Author Topic: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhaul  (Read 3001 times)

CryptCypher

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 269
  • This is not the text you are looking for.
    • View Profile
In effect, Erik was exactly the type of character everyone is complaining about? :P A few of those are good to have, but at least those types have an excuse - and can be balanced by less-aggressive personalities.
[email protected] BM: Yxevarii Auru'in, Grandmistress [Ruler;Priestess-Inquisitor] (Obia'Syela-BT); Sigrid Gudrun Auru'in, Avenging Exile of Xavax, Countess of Slimbar (Redhaven-EC);  Masalu Auru'in, Linguistically-Challenged Sumerian Death-Cultist (D'hara-DW)

Eduardo Almighty

  • Mighty Duke
  • ****
  • Posts: 777
    • View Profile
Another times, I would say...

In the end, these realms were reduced to doubting individuals: Gabriela in Fontan (a torturer), the king of Westmoor (a wacky racist) or the Sultan who would never accept to be deposed, etc... for Erik, a realm that was not willing to kick these people did not deserve to survive to have the opportunity to fight against Sirion another day. Also, some of them asked for Erik's head while they had an advantage. Or, as was common, each new Ruler tried to ignore the whole history of his realm during the war. Erik was not willing to forget, as most of Sirion who always voted in favor of total elimination wars.

Luckily Perdan was far away and Atanamir was overthrown by greater forces, or they would suffer the same fate. And OI has always been very indifferent, some threats of bringing the Silver Legion up there and plundering everything down to the ground usually worked.

Ah... good times. Today I 'm trying to guide my characters differently, first because they do not have that level of power and influence and the game needs smaller realms and wars that do not end in a pile of dead realms. Erik was a result of his time and was directly affected by how his enemies dealt with him. Of all my RPG characters, he was the one who had the most interesting development.
Now with the Skovgaard Family... and it's gone.
Serpentis again!

Gabanus family

  • Board Moderator
  • Mighty Duke
  • *
  • Posts: 1317
    • View Profile
Alright, time to get back to the actual discussion on improving the game, rather than argue who is what and who in which war.

1) Make it possible to TO cities with which you don't share a border, possibly automatically creating a new duchy for them, as a new version of the old CTOs

- I like suggestions in this area because of the following: Right now war is generally very static with chokepoints and risk areas defended by militia etc. When you add the risk that regions beyond the direct border (sometimes just 1 or 2 regions) and introducing the risk that regions beyond that can be taken is interesting. Some additions and options to such a view:

--- Regions which are cut off from the main realm cannot be taxed, or far less because of a broken supply line.

--- In stead of direct TO, allow realms to create true colonies where they can also cash bonds. This would enable war campaigns further from home, but also grants the risk that the colony suddenly demands autonomy and removes this special status. Downside is that it would require an additional diplomatic option "Colonized"

2) Bring back (the option of) communal taxes.

- As Delvin said, I would prefer a more mixed version where the central government is better able to levy taxes on the Dukes/Lords

3) Bring back wealth tax

- I agree with Delvin's view on introducing it, but making it optional.

4) Lower the family wealth cap to 5000
5) Make any action that uses family gold for military purposes instead use personal gold
6) Make buying regions only possible in your own realm or in realms you are allied with.

- I'm not sure how I feel about the family wealth thingies. I do agree that the leeching of gold from realms to a family can be quite problematic, so in that sense I agree with it. Also a lot of the guys with high family wealth actually never spend it, they just keep it high.

I can attest to the fact that you can funnel a lot of gold through, because I've done that with Oligarch. So in that sense I understand there's an issue, I'm just not so sure about what the solution is. I'm more in favor of changing the mechanics than removing them tbh. (Ps, Chenier, all my family wealth comes from looting rogue DWI lands, we're the new breed of 'wealthy').

7) Make religious takeovers factor in realm sympathy and a bunch of new factors to make it almost impossible to pull off, at least when done on human-held lands. Enable it anew in rogue lands.

- What is the reasoning behind this needing any change? I have not seen a RTO in ages myself. So did I miss something here? And allowing this for rogue regions will just mess up Dwilight entirely I fear. Then priests become the only ones to TO and then the army just marches to defend and we'll see quite some expansions lowering the density further.

