BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Case Archives => Questions & Answers => Topic started by: Stabbity on July 07, 2013, 11:25:11 PM
-
My thoughts are this:
I see a lot rule lawyering trying to justify this merger. I've played the game for around a decade now, and seen a lot rules come and go, the implementation of the social contract, and read Tom's thoughts on these things. The general gist of Tom's stance is there are written rules and there is a spirit behind the rules. If you violate one or the other it doesn't matter in Tom's eyes, its a violation. Rules lawyering and petty justifications, sesrching for loop holes is stuff Tom despises, and seeing as its his game... Don't do it. If you have to justify something with some loophole in a rule, its still a violation of the rule. The guilt here is pretty clear, and it is a second offense.
-
I don't feel this is a realm merger for the simple fact that the nobles of Terran aren't going to be part of D'hara. Even with those that switched over aren't going to stay long. The fact that we aren't staying makes it a non merger. Alaster is a die hard Astroist. He serves the church before the realm.
And perhaps if I stole your money but said I was going to give it back after the fact when confronted and accused of stealing it would stop being stealing also?
My other case should have no bearing on this one as the situations aren't related.
Oh but it should, as a repeat offender you know for sure what you are doing is wrong. This time however you've bought petty rules lawyering and bull!@#$ to the debate. So not only are you not following the rules of the game, your treating your peers as if we were stupid.
-
Not in the least.
It never crossed my mind that what I was suggesting was against the rules. Nor did any of the magistrates that knew of this before hand suggest that this was wrong. I still don't believe what I did was wrong or against the rules.
I can see no purpose in further discussion. Let a decision be made.
-
Show me who is gaining by this other than D'hara...
Sanguis Astroism's theocracies benefit directly from Phantaria not expanding. You didn't do this for D'Hara. You certainly didn't SURRENDER to a realm you're in a Federation with.
-
If that rule is not applicable then show me which rule I broke. You can't disregard parts of a rule you don't like
-
If that rule is not applicable then show me which rule I broke. You can't disregard parts of a rule you don't like
Um...I said I think it's applicable. Please reread what I wrote. Particularly since it's basically the same damn thing I've been saying since the beginning of this thread, so it really shouldn't be hard to understand what my position on this is.
-
The Federation argument is bull!@#$. If breaking the federation with Terran didn't mean D'Hara and Barca would need to go through a war period with each other, both would long since no longer be federated with Terran. They aren't friends. D'Hara is friendlier with Farronite Republic (you know, the realm doing the destruction?) than Terran. Plenty of D'Harans are silently cheering FR's invasion of Terran.
FR does benefit directly from this action, which is why I felt compelled to say anything at all. I'll be quiet now though and let you do your work.
-
How is this NOT a surrender?
It is as much of a surrender as if France during World War II merged with the UK to avoid surrendering to Germany. Maybe that's not medieval enough. But that is to say, not a surrender at all. It takes a mind-boggling amount of rules lawyering to argue you can "surrender" to a third party who is completely uninvolved in the conflict - let alone a party that is formally, if not functionally, your ally. Just because it might not be an entirely equal-sided union does not mean it is surrender by any stretch of the definition.
You would be correct in calling it a surrender if Terran made a formal plan to willingly merge with Phantaria or the Farronite Republic, because there the land would actually be ceded to the military victor responsible for inducing the merger in the first place. But for stubborn ol' Terran it's D'Hara or debellation.
-
It is as much of a surrender as if France during World War II merged with the UK to avoid surrendering to Germany. Maybe that's not medieval enough. But that is to say, not a surrender at all. It takes a mind-boggling amount of rules lawyering to argue you can "surrender" to a third party who is completely uninvolved in the conflict - let alone a party that is formally, if not functionally, your ally. Just because it might not be an entirely equal-sided union does not mean it is surrender by any stretch of the definition.
You would be correct in calling it a surrender if Terran made a formal plan to willingly merge with Phantaria or the Farronite Republic, because there the land would actually be ceded to the military victor responsible for inducing the merger in the first place. But for stubborn ol' Terran it's D'Hara or debellation.
France-Britain relations are not the same as Terran-D'Hara relations. A more appropriate comparison would be Poland petitioning to join the Soviet Union before the Nazis prepare to march in. Which would have seemed like a totally legit thing to do, imo.
