Title: Allow Dukes to Secede a multiple city duchy that includes capital
Summary: The new Duke/Margrave separation mechanic has created a new situation of judging secession mechanics. Under this mechanic dukes can be liege over multiple cities making the restriction on duchy secession an outdated mechanic. Just because one of the multiple cities a Duke controls is the capital shouldn't stop him from seceding if he meets all other requirements.
Details:
First let me list the complete set of current restrictions upon a seceding duchy.
QuoteYou must be Duke.
Your Duchy must contain at least one city.
Your Duchy cannot contain all the cities in the realm.
Your Duchy cannot contain the realm's capital.
You must be in the city (within your Duchy) that you wish to become the new capital of your realm.
This city must not have high independence/low control.
You must have been in both your duchy and realm for at least 2 weeks.
You must have at least 6 hours available.
You cannot already be the ruler of your realm.
You cannot be in an NPC realm (pretty much moot nowadays, save for bugs).
You cannot have a family member who is already a ruler on the continent.
There is also a difference between a Duchy containing the capital being able to secede and change allegiance:
QuoteDuchies containing the capital of the realm cannot secede. They can, however, switch allegiances. To even begin considering either of these two options there must be another duchy containing a city.
I propose making the simple change of allowing Duchies that hold multiple cities to be able to secede their duchy even if one of their cities is the current capital of their realm and ALL other current requirements are made.
Benefits: This change will eliminate the current dichotomy in addressing duchies that contain a capital of a realm. Why does it make sense that one can change allegiance while Duke over the capital region, but they can't secede if they are duke over the capital region?
Two arguments I presented in the helpline thread:
1. It makes sense to me that a Duke can't secede if his ONLY city is the capital of the realm. However, if he chooses to secede and create a new realm while having more than one city, and he makes the capital of the new realm a different capital than the old one you have a completely different set of circumstances than ever seen before.
2. I guess I'm confused what is trying to be restricted here. Every single other restriction I can think of a reason for it to be in place, but this one baffles me. What is different about a Duke seceding a three city duchy(in a 4 city or more realm) and a duke transferring the allegiance of his three city duchy to another realm, (perhaps a one city realm).
Exploits: None that I can think of. Most exploits are taken care of in the other requirements.
To get back to the point I have made in the other thread:
If you wish to change allegiance, you swear yourself to a different ruler. It does not matter that you control the capital, because you do not wish to be a ruler. You're just a traitor.
If you wish to become a ruler, and you control the capital of your realm, then you should seize control of your realm. Why would you seize control of only the core of it?
Imagine the situation, you control a duchy that includes both Keplerville and Eviltown. Being a proud evilstani, you secede your duchy and declare Eviltown your capital. But meanwhile, Keplerville, which is a city in Evilstan but not its capital, remains the capital of Kepler!
I can't imagine any historical example of that. That's like Manchester seceding from Britain and expecting London to follow along.
I think this mechanics does not aim so much at restricting secession than at encouraging rebellions. Secessions should be for border regions with little central control, not for the core of a realm.
Quote from: vonGenf on January 21, 2013, 12:08:46 PM
To get back to the point I have made in the other thread:
If you wish to change allegiance, you swear yourself to a different ruler. It does not matter that you control the capital, because you do not wish to be a ruler. You're just a traitor.
If you wish to become a ruler, and you control the capital of your realm, then you should seize control of your realm. Why would you seize control of only the core of it?
Imagine the situation, you control a duchy that includes both Keplerville and Eviltown. Being a proud evilstani, you secede your duchy and declare Eviltown your capital. But meanwhile, Keplerville, which is a city in Evilstan but not its capital, remains the capital of Kepler!
I can't imagine any historical example of that. That's like Manchester seceding from Britain and expecting London to follow along.
I think this mechanics does not aim so much at restricting secession than at encouraging rebellions. Secessions should be for border regions with little central control, not for the core of a realm.
What makes the Duke who has the capital as a vassal "the core of a realm?" Duchies are no longer limited to being geographically adjacent. The same goes for realms (I believe.)
You could be Duke of two regions, the capital and another city off on the far edge.
Why should I not then just declare allegiance to another realm, and two weeks later secede to form my own realm? Oh, because that's abusing game mechanics? Sure, but why should it be a bad thing?
Perhaps I don't want to rule the realm I'm a part of but want to rule my own. Perhaps I don't want to ruin the fun for all the players in the realm I'm currently apart of by leading a rebellion and then banning half the realm so that I get those I don't like out of it. Maybe I just want to start my own realm and let everyone else be nice and dandy.
