BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => BM General Discussion => Topic started by: Chenier on October 06, 2011, 05:16:18 AM
-
The geography of the realm is just totally not going to work, it is both too large and too thin. Maybe if it dissolved into 3-4 realms, all within an empire (similar to what Luria is going to do), we could keep being a powerhouse, but otherwise it is going to come to its knees the second a decent group of realms decide to fight us.
That sounds a lot like strategic secessions... If this wouldn't be, I have a hard time seeing what would.
-
That sounds a lot like strategic secessions... If this wouldn't be, I have a hard time seeing what would.
Strategic Secessions usually involve a war, the new realm isn't at war with anyone. The aren't going to be getting a capital closer to a war front.
From the wiki "Strategic secessions are prohibited. This means creating a new realm, through secession, in order to circumvent recruiting-in-capital-only restriction. Friendly secessions are okay."
The issue the realm is facing is one of control, there regions are too far flung to reasonably be able to expect to hold all their regions without tons of court and buro work.
-
That sounds a lot like strategic secessions... If this wouldn't be, I have a hard time seeing what would.
So you would prefer that the regions too far from the capital went rogue, to avoid the appearance of the secession being "strategic"?
I think "strategic" should only apply to actual military strategy--seceding so that your capital is closer to the enemy, for instance. Seceding because the game ENCOURAGES compact realms is merely playing the way the game wants you to play.
-
Strategic Secessions usually involve a war, the new realm isn't at war with anyone. The aren't going to be getting a capital closer to a war front.
From the wiki "Strategic secessions are prohibited. This means creating a new realm, through secession, in order to circumvent recruiting-in-capital-only restriction. Friendly secessions are okay."
The issue the realm is facing is one of control, there regions are too far flung to reasonably be able to expect to hold all their regions without tons of court and buro work.
"but otherwise it is going to come to its knees the second a decent group of realms decide to fight us."
So if it's done during a war, it's bad, but if it's done in preparation for an eventual war, then it's all legit? The act and intent is the same, the only thing that differs is timing.
The issue of distance between one border and the other has also been mentioned as a reason for splitting up. This is blatantly military in reasoning, it's just other words for saying that having the capacity to recruit closer to these borders would help defense should a war happen.
So you would prefer that the regions too far from the capital went rogue, to avoid the appearance of the secession being "strategic"?
I think "strategic" should only apply to actual military strategy--seceding so that your capital is closer to the enemy, for instance. Seceding because the game ENCOURAGES compact realms is merely playing the way the game wants you to play.
Well, that *is* the nature of most of the arguments that have been given. Nobody mentioned "distance from the capital" as a reason. People *did* mention how undefendable such a large mass was and how travel times from one side to another were too long. That the war has yet to be declared is of little importance in my eyes if the action is done as a preemptive measure for an eventual war.
Imo, this kind of thing should either be allowed, or we should remove the rule altogether. It's pretty darn impossible to prove that a secession was strategic. People will *always* be able to make up whatever kind of RP or historic motivation to justify what is, at the core, a strategic action.
I'm hearing a lot of talks of people wanting to break up large realms in order to form big strong alliances. After all, it's been proven that this helps reduce control issues, increases tax tolerance, and decreases tax tolerance of foreigners. If it starts becoming a fad, I would hate to see the people who are better at covering their intent or who keep any incrementing discussions on IRC or MSN be able to do their thing while other players of good intent be punished for not properly motivating what is essentially the same thing.
-
"but otherwise it is going to come to its knees the second a decent group of realms decide to fight us."
So if it's done during a war, it's bad, but if it's done in preparation for an eventual war, then it's all legit? The act and intent is the same, the only thing that differs is timing.
The issue of distance between one border and the other has also been mentioned as a reason for splitting up. This is blatantly military in reasoning, it's just other words for saying that having the capacity to recruit closer to these borders would help defense should a war happen.
Well, that *is* the nature of most of the arguments that have been given. Nobody mentioned "distance from the capital" as a reason. People *did* mention how undefendable such a large mass was and how travel times from one side to another were too long. That the war has yet to be declared is of little importance in my eyes if the action is done as a preemptive measure for an eventual war.
Imo, this kind of thing should either be allowed, or we should remove the rule altogether. It's pretty darn impossible to prove that a secession was strategic. People will *always* be able to make up whatever kind of RP or historic motivation to justify what is, at the core, a strategic action.
I'm hearing a lot of talks of people wanting to break up large realms in order to form big strong alliances. After all, it's been proven that this helps reduce control issues, increases tax tolerance, and decreases tax tolerance of foreigners. If it starts becoming a fad, I would hate to see the people who are better at covering their intent or who keep any incrementing discussions on IRC or MSN be able to do their thing while other players of good intent be punished for not properly motivating what is essentially the same thing.
Yes pretty much it is bad if you are at war, and not much of an issue otherwise. Arcaea had to continually put off their plans to split up, which are mostly based on Jenred wanting to make his Queen a recognised Queen throughout the island because we were at war, and the new realm would have a capital close to the CURRENT front line. I am sure the rule could also be applied if a realm was to split off and declare war on a realm now noticeably closer to the new capital if it all occurred within a small time frame, so no, it can't be done in preparation for a war, though proving that would be much harder. In this case though they are not preparing for a particular war, they so far as we know are not going to declare war on some realm and are just waiting for the split to be finalised for it to happen.
Like many rules yes you can get around it by hiding your intent, that is life, no rule based system works in 100% of cases. Tom has created the rule, we generally know the intent behind it, it is largely up to us as a player based to play fair and adhere to it.
As an aside I guess if the Duchy that splits off is further away from the battle front then the current capital, that would be okay too :)
-
The issue of distance between one border and the other has also been mentioned as a reason for splitting up. This is blatantly military in reasoning, it's just other words for saying that having the capacity to recruit closer to these borders would help defense should a war happen.
Wut? That's crap.
Big distances between borders means big distance from the capital to the outlying regions. Which means controlling those outlying regions eventually becomes a near impossibility. It is proving to be essentially impossible to keep the Akanos duchy under control. Distance from the capital is killing me. I get very large loyalty and control drops every day, that court work and 200% authority estate coverage just can't overcome. They are going to try and send an army north to try and get things under control, but I don't see it happening. I'll probably have to secede just to keep the entire duchy from going rogue all by itself.
