Diplomatic Action: Travel

[Angryminer]

Today I thought that diplomatics of this era all visit each others once in a while to establish better connections.
Perhaps the kings in KoH should be able to do the same.
A visit to England for example would, depending on the king's character, enhance the diplomatic relations to England for relatively low costs, but would lower your knight's loyalty towards the absent king for the time of the visit.

If the king isn't a marshall by the time of the decision he is converted into a marshall (if he was a governor a knight will be placed in his town for the time of his absense) and he can travel to an English province of his choice. While he's on his way his knights slowly lose loyalty towards him and thus are more likely to become rebels or declare independence. But the relations with England will improve as long as he stays in England.

The main advantage of this feature is that such a travel is far cheaper than bribing (but still expensive due to upkeep and lowered loyalty).

Perhaps we could add such a feature for domestic provinces too, so that the loyalty and happiness in the destinct realm improves during the visit, but the loyalty in the other slowly lowers.

Angryminer

[Bora]

yes i also thought about a similar idea. i thought to invite other nations ruler to a celebration banket. where you can start and upkeep a good relationship and maybe also have a better bonus that the other one accepts you favours and plans easier then by normal diplomacy.
and i still like to see tounremnts in the game,... just to say it,... :D

[Jarlabanke]

And at the end of the banquet you lure him in to the outhouse,close the door and set fire to it...

[Angryminer]

Bora: The difference is that the visits are not "just good" but have a drawback.

Anyway: Please get back to the topic. I'm really anxious to hear about the dev's opinion.

Angryminer

[Emhyr var Emreis]

both invitation and travel seems to be good.

But when a king is a knight also and governor, I don't think any changes in his possition will be possible. Just a little complicated IMO.

If king's a marshall, he can ask other king for diplo travel (can I visit YOU?), but how it can be practicaly done? Will you send your king without any companions(army) to another kingdom and believe your potential enemy so much?
And will you believe your potential king visiting your realm with an army?
It's possible with allies or half-allies IMO, but not as action improving your relatioons. Marriage is better IMO. Both sides will have advantages from it, what will you have from other king's visit? what kind of advantage? I can see only one. It's easier to assasinate him (catch him in a trap and attack him by few marshalls who were "by chance" close and "provoked" by his army). And from side of visiting king: easy way how to captre enemy's town (miust be sure that there are now "hosting" marshalls, if they are there, isn't it a trap?)

[Angryminer]

1. Why shouldn't a governor-King be able to become a marshall for some time? A new knight becomes governor for the time of the visit and the King travels to his destination with some squads of soldiers.
2. It should go like this:
You click one of (for example) England's towns, enter the diplomatic-options and choose somewhere "Diplomatic visit". If England's King agrees (that needs at least 'neutral' relations), you can send your King there.
As soon as you enter England's territory your relation with England will slowly improve (this should symbolize the visit) and your Knights will begin to lose loyalty towards you.
As soon as you leave England's territory the visit is ended.
3. If you declare war on England while you are on a visit there your "Kingdom Power" should suffer a big penalty, because other Kings will think of you as a traitor and might declare war upon you the very moment that you cowardly attacked England.
If England declares war upon you while you are on a visit there they should suffer this "Kingdom Power"-penalty and become "Europe's Target".

Never trust a traitor ;) .

Angryminer

[Emhyr var Emreis]

ok, but what will be the advantage of travel like this? loss of your knight's loyality? short-timed improvement of relations with one kingdom with a risk of loosing the king? risk of losing any realm?
I personally will never use action like this. As I said, marriage will do the same work without a risk of a loss of the king.

And if this is not as important as "having option of diplomatical travel", what will happen to that "substitute governor" after the return of the king?(a marshall for a short time)
Will Disapear? Became marshall instead of the king?
When some "substitute knight" can change his "occupation", why other knights can't do it? It would destroy whole system of specialized knights.

And more. When king, a governor, leave "his" realm(a realm governed by him), a happines of local people should drop remarkably, because the King's leaving them. You'll need very good "substitute governor".

[Richard]

thats a nice idea angryminer:go: a good thing could be that while the king is visiting other realm his brother could take the throne for the duration of the visit, but i dont think this is posible seems i read that the king's brother disapears:( but then again that could work the way u said it

[Finellach]

Well I must say I don't like the idea of King travelling to other kingdoms and lands unless it's of course battle. It's ridiculous. I mean why would England's King allow French King to land on his teritory, even if it's a friendly gesture?! You must remember that all Kings were actually contenders for the same goal: teritory and lands of Europe and of course power.:D

I like the idea of King going to other realms of his kingdom though. ;)

[Elewyn]

let me agree with both of you, Angryminer and Emhyr.

I think it's very nice option to have, but also I think that it's included in marriage. Only that marriage doesn't have the risk, what seems to be very important for you, Angryminer, am I right?

