North Vs. South

[Anaris]

No, it's a problem for everyone on FEI. Like I said, the subtext running under it all is that the players on the island are deeply polarized into two groups - those who see your new empire model as a way they want to play; and those who are strongly opposed to it as a playing form. If I read his comment right, Anaris also recognised that as a problem for the island.

No, what I said was that there is a middle ground between a gung-ho, all Empire all the time attitude, and a "We must burn the Empire to the ground if it take a thousand years" attitude.

Middle ground, in general, is something that far too many people in BattleMaster (and, to some extent, the world in general) fail to recognize the existence of.

[Indirik]

I should be absolutely clear that this isn't directed at you personally, Velax, but we now have a situation that's pretty similar on FEI. But we have deafening silence about the surrender terms here on the forum and everywhere else.

FWIW - I've never seen *any* terms or potential treaties related to the war on FEI. So far as I know, no one involved in the war has ever discussed any possible end to the war.

If it involves things like "Stay out of the war, at Peace or better with everyone on our side for 12 months", then it's bull!@#$.

Other terms that I have come to realize are bull!@#$ involve things like: "Abandon your allies. Declare war on them, and come fight for our side!" It's one thing if the losing side offers these terms, but to force them on the losers just sucks. Especially when it's backed by "do this or die".

[Anaris]

FWIW - I've never seen *any* terms or potential treaties related to the war on FEI. So far as I know, no one involved in the war has ever discussed any possible end to the war.

If it involves things like "Stay out of the war, at Peace or better with everyone on our side for 12 months", then it's bull!@#$.

Other terms that I have come to realize are bull!@#$ involve things like: "Abandon your allies. Declare war on them, and come fight for our side!" It's one thing if the losing side offers these terms, but to force them on the losers just sucks. Especially when it's backed by "do this or die".

Going off the top of my head, here's what terms have been offered and accepted in this war:

- To Ohnar West, join the Empire, keep your current regions (after losing some to the Empire), you don't have to fight your former allies, but you can't rejoin this war before its end.
- To Greater Aenilia, no terms; they were destroyed utterly due to serially pissing off Velax.
I believe Velax has mentioned terms to Kindara and Cathay earlier in the thread:
- To Kindara, a variety of degrees, but including, more or less, "give back the regions you took from Zonasa and we'll call it even", and, more recently, "you can't have any of Zonasa's regions, but if you want, we'll help you take regions from Cathay."
- To Cathay, again, a variety, but also including "you give up claim on one region you don't currently hold, and don't get any more regions back, and we'll call it a day."

The terms to Kindara and Cathay have also included some specific provisions to banish nobles that have taken especially egregious or highly targeted actions against the Empire in general, or Velax and his family specifically.

Again, this is my recollection off the top of my head, so it may not be 100% accurate—but I think it is important that it's my perception, as a leader of one side, of the terms that have been offered to our enemies in this war.

[Foxglove]

a "We must burn the Empire to the ground if it take a thousand years" attitude

That's never been Kindara's stance while Rosalind has been High Lady. I can't speak for what High Lords Edmund or Alpha's son said while they were in charge, but Rosalind has always told Velax that she doesn't object to the Empire existing in the north. But she wants the south to remain free. That's the stance of the majority of nobles in Kindara (and Cathay too, I think, but you'd have to ask them to be sure).

Rosalind's bottom line on surrender terms has always been to have a south free of the Empire, assurances that Kindara and Cathay won't be the perpetual target of one-sided wars by the whole of the Empire, and - since the glacier - enough territory to make Kindara a viable realm. When Rosalind first got elected she offered to return all Zonasan territory except Batesoar, Alanurs, and the region east of Masahakon (forgotten it's name), but Velax refused to settle on that because he wanted to fulfill his promise to Zonasa to give them all of their territory back.

So that's the history from the Kindaran side.

FWIW - I've never seen *any* terms or potential treaties related to the war on FEI. So far as I know, no one involved in the war has ever discussed any possible end to the war.

The last terms offered by Velax to Rosalind were as follows (and I'm trying my best to be accurate here, so apologies to Velax if I get anything wrong):

1) The return of all Zonasan regions.
2) Raising or lowering of all diplomatic relations to neutral with all realms.
3) Reparations of 500 or 600 gold for damage to something somewhere (apologies - I forget the specific place).
4) The death of Magnus Himoura (he's now left the island).
5) 3 or 4 other nobles named as enemies of the Empire have to migrate off the lsland (or was it just exiled from Kindara?)
6) Kindara attacks its ally Cathay and gets Imperial help to take Cathayan regions if needed.
7) Closure of all Order of the Elders temples (pretty sure that was in the last terms offered).

