I really like the idea of Ransom I think it would add some interesting elements to the game, however I understand how others might not like it as it might be taking away from their game time and I know SBS do not want to make people have an unenjoyable time.

Champion Warfare. I can definitely see this being a thing in the game. However I also see the possibility that if it does happen that it will not matter exactly, as the losers side may deside to go to war anyways and not let that deter them. One example of this that is similarish. In Skyrim, Ulfric battles the previous high king(not a champion I know, but I can see this as an option too)the high king loses in battle which is normally is deemed as a fair battle and the losing side determines their king was murdered when he was not, he merely just was defeated in battle and a civil war happens anyways.

I would like to see both of these ingame.

(Redacted)

I yield!

This post is too great!

While personally, I belong to the adaptive-total war school of military thought I do like the idea of seeing some medieval customs (like ransom) getting involved in the game.

I'd like to see the custom of Murum Aries Attigit in CoE. As an explanation, the term means 'the ram has touched the wall' and refers to the policy first used by the Romans (and later many medieval commanders) that the army would accept the surrender of a town without harming the civilian populace or even engaging in particularly heavy looting up until the battering-ram/siege engine/first soldier hit the wall after that the town was fair game.

I suggest this cause war in CoE should be brutal. Kingdoms, nobles and commanders should be able to institute brutal and effective policies and have NPCs capable of understanding these policies.

I really like the idea of champion combat for settling disputes, similar to a duel for personal disputes. It would be honor bound rather than legal...unless SBS allows for contracts for duels? o.o THAT would be epic. I'd love to see a legit in game mechanic for betting on fights/etc and an extension for duels via champions. I doubt they would implement it, but it would have a pretty awesome "cool factor" to be able to challenge someone to a duel at noon...and actually have a mechanic to setup a duel at noon that has in-game penalties for failing to adhere to the customs. Maybe not jail time, but an aversion from NPC's that have heard of the Oathbreaker/Honorless. Similar to how the Waerd will look down upon those who engage in active combat during war times?

The only issue I have with Ransom is that it only extended to the nobles. It was kind of BS in all reality. It was not only common to merely take them hostage and random them back, but it was looked down upon and even punished if a peasant slew a noble/knight in combat. If the peasants don't get the honor of not having to lose a character faster I see no reason to extend that to the gentry. It's a cool idea as a throw-back/nod/reference to real-world customs, but I don't know if it's something that would be fair in game. It would literally cause a schism where those who paid x amount have less of a penalty for losing in combat. =\ Maybe merely including the option of Ransom for those who lost as a whole? I.e. Group A and Group B engage in a conflict and after the winner has been decided and a side yields(assuming they don't fight to the last man) the option for Ransom is available for all of the players via contract of x amount for not dying?

The other issue boils down to how it would work mechanically. Does the player who is being Ransomed lose access to that toon during the process? What if the other kingdom/duchy/county/city/family(whoever would pay) cannot afford the amount at that point in time? Would they be forced to wait or simply killed due to lack of liquid assets?

Cool idea, but I think the mechanics could/would easily get really convoluted really quickly.

Nice, interesting interventions, i like your Murum Aries Attigit Chipla, it makes sens in a CoE setting even if finding a way to bring it in the system is not easy.

The main problem with Murum Aries Attigit is the way a settlement is controled in CoE. The order of things we know so far imply that a settlement is under the control of the county it is in and for towns and cities under the control of the mayor/magistrate which is an elected position. There are a few exceptions to that, if the town is part of a coup (the mayor signed the casus belli) the authority of the county does not apply anymore till it is re-enforced and the mayor striped of his title for treason, in the case of a power vacuum the count will appoint a new mayor that is either an other mayor in the county or a land owner of the town.

So, in the case of a legal conflict, Murum Aries Attigit could be translated by a surrender contract, that contract offered by the attacker to the town would in exchange from the surrender of the mayor title spare the town and create a power vacuum if the attacker is on the lord's side or force the mayor to sign in with the usurper in the other case. We could also add that if the mayor refuse to sign the surrender contract, it triggers an eviction vote where the town council has a chance to evict the mayor and appoint an other one who will accept the contract. A timer would go with such a contract to leave only a few days to the town to accept or definitely reject the offer.

