I invite Playcot executives to browse the realm of war and look at all the huge swaths of land that are controlled by only a few mega-covenants. Mega-covenants have taken over everything and there is no room for covenants to develop and grow. Essentially any covenant that is not a favored member of a mega-alliance (another problem for another rant) with one of the mega-covenants has no hope of ever acquiring a city.
I would like to propose a few changes to the settlement rules that I believe will help make the realm fairer and offer more opportunities to covenants what are not full of 20/20 level-90 players with 6 sub-orders full of level-89 players waiting their turn.1. Allow more sedentary villages.
Certainly giving the mega-covenants more attack villages will make matters worse. But giving city defenders more sedentary villages to defend their city will improve things greatly. What makes a village sedentary? The time and resources it takes to upgrade to level 30. I believe the following rules would help defend cities.
2. Limit the number of cities a covenant can control.
Most developed settlement: Level 1 to 2 – 1 village allowed.
Most developed settlement: Level 3 to 8 – 2 villages allowed.
Most developed settlement: Level 9 to 15 – 3 villages allowed.
Most developed settlement: Level 16+ – 4 villages allowed.
At least 1 castle or city, and 4 level-30 villages – 5 villages allowed.
At least 1 castle or city, and 5 level-30 villages – 6 villages allowed.
For the first 4 rules, “settlements” includes villages, cities, and castles. Obviously, when a covenant decides to go to war and starts settling attack villages, they automatically lose their ability to hold 5 or 6 villages.
The days of allowing covenants to acquire 20, 30, 40+ cities need to end. This game is not any one covenant’s empire. I propose limiting a covenant’s ability to acquire cities by its ability to acquire and retain control of castles. This will increase the importance of castles, which the mega-covenants presently seem to ignore.
3. Make alliances meaningful.
0 castles – 6 cities allowed.
1 castle – 12 cities allowed.
2 castles –18 cities allowed.
etc., the formula being: 6 x (C + 1), where C is the number of castles owned by a covenant.
Of course these rules cannot be applied retroactively. But applying them now will halt the domination of the game by mega-alliances. Over time, they will allow their cities to be captured in order to consolidate around castles and an equilibrium should be achieved within a few months.
Junior players often ask me what the difference is between peace and alliance. I generally say, as far as you are concerned, nothing. I think there are some easy things that can be done to make them more meaningful.
A. Covenant members can use their reinforcements to heal an ally’s settlement. 1 reinforcement per player for each ally settlement, up to a total of 6 per player.
B. Covenant members can add their mercenaries to an ally’s attack accumulator when supporting an ally’s attack on a city or castle. (This is an offset for A, above.) If someone is paying crystals to attack with mercenaries, they should dang-well be entitled to direct how those mercenaries are applied.
C. Create a concept called a coalition for junior covenants. Create a data structure and an editor window that will allow the GLMs of up to 4 covenants to from a coalition, which will function as a single traditional covenant in the realm of war. The GLM who forms the coalition will be the Regent Lord Marshal (RLM). Only the RLM can add/expel GLMs from the coalition. Being intended for junior covenants, the coalitions will subject to the following limitations”
(i) Total combined membership ranking of 100,000.
(ii) Total combined membership of 20 players.
(iii) Total combined settlement allowance of 4 villages. A coalition cannot hold a city or castle.
(iv) All member covenants must display the same coat of arms, exactly the same.
Otherwise, the coalition will behave and function as any other covenant in the realm of war, including having the ability to reinforce each other’s’ settlement and to enter into alliances with other covenants and coalitions. This would also include the proposals under A and B above.
One issue will be what to do with settlements captured by a coalition. The coalition editor window should allow the RLM to assign such villages to one of the member covenants, default being the covenant lead by the RLM. The RLM should be prevented from “stealing” any settlement that a covenant brought to the coalition when they joined, kind of a prenuptial agreement.
Another issue will be what to do when a member covenant recruits new members and the result exceeds the 20 member limit for the coalition. The dialogue window for adding a new member should handle this just like it does for a covenant exceeding 20 members. The player adding the member should simply be informed that they cannot add a new member unless the (a) remove a member from their covenant, (b) a coalition covenant removes a member, or (c) they leave the coalition.
Another issue would be players achieving advancements in rank or covenants adding players that puts the coalition over the 100,000 aggregate rank limit. Adding a player is easy. The dialog window simply notifies the person adding the player that he would exceed the limit and must remove a player or leave the coalition. Handling the promotion of existing member players is more difficult. One solution might be to allow promotions by warn the RLM and member GLMs that they have exceeded the limit. If the excess is not corrected in 7 days, the coalition will be automatically dissolved. Possibly others have better ideas on how to handle this.
These rule changes will change the game dramatically, but I believe they most certainly represent a huge improvement in the game.
Please share your thoughts in the comments below.