Like I say, I've tried to be 100% accurate there. So apologies if anything is wrong.

[Velax]

The reason I used the Caligus/Perdan comparision is because the terms were very similiar at their core - "accept drastically reduced territory and turn on your ally". In the case of Caligus, we got considerable OOC public outcry on the forum and elsewhere that Perdan was imposing unreasonable and humiliating terms on Caligus and damaging the game as a result of it. So that pressure eventually made Perdan modify its terms.

I should be absolutely clear that this isn't directed at you personally, Velax, but we now have a situation that's pretty similar on FEI. But we have deafening silence about the surrender terms here on the forum and everywhere else. This is really a criticism of the community, because we seem to be employing considerable double-standards to what we see as reasonable and unreasonable. Why the public outcry when Caligus was given terms its nobles said were unreasonable, but not when another realm is given terms its nobles say are unreasonable? I'm genuinely interested to hear from the community why that is? It seems to me that we either shrug and say "realms fall". Or we go for an approach that we prefer realms to be given face-saving surrender terms that allow them to live on in dignity. But which ever path we take has to be applied universally or it looks like we're all being hypocrites.

It isn't a double standard, because the terms you were offered weren't unreasonable. You've twice mentioned the "betray Cathay and attack them" term, but there are two things wrong there. First, you ignore the other three sets of terms you were offered beforehand. Second, you misrepresent the actual terms you were offered. You were not told you had to betray Cathay and attack them. You were told you had to give back territory claimed by Zonasa, but given you had lost most of your territory to the glacier, if you wanted more regions we'd help you take them from Cathay if you wished. How terribly evil and unreasonable of us. Why would we bother trying to force you to fight with us? We didn't do that with Ohnar and, frankly, we don't need the help of a crippled realm to win the war.

I should be absolutely clear here: if Kindara has an issue with the terms it was offered, then you are the unreasonable ones. It is the utter height of arrogance to claim that because there's no outcry over terms you personally think are unreasonable, there must be a double standard in the BM community.

No, it's a problem for everyone on FEI. Like I said, the subtext running under it all is that the players on the island are deeply polarized into two groups - those who see your new empire model as a way they want to play; and those who are strongly opposed to it as a playing form. If I read his comment right, Anaris also recognised that as a problem for the island. As the Empire gained ground, the players who didn't want to play in it were pushed into Kindara. As you might remember, I initally thought your Empire idea was a good one and supported it through Rosalind in the Kindaran council, but I've since seen how many people are opposed to it. That's why Kindara lost half its noble count overnight when the glacier really started advancing - loads of people left the island because they didn't want to move to Imperial realms and no longer saw a way of fighting the Empire. Others quit, but that's a different story and more the fault of the glacier event than other factors.

Again, I'm not painting you personally or anyone in the Imperial realms as bad guys, but you need to know that there are a lot of players in the south who won't play under the Imperial model for the island. So if the Empire claims the entire island, players will move characters elsewhere or start new characters elsewhere. So the noble/player count on the island will fall. Maybe new nobles will come in to compensate to experience the Empire model of play, or maybe they won't. Who knows. Again, I'm not calling you a bad guy (and I don't know how much more I can emphasise that without putting it in big bold letters). But you need to be aware that there's a big group of players in the south who don't like the Empire model. I know you feel the Empire model will help the game, but I'm just being honest in telling you there are a lot of people who disagree.

And again, you make generalisations based on nothing. Most of those who are supposedly against the Empire likely aren't against "the Empire" at all. They're against Arcaea, or Sorraine, or Coralynth, or Zonasa, either because we defeated them or because they're of that group of people who will always hate the strongest force on any island, for no reason other than because they're the strongest. Of the 46 non-Empire nobles left, I'd say the number of players whose sole reason for being in Kindara or Cathay is that they "hate the Empire model" make up a bare handful. And those who do likely do so despite the fact that they have no idea what the so-called Empire model even is. For that matter, do you?

