Realm size vs Potential gain

[Gustav Kuriga]

 

That's up to the players to enforce.

And as people will have pointed out, that's very onerous, to use another person's wording, for players to do.

[Indirik]

Why should it be easy? If you want to oppress another realm, why shouldn't you have to work for it? Besides, it's not like the oppressor has to do much. Just bark out some demands to your vassal realm every now and then demanding your tribute payment. They're the ones that have to do all the work.

[Chenier]

Why should it be easy? If you want to oppress another realm, why shouldn't you have to work for it? Besides, it's not like the oppressor has to do much. Just bark out some demands to your vassal realm every now and then demanding your tribute payment. They're the ones that have to do all the work.

The idea would be to balance out an invader's options. So that, you know, the only sane outcome of conflicts ceases to be utter destruction of the defeated realm?

[Peri]

Why should it be easy? If you want to oppress another realm, why shouldn't you have to work for it? Besides, it's not like the oppressor has to do much. Just bark out some demands to your vassal realm every now and then demanding your tribute payment. They're the ones that have to do all the work.

What I guess is being argued about is that this method is unreliable, and therefore almost never considered an option. Yes, in principle it is indeed feasible, but everyone with a bit of experience perfectly knows that this kind of things break down very quickly: while on the one hand you can think this is nice for subsequent wars, no sane ruler would sign an agreement which leads to many problems and little gains.

[Chenier]

What I guess is being argued about is that this method is unreliable, and therefore almost never considered an option. Yes, in principle it is indeed feasible, but everyone with a bit of experience perfectly knows that this kind of things break down very quickly: while on the one hand you can think this is nice for subsequent wars, no sane ruler would sign an agreement which leads to many problems and little gains.

Indeed.

Outside of Dwilight, where there are many unperfectly aligned blocs and realms that die mostly have to really ask for it, the most strategic solution to end a war is usually to utterly destroy the enemy.

Because really, if you take a few regions, you'll piss them off and they'll backstab you as soon as they can. Making one wonder if those few regions were really worth the eventual backstab. Managing an onerous tribute system under the current mechanics sure doesn't feel worth the eventual backstab.

[Indirik]

But you think they will accept a 10% tithe of their total income, and formal vassalage, without the urge to rebel against their masters?

[Peri]

I do not think the problem is how upsetting can be for the losing realm to accept the peace treaty/tribute/vassallage/whatever this feature turns out to be. The core of this potential feature should be to make it balanced enough so that the winner is willing to take the risk of the defeated coming back for the advantage the victory may give him.

For instance:

- realm A defeats realm B and has the potential to wipe it out of the map. realm A decides it can afford to take a duchy off realm B, but not more. Realm A can follow three routes: 1) take the duchy and let realm B live. 2) take the duchy and drive everything else rogue. 3) take the duchy and force realm B to sign some agreement where they regularly pay realm A or do other fancy stuff for them.

1) does not have ANY advantage for realm A over 2), if not for a matter of time and/or political shifts in neighbouring realms. Yes, a clever politician may choose 1) with the hope to turn realm B into a potential ally for the future, but that's quite a rare event I would say.

The relationship between 2) and 3) is not so straightforward, but as I said before 3) is simply too unreliable to be considered most of the times. The result? Almost all wars end with scenario 2), which we all agree is pretty detrimental to the game.

For this reason I agree with the OP that adding some game mechanics to make 3) more reliable would make it much more a viable option for peace treaties, so that one can really imagine a situation like "ok guys we know realm B is going to come back at us at some point, but if we do not destroy them we would provide us a benefit which might be just what we needed to kick the ass of realm C, which I think can be done before realm B fixes itself enough to threaten us again".

As I said I still believe players could drive all these events without the help of game mechanics (especially the ruler of the defeated realm, if he wants to save his ass he can get creative and try to beg for mercy, but it's not always possible), but I did not see it happening a lot so far, and therefore believe some game mechanics support could be useful. It is not yet clear to me whether a simple tribute in gold could be enough to justify the risk, though. Probably not really.

[Chenier]

But you think they will accept a 10% tithe of their total income, and formal vassalage, without the urge to rebel against their masters?

Sure they'll want to eventually rebel. But until then, at least the victor can satisfy himself with an easy additional income, instead of having to work hard to make a complicated tribute system work. Victory shouldn't feel like more work.

[Indirik]

It's not work for the winner. For the winner, it's super-easy. You just send a letter saying "Give us gold or else." If the victor is the one doing the work, then you're doing it wrong.

[JPierreD]

Is there a specific example you have in mind and would like to see reproduced in BM? From there, it may be easier to work out the mechanism to make it happen.

Think about the HRE or Medieval France in where the ruler did not directly control every territory, but through the feudal system had to share power with many other nobles instead.

My recommendation would be to limit the size of the realms and duchies so that those who want to control much can only do it indirectly. That together with a way to establish a link between the realms that is not annexation but gives some power over them (automatic tribute collection, limit/control their foreign relations, maybe even appoint their ruler) would diminish the amount of nearly constant hegemonic power centers that paralyze the game, giving way to more and smaller ones. And the more people you have in power the less easy it is to reach a consensus, and the more likely to trigger some conflict.

