BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => BM General Discussion => Topic started by: Igelfeld on April 05, 2011, 09:50:29 AM
-
So what position within the council, (King, Judge, Banker, General) do you think holds the most actual power. I am thinking here about game mechanics and such, and from what I understand here are the basic abilities of the different positions:
The King dominates exterior diplomacy, can change the government workings, and exile nobles.
The Judge controls the prison, can torture and steal from nobles in prison, ban nobles, and set fines.
The Banker controls taxes and tax distribution, can steal gold from regions, and see the exact food reports.
The General can move militia, and I don't know what else.
-
Ruler. No doubt about it, unless they are inactive or have no support by the nobility.
-
Ruler and Judge are pretty hard to split. While the Ruler controls who you go to war with, the Judge can throw anyone they dislike out of the realm. The Banker's ability to manipulate the finances can be useful, but using it will seriously annoy the Lords. Poor old Generals have no real power in gameplay mechanic terms.
-
All council members are only as powerfull as they are liked by the realm.
General who has respect of his army, is very powerfull. Every council member can be dumbed down from its position pretty quickly if realm nobles arent happy with him.
If judge starts to kick out people and realm doesnt like it, he cant kick very many before he dumbed down. Ruler doesnt have actual tools much, his power is completly power gained through dukes and rest of his council. But same goes pretty much with every council member.
Ruler can declare war, but if he doesnt have support from his general, army will not move... and if general dont have support of lords, he wont have army to command etc.
-
Depends from realm to realm I'd say. In a realm faced with war right left and center, the General holds the most influence. I've been in a realm in fact where the General have held successful rebellion - twice. If the Banker is played right, he could rake in the most money, especially if he is also a Duke. The Judge too could be the most powerful, depending on the circumstances. If your realm happens to take a lot of prisoners, then he could get very rich, and acquire a lot of uniques.
-
Ruler and Judge are pretty hard to split. While the Ruler controls who you go to war with, the Judge can throw anyone they dislike out of the realm. The Banker's ability to manipulate the finances can be useful, but using it will seriously annoy the Lords. Poor old Generals have no real power in gameplay mechanic terms.
Generals are largely irrelevant these days, it's true. All hail the Marshals.
-
Generals are largely irrelevant these days, it's true. All hail the Marshals.
And soon the rulers will be too. All hail the diplomats and ambassadors.
Time to order those flowers for the council positions graves.
-
As far as actual game mechanics, I would have to say that the ability to appoint dukes (if this an ability of the ruler) is probably a huge determinant in shaping the realm, But that ability is not utilized terribly often. So in my mind it kind of falls to the banker and the judge.
-
Ruler controls appointments, government system, and has more control over diplomacy than anyone else. Ruler can also muck with taxes a bit. Mechanics wise, that's about it. However, Rulers can be contacted by anyone on the island, which is very handy (though not as important now with the new contact system), and control of message groups as well as innate respect to the position is very, very helpful in a less tangible sense.
General has only the powers he can take for himself, and assigning/disbanding militia. Handy for rebellions, but not much else.
Banker has control over realm taxes (and the ability to muck with the books), which can put a lot of gold in his pocket, but usually only once or a very small amount, relatively speaking, over time.
Judge has fines/bans/lifting of bans/control over the prisons, which adds up to a lot over time.
I'd say Ruler has the edge right now because of the absolute control over the government system, Ambassadors, and appointments to duchies, Judge second, Banker third, General fourth. Mechanics-wise only, of course.
Beyond that, Ruler has by far the best position in a less tangible sense. On the other hand, all of these pale in comparison to the power of a non-capital Duke, especially if that Duke has a Council position besides.
-
It really depends on what your considering as power. You talked about "actual" power, but then go on to talk about game-mechanic shiny-button power. In terms of IC character power, any council position can have as much power as they can grab. Rulers and judges tend to have the most, if they want it. As far as shiny-clicky-button powers, I'd say right now, that belongs to judges. Bans and fines are extremely powerful. Yes, rulers have diplomacy powers, but how much actual effect they can have depends on other people's reactions to them.
-
Bans/fines/etc trump diplomacy, but they don't trump the Ruler being able to mold the government and election/appointment systems however desired.
-
I would say rulers are most powerful, though I have played high-powered bankers several times now.
-
The one that people listen to is the most powerful. It's all there is to it, really. You need people to follow your lead.
-
Indeed... I managed to organize a revolution without even being in the target realm anymore, simply because I had a lot of support amongst the nobility. You can have no titles or mechanics powers and still be the most powerful noble in the realm. Likewise you can have a bunch of positions and be almost powerless, when the realm as a whole doesn't like you.
-
All council members are only as powerfull as they are liked by the realm.
(...)
As I pointed at many times before, depriving formal titles from real power deprives game of exciting actions. When all title holders can be removed by more than one means, they should have power (and, absurdly, the only title which holds realm power -non-council title - is untouchable), so the balance would exist between their power and power of those who dislike them. Quarrels about power would create much of internal political frictions and indirectly create foreign frictions too in many ways I will describe later.
Currently the necessity that council needs to be liked by most of realm create some sort of liberal democracy that has almost nothing to do with medieval atmosphere - fine people doing fine thing, all respect each other, ideal for real life, terrible for the game.
Even the only example of "noble democracy" that of medieval England - balance was fragile all the time, power abuses attempts frequent. Once harmony was reached, middle age was already over... Without power there are no abuses, strong characters, strong stories, nothing.
With mechanics which forces ruler to be some sort "prime minister of minority government" the most frequently we have two scenarios:
1- everybody does his own business, no any real cohesion within realm exist. Besides putting gold in pockets almost nothing happens as no-one can move something to happen
2- over time council, or ruler, created reign of very submissive followers. This mostly works in some very old realms who had luck to never be exposed to some more serious test of strength. Apathy is dominant feeling. Leaders will take care to never disturb customary submissiveness by any new initiative, being fully aware that they cannot gain absolutely nothing, but they will likely lose everything but introducing change in fragile balance of their informal power.
All described i caused by game mechanics. It is like mechanics wants so impose consensus as the only way of realm society's functioning. Together with the mention fact that success in achieving such consensus means boring idyll, it also derogates many founding stones of medieval values - as it was nicely described in some Wiki articles, nobles lived and died for formal title, that meant everything for them, that way their main objective in life and motive which moved things forward. How can that work if titles are apparently empty...
