Takeovers of coastal regions

[Chenier]

I've been thinking... The restriction of needing an adjacent region to conduct a takeover was lifted due to sea travel... But this is resulting in realms from the other corner of the map conducting takeovers to reduce distance from capital issues (example: Astrum taking over a region on the Madinian isle) and just a generalized tendency to conduct takeovers of very far regions with no hopes of keeping them (Aurvandil taking over Saffalore to use its harbors). Holding these regions is imposible, but there is a significant advantage to doing that anyways. And it looks like it's a trend that will increase. But it's in complete contradiction with how we've handled takeovers since at least I started playing, in 2006.

Sure, it's necessary to be able to continue takeover over sea once the sea routes are removed, but maybe a distance cap should be put? ex, must be within 500 miles by bird's eye of an owned region to conduct a takeover? Otherwise it breaks how it used to take time to slowly progress and expand towards an enemy before being able to consider taking out one of his cities. Now, one can just sail directly to the city's outskirts, move on to attack the coastal city, and begin a takeover. The defenders will never get to use the walls because of the takeover, and the war could end quickly without any of the traditional fighting in various choke points. Then, owning the region will mean cheap embarkation costs to go back home...

Overnight, Fronen could just land an army in Cjelegy, for example, then declare war on the turn they move into Rines while they know Rio's troops to be away invading some other realm. Rio would get absolutely 0 forewarning, and the walls would only be defended by crappy militia (who act weird and rarely ever rally), no mobile troops possibly being able to get back in time. Even if Rio could rush an army back, the takeover would mean that they'd never get to use the walls against Fronen's mobile forces. If they finish the takeover, they could then cash in bonds, and stay there forever, or leave for cheap if need be. This is just an example, but BT and Dwi have plenty of other similar scenarios possible. It doesn't feel right that takeovers can now be done over such a long distance for coastal regions.

[egamma]

Troop morale penalties will hit very quickly if they don't take over the region in 2-3 days. I think it actually adds a pretty interesting dynamic to the game.

[Penchant]

Troop morale penalties will hit very quickly if they don't take over the region in 2-3 days. I think it actually adds a pretty interesting dynamic to the game.

I agree. He is stating it as bad, but I do not. They gain advantages and such, but why is it so unrealistic?

[Chenier]

Troop morale penalties will hit very quickly if they don't take over the region in 2-3 days. I think it actually adds a pretty interesting dynamic to the game.

Total success or total failure doesn't sound very balanced to me... Taking over a pile of dirt shouldn't have drastic impact on troops' morale. That you manage the TO a small rural or badland shouldn't be enough to eliminate distance from realm penalties... With the war against Aurvandil, we had these northern realms wanting to TO southern regions just for this purpose. It's gamey as hell.

And it opens up the possibility for 1-TO warfare: sneak into seaside capital, declare war, start TO, game over. Because the TO prevents use of walls and ability to recruit. In the past, it was never possible to TO a capital before having pretty much TOed the rest of the realm first. I really, really dislike the idea of a realm being able to be destroyed in a single expedition.

[Kwanstein]

And it opens up the possibility for 1-TO warfare: sneak into seaside capital, declare war, start TO, game over. Because the TO prevents use of walls and ability to recruit. In the past, it was never possible to TO a capital before having pretty much TOed the rest of the realm first. I really, really dislike the idea of a realm being able to be destroyed in a single expedition.

Presumably, a moderate garrison (say, 5,000CS -- not too much to ask of a capital) could prevent any realistic chance at a sea-borne decapitation strike, as the casualties taken upon landing as well as during the ensuing battle would be enough to cripple the invaders, unless they were extremely powerful, in which case their dominance is assured either way.

Also, decapitation strikes, even sea-borne ones (such as in the case of Golden Farrow) have always been a possibility. I don't think that the changes to sea travel have made them much more viable than they were. And takeovers aren't necessary, looting can achieve the same effect (probably faster, too).

It is possible for a realm to recover from a decapitation strike, mind you. Despite what I've termed it, it does not actually kill off a realm, it merely deprives it of it's capital, which can be relocated at a price. So, it is more like a grievous wound than a decapitation.

[trying]

I believe they land right next to the capital so they don't incur the landing penalty.

[Chenier]

Presumably, a moderate garrison (say, 5,000CS -- not too much to ask of a capital) could prevent any realistic chance at a sea-borne decapitation strike, as the casualties taken upon landing as well as during the ensuing battle would be enough to cripple the invaders, unless they were extremely powerful, in which case their dominance is assured either way.

Also, decapitation strikes, even sea-borne ones (such as in the case of Golden Farrow) have always been a possibility. I don't think that the changes to sea travel have made them much more viable than they were. And takeovers aren't necessary, looting can achieve the same effect (probably faster, too).

It is possible for a realm to recover from a decapitation strike, mind you. Despite what I've termed it, it does not actually kill off a realm, it merely deprives it of it's capital, which can be relocated at a price. So, it is more like a grievous wound than a decapitation.

Presumably, a moderate garrison (say, 5,000CS -- not too much to ask of a capital) could prevent any realistic chance at a sea-borne decapitation strike, as the casualties taken upon landing as well as during the ensuing battle would be enough to cripple the invaders, unless they were extremely powerful, in which case their dominance is assured either way.

Also, decapitation strikes, even sea-borne ones (such as in the case of Golden Farrow) have always been a possibility. I don't think that the changes to sea travel have made them much more viable than they were. And takeovers aren't necessary, looting can achieve the same effect (probably faster, too).

It is possible for a realm to recover from a decapitation strike, mind you. Despite what I've termed it, it does not actually kill off a realm, it merely deprives it of it's capital, which can be relocated at a price. So, it is more like a grievous wound than a decapitation.

This. Obviously landing in a capital of a realm you are at war with would be stupid. Nothing to prevent the landing right next to it, however.

And even if the damage is great to the invaders, even a slightly larger realm could be killed by this, as long as the invader was preparing for a while and the defender was caught unaware or occupied elsewhere, because the invader will recruit as much as he can and chose the time, whereas the defender will be denied the ability to recruit in response, and their TLs will be scattered all over.

And a capital can only be relocated as many times as a realm has cities. Most realms don't have many cities, and the capital is usually the only centrally-located city. Take away that city, and the realm is forced to chose a border city, causing massive control and taxation issues due to capital move and distance from the new capital. If the realm manages to survive, it will have been severely crippled and made much easier to destroy afterwards. Many realms only have one city, though, and would stand no chance at all.