The problem is that this restriction was based upon legitimate concerns under a past system. The current system is completely different and as far as I can tell, those concerns no longer apply.
Quote from: Dante Silverfire on January 21, 2013, 12:22:50 PM
What makes the Duke who has the capital as a vassal "the core of a realm?" Duchies are no longer limited to being geographically adjacent. The same goes for realms (I believe.)
You could be Duke of two regions, the capital and another city off on the far edge.
Core as in game-mechanic core: you control the place where the government is located. It's not a geographic argument.
Quote from: Dante Silverfire on January 21, 2013, 12:22:50 PM
Why should I not then just declare allegiance to another realm, and two weeks later secede to form my own realm? Oh, because that's abusing game mechanics? Sure, but why should it be a bad thing?
It's abusing game mechanic only in the sense that game mechanics say you can't secede if you have the capital; if that were allowed, then it would not be abuse (and would not be needed).
Quote from: Dante Silverfire on January 21, 2013, 12:22:50 PM
Perhaps I don't want to rule the realm I'm a part of but want to rule my own.
I think the restriction is in place exactly to avoid people seeing realms as their personal little toy.
When Henry Tudor won the War of the Roses, he didn't create a new realm named Tudoria. He didn't destroy a large, powerful realm with a long history and took its ressources for himself; he took the whole realm and its history with it.
Quote from: Dante Silverfire on January 21, 2013, 12:22:50 PM
Perhaps I don't want to ruin the fun for all the players in the realm I'm currently apart of by leading a rebellion and then banning half the realm so that I get those I don't like out of it. Maybe I just want to start my own realm and let everyone else be nice and dandy.
You're not making it easy for the others: you're stealing their capital!
If you want everyone else be nice and dandy, first you should ensure that the capital is not in your duchy, either by giving the city to another Duke or convince the realm to move the capital.
Quote from: vonGenf on January 21, 2013, 01:08:44 PM
Core as in game-mechanic core: you control the place where the government is located. It's not a geographic argument.
Then, it should be possible for any liege of the capital to automatically replace the government of a realm without an armed rebellion.
Otherwise, this point is completely moot*.
Quote from: Dante Silverfire on January 21, 2013, 09:21:18 PM
Then, it should be possible for any liege of the capital to automatically replace the government of a realm without an armed rebellion.
Otherwise, this point is completely mute.
Agreed.
Quote from: Dante Silverfire on January 21, 2013, 09:21:18 PM
Then, it should be possible for any liege of the capital to automatically replace the government of a realm without an armed rebellion.
Otherwise, this point is completely mute.
Moot, not mute. :P
If that became the case then a ruler should be able to revoke the titles of dukes. Unless the duke could only replace he council except the ruler, perhaps. Hrm...
Quote from: Draco Tanos on January 21, 2013, 11:12:08 PM
If that became the case then a ruler should be able to revoke the titles of dukes. Unless the duke could only replace he council except the ruler, perhaps. Hrm...
Why? Dukes are the seats of power. Rulers only have what power is granted to them by those below them in the hierarchy. If the Dukes apparently have the power of government simply because they have the lord of the capital as their vassal then they should literally control the government.
Otherwise this rule is simply not based upon anything.
No single character should be able to destroy a realm on his own, which is what your suggestion would allow.
Quote from: Chénier on January 21, 2013, 11:40:56 PM
No single character should be able to destroy a realm on his own, which is what your suggestion would allow.
Please explain how.
Quote from: Dante Silverfire on January 21, 2013, 11:32:04 PM
Why? Dukes are the seats of power. Rulers only have what power is granted to them by those below them in the hierarchy. If the Dukes apparently have the power of government simply because they have the lord of the capital as their vassal then they should literally control the government.
Otherwise this rule is simply not based upon anything.
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.
Quote from: Draco Tanos on January 22, 2013, 01:19:31 AM
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.
If you're in a Monarchy you're correct.
You're wrong otherwise.
I can perhaps see allowing a Strong Monarch that power. But other rulers wouldn't have it.
Quote from: Chénier on January 21, 2013, 11:40:56 PM
No single character should be able to destroy a realm on his own, which is what your suggestion would allow.
He is suggesting if in a three city realm with his duchy containing a two cities, one the capital, that he should be able to secede. He is not suggesting I be able to secede with every city of the realm.
