caprera 说:
Could be possible to implement an improved and lighter state of war between two factions without entering a complete conflict, with consequent conquest ? Maybe an example would help.
Let's say there are Romans on your side and Franks on the other. Franks start one day to enter Roman territory with single warbands and harass the properties, sack villages and then run back to their lands. This could bring the two factions to war also at the first test, but my need is the Romans to limit their response in sacking a Frank village and no more, also without a formal declaration. I don't know the mechanics well yet but this would need a new party with a particular script or it could be limited to the diplomatic characteristics of the factions ?
I'd like something like that to happen, but likewise I don't know how hard it would be to implement. It could be something very simple, allowing you to attack, say, caravans and peasant groups, and perhaps even loot villages, or at least a limited number of them, as you suggest, but still advise you against taking castles or attacking other lords in the field.
What I like best about that suggestion, though, is that it could represent something non-official, meaning that, independently of there being a war declaration issued, it would function
parallel to those two factions' official diplomatic stances. This could lead to a whole parallel system of diplomatic relations, gradating
true hostility between factions.
Who doesn't want to assist to a veritable
sitzkrieg between powerful factions, each one afraid of the other's power and cautious about escalating things out of control? It'd add immense depth to what we now call defensive pacts, if allies could enter a conflict on the same side, but showing clearly different levels of enthusiasm and having in mind different goals. History tends to work like this.
I think this would not merely be a worthwile addition to the game, but it would solve some problems. Some players have voiced their discontent about serving kings who insist on continuing conflicts "for the sake of honor", despite having gradually lost almost all their of thier territory in a succession of pointless wars. With this system, they would be able to keep their "honor", but still be able to focus on valid strategical objectives, like defending important locations, keeping powerful lords out of trouble and getting a truce in a graceful manner.
LEGION3000 说:
You take a MASSIVE hit to Renown and Right to Rule for executing a lord and it puts you in bad standing with ALL of the friends of the deceased. Such that if you killed 3 lords this way even as a king, your Right To Rule would be close to zero. Not to mention that you can't rule a kingdom alone. You can't kill every lord because then you wouldn't have anyone to recruit and run your kingdom.
Anyway, this mod is supposed to be about Diplomacy. It seems to me that executing one of your prisoners should be a valid diplomatic policy for a medieval simulation.
I insist that lord mortality is impossible to balance within current game mechanics, more specifically without lord generation. Even if you punish the player with some crippling penalties to make up for it, the point stands that you're making a permanent change to the game and compensating it with a non-permanent penalty. So, in my mind, either you punish the player so severely that the he can't reasonably be expected to eliminate any large number of lords within his playing time, or create what amounts to some sort of exploit. Both alternatives are bad design decisions, IMO, and hardly more realistic than what we have now.