Posts: 918
Threads: 34
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation:
5
I like the idea of slowing down regional reactions. Maybe it could only change 1 step total in either direction per turn.
Posts: 981
Threads: 33
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation:
1
03-13-2017, 04:21 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-13-2017, 05:11 PM by Hawk_.)
I think the current enemy rule actually contributes to games ending quicker.
Declaring someone an enemy is currently a defensive order not an offensive order. The limit of 2 declared enemies makes regions easier to flip.
Being unable to declare 3 enemies exposes controlled regions to surprise attack by a 3rd kingdom.
It is not uncommon to be fighting 2 kingdoms and then to suffer surprise attack by a 3rd "vulture".
This is not how the rule used to work and I think the former condition limited expansion more.
We could change the limit on declared enemies to be 2 more than total kingdoms that declared you an enemy.
This would make it slightly harder for opportunistic players to prey on vulnerable kingdoms.
I think the current rule also makes the region 5 and 8 kingdoms weaker relative to the others.
The rule could be further modified in a way that would really eliminate surprise attacks.
If you required someone to issue an enemy declaration prior to order 320/330 or 150 then you would slow the progress of the leading kingdoms. You would also see where they are going.
Alternatively, If enamours or denigrations were seen by all players this would have a similar effect.
Posts: 208
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation:
2
We could also change the enamors and denigrates to a Emissary function rather than a King. The Emissary would have to be located within the region in order to issue the order. The cost could be a set amount plus the cost of the emissary with variable chances of success and the possibility of being imprisoned if done within a PC controlled by an enemy
Posts: 5,613
Threads: 619
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation:
6
The limitations on enemies was chiefly in response to what we were seeing in many games: players would just declare everyone they weren't working with as enemies for the cheap built in protection the declaration provides. Now it is more of a strategic decision. Possibly it could be 3 max.
I've considered both making Enamoring and Denigration Universal Results, but it is a big change we may or may not do in Maelstrom. We've also thought about requiring an enemy declaration to attack or suffer an influence penalty. Again, might be the case in Maelstrom. And considered declaring an enemy to cost a point of influence as it causes disruption in the population who now brace for war.
Posts: 985
Threads: 31
Joined: Aug 2015
Reputation:
0
Perhaps 2 Enemy Declarations plus 1 additional Enemy Declaration per Region you control?
Posts: 2,585
Threads: 42
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation:
7
The enemy/ally effect could also be looked at. I prefer the old system with in effect double hostile and double friendly. It allowed you to protect your territory better. As it is now someone delivers a strong attack unsuspected you go from friendly to suspicious with them only declaring an enemy order when launching the attack or the turn after. Also you loose your region all your would be allies are tolerant as well. The old system an ally who was already friendly at the time you declared him friendly would still be friendly if his ally lost control. The same is true of the owning kingdom. You could also protect yourself more by being able to drive an enemy to an extra level of hostile so they can not go from hostile to tolerant in one turn by taking an enemy region. Wouldn't the population still dislike and not trust an invading force.
The current enemy ally has a known bug build into it as well and it is asked that the players enforce not using it. Sometimes it just happens though and how can someone prove it was on purpose?
Buddy/Ignore List