About the various points raised about the ransom, i agree, that is why it would have to be limited to staged battle ( limit in time and space) as i was envisioning it, if an incapacitated character is recognized as a valid ransom target ( to be defined, but if it was limited to nobles and wealthy it was because they were the only ones viewed as able to pay a ransom) a bounty of war token is issued that will let you capture the target the same way a bounty-hunter does with a criminal. The captured target must then be brought diligently to the camp of the army, where the ransom contract will be created. there the captured character can either try to escape or be rescued if his side manage to attack the enemy camp. At the end of the battle if the captured character is still prisoner than he is presented the contract, if it accept it he is freed and must fulfill his part of the contract (pay the ransom) if he break his word it is the duty of the other party to enforce the contract, breaking a contract has an impact on your reputation as it makes you less trustworthy. If the character refuse the contract he than is killed or suffer prison as if he was a criminal according to the terms of the contract.

Chipla's Murum Aries Attigit roman custom brought to my mind an other custom of them, hostages.

After a conflict or negotiations romans were often taking hostages, children of nobles, that they brought back with them to be sure the other party would not break the treaty. Hostages were no normal prisoners, they were well treated, not really restrained and often treated as a roman child ( a famous hostage was Attila for example). So a peace treaty or a surrender one could include hostages, children sent to the other party to be raised.

That would imply for the hostage to be given an addendum to his child contract, giving him a new room, and transferring some parenthood rights over the captors, like language, culture and profession teaching.... it does not change who control the child code and in case it is needed the child can be used as heir, how the player manage his life in the enemy's land is ground for great stories. When the terms of the treaty end the child is sent back to his parents and the initial child contract resumes. As children can not be killed or harmed we lack the option to do that if the treaty is broken but is that really important ?

Hostages are a very good way of forcing cultural change on conquered people since the hostage is brought up in the culture of his hostage takers.

This cultural indoctrination (combined with a healthy bit of good old-fashioned genocide) is how the Norman nobility were able to maintain control of the British Isles, the Kingdom of Sicily, and large swathes of France.

I think the option of influencing the children of your potential enemies - if hostages were to become a thing - is an important factor in who you'd take as a hostage and the skills you'd encourage in them.

While i kept digging i also found tribute and subsidy both can be used as alternative to territorial gain if sue for peace or even as an option if the war ends normally.

The victor could ask for wealth instead of land or title or the losing end could offer them in exchange for the end of hostilities. Such a treaty would of course have a duration and be a Casus Belli if broken, it should be right in the scope of contracts and include anything but slavery that is not in the game. That would for example open the door for auxiliary troops and tribute giving ceremonies with of course the travel of the tribute with all the risks and adventure it might include......

Posted By chipla at 11:43 AM - Mon Mar 19 2018

While personally, I belong to the adaptive-total war school of military thought I do like the idea of seeing some medieval customs (like ransom) getting involved in the game.

I'd like to see the custom of Murum Aries Attigit in CoE. As an explanation, the term means 'the ram has touched the wall' and refers to the policy first used by the Romans (and later many medieval commanders) that the army would accept the surrender of a town without harming the civilian populace or even engaging in particularly heavy looting up until the battering-ram/siege engine/first soldier hit the wall after that the town was fair game.

I suggest this cause war in CoE should be brutal. Kingdoms, nobles and commanders should be able to institute brutal and effective policies and have NPCs capable of understanding these policies.

Two colorful suggestions you might think about to drive home the idea of the brutality of war.

The first was an ancient Rome Custom (adopted by Medieval commanders). 'Tetigit portam vsque Ariete' or 'Til the ram touches the gate.' Rome would offer reasonable terms of surrender to a City. With promises of no harm to civilians and a minimal amount of looting. Once the agreed deadline passed and the ram or first Roman soldier reach the wall or gate all bets are off. The town is now fair game.

The Second is a custom of the Mexican trumpet call called the "Degüello" (Throat Slit). A warning to defenders that they choice not to surrender and therefore will die without Mercy.

@Donovan,

The Roman custom has already been mentioned by another term, "Murum Aries Attigit".

The Mexican trumpet call is new information, at least in this thread and other recent ones. One constraint of the trumpet call is that there must be prior custom establishing the meaning of the call, and the besieged must know the call. The ram statement is customary, but refers to an event and consequence that can be conveyed by formal negotiations or messages beforehand.

I feel like the game will leave room for its own form of chivalry.

Not killing someone who's afk or obviously dc'ed, etc.

Posted By Scheneighnay at 8:04 PM - Thu Mar 22 2018

I feel like the game will leave room for its own form of chivalry.

Not killing someone who's afk or obviously dc'ed, etc.

No doubt, but a reputation for lack of chivalry won't entirely be a product of the game's alignment system. Player attitudes will count, and they may differ from place to place.

I’ll throw one out: jus primae noctis: the custom whereby nobles have certain rights regarding common women in their lands.

Then again, that’s not necessarily a war custom so much and custom useful after conquest. Kinda like Chipla was talking about with cultural takeover, but with genetics.