Quote from: Penchant on January 22, 2013, 01:31:12 AM
He is suggesting if in a three city realm with his duchy containing a two cities, one the capital, that he should be able to secede. He is not suggesting I be able to secede with every city of the realm.
Leaving with the capital is extremely damaging to a realm. Even if the realm is left with a strongland, or maybe even a city, it may never be able to move its capital and get back on its feet.
Quote from: Chénier on January 22, 2013, 01:34:45 AM
Leaving with the capital is extremely damaging to a realm. Even if the realm is left with a strongland, or maybe even a city, it may never be able to move its capital and get back on its feet.
How about a 6 city realm? We have two cities secede, and 4 stay with a new capital.
Or perpahs what's the difference between in a 4 city realm, 3 cities changing allegiance to a 1 city realm, or 3 cities seceding to make their new realm.
It just seems to me that this restriction was based upon Dukes being Duke over only a single city. With the changes made, it doesn't make sense that in order to secede I must first grant my capital city a dukeship, then secede, then have that city join me through an allegiance change.
I kinda agree.
Having the capital in your duchy is too much of a handicap for a duke as it is. Takes a bunch away, gives nothing in return.
As a duke wanting to secede, you *can't* grant someone a dukeship. You're only a duke, and only rulers can create a duchy. Under the current system, unless the margrave of the capital wants to swap to a different duchy, you're stuck.
Quote from: Dante Silverfire on January 22, 2013, 01:22:21 AM
If you're in a Monarchy you're correct.
You're wrong otherwise.
I can perhaps see allowing a Strong Monarch that power. But other rulers wouldn't have it.
And Tyranny. And Theocracy (except it's an earlier form of Divine Right for them). Everywhere but Republic and Democracy, actually. So 3/5 of the game's potential government types.
Unless you're a very weak monarch, selected by the dukes. In such a case you could actually be a figurehead who's only power is that granted by the dukes.
The simple fact is though that this game has always been based upon the fact that a Realm Councilors influence is based upon more than just their ability to push buttons.
Landed titles however are supposed to be power based in their personal strength that comes from their land and vassals.
Either having the capital within the duchy should either prevent succession and changing allegiance or it should not prevent succession and changing allegiance. It do not think that the rules between the two should be much different. If the concern is that taking the capital away leaves the old realm with no capital and that it may not be possible to move the capital, then either prevent the departure of the capital in all cases or have a fallback.
An example of such a fallback could be: "Your capital has left the realm and a realm can not be without a capital. You must pay XXX gold and select and select a new capital. If you do not, a stronghold and/or city will be picked for you and made the capital. This may result in the new capital being in an unwanted region and will cause greater damage to the realm/infrastructure." Such a fallback would ensure that no realm could be without a capital for long and the random factor and increased penalties ensure that people will not lightly choose to not pay up. The impact on the realm would be reduced based on how many cities are left which is only better in my opinion.
I am not saying such a system would be best. It could be that the simple solution is to just prevent the capital from departing. I do not thing that additional buttons would be needed in such a case. If the duke controls the capital and more and truly has gained political power over the realm, they should be able to stage a successful rebellion and take the crown. Just my thoughts.
Having to move your capital, and the trouble, time, and expense of doing it, is part of the penalty of losing your capital in the first place. The game will not elect one for you.
Quote from: Unwin on January 24, 2013, 05:23:43 PM
Either having the capital within the duchy should either prevent succession and changing allegiance or it should not prevent succession and changing allegiance. It do not think that the rules between the two should be much different.
This is certainly part of the point I'm trying to make. Uniformity of code possibilities only aids the players in making the game easier to understand and thus more enjoyable.
I also think preventing both is not the right course of action.
Quote from: Indirik on January 24, 2013, 05:30:58 PM
Having to move your capital, and the trouble, time, and expense of doing it, is part of the penalty of losing your capital in the first place. The game will not elect one for you.
Where did I suggest that there be no penalty? Having the game pick a place for you could very well be a penalty in it self. Of course, I would never suggest that the game say "BattleMaster Has decided that your new capital is City2 as you never decided yourself." It would say something along the lines of "Having received no direction from the ruling council, officials, clerks and minor nobility have begun congregating in City2 and the people hail this place as the new capital of Realm1"
Additionally, I am suggesting that the monetary cost be optionally replaced with other costs. I really do not know all the details of capital moves but I imagine it like this:
Capital leaves.