Well, that *is* the nature of most of the arguments that have been given. Nobody mentioned "distance from the capital" as a reason.
Taylin has been telling Anatole that the distance from Akanos to Colasan was too big since before the realm formed. I had hoped that we could have Ozrat as the capital. But when the other two Cathayan duchies joined, that makes Ozrat unworkable for the old Cathayan regions. And since the realm is almost entirely composed of Cathayans, I don't expect us former Ohnarians to get any consideration, even though two of the original conspirators' duchies are Ohnarian in origin.
I'm hearing a lot of talks of people wanting to break up large realms in order to form big strong alliances. After all, it's been proven that this helps reduce control issues, increases tax tolerance, and decreases tax tolerance of foreigners.
Splitting your realm because it has become too big to manage has always been allowed, IIRC.
-
To me, it's all the same. That seceding a day before war is fine while seceding a day after war is declared is not sounds like complete bull!@#$. The act, intent, and outcome are exactly the same.
The "strategic secession" rule is extremely arbitrary, and I quite dislike it. People with good knowledge of English and of the rules will be able to pull of with ease what other less knowledgeable people would be harshly punished for. Same for the strategic capital move, really. It's so incredibly easy to make a reason up to justify purely strategic reasons. A well-planned act would be untraceable and unpublishable. Reminds me of when Alluran moved their capital from their old historic center to the city bordering Enweil. It was incredibly lame. But hey, it was "to keep that duke from seceding". Uh huh. I could go on staging a revolt on Enweilieos with the fake drama and all in order to have two capitals extremely close to Riombara too, if I wanted and said players agreed.
The other rules are very easy to verify. When the people exploited the loophole to generate a ton of wealth in Dwilight, nobody doubted that it was obvious abuse. There was no room for interpretation. With these strategic secessions and capital moves, though? Anyone who properly understands the rules can easily stage a justification for what is otherwise a purely strategic act, while other well-intended people will get harshly punished for poorly justifying the exact same act.
The rules should, imo, either be completely removed or given some non-fakable criterias. There's no justice otherwise.
-
Well, turn around how it works. Rather than you can't do this, you can only do this if or for these particular reasons. When is moving a capital or seceding acceptable? Every Duke involved in this jumped from a sinking ship (two, in fact). That's fine, but this whole thing is fluid. There were no plans for this extent and sustainability, in more than just military or realm control, is threatened. Breaking a part into more than one realm given how quickly and unexpectedly a lot of this went down, isn't so much strategic as trying to cope and find a solution to something that grew out of hand. Or is it a case of "you made your bed"? Because if that's the case, it just sucks and I don't see how that makes the game more fun for anyone.
Finn.
-
That seceding a day before war is fine while seceding a day after war is declared is not sounds like complete bull!@#$. The act, intent, and outcome are exactly the same.
Just because you aren't at war when you secede doesn't mean it can't be a strategic secession. It's more likely to be a strategic secession if you're at war, and people are more likely to call foul if you do. But seceding and then declaring war (even if it's not until a week later) could still be a strategic secession, if you did it so that you could fight the war better.
It's the intent behind the act, not the diplomatic situation, that counts. Which of course leads to:
The "strategic secession" rule is extremely arbitrary
Yeah, it kinda is. As is any other rule that tries to interpret someone's intention. It's like a thought crime. It's really hard to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt, unless the accused self-convicts through poor planning or loose lips.
The other rules are very easy to verify. When the people exploited the loophole to generate a ton of wealth in Dwilight, nobody doubted that it was obvious abuse. There was no room for interpretation.
The people doing it sure didn't think it was an obvious abuse. (Or maybe they did, and didn't care?) There is a certain viewpoint (not one that I agree with, mind you) that holds that if the game lets you do it, then it can't be an abuse of the game. I mean, if the game didn't want you to be able to use your family gold as an endless fountain of wealth, it wouldn't let you do it, right?
With these strategic secessions and capital moves, though? Anyone who properly understands the rules can easily stage a justification for what is otherwise a purely strategic act, while other well-intended people will get harshly punished for poorly justifying the exact same act.
Point to any arbitrary rule where that is not the case.
Also, point to any secession that was judged by the Titans to be a strategic secession, and punished.
(FWIW - I can't remember it ever happening the the 5.5 years I've been playing, even though I've seen two that I think were rather blatant.)
The rules should, imo, either be completely removed or given some non-fakable criterias. There's no justice otherwise.
So, what would you consider to be some criteria that couldn't be gamed?
-
i would agree with chenier on this, war or peace - doesn't matter , if you do secession without any rp reason it is simply something against good playing practice, call it strategic or circumventing game mechanics.
in game, ruler can hardly have good reason to willingly reduce his own realm - if region is hard to control he will put blame on incompetent lord (even if that is not true). the others may not agree with ruler and that is good cause for trouble and grievances
...in some better, parallel reality. in our bm reality those in power will mostly find any way to avoid any in-game grievance, no matter the costs, even if they would initiate ooc discussion about planned secession.
the only planned secession i can imagine to be fairly played is the one related to some claim or diplomatic resolution, it can by no means be related to region work hardships.
this is perfect example how meta-gaming kills this game and how probably little is done to prevent it.
-
In general, I think secessions are Good Things. More positions open up, if nothing else. Strategic secessions are only banned in the "getting around recruiting at the capital" level for a reason.
-
So, what would you consider to be some criteria that couldn't be gamed?
Off the top of my head, I can't think of any. Hence why I favor removing the rule altogether.
(FWIW - I can't remember it ever happening the the 5.5 years I've been playing, even though I've seen two that I think were rather blatant.)
This only reinforces what I wished. Even when blatant, it's easy to make up an excuse and then profit from plausible deniability to not be punished.