Think about it this way: If one's interest is to hold power being the sole royal duke of the realm is the best way to go, even better than being ruler. Now if you limit the size of the duchy you force the power-seeker to value more the crown, which can hold control over a larger area. If you limit the size of the realms and implement a vassalage-system between them you get a ruler who can control large extensions of lands only through proxies, having to trust them. Then you have a much higher conflict potential.

To simplify it: Rulers are playing something resembling Europa Universalis. I propose Crusader Kings.

You say rulers can already demand tribute and force vassalage? Yes, but why would they do that if they can simply control the lands directly?

[Poliorketes]

I totally agree!  ;D

A realm of ten regions is acceptable, one of 20-25 regions is a monolithic monster! The 'far away' regions would try to secede almost constantly... it would be very hard to maintain control over this distant regions.

The people will make vassals states if is the best/easy option they can find... if not, they will destroy the enemy realm and avoid problems...

Another matter is the really easy ways to destroy a realm!... How many realms were totally destroyed in history? I could be wrong, but I think not many... but we can make any region to 'go rogue' so easily!... a little push and we send a whole medieval realm go to the stone age in no time!  8)

Maybe we have two matters here: Enormous realms, and the easy possibility to destroy your enemy realms!... Why would we make politics if we can eat them or kill them (or both)?

[Chenier]

It's not work for the winner. For the winner, it's super-easy. You just send a letter saying "Give us gold or else." If the victor is the one doing the work, then you're doing it wrong.

And if the payments are late? If one needs to constantly nag every time to remind? If the realm is some time away, forcing delays between when the gold is collected and can be distributed? If the gold is too spread out and it takes time to gather the gold into the hands of a single person?

Threats are also meaningless if your army has moved on to other things. For many realms, simply re-mobilizing the forces back into war-mode is a challenge in itself.

There is also the 50 gold charge every time which ends up amounting to significant amounts.

[Poliorketes]

mmm... there is another matter... You are a noble of a realm, a Duke of a city maybe... you are losing a war, your regions are looted, your subjects killed, some regions go rogue, etc... and you Prestige (or/and honour) only go up?  :P

At least for rulers and dukes,  the 'damage' suffered in your lands must have a cost in Prestige... If your realm is going to loss the war, maybe it could be convenient to make peace even if it's as a vassal realm.  :-[

[vonGenf]

Think about the HRE or Medieval France in where the ruler did not directly control every territory, but through the feudal system had to share power with many other nobles instead.

This describes every realm I've ever played in except Tara. Seriously, do you think Morek is a monolithic bloc with an iron-fisted dictator? Then you're wildly mistaken about how it works and why it's been successful.

My recommendation would be to limit the size of the realms and duchies so that those who want to control much can only do it indirectly..

A soft limit on realms size already exists, in that the acceptable tax rate is a function of size and distance from the capital. I think it's a good thing that this exists, but it should not be overdone. In particular, it should never be more profitable for a realm to shrink all else being equal. This is something that was sometimes the case with the old estate system, and honestly a great success of the new one in my opinion.

That together with a way to establish a link between the realms that is not annexation but gives some power over them (automatic tribute collection, limit/control their foreign relations, maybe even appoint their ruler) would diminish the amount of nearly constant hegemonic power centers that paralyze the game, giving way to more and smaller ones. And the more people you have in power the less easy it is to reach a consensus, and the more likely to trigger some conflict.

I like these ideas, in that I like to see them implemented in the game by the players, but I think most of them already are.

Appointing another nations ruler should never be done game-mechanically, otherwise he isn't called a sovereign, he's a Duke and you come back to square one. However you can bully another realm to replace their current ruler by your favorite one. I've seen it done before.

You can control another realm's foreign relation by forcing them to sign a federation with you. That way, they need to follow your foreign relations or you'll automatically declare war on them. Of course, if in time the balance of power shifts, then it's not clear anymore which realm is the vassal: see Astrum/Caerwyn.

As for automatic tribute collection, I have nothing against it and I think it would be nice to have, but as has been pointed out I doubt it would solve all the things you want changed.

Think about it this way: If one's interest is to hold power being the sole royal duke of the realm is the best way to go, even better than being ruler. Now if you limit the size of the duchy you force the power-seeker to value more the crown, which can hold control over a larger area. If you limit the size of the realms and implement a vassalage-system between them you get a ruler who can control large extensions of lands only through proxies, having to trust them. Then you have a much higher conflict potential.

What makes you think that vassals going against their Overlord's will would be more common than Dukes seceding are today?

[Indirik]

And if the payments are late? If one needs to constantly nag every time to remind? If the realm is some time away, forcing delays between when the gold is collected and can be distributed? If the gold is too spread out and it takes time to gather the gold into the hands of a single person?

Threats are also meaningless if your army has moved on to other things. For many realms, simply re-mobilizing the forces back into war-mode is a challenge in itself.

Oh no! You have to actually be able to make good on your threats? You may have to send an extra letter or two every now and then? How horribly unfair that repressing and vassalizing another realm should be so tedious.

There is also the 50 gold charge every time which ends up amounting to significant amounts.

50 gold a transfer? Pfft... If 50 gold is too much overhead for your tribute to absorb, then your tribute is symbolic, and the amount is irrelevant. It's the act of paying that counts, not the trivial amount of gold you are forcing them to pay.