Board Thread:Roleplaying/@comment-17114085-20150131101228/@comment-12599067-20150206145324

(Well, Daedra's not wrong.

I get that you're shooting for realism, but I don't think it would kill you to tone down the difficulty either. I don't speak for everyone, of course, but it's my understanding that people kind of lose the will to continue on when everything they do is met with this kind of opposition. The villages seem to be able to pull soldiers out of their arse and are apparently much larger than they appear, since the tiny mountainside villages and small eggmining town of Gnisis both somehow managed to raise a 700-strong army.

I'm not criticizing you as a GM or anything, I'm just saying that it wouldn't really be that much of a stretch to tone down the "expansion is nigh-impossible" vibes. So far I've seen a total of two times where diplomacy has actually been effective, and in one of those situations there were cannons aimed at a town. Every other time, people are forced to march their armies all over everyone else in order to get anywhere, and usually some big argument about "your soldiers aren't that well-trained" or "you don't have the resources" springs from that.

So how about you take it easy, yeah? Not everyone's a warmonger, but we shouldn't be forced into a situation where we can't do anything just because we prefer diplomacy to slaughter.)