Realm size vs Potential gain

[JPierreD]

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.

I'm not saying there are no internal conflicts. What I would like is to see them involving more "foreigners". If you have several small realms it will be much more of a regional crisis than the attrition inside Morek between a Duke and his ruler.

If there are internal conflicts or not inside Morek didn't make any difference to Libero or Summerdale if they never knew about it, or if it never affected them.

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.

By the existence of Astrum and Morek it is clearly not enough. Almost-30-region realms should not be possible to maintain, IMO.

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 is a different case. In the old estate system there was a limit on how many regions you could get, and your realm was unable to expand further if without enough nobles. Given that you can theoretically have a Duchy per region or more, and a Lord can also be a Duke, restricting the size of Duchies won't be a problem in that sense.

Restricting the size of realms goes tied with the vassal-system proposal. One cannot go without the other. So you would be able to keep expanding, but just not directly.

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.

A vassal-system without a realm-size limitation makes no difference.

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.

Rulers are not necessarily sovereigns. In any case you can fight against the game mechanics to impose your will, but that doesn't make having the game mechanics to support it undesirable.

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.

And you are also forced to follow their foreign relations or you'll automatically declare war on each other, and on the other federated partners, messing things up.

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.

By itself alone, no. Together with the realm-size limitation yes. Or at least I think it would.

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

The messaging system is not limited by duchies, but by realms. If each duchy was a realm you'd have much smaller power groups, and the realm-nationalism we see now would be more duchy-focused.

It is much easier to oppose/hate foreign oppressors/enemies than it is to do it with native ones with which your communication is much greater. In general, naturally.

Check the newly-implemented Duchies map. Think about if all of those were mini-realms on their own, having to interact with each other. How much more dynamic would the politics be?

[Indirik]

Personally, I think that would suck. And I don't think I'm the only one who thinks that. Maybe if you tripled the number of players we have now, it would work. But if you tried that now, you'd just end up with a bunch of mostly empty, mostly deathly boring realms. Most of what you'd have is political intrigue, which greatly limits the number of people that can participate, and the number of peoplle that would enjoy it.

[JPierreD]

Personally, I think that would suck. And I don't think I'm the only one who thinks that. Maybe if you tripled the number of players we have now, it would work. But if you tried that now, you'd just end up with a bunch of mostly empty, mostly deathly boring realms. Most of what you'd have is political intrigue, which greatly limits the number of people that can participate, and the number of peoplle that would enjoy it.

The idea in no way requires more players. How would we get empty realms?

[Anaris]

The idea in no way requires more players. How would we get empty realms?

Some duchies have very few people in them—well below the threshold necessary to sustain interesting interaction.

[Chenier]

Some duchies have very few people in them—well below the threshold necessary to sustain interesting interaction.

Many realms themselves barely have enough nobles to sustain interesting interaction. Many don't even have that. Breaking up smaller would worsen the problem.

[Indirik]

What Chenier and Anaris said. With the current number of players and duchies, separating all the duchies into individuall realms would create a bunch of empty realms. You have to have a certain critical mass of players to make a sustainable, viable realm. You'd most likely see a lot of consolidation into much larger single-duchy realms.

[Chenier]

What Chenier and Anaris said. With the current number of players and duchies, separating all the duchies into individuall realms would create a bunch of empty realms. You have to have a certain critical mass of players to make a sustainable, viable realm. You'd most likely see a lot of consolidation into much larger single-duchy realms.

Indeed, a trend I've started to notice is the attempt to bring realms together via guilds in order to increase the pool in which players can communicate (Sanguis Astroism, although a religion, also can work in this way).

If we could have vassal realms, resulting in the creation of multi-realm empires, a message option to "all members of the empire" could help counter the shrinking player/realm ratio to stimulate interaction.

[DamnTaffer]

Many realms themselves barely have enough nobles to sustain interesting interaction. Many don't even have that. Breaking up smaller would worsen the problem.

More characters plox >.>

I mean really, what would be the harm of families having one noble per continent plus one other roaving noble and 1 adventurer as a maximum...

[Chenier]

Dividing people's attention too much will tend to counter the increase in a player/realm ratio.

I do think it's a good idea, however.

[Indirik]

That is a good point. More characters squeezed into the same play time = less attention to each individual character.

[Chenier]

That is a good point. More characters squeezed into the same play time = less attention to each individual character.

However, some people do have the time and will to play more characters.

IMO, we'd have a lower involvement/character ratio, but more characters and more involvement overall.

That being said, being able to have two nobles on all continents would be bad, and we can't really remove the right to play two characters on two continents each we currently have. I'd think it possible to be able to allow players to have either one of the two, but it'd be complicated, and would remove the reward system that was established where older and more prestigious families get more active characters they can play.

[Gustav Kuriga]

I personally think that having to wait years before you can play five players like everyone who's been in the game since 2005 is ridiculously prejudiced against newcomers.

[Chenier]

I personally think that having to wait years before you can play five players like everyone who's been in the game since 2005 is ridiculously prejudiced against newcomers.

The limit used to be lower for ALL players. It's not like newbies were taken away something that was left for older players...

[DamnTaffer]

Give older players a second continent they can have two nobles in? And just because I could have a player in every continent doesn't mean I would, i've no interest at all in playing everywhere. I would also assume that if a player didn't have time to maintain all there characters they would get rid of some or just play them as some silent order following noble.

Or perhaps just create more boundaries for active characters so that old players keep there bonuses?

[Chenier]

Give older players a second continent they can have two nobles in? And just because I could have a player in every continent doesn't mean I would, i've no interest at all in playing everywhere. I would also assume that if a player didn't have time to maintain all there characters they would get rid of some or just play them as some silent order following noble.

Or perhaps just create more boundaries for active characters so that old players keep there bonuses?

Older players being able to have two characters on one continent, and then two when even older seems fair to me.