cRPG
Strategus => Strategus General Discussion => Topic started by: NuberT on March 28, 2011, 02:08:58 pm
-
I think forming Alliances should be limited somehow, because otherwise the game will end up like most other mmorpg with 2 big meta-alliances fighting each other and everyone else wiped out, which is boring.
So heres my idea:
The number of players within an alliance is limited, lets say to 50 players. So it could consist of 1 faction with 50 players or 10 factions with 5 players etc. This does not mean a faction can not have more then 50 players, but they can only have 50 players active on the strategus map while other can only participate in battles. Within an alliance gold, troops, equipment, fiefs can be exchanged for free, while outside an alliance it can only be traded.
This would of course still end up with 2 big metas so the number of wars an alliances can have simultaneously should be also limited..
Hopefully this would bring many small wars, a lot of action and fun.
-
And how do you want to achieve this effect, considering that all diplomatic arrangements are done outside of the actual game, i.e. they are just the arrangements done by few guys talking to each other? There is (was) no "diplomacy" function in-game (strategus)
-
This could never be implemented, even if diplomacy it's introduced in-game, alliances will still be made outside. I am sure UIF will stay together after the wipe so unless the rest of the world unites against them the 2nd Strategus will be a lot shorter :rolleyes:
-
This could never be implemented, even if diplomacy it's introduced in-game, alliances will still be made outside. I am sure UIF will stay together after the wipe so unless the rest of the world unites against them the 2nd Strategus will be a lot shorter :rolleyes:
One thing most people don't see: Before the UIF, it was the Templar alliance that "ruled" calradia, in terms of land, UIF started with only the DRZ northern lands and the SeaRaider Sargoth area, yet managed to take the "big boy seat" from the templars, if the southern templars would have fought, and not used "lol pubcrawl" crap to GTX strategus, we would have had a nice long war going on.
-
leiknir is right, sides were fair, templars refused to hire us and even tried to deter us from fulfilling our contract with 22nd ( as you probably know i didn't give a fuck about what they said, if they had attacked us they would have lost, if they had paid us they would have won, they hadn't the balls to do anything as i thought they did nothing ) they made a stupid choice there, then templars were definatly stupid and got their own army wiped by themselves with an obvious lack of tactic, sides were fair, templars failed, you could have given templars 20k more troops and 5 more villages and castles they still would have lost, + their alliance was a fail too and fallens gave a small push into their territory
stupid choices lead to big fails, not about alliances
-
The fall of the Templar can be rather directly tied to the departure of Growl. They are hardly the same faction now.
-
The history of Strategus is a bit different than any of you are suggesting :)
Also, limited alliances won't work. There shouldn't be restrictions on player's or factions ability to interact and do diplomacy.
Its inevitable that people will try to form alliances and groups. Since you can't change that aspect, and if you tried to it'd make the game boring, you have to change other things.
Strategy/war games are always better when they try to fully account for the factors involved in warfare. Its impossible to do it fully, but the more you try, the better the game is. That's why it needs economic and logistical elements - war is, and should be, very difficult. It'd also be nice to have the social elements taken away from players too, though I think that'd be quite hard to do. Ideally the aspect that the players should have full control over is the leadership and the actual fighting - they play the part of the government and the military of their faction. The rest is down to game mechanics and they have to manage it properly.
Make economic, logistical, social (possibly) factors more complex and challenging - the diplomatic stuff should be handled by the players. With more complex and challenging mechanics of warfare, it won't be so simple and easy (and obviously beneficial) to just form a huge alliances block and wipe everyone.
For example, previously strategus was a bit like Risk - take territories to make more soldiers to take more territories. However, it was like Risk with alliances allowed, which is silly. Risk can't be played with alliances and diplomacy between players, because the game isn't complex enough to allow it. Strategus has diplomacy, and the game has to be complex enough to allow for it.
-
You must play a different version of Risk than I play. Mine was always about
lying to people diplomacy.
-
The fall of the Templar can be rather directly tied to the departure of Growl. They are hardly the same faction now.