Rosalind's bottom line on surrender terms has always been to have a south free of the Empire, assurances that Kindara and Cathay won't be the perpetual target of one-sided wars by the whole of the Empire, and - since the glacier - enough territory to make Kindara a viable realm. When Rosalind first got elected she offered to return all Zonasan territory except Batesoar, Alanurs, and the region east of Masahakon (forgotten it's name), but Velax refused to settle on that because he wanted to fulfill his promise to Zonasa to give them all of their territory back.

No, Rosalind's bottom line on surrender terms has been that you won't given back all the territory taken from Zonasa. That's been the one constant thread in all talks with Rosalind.

- To Ohnar West, join the Empire, keep your current regions (after losing some to the Empire), you don't have to fight your former allies, but you can't rejoin this war before its end.
- To Greater Aenilia, no terms; they were destroyed utterly due to serially pissing off Velax.
I believe Velax has mentioned terms to Kindara and Cathay earlier in the thread:
- To Kindara, a variety of degrees, but including, more or less, "give back the regions you took from Zonasa and we'll call it even", and, more recently, "you can't have any of Zonasa's regions, but if you want, we'll help you take regions from Cathay."
- To Cathay, again, a variety, but also including "you give up claim on one region you don't currently hold, and don't get any more regions back, and we'll call it a day."

The terms to Kindara and Cathay have also included some specific provisions to banish nobles that have taken especially egregious or highly targeted actions against the Empire in general, or Velax and his family specifically.

Again, this is my recollection off the top of my head, so it may not be 100% accurate—but I think it is important that it's my perception, as a leader of one side, of the terms that have been offered to our enemies in this war.

Aenilia were offered several sets of terms, but all were rejected. Even when Ironhorse, a family Velax can't stand, was ruler, he still tried to negotiate a surrender.

[Anaris]

That's never been Kindara's stance while Rosalind has been High Lady. I can't speak for what High Lords Edmund or Alpha's son said while they were in charge, but Rosalind has always told Velax that she doesn't object to the Empire existing in the north. But she wants the south to remain free. That's the stance of the majority of nobles in Kindara (and Cathay too, I think, but you'd have to ask them to be sure).

That sounds reasonable. It's not the impression anyone in Zonasa has of our enemies' attitude, though. I wouldn't presume to speak for Arcaea, but I suspect their impression is similar to ours.

Rosalind's bottom line on surrender terms has always been to have a south free of the Empire,

Which would require Zonasa to abrogate its treaty of membership.

assurances that Kindara and Cathay won't be the perpetual target of one-sided wars by the whole of the Empire,

Reasonable on the face of it, but wording would be tricky to avoid situations where Kindara or Cathay blatantly provoke a war, and then claim that it's a breach of the terms.

and - since the glacier - enough territory to make Kindara a viable realm.

Unless you're willing to take Cathay's territory, that's just laughable.

Rosalind still seems to be operating from a position where she has negotiating room, rather than one where she's outright losing the war. The impression these terms give is that you think that there's a realistic chance that Kindara and Cathay could win something remotely like them by continuing the war—that is, after all, what peace terms (whether or not you call them surrender) are usually about. But by any standard I can see, that's just totally impossible at this point. Zonasa is gaining strength, and has retaken Ipsosez again, which prevents any sort of sortie by the Free Realms into the eastern side of the continent where the rogue regions are—except through Haul, and you saw what happened last time you tried that. The travel times are just too absurd to make it feasible.

When Rosalind first got elected she offered to return all Zonasan territory except Batesoar, Alanurs, and the region east of Masahakon (forgotten it's name), but Velax refused to settle on that because he wanted to fulfill his promise to Zonasa to give them all of their territory back.

And why wasn't Rosalind willing to consider that? Every single region Zonasa once held that Kindara held at that point was taken in this war, whether by sword or by treachery. If you had agreed to that then, there's a strong possibility Kindara would have been in a position to actually get help from the Empire, and even Zonasa, when the ice came. (Though I realize that that couldn't have been an actual factor in the thinking back then.)

6) Kindara attacks its ally Cathay and gets Imperial help to take Cathayan regions if needed.

The impression I had of this part of the terms was that it was more like, "Since you are ridiculously low on land, we are wiling to help you take land from Cathay. Or not, your choice." But, again, that's just my impression.

7) Closure of all Order of the Elders temples (pretty sure that was in the last terms offered).

Yep, Baranion insisted on that one after Magnus called the crusade.

Interestingly, thus far, we've gotten almost everything we wanted out of those terms. Neither Kindara nor Cathay holds any regions that were Zonasan at the beginning of the war (Haul was claimed by Zonasa, but not held at that time), Magnus ran off with his tail between his legs, and the Order of the Elders has, I believe, collapsed with the departure of all its elder priests.

