BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Helpline => Topic started by: Ironsun on April 11, 2012, 03:56:28 PM
-
Unfortunately this doesn't look like a bug, so I'm posting it here.
Lord Removed (6 hours, 45 minutes ago)
message to all nobles of Corsanctum
Scribes find out that due to confusion about the political (or feudal) hierarchy, Conan Ironsun, Regent of Corsanctum, Margrave of Well of Mimer is forced to relinquish his lordship. He, as Regent, cannot hold allegiance to a Duchess.
Estate Vacated (6 hours, 45 minutes ago)
message to the knights of Well of Mimer
Scribes find out that due to confusion about the political (or feudal) hierarchy, Conan Ironsun, Regent of Corsanctum, Margrave of Well of Mimer is forced to relinquish his estate. He, as Regent, cannot hold allegiance to a Margrave. These 50 % of the region are now without a knight.
What exactly is this? Can I be appointed as Lord again?
-
The ruler cannot have anyone above him in the hierarchy (the hierarchy being Ruler > Duke > Region Lord > Knight). A ruler cannot be a Region Lord unless he's a duke as well. A Duke can't have an estate unless he's also a Region Lord.
-
As Ruler, you should now be able to receive revenues as taxes.
You cannot be appointed as Lord by another Duke. No monarch would ever lower himself to swear fealty to one of his own Duke. He can force the Dukes and Lords to send him a portion of their revenues. He can also own his own duchy and region, if he wishes too, but not through allegiance to anyone else.
-
Under the New Estate System, you cannot be a Lord and Ruler, but not a Duke. You must hold an unbroken chain in the hierarchy:
Ruler - Duke - Lord - Estate
If you have more than one of these, they must be linked by an unbroken chain.
Therefore, to be a Ruler with an Estate, you must be both a Lord and a Duke as well.
-
Can you still join an Army as Ruler? I can't find a button anywhere to appoint myself to an Army, since I don't have anyone above me to do so.
-
As a game balance thing this is well and good, but this is simply false:
> No monarch would ever lower himself to swear fealty to one of his own Duke.
It was not unusual for monarchs to hold fiefs that owed nominal allegiance to a person who held a title lower than that of the monarch. This could cause problems but generally was OK because you'd take care to avoid really problematic arrangements, and the fiefs involved could be quite small.
In your "ordinary" case of an unbroken line of Kings, it wasn't really an issue, because princes were given "clean" titles already controlled by their families. But anytime you had a King who had been something else first -- Richard III and Henry IV come to mind -- they had pre-existing titles. Even if they handed out those titles to someone else (as would appear to be smart) they probably still held minor fiefs on the Baronial level since those were tied to real-world geography rather than more malleable political boundaries you'd get with Duchies and Kingdoms.
In fact, this is one of the things that makes feudalism so ripe for a game. If the Count of Blunderwyne serves the Duke of Scarlett but suddenly becomes King of Genfland, he is not going to give up his old fief and he is also not going to automatically usurp his former liege lord's Duchy (or whatever was over him but under the King). The county of Blunderwyne still owes fealty to the Duchy of Scarlett, even if the new King isn't going to bend the knee to somebody who in turn owes him fealty. Might be a smart move to hand the county title to your son and avoid the problem entirely (Henry IV did this with Northampton) but assuming everybody was on good terms, you could get around it just by appointing a seneschal to handle the county for you and avoid any awkward bowing of higher-ranked nobles ot lower-ranked ones.
But rulers most certainly did hang on to pre-existing titles, because the low titles (Baron, BM's 'lord') are the ones that actually have direct revenues rather than relying on middlemen.
-
It was not unusual for monarchs to hold fiefs that owed nominal allegiance to a person who held a title lower than that of the monarch. This could cause problems but generally was OK because you'd take care to avoid really problematic arrangements, and the fiefs involved could be quite small.
This is certainly historically true. Historically, nobles would also sometime hold fiefs in different realms. I wish BM could simulate such complexity, but I understand it doesn't.
-
Need the following clarifications:
1) Is Duke considered a Lord of his city?
2) If not, does it mean, a Duke can rule his city AND one additional region to become a Lord?
-
Your question doesn't really make sense under the new system. The duke is duke of the duchy, not the city. A duke can be the lord of the city, but doesn't have to be.
-
In the past the Lord of the City and the Duke of the Duchy were the same. In the new system, those two positions are separate. Lord of City does NOT have to mean Duke of Duchy. The Lord of a City (or any region, Cities don't have a special status any more in this context) can be a different Noble then the Duke of the Duchy. Should the Duke decide he appoints himself as Lord of that City (or any other region), then he's also the Lord yes, but you can be a Duke without directly controlling a region. You can't own more then one region.
