Author Topic: The kingdom zone suggestion discussed.  (Read 1642 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Tristan

  • Count
  • *****
  • Renown: 200
  • Infamy: 52
  • cRPG Player
  • Listen to wisdom!
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Caravan Guild (Guards)
  • Game nicks: Guard_Tristan
  • IRC nick: Guard_Tristan
The kingdom zone suggestion discussed.
« on: December 08, 2011, 06:50:38 pm »
+5
Quote
I really like your suggestion Cooties.

Something along the lines of Crusader Kings (Paradox game). If you have x% of fiefs under your control or your vassals you could claim a title.
A title gave you the right to tax people.

In strat it could work something along these lines:

If the map is to be four times larger than now, then lets have 4 kingdoms.
Each Kingdom contains 5 duchies. You can claim a Duchy title when you have 66% of the fiefs in a duchy. HAving the duchy title gives you the right to tax every fief owner in the duchy.
When you control 3 of the 5 duchy titles or your vassals (Must be official vassals through an ingame system), you can claim the king title.
When you have the king title you can set a tax for the kingdom and what not.

Add to that:
- Attrition
- Vassal diplomatic system

It requires a larger map.

And we have something going.

Edit: Oh and if you gain 3 kingdoms you gain the title emperor and win the game!

I believe this suggestion merits discussion as well.
He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened his mouth.

Offline CrazyCracka420

  • Minute Valuable Contributor
  • Strategus Councillor
  • **
  • Renown: 1950
  • Infamy: 794
  • cRPG Player Sir White Pawn A Gentleman and a Scholar
  • Welp
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Vaegirs
  • Game nicks: Huseby
  • IRC nick: Steam name: crazycracka420
Re: The kingdom zone suggestion discussed.
« Reply #1 on: December 08, 2011, 06:52:09 pm »
0
I believe this suggestion merits discussion as well.


I like this idea better than "lords" (clans within a faction) voting for roles/titles.  That way it's not a popularity contest, you actually have to have control of fiefs to get the title.  Would give people a reason to fight for fiefs, even within their own faction instead of large alliances.

Also, and this is kind of obvious, the titles/roles should come with some sort of benefits.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
 - Stolen from Macropussy

Offline crazybob

  • Knight
  • ***
  • Renown: 37
  • Infamy: 2
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Mercenaries
  • Game nicks: Merc_SlickyRicky, Flamed_Burgher, Lady_of_Pain, LongShotJane
Re: The kingdom zone suggestion discussed.
« Reply #2 on: December 08, 2011, 07:01:23 pm »
0
This idea gets my vote. Assuming there will be room for clanless people as well (They are only taxed, not locked out of the game because of 100gold/hour bullshit).

Offline Slamz

  • Earl
  • ******
  • Renown: 386
  • Infamy: 112
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Norse Horde
  • Game nicks: NH_Slamz
Re: The kingdom zone suggestion discussed.
« Reply #3 on: December 08, 2011, 07:16:19 pm »
+1
Seems like it could be a good idea...

* Since you only need to own 66% of a fiefs in a dutchy to be a Duke, there is no particular pressure to own 100%.  So small clans would simply be in someone else's dutchy, owning one of the fiefs.

* There is more potential for intra-alliance strife as there is now a reason to say "I should be the Duke here" or "I should be the King here" and the only way to get it is through ownership, and the only way to get THAT is through war (or capitulation).

I like the concept.
Crush your enemies; see them driven before you; hear the lamentations of their women.
Norse Horde

Offline Tristan

  • Count
  • *****
  • Renown: 200
  • Infamy: 52
  • cRPG Player
  • Listen to wisdom!
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Caravan Guild (Guards)
  • Game nicks: Guard_Tristan
  • IRC nick: Guard_Tristan
Re: The kingdom zone suggestion discussed.
« Reply #4 on: December 11, 2011, 02:55:34 am »
0
Really no more comments on this suggestion?
He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened his mouth.

Offline Lepintoi

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Renown: 81
  • Infamy: 18
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Shu Han
  • Game nicks: Lepintoi
Re: The kingdom zone suggestion discussed.
« Reply #5 on: December 11, 2011, 02:27:16 pm »
0
to complicated

Offline Remy

  • Knight
  • ***
  • Renown: 68
  • Infamy: 8
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
  • Game nicks: Remy_the_Fox
  • IRC nick: Remy
Re: The kingdom zone suggestion discussed.
« Reply #6 on: December 11, 2011, 04:03:28 pm »
0
Sounds very interesting!  :D

As Slamz said it would lead to more logical fighting and diplomacy that makes sense.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2011, 04:05:11 pm by Remy »
visitors can't see pics , please register or login


Fox, Horse Archer, Tker of Chagan.