-
As I pointed at many times before, depriving formal titles from real power deprives game of exciting actions. When all title holders can be removed by more than one means, they should have power (and, absurdly, the only title which holds realm power -non-council title - is untouchable), so the balance would exist between their power and power of those who dislike them. Quarrels about power would create much of internal political frictions and indirectly create foreign frictions too in many ways I will describe later.
Currently the necessity that council needs to be liked by most of realm create some sort of liberal democracy that has almost nothing to do with medieval atmosphere - fine people doing fine thing, all respect each other, ideal for real life, terrible for the game.
Even the only example of "noble democracy" that of medieval England - balance was fragile all the time, power abuses attempts frequent. Once harmony was reached, middle age was already over... Without power there are no abuses, strong characters, strong stories, nothing.
With mechanics which forces ruler to be some sort "prime minister of minority government" the most frequently we have two scenarios:
1- everybody does his own business, no any real cohesion within realm exist. Besides putting gold in pockets almost nothing happens as no-one can move something to happen
2- over time council, or ruler, created reign of very submissive followers. This mostly works in some very old realms who had luck to never be exposed to some more serious test of strength. Apathy is dominant feeling. Leaders will take care to never disturb customary submissiveness by any new initiative, being fully aware that they cannot gain absolutely nothing, but they will likely lose everything but introducing change in fragile balance of their informal power.
All described i caused by game mechanics. It is like mechanics wants so impose consensus as the only way of realm society's functioning. Together with the mention fact that success in achieving such consensus means boring idyll, it also derogates many founding stones of medieval values - as it was nicely described in some Wiki articles, nobles lived and died for formal title, that meant everything for them, that way their main objective in life and motive which moved things forward. How can that work if titles are apparently empty...
I always wonder what realms you must play in to form these ideas. They are always so completely different from my own experience. It is non-trivial to remove council members, unless you have the Judge on side. Protest and rebellions require a fair amount of support to work, so really a council member would need a majority of the realm to be against them. The only realms I can think of were the council made any real effort to appease the nobility was the few democracies I've played in. I've found that with Monarchies, Theocracies and Tyrannies, player want and EXPECT their council to operate according the ideals of governments. For example in a Monarchy I expect a strong decisive ruler. It doesn't matter if I always agree with them so long as the character IS a monarch.
-
As I pointed at many times before, depriving formal titles from real power deprives game of exciting actions. When all title holders can be removed by more than one means, they should have power (and, absurdly, the only title which holds realm power -non-council title - is untouchable), so the balance would exist between their power and power of those who dislike them. Quarrels about power would create much of internal political frictions and indirectly create foreign frictions too in many ways I will describe later.
Currently the necessity that council needs to be liked by most of realm create some sort of liberal democracy that has almost nothing to do with medieval atmosphere - fine people doing fine thing, all respect each other, ideal for real life, terrible for the game.
Even the only example of "noble democracy" that of medieval England - balance was fragile all the time, power abuses attempts frequent. Once harmony was reached, middle age was already over... Without power there are no abuses, strong characters, strong stories, nothing.
With mechanics which forces ruler to be some sort "prime minister of minority government" the most frequently we have two scenarios:
1- everybody does his own business, no any real cohesion within realm exist. Besides putting gold in pockets almost nothing happens as no-one can move something to happen
2- over time council, or ruler, created reign of very submissive followers. This mostly works in some very old realms who had luck to never be exposed to some more serious test of strength. Apathy is dominant feeling. Leaders will take care to never disturb customary submissiveness by any new initiative, being fully aware that they cannot gain absolutely nothing, but they will likely lose everything but introducing change in fragile balance of their informal power.
All described i caused by game mechanics. It is like mechanics wants so impose consensus as the only way of realm society's functioning. Together with the mention fact that success in achieving such consensus means boring idyll, it also derogates many founding stones of medieval values - as it was nicely described in some Wiki articles, nobles lived and died for formal title, that meant everything for them, that way their main objective in life and motive which moved things forward. How can that work if titles are apparently empty...
You really must have played in some terrible realms. I've never seen anything close to what you describe. Perhaps the problems were not with the game, but with the players that had the power in those realms.
-
Quality of discussion is in my opinion mostly based on mutual respect. As regards that, if we trust each other in basic statements, we will simply agree that experience can be vastly different.
Not only having experience with multiple characters, but some of my characters moved much, so they "covered" many realms.
For instance, what I saw in multiple realms in current times, habit apparently transmitted throughout continents over time: in monarchy ruler elections, there are often one or more nobles who call ruler candidates to state their "program" , and they even structure such demand into several specific questions.
Once I complained publicly that ruler is to be elected on basis on his previous deeds, his established respect with the realm, apparent qualities, claims etc. as monarch as a concept assumes that elections values those fundamental values of chivalry that would guarantee realm's future, not some "program", especially if ruler candidate may not think such specific questions are the most important ones. And somebody called me "non-democratic".
The fact is if there were buttons strong enough, some players who may not grasp concepts from very beginning would better do it when faced with in-character harshness.
Currently, I am often reluctant to conduct deep discussions about noble values, to apply arrogance toward younger nobles, insist on claims etc. as there are so many angry reactions which often turn to ooc. Absurdly, the more convincing my character is, the more ooc upset some people are, though it is really funny for me that when I say " you are incompetent young noble and your low reputation barely allows you to ride a horse", somebody takes it ooc.
If I pursue such behavior long enough, most of people get it, because of the fact that most of Bm players are clever, some just lack wiki reading and initial player guidance, and they spent many months without grasping basic concepts.
The same parallel can be drawn with realm council buttons - they would help players to better, quicker and easier understand what tyranny, monarch etc. is, they will barely understand anything if seeing ruler is trying to please them.
At this point I can also ask myself where you draw your experience, probably within some of large and long-established realms, where changes in game mechanics did not affect players habits.
And I really needs to disagree with your indirect statement that there is no enough means to get rid of council members.
Let us take some tyrant as and example. Would it be realistic that few protests can take him off the throne? Certainly not, what would be his power than. So there is option of either mass protest or well-prepared rebellion that does not have to have extremely much nobles involved. Or persuading strong dukes or other council members against him... So vast number of oppotunity which give chance for funny.
But it is actually not so funny to overthrow someone who is not powerful, lack of such buttons simply sterilizes game in many aspects. I am almost convinced that if council members have more power, they would be attacked more often.
