Goblin Squad Member
|
Something that hasn't really been discussed yet (mostly because it will not be implemented altogether any time soon) is the art of Kingdom Politics and how they should be in this game in regards to PC on PC interaction only.
I aim to be a major player in the diplomatic scene as soon as I can get myself fully established into the lore of PfO, running as an intermediary between factions, helping or hindering individuals of great infamy/renown, and generally being a kingmaker such as I can. I'm sure I am not the only one, and I am equally certain that once I get my own guild started up I shall have a few people join my merry band
With that in mind, who can we reasonably expect to establish a kingdom? I believe The city of Brighthaven to be an excellent jumping point to a glorious pearl in the north, casting its radiant lights across the lands, and I believe Pax already has plans in the running to create an imperial powerhouse the likes of which people in all lands will speak of in awe. But should we simply allow these two to dictate our whole future? No, and I am sure they will agree with that, for the game needs more flavor than good and neutral fighting the seeds of corruption (Shadowhaven, I love you guys). Who then will be the others I should watch for? Who then should I have my little group of vigilantes and activists protect and meddle with? Who then should Pax and T7V and UNC look forward to dealing with?
We simply need more.
But that can be a discussion for another day. Instead we can turn to the over-arching theme of kingdoms in PfO and what should be done with them. For starters what are our concerns as a community? (Ryan already answered things like land space in the dev blogs so go take a look)
I guess I'm just looking to stir up some intrigue is all.
P.s. I mean "need more" in an abstract sense, not a tangible number of people or factions joining.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As the leader of an organization hoping to be deeply meaningful to our home settlement, and a very invested person in not only trying to build Brighthaven but hopefully some day see it rise as a capital city over a modestly-sized nation, I also find myself very interested in Kingdoms as the ultimate expression of cooperation between many, many people.
One of my concerns, I would say, is the idea that neighboring settlements - even cooperative ones - will be limited by the presence of a "metropolis" nearby. A big aspect of the Kingdom game is not only going to be defending against your enemies, but playing the games of economics and growth in a way that does not break up your kingdom.
I am imagining, based on comments made before about how a big city in a region is likely to mean nearby cities are smaller because the big city eats up all the resources, that what will hopefully be a large Brighthaven will need to carefully balance its growth against neighbors within the kingdom such that resentment does not build and fester internally.
If the systems are too unforgiving about resource-sharing, then this game will either become a relationship meat-grinder or that kingdoms will just be one massive city at a center with surrounding settlements being meager little thorps serving as little more than glorified PoIs providing for expanded territorial control and something for enemy armies to grind through before they can get to you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I see at most 2 or 3 kingdoms forming during EE and not much more until the expansion of territory at some point in OE.
I agree with Pax Shane, in hoping that there is as much turmoil as possible. I'm hoping for all of the political intrigues, including assassinations, coups, civil wars, etc..
I hope the River Kingdoms are literally flowing in gold and blood.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To answer your concerns
@Lifedragn: Resources in this game are one of the three founding power bases. People, Resources, Land in that order. To develop a strong kingdom, or city there should only be one per resource basin per kingdom. You shouldn't have to worry about competing for resources because it should only be one city producing those types of resources in that area. At this point you should be able to tell that having multiple cities within the same geographic location is bad business. Essentially we are going to be developing Italian/Greek City-States here, and the culmination of a few of these makes a kingdom. Etruscan/Lumbard League type stuff.
@Pax Shane & Bludd: The stalemate you are worried about may happen a little, but so long as someone tries to establish a Lawful-based city/nation I will try to destroy it in whatever means I can, because of my characters background. Also the resources will not be constant so areas of really high resources will be sought after by vying powers. And if ever you get bored, instigate chaos among the factions without your name attached.
@Bluddwolf There will be no kingdoms at the start if you read through the Dev blogs. Instead the highest to be formed during "the six to seven months of early enrollment" will be the company. (read the sixth dev blog for reference)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To answer your concerns
@Lifedragn: Resources in this game are one of the three founding power bases. People, Resources, Land in that order. To develop a strong kingdom, or city there should only be one per resource basin per kingdom. You shouldn't have to worry about competing for resources because it should only be one city producing those types of resources in that area. At this point you should be able to tell that having multiple cities within the same geographic location is bad business. Essentially we are going to be developing Italian/Greek City-States here, and the culmination of a few of these makes a kingdom. Etruscan/Lumbard League type stuff.