Over the years, all of the other restrictions on secessions have been lifted, I think we should finish this trend and remove the strategic secession ban. It would make it fair for everyone, as right now it gives greater rights to rulelawyers and otherwise deceptive people over less knowledgeable well-intended people. Further, there are many drawbacks to splitting off your realm, namely when it comes to communication and coordination. With a constantly decreasing player base, it can become harder and harder to fill certain government positions, especially with competent people. There are less and less candidates for lordships as well. The more fractionned a realm becomes, the more difficult it becomes for all new realms to find competent people for all the positions. The drawbacks are hard to quantify, but they are important and present. Furthermore, these communication gaps allow for newly formed realms to seek new means to differentiate themselves, and eventually drift away from their host realm. Generally speaking, you have much more odds of having conflicts with many small realms than few large ones.
I would also do with the strategic capital move rule, because that too can be gamed, and I've seen it. However, I would implement a new dynamic to the distance from capital penalties. Allow people to move their capital to a border region if they want, but have the game calculate the most central point in the realm and the realm's radius from that point, and then add extra penalties to all regions that are beyond that radius from the capital. As such, if a realm was 7 regions wide with the old capital in the center and decided to move their capital to the border, inflict considerably harsher distance from capital penalties to all regions more than 3 regions away from the new capital. Therefore, you could do away with that rule that is too easily gamed, and have a fairer game that will passively balance those who would move their capital on the border to help them in their war. Such new penalties should be exponential, though, to make sure that the regions just outside of the normal control radius aren't too severely affected while those at twice the distance of the control radius and punished in a crippling way, because it's not always possible to have a capital in the most central region of the realm (as it may not even be a city).
-
i would agree with chenier on this, war or peace - doesn't matter , if you do secession without any rp reason it is simply something against good playing practice, call it strategic or circumventing game mechanics.
And i suppose you don't consider "The realm is so big that my entire duchy is going downhill fast, and will soon revolt and go rogue unless I do something about it" a good RP reason?
in game, ruler can hardly have good reason to willingly reduce his own realm - if region is hard to control he will put blame on incompetent lord (even if that is not true).
And thus give the duke a perfect "RP" reason to secede.
BTW - Thanks for pigeonholing every ruler character into the exact same selfish, "It's all mine Mine MINE!" attitude. So glad that you know exactly how my characters hsould behave better than I do.
...in some better, parallel reality. in our bm reality those in power will mostly find any way to avoid any in-game grievance, no matter the costs, even if they would initiate ooc discussion about planned secession.
So in your opinion, every "planned secession" requires an OOC discussion and agreement, and it can never be done via IC means, and IC agreements?
the only planned secession i can imagine to be fairly played is the one related to some claim or diplomatic resolution, it can by no means be related to region work hardships.
That is ridiculously wrong.
-
I would also do with the strategic capital move rule, because that too can be gamed, and I've seen it. However, I would implement a new dynamic to the distance from capital penalties. Allow people to move their capital to a border region if they want, but have the game calculate the most central point in the realm and the realm's radius from that point, and then add extra penalties to all regions that are beyond that radius from the capital. As such, if a realm was 7 regions wide with the old capital in the center and decided to move their capital to the border, inflict considerably harsher distance from capital penalties to all regions more than 3 regions away from the new capital. Therefore, you could do away with that rule that is too easily gamed, and have a fairer game that will passively balance those who would move their capital on the border to help them in their war. Such new penalties should be exponential, though, to make sure that the regions just outside of the normal control radius aren't too severely affected while those at twice the distance of the control radius and punished in a crippling way, because it's not always possible to have a capital in the most central region of the realm (as it may not even be a city).
That's an interesting idea. I'm not sure how well it would work, though. It would totally screw with any realm that did not have a nice, geometrically centered city to be their capital.
-
I wouldn't remove the rule. Just because it's never been enforced doesn't make it pointless, because it probably has deterred a number of blatant strategic secessions.
-
That's an interesting idea. I'm not sure how well it would work, though. It would totally screw with any realm that did not have a nice, geometrically centered city to be their capital.
The buffer variable between minor nuisance and major nuisance should be tested out via calculations before being applied to factor this, as most realms obviously aren't perfectly circular. Running a test calculation to see where it would create the greater penalty, and then checking these case by case to see if it'd be justified would be a good way to proof-check the calculations. Most realms have a city close enough to their centre, after all.
I wouldn't remove the rule. Just because it's never been enforced doesn't make it pointless, because it probably has deterred a number of blatant strategic secessions.
That it isn't removed, however, means that some blatantly strategic capital moves have been passed off as being for RP reasons, giving them an unfair advantage over those not willing (or able) to stoop to that level, because of plausible deniability and the general consensus that it's better to let a guilty person free than to punish an innocent.
A mechanic applied to all would be more fair than a rule applied to none(/some). Got an RP reason to move your capital to your border with the enemy? Sure, whatever, just assume the consequences for it!
That way, it's enforced 100% of the time, and it gives people more freedom
-
Honestly, I think the mechanic penalties for capital moves are already pretty significant. Production/control losses, if you have a small realm it doesn't matter much and if you have a large realm then a big chunk is going to get hit with reduced stats from distance from capital.
-
Honestly, I think the mechanic penalties for capital moves are already pretty significant. Production/control losses, if you have a small realm it doesn't matter much and if you have a large realm then a big chunk is going to get hit with reduced stats from distance from capital.
Obviously not enough if the temptation is big enough for us to need a rule for it and for some to have weaseled their way into doing it unpunished.
Realms who move their capital to their border when they used to have a more central capital should not be able to get away with it unharmed.
Distance from the capital only currently affects rather large realms, even if the capital isn't central, as being small will offer bonuses that compensate. I mean, look at Fheuv'n. Iato's off in the corner, and all of our regions are running crazy tax rates anyways without having any distance from the capital problems. Just goes to show what other realms could get away with without suffering any penalties for ditching their capital on their border.
-
An alternative would be basing the code on the most central region capable of being the capital, instead of the most central region, or a hybrid of both.
-
An alternative would be basing the code on the most central region capable of being the capital, instead of the most central region, or a hybrid of both.
How would you apply it to Ohnar West (the old Ohnar West, not the current shell)? It had four cities, all on its border, and a central heartland.
-
How would you apply it to Ohnar West (the old Ohnar West, not the current shell)? It had four cities, all on its border, and a central heartland.