Offline Moncho

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1127
  • Infamy: 221
  • cRPG Player Sir Black Bishop A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
  • Game nicks: Moncho, Some_Random_STF, Some_Random_Troll
Re: The kingdom zone suggestion discussed.
« Reply #7 on: December 11, 2011, 04:14:07 pm »
0
Quote
Edit: Oh and if you gain 3 kingdoms you gain the title emperor and win the game!
And then what?, wipe?

Offline Tristan

  • Count
  • *****
  • Renown: 200
  • Infamy: 52
  • cRPG Player
  • Listen to wisdom!
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Caravan Guild (Guards)
  • Game nicks: Guard_Tristan
  • IRC nick: Guard_Tristan
Re: The kingdom zone suggestion discussed.
« Reply #8 on: December 11, 2011, 04:44:34 pm »
+1
Yes and the game starts over. Strat can't continue any way. It is better to have shorter intevals (lets say 6 months) of active gaming than a year for lurking and then wipe anyway.
He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened his mouth.

Offline Moncho

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1127
  • Infamy: 221
  • cRPG Player Sir Black Bishop A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
  • Game nicks: Moncho, Some_Random_STF, Some_Random_Troll
Re: The kingdom zone suggestion discussed.
« Reply #9 on: December 11, 2011, 04:48:53 pm »
0
I like that, although it would be interesting to see the capture of the last village, with the dominating empire against everyone who hasnt surrendered yet to its might.

Offline Elmokki

  • Count
  • *****
  • Renown: 192
  • Infamy: 18
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
  • Faction: United democratic national whatever
  • Game nicks: elmokki_Krokotiili
  • IRC nick: Elmokki
Re: The kingdom zone suggestion discussed.
« Reply #10 on: December 13, 2011, 12:09:18 pm »
0
This system could be awesome at least in theory.

Offline Fluffy_Muffin

  • Permanently Banned
  • **
  • Renown: 429
  • Infamy: 122
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Tribunal
  • Game nicks: Vivec_the_Poet
  • IRC nick: Umbra
Re: The kingdom zone suggestion discussed.
« Reply #11 on: December 13, 2011, 01:03:10 pm »
0
I bet players would find some way to abuse it  :lol: :lol:
Defy me, and you will know what it is to stand against a god.

Offline Moncho

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1127
  • Infamy: 221
  • cRPG Player Sir Black Bishop A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
  • Game nicks: Moncho, Some_Random_STF, Some_Random_Troll
Re: The kingdom zone suggestion discussed.
« Reply #12 on: December 13, 2011, 01:30:29 pm »
0
Such as not disbanding the big alliance at the end and next round starting already with a group controlling half the map?
Nah, cRPG players think.

/irony

Offline Nessaj

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1399
  • Infamy: 176
  • cRPG Player Madam Black Queen A Gentleman and a Scholar
  • ▃ ▅ ▅ ▅ ▄ ▅ ▇ ▅ ▄ ▅ ▇
    • View Profile
    • Vanguard
  • Faction: Vanguard
  • Game nicks: Vanguard_Cooties
  • IRC nick: Nessaj
Re: The kingdom zone suggestion discussed.
« Reply #13 on: December 14, 2011, 08:36:59 pm »
0
Anything that can be used for good can be used for bad, vice versa too.
Things will never be better than we ourselves as a collective allow them to be.

IMO, zones and titles should be a natural thing of something like Strat, and no doubt that there's too many Ego's for people to want be forced subjects of one another = Wars.

Sure, some could try and arrange to take over several zones with a huge alliance, but with a big map and the zones properly made - For example some areas should not be in any zones at all e.g. no mans land - it would be an enormous (probably impossible task) to control a majority of the zones, you would have to fight so many other actual factions plus the randoms running around.

No doubt that Neutral Fief defenders should be anonymous though (forced faction banner + don't show names on [tab] & signup), as have been suggested by a few around the forum.
Things don't exist simply because you believe in them, thus sayeth the almighty creature in the sky!