This is certainly the reality of the situation. But when disparate factions align, it will be a pretty weak union if they have to sacrifice their own city for the good of the "kingdom".
I am not at all sure they will be doing this, but they make a good example as they are already a multi-settlement minded organization, but imagine the PAX alliance establishing cities as neighbors to build a kingdom as opposed to far-flung allied city-states. Is Golgotha going to accept that they can only reach medium size in order to allow Calambrea to become massive, or vice-versa? (Please pardon my spelling if I got settlement names a bit wrong). What happens is that either they accept this and Golgotha itself is a mediocre settlement. They break up and end up fighting over the arrangement. Or most likely, they don't bother with an official contiguous kingdom as envisioned in the design and they remain as separate allied cities in more distant portions of the map.
It becomes a question of Reality vs. Fun. Having a major city with a number of smaller supporting cities, villages, etc is reality. But playing second fiddle to a larger power is not everyone's idea of fun.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Lifedragn the situation you are talking about simply cannot happen with the current mechanics.
Each hex will have its own resources pools, instances, PoI types, blah blah blah, you get the idea. Each hex can only support ONE fort (there may be exceptions it was said) which means only ONE settlement. This means each settlement on the whole will have its on hex of territory and generate its own hex worth of supplies. If another settlement is taking those supplies it will be due to the hostile taking over (violent or otherwise) of that hex's PoIs, and not through the inherent presence of the settlements' proximity to each other.
You needn't worry about that regard nearly as much as you are. One settlement per One hex. Each hex has its own base production factor(s).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Numbers are subject to change as we build out the map, but 2000 PoI hexes is slightly rounded up and number of settlement hexes is around 220, such that if every single settlement played nice and tried to distribute them as evenly as possible (hah!), each settlement would sponsor 8-9 PoIs.
So one settlement hex + 8-9 POI hexes. About 9, like DB says.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My concerns are based on the assumption that a settlement's base hexes would support only a small to medium sized settlement constrained by trade for resources not found in the hexes and that larger, top-tier settlements would require far more resources than their base resource pool could manage and thus require significantly one-sided trade deals (such as finding trade partners desperate for resources and willing to pay multiple times over average prices). Perhaps my concerns are overblown, though I did imagine 'resource acquisition' as a leading factor over which wars would be declared.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My concerns are based on the assumption that a settlement's base hexes would support only a small to medium sized settlement constrained by trade for resources not found in the hexes and that larger, top-tier settlements would require far more resources than their base resource pool could manage and thus require significantly one-sided trade deals (such as finding trade partners desperate for resources and willing to pay multiple times over average prices). Perhaps my concerns are overblown, though I did imagine 'resource acquisition' as a leading factor over which wars would be declared.
This will be a major political factor, indeed, but not as much in a kingdom setting, where it should be assumed that the rulers will ensure all parts are receiving at the least a base amount of sustainability. And as you say no settlement is going to let someone take all the resources for themselves without a fight.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the point is being missed though. If a large settlement requires more resources than it can collect from it's own territory, and you have a kingdom of five settlements, how do you decide who gets to be big? Do you share all takings equally and nobody gets very big? This doesn't necessarily have to be internally acquired resources, but even spoils of war.
My concern is not about presence of settlements, but about managing egos over who gets to run a big settlement and who does not within a kingdom.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That will be politics determined in-game by factors. It is that sort of issues that my character will be working In-game In-character to properly balance and proportion. Sorry but some cities will need to be better of in regards than others (for instance the mountain city guarding the only border in from the denizens of the rift will need more food and weapon stores.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the point is being missed though. If a large settlement requires more resources than it can collect from it's own territory, and you have a kingdom of five settlements, how do you decide who gets to be big? Do you share all takings equally and nobody gets very big? This doesn't necessarily have to be internally acquired resources, but even spoils of war.
My concern is not about presence of settlements, but about managing egos over who gets to run a big settlement and who does not within a kingdom.
I think settlements will be about 4 hexes apart. I'd expect the 'endgame' successful nations to be made up of settlements 8 hexes apart, and the settlement at the midway points will be stunted clients/pets that possibly have only 6 or fewer POIs. Client settlements could be the source of low rep forces.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@DB, That is true, and nations will balance the hexes they hold and the hexes they allow clients to hold based on that (and other considerations).