-
Depends, you take Tyrant to mean something like
1. An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions.
2. A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner.
3. An oppressive, harsh, arbitrary person.
I think it was mentioned on the D-list before that what is meant by Tyrant in game is
(Historical Terms) (esp in ancient Greece) a ruler whose authority lacked the sanction of law or custom; usurper
I get where you are comming from, but honestly I think you are ignoring the fun aspect for most the realm in order to impose arbitrary beliefs of historical accuracy. For example you say
Currently, I am often reluctant to conduct deep discussions about noble values, to apply arrogance toward younger nobles, insist on claims etc. as there are so many angry reactions which often turn to ooc. Absurdly, the more convincing my character is, the more ooc upset some people are, though it is really funny for me that when I say " you are incompetent young noble and your low reputation barely allows you to ride a horse", somebody takes it ooc.
But if we wanted to be accurate, the age of the noble would in most cases be far less important then what family he comes from. It was unlikely anyone would have talked in such a manner to young member of the House of Plantagenet unless there own family outranked them.
Like wise I have always understood the fundamental values of chivalry to be largely romanticised rules created in later periods, with a basis in the behaviour of knights in the last phases of the middle ages when their dominant role on the battlefield had largely been usurped by infantry.
I simply don't agree that those example you gave are really anything wrong or bad in the context of the game. Realms are always going to exist on a spectrum, and that spectrum is only partially going to be based on history, a good part of a realms identity is going to be bases on what the majority of its members find to be fun. Like the rest of us you will just have to search until you find a realm that meets YOUR expectations, or create your own.
-
We should keep in mind that it is very likely that the vast majority of players don't know anything substantial about the real Middle Ages. It's kind of like Medipunk, if that exists.
-
Depends, you take Tyrant to mean something like
1. An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions.
2. A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner.
3. An oppressive, harsh, arbitrary person.
I think it was mentioned on the D-list before that what is meant by Tyrant in game is
(Historical Terms) (esp in ancient Greece) a ruler whose authority lacked the sanction of law or custom; usurper
i would simplify and say that tyrant could be the one who usurps too much power and his vasals can either find fun to support him or find fun in overthrow him, both these alternatives having potential for in-game fun.
diluted council power, however, mitigates potential conflicts. it would be much better that game mechanics encourages conflicts instead of mitigating them.
i would like to be part of consensus democracy in real life. in game - it is really not funny - for me and i daresay for many others.
I get where you are coming from, but honestly I think you are ignoring the fun aspect for most the realm in order to impose arbitrary beliefs of historical accuracy. For example you say
But if we wanted to be accurate, the age of the noble would in most cases be far less important then what family he comes from. It was unlikely anyone would have talked in such a manner to young member of the House of Plantagenet unless there own family outranked them.
Like wise I have always understood the fundamental values of chivalry to be largely romanticised rules created in later periods, with a basis in the behaviour of knights in the last phases of the middle ages when their dominant role on the battlefield had largely been usurped by infantry.
there is almost no doubt that most of chivalry issues comes from domain of epic development of legends, like most of things in the whole history.
but we are trying to create world which resembles middle age in idealized way. i doubt too many people care for accuracy. do whatever you believe it could happen in middle age, but at least try to resemble it, do not resemble modern democracy where it clearly does not belong to.
you are right when saying - find your own place, create your own realm. but in such case game mechanics should be neutral, to allow us to choose different paths, which is not the case now, where game mechanics seems to favorize consensus democracy, at the same time making other ways incredibly hard to achieve, if not impossible.
-
Speaking of Council positions, since I've had my chars paused for a long time, I must ask.
A council position these days seem to have a "power level" which can be either strong, balanced or weak.
What does this mean in practical terms?
-
Speaking of Council positions, since I've had my chars paused for a long time, I must ask.
A council position these days seem to have a "power level" which can be either strong, balanced or weak.
What does this mean in practical terms?
Very little, I believe it is something that is not implemented or only partially implemented.
-
Speaking of Council positions, since I've had my chars paused for a long time, I must ask.
A council position these days seem to have a "power level" which can be either strong, balanced or weak.
What does this mean in practical terms?
Nothing at all, if I'm correct. It has not been implemented in any way thus far.
-
Nothing at all, if I'm correct. It has not been implemented in any way thus far.
This is correct. There are plans to do something with it, but currently it does nothing.
-
Foundation is actually working on removing that from the interface for now. In fact, he's been taking on the job of "Code Deletion Engineer" lately, removing a lot of things from the interface that were broken, unimplemented, or obsolete.
-
Personally, I'd like to see the ruler being given the option of dismissing the Council to allow new appointments/elections. Having to deal with the previous ruler's choices doesn't really make much sense, especially in all but democracies and, to a degree, republics. If the general membership disagrees with the ruler's choice, there can be protests.
-
So let the ruler call for protests against the council if he wants them gone. If the realm agrees, they'll do what he asks.
-
Personally, I'd like to see the ruler being given the option of dismissing the Council to allow new appointments/elections. Having to deal with the previous ruler's choices doesn't really make much sense, especially in all but democracies and, to a degree, republics. If the general membership disagrees with the ruler's choice, there can be protests.
I would like to see this feature in tyrannies. ;D
-
Name a classical monarchy, tyranny, or republic where the ruler does not have the right/ability to remove cabinet-level members of the government. Even in modern republics this is a standard thing. Pretty sure in modern monarchies most monarchs have the right as well, even if it's not practiced (due to possible protests against -them-).
The ruler should not have to call on the general membership to protest a person out of a position. The person could do an adequate enough job, but the purpose of a cabinet/council is historically to be a trusted group of advisers. i.e. a privy council.
-
Name a classical monarchy, tyranny, or republic where the ruler does not have the right/ability to remove cabinet-level members of the government. Even in modern republics this is a standard thing. Pretty sure in modern monarchies most monarchs have the right as well, even if it's not practiced (due to possible protests against -them-).
The ruler should not have to call on the general membership to protest a person out of a position. The person could do an adequate enough job, but the purpose of a cabinet/council is historically to be a trusted group of advisers. i.e. a privy council.
Indeed, In Australia the Governor General, who is the Queens Representative has the power to dissolve the government, or more accurately dismiss the Prime Minister. It has happened only once in our history. In fact when you read their full powers they can appoint the Prime Minister as well, but by tradition they just give the position to the leader of the party that has the lower house majority.
-
yeah well only thing is as said before. rulers are not just rulers.. they are also dukes, etc... which they aren't in the game.
they solve problems with armies, which they can't in the game.
-
Haha, anti-rebellion. The opposite of a rebellion: Only this time it's the ruler taking his army and curbstomping any who oppose him.
