TONSofAG
Recruit
SHORT Description:
Make it possible to bring several major factions to the table at the same time in order to propose peace and or create an alliance.
DESCRIPTION:
Hello War Siblings! I enjoy spilling blood as much as the rest of you but don't you feel that this game is exactly the kind of game that should/would have its non-combat side just (or nearly) as fleshed out as its combat? Me too and I prefer when games don't just have stories in them, but also the game mechanics that would actually allow for those lore stories to occur in a manner of speaking. That's kind of what this idea is about; attempting to unite factions or at least settle things in a larger scale than one faction at a time. Imagine forming an alliance with several factions, just as Neretzes did, in an attempt to drive the other faction(s) out or bury them all in the soil of Calradia! Fingers crossed that you don't get betrayed and that things go better for you than they did for him...
HOW IT COULD WORK... Getting to the Table:
**any numbers used here would just be as a placeholder to give an idea of what it would look like**
"I think it would be for the good of all if we met. Please send your answer with my messenger."
If the player is an independent ruler, they would be able to spend influence to get factions to the negotiation table. For each messenger sent, there will be set initial costs. As a placeholder/example: influence (200), temporarily a loss of troops to serve as an escort (minimum of 24), and money (5,000). While it is possible this will be the final cost to successful negotiations, it likely won't be and the final costs will depend on various things.
Player: "Your Highness, might I suggest we attempt to enter into an alliance?"
Ruler: "Is that so? And with whom would you suggest we speak to in order to form this alliance?"
If the player is a vassal, they must talk to the leader of their faction and use influence to convince them to become allies with another faction. Having the conversation costs (50 influence) and the player will need to convince them via conversation. If the Player fails to convince them, they'll lose an additional 50 influence and won't be able to have the conversation again. Depending on a ruler's personality, they can be partially convinced and instead of just setting up negotiations, they'll put it to a vote. The 50 influence the player used to have the conversation will be applied in favor of reaching out for an alliance.
Should the ruler decide to move forward (or the vote goes that way), they will likely send the player to one of the factions in order to discuss the idea of coming to negotiations.
The ruler doesn't say much, but reading their expression, you decide to engage them in conversation feeling they may need a little convincing.
Depending on the situation, the ruler of the other faction may not need any convincing but if they do, the player is able to try to convince them. It's also possible that the player, and or their faction, is in such a bad place with this faction that they're so angry (and having the personality) that they ignore the rules of engagement regarding messengers and attempt to kill you. Otherwise, the ruler will not provide their answer in dialogue to the player. Maybe there are other indications that can be used here if the player has certain skills/perks, but the ruler will say nothing of their answer.
What is most likely to happen (even if they intend to reject the invitation to negotiations) is they will provide you a note with their seal. Breaking the seal to read the note will cost 75 influence. Otherwise, just return it to your ruler to see the answer. Depending on the ruler's personality, and or your relationship to/with them, they'll either take the note from you and summarize the parts concerning you or they'll ask you to read the note to them. If you broke the seal, they will be very displeased and you will lose a lot of relationship with them (affecting how often they award fiefs to you).
Your messenger has returned, but they are not alone. This must be their messenger and on one hand, you're glad they're open to a meeting but aggravated that it is likely they wish to dictate terms. Your messenger silently bows to you as they hand you a note. It reads: I am willing to meet but only under the following conditions:
You will need to spend (300) more influence to get __________ to the table!
In the meantime, I agree to cease hostilities between our sides until this matter is decided upon.
Sometimes, regardless as to the severity of one's grievances, everything is negotiable or even when one has nothing against you, things are always business... this is why the most likely outcome is needing more influence to get them to the negotiating table. And yes, I realize you're negotiating to negotiate, but this is how things work sometimes.
Options:
- Accept Terms... +40 to relationship
- Reject Terms... No change to relationship
- Kill the messenger... Leader of the faction will become your Bitter Enemy and any diplomacy, regardless of what happens in the future, will be impossible. If someone else becomes leader, there will be a 33% they too will consider you a bitter enemy. Relationships will rise and fall even with people in your faction based on their personality. You will gain Deceitful and or Cruel traits.
"If you think I would ever even sit in the same room as _____________ without drawing blood, then you are truly mad." or
"I am unwilling to align with the _____________ as they would make undesirable partners. Perhaps you would consider aligning with ___________ instead?"
It's also possible that one of the things holding them back is one of (or more) the other factions for the proposed negotiations is one they refuse to speak with under any circumstance.
