Realm size control

[Constantine]

Loyalty of provinces that have no lord designated quickly deteriorates and they go rogue again.

Discuss.

[Anaris]

I've actually got some ideas along this line.

I'd like to make it somewhat more nuanced than that—for instance, I'd like to make it more advantageous to grow a realm from the capital outward, rather than making it long to reach an enemy or something.

But the plans I have for implementing this are actually sooner, rather than later...I just need to be less busy at Real Work™ before they can happen.

[GundamMerc]

Loyalty of provinces that have no lord designated quickly deteriorates and they go rogue again.

Discuss.

Would be amazingly useful for Morek.

[Indirik]

I'm ok with nuanced, but i also like the blunt force trauma approach: no lord = no region. Its ridiculous that realms can control and harvest the resources from an absurd amount of regions without the nobles to actually manage the regions. Morek and Riombara are both perfect examples of how realms have pushed this beyond the extreme, into the absurd.

So, yea, add some influences to help drive realms toward a more even expansion. But also add in the blatant restriction that without a lord, the region will eventually go rogue.

[vonGenf]

I'm ok with nuanced, but i also like the blunt force trauma approach: no lord = no region. Its ridiculous that realms can control and harvest the resources from an absurd amount of regions without the nobles to actually manage the regions. Morek and Riombara are both perfect examples of how realms have pushed this beyond the extreme, into the absurd.

So, yea, add some influences to help drive realms toward a more even expansion. But also add in the blatant restriction that without a lord, the region will eventually go rogue.

This problem never occured when the player/region ratio was high, and it will disappear by itself if it climbs back.

In the meantime, it is important to give all realms a way to expand. If you make it impossible for a realm to expand, then they will buy militia and turtle down. There's little else they can do.

[Indirik]

The problem did occasionally occur, but rarely. I remember a realm or two that had more regions than nobles. Those quickly fixed themselves, though, as nobles eager for positions moved in. The bigger problem was realms that just never appointed lords. Everything was centrally controled, and lords just reduced the amount of gold that was collected by the realm as a whole. Bankers moved all the food, and collected all the gold.

That's why the "no lord = half gold collection" was added.

However, realms controlling significantly more regions than they have nobles doesn't benefit the game much at all. Is BT really better off becauser Riomabra has twice as many regions as it does nobles? Or would it be better off if 12 of those regions went rogue, and some nobles moved in to take over those regions and make a new realm? Is Dwilight better off with Morek controlling the entire northern end of the continent, adopting a policy of leaving all of those extra regions completely devoid of infrastructure in a deliberate campaign to make settling the more difficult, or would it be better off if those regions went rogue, and a bunch of refugees from Luria resettled them into a new realm?

Morek and Riombara are NOT doing anyone any good for the game by locking up such a huge section of their respective maps for the benefit of a disproportionately small number of players. They are disproportionately strong due to the huge number of regions they control, and dominate their neighborhoods to the point where no one can challenge them. And since they don't have enough nobles themselves to split into separate realms, they stifle the entire region into stagnation.

IMO, it would be much better to force these realms into picking which regions they want to keep, and which ones they will allow to go rogue. 20 nobles controling  30 regions = stagnation. 20 nobles controling 20 region, plus an additional 10 rogue regions, is an opportunity for neighbors to expand. Or for foreign immigrants to move in and set up something new. Or maybe it's an opportunity for internal strife as the realm aregues over what should be kept, and what should be dropped. "You're not letting *my* duchy go rogue, I'm seceding to make my own realm!" In addition, those rogue regions will start breeding monster swarms, livening things up a bit.

[vonGenf]

adopting a policy of leaving all of those extra regions completely devoid of infrastructure in a deliberate campaign to make settling the more difficult,

Is that a thing that's actually happening?

In Riombara it's not. Riombara has been trying for a while to launch a new colony in these lands - there is simply no one willing to go. We were trying to ensure the infrastructure was good actually and it's been ruled illegal.

In Morek Luria is actually trying to take regions away from Morek. There was a serious raid where Luria bought a bunch of regions some weeks ago. It failed because Morek defended itself - and I expect they would. Even if the regions were rogue, I would expect Morek to assault any Lurians that would try to establish themselves in their backyard.

We already have a low enough density that grabbing land is not hard. If we make it any easier we will remove any incentive for war and we will be left with realms with no enemies and no reasons to make any.

[Indirik]

I didn't just make that up all on my own.

I have heard what's happening in Riombara, and what you're describing is not what was happening. Having a single noble play steward to 12 different regions, constantly entering into lordship elections (sometimes running in multiple lordship elections simultaneously), and electing themselves to different region lordships in a continuous evolution (to the point where they won over 80 elections in under one year), is not a realm keeping regions in good condition. It's serial abuse of regional elections. Keeping infrastructure in good condition is not against the rules. Abusing the election system is.