-
+1 for Telrunya and Velax. You gots the new system.
-
Furthermore, a Duchy does not have to have a city. Or it can have more than one.
-
Telrunya, Anaris,
As a noble who plays only on stable servers, the intricacies of testing systems are not apparent to me until they make to my worlds. Thanks for answering my perhaps a bit silly questions, for I lack the veteran's foresight as some of forum members have.
-
No one can predict the future, your questions were perfectly legitimate.
-
So is there a way to join an Army as a landless Ruler? Does anyone know?
-
As a landless ruler, it does not look like it. It may be intentional though, as the point of this system is to not have the Monarch have anyone above them, and them being part of an army would mean that someone is "above" them.
On the flipside, it also means I can't un-army myself.
-
Hehe, we should add an "unarmy thyself" command, with that exact phrase.
-
Under the New Estate System, you cannot be a Lord and Ruler, but not a Duke. You must hold an unbroken chain in the hierarchy:
Ruler - Duke - Lord - Estate
If you have more than one of these, they must be linked by an unbroken chain.
Therefore, to be a Ruler with an Estate, you must be both a Lord and a Duke as well.
So ,what about Royals. With this kind of system it would be quite funny to be Royal under a Lord or even a Duke.
-
It may be funny, but Royals are not currently in power. They already get a lot of benefits. :)
-
So a ruler without an estate/region cannot join an army? Is that a bug? Will it be fixed?
-
So a ruler without an estate/region cannot join an army? Is that a bug? Will it be fixed?
Yes, it's a bug, and as such, will get fixed when we can get to it.
-
As a landless ruler, it does not look like it. It may be intentional though, as the point of this system is to not have the Monarch have anyone above them, and them being part of an army would mean that someone is "above" them.
On the flipside, it also means I can't un-army myself.
Yeah no. If we go to that extreme we run into issues with mixed power structures. For example should the General be able to be in an army unless he is the Marshal of that army? Should Marshal need to be of a higher rank then anyone within the army, thus "Knight" Marshal can only command a army made up of knights so has not to embarrass Lords and Dukes by placing them under the authority of a mere knight? It may make logical sense (or may not) but I seriously doubt that restrictions on this level are going to be fun.
-
Indeed. The current restrictions are only meant for the land hierarchy.
-
This is odd, I thought that under the current system you could be lord and have an estate?
I just got elected as Senator of Nark, which falls under the Duchy of the Margrave of Twainville (both Duke of City and Duchy). I had an estate in Twainville before I got elected.
Both the lordship and the estate would have me swear fealthy to the same man, however I got this message upon my appointment (election):
"Estate Vacated (3 hours, 13 minutes ago)
message to the lord and knights of Twainville
Asleon has vacated his estate due to his election as Lord of Nark. These 40 % of the region are now without a knight."
-
This is odd, I thought that under the current system you could be lord and have an estate?
You can have an estate in your own region only. Otherwise, this would allow you to have two estates.
-
I see, I had read the hiearchy as a lord also being able to have an estate in the region of his Margrave. Thanks for the answer, then I better take up my estate as soon as we return.
-
Margrave has no power over the other region lords. A Margrave (in BM) is just the lord of a City/Stronghold/Townsland.
Dukes are still over all other Lords. But either way, it has to be your own region.
The tree is literally from Estate to Region Lord to Duke to Ruler.
-
I gotta say, I really hate this strict system being applied to the ducal level.
Last month, I was ruler, duke of the only duchy, and lord of the old capital.
Then, !@#$ happened. Iato, having been blighted for a while, was transferred to the Netherworld. After a short while with nothing appearing on our realm list, suddenly there's a magical duchy created, the "duchy of Fheuvenem", and for no apparent reason (given that we've been repeated again and again these days that duchies are no longer tied to the city, that there's no "duchy capital anymore", the lord of Fheuvenem is made duke of this duchy. Shortly thereafter, due to various circumstances, 4-5 of the lords who could vote last month could not vote this month, so when the two lords who belong to the duke's family voted for him, it tied with the vote I got and the draw made the duke of Fheuvenem ruler.
Sure, I can accept that I didn't campaign enough, and that the circumstances were really !@#$ty for me. !@#$ happens. But now, I seek to re-establish the state of things to where they were prior to the magical duchy creation. To be able to vote, I campaigned for a region so that I may regain that privilege. And now I got it, so that's done.