[Velax]

FWIW - I've never seen *any* terms or potential treaties related to the war on FEI. So far as I know, no one involved in the war has ever discussed any possible end to the war.

If it involves things like "Stay out of the war, at Peace or better with everyone on our side for 12 months", then it's bull!@#$.

Other terms that I have come to realize are bull!@#$ involve things like: "Abandon your allies. Declare war on them, and come fight for our side!" It's one thing if the losing side offers these terms, but to force them on the losers just sucks. Especially when it's backed by "do this or die".

Speak with your leaders. Terms have been discussed multiple times in the Assembly with Edan and Fergus, and Velax usually discusses them within Arcaea as well.

[Foxglove]

you wanted more regions we'd help you take them from Cathay if you wished.

The betrayal of Cathay was the biggest sticking point there. There's also the point that if Kindara accepted peace but didn't want to take regions from Cathay, we might as well have wound up the realm anyway because it would have had no territory (remember that Haul and Taop are just on loan from Cathay). So the choices were: take land from Cathay. Or you can wind up your realm after peace. Or we can destroy you.

I should be absolutely clear here: if Kindara has an issue with the terms it was offered, then you are the unreasonable ones. It is the utter height of arrogance to claim that because there's no outcry over terms you personally think are unreasonable, there must be a double standard in the BM community.

It's also the height of arrogance for you to feel you personally know what are reasonable terms, isn't it?

I have to admit that my thinking here has been greatly coloured by the discussions around this subject that have been going on over in Might & Fealty. So it's probably unfair to bring them over here. To some extent, BM is running on an outmoded concept of what is reasonable and unreasonable terms, or what is appropriate in victory and defeat, that we've been trying to find ways to stamp out over in M&F. Where the emphasis is trying to be put on never giving the loser terms that will humiliate them (them seeing the terms as humiliating, that is) and several wars have been stopped because of it.

you make generalisations based on nothing. Most of those who are supposedly against the Empire likely aren't against "the Empire" at all.

No, they're not based on nothing. I've seen the OOC messages in the south where people are saying this. You haven't. Several players also gave it as the OOC reason for moving their characters off the island when the glaicer hit.

Once more, I have to say that most of the opinions I've written in this thread is based on what people have being saying over the past few months about the Imperial model and their dislike of it. You can either believe me or not *shrugs*

No, Rosalind's bottom line on surrender terms has been that you won't given back all the territory taken from Zonasa. That's been the one constant thread in all talks with Rosalind.

That was true before the glacier. But not afterwards. You've also ignored the parts where Rosalind wanted a free south, enough territory to make Kindara a viable realm without harming Cathay. And, most importantly, the part where she wanted assurances that Kindara wouldn't be the whipping boy of the entire Empire each time it wanted a war. To which Velax's response was, "Tough. Kindara should have joined the Empire when it had the chance."

Which would require Zonasa to abrogate its treaty of membership.

Depends where you draw the north/south line. We all use south, but it's probably no longer an accurate term since the glacier wiped off the south of the map. Maybe west or south west is more accurate.

Anyhoo, I have grocery shopping to do, so I might pick up on this thread later if I have the time. Although I'm preparing tonight for a vacation/holiday so I'm only likely to be semi-active at best for the next few days.

[Velax]

The betrayal of Cathay was the biggest sticking point there. There's also the point that if Kindara accepted peace but didn't want to take regions from Cathay, we might as well have wound up the realm anyway because it would have had no territory (remember that Haul and Taop are just on loan from Cathay). So the choices were: take land from Cathay. Or you can wind up your realm after peace. Or we can destroy you.

So...what were you expecting? "You've been completely and utterly defeated after never even coming close to winning a war you started, so here, have some territory from my ally"?

Anyhoo, I have grocery shopping to do, so I might pick up on this thread later if I have the time.

Yes, yes. We're all very convinced by your show of nonchalance.

It's also the height of arrogance for you to feel you personally know what are reasonable terms, isn't it?

No. I'm commenting on one set of terms. You're commenting on an entire community.

Where the emphasis is trying to be put on never giving the loser terms that will humiliate them (them seeing the terms as humiliating, that is) and several wars have been stopped because of it.

