[Discuss] Brainstorming: Limiting Large Alliances (Take 42)

[John Reumerman]

I don't like that idea to be honest, in the old days they didn't set a goal and kept on it. They just concuered and they stopped when they thought was best at that time. (natural borders, ceas-fire, political influence of others etc). I don't think we should put that amount of rules to things as war. War is war, fight and kill. Just find a way to stimulate war a bit more, but don't set rules on it, it's beautifull in battlemaster as it is.

> From: danaris at mac.com> Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 15:37:16 -0400> To: discuss at news.battlemaster.org> Subject: Re: [Discuss] Brainstorming: Limiting Large Alliances (Take 42)> > OK, I thought of something else, that I think will help create a > solid foundation for dealing with a lot of these problems. It's not > simple or quick, but I think it will also add a really interesting > and useful new dimension to the game.> > We need to make diplomatic relations more than just single numbers in > the database.> > Peace treaties, alliances, and federations all need to be game- > recognized agreements, with definable conditions and limits. Wars > should be declared for specific reasons, by one realm, against > another, and if allies want to join in a war, they can. The only > diplomatic status that should be maintainable without a clear set of > defining conditions is neutrality--and even that can have conditions > when it is achieved by a ceasefire or surrender (more on those > later ;-) ). Now, to expand some:> > Agreements:> All agreements that raise relations need defined terms. In general, > these will follow the same pattern: we won't attack each other, we'll > take quick action against loose-cannon infiltrators who do, we'll > always sell you food if we have at least X surplus, at least 2 weeks' > notice before dissolving, etc. These kinds of things can be > recognized by the game pretty easily, and enforced--as in, any noble > attempting to violate it will receive a warning that this contravenes > the agreement, and if they do it anyway, the other side has the > option to ignore the incident, renegotiate, or dissolve the agreement > immediately, without prejudice. Breaking an agreement without the > specified notice will incur some kind of penalty--maybe to honour & > prestige, maybe to peasant morale; the details need testing and > balancing.> > Ceasefires should work much the same, but always have a relatively > short time limit, which the realms involved can override for ~1 day > on either side of the limit, extending the ceasefire. However, that > doesn't make the peasants happy...> > Wars:> When declaring a war, you need defined goals. These can be game- > recognizable goals (take regions X, Y, and Z; loot this much food and > that much gold; force the banning of the noble who insulted your > ruler, etc), or freeform things like "make them apologize." The > aggressor in the war (the one who declares it) can decide at any time > that the freeform goals have been met; however, if there are game- > recognizable goals, attempting to end the war *before* they are met > will bring outrage from the peasants. Conversely, attempting to > continue the war *after* they are met will upset the peasants, too > (unless you've managed to whip them up into Hatred; then anything goes).> > For the defender, I'm not quite as sure what the goals should be > defined as. Naturally, if the aggressor ever decides to end the war, > the defender can agree with no penalty. However, if they can achieve > symmetrical goals to those the aggressors have stated, I think that > should produce the same effects as for the aggressors doing the same.> > If *either* side achieves their goals, the peasants on *both* sides > will be more willing to accept peace--and, indeed, will push for it, > in their own filthy, peasantly ways. That encourages the loser to > accept an unfavourable peace.> > However, another condition that war can be fought to is *surrender*.> > Surrender:> A realm that is losing a war (in their own subjective view) should > have the option to offer surrender. This forces the other side to > the bargaining table unless they have previously declared "no > quarter." The diplomatic status is set temporarily to "neutral", and > the rulers of both sides must negotiate terms, which can include > handover of regions, stepping down of one or more position holders > (region or Council), banning of one or more nobles (but not more than > a certain % of the realm), a payment of tribute (how that should be > handled, I'm not quite sure), and any terms applicable in agreements > as mentioned above. Naturally, the winning side is free to offer any > concessions they wish, as well, but unless they have good reason to > want the war over *fast* they shouldn't be offering much.> > If terms of surrender include ongoing conditions, such as "stay out > of our land", they become established agreements, and are arbitrated > by the game much like any other.> > Note that while I have been talking in terms of a 1-vs-1 war, any > number of allies can *join* a war on either side. If they want to > take a new side against both parties, they'll have to declare their > own war, which will just make things more interesting. Surrender by > the initial aggressor or defender *can*, if they agree on it, end the > war for their allies, as well. All surrender negotiations are > between the surrendering realm and *all* realms on the opposing side, > though multiple realms can negotiate together and work out identical > surrender agreements--that's up to players.> > Now, that's a lot of stuff for anyone to remember, and agreements > *do* get forgotten over time....so there should be some mechanism > whereby a long-standing agreement needs to be renewed by one or both > sides every so often, or it just disappears, lost in a back drawer of > the Royal Archives. Not sure how that should work yet, though.> > *Phew!* That was longer than I expected...> > Timothy Collett> Anaris Family> > --> > "While all answers are replies, not all replies are answers."> ~ Ta'Lon> > > -- > Unsubscribing and other list options:> http://news.battlemaster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss> > > -- > Unsubscribing and other list options:> http://news.battlemaster.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-moderated
_________________________________________________________________
De mooiste afbeeldingen van Angelina Jolie vind je met Live Search
http://search.live.com/images/results.aspx?q=angelina%20jolie&FORM=QBIR
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://news.battlemaster.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20071009/d98595f2/attachment-0001.htm