The Templars were going through a whole reform while they were being attacked... so it wasn't really the best time.
On topic, bad idea to be honest. See Bane's post, I agree with that fully.
-
You must play a different version of Risk than I play. Mine was always about lying to people diplomacy.
giggle.. +1
-
What I don't want is 300 troops vs 15k troops and the 300 all have good equipment while the 15k don't give a shit and buy bride dresses. That is just retarded.
-
Strategus has diplomacy, and the game has to be complex enough to allow for it.
Absolutely yes. Let's hope that looong schedule that chadz assumed will result in such game.
-
I am understanding your points, but I still think it would be more fun for everyone with restrictions. I played Galaxy-Network ages ago, but it always ended up the same two big metas fighting each other and rest of the players has been wiped out.
And the implementation of an alliance-system, which checks the numbers of players, into strategus shouldn't be that hard.
Perhaps we discuss this again in a year :mrgreen:
-
The Templars were going through a whole reform while they were being attacked... so it wasn't really the best time.
Excuse me but god is willing us to not fight atm and to sort out whos in charge please would you refrain from attacking us till we are ready to go on a crusade.
I doubt theres a way to stop people making alliances together but hopefully even if there are it wont be a stand off.
-
I am understanding your points, but I still think it would be more fun for everyone with restrictions. I played Galaxy-Network ages ago, but it always ended up the same two big metas fighting each other and rest of the players has been wiped out.
And the implementation of an alliance-system, which checks the numbers of players, into strategus shouldn't be that hard.
Perhaps we discuss this again in a year :mrgreen:
Yeah but who cares if you're not allied ingame as long as you are on good terms? There is no downfall of being not allied.
Maybe you could force that you can only hire ally mates for your battles, but that expells all none clan players from battles and will make small alliances incapable of fighting because they will always be less players.
-
Excuse me but god is willing us to not fight atm and to sort out whos in charge please would you refrain from attacking us till we are ready to go on a crusade.
This
-
i don't think its "technically" possible.
if players will find bigger fun fighting with big fishes than against them, if most of the people will prefer bipolar world over multipolar, this game will always have some UIF, EIF, UEF, EEF, UOF or whatever. Even if UIF won't reform, sooner or later there will be someone else with bunch of bootlickers behind him doing the same thing (conquering most of the map).
has anybody seen any game with alliances that would finish differently than with 1vs1 huge alliance fight? me not...
-
yep, though territory was a bit bigger and there was many big factions, darkfall for example
-
The player community needs to adapt to huge powerful coalitions,
on another note, who here would support a seperation of NA and EU strategus?
-
The player community needs to adapt to huge powerful coalitions,
on another note, who here would support a seperation of NA and EU strategus?
Im sure it would solve the lag issue when fighting each other but is there enough NA clans? Sorry if its an obvious yes or no i just dont generally know.
-
Im sure it would solve the lag issue when fighting each other but is there enough NA clans? Sorry if its an obvious yes or no i just dont generally know.
There are, however, I kind of like having to deal with ridiculous ping. It makes people think twice about attacking each other, and lends a natural home-field advantage, which I think in some ways translates to trying to conquer something like Afghanistan or Northern Britain back in the day.
What I'd like to see are freakin' continents.
Anyway, as everyone's mentioned, alliances will always prevail. Also, Braeden is right: RISK was always about who was best at getting away with backstabbing everyone else.
-
i don't think its "technically" possible.
if players will find bigger fun fighting with big fishes than against them, if most of the people will prefer bipolar world over multipolar, this game will always have some UIF, EIF, UEF, EEF, UOF or whatever. Even if UIF won't reform, sooner or later there will be someone else with bunch of bootlickers behind him doing the same thing (conquering most of the map).
has anybody seen any game with alliances that would finish differently than with 1vs1 huge alliance fight? me not...
Sure people naturally want to join in on the big groups - this is nearly always the case. But if you make the game mechanics (the strategic ones, not the fighting ones) so that it isn't always best to do that, the game will be more fun.
If the game is simple, alliances will always be better. But if you add in other factors which make it more realistic (in this case realism adds to gameplay), alliances aren't always the best idea.