8) Remove peasant militias completely: only player actions should stop player actions.

- When it comes to the peasant militia which rises upon arrival due to hatred, I completely agree. I've raged against this for IRL years by now, pretty much since it was introduced. It's a rediculous mechanic which completely ruins any form of fun warfare, especially for smaller realms. As Oligarch we were ultimately unable to leave our capital without facing 6k peasant armies in an instant.... It also completely destroyed the option of looting, which is a shame.

- When it comes to the peasant militia based on looting, I think it should be reduced, but I'm not 100% certain it should be removed. What is the reasoning behind this in more detail?

9) When too much looting is done, instead of peasant militias, locals should run away to nearby regions.

- And will they then return later on in your plans?

10) Convert 15% of all militia units to local population every week. Reduce this decay by 2% per fortification level.

- Right now militia doesn't really leave when they're getting pay. I'd suggest fixing this first to avoid a lot of militia in regions which can't really support it. This should already help. Now what you're proposing goes into militia being much more short term, but that would require some more thought than just this I think.

12) Return the distance from capital radius to what it used to be, if not larger.

- For all I care it's nearly reduced, especially for travelling armies.

13) Add a "Demesne" alternative to lordships, where a region goes lordless without penalties other than a tax penalty or 100% of it going to the communal pot. Referendums don't run for it in democracies. The game has too many regions like Wasteland and the Desert of Silhouettes that don't deserve putting any nobles to them, but which in some cases must be taken for a number of other reasons.

- I liked the discussion on this matter. Now Delvin has some plans on this so I'll react to those in stead:

I like the idea of a more dynamic war, but do have quite a specific question about Delvin's plan:

Realm A has 20 nobles and core regions + some outer regions
Realm B has 7 nobles and a ring of core regions + no outer regions

Realm A attacks B and takes two of their core regions (which becomes an outer region for realm A) and then has to go to refit
Realm B uses the refit to quickly take back both regions (outer regions, so they're taken super fast right?) and they become realm B's core regions again and then withdraws back to the capital once Realm A's army arrives again (possibly attacks some more outer regions from A first)

I'm trying to better understand your plan to see the pros and cons of it, to help also identify pitfalls. Because if it works like the above, it will become nearly impossible to destroy a realm or really damage them once you reach the core regions around the capital.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2018, 11:00:55 AM by Gabanus family »
New account active chars:
Garas: First Oligarch - Goriad: Astrum - Goriad II: Obia'Syela

Chenier

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 7894
    • View Profile
A point I've made on the IRC I feel the need to bring up here:

Large hollowed out realms are bad. But splitting large hollowed our realms into multiple small hollowed out realms is not any better. Arguably, it is worse.

The argument around capital radius shrinkage (and by capital radius, I mean the region mechanic, not the troop mechanic, which afaik does not work off the capital) was that it would force smaller realms, which would be more dense, and thus more dynamic. And largely, this is accurate. At least, in places where all realms basically just grow into rogue lands, without competition except from the monster spawns when people grow too much. Namely, Dwilight.

That's not the effect, though, in more dynamic continents, where land is mostly taken from other realms, and significant player migrations between realms have been seen. The effect is actually the opposite there.

Because if you take one large 21 region realm with 21 nobles, and you then tinker the capital distance allowance to force realms to be even smaller, you then end up with, say, three 7 region realms with 7 nobles each. Congratulations, you've made the realm full of smaller realms! But each realm just maintains the same low 1:1 density, so you've done nothing about all about everyone already being a lord and having no reason to expand. Not only that, but if you consider government positions, and duchies, the 21 region realm with 1 duchy had 26 titles to share around. The broken down version? 36 titles to spread around. For the same 21 nobles. So you've got even less competition going on, and even more titles where only 1 candidate runs or, worse, none at all. All while taking that pool of people that could interact with each other and breaking them down into small parts with very few people to interact with.

Small is not always better. And I say this despite historically always having been a fan of small realms, and having had many of my fondest memories in them. But the community isn't what it used to be. And promoting small realms was never about preventing successful dynamic realms from becoming sizable, or at least shouldn't have been.

