I am undecided which opinion to have on this matter. You bring up a very good example, but in my (quite biased) opinion, Morek's success is the result of many repeated mistakes of its neighbours.
And I agree with you, but that's besides the point.
Summerdale could have played it VERY differently, if they suicide that's not Morek's fault, and I wonder therefore whether game mechanics should somehow limit Morek's success when it comes from players choices.
I wouldn't mind discussing this in another thread, but I don't want to go off topic in this one. What I said here was not that Morek should be punished, but that the success of /any/ realm should be limited to a less permanent kind of victory. Regardless of how and why they achieve such victory, or how deserving they are of it.
On the other hand I agree with the fact that there is a concrete lack of game mechanics tools to help rulers give to any wars a more interesting outcome. Again I believe this can be solved by players (see for instance Fontan's fate on EC, they have been given a chance, too bad they wasted it), but some additional game mechanics would definitely be helpful in having interesting peace treaties.
When things could be solved by players but are not is when it is likely that the game mechanics are not providing the right environment for that to happen. I won't comment on Fontan for I am not familiar with their situation.
I however also agree with most of Indirik's remarks, it's not very easy to let players play as vassals and like it.
And that is why realms almost always choose death before surrendering: because the winner's demands will most times be so harsh as to not allow the defeated to ever raise again from quasi-vassal status (why would a conqueror impose any less if they could avoid it?).
What I propose is that we remove the ability of the victors to impose an implicit vassalage out of which there is almost no escape, without naming it, and substitute that for en explicit vassalage that
can be escaped from given enough time.
