concept of a "Ducal Seat". Some Duchies have no city, others have two; how would you calculate it for those?
Timothy Collett

"The only thing you can't trade for your heart's desire...is your heart." "You are what you do.  Choose again, and change." "One of these days, someone's gonna plug you, and you're going to die saying, 'What did I say? What did I say?'"  ~ Miles Naismith Vorkosigan

daviceroy

  • Knight
  • **
  • Posts: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Distance from the capital and anarchists
« Reply #6: May 23, 2017, 11:46:57 AM »
While it is true that some do have no cities and others have two, I think there's another possible solution.  If I'm not mistaken, most Dukes in this stage of the game are also a region lord in that Duchy.  You could then make that region be considered a Ducal Seat.  Any regions too far away from that Seat would not want to listen to the Duke anyway.

Another possibility is that the Ducal Seat has to be "declared" like a capitol.  When you create a duchy, you do so with one region typically and then have the regions join.  That first region would be the de facto Ducal Seat.  They could move it to another region by going there and have a "cost" similar to moving the capitol.  Could even throw in some sort of bonus to loyalty or what not if the Duke visits the Ducal Seat.

Just random musings...

Vita

  • Administrator
  • Mighty Duke
  • *
  • Posts: 1845
    • View Profile
Re: Distance from the capital and anarchists
« Reply #7: May 23, 2017, 08:47:58 PM »
I think its miles as the crow flies (or as Tim wrote, a straight line distance between regions).

While you were gone Chenier, it was realized that the large realm penalties were insufficient. Amongst the changes to fix that, distance was shortened for realms to discourage overly-large realms. Plus, Dwilight has larger distances. It largely depends on capital placement.

I don't think changing it from capital distance to ducal distance (let alone determining what ducal distance would mean for the reasons Anaris wrote) would benefit the game. I tend to consider whatever lordship a duke holds within their duchy as the ducal seat, roleplay-wise.

Chenier

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 7395
    • View Profile
Re: Distance from the capital and anarchists
« Reply #8: May 24, 2017, 04:46:05 PM »
I see.

Problem with Dwilight though is it's !@#$ geography. Unless you are Luria, you are almost certain to have a capital that's placed ridiculously eccentrically (most blatant example: Madina). And when it's relatively central, it's likely because your realm is super linear anyways so you still don't get many regions in that radius from capital (most blatant example: D'Hara). Even Luria has a big lake in the middle, though.

Distance from capital restrictions don't, imo, favor "small" realms anywhere near as much as it favors "realms that are centered in ideal locations with tight city clusters". Feels to me like basing on number of regions would be a more universally fairer mechanic.

Which could include an aspect about duchies. Right now, other than for vanity or paying players off, a realm has no incentive to create duchies. Single-duchy realms have the significant advantage of everyone getting their taxes in gold in the whole realm and all duchy bonuses being realm-wide.

If the old distance penalties were restored (they seemed more appropriate then, imo, only applying to really stretched realms) and compensated by a two-layer regions per realm/regions per duchy penalty, THAT would favor smaller realms as well as incentivize power distribution, with no regard to geography (and thus not favoring realms that are already favored). It could also apply to population instead of pure region count, though, which would be fairer to rebuilding realms that can't always afford to move their capitals to more central locations or split their duchies yet.

Renodin

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 283
    • View Profile
Re: Distance from the capital and anarchists
« Reply #9: May 24, 2017, 04:53:32 PM »

Distance from capital restrictions don't, imo, favor "small" realms anywhere near as much as it favors "realms that are centered in ideal locations with tight city clusters". Feels to me like basing on number of regions would be a more universally fairer mechanic.



You mean to include, Astrum, Morek Empire, Dhara in that list? There was an ancient saying that went something like the following: Geography wasn't created to be equal, the geography was created to inspire conflict and concentrations of power.

Astrum has a very strong position, as does D'hara and so does Luria. The same was true for the core of cities of the Old Morek Empire. Power congeals around these Geographical hotspots. Please stop with this already.

Chenier

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 7395
    • View Profile
Re: Distance from the capital and anarchists
« Reply #10: May 24, 2017, 05:48:30 PM »

You mean to include, Astrum, Morek Empire, Dhara in that list? There was an ancient saying that went something like the following: Geography wasn't created to be equal, the geography was created to inspire conflict and concentrations of power.

Astrum has a very strong position, as does D'hara and so does Luria. The same was true for the core of cities of the Old Morek Empire. Power congeals around these Geographical hotspots. Please stop with this already.

Astrum, yes. Morek, definately not. D'Hara, not really.