But the ruler-duke-lord chain mustn't be broken. So how the hell do I return to being ruler-duke-lord? I could demand the ruler to step down from his illegitimate dukeship, but then wouldn't that break his own ruler-duke-lord chain, either forcing him out of his lordship over the capital (along with the right to vote and the financial power it grants)? And if I don't, and I get voted ruler, won't that break the ruler-duke-lord chain, forcing me out of my lordship?
Given how historical examples show how it would be perfectly normal for a king to have land in another's domain, why are we having this mind!@#$ restrictions that seriously screw over rulership transitions? Why do suddenly the whole feudal hierarchy need to break upon changing rulers?
This makes turnover complicated for no good reason whatsoever. I don't see why this was pushed, especially considering how incomplete the new code is and how poorly it handles allegiance changes.
-
The new system does create a problem for Lords wanting to run for Ruler, but that has some benefits. Only the most prestigious, aka the Dukes, can win without having to sacrifice their regions. The rest sacrifice whatever they have, be it their region or just their estate.
-
You can:
- Get the duke to give you the duchy title and the ruler title, he would keep being Margrave of a city.
- Get the current ruler to create a new duchy for you.
- Live with being ruler and not lord.
As ruler you levy taxes directly on the dukes.
-
The new system does create a problem for Lords wanting to run for Ruler, but that has some benefits. Only the most prestigious, aka the Dukes, can win without having to sacrifice their regions. The rest sacrifice whatever they have, be it their region or just their estate.
Right, because the game isn't elitist enough as it is and we should put further restrictions upon lower-downs that aspire to rulership?
You can:
- Get the duke to give you the duchy title and the ruler title, he would keep being Margrave of a city.
- Get the current ruler to create a new duchy for you.
- Live with being ruler and not lord.
1) Right, "please step down from ducalship and rulership just because I don't want to wait to resume being a duke again".
2) Not possible with only 1 city and no townslands. Besides, it's intentional that there's only 1 duchy, breaking apart such a small realm into multiple duchies makes no sense.
3) Meaning no vote, which is part of why the situation is at it is.
No, the best solution is that I wait for the rulership elections, then lose my lordship because of the election, and then ask him to step down as duke so that I can take the position. But will that truly be possible? Will I be able to name myself duke if I don't belong to any region of the duchy, though? If not, then that's really broken.
-
Right, because the game isn't elitist enough as it is and we should put further restrictions upon lower-downs that aspire to rulership?
You are not precisely a lower-down...
Will I be able to name myself duke if I don't belong to any region of the duchy, though? If not, then that's really broken.
You will.
-
don't know why you are complaining about the nature of the new system, as opposed to bugs in the new system
the duke+lord of grehk lost city of grehk, remained as duke of grehk in the last week or whatever it is.
---
it's not broken.. it's just the way you set up your realm isn't compatible with how it works atm. if i am reading it right, you basically want the ruler and duke to be a double position in your realm and voted on monthly or whatever it is.. that's just not possible atm. (alternatively, duke and lord as double position.. same thing... ie essentially a 2 tier-ed system as opposed to 3 - not even counting the knights.)
unless you are saying... you want to be duke.. forever, someone else can get to be ruler or lord, but no one else can be both or duke. well, you ain't the duke.... so if there's to be only 1 duke position and you ain't it, then you'll have to boot someone else out of it with whatever means.
---
should lords who win rulership elections be auto-promoted into having their own duchy?
-
should lords who win rulership elections be auto-promoted into having their own duchy?
That's actually a nifty solution.
-
That's actually a nifty solution.
I'm not sure it's the best one, though. It will tend to cause Republics (and any realms with regularly-elected rulers) to end up with a scattering of random, probably-unwanted Duchies.
-
... a tickbox option for those realms that want it? (under gov settings..)
for that matter... allow duchies to be formed directly for all regions once people get used to it.
---
another tickbox to allow boot duke+lord out of his lordship if he wins ruler... to "even" things out.
-
I'm not sure it's the best one, though. It will tend to cause Republics (and any realms with regularly-elected rulers) to end up with a scattering of random, probably-unwanted Duchies.
Oh god the infinite number of duchies made off of rural regions :o
An imperial region, sure. But please, for god's sake, not a new duchy.
don't know why you are complaining about the nature of the new system, as opposed to bugs in the new system
(...)
unless you are saying... you want to be duke.. forever, someone else can get to be ruler or lord, but no one else can be both or duke. well, you ain't the duke.... so if there's to be only 1 duke position and you ain't it, then you'll have to boot someone else out of it with whatever means.
Well, yea, the level of bugginess that came with the new estate system is a little frustrating. I'd have expected it to be a little bit more polished before pushed live. Some of the bugginess is just the non-application of new features that I don't really like to begin with, though, so...