I can think of three big ways to do that, but I'm not sure how easy they would be to add, or how they could be added:
1) Economics and topography: if you have resources randomly distributed, it gives something else for people to fight for. And it gives more reasons for people to fight, rather than make huge alliances. Factions will want to control resources either through alliances and trade, or capturing the resource. The more factions there are, the more difficult it will be to maintain resource-monopoly alliances (especially if the resources have a time based limit - you need workers to produce them over time or whatever). Adding topography (another mechanical limit on resource distribution and logistics) will further complicate things, as well as army upkeep and supply lines.
2) More influence for non-faction players, or smaller factions: this can be achieved in many ways - economics is one of them. If the players can represent skilled craftsmen or women and work in your fief, it gives them more power individually. Also the ability to be a bandit - raiding caravans. The more ways you can find to give non-faction players more power to counter balance the obvious benefits of joining a faction, the more stuff factions will have to think about.
3) Social factors: this I think would be very difficult and maybe controversial to add. But if you force players into a government role only (not representing the population of their fiefs), you can make politics and diplomacy much more difficult - not so obviously beneficial to just form a huge alliance. For example, you could add mechanics like civil unrest, resistance to occupation, and xenophobia, or even something like religion or ideological beliefs. So making alliances with a faction who your people hate would cause your faction to be unpopular with it's people, and you get riots.
So, going to war or making an alliance involves thinking about more than just 'if I get this fief I get more money and more soldiers', or 'if I ally with all these other players I'm completely safe'.
Obviously there's way too much stuff there to add, and probably a lot of it wouldn't work or would be to complicated. But the more stuff players have to consider, and the more factions there are playing (as well as more power and use for players who aren't in a faction, and more impact - for example through raiding or banditry), the less obvious it is that huge alliance blocks = good.
If someone asks you for an alliance and you have to think about the cost of the alliance before you say yes, it'll stop the bi-polar stuff. Imagine if you have to pay upkeep for armies and supply them with stuff, or to help defend their territories you have to move your armies through a mountain range, or they just don't have any resources that you want, or there is proper fow and lots of non-faction players are waiting to raid any caravans you might send. Or even that the people who live in your fiefs hate the people who live in their fiefs, and if you ally with them you get civil unrest.
Point is, the more realistic (within reason) you make the strategic aspects, the more realistic alliances and diplomacy will become. And adding even a basic economy will always increase the amount of wars and decrease alliances - as soon as alliances become economic as well as just simply military, they become much more difficult to make.
And anyone who played Risk with alliances between players allowed is insane :)
-
i see that you're volounteer to code it bane, go for it,
btw i remember you that we don't even have a playable simple version of the game atm :xxxxx
-
1 easy thing could be implemented - giving anything to sbdy else who is under attack would be possible only from member of the same clan (not from allies).
any transfers between members of different factions (troops, gold, equipment) would last some time (like 12 hours for example). you'd start the transfer (you'd loose what you transfer immediately) and the one who gets the goods or whatever will have it not immediately, but with some delay (he still could move during that time).
this is of course primarily based against UIF as they are the only big coalition now consisting of various members where 1 big clan does the job for others (not always, but often). but in the future it would prevent any other big alliances to be over too efective.
its just an idea...
-
combined with a 12h delay to join another faction if you left yours.
-
As this a purely academic discussion, please forget for a while that I act as a diplomat of one of UIF factions.
As long as I totally support what Bane said, I do not agree with Beau.
From purely military point of view, you have an alliance to attack someone, or to defend against enemy. If giving anything to sbdy else who is under attack would be possible only from member of the same clan (not from allies), that would make defensive pacts totally impossible/useless. Basing on the defensive treaty you can reasonably expect that your ally will support you if you are attacked. If you are not able to accept such help - it would mean that you can co-operate with other faction only in aggressive actions.
If you add to that picture the limitation that any transfers between members of different factions (troops, gold, equipment) would last some time (like 12 hours for example - which is (was) longer than time allowed for reinforcement, that would make any defensive support form other clan totally impossible.