Not gonna happen for real though. That would probably lead to a whole ton of bigger problems.
-
well it's easy enough to happen when the ruler is a duke.. so in essence it's a duke who go around stomping other dukes/counts.. just as it can be a bunch of counts who whack a duke.
-
Name a classical monarchy, tyranny, or republic where the ruler does not have the right/ability to remove cabinet-level members of the government. Even in modern republics this is a standard thing. Pretty sure in modern monarchies most monarchs have the right as well, even if it's not practiced (due to possible protests against -them-).
The ruler should not have to call on the general membership to protest a person out of a position. The person could do an adequate enough job, but the purpose of a cabinet/council is historically to be a trusted group of advisers. i.e. a privy council.
In monarchies, the default title for the judge is Arch Priest. In ancient times, whenever the arch priest and the king were not the same person, the arch priest had the power to appoint the ruler (or crown him, otherwise) and was otherwise untouchable by the king. As for modern republics, supreme court judges are usually completely protected by law from the government in power.
I know I personally RPed along these lines as Arch Priest of Fwuvoghor, was loads of fun. Independent judges in conflicted realms are awesome, if you ask me.
Imo, the best way to deal with this was if the council powers were actually used, so that a weak ruler could not dismiss a strong judge, but where a strong ruler could dismiss a weak judge. As long as council powers are only modifiable following rebellions or anarchy.
-
The old Pian en Luries on Dwilight was a great way to look at this question, as there each member of the Realm Council was clearly a powerful and self-interested character (I mean that as a compliment :)) It actually led to a weird sort of balance where no one was really eager for a rebellion. Ultimately though, the answer is simple enough.
If you include Dukes, as members of any Realm Council, it goes to them. Once you're in place, you're untouchable. A good portion of the realm is loyal to you. You have the ability to leave the realm and join another, or start your own. You rake in the gold (and can rake in more through inventive use of the Duchy tax system) while never having to face reelection, or if you do, having the best recognized claim.
After that, it goes to the Rulers. The biggest part of that is appointments, not just to Imperial Regions and Cities, but to Realm Council positions for life, if the Ruler so chooses. Easy answers, if you ask me.
Finton.
-
Name a classical monarchy, tyranny, or republic where the ruler does not have the right/ability to remove cabinet-level members of the government. Even in modern republics this is a standard thing. Pretty sure in modern monarchies most monarchs have the right as well, even if it's not practiced (due to possible protests against -them-).
The ruler should not have to call on the general membership to protest a person out of a position. The person could do an adequate enough job, but the purpose of a cabinet/council is historically to be a trusted group of advisers. i.e. a privy council.
England.
Note the propensity for controversial assassinations of high ecclesiastical authorities. Easier to kill than to remove in some cases.
-
England.
Note the propensity for controversial assassinations of high ecclesiastical authorities. Easier to kill than to remove in some cases.
Actually, as far as I am aware the monarchy can indeed dissolve parliament, which is in effect the equivalent of the councils in BM. Although it is currently debated whether she could do so legally without the permission of Parliament.
-
yeah well only thing is as said before. rulers are not just rulers.. they are also dukes, etc... which they aren't in the game.
If we wanted to make monarchies function more like the historical examples (England and France in particular), that'd actually be the best way imo. Have the King also be Duke of the Capital.
-
If we wanted to make monarchies function more like the historical examples (England and France in particular), that'd actually be the best way imo. Have the King also be Duke of the Capital.
I agree. Put those two together and you have the security to face down opposition and actually lead your country as a true monarch, rather than a figurehead or Ambassador with a nicer title. It is being done too, in some realms, but I do feel that it would be better were it a more common trend.
Finton.
-
I agree. Put those two together and you have the security to face down opposition and actually lead your country as a true monarch, rather than a figurehead or Ambassador with a nicer title. It is being done too, in some realms, but I do feel that it would be better were it a more common trend.
Finton.
If I can pull it off in a republic, then people just aren't trying hard enough! ;)
-
And then we run up against the issue of wanting more positions available for people who don't already have positions. That's an old, old fight and I've argued the issue from both sides at various times. I still think the best solutions are to:
1. Actually implement some way for Ruler/Council to impose taxes on cities.
2. Bring back auto-bans (or grant the Judge some way to impose a ban in some period afterwards) for those who defect with regions.
That second one is totally going to screw up some plans of mine, but I still think it's necessary. Committing high-treason with no possibility of actually getting banned is bull!@#$. Ruler/Council gets a lot more power if those Dukes are courting death or deportation when they secede or defect.
-
I can think of a really strange idea about secessions. You know how control actually refers to realm control? Well, so long as the control is Main or above, that technically means the realm has a fairly strong leash on the region. I'd say don't let a duke secede while control over his city is at Main or above. Add to that the ability for taxes on the city.
So how to balance these? Let those council-imposed taxes decrease realm control slightly for every day they are in effect, with the control lowering effects scaling with the tax rate imposed. This means evil tyrants can't keep dukes imprisoned within their own city unless they seriously dedicate a lot of police and the judge keeps holding harsh courts there. Even then it's not guaranteed to keep the region at above Main. On the flipside, this would mean that the duke needs to consider more the trade-off. Is it really that bad in the realm that they should sacrifice some stability in order to sever with the parent realm? Are they really that intent on being their own realm as opposed to keeping their current position?
I'd say that the stats penalty after secession would still apply, such that a recently seceded city would be at around Occupied control immediately after secession, meaning you better hold courts and do police work. It shouldn't be that easy to pull off. You should have a good plan post-secession. As of now, for some duchies, it's all too easy just to click the link and let your new realm sort it out on its own with estate coverage.
-
I can think of a really strange idea about secessions. You know how control actually refers to realm control? Well, so long as the control is Main or above, that technically means the realm has a fairly strong leash on the region. I'd say don't let a duke secede while control over his city is at Main or above. Add to that the ability for taxes on the city.
So how to balance these? Let those council-imposed taxes decrease realm control slightly for every day they are in effect, with the control lowering effects scaling with the tax rate imposed. This means evil tyrants can't keep dukes imprisoned within their own city unless they seriously dedicate a lot of police and the judge keeps holding harsh courts there. Even then it's not guaranteed to keep the region at above Main. On the flipside, this would mean that the duke needs to consider more the trade-off. Is it really that bad in the realm that they should sacrifice some stability in order to sever with the parent realm? Are they really that intent on being their own realm as opposed to keeping their current position?