I think we've also been told that each POI hex the settlement control will increase the settlement DI. It may not be a linear increase, and it might be capped, or limited by other development, but to some number of hexes, more hexes probably means more DI.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The longest lasting kingdoms will be those which go at things in a cooperative sense with regards to how the settlements are set up. A kingdom should build each settlement based on it's needs and gear them with an eye toward maximum use of it's local resources.
Citizens of each settlement are really citizens of The Kingdom. If they don't think that way, they won't last as long as those that do.
There is probably little that you can do to curb egos of individuals except avoid the problem when you establish the kingdom. If you can't, then I suppose it will be content.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it necessarily follows that if you have multiple settlements in a kingdom some of them will act as vassals to some others, feeding the bigger city. That's certainly a possibility, but I think it just as likely if not moreso that people will distribute what resources they have to give each city what it needs. If you need more resources, there are plenty of ways to aquire them: trade, war, vassal states, raiding, just to name a few. So a highly militant state, or one with very successful trade, may be able to acquire the resources it needs to become a "big power" without having to resort to vassal colonies.
I agree that some cities will need to be bigger/better in some aspects than others, that only makes sense. That's why I very carefully used the phrase "...give each city what it needs" in the first paragraph; it's not about evenly distributing necessarily, but instead giving a distribution which every party feels is acceptable and which maximizes the effectiveness of each settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think it necessarily follows that if you have multiple settlements in a kingdom some of them will act as vassals to some others, feeding the bigger city.
I agree. I think the assumption that they will is similar to the assumption that all Settlements will be under the total control of a single player.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
All of this cooperation stuff is a best case scenario and one that I hope to see a great deal of. It is a different case for "conquered" or "cowed" settlements. Then it will depend on lots of things.
Historically, there are many examples of leaving the government in the hands of the losers as well as razing and establishing your own, from your manpower pool. Everything in between. There are so many varied results from these histories that it is difficult to say what works best. The thing is, no one dies in this game, and I suspect it will have much to do with how you treat those that you win against, and their own attitudes as well.
Should be pretty interesting though. ;)
The point I believe you are missing here is though there may be one uber settlement in the kingdom it will support the people from the other settlements in terms of training and crafting. As long as people from other settlements get an equality of training and crafting potential then it makes sense to have a central uber settlement rather than several equal but mediocre settlements and for the outlying settlements to support the uber settlement
It depends on what type of government and social system they implement.
For instance a Coalition (like the Lombard League) or a Kingdom (Like the Holy Roman Empire)
Of course, what it really depends on is in game mechanics.
Unfortunately like so much else the details of nations/kingdoms has as of yet been undetailed except to note that such will exist. Until we know more little speculation may be done.
My current assumptions are
1) You cannot declare war against a settlement in a kingdom without declaring war on the kingdom
2) Settlements in a kingdom will treat all members of the kingdom in equal regard for taxes, laws and training.
I have no dev statements to back these assumptions up just they merely seem like common sense so until the devs say they are wrong I do not think they are unreasonable.
for 1)
Could you see Kiev declaring war on New York and the russian or federal government standing by?
for 2)
Can you see new york saying you can't go to school here to a student from illinois
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
It depends on what type of government and social system they implement.
For instance a Coalition (like the Lombard League) or a Kingdom (Like the Holy Roman Empire)
Of course, what it really depends on is in game mechanics.
Unfortunately like so much else the details of nations/kingdoms has as of yet been undetailed except to note that such will exist. Until we know more little speculation may be done.
My current assumptions are
1) You cannot declare war against a settlement in a kingdom without declaring war on the kingdom
2) Settlements in a kingdom will treat all members of the kingdom in equal regard for taxes, laws and training.
I have no dev statements to back these assumptions up just they merely seem like common sense so until the devs say they are wrong I do not think they are unreasonable.
for 1)
Could you see Kiev declaring war on New York and the russian or federal government standing by?
for 2)
Can you see new york saying you can't go to school here to a student from illinois
2: I see that New York charges students from Illinois more to attend state schools.
2: I see that New York charges students from Illinois more to attend state schools.It depends on what type of government and social system they implement.