-
France-Britain relations are not the same as Terran-D'Hara relations. A more appropriate comparison would be Poland petitioning to join the Soviet Union before the Nazis prepare to march in. Which would have seemed like a totally legit thing to do, imo.
That comparison isn't even close. The Soviets and the Nazis had already in advance agreed to divide Poland between themselves, and were on the same side at the point in the war. France-Britian is perfect, two nations that don't really like each other, but find themselves allied anyway. Its not identical, but then again, this is BM and not RL.
But the Poland analogy is awful.
-
France-Britian is perfect, two nations that don't really like each other, but find themselves allied anyway. Its not identical, but then again, this is BM and not RL.
A more period appropriate analogy would be the Norman invasion of Ireland in 1169. The King of Leinster was getting soundly beaten by a rival Kingdom. Instead of submitting to his enemy, he fled to England and then France to submit to the King of England/Duke fo Normandy. He came back with English troops and the King of England assumed Overlordship first over Leinster, then over all of Ireland.
Another example is the region of Septimania (today southwestern France, around Narbonne). Until the 8th century it was part of Visigothic Hispania. When moors invaded Hispania they pushed up to Narbonne and Carcassone. Seeing that Spain was lost, rather than fight only on their own the local Lords decided to swear allegiance to the French King, leading eventually to the battles of the Song of Roland.
A third example is the integration of Bohemia in the HRE. Bohemia was a first only the holdings of a powerful vassal Lord of the Kingdom of Moravia. When Moravia found itself threatened by Mongol invasions, Bohemia jumped ship and swore allegiance to the emperor on his western frontier. Moravia was soon after wiped out by the Mongols.
-
A more period appropriate analogy would be the Norman invasion of Ireland in 1169. The King of Leinster was getting soundly beaten by a rival Kingdom. Instead of submitting to his enemy, he fled to England and then France to submit to the King of England/Duke fo Normandy. He came back with English troops and the King of England assumed Overlordship first over Leinster, then over all of Ireland.
Another example is the region of Septimania (today southwestern France, around Narbonne). Until the 8th century it was part of Visigothic Hispania. When moors invaded Hispania they pushed up to Narbonne and Carcassone. Seeing that Spain was lost, rather than fight only on their own the local Lords decided to swear allegiance to the French King, leading eventually to the battles of the Song of Roland.
A third example is the integration of Bohemia in the HRE. Bohemia was a first only the holdings of a powerful vassal Lord of the Kingdom of Moravia. When Moravia found itself threatened by Mongol invasions, Bohemia jumped ship and swore allegiance to the emperor on his western frontier. Moravia was soon after wiped out by the Mongols.
A trend worthy of noting there is that every single example was a Lord. Not one single Monarch willingly submitted himself to another. Lords can jump ship whenever, for whatever reason. Where the illegal realm merger rule comes into play is when two rulers decide to peacefully become one entity.
-
Where the illegal realm merger rule comes into play is when two rulers decide to peacefully become one entity.
You know, I agree with this, but there is nothing peaceful about the current situation or the examples I provided. They were all the result of war. I think that's a crucial point. If this had been proposed in peace time I would have refused it outright.
-
You know, I agree with this, but there is nothing peaceful about the current situation or the examples I provided. They were all the result of war. I think that's a crucial point. If this had been proposed in peace time I would have refused it outright.
My interpretation, and I know others share it, of a Peaceful Realm Merger is that the relations between the merging parties have been peaceful.
-
My interpretation, and I know others share it, of a Peaceful Realm Merger is that the relations between the merging parties have been peaceful.
Well, historical precedent is not an end-all argument for cases like these (this isn't really a SMA case), but inasmuch as it can be useful I can't think of an historical precedent for merging two realms without war being the cause of the merger, but these cases I shown are precedents where the defeated party folded their defeated lands to an ally and not to their enemy.
-
Well, historical precedent is not an end-all argument for cases like these (this isn't really a SMA case), but inasmuch as it can be useful I can't think of an historical precedent for merging two realms without war being the cause of the merger, but these cases I shown are precedents where the defeated party folded their defeated lands to an ally and not to their enemy.
The thing is, I'm sure there are plenty of times where this was tried, but the occupying army replied in a manner similar to "lol, no." and kept right on occupying. Which unfortunately is not coded into game mechanics.
-
Which unfortunately is not coded into game mechanics.