We strive here to make Strat more playable for smaller factions. I am afraid that the result would be opposite. Smaller faction rely often on the support/protection of larger ones. Sometimes they hold fiefs only upon acceptance of the larger factions; and it does not have to be large coallition (e.g vassalage). If that solution is implemented it would be impossible (or close to impossible) for them to defend their land. Any large faction, or coalition (i.e. vehicle having ability to gather large force) would be able to conquer the land of smaller factions without hassle, as the aid reinforcements are impossible. Large clan on the other hand would be able to transfer troops/equip from its other locations and defend their realms without such problems. It promotes aggressive actions over defensive.
So, this solution would be primarily aimed not in large coalitions (although yes, that would make their life more complicated as closer co-operation would be required) but rather small factions holding little land. Who would benefit? Large factions, and large aggressive alliances. In a long term we would not have small factions on the map, only medium - large ones that are able to defend their land on their own.
On more positive note:
I think that there should be no direct, built-in-game limitations relating to the diplomatic relations. Just as in RL. The performance of duties arising from such relations, however, may be limited by the game mechanics. Geography will limit ability to transfer large amounts of troops on the map in a short time. That makes some alliances difficult to perform. For example, in current state of affairs hypothetical alliance between GO and Fallen would be difficult to realize in case one of the factions being attacked; the other would not have time to transfer sufficient amount of troops to aid, but not because of artificial transfer limitation but due to moving speed on the map. Art of game balancing again... Economical constraints may work even better. Here I agree with Bane. Moreover, I believe that just these two factors - economy and topography - could be sufficient to balance the game and make Strategus more interesting (dammit, chadz, where is it?)...
-
Personally I'm fond of the idea of having many many small clans, and benefits given to small empires.
I.ex your designated hometown/village/castle has a 2-3x number of defenders added if attacked. (They can not be moved out)
Also economics of small empires, by punishing large empires with corruption is interesting. Let's say there are logistical benefits in terms of workload on the organizer/leader of a large empire, but inefficient production. Let's say trade and movement of troops is faster, but gold and goods production suffer.
An alliance of many small empires would be far more productive, but it would be a huge beaurocratic overhead in terms of workload and interaction between players. Getting something done when you have to contact people that may not be online at any given moment is a pain..
I think this is very important, as a strategus that shifts into a game only for big players i.ex leaders of alliances, becomes boring for a vast amount of other players, that have nothing to do, except stay in a village and fight in the battles.
-
Now, think about this (just a free idea) :D:
Lets assume we have a battle. How strat would look like, if only players that are located on the map within certain radius from the battle are able to participate in the battle? If you want to conquer something, you need to send "dots" across the map... That would change the play-style completely.
-
Now, think about this (just a free idea) :D:
Lets assume we have a battle. How strat would look like, if only players that are located on the map within certain radius from the battle are able to participate in the battle? If you want to conquer something, you need to send "dots" across the map... That would change the play-style completely.
That would make reinforcing that one area easy,
-
my idea was meant against situation where big clan does everything for his vassal without his vassal even moving a finger. big alliances wouldn't be totally useless, there are still trade rights and attacking.... big alliances would only be more vulnerable to attack as defence with my suggestion would be way more difficult to coordinate (and thats the main point, nothing else).
big clans can suffer from corruption - the original idea was that everybody owning a fief was supposed to make a capital and the farther from capital the less efective the production would be. i like that, i agree with that. reminds me of civilization series that had many really awesome ideas.
btw i also thing that strategus map should be bigger for new strategus (but its a bit OT)
-
the mercinaries are awesome!!!
-
my idea was meant against situation where big clan does everything for his vassal without his vassal even moving a finger.
That is rarely the case. The contribution of smaller clans is often invisible to third parties...
big clans can suffer from corruption - the original idea was that everybody owning a fief was supposed to make a capital and the farther from capital the less efective the production would be. i like that, i agree with that. reminds me of civilization series that had many really awesome ideas.