If those northern peninsula regions were rogue, nobably would probably have noticed the Lurians land until too late. As it was, you almost took Nifelheim. And you could have created a new realm up there, with a little bit of creativity and some focus.

Riombara and Morek both take the nobles/region ration to the extreme, and both are bad for the game, overall. Neither on has any nearby enemies, and neither one likely will, until they collapse. They are simply too big and powerful. All those extra regions producing gold for the dukes provides crazy incomes. A smaller neighbor simply can't afford to go to war with that. Can IVF fight off the Riombaran 150+ soldier units, or all the crazy SF? Rio can walk in and crush nearly anyone other than Thalmarkin, or some grand coalition. Morek could do the same against anyone close. (Assuming they can get organized.) If the regions were rogue, someone could walk in and take it, and it would be up to Rio/Morek to declare that war, and kick them out.

I do agree that we need to have motivations for war, and taking land is a great motivation. But when situations like Morek/Riombara arise, the absurdity of the situation is just shoved in your face. Something needs to be done about it. And the players need to come up with some other reason for lopping the heads off their enemies than "I want your land". Like maybe "Your god is evil. And your horse smells funny, too."

[Constantine]

We already have a low enough density that grabbing land is not hard. If we make it any easier we will remove any incentive for war and we will be left with realms with no enemies and no reasons to make any.

I disagree with your notion that the only reason for war is establishing control over rural regions. I further disagree that if realms are discouraged from biting more than they can stomach they will stop having enemies and conflicts. Conversely, being unable to control as many regions as they want, underpopulated realms will actually be incentivised to fight for the richest ones just to keep their economy stable.
Lastly, the only way to create a realm or destroy one is to grab cities and that's never easy. So there will actually be no change in that regard.

[vonGenf]

If those northern peninsula regions were rogue, nobably would probably have noticed the Lurians land until too late. As it was, you almost took Nifelheim. And you could have created a new realm up there, with a little bit of creativity and some focus.

As you said, we could have. We tried and we failed; this is a game where failure can occur. This doesn't mean it should be made easier; the game already provides ways for barely held regions to be taken away. There is no need for the devs to do the player's jobs.

Riombara and Morek both take the nobles/region ration to the extreme, and both are bad for the game, overall. Neither on has any nearby enemies, and neither one likely will, until they collapse. They are simply too big and powerful. All those extra regions producing gold for the dukes provides crazy incomes.

If you want to reduce again the gold that can be extracted from lordless regions, I'd be fine with that - actually I'd be fine with making them cost money if need be.

Riombara isn't powerful because it has many empty regions - that's confusing cause and effect.

I do agree that we need to have motivations for war, and taking land is a great motivation. But when situations like Morek/Riombara arise, the absurdity of the situation is just shoved in your face. Something needs to be done about it. And the players need to come up with some other reason for lopping the heads off their enemies than "I want your land". Like maybe "Your god is evil. And your horse smells funny, too."

And we can thank Thalmarkin for creating for launching a great war in Beluaterra. Having more rogue regions would change nothing. In Dwilight I think it would actually stop the war - it would create space for the western refugees to create a realm, which they would probably do, and then all the fighting would stop for a while.

[vonGenf]

Can IVF fight off the Riombaran 150+ soldier units, or all the crazy SF? Rio can walk in and crush nearly anyone other than Thalmarkin, or some grand coalition. Morek could do the same against anyone close. (Assuming they can get organized.)

Also, concerning this: IVF and Nothoi together could take on Riombara and it would be a fair fight. Morek is disproportionately huge compared to its neighbours though, I'll give you that, but Luria is a match.

[Chenier]

Also, concerning this: IVF and Nothoi together could take on Riombara and it would be a fair fight. Morek is disproportionately huge compared to its neighbours though, I'll give you that, but Luria is a match.

Doubtful.

[Zakilevo]

There just aren't enough people anymore  :'(

[Naidraug]

Doubtful.

Mostly because of distant travel, but we DID actually hold them off for a while.

I don't think setting regions to rogue will help, I think what could do is to decrease their control, lordless regions can only have province control and make it harder for regions with a lord to drop to province.

This would help a bit, and would make it easier for other realms to take those regions.

The main problem is: there is not enough players for more realms, setting regions as rogue will not help and will only make people fight the monsters/undead that pops in from them without actually going to war.

[Gabanus family]

I've actually got some ideas along this line.

I'd like to make it somewhat more nuanced than that—for instance, I'd like to make it more advantageous to grow a realm from the capital outward, rather than making it long to reach an enemy or something.

But the plans I have for implementing this are actually sooner, rather than later...I just need to be less busy at Real Work™ before they can happen.

I actually really don't like this idea. I should indeed be more difficult to keep controll over them, and you can severely limit tax income which would be realistic as there is no Lord to manage this. But letting them go rogue, neah. A realm should always be able to expand imo.