I can see good reasons why to include it, but yes, it has some bugs. As Emhyr describes the problem with king becoming marshall and governor again and the "substitute governor" problem.

And I miss one thing, Angryminer.
4. When your king with his army is in England when England declares war to you, their KP will go down significantly too, but is this satisfaction to you, when he has 3 knights around your king who is about to be killed. It's like giving them your king as ransom in good will of improving your relations.

I think that idea of "king is far away, knights' loyality drops down" is very good. But it can be used also when the king is "normal" marshall.

Btw, question to Frujin or Frank Fay. Where a king IS if he's not a governor or a marshall (or a Cleric when you play for Papal states?), I see no reason why to make king neither spy nor trader.

[Jarlabanke]

If you attack a country while having your king in it, your king should be taken hostage, he should only be able to have his personal guards with him while making friendly visits. Trying to improve the relations with a neighbouring country by more or less forcing them to feed your grand army would be rather wierd.

[Angryminer]

Sorry for sarkasm, but don't you believe that visits in foreign countries are rather realistic when today's presidents visit each others, too?
Bush in Israel, Schröder in Moskow - it's quite common and nobody fears for their president's life. In medieval times nobles didn't slaughter each others, too. There are quite a lot of reports of nobles on the battlefield who didn't kill each other though they fought for different sides.

Of course it would be really dumb to visit a country you are at war with. But when the player is so stupid he should be punished ;) .
And if the visited nation has neutral relation with your nation a declaration of war should lead to an extreme loyalty-penalty. Or would you, as a knight, follow a madman who declares senseless wars without reason and dishonors all the principles you learned to believe in? And wouldn't you, as a king, feel threatened by that warmonger who declares war on someone who only wanted to 'shake hands'?

And btw: Don't you think it adds some depth to the game, when you have to think about the possibility of being tricked, when you think about visiting another nation?

Angryminer

[the knightly sword]

Originally posted by Jarlabanke
And at the end of the banquet you lure him in to the outhouse,close the door and set fire to it...



hehehehehehehehehehehehehe.:dwink: :dwink: :dwink: :dwink: i like your idea evil and funny ´. but maybe like this you lure him in 2 a party and throw him in jail and his knights have to pay him back

[the knightly sword]

hmmmmm??

[the knightly sword]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Angryminer
Today I thought that diplomatics of this era all visit each others once in a while to establish better connections.
Perhaps the kings in KoH should be able to do the same.
A visit to England for example would, depending on the king's character, enhance the diplomatic relations to England for relatively low costs, but would lower your knight's loyalty towards the absent king for the time of the visit.

If the king isn't a marshall by the time of the decision he is converted into a marshall (if he was a governor a knight will be placed in his town for the time of his absense) and he can travel to an English province of his choice. While he's on his way his knights slowly lose loyalty towards him and thus are more likely to become rebels or declare independence. But the relations with England will improve as long as he stays in England.

The main advantage of this feature is that such a travel is far cheaper than bribing (but still expensive due to upkeep and lowered loyalty).

Perhaps we could add such a feature for domestic provinces too, so that the loyalty and happiness in the destinct realm improves during the visit, but the loyalty in the other slowly lowers.

Angryminer [/QUOTE





why not put a prince on the throne will you visting other countrys.
its safer then a un loyal knight.he wont steal daddys kingdom ween his visting the dentist

[Jarlabanke]

Capturing/killing kings using banquets and such was actually rather often used in medieval times, at least here in Sweden.

[Wallenstein]

Couldn't you send a high level diplomat or even family member to accomplish the same thing(better relations). If I remember correctly this was more often done then the king actually going himself.

[Angryminer]

It's more risky that way ;) .
No risk no fun.

Angryminer

[Finellach]

The thing is you can't compare todays modern times with the medival times. I can't remeber not one instance where one King decided to visit another. They mostly communicated through special emissaries and such.

And imagine that it happens what some suggested: you send your King who is actually you and someone declares war on you. You land is invaded and ruined while your King went on "vacation" or the King you are going to visit declares war on you and more kills your King what then?

Silly idea to say the least...

[Angryminer]

Finellach:
All that isn't a bug, but a feature. The game can handle killed kings.
Your king dies? The next in the row becomes king.
Someone declares war upon you? Defend yourself.
You have your troops in the totally wrong place when someone declares war upon you? You did something wrong. Do it better next time and try to rescue what's to be rescued.

This feature-suggestion was planned to have a drawback. The player has to decide what to do. Get the better relation with i.e. England and run into the possibility of being killed or stay at home and run into the possibility of England denying military help in your future plans.
So your listed arguments don't ruin the gameplay, but give the game depth! ;)
Thanks for pointing out these cool possibilities!

Angryminer