Astrum and Luria both concentrate many rich cities in a tight cluster. Morek has no city cluster, I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. D'Hara has a sort of city cluster but the cities are sub par and lack the regions needed to feed them. Luria has 2 of the top 7 richest cities on Dwilight, 2 of the top 5 when you exclude rogue regions. Outer Giask, which isn't even a city, is in the top richest regions.

No, the geography wasn't created to be equal. Doesn't mean we need to accentuate inequalities, and it certainly doesn't mean it it resulted in the conflicts it was meant to inspire. It didn't create jealousy where realms would compete for these valuable spots, it only made hegemonies of those who settled there, who then had the luxury to dictate their will on neighbors, who never really stood a fighting chance. And since these hotspots are so far from each other, they don't really impact each other all that much.

BM might not be perfectly balanced, but it's still very much a competitive game. And these inequalities don't promote conflict, they stifle them. They just end up creating frustrations which only manifest themselves IG by people quitting and giving up.

Renodin

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 283
    • View Profile
Re: Distance from the capital and anarchists
« Reply #11: May 24, 2017, 06:27:49 PM »
The Morek Empire is called that for a reason and so is Luria Nova considered its third iteration of  its empire. They have fallen and reformed.

the lands of the former Morek Empire were vast. Those regions belonged to many smaller realms. Aegir's deep and Nifelheim, that area has a lot of cities, townlands, strongholds. D'hara is literally only cities and townslands, before the east was closed they had plenty of opportunity and still do with their gold.

Luria Nova used to be 4 realms, 5 even at one point. That empire building is possible doesn't make it equal to accentuating inequality. In essence are you saying you are frustrated that some areas allow the creation of larger realms where several smaller realms could exist? That seems a mute argument for the very simple reason that some realms will be bigger than others.

The maps were made the way they were with a reason, this empire building and centers of power taken into consideration. It seems futile to bemoan this decision as it was and is, a core design feature. Using the quality of competitiveness and linking that to geographical advantage you make a point. However, as with any situation there are many advantages to consider that would help to overcome a disadvantage such as geography. I won't list them here for you can well imagine them I reckon.  However, and I will say it again, geography, or map design, as a reason to bemoan advantage or disadvantage, knowing that map design the way it is was a core feature, seem actually silly.

Jealousy, another quality you mention, has very much inspired and led to conflict. The empires, or big realms, that came into existence did so not through peaceful means. They looked onto neighbors, had life and death struggles and eventually formed empires. These very empires broke apart and with time emerged again. If the inequality of geography doesn't promote strife and conflict then what does in your words?

The game is called Battlemaster, the principals are of war and no peaceful realm creation in nearly any way, the maps are designed to promote these values and ideas, the grass being greener on the other side incites desire and yeah, that seems to sum it up pretty well.

Also, personally, your argument that people quit the game as a result of geography is just low in my mind. It is my hope you will be able to frame that particular part a bit more elaborately. I might not have understood you properly or your train of thought.


Chenier

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 7395
    • View Profile
Re: Distance from the capital and anarchists
« Reply #12: May 26, 2017, 04:12:42 PM »
Morek Empire is called Morek Empire because... they felt like it (and I think they weren't able to just reuse plain "Morek" at first, since it was the renaming of Xinhai)? Seriously, there's nothing to it other than the name. It got huge because it has just about no competition, after it moped up Springdale as it imploded, and then surrounded itself with friendly theocracies. At its peak, it wasn't huge because it could crush any of its neighbors with ease, but because there was no neighbor to crush. Morek didn't need advantageous geography to become large, and it most certainly doesn't have it. Actually, it's imo much *better* geography, gameplay-wise, as we can *now* see many realms within that region that can fight each other without any steamrolling. The rest of Dwilight would be better off if it was more like Morek.

Luria has a more legitimate claim to being an "Empire".

That said, I don't get the relevance of these semantics. My point was that various game mechanics already favor tight city clusters, and that reducing distance from capital allowance only further increases the favor towards tight city clusters. The rationale behind lowering the distance allowance was "to make smaller realms more competitive", but that's not really what it does. What it does is make realms with tight city clusters more competitive. But these are already the most competitive realms in the game. Ipso facto, this measure taken for the purpose of reducing inequalities actually increases inequalities.

The maps were made that way because it looked cool and looked like a good idea at the time. There's many things about the map that people were really hyped about back then, that didn't live up to their promise. Maps have changed throughout the game's history. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. A volcano island was added on EC, for example (I think?). Blighting did vast changes, as did the glaciers, or roguification of Dwilight's West. More rarely, I believe there were a few cases of region border changes. The maps aren't as static as you seem to believe.