The losers in a war are going to see virtually any terms as humiliating, because they're the losers. I really don't know how many times I have to say this, but if giving back the territory you took after starting a war and then losing is too unreasonable for you, then there's really nothing we can do for you.

No, they're not based on nothing. I've seen the OOC messages in the south where people are saying this. You haven't. Several players also gave it as the OOC reason for moving their characters off the island when the glaicer hit.

Once more, I have to say that most of the opinions I've written in this thread is based on what people have being saying over the past few months about the Imperial model and their dislike of it. You can either believe me or not *shrugs*

Wow, "several". "Several" sounds rather similar to the "handful" that I mentioned, doesn't it. Again, neither you, nor anyone in Kindara, even know what the Imperial model is. There's a term for people who dislike something without knowing anything about what it is.

That was true before the glacier. But not afterwards. You've also ignored the parts where Rosalind wanted a free south, enough territory to make Kindara a viable realm without harming Cathay. And, most importantly, the part where she wanted assurances that Kindara wouldn't be the whipping boy of the entire Empire each time it wanted a war.

So...you start a war, lose it - badly - and then want terms whereby restrictions are put on the winners? And you want us to give you territory we'd have to force out of Zonasa? Yes, that sounds completely reasonable and completely in keeping with the established RP of this war.

[Anaris]

The betrayal of Cathay was the biggest sticking point there.

Which, again, was totally optional and up to you. If you didn't want to betray Cathay, you didn't have to. So if that was the biggest sticking point, you were sticking at nothing.

There's also the point that if Kindara accepted peace but didn't want to take regions from Cathay, we might as well have wound up the realm anyway because it would have had no territory (remember that Haul and Taop are just on loan from Cathay). So the choices were: take land from Cathay. Or you can wind up your realm after peace. Or we can destroy you.

While that's not entirely fair, there is some truth to it. Either way, though, Kindara had no leg to stand on demanding territory from Zonasa. Surrender, get the war over and done with, and then maybe Kindara could have brought up the issue of gaining more territory so it wasn't one small city and one destroyed mountain stronghold.

It's also the height of arrogance for you to feel you personally know what are reasonable terms, isn't it?

I think that one cuts both ways.

I have to admit that my thinking here has been greatly coloured by the discussions around this subject that have been going on over in Might & Fealty. So it's probably unfair to bring them over here. To some extent, BM is running on an outmoded concept of what is reasonable and unreasonable terms, or what is appropriate in victory and defeat, that we've been trying to find ways to stamp out over in M&F.

That sounds like a really good thing to do; there have definitely been problems with that in BM over the years. But...

Where the emphasis is trying to be put on never giving the loser terms that will humiliate them (them seeing the terms as humiliating, that is) and several wars have been stopped because of it.

This requires the winning realm to be psychic. We can't read your minds to realize that something we consider to be quite reasonable and even generous, you would find humiliating.

I cannot tell you how many times I've seen this pattern:

• Realm (or alliance, but for simplicity we'll call both sides single realms) A attacks Realm B.
• 
  Realm A takes a little territory away from Realm B.
• 
  Realm B gets it stuff together, pushes Realm B back out of its territory, and takes a little more.
• 
  Realm B sues for peace.
• 
  Realm A says, "Give us back one or more of the regions we took from you, and we'll accept peace."
• 
  Realm B says, "Not a chance, we're winning this war." They proceed to take more land from Realm B.

Repeat steps 4-6 until Realm A is basically destroyed.

I can understand the desire, especially in a realm that's nearly dead like Kindara is now, to be given more territory as part of a peace deal, but it just boggles my mind how people don't understand that when you're losing a war, you don't get to demand regions be given to you that you didn't hold at the beginning of the war. It's not even all that reasonable to demand that any regions be given to you. If you want to survive at all and have a chance of regaining any vestige of your former glory, you need to accept less.

enough territory to make Kindara a viable realm without harming Cathay.

You keep naming this as a term as if it's totally, unquestionably reasonable. As if the Empire has an obligation to make Kindara a viable realm. This is what continues to make me feel as if you're either being disingenuous, or we genuinely come at this from totally different premises about what losing a war means.

