Realm size vs Potential gain

[JPierreD]

Some recent discussions on how to make wars more attractive made me think on the factors that make conflicts unattractive.

These are two of them:
1) Big boss in the region you don't want to anger, because there is simply zero chance of surviving his/their anger. This may be even the one you want to attack.
2) Lack of personal benefits in waging a war but with risks of concrete losses. Past certain point expansion is only done indirectly, making conservative rulers/dukes prefer peace.

Both refer to the fact that there is a point in where big realms and their rulers start profiting much less from wars than they do for enforcing peace and a status quo. I believe we could attack those problems with some changes of perspective.

First is not allowing incredibly large realms in their current implementation to be feasible, but such has to be balanced according to the island. For example: North-East Dwilight. The success of the Morek Empire has killed the fun of the region. The only war/event that broke the eternal stagnation was Summerdale's suicidal crusade. And it had a very predictable end.

Now this doesn't mean realms should not be allowed to be successful, or we'd solve the first point at the expense of the second one, returning to where we began. What I propose instead is that we change the focus from warfare between realms with either conquest and 100% direct rule or colonization and 100% indirect rule, to a more medieval vassal-liege system of indirect rule but with some game-mechanics ties.

The idea would be to allow realms to be vassals of other realms, but lowering the maximum size any of those can achieve by themselves only. Being realm B's vassal would cost realm A a % of its total tax income, its ruler income, or some other form of revenue. The point of this is to create a hierarchy between the small feuds in where several are in the less comfortable position of inferiority regarding the dominating realm, which should not be in itself excessively stronger than the individual dominated ones. But being careful not to allow the mechanically-imposed tribute to be so taxing as to effectively making eventual opposition of the center of power impossible.

This would work on two fronts:
First it would make the dominating center of power a more fluid one, less rock solid. A small realm cannot hope to take on a large one, and causing it to break from inside is almost impossible when the positions are directly appointed by the ruler, the game mechanics promote a realm-focused nationalism, and the message system completely benefits the intra-realm communication. But if instead of absolutist France we are talking about the Holy Roman Empire conflict with the Emperor is much more feasible.
Secondly it would avoid the other side of the coin: lack of motivation for the rulers of such large empires to keep expanding. Past certain point they would have the option to destroy a realm they cannot keep and start a colony, which mechanics-wise are largely independent. If they could keep that kind of vassal-liege relationship increasing their own gold income, even if only slightly, but at the same time not being able to have so much direct control of the immediate vassals forming their Empire I believe we would have the best of both worlds.

Thoughts?

[vonGenf]

The idea would be to allow realms to be vassals of other realms, but lowering the maximum size any of those can achieve by themselves only. Being realm B's vassal would cost realm A a % of its total tax income, its ruler income, or some other form of revenue. The point of this is to create a hierarchy between the small feuds in where several are in the less comfortable position of inferiority regarding the dominating realm, which should not be in itself excessively stronger than the individual dominated ones. But being careful not to allow the mechanically-imposed tribute to be so taxing as to effectively making eventual opposition of the center of power impossible.

This is almost what the Duchy mechanics does. Dukes send x% of their revenues to the overall rulers; however Dukes retain the capacity to secede, therefore retaining some of their autonomy.

The difference is that if Duchies were vassal mini-realms, they would be able to fight each other. Now, I like this: I have always advocated for a form of intra-realms warfare. I know many people don't like this. Maybe attacking the question the other way around would work better? Don't implement intra-realm warfare, but make it easier to create HRE-like entities above the level of realms?

[Indirik]

I don't think vassalage will work, because I don't think most players would willingly choose to allow their realm to be a vassal realm.

Vassalage works in reality because the ruling nation has a big stick. The vassal gets out of hand, and the master comes over and beats the crap out of them until they knuckle under. This won't be possible in the game. If you intentional put mechanics in to keep realms small, it will be too easy for the vassal to grow in size to rival the ruling realm.

[Chenier]

I don't think vassalage will work, because I don't think most players would willingly choose to allow their realm to be a vassal realm.

Vassalage works in reality because the ruling nation has a big stick. The vassal gets out of hand, and the master comes over and beats the crap out of them until they knuckle under. This won't be possible in the game. If you intentional put mechanics in to keep realms small, it will be too easy for the vassal to grow in size to rival the ruling realm.

So then the vassal seeks to become the sovereign?

Sounds like a good suggestion to me.

[JPierreD]

I don't think vassalage will work, because I don't think most players would willingly choose to allow their realm to be a vassal realm.