The ruler is asked to pay XXX gold and pick a new city to make the capital
If they do:
They determine where their capital is
The capital takes X days to be established
Realm stats receive x hurt
All the normal, whatever that is
If X days pass ant they do not pay up:
They do not determine where the new capital is - This could result in sub-optimal locations
The capital takes XX days to establish (longer than otherwise)
The realm receives XX hurt (more than if they had paid up)
The beginning of establishment was started way later than if they had paid up right away.
I do not see how any of this is suggesting a lack of penalty and I do not see the problem of random selection. It is not taking anything away from players. It is simply preventing realms that lose their capital due to allegiance changes (or successions) from having no chance at all of establishing a new capital. It is but one of many possible ways to make capitals leaving realms possible. If something is not put into place to address the "Crap, the capital left us and we can not afford to establish a new one" problem, I would think that simply preventing capitals from leaving at all would be best.
You all do what you like though. Leave it as is, find a solution more to your liking. Whatever.
QuoteIf tsomething is not put into place to address the "Crap, the capital left us and we can not afford to establish a new one" problem
It's not a problem: realm dies. So sorry, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
I am curious as to what members of the Dev team though think about the base proposal though that I've presented?
I feel that I've made a fairly decent argument about improving the game here and simply removing a restriction such as this shouldn't be that difficult to implement once the conversion is finished, let alone beforehand depending upon where in the conversion this part of the code is.
I think Rob's covering it pretty well.
Not answering as a dev team person, just my thoughts on this.
The people in the capital tend to have a certain sense of pride over that fact. If there was a succession, the capital would refuse to go, and remain with the original realm.
Quote from: Azerax on February 03, 2013, 03:28:27 AM
If there was a succession secession, the capital would refuse to go, and remain with the original realm.
Sorry; this is one of those mistakes that bugs me, because too many people make it, and both terms are actually relevant to similar situations ("succession" being the changing from one Ruler to the next).
Quote from: Anaris on February 03, 2013, 04:04:18 AM
Sorry; this is one of those mistakes that bugs me, because too many people make it, and both terms are actually relevant to similar situations ("succession" being the changing from one Ruler to the next).
Technically its the changing of incumbent for any position but yeah.
Quote from: Draco Tanos on January 22, 2013, 01:19:31 AM
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...
Quote from: Vellos on February 14, 2013, 07:25:25 AM
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.
Quote from: vonGenf on February 14, 2013, 09:24:29 AM
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.
Okay, so what do I need to do to get the attention of the right people to approve this or some such?
Quote from: Dante Silverfire on February 15, 2013, 05:20:14 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Indirik on February 15, 2013, 02:58:26 PM
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.
Quote from: Indirik on February 15, 2013, 02:58:26 PM
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.
Quote from: Indirik on February 15, 2013, 02:58:26 PM
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.
Quote from: Dante Silverfire on February 15, 2013, 05:12:33 PM
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".
Quote from: vonGenf on February 15, 2013, 05:22:54 PM
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.
Quote from: Dante Silverfire on February 15, 2013, 05:32:16 PM
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
QuoteMilitia 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?
Quote from: vonGenf on February 15, 2013, 05:36:39 PM
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.
BattleMaster will never be a game where such mechanics are open. You will never be able to 100% calculate how things will go.
Quote from: Indirik on February 15, 2013, 06:58:43 PM
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.
And if you do know the results of various scenarios of rebellion, it would remove that same fun factor.
What kind of fun factor loss is that?
That's like saying, if I didn't know if the nobles who click "join rebels" will actually join fighting beside me, then that would be more fun.
This doesn't remove fun it makes something clear in a game that should be clear. Not everything needs to be clear, I don't need to be *assured* of victory to rebel, but I'd like to know if I have a shot.
Does knowing the fact that Generals can remove militia ruin the game experience for me? No. It just allows me to adapt strategies to be more engaged with more players.
Knowing Generals can assign militia is fine. Knowing exactly in what conditions that is possible and how often it is possible will create a unit trading and swapping and storing scenario that is most undesirable.
Similarly, knowing rebellions exist and the underground exists and vague notions of what it involves (mass cooperation to overthrow the current government) is fine. Knowing exact answers to what happens to every unit and every militia to manipulate the perfect situation in order to avoid requiring mass cooperation and communication before/during/after the rebellion is undesirable.
This thread is veering off topic. Is there anything else to discuss?
Quote from: Solari on February 15, 2013, 11:13:17 PM
This thread is veering off topic. Is there anything else to discuss?
Other than receiving approval or a decision. No.
I tend to agree: dukes should be able to kick out regions from their duchies and-or get a significant bonus in rebellions.
