Author Topic: Too Few Nobles: A fix for noble density?  (Read 4551 times)

Chenier

  • Exalted Emperor
  • ******
  • Posts: 8120
    • View Profile
Re: Too Few Nobles: A fix for noble density?
« Topic Start: September 08, 2017, 04:59:10 PM »
I think we have to be careful when looking at the past, to be as objective as possible. Are the discussion list archives still there?

I can't really remember a time when everyone was happy with the state of the game, at least, through its entirety. I've been content with the state of BT and Dwi for many large periods of times, but I also recall that even when things were good there, there was often discontent in some parts of those continents, plus on other continents. Atamara and EC were prone to risk-averse leaders and stagnating power blocs. EC has a tendency to repeatedly consolidate itself into a 1-faction continent.

Were rebellions more common back in the days? I find it hard to tell, they were never all too common. Maybe a little, but we do still see some now and then. Were secessions more common? Absolutely. It's true that it was easier to make a viable splinter realm back then, given more nobles, but the declining frequency of secessions is also clearly attributable to the decreasing ratio of duchies per realm. Every city and stronghold used to be a duchy. Now? Most realms strive to have as few duchies as possible, even when they have many cities and strongholds. There are some exceptions, especially in the older realms, but the reason for this is twofold: 1) duchy creation is no longer automatic, it fully lies within the ruler to decide to cede greater power to a subordinate, and 2) there are mechanical advantages to having as few duchies as possible, to take advantage of taxes coming in cash and region maintenance bonuses. Were colony takeovers more common then? Absolutely. Do they still even exist? Colony takeovers were the obvious choice for superpowers to extend their campaign against far-away competing superpowers. We don't really have those kinds of superpowers anymore.

But to return to the point, if we go back in time, we'll see a lot of cases where realms were dense, and still boring/inactive/pacifist, often imposing their boring hegemony on others. Spread out realms will have a hard time engaging neighbors, but we must not take for granted that dense realms will automatically do so. Luria, Fissoa, Madina, and D'Hara were all realms that, even when they had much more nobles, more gold, and less monsters to deal with, did not engage their neighbors in any significant way. Luria had a few brief campaigns with D'Hara, Fissoa, and Astrum/Morek. Madina has a few brief campaigns with D'Hara and Aurvandil/Falkirk (forced). Fissoa has a few brief campaigns with Luria and Falkirk/Aurvandil. D'Hara had the most campaigns despite being largely pacifist, with Madina, Melodia, Shadovar, Caerwyn, Luria, Aurvandil, Phantaria, the Zuma a few short-lived colonies I don't recall, and a lot of close ones with the Zuma, Luria, and the astroist realms of the North. It can kind of sound like a lot when listed out like this, but this was over a span of a large number of years, with large holes between conflicts, and many of those being imposed one-sided, such as by the multi-abuser realm of Aurvandil/Falkirk conquering the whole South-West.

If every realm was crammed together, they'd have greater potential for war, but as we've seen in the past, such potential is not always exploited.

The issue does rise an idea, though, about mobility. The realm is largely based around feudal Europe, and thus places strong emphasis on ties to land and as such immovable goods. People are tied to specific land, and fight for that specific land, and only infrequently go very far for very long. And we've seen the results of trying to just ad hoc tell people to "migrate" out of specific danger zones, both with the monsters in the West and with the glaciers. The Migrant realms wait until the last minute, they burn through all their resources, and by the time they finally get on the move, they stand no chance. Even those who didn't wait past "too late" arrive in hostile soil with little to no recruitment potential, income, and are expected to settle near competitors that have all of their economy and infrastructure open to them. I don't recall any of the migrant realms succeeding, and if any did, I doubt it wasn't without very particular circumstances.

So, do we need to keep the game focused on immobility? Cash trough taxes through region ownership, recruits through region infrastructure via the capital, these things make people ineffective away from their capital or if they don't have enough regions to back them up.

What if we implemented mechanics to simulate nomad nations? Buy some "colony caravans", pack up thousands of citizens, and ditch your old realm. Set up camps here and there to allow some refitting. Let the ruler recruit a special "capital" caravan, which he can drop and pick up along his travels, which acts as the realm's capital. I would expect such mechanics would be a lot of work, but it could open new opportunities. Some realms that want to be a more nomad-like raider nation could live on the move, set up secret capitals, and harass other nations for gold and glory. Colonist-themed nations, on the other hand, could afford to go set up where they want to be, at least gradually, and thus increase their odds of success and make their whole project more viable especially when the target regions are depopulated. Finally, more imperialistic minded nations could go pack up if they find themselves in a boring isolated corner, and go settle up closer to civilization, in order to be able to start invading others more traditionally.

Some maps have major flaws and would be much better if tweaked, but at least allowing the realms that settled up in bad locations years ago would have the chance to pick a more fun spot. It'd also allow for dying realms a chance to go find somewhere else to go, giving a chance for old feuds to live on.

Dit donc camarade soleil / Ne trouves-tu ça pas plutôt con / De donner une journée pareil / À un patron