The defeated players would have two options: to become a vassal of the conquering realm with chances to regrow in time and be able to challenge it again later or to be destroyed and colonized, like it happens now. The difference is that they would have the possibility of resisting later if they chose the former. While the conquerors could bet on being able to maintain them subjugated if they decide to take the easier route of not destroying and recolonizing everything.

Vassalage works in reality because the ruling nation has a big stick. The vassal gets out of hand, and the master comes over and beats the crap out of them until they knuckle under.

And that is precisely what I want to happen. Right now beatings are quire rare.

This won't be possible in the game. If you intentional put mechanics in to keep realms small, it will be too easy for the vassal to grow in size to rival the ruling realm.

Empires are not made solely by their centers of power. A HRE-like Emperor would also rely on other vassals to keep the most rebellious ones in check. The difference is that he wouldn't have that much power over them to begin with.

And are you seriously worried a realm will not be able to oppress others? When has that ever been a problem?

[Indirik]

A vassal-like relationship works on the imbalance of power. You cannot have an imbalance of power when you artificially limit the size of realms. The vassal realm won't have to hit the limit to become strong enough to defy the parent realm. If the limit is 10 regions, then even a 7 region realm will probably be strong enough to tell the parent realm to go take a hike.

[egamma]

How about increasing the minimum percentage of taxes that rulers take from dukes? A 5-region realm might let the ruler take a minimum of 5%, as is the case right now. But a 10 region realm might have a minimum of 10%, and so forth. That way, the larger a realm grows, the more the dukes pay, and the more likely they are to form their own realms.

[JPierreD]

A vassal-like relationship works on the imbalance of power. You cannot have an imbalance of power when you artificially limit the size of realms. The vassal realm won't have to hit the limit to become strong enough to defy the parent realm. If the limit is 10 regions, then even a 7 region realm will probably be strong enough to tell the parent realm to go take a hike.

A 10-region-realm can perfectly oppress several other 7-region-realms with diplomatic skills and differential vassal-tributes between them, specially if it forms an inter-realm federation and whatnot, being more the primus inter pares than the absolute monarch (in relation to the rulers of the vassal states).

Having 27-region-realms is pretty insane and unless strife happens from within them it completely stagnates the region.

[Gustav Kuriga]

I would say put the limit at 15 regions. That way you have a decently sized main realm, and any 7 region realm that is a vassal is properly under control. Of course, if a 15 region realm tried to make a 12 region realm their vassal, they're just asking for trouble.

[Chenier]

Larger doesn't mean more wealthy or more powerful. There are many reasons a more compact realm could dominate its neighbours.

I see no reason for the need for special mechanics to determine who could and couldn't become vassals. If the vassal grows too strong, then it'd be up to them to try to change to status quo to get what they feel they deserve.

[Perth]

I love the idea of vassals on top of vassals on top of more vassals all the way up to the realm and empire size. This is one reason I love the new estate system.


That being said, I think the idea of trying to pick something so arbitrary as a number of regions to limit a realm's size is.... absolutely ridiculous.

[Poliorketes]

I like this vassal thing, but the limit would be progressive.

For every region -or for distance to the capital- the efficiency of the taxes would go down. Is a lot more easy to get the taxes in a region neighbour with the capital than in a distant region, far, far away!  8)   

[Gustav Kuriga]

Larger doesn't mean more wealthy or more powerful. There are many reasons a more compact realm could dominate its neighbours.

I see no reason for the need for special mechanics to determine who could and couldn't become vassals. If the vassal grows too strong, then it'd be up to them to try to change to status quo to get what they feel they deserve.

I agree with this.

[Chenier]

I like this vassal thing, but the limit would be progressive.

For every region -or for distance to the capital- the efficiency of the taxes would go down. Is a lot more easy to get the taxes in a region neighbour with the capital than in a distant region, far, far away!  8)

The Chinese, if I remember, often had to send their army down to Vietnam to collect their tribute (Vietnam didn't consider itself a vassal, China considered them so).

Perhaps a mechanic forcing the central realm to move nobles (or just the ruler or an ambassador) to actually collect the funds would be interesting.

[vonGenf]

The Chinese, if I remember, often had to send their army down to Vietnam to collect their tribute (Vietnam didn't consider itself a vassal, China considered them so).

Perhaps a mechanic forcing the central realm to move nobles (or just the ruler or an ambassador) to actually collect the funds would be interesting.

This is not new mechanics at all. Currently, you are able to send down armies to punish realms who won't do what you tell them to, and for them to give you monetary tribute, a noble must move so that a gold transfer can be made.