For instance a Coalition (like the Lombard League) or a Kingdom (Like the Holy Roman Empire)
Of course, what it really depends on is in game mechanics.
Unfortunately like so much else the details of nations/kingdoms has as of yet been undetailed except to note that such will exist. Until we know more little speculation may be done.
My current assumptions are
1) You cannot declare war against a settlement in a kingdom without declaring war on the kingdom
2) Settlements in a kingdom will treat all members of the kingdom in equal regard for taxes, laws and training.
I have no dev statements to back these assumptions up just they merely seem like common sense so until the devs say they are wrong I do not think they are unreasonable.
for 1)
Could you see Kiev declaring war on New York and the russian or federal government standing by?
for 2)
Can you see new york saying you can't go to school here to a student from illinois
It may charge more for illinois students but they can at least attend. How many students does it take in from Kiev?
Some.
2: I see that New York charges students from Illinois more to attend state schools.
It may charge more for illinois students but they can at least attend. How many students does it take in from Kiev?
a) your link fails to show that the cost for students from overseas is less or even equal to that of students from illinois
b) It fails to show that only students from acceptable countries are allowed in (pretty sure there is a list of countries who are unwelcome to submit students)
c) Fails completely to realise it was an example showing why cross training between settlements in a kingdom was a common sense assumption when compared to allowing training of any one from any settlement ever
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You are assuming we establish governments in-game that work like modern governments.
As to declaring war on a settlement in a kingdom but not on the kingdom itself, it happened many times throughout history, especially in the orient where clan ties were so harshly binding and the social stratification worked in different methods. The Middle East was off and on like this, as was Ancient/Medieval Italy, Gaul (especially easpecially freaking Gaul), Germania, and Ancient Greece.
That said I don't get what Kiev students in NYC has to do with the specific concepts of war, as they are based in entirely different realms of politics so having them here proves only that diplomatic relationships can exist in our scenario, not what those relationships can entail...
Really it depends on the whether the devs decide to adhere to modern "realities" or allow freedom of "choice". It will also depend on our feedback. I would suggest leaving the issue until we get to experience it first hand
You are assuming we establish governments in-game that work like modern governments.
As to declaring war on a settlement in a kingdom but not on the kingdom itself, it happened many times throughout history, especially in the orient where clan ties were so harshly binding and the social stratification worked in different methods. The Middle East was off and on like this, as was Ancient/Medieval Italy, Gaul (especially easpecially freaking Gaul), Germania, and Ancient Greece.
That said I don't get what Kiev students in NYC has to do with the specific concepts of war, as they are based in entirely different realms of politics so having them here proves only that diplomatic relationships can exist in our scenario, not what those relationships can entail...
Really it depends on the whether the devs decide to adhere to modern "realities" or allow freedom of "choice". It will also depend on our feedback. I would suggest leaving the issue until we get to experience it first hand
Those examples you give such as italy ignore the fact that each of those were autonomous self governing entities. They were part of a symbolic nation not part of a nation that had supreme control
(For example in the middle ages at least Venice, Florence, Pisa and Genoa were self governing.)
Find an example of someone invading a settlement with an overarching government such as britains government in the middle ages and I might concede.
I think I'm hearing "I threw out Kiev and New York as an example of two different nations without *really* thinking it through. So when I asked DB 'how many students' and he said 'some', I can only hope to change the subject by accusing him of not showing that the cost overseas is more, even if that isn't what 'how many' means."
The example just doesn't hold up perfectly. It's partially correct, partially not. I believe many school districts require proof of residency, for example. If you don't live and pay taxes in that town, you don't get to send your kids to the nicer school.
The point I was making as decius knew full well was that going to school in a different state is childs play compared to sending someone to school in a completely different country which requires visa's and all sorts of other paperwork and usually costs a considerable amount more than that charged to national students.
The point I was making that settlements training others within the same kingdom makes common sense. Training others from other settlements I am not opposed to but if the devs wish to restrict cross settlement training that seems the logical breakpoint.
In short one of the advantages of being in a kingdom should surely be being able to get training at any of the kingdom settlements.
Why do you consider this a non rational suggestion which I gather by your questioning it you do?
