[Suggesion] Limited Alliances

[Braeden]

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.

[RandomDude]

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

[VVarlord]

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.

[Olwen]

you donno what grinding the ia is ^^

[SeQuel]

BUT WE CAN TOTALLY MAKE IT LIKE CAIRNBEARS AND DUNE ALL OVER AGAIN

+1 to who ever got that.

[MountedRhader]

We must avoid massive alliances who wipe the entire map. This will be another Darkfall over my dead body. Which is very possible..

[Olwen]

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

[Kafein]

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.

[PhantomZero]

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.

[Sharky]

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.

[Kafein]

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.

[22nd_King_Plazek]

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.

[Paul]

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.

[22nd_King_Plazek]

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 


---
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. 

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!

[Casimir]

one thing we've all learnt from strat is that you'r never totally destroyed.