And that may be a good idea, a way to balace out strenth of big factios vs mobility of small ones.
btw i also thing that strategus map should be bigger for new strategus (but its a bit OT)
+1 as well, that would be awsome.
the mercinaries are awesome!!!
Even if they are, it's a bit off-topic, don't you think :D
-
Going back to the OP.
So you have 6 alliances(A B C D E F) 2 factions in each
Next thing you know A B and C are allied outside of the game and D E and F ally to counter that, and what do you have?
Two large alliances of A B C vs. D E F
-
cool story bro
-
Large factions were once small factions and they had to do alot of stuff to be a big faction, just do some diplomacy with other factions and all that to try and make a good future for your clan.
-
That would be unfair to limit alliances 8-). If there are fractions that can make a huge alliance it's good. Though nothing lives forever 8-). If there will be a huge alliance it for sure will have a lot of enemies :wink:. It's not quite easy to hold a big alliance. You always need to control for land, fiefs, armies economy, and you also should have an eye on those people who behave themselves freely :wink:.
-
I have to agree with Bane here, there should be obviously in game stuff that influences the politics.
I mean otherwise you just form alliances because you like this clan better or rather be on the side of 5vs2 than 3vs4.
Also big yes to raidable caravans, tbh it's the only thing that keeps me interested in strategus.
Some other ideas.
Add some "illegal" trades. Smuggling f.i.
I imagine it like this - landowning factions can't engage in trade on a larger scale. Only merchants who must be factionless can, but factions can tax them. So someone could buy some goods and try to avoid the taxation (simply by menu with a random chance maybe, or factions have border patrols) so he can sell them cheaper in someone elses lands for big profit. This could be a nice way to betray someone you are allied with, working together with smugglers plagueing him. Some goods could bring good revenue but be forbidden or make village output worse (f.e. selling pork in the desert or ale in Nord cities).
Or slave trade, slave traders could abduct people from villages and sell them somewhere else, obviously bad for the owner of those villages.
Add a fedora.
Right to rule stat from singleplayer, maybe with some actions Templars allying with Fallens you loose lots of credibility f.e.
-
Right to rule stat from singleplayer, maybe with some actions Templars allying with Fallens you loose lots of credibility f.e.
That would be adding something quite abstract that artificially limits diplomacy though.
The abstract stuff involved in diplomacy and inter-faction relations (perceived credibility, respect, fame, honesty, ability etc) shouldn't be limited at all - it should be (and was more or less before) entirely down to the players.
The practical side of things should be the bit that involves limiting mechanics - stuff like economics and logistics.
The only difficulty will be where the dragons fit in to the picture, but as long as they aren't allowed to join a faction it should be fine.
-
I mean otherwise you just form alliances because you like this clan better or rather be on the side of 5vs2 than 3vs4.
so following your point of view alliances should be created because you hate your allies or because they're fucking losers ? i knew templars block were stupid but you still show me everyday that you're worse than i thought :x
it's logical that you create alliances with friendly factions and that you pick the winning side if you don't have the balls to stand up against it or if you just want a piece of the cake ( i love this metaphor ), it's why alliances based on fear when you don't have the power is damn useless *sigh* stupid templars
-
I may be worse than you think but what does that have to do with Templars? :lol:
And eh, where did I say you should ally with people you hate? Only there need to be more ingame reasons to ally than just power.
That would be adding something quite abstract that artificially limits diplomacy though.
What I meant that this only effects npc population, maybe spawns revolts and such. Ofc players can ignore it as they wish.
-
Read most of the posts.
As mentioned before - its kinda impossible to limit alliances because there's no current function in game for that.
However;
If there were such a diplomacy tool, and you gave alliances some benefits, then you could also limit them.
Trade routes could be set up, but you might only have a certain amount of them and so you wouldnt want to agree to trade agreements/alliances with just anyone
Recruitable troops could also be given a "Faction" flag, and would show up in a Lords list as such eg Fallen RandomDude: 1000 Total troops, 600 Fallen, 300 HRE, 100 Neutral. If I recruited from a Fallen-owned village then they would have the "Fallen" flag.
