Removing a royal duke

[Velax]

You could plan ahead better and appoint lords that will move their food around.

That's really a very stupid and not even vaguely helpful thing to suggest. Aside from the fact that appointing dukes has nothing to do with me, obviously this person wouldn't have been appointed if we'd known they'd just disappear. They were a respected and previously active former ruler with no history of this type of thing. But hey. If you feel like lending me that crystal ball you apparently have, feel free.

[Indirik]

If you're not the one responsible for appointing the duke, then it is not your responsibility to make sure they are doing their job. There are various IG tools that people have to deal with it. And yes, a royal duke *can* make things a royal bitch through either negligence or purposeful design. And that is 100% intentional.

[Eithad]

That's really a very stupid and not even vaguely helpful thing to suggest. Aside from the fact that appointing dukes has nothing to do with me, obviously this person wouldn't have been appointed if we'd known they'd just disappear. They were a respected and previously active former ruler with no history of this type of thing. But hey. If you feel like lending me that crystal ball you apparently have, feel free.

Theres also a thing called a steward for this very occasion.

[Penchant]

Theres also a thing called a steward for this very occasion.

Helps with the city starving though if the duke won't do anything then that means they won't promote someone to steward, and that doesn't help with the lordless rural.

[Indirik]

It could have helped if the rural had a steward to begin with.

[JPierreD]

It could have helped if the rural had a steward to begin with.

Which was the responsibility of the Lord-Duke. I too agree there should be a way to enforce a lighter ban on royal lords or dukes. Perhaps one that gives them a week to realign their region/duchy to another realm, to avoid losing it (only losing the region or duchy, not being banned from the realm). But I suppose this is severely off-topic.

[Foundation]

Isn't this why we have an Exile option?

Also, we're getting further and further from the original topic, which in no way should be the solution to the power struggle in Velax's case.

What we've established so far:
- If the realm wants a royal granary, they can already use the banker's regional granary.
- If the banker wants trader powers, he or she can become a trader.
- Lordless regions can be difficult to deal with, thus stewards can be more important than previously accepted.

[Velax]

And if they're just sitting there, logging in enough to not be autopaused but refusing to do anything to help the realm, what does exiling accomplish? A constant loss of prestige for the Ruler as the Royal Duke sits there doing !@#$ all?

[Zakilevo]

That is why you should choose your duke carefully.

I think Exile should be changed so both the ruler and the target should lose honour and prestige. Whoever hits the bottom first should lose.

[JPierreD]

... the point is.. i already mentioned existing tools for dealing with such an issue.

One requires a skilled Infil and the other a skilled Priest. Besides a temple in the region, faithful and the religion's approval. Still doesn't solve the fact he's still a Duke, though I suppose that is not so important..

[Tom]

Or, you know, from a "the city is starving and losing thousands of people and there's !@#$ all we can do about it" perspective.

I still fail to see what's bad about it. From a gameplay perspective. Does this cause people to have less fun playing the game? Why?

[Velax]

I still fail to see what's bad about it. From a gameplay perspective. Does this cause people to have less fun playing the game? Why?

Well if it didn't make me have less fun, would I be here complaining about it? This situation means we have the gold of two regions, including one large city, going into a black hole during a time of war. We've got a city starving, and more than 1000 bushels of food that could be feeding other regions aside from the city, sitting doing nothing. With production drops, we've got three knights getting less gold. If the city goes rogue, we have to divert troops to retake it during a time of war, or leave it rogue and watch it spiral further downward and get no gold at all from it.

It significantly affects our ability to wage war - the first war we've had in about eight months - when we're already outnumbered, and yes, that does affect our fun in the game.

[Tom]

It significantly affects our ability to wage war - the first war we've had in about eight months - when we're already outnumbered, and yes, that does affect our fun in the game.

How much of that is because you see it as a gamey problem that needs fixing?

There are plenty of ways of dealing with this situation entirely in-game, having fun with the troubles of your realm and enjoying the challenge of a bad situation. I understand that sometimes the game is frustrating - every good game is, because overcoming obstacles is part of the reward cycle.

[Velax]

But what are the solutions? Setting an assassin on a respected and once beloved former ruler (who my character considers a friend), or finding a high level priest (which we don't have) to Auto Da Fe her? You say we shouldn't be playing this in a gamey way, but surely setting an assassin on a friend because their inactivity is affecting the war effort is about the most gamey thing I could do?

[Tom]

Propose a solution that's not gamey?

I have a couple in my mind, but they're not for this game, would require way too many changes.