If the game considered the most central city instead of region, then if all of your cities are on the border it wouldn't have caused any extra harm.
As I said, test calculations should be run before any such thing is implemented, if it is implemented, to make sure that it only punishes realms that deserve it and is flexible enough towards realms that just have whacky geography.
-
Possible issues would also be, how do you count it when the landscape simply isn't flat and normal and therefore have lakes/islands and the like.
Think Riombara/Ibladesh. The most central capitol for Ibladesh would be in the middle of that big lake they have there :p
And IVF is a good case to consider too as it only has one city and the blight is on the other side so it has no choice but to expand to only one side and thereby have it's capitol in the corner, atleast until a new city has been taken.
-
As strategic secession and capital movements are typically orchestrated to get troop recruitment closer to the military front lines, why not simply solve this issue by having recruitment centers in all of the duchies, with the only available troops in the recruitment center being those that were from each particular duchy?
I'm sure this has been suggested before (I mean, it's been 10 years or so), but it makes sense to me. I'm no history buff, but the time era, as I understand it, was really built around various powerful duchies operating together under a common banner due to a strong leader. Duchies would send their armies to fight for their King/Queen no? I assume those Dukes did not have to "recruit" troops out of a capital when the troops were trained within their own duchy...
So it would make sense to me if, and given the new tax code this might be a bit easier to do, Duchies worked much like mini-realms. Distance from the duchy-capital would certainly create more problems with control, which would be added to distance from the realm-capital as well. So that if Zonasa was fighting a war against Kindara and wanted to recruit troops from Azarons' cavalry center while stationed in Batesaor, it'd be really difficult to maintain or even do in the first place, because the Duchy would have to run through Hutael and Paplarmi, covering quite the distance and creating significant "distance from Duchy" control problems, on top of "distance from capital" control problems, which might make such strategies rather impractical.
Perhaps this has all been discussed, but it seems like it would alleviate the problems with moving a capital around for military reasons and strategic seceding.
-
As strategic secession and capital movements are typically orchestrated to get troop recruitment closer to the military front lines, why not simply solve this issue by having recruitment centers in all of the duchies, with the only available troops in the recruitment center being those that were from each particular duchy?
Out of all the ideas that have been bandied around for non-capital recruiting, the duchy-based one is the one that Tom said he would look at, if he ever decided it could work. I think the idea was that you could only recruit troops from the duchy to which you belonged, and you would do it in the "duchy capital". (Which we don't have anymore...) It would not be open recruitment where anyone could recruit any troops that were available in the region. They would only be available to nobles who were aligned to that particular duchy. Not sure this would ever actually happen, though.
I assume those Dukes did not have to "recruit" troops out of a capital when the troops were trained within their own duchy...
No one is arguing that capital-based recruitment is historically accurate or "realistic". It's an obviously OOC game mechanic, intended to restrict recruitment and the way that realms fight wars.
-
Possible issues would also be, how do you count it when the landscape simply isn't flat and normal and therefore have lakes/islands and the like.
Think Riombara/Ibladesh. The most central capitol for Ibladesh would be in the middle of that big lake they have there :p
And IVF is a good case to consider too as it only has one city and the blight is on the other side so it has no choice but to expand to only one side and thereby have it's capitol in the corner, atleast until a new city has been taken.
If the code considered the most central city, then realms that have their only cities on their frontiers, like Fheuv'n right now, would not suffer.
As for Riombara, there's a reason why Fwuvoghor and Grehk have not been part of the same realm in ages. Grehk has historical reasons to be the capital, but Riombara fully has the means to make their capital much more central. The only reason for not doing so is strategic. In other words, they never would (should) have been allowed to move their capital to Grehk had they rebooted from Rines instead, though historical reasons probably would have been used to cover the military aspects of not having your capital farther from your enemy. The form of their lands has been static for years, since the continent is open. It also has many advantages, such as the crazy amount of chokepoints they have (every region is basically a choke point) and how defensible their inner regions are thanks to these fortified chokepoints. Riombara would therefore not be unfairly penalized for choosing a less eccentric capital placement. After all, wasn't the old capital Athol Margos, and not Grehk? Or was it Rines? In either case, I'm pretty sure their true historical capital would be much more central than their current one is.
-
As for Riombara, there's a reason why Fwuvoghor and Grehk have not been part of the same realm in ages. Grehk has historical reasons to be the capital, but Riombara fully has the means to make their capital much more central. The only reason for not doing so is strategic.
Strategic reasons are not the only reasons for it. You just said it yourself: "Grehk has historical reasons to be the capital..."
Does it make sense from a realm-administration-efficiency sense? No. But so what? The reasons realms choose their capital are not solely for efficient operation of the realm. If they did, you'd have people like Stue telling us that picking your capital to support efficient realm operation is OOC powergaming... ::)
edit... fixed some stupid mistakes...
-
Strategic reasons are not the only reasons for it. You just said it yourself: "Grehk has historical reasons to be the capital..."
Does it make sense from a realm-administration-efficiency sense? No. But so what? The reasons realms choose their capital are not solely for efficient operation of the realm. If they did, you'd have people like Stue telling us that picking your capital to support efficient realm operation is OOC powergaming... ::)
edit... fixed some stupid mistakes...
Historical, as in status-quo. Not as in authenticity. The capital was, as I stated out a bit further down, originally on the isles. So in this case, it'd actually make RP sense to move it back to their old central location, instead of keeping it on the Enweilian border for obvious military reasons. Rines was their first capital, and I believe Athol Margos also served as a capital for a while.
-
Riombara's Capital was Grehk long long ago (as in First Invasion IIRC). It was Athol Margos for a long time afterwards. Not sure if Rines had any substantial time as a Capital. Both Grehk and Athol Margos would make sense for Riombara from historical perspective.
-
Historical, as in status-quo. Not as in authenticity. The capital was, as I stated out a bit further down, originally on the isles. So in this case, it'd actually make RP sense to move it back to their old central location, instead of keeping it on the Enweilian border for obvious military reasons. Rines was their first capital, and I believe Athol Margos also served as a capital for a while.
"First" does not necessarily make it the most valid, depending on the character. For example, Perdan's capital was Partora when Balkeese joined the realm. To her, Partora was the rightful capital of Perdan, and therefore where she moved it as soon as she could after getting it back.