A Lord can recruit anywhere, and the recruits would have the flag of the lords faction. For RandomDude to have 300 Hre and 100 Neutral i would have to been given them by a Hre member and a Neutral player.
Unowned villages would generate "Neutral" troops and could be traded/assist all factions. Only Factions who were in military alliance could be transferred between lords.
Then you could have a situation where troops could not be transferred to other factions unless you were in a military alliance with each other (exception; Players not in a faction).
To stop factions saving a "spare" military alliance slot and just using it whenever they like there should be a large cost involved in creating/invalidating military alliances.
Damn that's some pretty badass brain storming from me.
-
I may be worse than you think but what does that have to do with Templars? :lol:
And eh, where did I say you should ally with people you hate? Only there need to be more ingame reasons to ally than just power.
What I meant that this only effects npc population, maybe spawns revolts and such. Ofc players can ignore it as they wish.
haters gonna hate :) templars = roses :) same block, you said alliances shouldn't be depending of factors such as friendship and power ... it's actually the main factors that make you form an alliance
npc populations effects depending on diplomacy don't work that well in warband from what i saw in other sp mods
-
This thread is silly and clearly aimed at UIF and Mercs. Loose your agendas before making suggestions and Olwen stop being a twat.
-
This thread is silly and clearly aimed at UIF and Mercs. Loose your agendas before making suggestions and Olwen stop being a twat.
awww
-
This thread is silly and clearly aimed at UIF and Mercs. Loose your agendas before making suggestions and Olwen stop being a twat.
losers are losers :) you guys threatened us, it was stupid, fact
-
Histiry is History as well.
Alot has changed since then, for better or worse
-
Histiry is History as well.
Histiry
Histiry
Histiry
Histiry
Histiry
-
meh
-
casimir cannt spel, he shuld be muted
-
Can't wait to see Templars crusading factions with 2 villages.
-
Can't wait to see Templars crusading factions with 2 villages.
in fact they only have 1 village :x :lol:
-
For now
-
sure, you're gonna lose it sooner or later :lol:
-
Probably, but thats beside the point :P
-
Well arnt the Templars roleplaying if they Crusade
-
Man wth.
I came up with some pretty good strategus idea's in my last post - stuff that benefits pretty much everyone and every post after that could of been texted in a school playground.
That makes me sad :(
-
Man wth.
I came up with some pretty good strategus idea's in my last post - stuff that benefits pretty much everyone and every post after that could of been texted in a school playground.
That makes me sad :(
Welcome to the internet, to the left we have trolls to the right we have trolls and straight ahead we have 40 year old men pretending to be 18year old girls.
-
Man wth.
I came up with some pretty good strategus idea's in my last post - stuff that benefits pretty much everyone and every post after that could of been texted in a school playground.
That makes me sad :(
Showing origin of the recruits in the army list and some trade routes limit is an awesome idea!!!
the start of brainstorming
there could be a tool that would enable you to make an official alliance in strategus - this alliance status would be visible in faction description. (there would have to be some benefits for allied factions otherwise nobody would be allied if there wouldn't be any pluses as well as negatives - depending on alliance type)
there might be various alliances (military, trade, diplomatic etc...)
military alliance
- allied factions could transport troops inbetween each other immediately if in transfer range
- trade routes between each other reduced significantly
trade alliance
- more trade routes between factions
- no transfer of troops at all between factions
diplomatic alliance
- you get a vision over map from the other faction
- trade routes increased slightly
- no immediate transfer of troops(troops could be dropped only to the city with a 1 week timer before appearing)
the end of brainstorming
-
also no option to cancel attack and no for unlimited transfer per one player in one time.
-
To be honest, I would rather not have any sort of "In-game" alliance indicators or things that prevent someone from doing something.
Keep diplomacy in the forums and out of game. None of this "vision" shit, if your allies want you to know about something, let them tell you.
-
To be honest, I would rather not have any sort of "In-game" alliance indicators or things that prevent someone from doing something.
Keep diplomacy in the forums and out of game. None of this "vision" shit, if your allies want you to know about something, let them tell you.