To Gabanus,

On point 7, I haven't seen an RTO as of late. But it's in the same spirit of things than the rest. Would rather not wait for it to become a problem before dealing with it.

On point 8, because I feel player actions should stop player actions. If you want an army to stop looting you, attack it. If peasant militias due to looting must remain (those due to travel should absolutely be utterly removed), then they should spawn in lower numbers (maximum 4k CS in the best of cases, more typically 2k CS), and they should spawn with the scattered condition, rallying only on the following turn, so that when an army decides on whether to loot or not, they already know ahead of time what forces they will fight. This would eliminate the risk of having a 7k army loot, and after the 14th noble does it, 10k militia spawns: "SURPRISE!". It's dumb, and it seriously limits tactics.

On 9, I wouldn't have them return. I mean, I'd love for realms to have an option to actively move population around, but I'm not counting on it. Looting is supposed to hurt, reduced population is one way to achieve that. The kill count could be lowered to compensate, though. After all, looting many regions in a row would mean population moves back and forth, they aren't all lost. I think it would be too much hassle to script something for a return mechanic, but the natural migration of high pop regions to depopulated regions could certainly be increased.

Ketchum

  • Mighty Duke
  • ****
  • Posts: 1644
    • View Profile
Quote
3) Bring back wealth tax

Gabanus- I agree with Delvin's view on introducing it, but making it optional.

I like this wealth tax idea. In medieval age, nobles and common folk are expected to contribute towards their countries. Common folk contribute farm grains(food) since they do not have wealth. While nobles contribute wealth or if they prefer fighting, they join the army. In this current time and age, we have income tax where the wealthy are being taxed more than the poorer.

Quote
7) Make religious takeovers factor in realm sympathy and a bunch of new factors to make it almost impossible to pull off, at least when done on human-held lands. Enable it anew in rogue lands.

- What is the reasoning behind this needing any change? I have not seen a RTO in ages myself. So did I miss something here? And allowing this for rogue regions will just mess up Dwilight entirely I fear. Then priests become the only ones to TO and then the army just marches to defend and we'll see quite some expansions lowering the density further.
I remember my character who was a Priestess conducted RTO on rogue lands, it was very long time ago. It is probably the fastest Takeover compared to other types of Takeover. If you wish to balance this RTO out, you can give a % chance where the rogue(can be bandit who govern the small villages) to capture the priest. Also maybe balance on how many numbers of the priest religion followers in that region that can protect the priest from harm after failed RTO. So the priest at the very least must put in some efforts to preach and convert followers in that region before the priest can conduct RTO. We do not want everyone to turn and become Priests and conduct RTO easily, which is the fastest Takeover type.


Quote
Gabanus: 13) Add a "Demesne" alternative to lordships, where a region goes lordless without penalties other than a tax penalty or 100% of it going to the communal pot. Referendums don't run for it in democracies. The game has too many regions like Wasteland and the Desert of Silhouettes that don't deserve putting any nobles to them, but which in some cases must be taken for a number of other reasons.

Chenier: Large hollowed out realms are bad. But splitting large hollowed our realms into multiple small hollowed out realms is not any better. Arguably, it is worse.
A much more precise point here. We have issue where lands more than nobles numbers can support.

Let put a case here for some review. On EC, there is Nivemus. We have many regions lordless. Gabanus know this idea of mine. Now if I ask the Dukes to split up our realm into 2 realms(Nivemus+1 new realm), we are still not any better in terms of regions lordless and few nobles. New realm still has some lordless regions while Nivemus remains same. Now I like Gabanus idea here to penalize those realms with lordless regions. I can foresee people going to abandon their outer lands to become rogue and consolidate their realm inner lands. Perhaps in near future when their realm has more nobles than lords, they will return to reclaim the former rogue outer lands.
Werewolf Games: Villager (6) Wolf (4) Seer (3); Lynched as Villager(1). Lost as Villager(1), Lost as Wolf(1) due to Parity. Hunted as Villager(1). Lynched as Seer(2).
Won as Villager(3). Won as Seer(1). Won as Wolf(3).
BM Characters: East Continent(Brock), Colonies(Ash), Dwilight(Gary)

Chenier

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 7894
    • View Profile
Just to point out: wealth tax used to be a thing. Bankers could set between 5-20% (or so?) on gold and bonds, past X limit. RTOs on rogue regions is no longer possible, it was quickly removed after how easy it was seen to be.