What do you mean? Only unconquered regions changed allegiance. I'm not trying to dictate Phantaria's actions here, they can act as they think best.
If a region changes allegiance while a TO is 95% complete, does the conquering realm need to start again at 0%? If that is the case, then I agree with you that it is less than ideal. A TO should go through at that point.
Honestly I don't even know whether Saffalore was being TOed when it switched.
-
I can actually pull some data for that right now as we just had something similar happen. The TO didn't just halt, but I'll see about the progress.
My point is, if my army is sitting in a region, and the Lord is like "I'm going to join Kelperstan so you can't take the place over." the Army currently in the region should be able to prevent the allegiance change. Its not like a hostile army is just going to allow new government officials in and banners to be changed.
-
My point is, if my army is sitting in a region, and the Lord is like "I'm going to join Kelperstan so you can't take the place over." the Army currently in the region should be able to prevent the allegiance change. Its not like a hostile army is just going to allow new government officials in and banners to be changed.
That makes sense.
-
What do you mean? Only unconquered regions changed allegiance. I'm not trying to dictate Phantaria's actions here, they can act as they think best.
If a region changes allegiance while a TO is 95% complete, does the conquering realm need to start again at 0%? If that is the case, then I agree with you that it is less than ideal. A TO should go through at that point.
Honestly I don't even know whether Saffalore was being TOed when it switched.
Actually it doesn't go to 0%, but instead becomes impossible because TO can only be performed on regions of realms you are at war with. Technically the TO is still ongoing, but it is mechanically impossible to perform the TO actions, or at least that's what I'm getting from the Tara/Coria merging case.
-
Actually it doesn't go to 0%, but instead becomes impossible because TO can only be performed on regions of realms you are at war with. Technically the TO is still ongoing, but it is mechanically impossible to perform the TO actions, or at least that's what I'm getting from the Tara/Coria merging case.
I understand that you would need to declare war to continue the TO, but the part I am wondering is whether the previous work would be lost. It would make sense if, when you declare war, you could pick up where you left. If the TO is still ongoing, then that probably is the way it works, but I've never seen it in action so I don't know.
None of the regions under discussion are under such a 'suspended TO', so this is a theoretical discussion.
-
That comparison isn't even close. The Soviets and the Nazis had already in advance agreed to divide Poland between themselves, and were on the same side at the point in the war. France-Britian is perfect, two nations that don't really like each other, but find themselves allied anyway. Its not identical, but then again, this is BM and not RL.
But the Poland analogy is awful.
I did say BEFORE, right? As in, fictional? Obviously, it's a different context once they both marched in. Or are you claiming that France actually did surrender to the UK? These were fictional examples...
A trend worthy of noting there is that every single example was a Lord. Not one single Monarch willingly submitted himself to another. Lords can jump ship whenever, for whatever reason. Where the illegal realm merger rule comes into play is when two rulers decide to peacefully become one entity.
Alaster isn't joining D'Hara, afaik, or at least certainly doesn't get to keep slinging around "Grandmaster" if he does, if he'd even be allowed to stay.
My view is exactly the same as Indirik's on this case, as far as I can see. This case neither fits text or spirit of the rule.
-
A trend worthy of noting there is that every single example was a Lord. Not one single Monarch willingly submitted himself to another.
Read closer. The bold parts should help.
A more period appropriate analogy would be the Norman invasion of Ireland in 1169. The King of Leinster was getting soundly beaten by a rival Kingdom. Instead of submitting to his enemy, he fled to England and then France to submit to the King of England/Duke fo Normandy. He came back with English troops and the King of England assumed Overlordship first over Leinster, then over all of Ireland.
Sure looks to me like the King of Leinster voluntarily became a vassal of the King of England in order to save his rule over his land. Kind of like a King submitting to an Emperor.
Because if you're going to carry it to the extreme of "no ruler would ever submit to another", you've just declared that all multi-realm empires in BattleMaster are allowed, as they involve a ruler submitting themselves to another power. Or that it should be impossible to abdicate the throne of a realm, as that involves giving up rule of a realm, and voluntarily submitting yourself to the authority of someone else.
-
Honestly, a region under a TO shouldn't be allowed to change allegiance. Seems like something you'd need actual control of the region to accomplish.
Indirik, the King of Leinster was a Petty King, on par with a Duke, and not the Royalty of England and more conventional nations.
