Secession and pledging - Capitals / Last cities

[Scarlett]

but once you lose everything, its over for that realm.

In this case it is already over. Not just 'according to one character' but according to everyone involved. It's done.

The fact that the last secession is more serious than the next-to-last may make it the last nail in the coffin, but it doesn't make sense that the Duke of Duchy B has a power that the Duke of Duchy A hasn't got, particularly when there is no ruler (or else the ruler signs off on it).

[Penchant]

In this case it is already over. Not just 'according to one character' but according to everyone involved. It's done.

The fact that the last secession is more serious than the next-to-last may make it the last nail in the coffin, but it doesn't make sense that the Duke of Duchy B has a power that the Duke of Duchy A hasn't got, particularly when there is no ruler (or else the ruler signs off on it).

*facepalms* This is not about something IC, its about not being able to destroy a realm. Right now, many say the realm is over, but it still has a chance. If you take the last regions away, you take their chance of survival away. If its already proclaimed dead, become ruler and make the capital a separate duchy, secede and take it back. If the ruler signs off on it, he can do the duchy making for you, and you do what I just stated.

[Scarlett]

This is not about something IC, its about not being able to destroy a realm.

That is a circular argument. 'You can't destroy the realm because destroying the realm would destroy the realm.'

It's pretty simple: this is an area where BM-the-game is getting in the way of the players doing what they want to do because, as you say, they might screw it up and do something with poor results that can't be un-done. Okay, that's at least a valid concern. What are we accomplishing instead?

Zombie realms with joke governments that have to have non-wars with friendly neighbors so their regions can be 'taken over.' Nobles fighting other nobles on the battlefield, usually by accident, because you can't 'take over' without a declaration of war.

This is the game mechanism equivalent of life support for a terminal patient. I understand that you don't want a legit one-Duchy realm to have a 'end realm forever' button, but it seems like this could be circumvented easily enough with a minimal amount of design: for instance, allow any region to 'change allegiance' to a realm that no longer exists but did exist within the last month. That solves your problem and doesn't cause mine and you eliminate the potential damage a crazy Duke can do if the rest of the realm isn't on board.

If its already proclaimed dead, become ruler and make the capital a separate duchy

It says you can't secede the last city, not the last Duchy. I can save some time by making a new Duchy out of the neighboring townsland and having that secede, but that is really, really gamey. Congratulations, you're a Duke! No, not really, just to do this paperwork.

[Indirik]

For the record, townslands can't secede. You need a city to secede, and the old realm has to be left with a city or stronghold.

You are probably correct that there may be better ways to handle it. However, this is not likely to get any dev time any time soon.

[Anaris]

It is intended that it be hard to destroy a realm.

You can't secede the last viable Duchy of a realm because...then you just have exactly the same regions, duchy, and people, with a new realm name.

You can't change the allegiance of the last viable Duchy of a realm because that would be a realm merger, which is prohibited.

Yes, if you want to make a completely new realm out of what's left of Terran, the only way is to create the new realm out of part of it, then have everyone else join it and take over the remaining pieces, one way or another. That is intentional, and not likely to change any time soon.

[vonGenf]

Zombie realms with joke governments that have to have non-wars with friendly neighbors so their regions can be 'taken over.'

If you really don't want to play in Terran, then you are free to leave Terran and pledge allegiance to another realm. What you cannot do, however, is destroy what remains in the process.

If everybody else wants to follow you, then there will be nobody left in Terran, and you can take the regions over without fighting single battle. It will be over in a day. If some people decide they would rather stay in Terran, then they can try to defend it - as is proper IC.

[Scarlett]

.then you just have exactly the same regions, duchy, and people, with a new realm name.

Which is an outcome whose judgment should be left to other characters, not the game system. Not especially applicable in this case because the realm has already split in two, so you'd have two new realms with a lot of the same people but totally different institutions. Something the game can't know, of course, but that's why it should be left to the person or persons catalyzing the change to decide whether a change in flag is sufficient, necessary, or just window dressing.

However, this is not likely to get any dev time any time soon.

Actual development is out of my wheelhouse. I'm just making suggestions to avoid the absurdity that's happening now in Terran. I've been through it before and stuff like this tends to be quickly forgotten once one does jump through all the necessary hoops, which is why I'm trying to get it down now while we're doing the jumping.

If some people decide they would rather stay in Terran, then they can try to defend it - as is proper IC.

