Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Should emissaries have an ongoing cost?
#1
From a game strategy point of view, I think so, even 100 gold per turn for an Ambassador, 200 for a governor etc. Whatever.
It seems odd that this weapon that some kingdoms have but others do not costs nothing to have. It does cost to use.

Now a counterargument is with castles, etc., the emissaries lose effectiveness eventually.

From a story point of view, maybe the "influence" cost is the ruler giving them lands etc. to support this ongoing cost.

It does seem to me that having a huge diplomatic corps at capital, should cost something on a maintainence basis, just like a big army you have, but arn't using.

Just thinking about it.
Reply
#2
(05-08-2020, 08:47 PM)Pine Needle Wrote: From a game strategy point of view, I think so, even 100 gold per turn for an Ambassador, 200 for a governor etc. Whatever.
It seems odd that this weapon that some kingdoms have but others do not costs nothing to have. It does cost to use.

Now a counterargument is with castles, etc., the emissaries lose effectiveness eventually.

From a story point of view, maybe the "influence" cost is the ruler giving them lands etc. to support this ongoing cost.

It does seem to me that having a huge diplomatic corps at capital, should cost something on a maintainence basis, just like a big army you have, but arn't using.

Just thinking about it.

I think it's a reasonable question.  But you do get hit when you actually use them, I mean it's 5000 gold to move a Duke.  You could have recruited a brigade for that. 

I am open to opinion, but I think the balance between the political model, military, covert, magical is about where it should be.  Make an argument against. 

For that matter, (anyone) make an argument against or for a specific kingdom or region.  I'll be working on revisions so this is the time.
Reply
#3
Just to tack on to my own message, let's say you like a particular region, so you draft early or even first. But then you have the 12th choice of kingdoms.   It can work out: we've seen the Red Dragons in Zanthia (not usually good for the rest).   But even there the Amazons went in and kicked their ass. 

Despite the myriad differences between kingdoms and position, it really comes down to the players.  I think that is the greatest part of the Alamaze design.  It's on you.  I appreciate how our players have become so good at what in Maelstrom was essentially a sandbox (do what you like) compared to what I did before.
Reply
#4
Regarding paying emissaries, they can only be bribed if they aren't doing anything. That would imply they are only willing to listen to a bribe offer if they aren't getting any support from their king. If there was an ongoing cost, I think you'd have to remove the bribe order, except for prisoners.
Reply
#5
(05-09-2020, 10:32 AM)Eregnon Wrote: Regarding paying emissaries, they can only be bribed if they aren't doing anything. That would imply they are only willing to listen to a bribe offer if they aren't getting any support from their king. If there was an ongoing cost, I think you'd have to remove the bribe order, except for prisoners.

nice point. Really good point
Reply
#6
(05-08-2020, 10:16 PM)Ry Vor Wrote:
(05-08-2020, 08:47 PM)Pine Needle Wrote: From a game strategy point of view, I think so, even 100 gold per turn for an Ambassador, 200 for a governor etc. Whatever.
It seems odd that this weapon that some kingdoms have but others do not costs nothing to have. It does cost to use.

Now a counterargument is with castles, etc., the emissaries lose effectiveness eventually.

From a story point of view, maybe the "influence" cost is the ruler giving them lands etc. to support this ongoing cost.

It does seem to me that having a huge diplomatic corps at capital, should cost something on a maintainence basis, just like a big army you have, but arn't using.

Just thinking about it.

I think it's a reasonable question.  But you do get hit when you actually use them, I mean it's 5000 gold to move a Duke.  You could have recruited a brigade for that. 

I am open to opinion, but I think the balance between the political model, military, covert, magical is about where it should be.  Make an argument against. 

For that matter, (anyone) make an argument against or for a specific kingdom or region.  I'll be working on revisions so this is the time.
Yes, exploring that balance has been really fun for me so far. E.g. what's the illusionist? Magic+covert. What's the pirate? Covert+sea+rich. I haven't even gotten into some of the specialty ones. I mean, I know you've done this a million times, but what would "Magic+rich" be... working title of kingdom "Teslans".

Just love it.
Reply
#7
Magic + rich = gnomes
Reply
#8
(05-09-2020, 07:54 PM)The Painted Man Wrote: Magic + rich = gnomes

Yes, the time I played the gnomes I didn't get to realize that. So yes.
Reply
#9
(05-09-2020, 08:50 PM)Pine Needle Wrote:
(05-09-2020, 07:54 PM)The Painted Man Wrote: Magic + rich = gnomes

Yes, the time I played the gnomes I didn't get to realize that. So yes.

Yeah, the "no water" regions are no bueno for gnomes and the "real wizards" if the RD wants to be a jerk.

I got even with him for you though. No charge.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)