I'd say that the stats penalty after secession would still apply, such that a recently seceded city would be at around Occupied control immediately after secession, meaning you better hold courts and do police work. It shouldn't be that easy to pull off. You should have a good plan post-secession. As of now, for some duchies, it's all too easy just to click the link and let your new realm sort it out on its own with estate coverage.
My only thought here is that the realm control in the mind of the minor nobility and peasants is represented in the person of the Duke/Duchess. They owe their loyality to the realm via their liege and not a direct oath to the realm itself.
-
I haven't kept up with this topic much, but skimming some of the posts...
Why are we looking for a way to discourage secessions, rebellions, etc.?
It isn't like they are all that common, and successful ones are even more rare. Personally, I think we need more of them, not less. People already complain enough about entrenched council members in positions and realms that hardly ever change. I don't think we need to do anything to make changes to these structures (new realms via secession, change in leadership via rebellions, etc.) more difficult.
-
There may not be many successful secessions, but the threat of secession is a major problem. A number of people, me included, think that too much power has gone to the Dukes which makes realms less cohesive and means more intriguing and less realm vs realm fighting.
-
By intriguing, depending on who you are that might not mean one of its definitions as synonym of interesting.
-
I think the problem isn't so much "genuine" successions as "suicide" secesssions.
To create a stable realm out of a succession you need a strong group of supporters, a suitable mix of recruitment centres and a reasonable foreign standing. But if you dont really want to create something new and are only interested in hurting your current realm, then you basically just need to press a button. Most Dukes can severely wound their realm with ease.
-
But if you dont really want to create something new and are only interested in hurting your current realm, then you basically just need to press a button.
An unfortunate result of the Internet !@#$%^& syndrome. You know that no matter what happens, you're perfectly safe sitting there behind your computer screen. And on top of that, your character is pretty much guaranteed to survive as well. This combines to let people have their characters do stuff that would almost certainly cause a real person's head to take a permanent leave of absence from their body.
Now, that;s not always necessarily bad. It does sometimes keep the game interesting. But it does enable some griefing behavior, and related dweebishness.
-
An unfortunate result of the Internet !@#$%^& syndrome. You know that no matter what happens, you're perfectly safe sitting there behind your computer screen. And on top of that, your character is pretty much guaranteed to survive as well. This combines to let people have their characters do stuff that would almost certainly cause a real person's head to take a permanent leave of absence from their body.
Now, that;s not always necessarily bad. It does sometimes keep the game interesting. But it does enable some griefing behavior, and related dweebishness.
I wouldn't say it is that easy. Generally, dukeships aren't handed to nobles new to the realm. Often there is a big investment for a character to get appointed to one. Seceeding just to hurt the realm also throws all his time and effort in the toilet aswell.
So even if the character is pretty sure he'll survive, he has still thrown away a priviliged standing in the realm and has to start completely fresh at the bottom of another.
-
Hehe...see the Lefanis family.
-
Hehe...see the Lefanis family.
Fools are there to be fooled.
-
So even if the character is pretty sure he'll survive, he has still thrown away a priviliged standing in the realm and has to start completely fresh at the bottom of another.
Except you're not starting fresh, especially if you go to the enemy of the previous realm that's delighted you just crippled their foe. People who have had positions get them more frequently, often regardless of how they left their old realm (especially if that was on another continent).
-
Except you're not starting fresh, especially if you go to the enemy of the previous realm that's delighted you just crippled their foe. People who have had positions get them more frequently, often regardless of how they left their old realm (especially if that was on another continent).
Yeah ok, you do have a point there.
-
The topic of Dukes having too much power is fascinating - and that is something I strongly agree with. It is quite possible to evict a council member, including a ruler (by protesting, even if the position is un-electable), but good luck doing that with a Duke. Oh, and you can also remove most council members by assassination. To me that says that Dukes have waaay too much power, being mostly immune to this as well.
But let's get back to the original post.
I have long argued that in the council, only two of the four positions have any actual power -- the judge and the banker (probably in that order). Ruler and general really have none. There is no gold associated with the position (unless the banker says so).
Yes, the ruler controls diplomacy, but that just gives you the power to seriously damage the realm by drawing it into a war. Having a big suicide button does not equal to having actual power. And if your realm-mates realize you are trying that, they can easily protest you out in a moment.
And yes, yes, I am talking about the power of shiny shiny buttons. And yes, one may have power in the realm by commanding respect and support of other nobles without having any buttons. But that does not require you to have a position of power. In fact, you'd be better off having a dukeship position instead (which is subject to less risk of losing it and comes with much more gold), if your plan is to lead through respect of other nobles.
I think it would be helpful to add some additional buttons for the ruler and the general -- because now I would (and have!) chose to be a marshal instead of general any time. Either to provide these two positions with additional power or at least to make it more interesting to play these prestigious positions.
-
The topic of Dukes having too much power is fascinating - and that is something I strongly agree with. It is quite possible to evict a council member, including a ruler (by protesting, even if the position is un-electable), but good luck doing that with a Duke. Oh, and you can also remove most council members by assassination. To me that says that Dukes have waaay too much power, being mostly immune to this as well.
But let's get back to the original post.
I have long argued that in the council, only two of the four positions have any actual power -- the judge and the banker (probably in that order). Ruler and general really have none. There is no gold associated with the position (unless the banker says so).
Yes, the ruler controls diplomacy, but that just gives you the power to seriously damage the realm by drawing it into a war. Having a big suicide button does not equal to having actual power. And if your realm-mates realize you are trying that, they can easily protest you out in a moment.
Really? The power to declare war, change the way the other positions are elected, appoint lords of imperial regions and vacated ducal seats, these don't represent power to you? What about signing treaties, changing the name of the realm, changing the realm banner? Have you played a ruler and seen all the buttons you get, especially in the capital?
And yes, yes, I am talking about the power of shiny shiny buttons. And yes, one may have power in the realm by commanding respect and support of other nobles without having any buttons. But that does not require you to have a position of power. In fact, you'd be better off having a dukeship position instead (which is subject to less risk of losing it and comes with much more gold), if your plan is to lead through respect of other nobles.
I think it would be helpful to add some additional buttons for the ruler and the general -- because now I would (and have!) chose to be a marshal instead of general any time. Either to provide these two positions with additional power or at least to make it more interesting to play these prestigious positions.
I agree about the general's position, but saying that the banker is more powerful than the ruler is a bit crazy.