I am convinced that no matter where you move a capital, *someone* will be 100% convinced that it was a "strategic" move.
-
When we had this discussion in Riombara, I believe it was said that Grehk actually was the first capital of Riombara, but after Rio was destroyed it was refounded in Athol Margos. Both cities thus make sense.
-
When we had this discussion in Riombara, I believe it was said that Grehk actually was the first capital of Riombara, but after Rio was destroyed it was refounded in Athol Margos. Both cities thus make sense.
According to Rio's wiki page, it started out in Rines. Grehk belonged to a whole lot of different realms before Rio took it.
In any case, the most central cities are also *very* valid capital candidates RP-wise.
And with what I've suggested, only Fwuvoghor and Melegra would suffer extra penalties. In any case, Rio can't seriously believe it will hold Fwuvoghor forever with its capital in Grehk. The last attack was botched due to poor Enweilian movement and TMP, but there's otherwise no way Rio can defend that city from so far away against the west's full force. I therefore would not see any unfair prejudice, as 1) they have valid cities that are central, 2) these cities have historical reasons to support them, and 3) the only regions it would hurt are regions that are doomed because of travel times anyways.
Rio wasn't what I was thinking of when I suggested this, but the case applies pretty well.
-
Out of all the ideas that have been bandied around for non-capital recruiting, the duchy-based one is the one that Tom said he would look at, if he ever decided it could work. I think the idea was that you could only recruit troops from the duchy to which you belonged, and you would do it in the "duchy capital". (Which we don't have anymore...) It would not be open recruitment where anyone could recruit any troops that were available in the region. They would only be available to nobles who were aligned to that particular duchy. Not sure this would ever actually happen, though.
I really like this idea for some reason. Could be that I have a duke character who is really intent on improving his duchy all the time and I think it would throw a nice dynamic into the game. This way lords and dukes would really have a way to work with and against each other. This gives lords more leverage because if they have a strong recruitment center in their region, then the duke will want the lord to stay, but the lord can leverage for less taxes and more gold so that he doesn't just move to another duchy and offer his troops as recruitment possibilities there.
-
I really like this idea for some reason. Could be that I have a duke character who is really intent on improving his duchy all the time and I think it would throw a nice dynamic into the game. This way lords and dukes would really have a way to work with and against each other. This gives lords more leverage because if they have a strong recruitment center in their region, then the duke will want the lord to stay, but the lord can leverage for less taxes and more gold so that he doesn't just move to another duchy and offer his troops as recruitment possibilities there.
I would have loved this in the old system. But now, we don't have ducal seats anymore... Much more complicated. And I suspect that you'd see many linear duchies that all place their ducal seat on the border with the enemy.
-
And I suspect that you'd see many linear duchies that all place their ducal seat on the border with the enemy.
This is one of the potential problems of duchy-based recruiting. Any realm willing to just realign regions on a whim would hold a very large advantage.
-
This is one of the potential problems of duchy-based recruiting. Any realm willing to just realign regions on a whim would hold a very large advantage.
Which, imo, is the cast of most realms.
-
I would have loved this in the old system. But now, we don't have ducal seats anymore... Much more complicated. And I suspect that you'd see many linear duchies that all place their ducal seat on the border with the enemy.
Seems like it could be discouraged by having some code that does something similar to the 'distance from capital' mechanic but on the duchy level.
Or an acceptable tax rate penalty on duchy regions once a duchy grows beyond a certain number of regions.
-
Seems like it could be discouraged by having some code that does something similar to the 'distance from capital' mechanic but on the duchy level.
Or an acceptable tax rate penalty on duchy regions once a duchy grows beyond a certain number of regions.
Which starts to be complicated, forcing us to ask ourselves "is it still worth it"? I wouldn't want ducal distance from the capital to just become another burden that forces more realm to spend more time and maintenance and management than warfare.
-
And i suppose you don't consider "The realm is so big that my entire duchy is going downhill fast, and will soon revolt and go rogue unless I do something about it" a good RP reason?
Not if bloody duke is silent and ruler takes care of it. why having dukes at all if they are silent even in such circumstances? care for their duchy is their primary reponsibility and if they sit idly while ruler cares about their region's maintenence, we really do not have ic play.
And thus give the duke a perfect "RP" reason to secede.
that is the whole point. ruler cares that his duke is holding duchy in good condition, it is not ruler's call to take care for region maintenance all around. if he is unsatisfied with duke, he goes after replacing him and eventuall publicly criticizing him, instead of doing micromanagements.
that should be source of most of interesting things in inter-realm diplomacy. instead, we have all kinds of "pragmatical" meta-gaming, where many in power avoid any conflict, ever, leaving dead-boring silent realm in eternal "stable" life.
BTW - Thanks for pigeonholing every ruler character into the exact same selfish, "It's all mine Mine MINE!" attitude. So glad that you know exactly how my characters hsould behave better than I do.
So in your opinion, every "planned secession" requires an OOC discussion and agreement, and it can never be done via IC means, and IC agreements?
That is ridiculously wrong.
lol, you are continuing in taking my general comments personally, where it cannot be read anywhere in my posts, so it is useless to discuss on that again.
yes, i believe "planned sesession" cannot come from ic play, even if some sort of ic justification letters come to "cover" something which is mostly circumventing of game mechanics.
rulers can hardly evenr have readon to propose secession insted of dukes, especially realm-wide split in even more than two pieces. that does not have any ic sense, that is simply ignoring and character traits. if duke run duchies in bad shape, rulers should deal with them personally and it is up to dukes how to resolve it.
secession is by no means easy thing, and ruler can hardly have any ic reason to propose it, he will always have more control of even bad-shaped duchy, than control of other realm, and he wants ic power, so if he has no meta-gamed guaranteed loyalty, he has no any logical reason to propose ducal secession.
new estats system should do some good in this direction - ruler can decide to impose heavy-taxes on bad-shaped duchy to compensate lack of funds as he does not care for region maintenance as it is ducal responsibility.
or he can decided to be tactile and lower taxes, knowing about distance problems.
that is ic trouble which need some action from both sides to be resolved, and where outcome if not fully predictable (as in planned secessions) which should make whole point of this game called bm.