Possible Player Responses:
- "I understand, but I cannot withdraw my invitation from them. I hope you understand."... relationship goes up with other invited faction(s), Honest trait
- "Very well, then let you and I work to form our own alliance."... relationship goes down with the other invited faction(s) (whether they're the ones being kicked or not), Deceitful trait
- "I'm open to speaking with them." (if the response suggested another faction)... relationship goes down with the other invited faction(s) (whether they're the ones being kicked or not), Deceitful trait
HOW IT COULD WORK... At the Table:
Now that everyone is at the table, several things must be decided:
Type of Negotiation:
- Peace...
- Temporary Alliance to Defeat Another Faction and or Alliance
- Alliance...
- Become a Single Faction...
- Betray them and attempt to kill them... Player can try to use this moment to gain the upper hand. Attacking them in this state will give your forces a damage bonus of 10%. Needless to say, the attempt alone comes with negative side effects, failure will have more negative side effects.
"Blood for blood. That is the way of my people."
There may (and will likely) be conditions / terms to solidify alliances. Those conditions may include any and or any combination of the following:
- Marriage...
- Money...
- Tournament Duel...
- Tournament Duel to Death...
- More Influence...
Player can attempt using charm to reduce / remove any condition.
- Success... removes condition
- Critical Success... gets the player benefits
- Failure... condition is unaffected
- Critical Failure... condition added or worsened
Player: "When I win, do you want me to execute them your Majesty?"
"I'll leave that part to you. The only thing that matters to me is that you win."
For the tournaments, each side chooses their representative. It may be a team dual. The rulers cannot participate in the conflict. If player is vassal, their ruler may select them to participate or the player can volunteer.
HOW IT COULD WORK... Alliance:
Having an alliance would allow you to also have the option to create an army from forces of the allied factions. How much you will have to pay in money and or influence will depend on the terms set at negotiations.
Who gets what after a successful siege depends on the terms set at negotiations. Who gets the conquered territory may be done based on a rotation or it may be based on the location of the territory. Regardless, someone always gets something after a territory is taken. Say a city is taken, someone gets the city, the others will get money.
HOW IT COULD WORK... Bitter Enemies:
Having a faction become a bitter enemy causes different things to happen based on their personality. The player also receives benefits, one the they get regardless, another they get based on one of the benefits their enemy is getting, and one they get to choose.
As Bitter Enemies, these effects are automatic...
Your troops are 5% more likely to be killed rather than wounded when fighting against the bitter enemy faction and if the player goes down during a battle with the bitter enemy...
...Player's Army Wins: Serious Injuries... Recovery is 10% slower
...Bitter Enemy Faction Wins: Take No Prisoners... There's a cutscene of them executing you. You're dead. The adventures of this character is brought to an absolute end. Autosave will not help you out here.
These traits apply to other leaders in your faction as well. They will have serious injury and take longer to recover. They will be executed rather than taken prisoner.
- - -
Only Makes Me Stronger... Player's Troops will now get exp (or more exp if they already receive exp) just for surviving the fight whether they manage to kill anyone or not and Player will gain greater xp from surviving encounters with their Bitter Enemy.
As a Bitter Enemy, this faction will receive 2 perks based on their ruler's personality. Which aspect of the perk they'll get is random.
- Patriotic Fervor... Enemy Troop (of that faction) sizes increase by 5% -- Enemy Troops (of that faction) do 5% more damage
- Now It's Personal... Troops of the faction leader's party do 10% more damage -- The faction leader's troop size increases by 10%
- I'll Take Everything from You... Daily income from territory near the enemy's territory will reduce by 10% due to the enemy seizing trade -- Daily loyalty for territory near enemy's territory is -2 per day due to the enemy's efforts to lure your people away
So if a ruler that has become a bitter enemy gets Patriotic Fervor and I'll Take Everything from You, they might get Enemy Troops do 5% more damage against player's armies and Daily income from player's territories near their territory is reduced by 5%. They do not get both aspects from a perk. It's either or.
- - -
The player picks one benefit, the other is selected automatically based on their personality and or what benefit the Bitter Enemy received.
