threaten and status quo

[unclemike]

Should the previous turn's status quo affect a group threaten (order #180) the following turn?

If you think about it, would the local population really be swayed by the yappings of a politician telling them to be calm and resist the overtures of an orc army outside the gates that's about to pounce on them?

I can understand having status quo being 100% effective against a foreign politician trying to sway votes but not an impending army outside the town's walls.

So let me make the suggestion that any status quo effects from the previous turn be cut by 50% or so against a group threaten order.

I was going to add this subject under 3rd cycle changes but the code modification is so minor, I hope it can make it in this version as well.

BTW, another area I would like to see improved is to have the turn report show the word plunder or pillaged in the Other column to show the updated food/gold production values for that given event. There's notice in that column for a siege but not plunder and it would make the turn report that much more informative for the player. I made both of these changes to my homemade version of Alamaze years ago and they work great. If the current developer(s) are too busy to make the above changes, I'm willing to make them for everyone if given the ok.

[DuPont]

Here are some things that politicians might say to talk the citizens out of giving in to threats:
"Those Rangers are terrible! If you let them in your gates, they will rape all your women!"
"If you sissies surrender to those Dwarves without a fight, I'll have the 1st Red Dragon Army is going to fly here and torch the place."
"You can hold on. Everyone knows that the Warlock's troops suck. They won't be able to batter down your wall, especially since they've given us time to prepare!"

[kevindusi]

Or "It's DuPont, he'll screw up his attack order anyways". But I agree that an emissary actively seeking to maintain things the way they are would hold some sway against the military as well.

[unclemike]

Well, when you think about it, the emissary part of the game operates on a different scale than military group effects. As far as I know, the status quo factor carries the same weight for both cases (emissary and military) even though both parts of the game operate on different scales for determining success or failure. Just thought it may be a good idea to adjust a previous turn's status quo to be less effective against military operations since it's a different ballgame than political efforts.

[Jumbie]

But isn't previous turn status quo (#310) already reduced for dealing with 'diplomacy,' 'parley' and 'threaten' which comes in at #100+ the next turn?

[unclemike]

But isn't previous turn status quo (#310) already reduced for dealing with 'diplomacy,' 'parley' and 'threaten' which comes in at #100+ the next turn?

In my experience, previous status quo remains at 100% effectiveness against those military orders. I was hoping for an adjustment to the game if possible.

[Kellenved]

I think there's also a balance issue to be considered: By making maintain less effective against military action, you're tilting the playing field even more in favor of the military kingdoms. Many nations rely on their political strength--UN, GN, EL, DA, DE, AN, etc.--to counter the population eating militaries of TR/RD/GI/sometimes BL.

[unclemike]

I think there's also a balance issue to be considered: By making maintain less effective against military action, you're tilting the playing field even more in favor of the military kingdoms. Many nations rely on their political strength--UN, GN, EL, DA, DE, AN, etc.--to counter the population eating militaries of TR/RD/GI/sometimes BL.

I think the issue is not only a balancing one between kingdoms but also the general consideration in carrying over persistent effects into the next turn (and whether they should be treated to a lesser effect due to being a month old or other considerations for proper game balance).

Alamaze could have originally been designed not to have status quo effects carry over into the next turn and no one would have been the wiser. It's an extra game mechanic that makes the game more enjoyable because players have more options to choose from but carried over effects could also be problematic at times.

For example, an agent's counter-espionage effect carries over into the next turn to counter some orders like hostage escape (385), poison food supplies (615), bribe (900), and similar future orders but the counter-espionage order (920) actually executes after all of those. So should a month delay in having the counter-espionage becoming active be less effective than protecting against a current month's activities like sabotage (930,935), assassinate (940,945), or others that occur in the present month?

Also, if the given agent is busy doing counter-espionage activities (from being carried over from the previous month), should that also count as the agent's sole action for the subsequent turn? One area of concern is the train agent order (500) which occurs while the agent is still doing carried over espionage activity. The problem is that an agent can essentially perform two sole action-like activities for the given turn.

I mentioned this in another thread but it must have gotten lost. The way to solve this issue is to reorder all counter-action orders/spells to trigger before all other orders (0-49) so the counter-action of dispelling a spell, countering an agent, or status quo a military group occurs in the present turn rather than being carrying forward into the next one which is confusing for many players. Not having carried over effects would also make the game less problematic with any future design considerations.

Going back to my original question, I'm not saying to eliminate status quo entirely from affecting military actions, just reduce it by a certain degree while considering that political and military events are scaled differently as game mechanics.

Sorry for this long winded reply but carryover effects are an aspect of the game that needs to be implemented correctly. All of this is not meant to be taken personally by anyone - it's just a suggestion to make the game better for everyone.

[kevindusi]

I think that's already been accomplished (the scaling down of effectiveness of 310 vs. military). I see this all the time when a group does a 170/171 (admittedly, mostly 171) through a prince's status quo.

[Cipher]

There is already a scaling effect in place for status quo v group actions.