-
Really? The power to declare war, change the way the other positions are elected, appoint lords of imperial regions and vacated ducal seats, these don't represent power to you? What about signing treaties, changing the name of the realm, changing the realm banner? Have you played a ruler and seen all the buttons you get, especially in the capital?
I agree about the general's position, but saying that the banker is more powerful than the ruler is a bit crazy.
Power to change diplomacy is going away under the new treaty system (though Ruler gets to control Ambassador appointments, so partially still there), there's talk about doing away with appointing of imperial lords, and every time the Ruler does anything the game tells you to look at it carefully and start protesting if you don't like it. You ever seen what happens to Rulers who change the government system without getting the realm's buy-in first? It's not fun for the Ruler.
But, yeah, I'd still say the Ruler had more power than the Banker. The minor powers left to steal gold and change taxes are pretty pathetic.
-
Power to change diplomacy is going away under the new treaty system (though Ruler gets to control Ambassador appointments, so partially still there), there's talk about doing away with appointing of imperial lords, and every time the Ruler does anything the game tells you to look at it carefully and start protesting if you don't like it. You ever seen what happens to Rulers who change the government system without getting the realm's buy-in first? It's not fun for the Ruler.
But, yeah, I'd still say the Ruler had more power than the Banker. The minor powers left to steal gold and change taxes are pretty pathetic.
We need some way for the ruler to be rich. That way he is more like a super-duke. Obviously rulers often had cities of their own in medieval times however I think we need to simulate this sort of power balance without actually forcing the ruler to own a city also (since we don't promote that according to the game mechanics.)
Basically the ruler needs to some way to increase his mojo dramatically, he shouldn't just be symbol for the realm's collective interests. This is more of a modern idea.
-
We need some way for the ruler to be rich. That way he is more like a super-duke. Obviously rulers often had cities of their own in medieval times however I think we need to simulate this sort of power balance without actually forcing the ruler to own a city also (since we don't promote that according to the game mechanics.)
Basically the ruler needs to some way to increase his mojo dramatically, he shouldn't just be symbol for the realm's collective interests. This is more of a modern idea.
The realm has to be able to actually tax cities. That would really be all we need. Yes, Dukes could secede and the like, but most people won't support a Duke who secedes over a reasonable tax rate.
-
The realm has to be able to actually tax cities. That would really be all we need. Yes, Dukes could secede and the like, but most people won't support a Duke who secedes over a reasonable tax rate.
I believe I proposed this somewhere else.
Instead of the realm imposing "ducal taxes," it can impose a tax directly on the income of cities and strongholds. That incentivizes the use of ducal taxes by dukes to collect moneys from rurals, in order to protect their own incomes.
-
I believe I proposed this somewhere else.
Instead of the realm imposing "ducal taxes," it can impose a tax directly on the income of cities and strongholds. That incentivizes the use of ducal taxes by dukes to collect moneys from rurals, in order to protect their own incomes.
I know many people have mentioned this before but I suppose it's worth it but we'd need to find a way to make sure one Duke can't just "put up" with the direct tax and therefore attract more lords to his duchy.
-
Y'see, that's what gets me. Why would anyone be opposed to a bit of friendly poaching of Lords and Ladies? I think that's a far better reason for civil war than religion (the #1 cause/influence of a lot of rebellions) since there's nothing to say that Lords shouldn't change their allegiance if their Dukes can't keep it. Dukes are the most powerful and secure positions in the game, so just sitting there amassing wealth and never raising your head above your walls won't lead to an army beating all those militia you have stacked up, the Lords and Ladies will just change their alliegence to a different, more proactive Duke. If you're proactive, then you can easily take offense to the actions of any wayward Lords and seek to punish them suitably. If you're sitting back, the other Duke might contend that and you won't have the support. Frankly, I see the ability for Lords to flock to someone who's paying his taxes to the realm rather than rally behind someone who pushes away from the realm over what should be between 50-100 gold. Nida could have paid either without any real bother, which would lead me to suspect that only the truly wartorn city or one supporting far more knights than it should would be pressed by this.
For a Republic, the Prime Minister or equivalent title needs financial support to do with as he or she likes not because it'll be good for any particular war effort or the likes, but because it adds a lot to a game and gives a lot of less measurable advantages. For instance, unique items from adventurers. No bad idea for a ruler to buy it and have it delivered to an allied ruler as a gift. Or one of the cities in the Kingdom is starving, so the King purchases feasts worth of food to send to the beleaguered city. Or hosting a tournament without the need for Ducal financial support or stingy prizes. Even if Rulers are to be figureheads, to whom all internal and all external look to for the direction being taken by a realm, some proper spending money for the position is needed because it can add a lot of prestige for your realm and secure the less tangible rewards that brings.
City taxes. Why not? Cities can, without feeling the pain too much, take a hit of fifty to a hundred gold per week. Your realm has four Duchies, that makes two to four hundred gold a week. Three weeks and you have a not entirely spectacular tournament saved up for. Better than the none that are taking place now. The question then comes, does this new tax go to the realm purse or does it go directly to the Ruler who can spread it or save it as he/she wishes? Obvious answer would be to the realm, which might offer a bit more fun to any banker daring enough to make bold moves with the tax. A good ally for any ruler.
More random thoughts for the night. C'mon sunrise.
Finton.
-
The question then comes, does this new tax go to the realm purse or does it go directly to the Ruler who can spread it or save it as he/she wishes? Obvious answer would be to the realm, which might offer a bit more fun to any banker daring enough to make bold moves with the tax. A good ally for any ruler.
I would imagine the tax would flow to realm coffers. Which, as you said, would restore some more power to the banker, who presently is semi-useless in terms of buttons.
I know many people have mentioned this before but I suppose it's worth it but we'd need to find a way to make sure one Duke can't just "put up" with the direct tax and therefore attract more lords to his duchy.
No, that's fine. It's no problem if a duchy decides to "take it." It'll just transfer power away from dukes to the council. If the dukes decide to tax rurals, it will transfer power from rurals to the council (somewhat, but more diluted than the city-->council power shift).
My main worry is that most councils would be too timid to levy the tax. One thing that could do it would be:
Positive Reinforcement: Kind of like how, in a monarchy, a ruler's presence boosts region stats– rulers could be supplied with an "Investment" option that comes from their personal cash-on-hand that ups morale/loyalty. This would need to have limitations on frequency, maybe no more than once a week.
Negative Reinforcement: Make council positions have costs. Got a ruler? Well, he has to maintain such a large staff... he has a "tax penalty" of 35 gold (maybe X Gold penalty per region of the realm?). Same for banker, general, judge... this means that council positions have a legitimate reason to demand that cities pay taxes.
