This should not happen

[Chenier]

There should be a function by which one realm can be forced out of a federation by the other realms. Maybe "propose expulsion" If a enough realms in the federation agree the realm gets expelled from the federation.

I can't disagree there.

[Draco Tanos]

You haven't read very carefully. Moral didn't drop when we broke the alliance it was being hurt because of the continued alliance with a realm that didn't exist.

An allied realm being destroyed doesn't effect moral at all.

It is morale, not moral.  Different words and meanings.

Yet it is you who fail to read, or more accurately, fail to comprehend.

A federation is a joining of realms under a common banner.  Think of it as an empire or a kingdom with joint crowns.

Let us use the United Kingdom for instance.  Your realm is England.  You are in a federation with Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.  At some point, France decides to invade Scotland and they either annex it or drive it all into a state of anarchy.  How do you think the common citizens of the rest of the federation will feel if England just sat back and LET it happen?

I would say morale would suffer, and rightly so.

[Chenier]

The USSR was one big ass confederation.

The European Union is one big ass confederation.

The UK, IMO, is just a federation. Like Canada and the US.

[Zakilevo]

The USSR was one big ass confederation.

The European Union is one big ass confederation.

The UK, IMO, is just a federation. Like Canada and the US.

Yeah. That is why Canada won't let Quebec break off from the Federation. ;) If they try to break off we declare war and take back!

[Penchant]

It is morale, not moral.  Different words and meanings.

Yet it is you who fail to read, or more accurately, fail to comprehend.

A federation is a joining of realms under a common banner.  Think of it as an empire or a kingdom with joint crowns.

Let us use the United Kingdom for instance.  Your realm is England.  You are in a federation with Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.  At some point, France decides to invade Scotland and they either annex it or drive it all into a state of anarchy.  How do you think the common citizens of the rest of the federation will feel if England just sat back and LET it happen?

I would say morale would suffer, and rightly so.

Your saying things he didn't. Morale isn't dropping because Kabrinskia got destroyed, it's dropping because they disliked Kabrinskia yet were in a federation, when the realm was destroyed they would be happy.

[Draco Tanos]

I'll use Zaki's example:

The majority of Canada may not like Quebec, but if they tried to secede by force there would be armed intervention.  If someone invaded and annexed Quebec, Canada would (or should) attempt to intervene.  Just because Quebec is annexed by another/destroyed doesn't mutually exclude either the dislike Canadians overall might feel towards Quebec or their anger at what just happened to THEIR federation-mate.

[Penchant]

I'll use Zaki's example:

The majority of Canada may not like Quebec, but if they tried to secede by force there would be armed intervention.  If someone invaded and annexed Quebec, Canada would (or should) attempt to intervene.  Just because Quebec is annexed by another/destroyed doesn't mutually exclude either the dislike Canadians overall might feel towards Quebec or their anger at what just happened to THEIR federation-mate.

And yet that's not what the reports say. The reports still say they are mad because they are allied.

[pcw27]

It is morale, not moral.  Different words and meanings.

Yet it is you who fail to read, or more accurately, fail to comprehend.

A federation is a joining of realms under a common banner.  Think of it as an empire or a kingdom with joint crowns.

Let us use the United Kingdom for instance.  Your realm is England.  You are in a federation with Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.  At some point, France decides to invade Scotland and they either annex it or drive it all into a state of anarchy.  How do you think the common citizens of the rest of the federation will feel if England just sat back and LET it happen?

I would say morale would suffer, and rightly so.

Nope you're the one who's not comprehending. Let me use your analogy so you finally get the point.

England didnt' like Scotland. England wanted Scotland kicked out of the federation in the first place. Scottland gets invaded sacked what have you, and England is still mad that they're allied with Scottland. Do you get it? England is mad about AN ALLIANCE WITH A REALM THAT DOESN'T EXIST.