And yes, basically I do want to be duke forever. Ruler too, but hey, I chose to put monthly elections, I can suck up an occasional vote fluke now and then. Duke was never a position you had to constantly run for, why should it change with every election now? I chose a theocracy when I seceded namely so that I could appoint myself as duke should something ever cause me to temporarily lose rulership. And it doesn't seem like making dukeships become a monthly election issue was part of the plan with this change, but rather a by-product of the wish to have an unbroken chain of command. To which I reply: bring imperial regions back.
After all, the reason Fheuv'n even exists is because Guillaume, as a duke, managed to sway a bunch of Enweilian lords to swear fealty to his tiny remote outskirt city and then sway them into participating in the creation of a new independent realm in a quest for glory. It was always about the lords' allegiance to Guillaume, which is why he rewarded his lords with political power (unlike the knights, who did not bring in regions for the new realm). A new ruler may speak for the realm to foreigners, but that's no reason to cut the feudal ties binding all of the lords to Guillaume. Mind you, this new chain of command thing didn't !@#$ things up and create a new duchy and appointed a new duke, that was another issue. But this chain of command thing makes it a lot more complicated to fix things and return them to the way they used to be before the bug butt!@#$ed our feudal hierarchy by magically creating a new duchy and arbitrarily choosing a new duke.
You are not precisely a lower-down...
I ain't, but that doesn't mean this change will only affect me. I'm rather confident in my ability to retake, next month, what I had last month. Assuming Midnight of the South doesn't just TO Fheuvenem and put an end to our misery right now.
But I just picture myself in the days, striving for rulership against longstanding incumbents or mutes. With this change, dukes will become a much more "natural" choice for rulership, regardless of how active and deserving they are. I would have had a much harder time climbing up the ladder.
You will.
Really? You don't need to be part of the duchy to appoint yourself as its duke? Well that's reassuring. Thank god. This means that assuming we survive 'till then, next month I should be able to return things to the status quo.
However, it will mean temporarily losing Sandlakes, and having to re-appoint myself as lord of it. A lot of hassle for no good reason.
-
eh... when you are ruler. you are not part of any duchy (unless you were duke before... in which case, you are ruler+duke)
as ruler, if there's a vacant duchy position, then i don't see why you can't appoint yourself. if there isn't a vacant one, then you have to create a new duchy out of a town/city... though obviously it still means you won't be the duke, because you ain't the lord. that said lord/duke will have to drop off being duke to create the vacancy...
-
eh... when you are ruler. you are not part of any duchy (unless you were duke before... in which case, you are ruler+duke)
as ruler, if there's a vacant duchy position, then i don't see why you can't appoint yourself. if there isn't a vacant one, then you have to create a new duchy out of a town/city... though obviously it still means you won't be the duke, because you ain't the lord. that said lord/duke will have to drop off being duke to create the vacancy...
Said ruler/duke/lord was made duke only because of a random bug. I'm pretty confident that once I'm back in power, I'll be able to convince him to step down as a duke of the duchy he illegitimately got (while keeping lordship of the city). Especially since it seems that my radical stances are more wide-spread in the realm than I thought they were initially.
-
doesn't really matter how he got there. he's the duke. and he didn't cheat or anything. how you resolve it is up to you.
-
I'm not sure it's the best one, though. It will tend to cause Republics (and any realms with regularly-elected rulers) to end up with a scattering of random, probably-unwanted Duchies.
Yeah, it would definitely have to be the same duchy each time, with the duke auto-changing to be the current ruler.
-
So, this whole army thing is kind of a bummer. I know that maybe it seems odd to have a Ruler as just a rank and file member of an army, but as armies are the primary mechanism for coordinating large groups of nobles in a war (and by far the most heavily used), I think it's rather important that a ruler have the ability to join one. Besides, what if he wants to be a Marshal too? Plenty of Rulers who were great war leaders in history.
I don't know about my fellow Rulers, but I very much want to be in my realm's army so that I get orders and can participate in the war. Can we have a 'join army' button? Pretty please?
-
Yes, it's a bug, and as such, will get fixed when we can get to it.
It's being worked on :)
-
Yeah, it would definitely have to be the same duchy each time, with the duke auto-changing to be the current ruler.
Sounds like a good solution.
-
Yeah, it would definitely have to be the same duchy each time, with the duke auto-changing to be the current ruler.
Maybe have the Duchy of the capital city be connected to the ruler. In the case capital being moved have the Duke/Duchess of that region lose their title and the old ruler duchy become Dukeless (to avoid automatically giving a duke a region that's about to fall or something if you moved it in panic).