Please cite examples of jealousy creating  conflicts and empires coming into existence by invading neighbors. Dwilight was founded by 4 colonist realms, and those pretty much colonized the whole map before any significant interaction. Morek kinda killed Springdale, but that's debatable, because Springdale mostly killed itself. Madina has never had any meaningful involvement with any of the other founding realms, and only limited involvement with any other realm at all. Luria barely involved itself in continental affairs for but a few short occasions. Those that grew big did not grow big because a neighbor had some good regions and they went "Ha, I want that!", and then taking it forcefully. Those who grew big did so because they started out with those, or went to an empty location where they could find those. Nobody looked at Luria and went "that cluster looks mighty fine, I should expand into it". Because nobody CAN. It's too frigging far from any potential neighbor. The closest thing that came to be was when Barca was to be relocated, and that had nothing to do with "I'm jealous of what they've got and I want it for myself", but was purely "I need a place for my friends and I happen to hate that realm so I'll try to place them there". And that hatred was purely a historical construct, not the byproduct of jealousy.

Placing more valuable spots LOOKED like a good idea because it LOOKED like it would promote conflict. But it didn't. This game has been going on for many years, and those theories did not pan out. Why? Largely for the rather simple reason that any geographic location worthy of generating envy is able to provide ample capacity to defend itself. Poor nations don't invade rich ones. The weak don't conquer the mighty. All realms of Dwilight except one, at one point, had united against Luria. They still failed. How is jealousy supposed to motivate conflict when it's so futile?

You can also look at other maps. Beluaterra and Atamara basically had the same maps. And for most of their history, they had the same power blocs located in the same regions. Coincidence? How large a part plays player agency when the battlefield is so lopsided? The most populous realms also tended to be in the same regions, and the smaller ones the same. I spent less time looking at EC, but I'm fairly sure I remember a similar pattern with EC/FEI. Then you can look at the blight. Enweil started out as BT's superpower, with the most wealth, regions, strength, allies, etc. When the blight started carving out BT, Enweil shrank. And shrank. And shrank. Not only in terms of regions, but also in terms of nobles. Players quit, either the realm or the game, and never came back, as the landscape turned more and more against them and more and more in favor of enemies. The same was seen with the ice age, with the realms afflicted losing many players. This isn't to debate whether these things were right or not, but to demonstrate that there is a clear historical link between geography and noble count(/might). Every time I have seen a realm handicapped by map changes, it has bled out nobles as a result. There are cases of exceptional players pulling off exceptional stunts. But generally speaking, favorable positions attract more players, unfavorable positions attract less, and this cleavage makes sure that favorable positions generate hegemonies, not jealousy-driven wars.

What the impact of those hegemonies on the game is though is up for grabs. Depends a ton on that realm's culture. Enweil for a while drove conflict by promoting democracy, but it also, for a while, stifled the whole continent by suppressing conflicts. Large empires like Enweil, Cagilan Empire, Luria, and Astrum (or the astrocracy bloc) have had many serious cooling effects, because they tend to terrorize neighbors (if you go to war, we'll destroy you!). I've played in and near many large empires for a decade, and I cannot conclude any other way than saying that while those realms have the potential to create conflict, this is only possible by special active efforts on their part, because on the net their passive dissuasion effect is much, much greater. If you compare the number of wars that have been held around the North-East of Dwilight and the North-West, and then compare it to the number of wars that have been held around Madina, this discrepancy is not a product of randomness. It is the product of geography, first and foremost. Diffused placement of cities creates much more possibilities for conflict that taking all of the cities of a large area and placing them instead in a cluster, remote from anything else.

My arguments are based on empirical data. What's your statements based on?

Renodin

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 283
    • View Profile
Re: Distance from the capital and anarchists
« Reply #13: May 29, 2017, 09:19:27 AM »
My arguments are based on empirical data. What's your statements based on?

If your arguments are based on empirical data and I love reason, why do I feel myself disagreeing so much?

daviceroy

  • Knight
  • **
  • Posts: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Distance from the capital and anarchists
« Reply #14: May 29, 2017, 04:16:35 PM »
The anarchists message is imho ignored mostly.  We know it's there but what does it do?  Sometimes we might have to return the region.  These days the battles I see for realms is against monsters and the undead more than others.  Luria is and always be a power empire.  This is partly due to it's origin, location, and population.  It's no hidden thing that Luria isn't my favorite realm.  I remember my last time in it and how they crushed their opponents mercilessly.  Would I love to see war against another realm? Absolutely.  My biggest frustration with bm is that we don't fight each other as players as much as we used to.