[Suggesion] Limited Alliances

[The_Slave _Catcher]

the mercinaries are awesome!!!

[Erasmas]

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 

[joshko]

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

[Olwen]

cool story bro

[Razzen]

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.

[Kazak]

That would be unfair to limit alliances  . If there are fractions that can make a huge alliance it's good. Though nothing lives forever . If there will be a huge alliance it for sure will have a lot of enemies  . 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 .

[EponiCo]

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.

[BD_Guard_Bane]

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.

[Olwen]

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

[EponiCo]

I may be worse than you think but what does that have to do with Templars? 
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.

[RandomDude]

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.

[Olwen]

I may be worse than you think but what does that have to do with Templars? 
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

[Casimir]

This thread is silly and clearly aimed at UIF and Mercs. Loose your agendas before making suggestions and Olwen stop being a twat.

[VVarlord]

This thread is silly and clearly aimed at UIF and Mercs. Loose your agendas before making suggestions and Olwen stop being a twat.

awww

[Olwen]

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