If the king is killed or otherwise removed then have the duchy revert to a lordless one until a new ruler is appointed.
-
Sounds like a good solution.
for a single duchy realm....
-
for a single duchy realm....
Why?
Basically, all this means is that all realms have an automatic game-generated duchy. Nothing prevents you from having a two-duchy realm in a two-region realms.
In fact, since this "ruler duchy" is mandatory, it could be excluded from the "all duchies require one region" rule. Then you could have two duchies in a one-region realm.
-
Basically, all this means is that all realms have an automatic game-generated duchy.
Not true. Only when required.
-
unless i'm misunderstanding something.....
realm has
duchy A and duchy B
atm... ruler is also duke of duchy A and lord of Y (duchy A has a bunch of other regions)
duchy B has a duke (Z) who isn't a lord but it has a bunch of lords with regions.
come election, you elect lord X of duchy B
which bumps him to ruler and duke of duchy B + lord of X, whilst duke of duchy A keeps both lord and duke title, but duke B gets the boot back into a nobody (or ex-somebody)... eh?
the other scenario would be lord X becomes ruler+duke of duchy A and lord of X (thus region X joins duchy A).... old duke of A becomes a plain old lord of Y... but that doesn't really make that much sense either.
the other alternative is simply.... lord X becomes ruler + duke of newly created duchy C.. a new duchy created every time... otherwise... eh.. where do you place the booted ruler/duke? but the issue there for tim is that there's a proliferation of duchies...
it's not an issue at all in a single duchy realm, because duke and ruler is essentially bonded together into a double title..
-
I would assume he would leave his old duchy behind and acquire the ruler duchy. His old one would become lordless and the old ruler would likely take it up.
The Capital region and duchy would be a seat of power with more prestige and the like than any other duchy in a realm...so to acquire the ruler dutchy and ditch your old one would be easy enough. like dropping your simple throne for the throne of a nation.
-
which bumps him to ruler and duke of duchy B + lord of X, whilst duke of duchy A keeps both lord and duke title, but duke B gets the boot back into a nobody (or ex-somebody)... eh?
Wrong
the other scenario would be lord X becomes ruler+duke of duchy A and lord of X (thus region X joins duchy A).... old duke of A becomes a plain old lord of Y... but that doesn't really make that much sense either.
Wrong
the other alternative is simply.... lord X becomes ruler + duke of newly created duchy C.. a new duchy created every time... otherwise... eh.. where do you place the booted ruler/duke? but the issue there for tim is that there's a proliferation of duchies...
This is the scenario being discussed, except that the duchy C isn't re-created every time. It would be a "special" duchy where the current ruler is also always automatically the duke. The old ruler would keep his region and it would stay in that duchy, but he would no longer be its duke. He can, of course, switch the allegiance of his region to a different duchy.
Also, this would only be true for rulers that are also region lords, but not dukes at the time of their election. If the new ruler is either not a region lord or is also the duke, then nothing changes.
Then again, we also need to think this one further down, as a ruler could also be a knight, but not the lord. And there's little we can do there.
-
so it would be made impossible to for the ruler to unduke himself of that special duchy and appoint someone else?
----
losing knight's estate is no big deal.
----
so when the ruler (+special duke + lord) loses election to another duke, he stays as duke of special duchy (as ducal regent)? what if the winner is a duke of a duchy with no regions? does the winner stay as duke of duchy with no region, or does he become duke of special duchy which has regions?
-
Sounds like a good solution.
Sounds like an imperial duchy/region to me. Best solution, imo, in cases where the ruler wasn't already a duke.
-
I think it's fine to just kick the knight of out his estate if he wins the Ruler election, if he is not also a Lord.
-
I think it's fine to just kick the knight of out his estate if he wins the Ruler election, if he is not also a Lord.
As do I. I'd be happy if the ruler could have a tax-exempt estate on someone's land, but this would otherwise be a fair compromise. As long as he doesn't lose any lordship.
-
The more I think about it, the more I like the current solution. It has the same advantage as our combat-defender solution: It is easy and transparent. Once you are used to it, you know what will happen to you and plan accordingly.
-
The more I think about it, the more I like the current solution. It has the same advantage as our combat-defender solution: It is easy and transparent. Once you are used to it, you know what will happen to you and plan accordingly.
Just to be clear: which current solution is this?
-
boot the lord if he's the ruler (and not duke....)
-
Yep. Players are responsible for knowing the Ruler-Duke-Lord-Knight hierarchy and abide by it.