-
Out of all the ideas that have been bandied around for non-capital recruiting, the duchy-based one is the one that Tom said he would look at, if he ever decided it could work. I think the idea was that you could only recruit troops from the duchy to which you belonged, and you would do it in the "duchy capital". (Which we don't have anymore...) It would not be open recruitment where anyone could recruit any troops that were available in the region. They would only be available to nobles who were aligned to that particular duchy. Not sure this would ever actually happen, though.
I really like this idea as well.
Seems like it could be discouraged by having some code that does something similar to the 'distance from capital' mechanic but on the duchy level.
+1
Which starts to be complicated, forcing us to ask ourselves "is it still worth it"? I wouldn't want ducal distance from the capital to just become another burden that forces more realm to spend more time and maintenance and management than warfare.
I think distance from duchy capital could be implemented to be more of an anti-abuse mechanism than a burden to the game. So, giving an example using FEI geography, Hupar, through various region connections, would have a pretty hefty penalty for being part of the duchy of Remton, but absolutely none to be part of the Duchy of Topenah, Colasan, or Hupar. Unfortunately, Itomazh is stuck with Enlod.
-
I think distance from duchy capital could be implemented to be more of an anti-abuse mechanism than a burden to the game. So, giving an example using FEI geography, Hupar, through various region connections, would have a pretty hefty penalty for being part of the duchy of Remton, but absolutely none to be part of the Duchy of Topenah, Colasan, or Hupar. Unfortunately, Itomazh is stuck with Enlod.
The intent isn't as important as the result in this case. Maybe Hupar has a pretty damn good reason to be in the duchy of Remton? It would create a lot of cases where people will have penalties when they didn't use to.
-
Not if bloody duke is silent and ruler takes care of it. why having dukes at all if they are silent even in such circumstances? care for their duchy is their primary reponsibility and if they sit idly while ruler cares about their region's maintenence, we really do not have ic play.
And who said the dukes were silent about it? You're making a very big assumption here that, from what I've seen, is wholly inaccurate.
that is the whole point. ruler cares that his duke is holding duchy in good condition, it is not ruler's call to take care for region maintenance all around. if he is unsatisfied with duke, he goes after replacing him and eventuall publicly criticizing him, instead of doing micromanagements.
And the duke doesn't care? Again, that's one huge assumption that I don't see as being supported IG. You're right, i the duke doesn't care about his duchy, then he's a crappy duke. But I don't see that happening IG very often, if at all.
lol, you are continuing in taking my general comments personally, where it cannot be read anywhere in my posts, so it is useless to discuss on that again.
You're the one that flat out dictated how every ruler in the game should act.
yes, i believe "planned sesession" cannot come from ic play, even if some sort of ic justification letters come to "cover" something which is mostly circumventing of game mechanics.
Game mechanics can help drive RP. Just because it's a game mechanic doesn't mean that it can't be used IC to steer the game. That's kind of why they're there. If the realm is too big, and the tax rates are forced to be too low, and the regions can't be held in good condition because the capital is too far away to hold the regions, then you don't think those are valid IC reasons to consider splitting the realm? You don't think it's possible that the ruler could realize that either he gives his blessing to a secession, or suffers a bloody civil war that he thinks he will probably lose?
rulers can hardly evenr have readon to propose secession insted of dukes, especially realm-wide split in even more than two pieces. that does not have any ic sense, that is simply ignoring and character traits.
It doesn't make any sense to your character, which doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't make sense to anyone else's characters/ Please do not pigeon hole everyone else in the game, and say they should act exactly how you would have your character act.
secession is by no means easy thing, and ruler can hardly have any ic reason to propose it, he will always have more control of even bad-shaped duchy, than control of other realm, and he wants ic power...
Again, please stop pigeonholing everyone else to your play style.
new estats system should do some good in this direction - ruler can decide to impose heavy-taxes on bad-shaped duchy to compensate lack of funds as he does not care for region maintenance as it is ducal responsibility.
All duchies are taxed at the same tax rate. You cannot punitively tax one duchy heavier than the others.
And rulers that don't care for how their duchies are run, and just crank up tax rates to compensate, will soon find themselves to be ex-rulers.
-
yes, i believe "planned sesession" cannot come from ic play, even if some sort of ic justification letters come to "cover" something which is mostly circumventing of game mechanics.
rulers can hardly evenr have readon to propose secession insted of dukes, especially realm-wide split in even more than two pieces. that does not have any ic sense, that is simply ignoring and character traits. if duke run duchies in bad shape, rulers should deal with them personally and it is up to dukes how to resolve it.
secession is by no means easy thing, and ruler can hardly have any ic reason to propose it, he will always have more control of even bad-shaped duchy, than control of other realm, and he wants ic power, so if he has no meta-gamed guaranteed loyalty, he has no any logical reason to propose ducal secession.
The problem here is you seem to assume that planned Secessions mean that the Ruler was involved in the planning. It doesn't. I can be as simple as two Dukes close together planning to break off an support each other as they are unhappy with the ruler, or a war or something.
I assume of course like normal these opinions of yours are backed by MANY people you interact with in game. People that are so passionate about the game mind you that they can't be bothered making a forum account and joining these discussions. The majority of these forums that disagree with the basic assumptions that dictate your posts are again of course the vocal minority in game.
-
The problem here is you seem to assume that planned Secessions mean that the Ruler was involved in the planning. It doesn't. I can be as simple as two Dukes close together planning to break off an support each other as they are unhappy with the ruler, or a war or something.
I assume of course like normal these opinions of yours are backed by MANY people you interact with in game. People that are so passionate about the game mind you that they can't be bothered making a forum account and joining these discussions. The majority of these forums that disagree with the basic assumptions that dictate your posts are again of course the vocal minority in game.
That's what happened with Fheuv'n. Handkor wasn't involved in the planning, he and a few others weren't very pleased with it. However, with Riombara on their asses, they didn't have much choice but to accept it: better have us as a friend than alienate us.
-
The intent isn't as important as the result in this case. Maybe Hupar has a pretty damn good reason to be in the duchy of Remton? It would create a lot of cases where people will have penalties when they didn't use to.
