Allow Dukes to Secede a multiple city duchy that includes capital

[Vellos]

On the contrary, Dukes rule in the name of the ruler.  Just as Lords rule in the name of their Duke and landed knights in the name of their Lord.

In the medieval mindset, at least if one is properly RPing, power doesn't come from below but rather from above.  It is why the "Royal We" developed.  The monarch IS the realm personified.

Methinks this be bologna at any time before 1500 AD. Medieval kings, AFAIK, did not often operate under a "L'etat, c'est moi" mentality. Hence why absolutism is, well, called absolutism, and clearly post-medieval.

---

That aside– couldn't this be solved by requiring that the capital be a ducal center? Or make it so that the REST of the duchy secedes, but not the capital?

It does seem really weird to me that a capital lord could veto an impending secession by switching his ducal assignment. It doesn't seem like he should have that power. "Oh, looks like Duke Joe wants to secede– I think I'll just hop over to his duchy, to lock it down."

And, as noted earlier: that means you just change allegiances, then secede a few weeks later. Which isn't really even an SMA issue: seeking refuge with a rival realm then being reconstituted as an independent power hardly seems unusual. I seem to have some vague memory from a French History class of Burgundy once doing almost precisely such a thing... hmmm...

[vonGenf]

I seem to have some vague memory from a French History class of Burgundy once doing almost precisely such a thing... hmmm...

Off-topic to this discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Burgundy

You're looking for the "third kingdom". The then Duke of Burgundy was a vassal of the King of France, however some part of the lands he held were traditionally part of the HRE. The Duke of Burgundy wanted to be a King in his own right, and hoped to convince the Emperor to crown him King of Burgundy within the HRE. In BM term, this does correspond to first switching allegiance and then performing a friendly secession.

It didn't work out though.

[Vellos]

Off-topic to this discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Burgundy

You're looking for the "third kingdom". The then Duke of Burgundy was a vassal of the King of France, however some part of the lands he held were traditionally part of the HRE. The Duke of Burgundy wanted to be a King in his own right, and hoped to convince the Emperor to crown him King of Burgundy within the HRE. In BM term, this does correspond to first switching allegiance and then performing a friendly secession.

It didn't work out though.

Ah! Yes. I knew it was something like that.

[Dante Silverfire]

Okay, so what do I need to do to get the attention of the right people to approve this or some such?

[Solari]

Okay, so what do I need to do to get the attention of the right people to approve this or some such?

Approving it would require approving of it, and most of the people who would have some say in that have already given their opinion in this thread.

[Indirik]

Not that it matters, but I think the option of simply leaving the capital behind when the duchy containing it secedes is a good one. I would not think that the capital should leave with the secession. If you had that much control, you'd just rebel.

[Vellos]

Not that it matters, but I think the option of simply leaving the capital behind when the duchy containing it secedes is a good one. I would not think that the capital should leave with the secession. If you had that much control, you'd just rebel.

This wold seem more worthwhile.

[vonGenf]

Not that it matters, but I think the option of simply leaving the capital behind when the duchy containing it secedes is a good one. I would not think that the capital should leave with the secession. If you had that much control, you'd just rebel.

I don't know which would be easier to code, but an equivalent change would be to allow Dukes to kick regions out of their duchies (i.e. gift them to another Duke). A Duke who wants to secede would only need to ensure he does not own the capital then.

[Dante Silverfire]

Not that it matters, but I think the option of simply leaving the capital behind when the duchy containing it secedes is a good one. I would not think that the capital should leave with the secession. If you had that much control, you'd just rebel.

No, if the capital was supposed to be that important, then the Duke should be able to freely rebel without making it an armed rebellion and simply "auto-win" if he owns the capital. This was proposed earlier in the thread, and I'd also support that idea.

There is a large dichotomy when people emphasize both the importance of the capital AND try to discount the power that it should grant someone. Both need to go together. Either in favor or against but they need to be the same.

[vonGenf]

There is a large dichotomy when people emphasize both the importance of the capital AND try to discount the power that it should grant someone. Both need to go together. Either in favor or against but they need to be the same.

In the sentence "I own the capital", I think you underestimate the meaning of the word "capital" and overestimate the meaning of the word "own".

[Dante Silverfire]

In the sentence "I own the capital", I think you underestimate the meaning of the word "capital" and overestimate the meaning of the word "own".

The capital is the seat of government. It is the center of the realm, the way where the power of the entire realm is invested in a few members. However, this capital is also headed by a region lord and duke. That region lord pays the militia who defend and work in the capital. These militia in all sense of the word should be loyal to the region lord. Now, the region lord, loyal to the Duke, would grant his militia in favor of the rebellion. If you "own" the militia of a region, where militia sometimes number up to 5-10k cs, then you would automatically win any rebellion in that region. Very seldom do I see 5k worth of CS of loyalists in defense of a capital on day 1 of the rebellion.

The power over the capital that a duke has is based off of the fact that the region is defended and led by either himself or one of this vassals. The defenders of the region are loyal to him, and so there would be no defense at his word. The game currently does not adequately reflect this fact.

Either way, I think one of my proposals or a slight variation on it should be considered to be "approved." Many people here are in favor of at least changing *something* about the current methods.

[vonGenf]

These militia in all sense of the word should be loyal to the region lord. Now, the region lord, loyal to the Duke, would grant his militia in favor of the rebellion. If you "own" the militia of a region, where militia sometimes number up to 5-10k cs, then you would automatically win any rebellion in that region. Very seldom do I see 5k worth of CS of loyalists in defense of a capital on day 1 of the rebellion.

The Rebellion page in the wiki says

Militia units will also choose a side themselves based on some factors of the militia unit.

I always assumed these factors did include the stance of the region Lord. There are certainly other factors, such as region control and unit cohesion. Is this not the case?

[Dante Silverfire]

I always assumed these factors did include the stance of the region Lord. There are certainly other factors, such as region control and unit cohesion. Is this not the case?

I've yet to see militia take a 100% stance in favor of a region lord, but neither do we see a lot of rebellions.

Frankly, it is nigh impossible to get this figured out because events like this are so rare. I don't want to have to actually rebel to learn what the mechanics are of a rebellion because the risks are too high. I'd rather this be public knowledge.

[Indirik]

BattleMaster will never be a game where such mechanics are open. You will never be able to 100% calculate how things will go.

[Dante Silverfire]

BattleMaster will never be a game where such mechanics are open. You will never be able to 100% calculate how things will go.

Of course not. I don't want that.

What I would like to know is if perhaps being region lord of a region actually helped militia go in your favor? Or, if perhaps positive region control and unit cohesion would instead favor the "realm" which would be against the region lord.

Such things are kind of important to understand. When I risk 5 years of gameplay in a rebellion, stuff like bugs which neutralize a successful rebellion, or stuff like game mechanics we don't understand or that aren't intuitive are kind of hindering.

It makes sense we aren't given formulas on game mechanics, battle calculations, etc, but not knowing general manner in which rebellions play out is kind of a hindrance to wanting to take an action which can add a whole bunch of fun to a game.