To be clear, I do not think that humiliation is a useful purpose of surrender terms. I think that the purpose of surrender terms should be, by and large, to first fulfill the objectives of the war, if there are clear objectives, and second give the defeated realm an incentive to stop fighting. That can sometimes mean just the chance to survive, and it can sometimes mean something more material. I have personally written surrender terms (as a Realm B above) that involved giving regions back to the defeated realm—regions that were theirs to begin with, of course, not realms that we had held at the beginning of the war—in hopes that they would actually be willing to stop trying to bruise our faces with their fists. (It didn't work. They refused to give up even when we'd sacked their capital multiple times. Only the Third Invasion stopped the war, and when we asked, multiple times, if they needed our help against the invaders, they were silent. So the invaders destroyed them, and we didn't help, because they never admitted they wanted it. It was very frustrating, but in the end, rang somewhat of poetic justice.)

I've seen humiliating surrender terms offered before, and I do not see how you could characterize the terms offered to Kindara and Cathay in this war in that manner. Neither realm has been asked to give up large amounts of territory that they hold on the date of the terms; neither realm has been asked to make a public apology, admission of guilt, or anything of the sort; neither realm has been told they need to accept an Imperial monitor, or forced to elect a specific noble as Ruler or any other Council position. I have seen all of these as surrender terms in the past.

The terms that have been offered to Kindara and Cathay have been mildly punitive (particularly in the matter of reparations, which I believe were intended to be negotiable), but overall quite fair. If I had been in your place, I can honestly say that I think I would have taken them. But then, I don't have your (or your realm's) strong distrust of Arcaea, which colors your responses quite a lot.

[Anaris]

Yes, yes. We're all very convinced by your show of nonchalance.

C'mon, Velax, that was uncalled for. RL is RL.

[Indirik]

And again, you make generalisations based on nothing. Most of those who are supposedly against the Empire likely aren't against "the Empire" at all. They're against Arcaea, or Sorraine, or Coralynth, or Zonasa, either because we defeated them or because they're of that group of people who will always hate the strongest force on any island, for no reason other than because they're the strongest. Of the 46 non-Empire nobles left, I'd say the number of players whose sole reason for being in Kindara or Cathay is that they "hate the Empire model" make up a bare handful. And those who do likely do so despite the fact that they have no idea what the so-called Empire model even is. For that matter, do you?

Don't be too sure that everyone who is in the Empire actually *likes* the Empire. Or wants to be in the Empire. Or even cares about the Empire at all. I would venture to say that a very significant number of people in the Empire are in it ether because their ruler decided to be part of it, or they did it simply to avoid destruction of their realm.

My personal feeling is that an overall Empire model for FEI, assuming that Arcaea manages to establish an actual island-spanning Empire and make it stick, will be disastrous.

Edit: Fixed whacky quotes...

[Velax]

C'mon, Velax, that was uncalled for. RL is RL.

Bleh, maybe. It just irritates me when people write multiple long replies but feel the need to end it with, "Oh, but I don't really care about this, so maybe I'll reply later, if I can be bothered". If you take the time to write half a dozen replies, it's obviously an issue you care about, so why pretend otherwise.

[Ravier Nebehn]

Anyway, this war has unfortunately brought up something that is far too common and that is an accusation of cheating. I'm not sure if anyone ever did file a Titan report on it, and if not it would probably be far too late now as it was at least a couple of weeks ago. There's been an accusation flying round which essentially goes along the lines of "Zonasa sends nobles to Arcaea, changes allegiance, recruits masses of troops then switches back".

Personally, I wish people wouldn't fall back on such accusations when you're losing. It's bad form. Not to mention the fact that Tim's ruling Zonasa and he wouldn't let people get away with that. Then again, the person in question is also using that as an OOC reason for losing the war when really, it's just how things played out in-game. On an IC level, Malos at this point doesn't really care what happens so long as his own temples aren't sacked or closed, and he's also annoyed that certain people keep on with the line of "Priests can't be effective Lords or Dukes".

[Velax]

Don't be too sure that everyone who is in the Empire actually *likes* the Empire. Or wants to be in the Empire. Or even cares about the Empire at all. I would venture to say that a very significant number of people in the Empire are in it ether because their ruler decided to be part of it, or they did it simply to avoid destruction of their realm.

Exactly! And the same holds true for the reverse. A very significant number of people in the Free Realms didn't know or care about the Empire at all and hold no opinion on the "Empire model", but just happened to be in the realms whose rulers chose to fight against the Empire.

My personal feeling is that an overall Empire model for FEI, assuming that Arcaea manages to establish an actual island-spanning Empire and make it stick, will be disastrous.

Honestly, if it all goes to !@#$, I'll just say, "Right, everyone drop relations to neutral and let's go back to the way things were".