*dont you just hate it when people delete their post while you are typing a reply :) *
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The devs have suggested that getting training outside of ones settlement wouldn't happen. It might or might not be able to train within a nation; you did point out that that was an assumption on your part, but thought it made common sense. Up to that point I thought your post was solid. Yes it had assumptions, but you were open and up-front.
I chimed in only because you moved the goal posts: shifting the question from 'does New York admit foreign students' to 'does it cost foreign student more'.
Personally, I think nations will have a large disparity between key settlements and lesser settlements. Either people will be able to train in national allies (edit: allied settlements within the same nation), like you assume, or the nation will post people from the key cities out to the lesser cities, but their official 'residence' for purpose of training will be the big city.
The devs have suggested that getting training outside of ones settlement wouldn't happen. It might or might not be able to train within a nation; you did point out that that was an assumption on your part, but thought it made common sense. Up to that point I thought your post was solid. Yes it had assumptions, but you were open and up-front.
I chimed in only because you moved the goal posts: shifting the question from 'does New York admit foreign students' to 'does it cost foreign student more'.
Personally, I think nations will have a large disparity between key settlements and lesser settlements. Either people will be able to train in national allies (edit: allied settlements within the same nation), like you assume, or the nation will post people from the key cities out to the lesser cities, but their official 'residence' for purpose of training will be the big city.
As I said the school thing was only meant to be an analogy it was meant as an illustration of why it appears sensible and like any analogy has its exceptions. (I suspect most of those coming to study from Kiev in addition are not coming to the lower tier schools and instead going to higher education on the whole so if I had restricted myself to middle or high schools I may have achieved the point I was trying to make :) )
As to the rest it does remain to be seen what the Devs decide on. I still believe that being allowed to train in any settlement of a nation seems like a reasonable perk and gives settlement a reason to come together as larger organizations. However I suspect if we ask it will currently be another thing on the TBD list.
I chimed in only because you moved the goal posts: shifting the question from 'does New York admit foreign students' to 'does it cost foreign student more'.
The question was actually How many students does it take from Kiev? I would also guess that if Kiev was at war with New York, the answer would be zero as they would all be in an internment camp.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Those examples you give such as italy ignore the fact that each of those were autonomous self governing entities. They were part of a symbolic nation not part of a nation that had supreme control
(For example in the middle ages at least Venice, Florence, Pisa and Genoa were self governing.)
Find an example of someone invading a settlement with an overarching government such as britains government in the middle ages and I might concede.
Lombard League was not... And you are ignoring the Pope and the Crusades, friend. You could make the argument that the city-states at those times where not under the government of the church, but they were under the power of whatever the pope decreed.
As for the Orient, I am afraid you are dead wrong. The Sengoku Period, for instance, was committed under the government of the Shogunate towards the latter years...
(edited for precise accuracy)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think any effects have been described for a kingdom's reputation. As far as I know consequences for low rep only extend up to settlements; that is, you can have a low rep settlement in the same kingdom as a high rep one. It remains to be seen whether this is the absence of evidence or the evidence of absence.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So, a high rep and a low rep settlement decides to make a kingdom.
All the high rep people can go to the low rep settlement, but not the other way around.The high rep settlement, have decided that they do not want such scum in their town, it is beneath them.
But, sure, they are going to be in a kingdom with them.
It is possible the system will recognize agency before reputation. A kingdom or even a settlement may kill on sight a low rep character that is foreign in their lands, but accept their own citizens in.
This does not lessen the impact of reputation, it just alters the penalty for it in the case of its own citizens.
There is nothing abnormal about laws having layers of application and or enforcement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So, not so suck to be a low rep in a kingdom
I guess our low rep alts will have places to be after all.
Let me reiterate: they haven't said one way or the other whether this is the case. So it's possible the two settlements could be allowed in the same kingdom, or it could be that they are not allowed in the same kingdom. Remains to be seen (I'm going to put that question in the Stickied questions thread).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So, not so suck to be a low rep in a kingdom
I guess our low rep alts will have places to be after all.
I would not take any of our speculation to heart. It usually turns out a bit different.
It looks like (for a guideline) -2500 will be pretty tough, at least in NPC towns. I doubt that it will be better in any PC towns. What I meant was that maybe a kingdom could have a settlement that was just a little more lax about high rep. A "rough tough" (relatively) town, not a cesspit. :)
What do you mean by "low reputation"?