Why Become Strong?

[WilliamofTemeria]

I recently had a rather interesting headsup from Daedelus_McGee about How Might Corrupts. How Worthy Ideal's turns into A massacre... and made me think.

How often does Good deeds in M&B, (Of course with SoD) Reward you?.
Why Do We Strive to Become strong?.
Why Do You Want To Rule Penovosa-whatthenameis?

I mean, True. It is a game. But Seriously. Does the thought ever strike you?. Anyone?. Maybe a rather lame topic, But i am interested to see if there are people that consider it as much as Daedelus.

Do you consider the life of your men, or are they just stepping stones to the Throne?. Do you instantly Help farmers that gets attacked by bandits on the road?. do you consider a Village Health above its Commerce?.

Allso, Do you swear loyalty to one faction, And stay withit through thick and thin? or jump from lord to lord depending on success?.

So.

Why Do You Seek To Become Stronger In Penovosa?

What are your soldiers to you?

Are Peasents more valueble then gold?

and i guess questions related to that, Which my small brain cant figure on. 

 

[Computica]

Interesting topic, I'm curios about what type of replies will be made.

 

[Goldbrandz]

Well I can't say I take the lives of my men or peasants seriously while playing, pretty sad to lose elite troops (but only because I like to collect them) however if I were really a lord in charge of land and some men I think I would at first care about their lives, and then my mind would be ravaged by a disease and I would slowly turn into a cruel, delusional, paranoid tyrant and rule my lands with an iron fist. Take the wives of my lords to bed, deprive my troops of their wages due and stay up all night wandering the halls of my castle plotting against the common folk.

 

[DoctorPringles]

Dude, now that you mention it, I've always been seriously preoccupied with keeping my men alive, often to the extent that it's tactically poor judgement to do so. And the -very- first improvements I make on my villages/towns are those that increase the peoples' health because I think it's crap that NPC lords completely neglect them.

Why do I get attached to these pixels?!

Also, I really wish there were more rewards for doing goodly things. Like.. I wish honor actually did something.

 

[WilliamofTemeria]

Like Pringles, I have allso a strange "attachement" to my soldiers. Despite just being pixels... Maybe the fact someone Fights and dies for you, Despite being programed to do so makes for some kind of Bond?.

Even so, As mentioned, Losing an Elite Unit is allways a worse punch then losing a recruit. And i would be naive if i entered battle, Expecting to see the faces (or names in M&B) of all the soldiers after the battle. In war, Soldiers die. Civiliens die. People die. That's just how it is, As a leader, I feel its my task to ensure that as few as possible die,... well... Apart from victory that is..
But how many lives shall you sacrefice for a Sorry-Pile-Of-Bricks?. During WW2. It took allmost 2 million dead russians to halt the german advance outside Moscow. against 200,000 germans...

Now... 2 million corpses is a number i cant even imagine. But was it worth it?, Could they won the war even if moscow fell?. we will never know -Mysterious music-

Anyway. Health of my people is first priority for me. Faith would normaly be the least i bothered about. Atleast in other game, Religion is lowest prio. But Faith troops are insane. So i would be a bad General/player if i discarded such a Military force. Despite being in low numbers and tend to take time to get <.<....


If i were to Rule for real, I would most likely fail badly, I have more then enough Controlling my own life, Controlling thousend... No,....

But then, Another Question. What could be done to improve Honor, (Which i had fairly forgotten was in game until Doc Pringles mentioned it)

 

[Winterwolf00]

I wish to take control so that the people under my rule will have better lives.

 

[DoctorPringles]

Minimizing casualties is always the first priority of a good tactician, but I think civilian casualties take precedence over military casualties. After all, what good is an army if the country they fight for is all but empty? On the point of Russia losing Moscow, they could have simply withdrawn, allowed the Germans to take the city and then flanked their forces to cut off any chance for the Germans returning to their homeland. The Germans would then have simply died withered away through the winter, as so many did just to get -that- far. However, the Soviets were not known for their regard for human life.

Anyway! There are so many things Honor can do, like ensuring your release after losing a battle with a Lord, or even retaining all of your gold/items out of respect. If your honor is high enough, they could even allow you to keep a few of your men to escort you home. Certain events could trigger based on how high/low your honor is, like being offered knighthood or branded a villain, respectively, which could effect your relationship with entire nations, or even your own nation. Your men could desert if your honor is too low, or too high in the case of bandit troops.

Actually, I wonder if it's possible to code a way to be granted immunity in a nation you're at war with, based on honor and renown, as long as you behave.

 

[WilliamofTemeria]

I wish to take control so that the people under my rule will have better lives.

A Good Reason To Want Controll  Even if just improve their life a bit would help

 

[WilliamofTemeria]

Minimizing casualties is always the first priority of a good tactician, but I think civilian casualties take precedence over military casualties. After all, what good is an army if the country they fight for is all but empty? On the point of Russia losing Moscow, they could have simply withdrawn, allowed the Germans to take the city and then flanked their forces to cut off any chance for the Germans returning to their homeland. The Germans would then have simply died withered away through the winter, as so many did just to get -that- far. However, the Soviets were not known for their regard for human life.