I actually agree with this. The whole fun of diplomacy is that you don't know if the other person is lying through their teeth.
-
I actually agree with this. The whole fun of diplomacy is that you don't know if the other person is lying through their teeth.
well i was hoping to kill 2-3 birds with one stone
if i remember correctly, the op was talking about making strategus more exciting by not have a few alliances dominating the map - limiting it by players
strategus would still be "winnable" as factions could surrender/declare vassalship to their conquerors (end game would just be the last few big empires though so you can discount this one)
people wanted more from strategus, like trade and diplomacy
i want strategus to have as few possibilities for lameness as i can forsee and my idea about players only being able to have troops from allies leans towards that
there can be as many cloak and dagger diplomacy events as there were in Strategus #1 still via forum but there's also the opportunity to enter into game-moderated agreements also
i know one cloak and dagger method from Strat #1 was for faction A to give troops to faction B so they could attack faction C, who might be neutral to faction A.
it's just a bit much sometimes for factions to spring out of nowhere with thousands of troops
-
strategus would still be "winnable" as factions could surrender/declare vassalship to their conquerors (end game would just be the last few big empires though so you can discount this one)
Is strat actually winnable?
Could it possibly be set as a season which goes on for says 2 months at the end of the 2months the winner with x ammount of x possesions wins and its reset for season 2? It would stop it from going boring. Maybe longer or shorter time per season.
-
you donno what grinding the ia is ^^
-
BUT WE CAN TOTALLY MAKE IT LIKE CAIRNBEARS AND DUNE ALL OVER AGAIN
+1 to who ever got that.
-
We must avoid massive alliances who wipe the entire map. This will be another Darkfall over my dead body. Which is very possible..
-
there wasn't any problem with darkfall's alliances, hyperion took 3/4 of the map and it didn't stop them from being ganked by other clans after
-
We just need to pimp the game mechanics to give massive advantage to small factions. For example, the first fief of an alliance produces more income and (I don't know really) has a better defensive setup somehow.
But it's not enough alone, because alliances between tiny factions would emerge, thus we can add a system of random hidden missions with great rewards, artificially creating intrigues (like in the well known "Risk" strategy game). Before you interrupt, I'd like to say that this concept doesn't reduce the influence and possibilities of diplomacy at all. It's actually the opposite. Having certain goals that others don't know leads to interesting diplomacy, because nobody knows what your real goals are. Without those secret agendas, everyone knows your only goal is to conquer more provinces, leading to a locked diplomacy.
About what are those goals precisely, the most obvious possibility is "conquer fief X", X being chosen on a fairly random base.
-
No, why should you be rewarded for being a tiny clan that has no friends?
At the most, I would say that inter-faction trade gives a modest bonus, to promote trading as opposed to just outright conquering.
Some clan dominates the map? Better start scheming with people disloyal to the King or whatever to start a rebellion.
People are too antsy in the pants for one faction to dominate, it would literally be like Shogun 2's Realm Divide. Take half the map, the other half rises against you.
-
No, why should you be rewarded for being a tiny clan that has no friends?
Agreed. Maybe some overextension maluses, but not too arsh.
Also you forgot that a big clan with a lot of fiefs can always split in two or more smaller clans, but that still plays as one clan. We already saw in strategus fake clans that were just one clan in disguise.
-
From my experience (and what Strategus allready showed), players are usually rational beings. Any door open for "diplomacy" will allways come down to either "one big faction dominates everything" or "two big factions fight against each other", the number and form of these alliances might differ, if there is no attractivity not to do so, it will end like that.
Both scenarios are incredibly poor and completly unfitting in a medieval game. Diplomacy in Europe during the medieval times was incredibly complex, due to the enormous amount of semi-independant factions (feodalism and decentralisation)
If there is no rational reason to splitting a big faction, it won't be done. Most people care about winning and having advantages, only a few roleplayers will try to bring some spice by making "wrong" decisions. If the best is to be loyal, they will be. If the best is to be disloyal, they will be disloyal. In a game like Strategus, making an ally is allways the best option. It should not.