I don't think I agree with that first statement, especially if the result is logical and tempered. Yes, such a system would impose (some, likely light) penalties to duchies that would abuse the system, and these penalties did not exist before. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Also, to keep regions from switching often just for better recruitment results, a penalty could be imposed where the region would run at decreased efficiency for a length of time and wouldn't be able to switch again for at least another length days, if not longer (like the estate system did when you switched from production to authority, etc...)
-
I don't think I agree with that first statement, especially if the result is logical and tempered. Yes, such a system would impose (some, likely light) penalties to duchies that would abuse the system, and these penalties did not exist before. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Also, to keep regions from switching often just for better recruitment results, a penalty could be imposed where the region would run at decreased efficiency for a length of time and wouldn't be able to switch again for at least another length days, if not longer (like the estate system did when you switched from production to authority, etc...)
I tend to consider that the game already has a ton of penalties for a ton of stuff, though thank god a bit less since the new estate system. I therefore won't be in favor of anything that increases the average necessity to do maintenance, unless it's easily avoidable (such as by not putting your capital on your border when you have a perfectly central candidate city).
-
You're the one that flat out dictated how every ruler in the game should act.
No, I ma not dictating anything, but it seems you will prefer to dictate players how to think.
I just present very basic common sense to show that, if the game is to stay as partly roleplaying game, those in power should feel responsibility to present at least basic sense to their acts, rather than just pressing buttons and caring for their ooc business.
the one who show blatant disregard to any in-game logic is certainly someone who puts his focus on ooc dealing, that was never different since i've been playing.
secession is violent act of disregard binding loyalties, and there is no any sense that ruler is involved in planning of such secession, and there is no any sense that such ruler will hope to retain power and influence over such duchy, that declared independence from his direct rule, logic is straightforwardly simple.
and i am not making any assumptions, i am referring to the original post in this thread, so would urge you to reread it to avoid diverting subject who-knows-where.
-
Sometimes the ruler can't avoid the secession, and trying to prevent it will only hurt him more. It's therefore in his interests to go along with it, as even if he loses a little power it's less than if he confronts the concerned dukes.
-
Sometimes the ruler can't avoid the secession, and trying to prevent it will only hurt him more. It's therefore in his interests to go along with it, as even if he loses a little power it's less than if he confronts the concerned dukes.
original post is about planned secession, which is described in first post and i was curious to see that even such approach is defended on these forums which appear to become place for ooc advocacy too often, instead of promoting game principles (now indirik will probably accuse me that i want to dictate game principles to rulers, as if i designed it - though i find much sense in them and agree with them...)
going along with it is something completely different from organizing it.
-
No, I ma not dictating anything...
Like hell you're not: "in game, ruler can hardly have good reason to willingly reduce his own realm - if region is hard to control he will put blame on incompetent lord (even if that is not true)."
You directly said right there that the ruler can't have a reason to want to split his realm, and that he has to blame the lord for regional problems even if he know's it's not their fault. So even if the ruler knows that his realm is too big, has too awkward a geometry, and that it simply cannot be controlled, is falling apart, and that it will 100% fail and cease to exist, he must blame all the problems on incompetent underlings, put on his blinders, and crank up those taxes to compensate for it!
And then through the rest of your post here, you continue to tell us how rulers have to act, because it's the only way that makes sense, and implying that anyone who doesn't behave that way is only doping it because of OOC reasons.
...rather than just pressing buttons and caring for their ooc business.
Yeah.. because everyone who plans a secession as anything other than a bloody war is an OOC powergamer that never RPs, only cares about gaming the mechanics, and has no interest in engaging with people in IC interaction.
secession is violent act
Wrong. There is nothing that mandates that secession has to be violent, or lead to war. It may be a common (even the most common) result, but it is not mandatory.
of disregard binding loyalties, and there is no any sense that ruler is involved in planning of such secession,
Wrong. Even if you assume that secession should not be a peaceful thing, you are still missing out on many, many ways in which a ruler could be complicit in planing a secession in a completely IC, RP'd way.
and there is no any sense that such ruler will hope to retain power and influence over such duchy, that declared independence from his direct rule,
So who says the ruler has to want to keep the duchy under his control? Again, you're assuming that all rulers have the same motivations: The desire to control as much land as possible, and to be as powerful as possible. That's an incredibly narrow viewpoint that is just completely wrong.
logic is straightforwardly simple.
And yet completely wrong. The only reason you think it's simple is because of your amazingly shallow characterization of rulers as egotistical, power hungry, control freaks.
-
original post is about planned secession
No it's not.
-
logic is straightforwardly simple.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
~ H L Mencken
-
The only reason you think it's simple is because of your amazingly shallow characterization of rulers as egotistical, power hungry, control freaks.
I thought was a requirement to becoming a Ruler? ;)
-
I won't deny that it helps.
-
So who says the ruler has to want to keep the duchy under his control? Again, you're assuming that all rulers have the same motivations: The desire to control as much land as possible, and to be as powerful as possible. That's an incredibly narrow viewpoint that is just completely wrong.
And yet completely wrong. The only reason you think it's simple is because of your amazingly shallow characterization of rulers as egotistical, power hungry, control freaks.
And, ah, even if you do assume that all Rulers are egotistical, power hungry control freaks that doesn't mean they wouldn't go along with a secession. Hell, I'm planning a secession with Arcaea that is absolutely key to my plans to become more egotistical, gain power, and become even more of a control freak. There are also some very strong RP reasons behind it.
-
I just present very basic common sense to show that, if the game is to stay as partly roleplaying game, those in power should feel responsibility to present at least basic sense to their acts, rather than just pressing buttons and caring for their ooc business.
the one who show blatant disregard to any in-game logic is certainly someone who puts his focus on ooc dealing, that was never different since i've been playing.
secession is violent act of disregard binding loyalties, and there is no any sense that ruler is involved in planning of such secession, and there is no any sense that such ruler will hope to retain power and influence over such duchy, that declared independence from his direct rule, logic is straightforwardly simple.