Anyway! There are so many things Honor can do, like ensuring your release after losing a battle with a Lord, or even retaining all of your gold/items out of respect. If your honor is high enough, they could even allow you to keep a few of your men to escort you home. Certain events could trigger based on how high/low your honor is, like being offered knighthood or branded a villain, respectively, which could effect your relationship with entire nations, or even your own nation. Your men could desert if your honor is too low, or too high in the case of bandit troops.

Actually, I wonder if it's possible to code a way to be granted immunity in a nation you're at war with, based on honor and renown, as long as you behave.

Hmm. I see what you mean. There might be plentifull uses for Honor. After all. Everytime you spare a lord they say "I Will Find A Way To Return This Chivaliry" but the moment you lose to them, Your dragged to prison

 

[Winterwolf00]

I wish to take control so that the people under my rule will have better lives.

A Good Reason To Want Controll  Even if just improve their life a bit would help

I really want to be like Frederick the Great.

Frederick managed to transform Prussia from a European backwater to an economically strong and politically reformed state. His acquisition of Silesia was orchestrated so as to provide Prussia's fledgling industries with raw materials, and he protected these industries with high tariffs and minimal restrictions on internal trade. Canals were built, including between the Vistula and the Oder, swamps were drained for agricultural cultivation, and new crops, such as the potato and the turnip, were introduced. Frederick regarded his reclamation of land in the Oderbruch as a province conquered in peace.[35] With the help of French experts, he reorganized the system of indirect taxes, which provided the state with more revenue than direct taxes. Frederick the Great commissioned Johann Ernst Gotzkowsky to promote the trade and – to take on the competition with France – put a silk factory where soon 1,500 persons found employment. Frederick the Great followed his recommendations in the field of toll levies and import restrictions. In 1763 when Gotzkowsky went broke during a financial crisis, which started in Amsterdam, Frederick took over his porcelain factory, known as KPM, but refused to buy more of his paintings.
One of Frederick's greatest achievements included the control of grain prices, whereby government storehouses would enable civilian population to survive in needy regions, where the harvest was poor.[38]

Frederick gave his state a modern bureaucracy whose mainstay until 1760 was the able War and Finance Minister Adam Ludwig von Blumenthal, succeeded in 1764 by his nephew Joachim who ran the ministry to the end of the reign and beyond. Prussia's education system was seen as one of the best in Europe. Frederick also abolished torture and corporal punishment.

I want to promote Industry and Rationalization and Statehood. Instead of feudalism and serfdom.

 

[DoctorPringles]

Hitler improved Germany both economically and militarily, even though he's considered, arguably, the worst dictator the world has ever known. One doesn't have to be good-hearted to be a good leader.

 

[manekemaan]

he did ruin quite a few peoples lives pringles... (this is understating)


I wish to rule to ban all raiding, to unite all lands.

Sadly enough, in panavosa, this has to go by the saying, if you want to bake an omelet, you goto break some eggs.

I try to make my enemies men the eggs tough.

 

[Computica]

Hmm, good convo, there are some things I need to take into account then. Improving the lives of the population is important. I need to make sure I can really effect that. As for honor I am going to make a new bad-boy system. This one isn't like the last one. It's more of a good and bad system.

 

[DoctorPringles]

Can you go into any detail on the new system you're thinking of? I'm curious.

 

[Daedelus_McGee]

Hitler improved Germany both economically and militarily, even though he's considered, arguably, the worst dictator the world has ever known. One doesn't have to be good-hearted to be a good leader.

This is actually absolutely fallacious.  A better way of describing it might be to note that under  Mussolini all the people who said that the trains didn't run on time went to prison. 

Under Hitler, military production went up consistently, as the quality of life nosedived and the direction of the country went to hell.  It is a lot easier to show record production when people who fail to provide indications of record production go to prison.  As an example, when Fritz Todt, head of industrial production, told Hitler that after viewing conditions in Russia that Germany could not win, he died in a plane wreck immediately afterwards.  What do you think the next head of production did when he was called on for honest reports?  When the choice is lie or be assassinated by the protectors of state security, production numbers go right through the roof.

Finally, during WWII, production in the US outstripped production in either Germany or Japan per worker, and the combined output of Germany, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom roughly matched US output.  And we wasted huge amounts of it in inefficiencies, although noticeably less than the fascists in Germany and Japan.

Yes, production increased in Germany right up until the Soviet's mongol shock troops came in and raped the workers to death. Hard to count that as a method to emulate.   

 

[DoctorPringles]

Never did I say anyone should emulate what Hitler did, but no one can deny he was a brilliant mind. He used his charisma, and the German peoples' frustration at being reduced to practically nothing after WWI, to rouse the country into a world war. Tactically, that was quite amazing. He brought a country from its knees to face an entire planet with very little in the way of allies to support it, and performed quite well for the first few years.

 

[2s1ckk]

I wish to take control so that the people under my rule will have better lives.

A Good Reason To Want Controll  Even if just improve their life a bit would help

Doesn't this strike you as reminiscent of the direction of current western governments?

 

[Winterwolf00]

I wish to take control so that the people under my rule will have better lives.

A Good Reason To Want Controll  Even if just improve their life a bit would help

Doesn't this strike you as reminiscent of the direction of current western governments?

Trying to improve the lives of the people? Or moving from a feudal system to a more centralized system?

 

[DoctorPringles]

I think he's trying to say that Western governments are taking control of other countries to improve their quality of life.

 

[Winterwolf00]

I think he's trying to say that Western governments are taking control of other countries to improve their quality of life.

I suppose.