Shattered Kingdoms

Btw, did I mention how boring I find it that we are trying to introduce a complicated financial system in a FANTASY set?

Finances aren't boring. They're merely an additional strategical layer to consider while making decisions. They can be used as a tool of power, with drawbacks to make it necessary to consider your options carefully.

By same account diplomacy, citizenship issues, banishments, or any element of tactical warfare could be considered boring. None of which are, imo.

Each to his/her opinion.

Why make it necessary to be at war with somebody so as to be able to bring tribunal law NPCs into Teron?

If you want to put some level of fiscal restriction on dragging law NPCs into foreign lands, why not just make it possible to declare war on Teron? ie. there would be a "dummy" Teron tribunal serving as a placeholder to delcare war against that nobody could ever be an actual member of. That way, the organisation would still have to pay "war fees" to take law NPCs into Teron, but wouldn't have to declare war on some other party to do so.

This would better reflect the fact that every time a foriegn power triest to enforce their own sense of law within Teron they are, in effect, declaring war on the entity of the city itself.

I also agree with Jardek that it would be much better if a single player could be leader of both a tribunal and cabal at the same time. Good, active leaders are something the Mud is continually short of. It makes no sense to me to deny the Peacekeepers (for example) a decent and willing leader just because he also happens to be the current leader of (again, for example) the Hammer. If you like, increase the monthly activity time threshold necessary to maintain your leadership flag for characters that hold joint leadership.

Besides, restricting leadership to either or simply encourages OOC arrangements whilst such a restriction offers little benefit or protection to the game in return.

And I agree with respect to making Alliances cost money to maintain, but only if you enable one kingdom to transfer money to an allied one. Or give some other clear benefit to being in an alliance (an extension of law immunity, perhaps?).

Tat has offered the same critiques to D's suggestions that I would. A dual leader would be extremely demanding and it would certainly not be something to be abused, but I think it makes good sense and would also help to shorten the gap of lacking strong leaders in the playerbase right now. Extension of legal immunities to allied factions would be something that makes an alliance worthwhile and would make the cost have a real connection. The only part I would disagree with is Teron. I think anytime a tribunal would liike to battle in Teron provided they are in a state of war with at least one faction, they should be allowed to bring their NPCs with them. Teron is one of the best battlegrounds in all the game and we should encourage and allow it to take place. I'm all for a cost to warring and alliances. Adding extra fees to take NPCs into Teron doesn't make much sense when you aren't actually battling Teron, but another faction which you've already paid fees for.

Make it so, Dulrik! I think this would add a much greater depth to the diplomacy and economic factors in SK. It would also help keep all the factions at least partially populated. I am excited to see these things become a part of the game.

A

I am relieved to see cabals wont have skills/spells wimped for it. I porbably would have honestly stopped playing over that. It would have been another wimping of cabals ideantity, like the old HQ's being changed was.

Anyways I like Dulriks suggestions, except I also wonder why alliances cost money and if anything can be added to actually make it worthwhile?

Allow tribunal members to take their guards into allied kingdoms as well. This will make up for the alliance upkeep cost.

Let's say I am a member of CoN, that is allied with the MC. Suddenly I get a tell from an MC member that Menegroth is under attack, to grab as many as I can and go there, to face together the threat. I can grab a law NPC and go there.

I'm not sure I think alliances should cost money. I truly do think that wars should though. Not necessarily the paperwork alone, but certainly any campaigns executed.

Yeah, right.

Terons economy should get coins for wars being fought on it's soil cause it's always so god damned poor. Who cares if it doesn't make sense. It's like Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance...it doesn't actually make sense for you to take more damage when your weapon is out....but it happens...