- Better Under Pressure... Player gains 5% more influence in victories against bitter enemy faction -- Player gains 5% more renown in victories against bitter enemy faction
- What Doesn't Kill Me... Player's Troops gain 5% exp bonus in fights against this enemy faction --
- Call to Arms... Player's Troops build siege equipment 5% faster when besieging Bitter Faction -- Player's Troops receive a 5% movement bonus when being called to form army by player
HOW IT COULD WORK... Other Notes:
But doing this would be an influence hog to begin, but the mechanic could be used as a way to gamble with influence, meaning if the sit down is successful, maybe you gain more influence back than it cost... or if that seems too exploitable, it will cut the influence cost in half when negotiations are successful. Maybe with the right perks, it will cut it down even more.
How much influence it costs to bring a side to the table will depend on your faction's relationship with them. Obviously, if you're at war with them and you've been killing each other, the influence cost will be higher however, this can be the opposite if they're near extinction depending upon their leader's personality trait. Some leaders will become Bitter Enemies, and sitting down with them will be impossible.
Something like the above could make it beneficial to execute them before trying to bring that faction to a negotiation table.
As a Vassal... the costs of making this happen is so much lower, and the player's involvement is different... but this also reduces the benefits received. This means there are pros and cons to the system but also pros and cons based on whether one is a ruler or a vassal.
"You've been honorable and fair in our conflict. I suppose I could hear you out."
War doesn't always mean that bringing a side to the table will be more difficult. Sometimes it may actually be easier. Say you've been releasing nobles rather than taking them prisoner, this would make things much easier and lower influence cost.
"My liege, we found a bloody bag. It pains me to inform you that the head of the messenger you sent to __________ was inside."
Conversely, If you've been executing them so your army could have head float races to see which head will reach the bottom of a stream first, it will cost you a lot more influence and increases the odds of them already being a bitter enemy faction. Even if it isn't in their personality, killing a family member or dear friend may cause them to lock into hostility towards your faction.
"Your Majesty, why are the ___________ over there? I thought we agreed to them taking a different position?"
Player: "It seems they mean to betray us."
Yeah, it happened to Neretzes, and it can happen to you too. You can be betrayed... or be a betrayer. There are pros to betraying, but obviously there would be some massive cons. Being betrayed wouldn't be purely random either. Personality types, player stats and actions, and other things should factor into whether or not this happens at all.
CONCLUSION: It's very rough and obviously any of this could be changed or made different but I think the concept is a solid one and would make the gameplay, whether one is a vassal or a ruler, more interesting and meaty.
Make it possible to bring several major factions to the table at the same time in order to propose peace and or create an alliance.
DESCRIPTION:
Hello War Siblings! I enjoy spilling blood as much as the rest of you but don't you feel that this game is exactly the kind of game that should/would have its non-combat side just (or nearly) as fleshed out as its combat? Me too and I prefer when games don't just have stories in them, but also the game mechanics that would actually allow for those lore stories to occur in a manner of speaking. That's kind of what this idea is about; attempting to unite factions or at least settle things in a larger scale than one faction at a time. Imagine forming an alliance with several factions, just as Neretzes did, in an attempt to drive the other faction(s) out or bury them all in the soil of Calradia! Fingers crossed that you don't get betrayed and that things go better for you than they did for him...
HOW IT COULD WORK... Getting to the Table:
**any numbers used here would just be as a placeholder to give an idea of what it would look like**
"I think it would be for the good of all if we met. Please send your answer with my messenger."
If the player is an independent ruler, they would be able to spend influence to get factions to the negotiation table. For each messenger sent, there will be set initial costs. As a placeholder/example: influence (200), temporarily a loss of troops to serve as an escort (minimum of 24), and money (5,000). While it is possible this will be the final cost to successful negotiations, it likely won't be and the final costs will depend on various things.
Player: "Your Highness, might I suggest we attempt to enter into an alliance?"
Ruler: "Is that so? And with whom would you suggest we speak to in order to form this alliance?"
If the player is a vassal, they must talk to the leader of their faction and use influence to convince them to become allies with another faction. Having the conversation costs (50 influence) and the player will need to convince them via conversation. If the Player fails to convince them, they'll lose an additional 50 influence and won't be able to have the conversation again. Depending on a ruler's personality, they can be partially convinced and instead of just setting up negotiations, they'll put it to a vote. The 50 influence the player used to have the conversation will be applied in favor of reaching out for an alliance.
Should the ruler decide to move forward (or the vote goes that way), they will likely send the player to one of the factions in order to discuss the idea of coming to negotiations.
The ruler doesn't say much, but reading their expression, you decide to engage them in conversation feeling they may need a little convincing.