I'm also very reticent with all mechanics that inhibit growth. Growth comes from success, first and foremost. I see no reason to arbitrarily limit success. The solution to having both the "discourage or prevent realms where 100% of the nobles have titles" and the "encourage wars by allowing realms to grow as much as their military will allow it" is to make it so that something can allow for a realm to grow much larger without it automatically meaning that every region taken adds 1 title to attribute. Essentially, a new lordless status. But not as it is now, but one that incites realms to grow as much as possible while also inciting realms to not have more than half of its nobles as lords. This can potentially mean having some of the lordless regions fall more under the purview of dukes or rulers, that, while less effective than if it had an actual lord, is still beneficial enough to encourage realms to go to war for.

Gabanus family

  • Board Moderator
  • Mighty Duke
  • *
  • Posts: 1317
    • View Profile
Yeah I remember the wealth tax but Dukes eventually avoided this through personal guilds they used as separate banks. I say Dukes as the main reason wealth tax was used in those days was to counter a hoarding semi inactive Duke whom you couldn't get rid off as half of the time these 'bastards' were royals as well. I remember complicated plots with infils (which often failed). So I'm not sure how much effect the wealth tax would have. Those with much to lose can safely circumvent it still atm.

On the other proposal. This one I love, not just like, but love. I think it would add much more incentive for war and makes realm more realistic as there are too many [email protected]#$ty regions in the game. Ketchum is right about Nivemus. Being lord of just about anything around Oroya and Parm is more a punishmebt than a reward.

Of all the ideas you put forth, this remains my favorite by far.
New account active chars:
Garas: First Oligarch - Goriad: Astrum - Goriad II: Obia'Syela

Constantine

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 428
    • View Profile
Right now I only have one suggestion off the top of my head.
Buying regions is not a terrible mechanic, it is actually kinda cool. But the way it is implemented does create a leaving-a-bad-taste-in-the-mouth situation where you can just steal a region from under opponent's nose if after days and days of TO you manage to log in earlier than their ruler. This grants an unfair advantage in my opinion.
So just make buying a region a non-instant action. Make it take at least a turn and fail if the region gets a lord successfully appointed in the meantime.

Vita

  • Administrator
  • Honourable King
  • *
  • Posts: 2155
    • View Profile
It should already be implemented that you can't buy a region shortly after a takeover is completed. I thought.

There's also two methods of buying regions - immediately and at turn, with different risks.

Gabanus family

  • Board Moderator
  • Mighty Duke
  • *
  • Posts: 1317
    • View Profile
Not so sure that's already implemented.
New account active chars:
Garas: First Oligarch - Goriad: Astrum - Goriad II: Obia'Syela

Constantine

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 428
    • View Profile
Well, what are the risks really? You lose some gold and go to jail for a week? If so, those are laughable.
Just don't allow people buy regions instantly. The pay off is just so high while possible repercussions are the same as if fighting in a normal battle.

Vita

  • Administrator
  • Honourable King
  • *
  • Posts: 2155
    • View Profile
go to jail for a week?
When you get caught trying to buy a region, you go to jail as a criminal just like infils caught in the act, which allows banishments and executions (if previously banished).

pcw27

  • Mighty Duke
  • ****
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
I have some thoughts on peasant militias.

The original point of this mechanic was to make it more challenging for realms to depopulate enemy regions. It sounds as if the peasants are now way too powerful. Rather than completely eliminating this mechanic which might usher in another period of excessive use of total war tactics it would make more sense to just tone them down.

Chenier

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 7894
    • View Profile
I think I've stated it already, but I'm of the opinion that the solution to armies completely killing a region's full population is, instead of having that population all rise up to get slaughtered even faster, they instead flee to neighboring regions which will then overcrowded and, gradually, migrate back to the original location. If massive devastation merely moved population instead of killing it, it'd be harder to have zones uninhabitable for ages. While still allowing players to cause somewhat lasting harm instead of something that's auto-fixed within a refit cycle.