If a Duke and his vassals all change their banners (and all want to change their banners) it is ridiculous that a handful of knights could 'try and defend it.' What is Terran? A collection of castles and estates all flying one flag. The people on top are empowered to change that flag. Your argument is an argument against secession or changing allegiance at all -- why do knights of a region go with their lord when he changes allegiance? They don't get a choice to 'try and defend it' - they are told 'this land is now x instead of y.' That the very last Duchy/city can't do the same is a game prohibition. One that has a valid reason, to be sure, but it's not an IC reason at all.

I didn't destroy a realm here. Somebody else did. I'm the guy filling the vacuum. And even though there is neither an army nor a government opposing me, I can't do what the other two Duchies did and say 'here is the next step.' The reason I can't do it is because of a mechanism designed to prevent something else from happening. The solution is a mechanism that enables A but continues to prevent B.

[vonGenf]

I didn't destroy a realm here. Somebody else did. I'm the guy filling the vacuum. And even though there is neither an army nor a government opposing me, I can't do what the other two Duchies did and say 'here is the next step.' The reason I can't do it is because of a mechanism designed to prevent something else from happening. The solution is a mechanism that enables A but continues to prevent B.

You're right, it seems to be a race condition here. If things had happened in a different order you could have changed allegiance, and someone else would end up with rump Terran. In any case however a rump Terran would have existed - someone, somewhere, is left with the last of the crown jewels from which all legitimacy follows, and the only choice left is to wear them or to abandon his titles.

It's not exactly how feudal law worked - it's BM law. It can reasonably roleplayed though. If you take this as being how things work, you can work with it.

[Scarlett]

If you take this as being how things work, you can work with it.

There is no basis in history for anything like this, and even so, it doesn't seem to be this way because that's the most accurate model. It seems to be this way because of the dangers inherent of giving one player an 'end realm forever' button, and I definitely agree that that is a danger.

One can suspend disbelief to choke down a lot of game mechanisms. We do it all the time. It makes no sense for the Duke of York to have to travel to London to recruit troops, for instance, and then have those troops be Welsh longbowmen instead of Yorkshiremen because they had better gear or anything like that. We can and do gloss over this stuff all the time. This one is just particularly difficult because it requires an extended period of 'this makes no sense but let's all go through the motions.'

[Vellos]

There is no basis in history for anything like this, and even so, it doesn't seem to be this way because that's the most accurate model. It seems to be this way because of the dangers inherent of giving one player an 'end realm forever' button, and I definitely agree that that is a danger.

One can suspend disbelief to choke down a lot of game mechanisms. We do it all the time. It makes no sense for the Duke of York to have to travel to London to recruit troops, for instance, and then have those troops be Welsh longbowmen instead of Yorkshiremen because they had better gear or anything like that. We can and do gloss over this stuff all the time. This one is just particularly difficult because it requires an extended period of 'this makes no sense but let's all go through the motions.'

Think of BM realms as the Byzantine Empire, and it makes more since.

Everybody wants to call themselves Emperor until the Ottomans (Aurvandil) come and destroy the whole system.

[Chenier]

Why did a duchy secede if it already  meant to reunite with Terran's capital... I don't see the point.

[Scarlett]

Because it isn't 'reuniting with Terran's capital.'

Chesney and Chateau Saffalore are both forming a new Kingdom. The Chateau couldn't secede to form it, so Chesney did, thinking that the Chateau could follow.

Different government, different people in power, and it doesn't include Phantaria.

[Perth]

I didn't destroy a realm here. Somebody else did. I'm the guy filling the vacuum. And even though there is neither an army nor a government opposing me, I can't do what the other two Duchies did and say 'here is the next step.'

You're right, it seems to be a race condition here. If things had happened in a different order you could have changed allegiance, and someone else would end up with rump Terran.

Indeed, it really is. This mechanism even partly encouraged me to go ahead and secede Phantaria. I could see the writing on the law in terms of Terran's falling apart, however I was worried that if Aurvandil went through with a TO of the Chateau that somehow the Capital might shift to Shokalom and I would be the one ending up with the "rump end of Terran" that no one wants.


I agree that this system needs fixing. It seems there is an easy solution to please both sides of the issue.

[Indirik]

Capitals *never* move by themselves. It is always a manual process that the ruler must initiate and pay for, regardless of the situation.

[Scarlett]

So the ruler is allowed to hand over the last region via region exchange?