I've always had a simple metric for defining "common sense" and "Straight foward Logic". If you have to spend more then 30 minutes convincing a rational person that it is indeed common sense or logical, then you have probably stuffed up your assumptions and generated a "logical" piece of crap.
When you can put aside your rather irrational assumption that RP is somehow under threat in this game, then perhaps you can construct a logical construct that doesn't resolve around it. Until then is will be the same old rigid assumptions and a distinct lack of tolerance for any innovative or interesting character attributes that may actually enrich the RP experience so that you can peddle a narrow range of "required" attributes for positions that seem to all come from either watching too many poorly made History Channel documentaries, or mass produced fantasy fiction.
-
Secession is violent and self-righteous act of rejecting to recognize what is formal and legal binding.
Having ruler to convince dukes to secede, means initiate and plan such secessions for whatever reason is simply and straightforwardly awkward, in the same manner as planned rebellions, strategic capital movements and similar stuff.
i believe there is no need to make elaborate of that, as it is very simple, but the fact that you want to make even the most basic logic relative is your call and I would not waste time on it.
There are no any "rules that I am dictating", there are rulers set up by game creator and one of them is "play your characters within environment", meaning game environment, not ooc environment.
i can only say that it is saddening to see how ooc playing and metagaming is not only tolerated, but even encouraged through these forums.
-
Tom's rules also include 'Friendly secessions are okay'.
And if you really can't think of any environment where a friendly secession is appropriate or even down right necessary, then you're just stuck in a rigid thinking pattern. You seem to think all players should adhere to a set of rules and guidelines on how to play.
-
And yet completely wrong. The only reason you think it's simple is because of your amazingly shallow characterization of rulers as egotistical, power hungry, control freaks.
I could say that must be a joke, but it seems you believe in it to some extent :-\
very little effort is needed, if you are not obsessed with some presumptions, to see that what you call "shallow characterization" is intentionally simplified presentation of in-world logic most could agree about.
however, if you seemingly completely disregard background and are willing to declare it proudly, than, of course, there are little means to agree about anything with you.
if rulers are not egotistical, power hungry, control freaks, what else they should be in-game environment? they can hide their traits with more or less diplomatic and rhetoric ability, but if they do not have such traits, they are nothing but tasteless slots, creators of boredom, and lol, in that respect i can understand if you feel some of my thoughts as dictates - you simply do not want to be bound with any in-game logic, and than all that remains are fine buddies who do fine things and expect other to do fine things in return. which is nothing, no stories, no agendas, no troubles, nothing to do outside that "fine" agenda which in its core wants to avoid any clash in advance. perfect formula for 80-men realms where nothing ever happens.
calling ruler egoistical and power hungry is oxymoron, as you call priest "obsessed with spiritual subject" or soldier "someone prone to violence" i do not know whether you see how awkward such approach is.
again, secession is act of denying ruler's power, and it may or may not end in war, it certainly depends on circumstances, but saying that it is ok that ruler plans or initiates secession is in my opionion completly awkward and disregards very basic character traits, which in not my dictate, but "dictate" of game background.
and if you do not care for background at all, we have what we have on some continents - tasteless and shapeless slots who press their buttons in utter silence, and there are no means to do anything to fight against complete boredom.
you cannot play game ic if those around you or those in power have no any ic agenda (dictate).
-
And yet despite that very elaborate post, Tom's own words remain 'Friendly secessions are okay.'
-
very little effort is needed, if you are not obsessed with some presumptions, to see that what you call "shallow characterization" is intentionally simplified presentation of in-world logic most could agree about.
Uhh... No. "In-game logic" is not intentionally simplified. The depth and variety of characterizations is what makes the game more interesting. If everyone acted the same, and held the same IC beliefs and motivations, then how boring would that be?
if rulers are not egotistical, power hungry, control freaks, what else they should be in-game environment?
Anything they want to be.
they can hide their traits with more or less diplomatic and rhetoric ability, but if they do not have such traits, they are nothing but tasteless slots, creators of boredom
So you can *pretend* to be have other traits and motivations, but at the core, our characters have to be what you say they are, or we're hurting the game. Because you're way is the only proper way to play.
you cannot play game ic if those around you or those in power have no any ic agenda (dictate).
Having an IC agenda does not require that the character behave in the way you proclaim is the only reasonable way. Nor does it require that every character should be motivated by the same things your characters are motivated by.
-
Besides, sometimes sharing a little power gives one more power. If I help a friend become a ruler himself to expand into lands I wouldn't have been able to control, I'm basically starting myself an empire.
And by friend, I mean IC friend/ally.
-
Uhh... No. "In-game logic" is not intentionally simplified. The depth and variety of characterizations is what makes the game more interesting. If everyone acted the same, and held the same IC beliefs and motivations, then how boring would that be?
can you please make distinction between my simplifications of logic for sake of discussion from "real" characters life? you are permanently putting in my mouth words that i never said.
who said that everyone should act the same? i just presented example of simple logic, which is related with some basic game assumptions that are the same for anyone, and are learned during student's apprenticeship. there are the same things, like oath, bindings, loyalties, titles, etiquette, realm hierarchy, and if you are intentionally disregarding it in-game, than you should make some effort to justify it if they go against very basic game-world assumptions, otherwise we have no any other logic over button-pressing, and we have no any flavor of game background, which is blatantly visible at many places.
Anything they want to be.
completely wrong. over limitations that game mechanics and game rules imposed on us, there are also some limitation which we willingly put on our characters to create stories, any limitations, not limitations i am dictating.
if you do not care about it, your characters are becoming shapeless and not recognizable, and it would be hard to establish any contact with them over buddyland described elsewhere.
of course, we have no time and energy to put into our characters as much as professional actors do, but making very simple and, if you want, shallow characterizations will make all difference over being whatever you want and disregarding background completely.
trying to present it as my personal dictate i feel as a way to justify what cannot be justified in-game.
to go back to original posts, rejecting divertions which lead discussion to stray paths - i see no way how it could be in-game justified that ruler says to his subordinates, "hey, let us split realm into two or three pieces to better control the regions"
that is nothing but meta-gaming in my opinion, and if you want to defend it, please present any in game logic (not my dictated logic) which could stand behind it, instead of making attack on me directly. :-\