Combination of positive effects of rich rulers and costs to council positions would greatly incentivize the deployment of centralized taxes on cities. This would in turn incentivize the deployment of ducal taxes on rural regions. As a reflection of different tax rates and different duchy sizes and city sizes and generalized productivity factors, dukes would be thrust into dynamic tax competition. Voila, we have strengthened the council, rebalanced the banker and ruler positions, encouraged the use of existing game features, added new intrigue possibilities, and done it all with what seems to me like a fairly simple solution.
-
Negative Reinforcement: Make council positions have costs. Got a ruler? Well, he has to maintain such a large staff... he has a "tax penalty" of 35 gold (maybe X Gold penalty per region of the realm?). Same for banker, general, judge... this means that council positions have a legitimate reason to demand that cities pay taxes.
Force people to take away people's gold to... throw it out the window? I hate this idea. The game has way too much negative incentives as it is.
-
Force people to take away people's gold to... throw it out the window? I hate this idea. The game has way too much negative incentives as it is.
Indeed. I generally don't like powerful negative incentives. Do you think that the positive incentive I mentioned would be sufficient to merit council members making the risky move of taxing dukes?
-
The realm has to be able to actually tax cities. That would really be all we need. Yes, Dukes could secede and the like, but most people won't support a Duke who secedes over a reasonable tax rate.
So, realm taxes dukes. The dukes then tax the already poor rural regions to make up the lost gold. The rural regions start perhaps asking gold for the food that flows to cities. Dukes raise taxes on rural regions again. In the end, all this was a pointless exercise of fiddling with numbers in a lot of places that probably still landed the poorest regions worse off than they were and added another layer of complexity on an already complex game.
-
So, realm taxes dukes. The dukes then tax the already poor rural regions to make up the lost gold. The rural regions start perhaps asking gold for the food that flows to cities. Dukes raise taxes on rural regions again. In the end, all this was a pointless exercise of fiddling with numbers in a lot of places that probably still landed the poorest regions worse off than they were and added another layer of complexity on an already complex game.
While I see your point, lets not pretend we are trying to do this for nothing.
We want the council, particularly the ruler to have more power (especially in a monarchy.) You agree?
-
So, realm taxes dukes. The dukes then tax the already poor rural regions to make up the lost gold. The rural regions start perhaps asking gold for the food that flows to cities. Dukes raise taxes on rural regions again. In the end, all this was a pointless exercise of fiddling with numbers in a lot of places that probably still landed the poorest regions worse off than they were and added another layer of complexity on an already complex game.
Perhaps, and if so that'S something I would totally want to avoid.
But for the time being, lords can just so easily switch duchies. Or sell their food to another city, even in other realms. In most cases, dukes have absolutely no power over lords.
-
Perhaps, and if so that'S something I would totally want to avoid.
But for the time being, lords can just so easily switch duchies. Or sell their food to another city, even in other realms. In most cases, dukes have absolutely no power over lords.
Indeed, rural lords could (in at least some circumstances) change allegiance to a lower-tax duke.
Or, the "special tax" code could be implemented.
-
Perhaps, and if so that'S something I would totally want to avoid.
But for the time being, lords can just so easily switch duchies. Or sell their food to another city, even in other realms. In most cases, dukes have absolutely no power over lords.
Or we could allow Lords to declare their regions to be imperial and thus always have a way to avoid a Duchy that is imposing a heavy burden. Hell we could make imperial regions directly taxable by the ruler so they have a purpose beyond the current "region waiting to join a duchy".
-
Or we could allow Lords to declare their regions to be imperial and thus always have a way to avoid a Duchy that is imposing a heavy burden. Hell we could make imperial regions directly taxable by the ruler so they have a purpose beyond the current "region waiting to join a duchy".
Making dukes all the more powerless towards lords.
-
Making dukes all the more powerless towards lords.
There are positive benefits to being in a Duchy though, at least in terms of the effectiveness of things like Buro and civil work.
-
There are positive benefits to being in a Duchy though, at least in terms of the effectiveness of things like Buro and civil work.
So you join a duchy when your region gets whacked, and then return to being imperial when all is fine?
-
So you join a duchy when your region gets whacked, and then return to being imperial when all is fine?
Sure, unless the ruler was charging even worse taxes then the Dukes I guess. After all I can change Duchies at whim so long as I wait the 14 days.
-
How about we give a nice whack to a lords honour (not prestige) for changing allegiance?
-
How about we give a nice whack to a lords honour (not prestige) for changing allegiance?
You could do that, but I've noticed that very few players actually care about either stat
-
You could do that, but I've noticed that very few players actually care about either stat
I do :-[
-
I, for one, would love it if dukes granted small morale and control boosts when in regions of their duchy. Would incite lords to switch to a duchy that actually cares about them, rather than everyone piling onto the duchy of the capital so that maintenance work is always the most effective.
And all of this with an incentive, instead of a penalty.
Perhaps give the duke the capacity to hold a court in regions of his duchy, too?
-
Y'see, both of those disincentives Dukes from going to fight beyond his Duchy or realm borders. In effect, if he stays at home more and does courtier-style work, his regions will do better and more Lords will be inclined to switch to him to take advantage of a Duke that isn't fighting with a realm's main armies. It does, however, give a fairly legitimate reason for a lord to change if his Duke is just sitting in his city, all day, every day.
Just a thought.
Finton.
-
Y'see, both of those disincentives Dukes from going to fight beyond his Duchy or realm borders. In effect, if he stays at home more and does courtier-style work, his regions will do better and more Lords will be inclined to switch to him to take advantage of a Duke that isn't fighting with a realm's main armies. It does, however, give a fairly legitimate reason for a lord to change if his Duke is just sitting in his city, all day, every day.
Just a thought.
Finton.
Suggest a mechanic that would advantage military presence from the duchy while not encouraging every region to simply align to the capital? And via positive incentives, not negative incentives. Or a switch as compensation, such as if "distance from the capital" penalties for non-cities were instead switched for "distance from the ducal seat".
-
Suggest a mechanic that would advantage military presence from the duchy while not encouraging every region to simply align to the capital? And via positive incentives, not negative incentives. Or a switch as compensation, such as if "distance from the capital" penalties for non-cities were instead switched for "distance from the ducal seat".