THE DESTRUCTION OF SAID REALM DOESN'T HURT MORAL IN FACT IF ANYTHING THEY SHOULD BE HAPPY BECAUSE THEY HATE THAT REALM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Is there any ambiguity here? Seriously if you still think this has anything to do with a morale drop caused by a realm in a federation dieing read this all again because YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A GAME MECHANIC THAT DOESN'T EXIST. DOES NOT EXIST. Let me just repeat this a few times, IF A REALM IN A FEDERATION IS DESTROYED IT DOES NOT EFFECT MORAL IN THE REST OF THE FEDERATION. IF A REALM IN A FEDERATION IS DESTROYED IT DOES NOT EFFECT MORAL IN THE REST OF THE FEDERATION. IF A REALM IN A FEDERATION IS DESTROYED IT DOES NOT EFFECT MORAL IN THE REST OF THE FEDERATION.

However if your realm hated that member to begin with, they will go on hating that realm even after it's dead. In fact in this case the entire geographical area of that realm became a new realm and was thus neutral to us. So functionally we had no diplomatic relations with them.  Here's an analogy

In Great Britian, the people of England hate Scottland and are mad that there's an alliance with them. Scottland is dissolved and declares itself Williamwallacistan. Because Williamwallacistan is a new country England has no alliance with them.

So how should the peasants feel now? Should they still be mad about the alliance with Scottland? Erm, no, because functionally they just got exactly what they wanted.

[Draco Tanos]

So you make a FEDERATION (not an alliance) with a realm your peasants hate, which hurts MORALE (not moral), and lack the intellectual fortitude to have diplomats correct the issue even before that realm is destroyed...  You have problems after it's been wiped out because you had that Federation.  And still refuse to use diplomats. 

You seem to have issue with terminology. 

However, you don't want the peasants angry at you for entering your realm in a federation with a realm they hated.  Yet you want a magic turn-off switch?  Hell, I think Tom should tweak it that they remain angry for a few months after that realm is destroyed for the simple reason that you apparently don't think things through when making diplomatic decisions. 

It'd be like Old Grehk entering into a federation with Fronen or Perdan entering into a federation with Ibladesh and then complaining that the peasants are throwing a fit!

[pcw27]

So you make a FEDERATION (not an alliance) with a realm your peasants hate, which hurts MORALE (not moral), and lack the intellectual fortitude to have diplomats correct the issue even before that realm is destroyed... 

I'll be honest I didn't know diplomats could do that, I started playing this game well before diplomats existed. That is however irrelevant since through most of my realm's existence we've had between one and zero diplomats.

You have problems after it's been wiped out because you had that Federation.  And still refuse to use diplomats.   

I'll get all of my diplomats right on it! Lets see...

However, you don't want the peasants angry at you for entering your realm in a federation with a realm they hated.   

False. I have no problem with the fact that the peasants can dislike a realm you're allied with. That's a fun challenge, balancing public opinion with foreign policy, something countries have struggled with throughout history.

I have a problem with them complaining about our relations with a realm that doesn't exist. This has been explained to you at least twice by me and by two other poster yet you keep going back to square one as if we just bashed our heads against the keyboard. At this point I think you either like to argue, hate to be wrong or both.

Yet you want a magic turn-off switch?   

To make relations with a dead realm revert to neutral? Yeah that would be nice. That way I wont have to waste the time of all zero of my diplomats fixing the moral penalties caused by an alliance with a nonexistent realm until such time as the realm is manually deleted.

Hell, I think Tom should tweak it that they remain angry for a few months after that realm is destroyed for the simple reason that you apparently don't think things through when making diplomatic decisions.   

How much should one have to think about not having any treaties with a realm that doesn't exist? I in fact think pretty darn carefully about treaties when they pertain to realms that still exist. If you have to think hard about your diplomatic stance with a dead realm, there's something wrong with game mechanics.

You know what you should do, you should go to the UN and protest the UN membership of Czechoslovakia, see how much support you get. I'm sure a lot of men in white coats will show up to join your protest with a nice warm jacket for you.

It'd be like Old Grehk entering into a federation with Fronen or Perdan entering into a federation with Ibladesh and then complaining that the peasants are throwing a fit!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY

[Chaotrance13]

I'll be honest I didn't know diplomats could do that, I started playing this game well before diplomats existed. That is however irrelevant since through most of my realm's existence we've had between one and zero diplomats.

I'll get all of my diplomats right on it! Lets see...