Depending on the situation, the ruler of the other faction may not need any convincing but if they do, the player is able to try to convince them. It's also possible that the player, and or their faction, is in such a bad place with this faction that they're so angry (and having the personality) that they ignore the rules of engagement regarding messengers and attempt to kill you. Otherwise, the ruler will not provide their answer in dialogue to the player. Maybe there are other indications that can be used here if the player has certain skills/perks, but the ruler will say nothing of their answer.
What is most likely to happen (even if they intend to reject the invitation to negotiations) is they will provide you a note with their seal. Breaking the seal to read the note will cost 75 influence. Otherwise, just return it to your ruler to see the answer. Depending on the ruler's personality, and or your relationship to/with them, they'll either take the note from you and summarize the parts concerning you or they'll ask you to read the note to them. If you broke the seal, they will be very displeased and you will lose a lot of relationship with them (affecting how often they award fiefs to you).
Your messenger has returned, but they are not alone. This must be their messenger and on one hand, you're glad they're open to a meeting but aggravated that it is likely they wish to dictate terms. Your messenger silently bows to you as they hand you a note. It reads: I am willing to meet but only under the following conditions:
You will need to spend (300) more influence to get __________ to the table!
In the meantime, I agree to cease hostilities between our sides until this matter is decided upon.
Sometimes, regardless as to the severity of one's grievances, everything is negotiable or even when one has nothing against you, things are always business... this is why the most likely outcome is needing more influence to get them to the negotiating table. And yes, I realize you're negotiating to negotiate, but this is how things work sometimes.
Options:
- Accept Terms... +40 to relationship
- Reject Terms... No change to relationship
- Kill the messenger... Leader of the faction will become your Bitter Enemy and any diplomacy, regardless of what happens in the future, will be impossible. If someone else becomes leader, there will be a 33% they too will consider you a bitter enemy. Relationships will rise and fall even with people in your faction based on their personality. You will gain Deceitful and or Cruel traits.
"If you think I would ever even sit in the same room as _____________ without drawing blood, then you are truly mad." or
"I am unwilling to align with the _____________ as they would make undesirable partners. Perhaps you would consider aligning with ___________ instead?"
It's also possible that one of the things holding them back is one of (or more) the other factions for the proposed negotiations is one they refuse to speak with under any circumstance.
Possible Player Responses:
- "I understand, but I cannot withdraw my invitation from them. I hope you understand."... relationship goes up with other invited faction(s), Honest trait
- "Very well, then let you and I work to form our own alliance."... relationship goes down with the other invited faction(s) (whether they're the ones being kicked or not), Deceitful trait
- "I'm open to speaking with them." (if the response suggested another faction)... relationship goes down with the other invited faction(s) (whether they're the ones being kicked or not), Deceitful trait
HOW IT COULD WORK... At the Table:
Now that everyone is at the table, several things must be decided:
Type of Negotiation:
- Peace...
- Temporary Alliance to Defeat Another Faction and or Alliance
- Alliance...
- Become a Single Faction...
- Betray them and attempt to kill them... Player can try to use this moment to gain the upper hand. Attacking them in this state will give your forces a damage bonus of 10%. Needless to say, the attempt alone comes with negative side effects, failure will have more negative side effects.
"Blood for blood. That is the way of my people."
There may (and will likely) be conditions / terms to solidify alliances. Those conditions may include any and or any combination of the following:
- Marriage...
- Money...
- Tournament Duel...
- Tournament Duel to Death...
- More Influence...
Player can attempt using charm to reduce / remove any condition.
- Success... removes condition
- Critical Success... gets the player benefits
- Failure... condition is unaffected
- Critical Failure... condition added or worsened
Player: "When I win, do you want me to execute them your Majesty?"
"I'll leave that part to you. The only thing that matters to me is that you win."
For the tournaments, each side chooses their representative. It may be a team dual. The rulers cannot participate in the conflict. If player is vassal, their ruler may select them to participate or the player can volunteer.
HOW IT COULD WORK... Alliance:
Having an alliance would allow you to also have the option to create an army from forces of the allied factions. How much you will have to pay in money and or influence will depend on the terms set at negotiations.
Who gets what after a successful siege depends on the terms set at negotiations. Who gets the conquered territory may be done based on a rotation or it may be based on the location of the territory. Regardless, someone always gets something after a territory is taken. Say a city is taken, someone gets the city, the others will get money.