As for militia, I think they should follow their lord and the knights of the region according to estate shares: if the region has 4 25% estates and 1 knight is a loyalist while the three other nobles of the region are rebels, 75% of the militia should side with the rebels. Plus or minus a lord bonus.
Quote from: Chénier on February 17, 2013, 02:33:59 AM
As for militia, I think they should follow their lord and the knights of the region according to estate shares: if the region has 4 25% estates and 1 knight is a loyalist while the three other nobles of the region are rebels, 75% of the militia should side with the rebels. Plus or minus a lord bonus.
That seems reasonable to me. The only case in which I'd disagree is if the region is in disrepair. If the region isn't being maintained then they should side against the lord. If the region is in good condition they should side with the lord.
I expect that is how it is done now though.
Quote from: Dante Silverfire on February 17, 2013, 02:35:27 AM
That seems reasonable to me. The only case in which I'd disagree is if the region is in disrepair. If the region isn't being maintained then they should side against the lord. If the region is in good condition they should side with the lord.
I expect that is how it is done now though.
A region is disrepair is unlikely to be able to maintain much militia, so I wouldn't see the point in taking this under consideration.
And I doubt this is how it's currently handled. Now I'm saying this mostly on gut feeling, but I don't have the impression that the code which determines militia allegiance in rebellions has changed much over the years, since I joined the game.
So....Can I get Dev Team Approval on this or what? It seemed it has some Dev Team support.
Last I remember, is once someone on the team approves, it then I put it on the bug tracker as standard procedure.
Quote from: Dante Silverfire on March 04, 2013, 04:18:12 AM
So....Can I get Dev Team Approval on this or what? It seemed it has some Dev Team support. Last I remember, is once someone on the team approves, it then I put it on the bug tracker as standard procedure.
That's not how it works. And the bugtracker isn't really the place for feature requests. That's why this subforum exists. There are a few huge things that need to be addressed before any feature requests get approved and/or implemented.
Quote from: Solari on March 04, 2013, 04:26:27 PM
That's not how it works. And the bugtracker isn't really the place for feature requests. That's why this subforum exists. There are a few huge things that need to be addressed before any feature requests get approved and/or implemented.
Uhm... actually, it kind of is. There's even an option for feature request in the report item part...
Quote from: Solari on March 04, 2013, 04:26:27 PM
That's not how it works. And the bugtracker isn't really the place for feature requests. That's why this subforum exists. There are a few huge things that need to be addressed before any feature requests get approved and/or implemented.
Quote"Once a feature has been discussed in the forum and approved by a dev team member, it should be posted on the bugtracker. That is simply because on the board, topics tend to get pushed downwards as new topics get discussed and will eventually be lost and forgotten. The bugtracker is better at reminding us.
Please don't put feature requests on the bugtracker without approval by the dev team. We mercilessly close unapproved feature requests on the bugtracker." -Tom
I'm just trying to follow the board rules. I heard primarily positive feedback, so I wanted to get a final "Yay" or "Nay" from a dev team member before it was forgotten too much.
Quote from: Solari on March 04, 2013, 04:26:27 PM
That's not how it works. And the bugtracker isn't really the place for feature requests. That's why this subforum exists. There are a few huge things that need to be addressed before any feature requests get approved and/or implemented.
I mean, I can take a picture of the feature request option on the bugtracker if that works for you.
Quote from: Gustav Kuriga on March 04, 2013, 10:31:08 PM
I mean, I can take a picture of the feature request option on the bugtracker if that works for you.
If you were to simply create a feature request on the bugtracker without consulting anyone, it would get deleted out of hand.
We use the feature request-classed issues on the bugtracker to keep track of feature requests that have been officially approved on the forum—not just those that have received positive feedback from the community, but those that have had a dev with the power to do so come in here and say, "Yes, that's a good idea and it will be implemented."
More specifically: until Anaris or Tom say "okay". There are other issues that need resolving before either are likely to approve anything.
Quote from: Anaris on March 04, 2013, 10:49:36 PM
If you were to simply create a feature request on the bugtracker without consulting anyone, it would get deleted out of hand.
We use the feature request-classed issues on the bugtracker to keep track of feature requests that have been officially approved on the forum—not just those that have received positive feedback from the community, but those that have had a dev with the power to do so come in here and say, "Yes, that's a good idea and it will be implemented."
I wasn't saying it should just be put up there willy nilly, I'm saying that after it is approved, then you are supposed to put it on the bugtracker.