Strategic secession?

[Gustav Kuriga]

Correct.

Yay for junior high geometry!

[Indirik]

Venn diagram, anyone?

[Vellos]

Vellos, my point was that to be a strategic secession, it also has to be a friendly one.

Err... why?

[Telrunya]

Because, as Velax said, 'strategic secessions' for rule purposes have a very specific definition. The Secessions of Irombrozia and MR do not fall under the banned definition of Strategic Secession at all. They were not used to circumvent 'you can only recruit in the capital' restrictions for purely strategy reasons so that the realm (Riombara in this case) could better fight off their enemies, but instead were done because the Duke disagreed with the Realm and decided he was better off on his own. If you're seceding a Duchy and creating a new Realm just so you can refit closer to the front during a war, then you're violating the rules. That kind of requires the secessions to be friendly as well, as otherwise the main purpose is not to circumvent this ingame restriction.

[Vellos]

Because, as Velax said, 'strategic secessions' for rule purposes have a very specific definition. The Secessions of Irombrozia and MR do not fall under the banned definition of Strategic Secession at all. They were not used to circumvent 'you can only recruit in the capital' restrictions for purely strategy reasons so that the realm (Riombara in this case) could better fight off their enemies, but instead were done because the Duke disagreed with the Realm and decided he was better off on his own. If you're seceding a Duchy and creating a new Realm just so you can refit closer to the front during a war, then you're violating the rules. That kind of requires the secessions to be friendly as well, as otherwise the main purpose is not to circumvent this ingame restriction.

What if you're seceding because you want to make a new realm in land you just conquered?

Because that's what we're actually debating.

My point is that the "friendly and strategic" criterion doesn't work for this instance. Because a thing could be friendly and strategic but not a circumvention of the game's rules: unless we think CTOs were, in spirit, just strategic secessions.

[Vita`]

Forming a new realm is not a violation of the strategic secessions rule. Forming a new realm for the express intent of allowing quicker refits from a new capital is a violation of the strategic secessions rule.

[Chenier]

Forming a new realm is not a violation of the strategic secessions rule. Forming a new realm for the express intent of allowing quicker refits from a new capital is a violation of the strategic secessions rule.

Intent is easy to hide, and does not in any way change the effects of the secession.

[Anaris]

The general case of a strategic secession goes something like this:

• Realm A and Realm B start a war (who declares is pretty much immaterial).
• Realm A looks at its multiple duchies, and feels like their capital is too far from the front.
• Realm A secedes the duchy with the city closest to the front.

Forming a new realm in enemy territory has never really been considered a strategic secession, whatever method has been used to accomplish it.

[Gustav Kuriga]

The general case of a strategic secession goes something like this:

• Realm A and Realm B start a war (who declares is pretty much immaterial).
• Realm A looks at its multiple duchies, and feels like their capital is too far from the front.
• Realm A secedes the duchy with the city closest to the front.

Forming a new realm in enemy territory has never really been considered a strategic secession, whatever method has been used to accomplish it.

Also, usually it will be a duchy that they already hold, rather than one they conquer.

[Geronus]

The general case of a strategic secession goes something like this:

• Realm A and Realm B start a war (who declares is pretty much immaterial).
• Realm A looks at its multiple duchies, and feels like their capital is too far from the front.
• Realm A secedes the duchy with the city closest to the front.

Forming a new realm in enemy territory has never really been considered a strategic secession, whatever method has been used to accomplish it.

It wouldn't be any different in principle to the scenario you're outlining if they did it with a conquered duchy though, assuming the war is still ongoing.

[Stabbity]

Intent is easy to hide, and does not in any way change the effects of the secession.

And yet this rule only governs intent.

[Tom]

As in most of the "more lose" rules of the game (in contrast to the Inalienable Rights and the Social Contract), there's one good test:

If there is a discussion about whether or not, then it almost certainly isn't.

If the case doesn't jump out, then it almost certainly is fine, even if some people don't like it.

These rules are meant to stop blatant abuses of the game mechanic. They are constanly being abused by whoever gets shafted to whine and complain and try to get the devs involve in a way that would tilt the balance of in-game events.

[Anaris]

If there is a discussion about whether or not, then it almost certainly isn't.

I'd be careful with guidelines like that, Tom, because I seem to recall one or two obvious strategic secessions where there was, in fact, quite a bit of argumentation over it. Granted, it was pretty much the people who did it defending it and the people outside accusing them, but still, people can still disagree on what you and I think it blatantly obvious, especially when they have a vested interest in doing so.

[Indirik]

Has anyone ever been punished for a strategic secession?

[Tom]

I'd be careful with guidelines like that, Tom, because I seem to recall one or two obvious strategic secessions where there was, in fact, quite a bit of argumentation over it. Granted, it was pretty much the people who did it defending it and the people outside accusing them, but still, people can still disagree on what you and I think it blatantly obvious, especially when they have a vested interest in doing so.

Yeah, I should have added something like "a REAL argument. you know, with actual points being made and stuff". :-)