HOW IT COULD WORK... Bitter Enemies:
Having a faction become a bitter enemy causes different things to happen based on their personality. The player also receives benefits, one the they get regardless, another they get based on one of the benefits their enemy is getting, and one they get to choose.
As Bitter Enemies, these effects are automatic...
Your troops are 5% more likely to be killed rather than wounded when fighting against the bitter enemy faction and if the player goes down during a battle with the bitter enemy...
...Player's Army Wins: Serious Injuries... Recovery is 10% slower
...Bitter Enemy Faction Wins: Take No Prisoners... There's a cutscene of them executing you. You're dead. The adventures of this character is brought to an absolute end. Autosave will not help you out here.
These traits apply to other leaders in your faction as well. They will have serious injury and take longer to recover. They will be executed rather than taken prisoner.
- - -
Only Makes Me Stronger... Player's Troops will now get exp (or more exp if they already receive exp) just for surviving the fight whether they manage to kill anyone or not and Player will gain greater xp from surviving encounters with their Bitter Enemy.
As a Bitter Enemy, this faction will receive 2 perks based on their ruler's personality. Which aspect of the perk they'll get is random.
- Patriotic Fervor... Enemy Troop (of that faction) sizes increase by 5% -- Enemy Troops (of that faction) do 5% more damage
- Now It's Personal... Troops of the faction leader's party do 10% more damage -- The faction leader's troop size increases by 10%
- I'll Take Everything from You... Daily income from territory near the enemy's territory will reduce by 10% due to the enemy seizing trade -- Daily loyalty for territory near enemy's territory is -2 per day due to the enemy's efforts to lure your people away
So if a ruler that has become a bitter enemy gets Patriotic Fervor and I'll Take Everything from You, they might get Enemy Troops do 5% more damage against player's armies and Daily income from player's territories near their territory is reduced by 5%. They do not get both aspects from a perk. It's either or.
- - -
The player picks one benefit, the other is selected automatically based on their personality and or what benefit the Bitter Enemy received.
- Better Under Pressure... Player gains 5% more influence in victories against bitter enemy faction -- Player gains 5% more renown in victories against bitter enemy faction
- What Doesn't Kill Me... Player's Troops gain 5% exp bonus in fights against this enemy faction --
- Call to Arms... Player's Troops build siege equipment 5% faster when besieging Bitter Faction -- Player's Troops receive a 5% movement bonus when being called to form army by player
HOW IT COULD WORK... Other Notes:
But doing this would be an influence hog to begin, but the mechanic could be used as a way to gamble with influence, meaning if the sit down is successful, maybe you gain more influence back than it cost... or if that seems too exploitable, it will cut the influence cost in half when negotiations are successful. Maybe with the right perks, it will cut it down even more.
How much influence it costs to bring a side to the table will depend on your faction's relationship with them. Obviously, if you're at war with them and you've been killing each other, the influence cost will be higher however, this can be the opposite if they're near extinction depending upon their leader's personality trait. Some leaders will become Bitter Enemies, and sitting down with them will be impossible.
Something like the above could make it beneficial to execute them before trying to bring that faction to a negotiation table.
As a Vassal... the costs of making this happen is so much lower, and the player's involvement is different... but this also reduces the benefits received. This means there are pros and cons to the system but also pros and cons based on whether one is a ruler or a vassal.
"You've been honorable and fair in our conflict. I suppose I could hear you out."
War doesn't always mean that bringing a side to the table will be more difficult. Sometimes it may actually be easier. Say you've been releasing nobles rather than taking them prisoner, this would make things much easier and lower influence cost.
"My liege, we found a bloody bag. It pains me to inform you that the head of the messenger you sent to __________ was inside."
Conversely, If you've been executing them so your army could have head float races to see which head will reach the bottom of a stream first, it will cost you a lot more influence and increases the odds of them already being a bitter enemy faction. Even if it isn't in their personality, killing a family member or dear friend may cause them to lock into hostility towards your faction.
"Your Majesty, why are the ___________ over there? I thought we agreed to them taking a different position?"
Player: "It seems they mean to betray us."
Yeah, it happened to Neretzes, and it can happen to you too. You can be betrayed... or be a betrayer. There are pros to betraying, but obviously there would be some massive cons. Being betrayed wouldn't be purely random either. Personality types, player stats and actions, and other things should factor into whether or not this happens at all.
CONCLUSION: It's very rough and obviously any of this could be changed or made different but I think the concept is a solid one and would make the gameplay, whether one is a vassal or a ruler, more interesting and meaty.
