Honor balance at Big Clans

I do not feel the issue is how honor is spent so much as how honor is earned. I feel that honor from religion, titles, and bribes is probably about right. The big issue is the amount of honor you get from handing out titles. Big clans declaring war on big clans result in a very large net gain of honor for the winner. It is large enough that the big clans can ignore all other honor sources, declare wars freely, and still hove above 80 honor.

I think that the honor gained from giving out titles should be scaled to how large your current clan is. If you are small, then you should get the full 3 honor. If you are large, maybe you only get 0.25 honor per title given out. If wars are made an honor net loss for large clans, it will at the very least, slow the game down and give the small/middle sized clans a chance to do something.

Featauril said:

I'm someone who voted 3 who regrets it. As others have said, making small clans cost lots of honor will do nothing - big clans at 100 honor can absorb a -60 honor hit and shrug it off. It'll slow down smaller clan expansion more than now, which is the opposite of what we want to happen.

As others have said, what really needs to be toned down is honor *gain*. Perhaps an honor decay such as in EU3 tradition?

Click to expand...

Well, it will help minor clans since once they attack bigger clan war will cost less honor. The notion that war costs honor is a bit unrealistic, but the fact that stronger the enemy more honor of defeatinf it is quite true to Japanese thinking at the time period.
As a metagame, the easiest way for power grab is attacking minors, since in Sengoku at the moment - might makes right (which is also true from historic POW) but there is no counterbalances, so attacking minors is the easiest way to grow big, since if you attack someone bigger you can be punished. To scale honor depending on relative size will also allow minors to gang on big opponent which is quite good from all point of view.

Does it mean honor gain should not be toned down? No, it's balancing thing but the 3rd idea is good regardless of that. Since its good from historical and gaming perspective.

Idea 5 is ridiculous from just a common sense, why if you are bigger any war costs more honor, if you call it admin points yes, thats realistic, but honor...?
Idea 4 does make player feel powerless, when some outside forces reduce honor, the rest are not popular.

autumnTwilight said:

I do not feel the issue is how honor is spent so much as how honor is earned. I feel that honor from religion, titles, and bribes is probably about right. The big issue is the amount of honor you get from handing out titles. Big clans declaring war on big clans result in a very large net gain of honor for the winner. It is large enough that the big clans can ignore all other honor sources, declare wars freely, and still hove above 80 honor.

I think that the honor gained from giving out titles should be scaled to how large your current clan is. If you are small, then you should get the full 3 honor. If you are large, maybe you only get 0.25 honor per title given out. If wars are made an honor net loss for large clans, it will at the very least, slow the game down and give the small/middle sized clans a chance to do something.

Click to expand...

That's a good idea, scaling back the honor rewards for larger clans.

I'd still like to see the court titles get progressively less honor per month instead of being a linear 0.1 -> 0.2 ->0.3; Something like a 0.1 to 0.16 to 0.2 scale would slow down the monthly gains a bit for the wealthier clans who have such money available.

I must say that I really dislike the events idea. This tends to generate a feeling of randomness instead of a distinctive action/reaction causality.