Vent Thread

[Fleugs]

What if Indian troops friendly fired on Chinese troops? That has happened before and it did in fact escalate into a larger conflict. I believe similar has happened between USSR and China, Pakistan and India.

They're not exactly allies

[Dishman]

When american troops do friendly fire and kill canadian troops, you don't get hordes invading parliament hill. And I don't even know what kind of reprimand the american troops get, if any.

IG, these things seem to be treated exactly the same way. Haters will use it in their propaganda, most people will resent it. But overall, one incident is unlikely to shake things up, unless one of the sides was already just looking for a pretext.

True, but if troops from the US marched on Cuba could you say the same thing? Allies are one thing. Those you probably couldn't instigate in the slightest alone. Those you are at peace with a little less so. Two countries who are on neutral terms and have had previous hostility, though? All it should really take is a match to set everything on fire.

I'm not saying that every noble should be able to control diplomacy at a whim, but smart troublemakers should be able to create serious problems. It's still in the hands of the rulers to decide how to react, but nobles can afford lots of matches.

[Chenier]

True, but if troops from the US marched on Cuba could you say the same thing? Allies are one thing. Those you probably couldn't instigate in the slightest alone. Those you are at peace with a little less so. Two countries who are on neutral terms and have had previous hostility, though? All it should really take is a match to set everything on fire.

I'm not saying that every noble should be able to control diplomacy at a whim, but smart troublemakers should be able to create serious problems. It's still in the hands of the rulers to decide how to react, but nobles can afford lots of matches.

Well, the US trained foreign troops and sent them against Cuba, and did bomb targets in Cuba for a while. Cuba didn't declare war on the US for it.

Syrian missiles hit Turkey, and they (surprisingly) didn't go to war over it.

I never said such incidents couldn't escalate, neither in RL nor IG. But they often don't. Both in RL and IG. My position is simply that there's nothing out of the ordinary about how such situations are handled, because it reflects pretty well how things like it evolve IRL.

[Gustav Kuriga]

Wow chenier, could you pick a less offensive example to use?

[Chenier]

Wow chenier, could you pick a less offensive example to use?

Which one? The Syrian one or the Cuban one?

Or would you rather an example of a state going to war against another for the acts of a few: Say, like, the US going to war against Afghanistan because of alleged links with Al-Qaida? Or, say, Israel's war against Lebanon?

And I really fail to see anything offensive about any example I used. Do you contest that these events happened? I'm citing historical events, not passing judgement. But I can certainly pass a lot of that, if you want.

[Kwanstein]

A troop leader leading his unit into enemy territory and slaughtering their general's unit would be like a Canadian battalion going into America and razing the pentagon.

[Penchant]

A troop leader leading his unit into enemy territory and slaughtering their general's unit would be like a Canadian battalion going into America and razing the pentagon.

Not really since the equilavent of what you are saying is razing fortifications while attacking the general and marshals IMO.

[Penchant]

Wow chenier, could you pick a less offensive example to use?

Something more similar to what is being proposed in game is the death of a US ambassador in Libya by Islamic Extremists.

[Chenier]

Something more similar to what is being proposed in game is the death of a US ambassador in Libya by Islamic Extremists.

I wouldn't say so. BM characters don't die. Non-heroes, at least, and both the ambassador and hero subclasses are exclusive.

Another example, if you want, would be US ships fighting Somalian pirates. That doesn't cause a war between the US and Somalia either.

Or the US sending troops in Pakistan to take out Ossama and his men. This caused unrest, but no war.

There are many examples in which rogue/accidental/unordered attacks do not cause any escalation, as there are many examples where they do. However, they usually don't unless the side attacked was looking for war. And it usually doesn't happen when the side attacked is the weakest of the two, as it tends to be: being at the top grants you the power to whack everyone a bit, with everyone being too afraid of the risks of relation to make any kind of serious fuss about it.

[Vellos]

True, but if troops from the US marched on Cuba could you say the same thing? Allies are one thing. Those you probably couldn't instigate in the slightest alone. Those you are at peace with a little less so. Two countries who are on neutral terms and have had previous hostility, though? All it should really take is a match to set everything on fire.

I'm not saying that every noble should be able to control diplomacy at a whim, but smart troublemakers should be able to create serious problems. It's still in the hands of the rulers to decide how to react, but nobles can afford lots of matches.

See "Terran vs. Kabrinskia War" for more details.

[Gabanus family]

I do have but one problem with all of this. All these examples are of a more modern era. I believe in the Dark Ages people tended to go to war (not all out destructive war, but surely landgrabbing etc) much faster than they do now.

Although the concept of partial war (only for a few regions etc rather than total destruction) is a less used concept in BM.

[Draco Tanos]

Because, unfortunately, with lack of death for all but heroes, there is little option to try to limit bloodshed if it's not an all-out war.

[Chenier]

I do have but one problem with all of this. All these examples are of a more modern era. I believe in the Dark Ages people tended to go to war (not all out destructive war, but surely landgrabbing etc) much faster than they do now.

Although the concept of partial war (only for a few regions etc rather than total destruction) is a less used concept in BM.

People had a lot more to gain in the days than our characters do. Our potential power is capped: can't have more than one region, than one duchy, can't rule more than one realm, etc. Which means that the people at the top, those with the most say on whether we go to war or not, have very little to gain in most cases from going to war. A margrave can't hope to get his hands on another city, for example. A ruler can't hope to grab a vassal tax from a vassal realm, etc.

Only those with little have something to gain. And in many realms, they are more people with titles than people without. Why expand if you are richer with your efficient estate as a knight than you would be as a lord alone in his wildlands? Not to mention that growing decreases tax tolerance, therefore hindering everyone who already have regions.

I'm not saying that the law of diminishing returns is a bad thing, but I do think it's one of the major demotivators for war.

[Vellos]

I do have but one problem with all of this. All these examples are of a more modern era. I believe in the Dark Ages people tended to go to war (not all out destructive war, but surely landgrabbing etc) much faster than they do now.

Although the concept of partial war (only for a few regions etc rather than total destruction) is a less used concept in BM.

Again, please refer to "Terran vs. Kabrinskia war"

Reason 753 why Terran rocks: we're happy to fight small-scale wars with limited aims.

[Gabanus family]

Although the concept of partial war (only for a few regions etc rather than total destruction) is a less used concept in BM.

Yes it happens sometimes, but very rarely and I believe Chenier (whoo what?) and Draco have adequately explained why this is often the case. Added to this is the fact that land grabbing etc is frowned upon in BM (unfortunately). Most rulers will look weary on you if you do so to a realm (even if it's not theirs) as if it is something unbecoming of a noblemen...