False. I have no problem with the fact that the peasants can dislike a realm you're allied with. That's a fun challenge, balancing public opinion with foreign policy, something countries have struggled with throughout history.

I have a problem with them complaining about our relations with a realm that doesn't exist. This has been explained to you at least twice by me and by two other poster yet you keep going back to square one as if we just bashed our heads against the keyboard. At this point I think you either like to argue, hate to be wrong or both.

To make relations with a dead realm revert to neutral? Yeah that would be nice. That way I wont have to waste the time of all zero of my diplomats fixing the moral penalties caused by an alliance with a nonexistent realm until such time as the realm is manually deleted.

How much should one have to think about not having any treaties with a realm that doesn't exist? I in fact think pretty darn carefully about treaties when they pertain to realms that still exist. If you have to think hard about your diplomatic stance with a dead realm, there's something wrong with game mechanics.

You know what you should do, you should go to the UN and protest the UN membership of Czechoslovakia, see how much support you get. I'm sure a lot of men in white coats will show up to join your protest with a nice warm jacket for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY

If you think that a feature needs to be adjusted or you think there is a bug with the system then you had best go and put in a feature request to have things changed (as you have done) or place a bug report rather than being an ass on the forums. Posting childish youtube links is basically the behaviour of a troll.

[Chenier]

One issue I see here is that Kabrinskia existed for far longer than it started not existing. Why didn't you fix the sympathy problems earlier? These complaints can't be a new problem, they date from when the realm actually did exist...

[pcw27]

If you think that a feature needs to be adjusted or you think there is a bug with the system then you had best go and put in a feature request to have things changed (as you have done) or place a bug report rather than being an ass on the forums. Posting childish youtube links is basically the behaviour of a troll.

I was doing just that before Dracos derailed the discussion with his repetitive mischaracterization of my complaints despite multiple posters and my self correcting him. So lets get back on track.

Let me reiterate what I suggest:

-When a realm loses its last region it should default all diplomatic stances to neutral because it's pointless to have peasants mad about foreign policy with a realm that doesn't exist. It would be like people protesting the Vietnam war in 1980 or demanding we nuke the Soviet Union. It would be even more ridiculous to ask players to spend time on diplomacy with non existent realms, that would be like present day United States having an ambassador to Yugoslavia

-The federation broken indicators should be more clear. I believe in learning by playing, not by consulting the wiki every time I do something. Many in game actions have "War will most likely commence" should be "war will automatically commence". If that's what it reads now then that's my mistake, I do however remember the former being what it says (side note I didn't get a "war breaking out" message when the federation broke.

-There should be an "are you sure page" or at least a parenthetical next to the "Withdraw from federation link" warning that it will result in an automatic war. Most other big decisions in game have such a warning page. Again, learn by playing is the goal here. Many actions in the game interface are self explanatory and feature descriptions of just what that action does. An action with the widespread effects of breaking a federation should not be the exception to this rule. Accidental war isn't fun for anyone. It's a waste of time.

I also suggested a way to expel a realm from a federation by consensus of the other realms but that's already been rejected.

[Astinus]

-When a realm loses its last region it should default all diplomatic stances to neutral because it's pointless to have peasants mad about foreign policy with a realm that doesn't exist. It would be like people protesting the Vietnam war in 1980 or demanding we nuke the Soviet Union. It would be even more ridiculous to ask players to spend time on diplomacy with non existent realms, that would be like present day United States having an ambassador to Yugoslavia

Actually, it makes quite sense that people keep hating the government that made previous treaty, even if they are no more. Following your example, people still protested for the Vietnam war in 1980, even now the whole thing tainted the USA irreparably.

People sometime remembers

[pcw27]

Got a source for that? I've never heard of an anti vietnam war demonstration happening after US forces were completely withdrawn. I know there were issues post vietnam which may have been cause for protest such as homeless GIs or nuclear proliferation but I've never heard of a protest demanding an end to a war that's already over.

Less so have I heard of people demanding war with a country that no longer exists.

There's already several game mechanics that can simulate the lasting effects of war and the design flaw I'm pointing out would be a terrible way to do so anyway.