Last knights Forum

Upon returning to this game after a long break and seeing and experiencing all of these amazing changes and improvements to the game I started thinking about a possibly beneficial ability element that might reduce frustration and, at the same time, increase player activity.

Now, please note that this is simply an idea and I am posting it here mainly to see how it transforms into a doable addition to this game. I am not expecting this idea to remain the way I explain it but would like to see if it can be discussed further amongst the playerbase as well as the dev team to become a maintainable and balanced mechanic.

Please provide only constructive criticism, whether it be positive or negative, toward this idea so that others may conform to these opinions or sustain from them calmly and without toxicity. Thank you.

HERE IS MY IDEA.

We have seen from the very beginning that, as a country, you have the ability to ally other nations, discuss a Non-Agression Pact with them, and mark them as enemies if one so wishes. These are quite beneficial actions to take considering a countries goals or status in strength or player activity. However, I have also noticed troubling situations where none of these things really did any good due to lack of activity or frustrations and disagreements within a country or countries. Though some of these things probably can not be changed right away or maybe at all, I do believe that this idea of mine could have some promising results if constructed with much planning and open consideration involved.

My idea involves adding the ability to merge two countries together into one larger and stronger force. I believe this idea has a lot of potential if the right questions are asked and the right methods are used.

For example, we could say that a merge can only be possible within the following confinements;
1.) The ability to merge with another country is only possible within a certain frame of time some time after the age has started and some time before the age is scheduled to end.
2.) A country may not merge with another if the overall resulting strength rises above said power level. This could be based on a solid base estimate of strength or a sum based off of the enemy country, or countries, averaging strength.
3.) A merge can only be accepted or requested if the majority or the entirety of the Leadership Council votes in favor of it.
4.) A merge can only be done ONCE per age.

These are just a few examples on how we could possibly help make this a balanced system. However, there is also the possibility of this mechanic being abused and that's where I'd like this discussion to start. If this idea sounds interesting to you how could the dev team manage making it so that it can't be abused?

If you have any other input such as ideas that you could add to my own to make it even better or maybe you have concerns about something I stated that you believe may need to change or be disregarded I would love to hear it and I am certain that the DEVS, if they love this idea, would enjoy hearing it as well.

Thank you for your time.

I don't think this idea is the way to go.

I just see it historically: alliances come and go, NAPs as well. It's just politics.
A nice example is the Hundred Year War between England and France. Burgundy swapped sides several times, Flanders first was an English ally, but took a more neutral stance when the war kept going, Brittany also looked who was on the winning side to join them , ...
You just have to have a possibility to backstab other countries, even though no one likes it, it brings a lot of drama and most of us think it's simply not done.

For diplomatic reasons (pure in the game then) it won't be a good idea either. You speak of doing these mergers in an early stage. However, there is always a possibility 2 stacks will merge to a superstack so they just can fly through the age and finish everyone off. The idea that you think this would be impossible due to a strength cap is good, but people will find a way around it. People always find a way around everything to cut corners, that's just how we generally think.

You'll also have a medal issue in the end. Since two countries will merge, this will mean that they'll have one HC of 6 people (LD, CoS and 4 HC), however it's actually 2 countries, but how will you calculate which country should deserve more points than the other one?

I barely had the luck to be in a country with decent activity from the beginning to survive till the later stages of an age, but I just feel that's part of the game. Everyone can hit the jackpot, but only a few actually hit it from the start. You just have to be lucky.

You make good points and if the DEVS are trying to create a 100% accurate to history type game here then I can understand why not doing this would be best. However, if we are not following a specific universe to where what you are stating is the case then I don't see any harm in at least attempting to see how it would work out.

Also, I think you misread what I said about when merging would be possible. I suggested an example where it would only be possible through a decided upon amount of time AFTER the start of an age and BEFORE the end of an age. Figuring out the method in deciding when to make this accessible to countries would be something that would have to be analyzed closer.

The medals would not be an issue in this scenario because the ones merging into the other country are typically stepping down from their positions. As I stated in my example, the merge would have to be agreed upon by the majority or entirety of both leadership councils before the merge could be possible. This being the case, They are willingly relinquishing their command and would obviously understand the result of the merge.

Each country will have a choice whether to be the requester or the accepter of a merge. The only players that are losing something are those who have been given the rank of WC HC or LD. However, it is their choice in the end. If the LD and HC all agree that it is a vital, reasonable, or even beneficial move then they aren't really giving up anything.

This merger effort would be the equivalent of a country dying and having to join a new one but instead of some people having to start over and new arrivals spawning at the home location possibly far away those who would have died in the country death would gain the chance to be saved from a CK and the other players would immediately spawn in with the other countries army. An idea I just thought of for HOW the merge would take effect is once it is possible and has been agreed upon the two allies have to border each other. Otherwise the merger can not be done. This can still give enemy countries a chance to stop this merger by cutting them off. Did I also mention that only allies can merge? We could combat abuse of this by one of the merger requirements being that you have to be allied for a certain length of time.

Lastly, as far as balancing strength for a possible merger goes there would be a strength limit. If any of your allies are above the threshold a merger would not be possible. Maybe think about it this way; i personally believe two powerful countries would rather stay allied or fight each other rather than give their countries up to another. Therefore it will not be possible to merge with a close or equally powerful allied country.

Hope these responses bring clarity to what I was trying to say.