I have thought of something similar, a bonus to regions based on their distance to the Duchy city, which would be influenced itself by the distance of the Duchy city to the capital. Alternatively keep the current distance from capital thing, but also add a small bonus based on Duchy, maybe have it be influenced by the distance to the Duchy City and the current stats of the city.
-
I have thought of something similar, a bonus to regions based on their distance to the Duchy city, which would be influenced itself by the distance of the Duchy city to the capital. Alternatively keep the current distance from capital thing, but also add a small bonus based on Duchy, maybe have it be influenced by the distance to the Duchy City and the current stats of the city.
If you add it on top, then that's bad, as it's just *more* penalties. We should strive to have such limits remain the same at worse, or lower.
Distance from duchy could have stronger effects than distance from capital, as long as it only results in a greater burden if all regions swear in to the capital, while in a lower burden if all swear in to the closest city, in order to average out to something quite reasonable. After all, distance from the capital is becoming much harsher than it once was, with the estate systems, as these border cities used to only have those penalties apply to them while they now are usually the ones with the least knights too. And the distance from capital penalties were also applied before income was regionalized. Another example of how behaviour-influencing mechanics became harsher and harsher with time due to them stacking with ever more of them.
-
If you add it on top, then that's bad, as it's just *more* penalties. We should strive to have such limits remain the same at worse, or lower.
Distance from duchy could have stronger effects than distance from capital, as long as it only results in a greater burden if all regions swear in to the capital, while in a lower burden if all swear in to the closest city, in order to average out to something quite reasonable. After all, distance from the capital is becoming much harsher than it once was, with the estate systems, as these border cities used to only have those penalties apply to them while they now are usually the ones with the least knights too. And the distance from capital penalties were also applied before income was regionalized. Another example of how behaviour-influencing mechanics became harsher and harsher with time due to them stacking with ever more of them.
My idea is a BONUS that is based on distance, not a penalty as currently implemented. If we leave the current penalty for distance from capital, then the bonuses for being close to the Duchy City would help offset that somewhat.
-
My idea is a BONUS that is based on distance, not a penalty as currently implemented. If we leave the current penalty for distance from capital, then the bonuses for being close to the Duchy City would help offset that somewhat.
That's certainly an idea.
-
I have to ask, what about the regions closest to the capital? No distance punishment but instead, presumably, a bonus for being close to the Duchy seat? I should state that I'm not necessarily saying this would be a bad thing. After all, shouldn't regions near the capital actively benefit from that proximity? The center of power for a vast realm. 'Course, it'd suck to be me. My Knights are practically as far away from the capital as possible.
...
Wonder if that speaks to my psychology.
Finton.
-
I have to ask, what about the regions closest to the capital? No distance punishment but instead, presumably, a bonus for being close to the Duchy seat? I should state that I'm not necessarily saying this would be a bad thing. After all, shouldn't regions near the capital actively benefit from that proximity? The center of power for a vast realm. 'Course, it'd suck to be me. My Knights are practically as far away from the capital as possible.
...
Wonder if that speaks to my psychology.
Finton.
Meh, if it's unbalanced, we could just have this bonus apply only to non-capital-duchy regions, as they already don't suffer from distance from the capital anyways.
-
A boost to the regions that form you "core" Duchy seems okay to me, it would be a question of balance. Could the bonus be significant enough to actually matter to the other duchies without making those regions close to the capital outrageously good. If the bonus was related to control and morale it wouldn't really matter anyway, since regions close to the capital tend to be in tip top shape.
-
A boost to the regions that form you "core" Duchy seems okay to me, it would be a question of balance. Could the bonus be significant enough to actually matter to the other duchies without making those regions close to the capital outrageously good. If the bonus was related to control and morale it wouldn't really matter anyway, since regions close to the capital tend to be in tip top shape.
Yes.
Just don't give any duchy-bonus to the capital duchy.
This would discourage the "region-piling" that is done by some realms as a means of crippling potential secessions. Only give the ducal-seat-proximity bonus to non-capital duchies (or capital duchies in one-duchy realms). This would simultaneously allow for larger realms if they efficiently arranged their duchies. Not sure how I feel about that.
-
Yes.
Just don't give any duchy-bonus to the capital duchy.
This would discourage the "region-piling" that is done by some realms as a means of crippling potential secessions. Only give the ducal-seat-proximity bonus to non-capital duchies (or capital duchies in one-duchy realms). This would simultaneously allow for larger realms if they efficiently arranged their duchies. Not sure how I feel about that.
So long as a upper limit still exists for realms it should all work out in the end :)
-
So long as a upper limit still exists for realms it should all work out in the end :)
Problem is, as a realm conquered more ducal centers, controlling more lands would be easier.
Large realms in areas of mostly rurals would be identical as it is now. Large realms in duchy-dense areas (FEI, southern EC, parts of Dwilight) would be much easier. FOr example: under this system, D'Hara's maintenance issues would be greatly simplified, while Morek would probably enjoy little benefit.
-
Problem is, as a realm conquered more ducal centers, controlling more lands would be easier.
Large realms in areas of mostly rurals would be identical as it is now. Large realms in duchy-dense areas (FEI, southern EC, parts of Dwilight) would be much easier. FOr example: under this system, D'Hara's maintenance issues would be greatly simplified, while Morek would probably enjoy little benefit.
Yes? City placement has never been uniform and that has always caused some differences between realms in terms of income and food requirements vs number of regions, I don't see that being a huge issue for this application either.
-
Problem is, as a realm conquered more ducal centers, controlling more lands would be easier.
Large realms in areas of mostly rurals would be identical as it is now. Large realms in duchy-dense areas (FEI, southern EC, parts of Dwilight) would be much easier. FOr example: under this system, D'Hara's maintenance issues would be greatly simplified, while Morek would probably enjoy little benefit.
The thought was to add the duchy loyalty to non-duchy seats, though. As most of D'Hara is ducal seats, it would only change the maintenance for the townslands and rurals.
Though that's something I hadn't considered.
-
The thought was to add the duchy loyalty to non-duchy seats, though. As most of D'Hara is ducal seats, it would only change the maintenance for the townslands and rurals.
Though that's something I hadn't considered.
Hm, true. It wouldn't help with that. Meaning the benefit of moving knights to cities away from rurals would rise... though probably only marginally.
-
Hm, true. It wouldn't help with that. Meaning the benefit of moving knights to cities away from rurals would rise... though probably only marginally.
Except if the rurals get stuck with control problems, then they produce less food for the cities.
But most dukes outside D'Hara couldn't really care less due to the abundance of rurals in most realms.