tl;dr
There is none. Either you care to improve strat and read, or you don't and you don't read. Else go back to the troll cave.
ATS bandits. I hate you... and thank you for that.
Past few fights and strategies defending our caravans has been fun. At the same time a huge nuissance in our "build-up".
This got me thinking. As an avid strategy player I try everything to optimize the strategy, while as a warband player I honestly want good fights.
These can be against the odds fights or equal fights or unexpected fights. But I want fights and I want the ability to create more fights.
These things are not mutually beneficial.
This is not a discussion of carebearing. From my point of view, as I have stated before, this is unavoidable. Metablocks exist because they are the best move within the frame of the strategy game.
I have already suggested earlier a way to make the strategy game better through a revision of trade. It's down to page 3 or 4 or something along these lines.
The problems of trade is that it increases micromanagement. Not something the warband gamer wants. But at the same time it was a way to increase depth something the strategy gamer wants. Most of us it was supposed to increase fun for both sides making bandits vs. caravans fights possible, something both gamers wants.
Ultimately it failed doing this. Why? Again I see it as a problem of strategy gamer vs. warband gamer.
The strategy gamer wants an alliance. Through that alliance he can make the most money through long caravans and these caravans can be protected by the greater resources of this alliance. He can also gather the largest amount of troops with the best equipment making him_stronger_than_the_enemy. If whole clans go bandit they will either not own land. If they own land, this pays better. Or they will be fiefs less and make less money. Hence:
The bandit will run out of resources. He has to fight the greater and wealthier caravans, he can't caravan himself cause the alliances have optimized this so he ends up with a large problem of being able to equip his troops to fight the caravans.
This imposes two further problems.
a) Caravans are only valid within a tightly nit group. It cannot be done more loosely as the alliance then looses money. While it is micromanagement, this is really not a problem for the more dedicated player. Hence neutral caravans and merchants are impossible to play as they would never be able to compete with the clan producing the trade goods themselves to begin with and trading within the alliance, under the protection of the alliance.
b) It won't work lowering the equipment prices as that will just give the alliance player an advantage over the bandit again. Just a notch up on the tier of eq.
This still doesn't change that trading is a good way to encourage banditry vs. caravans.
We just need to find a way to make banditry for neutral viable. (And no, asking people to break up large alliances is to ask humans not to be human. The frame of the game has to encourage it.)
Brain storm of ways to improve bandit changes:Ways to go stealth, Ways to recruit and equip outside established fiefs, Ways to set up ambushes. Maybe limit certain of this to small armies, so they won't be used by larger alliances.
What we need is two levels of gaming.
1 tier between large alliances fighting for land
2 tier fights between small alliances and neutral bandits against the larges alliances caravans (I am mentioning caravans, but there might be other things)
What we should NOT do:Is to increase micro management. A lot of the suggestions I see try to limit the larger alliances by increase the amount of work they are supposed to do. THIS WILL NOT WORK.
It will either bore people to death, or bring out the most avid of strategy gamers. Micro mangement will not kill alliances, it will kill the casuals.
Hence caravans's must be encouraged to give the bandit something to do. I mentioned my trading suggestion earlier. I think this could be an important step.
The way trade goods are gaining value over distance, should be switched with trade goods gaining value through need. Hence only the best luxury goods should be given value through long long trades. Other trade goods should be within short distances as I mentioned here:
http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,18592.0.html.
This would be the first step to discourage the larger alliances within the frame of the game.
The second step would be to give a reason for alliances not to coorperate 100%. Titles, show-offs and rights is a good way to do that as suggested here:
http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,21966.0.html. This would in effect not increase micromanagement, but make alliances have to accept licking the boot of each other. And I am not so sure everyone is ready to accept another one as "overlord" when it suddenly gets on paper.
But we need more. I can't really think of it, cause every idea is messing with either what the strategy gamer will do in order to maximise chance of victory against the warbander's need for more fights. We need to think of a way. And no, saying people has to change is not it.
I might expand on the post when I think of more.
Edit 1:
I came to think of funny thing from independent roleplaying. Basically it is about "beliefs" or "keys". Now if a clan has a "we're the guardians of caravans" it basically means, we want to be able to guard caravans. This can't happen without them getting attacked.
If my belief is "I am the baddest bandit in the world", I need to be able to attack caravans and show that I am the baddest bandit in the world.
Would it make sense to apply a "belief" to each clan or choose from a list of key's and each time you live up to that key, you get rewarded?