The game has to be like poker, not like chess. In other words, if we want diplomacy to be spicy and complex, we need to close and hide the info, to create reasons of attacking each other, to motivate both aggression and treason. I think it's essential for the game to have this unique "medieval" feeling of super small realms fighting each other for idiotic reasons.
-
This is just my opinion but:
The reason things turned out as they did is because the factions of strategus pre-emptively sliced the cake, pre-emptively made alliances to protect each others "claims" and did not allow any clan with a real claim ie, that captured a place to keep it. Instead pulling down their alliance on top of everyone who would attempt such a thing.
These "claims" were extensive, small clans were able to take vast swathes of territory if they had powerful allies that would back them up. Territory that would otherwise have been available for anyone to take. Territory that could have been shared amongst several clans was taken by a single clan and if anyone took it they got destroyed.
This is what caused the small factions of strategus to be locked out. Not the game, but the players. Look to the early great powers of strategus, look to their foreign policies, look to the false ideal of "claims" based upon nothing but paper, being stronger than the claim of possession. This is why I protested these types of claims and all the major factions backing them during the first and I believe only open meeting of faction leaders. To no avail.
-
Plazek still mad that irc took that castle from 22nd based on some bullshit land claims. Imo it's just important that we start at the opposite side of the continent than they do because the closer you are to them the sooner you will get struck by their dev-power abusing cheat force. While others fight with sticks and stones, irc will come with airstrikes.
-
No, not just that at all.
There are plenty of other examples in the history of crpg of small clans being locked out, or attempts to lock them out, some more sucessful than others.
For example RS who took a village that was unoccupied and had the Shogunate land on top of them. There would have been more factions involved if there had been any resistance.
or
When DRZ a "small" clan attacked ninja and the whole alliance attacked them. With little sucess :lol:
---
Personally I think such policies could have an affect on the progress of small independent clans, and the speed at which massive alliances develop. You know, like I said. Alternatively if you prefer to read nonsense into things people say rather than paying more attention to the words then you can say practically anything. In which case, I MAD. :wink:
Anyway IRC did not actually join any ridiculous alliances until the end of the game, they also did not pursue a policy of destruction and allowed us to continue to exist after stepping on their toes. As opposed to say, the Shogunate who seeked to destroy RS as soon as we were pushed out from our territory by the Templars. As an aside this policy of attempted total destruction is another things that is bad for the game and that should IMO be looked down upon by other factions. After all next time it could be your faction that is totally destroyed!
-
one thing we've all learnt from strat is that you'r never totally destroyed. :)
-
This is just my opinion but:
The reason things turned out as they did is because the factions of strategus pre-emptively sliced the cake, pre-emptively made alliances to protect each others "claims" and did not allow any clan with a real claim ie, that captured a place to keep it. Instead pulling down their alliance on top of everyone who would attempt such a thing.
These "claims" were extensive, small clans were able to take vast swathes of territory if they had powerful allies that would back them up. Territory that would otherwise have been available for anyone to take. Territory that could have been shared amongst several clans was taken by a single clan and if anyone took it they got destroyed.
This is what caused the small factions of strategus to be locked out. Not the game, but the players. Look to the early great powers of strategus, look to their foreign policies, look to the false ideal of "claims" based upon nothing but paper, being stronger than the claim of possession. This is why I protested these types of claims and all the major factions backing them during the first and I believe only open meeting of faction leaders. To no avail.
You just described real life and early wars :lol: :lol: :lol:
I say keep it as is the way strategus works.
-
Yea the freeform way diplomacy works right now is perfect.
My point is people should not complain about the game causing such problems when it is the players!
If people want to operate this way then that is their prerogative.
-
one thing we've all learnt from strat is that you'r never totally destroyed. :)
and that any battle vs templar = autowin? :D
So for the nay sayers; I want to see a strategus with less possibilities for the shite that happened in the last one. It's beneficial to all and won't help one faction more than another.
It just comes from my playstyle; I like a fair, open field of battle where everyone understands the rules and is playing from the same book. It's a game, not real life so yeh I'd like a few more boundaries because designers never think of all the way players might screw with their game.