Chenier, you're missing the point. D'hara is no Soviet Union, it is not a state hostile to Terran, has no intentions of becoming hostile to Terran, and barring the current circumstances would likely never become hostile to Terran. Which makes the analogy to Poland-Germany-USSR a poor one in comparison to Britan-France-Germany. And if you want so say fictional, well that invalidates your whole reason for posting a different analogy in the first place. If you want to go fictional well, obviously D'hara is Vermont when Babylon surrendered to it during its war with the Klingon Empire.
-
I'm saying based on the attitude displayed by your nobles and House of Lords, it wouldn't have flown. Edimilison I think said it best, I'd have to check, but "D'hara is spreading itself dangerously thin." Not to mention, doing so and taking the regions is a good way to alienate your allies, but it is a bit late for that.
-
Indirik, the King of Leinster was a Petty King, on par with a Duke, and not the Royalty of England and more conventional nations.
Who cares? He was a King. Size of realm is irrelevant.
Or are you trying to say that size of the realm is important? In that case, the ruler of Terran is a petty king, on par with a duke. In fact, his entire realm is significantly smaller than my three-region duchy. In fact, I bet it's significantly smaller than most Dwilight duchies. It's existence as a realm is mostly just a paperwork thing.
-
Indirik, the King of Leinster was a Petty King, on par with a Duke, and not the Royalty of England and more conventional nations.
I'd have thought you would have jumped to the occasion to call Terran a "petty theocracy".
Chenier, you're missing the point. D'hara is no Soviet Union, it is not a state hostile to Terran, has no intentions of becoming hostile to Terran, and barring the current circumstances would likely never become hostile to Terran.
I don't think that's material to the case, but that's factually wrong. I you had held a poll in D'Hara prior to the war you would certainly have found a majority in favor of giving it away to Phantaria. Your spies must not tell you everything.
-
I'd have thought you would have jumped to the occasion to call Terran a "petty theocracy".
I don't think that's material to the case, but that's factually wrong. I you had held a poll in D'Hara prior to the war you would certainly have found a majority in favor of giving it away to Phantaria. Your spies must not tell you everything.
But you're not giving anything away to Phantaria. You're simply annexing them in the most friendliest of ways possible. You cannot simply claim "We're trying to spite our enemies. But D'hara isn't friendly, we're obviously enemies." Unless you want to claim schizophrenia. So what is it? Is Terran attempting to spite its enemies, or is D'hara an enemy?
And obviously D'hara wouldn't want to stand up to the theocracies alongside Phantaria, they'd get stomped. Realistically, baring the current conflict, a D'haran war on Terran was never going to happen. Especially not with Luria chomping at the bit to the East.
I would love to call Terran a Petty Theocracy, however its a term that really isn't applicable in Battlemaster, since it is impossible to have independent Dukes and Landholders.
-
But you're not giving anything away to Phantaria. You're simply annexing them in the most friendliest of ways possible. You cannot simply claim "We're trying to spite our enemies. But D'hara isn't friendly, we're obviously enemies." Unless you want to claim schizophrenia. So what is it? Is Terran attempting to spite its enemies, or is D'hara an enemy?
It has been a stated goal of D'Hara for some time to force Terran to break the federation. If they had done so, we may have been still federated with the Farronite Republic.
As for the intersection between Pierre's goals, Machiavel's goals, Alaster's goals, the Elder Council's goals, D'Hara's goals and Terran's goals, you've played BM for long enough to know that it is infinitesimal, and that BM is a complicated enough game that you can't just peremptorily declare that all these people have been working together and lump them under a single entity.
-
It has been a stated goal of D'Hara for some time to force Terran to break the federation. If they had done so, we may have been still federated with the Farronite Republic.
As for the intersection between Pierre's goals, Machiavel's goals, Alaster's goals, the Elder Council's goals, D'Hara's goals and Terran's goals, you've played BM for long enough to know that it is infinitesimal, and that BM is a complicated enough game that you can't just peremptorily declare that all these people have been working together and lump them under a single entity.
Don't patronize me. I have never said that their goals have been one and the same. I am saying, based on the political situation of Dwilight, that barring Alaster doing something completely retarded, D'hara would have never gone to war with Terran with the intention of annexing its territories. Especially with Pierre as Prime Minister. Just picture the !@#$ storm that would have ensued if Pierre had declared war on a theocracy after a Crusade had been called to defend it against other Astroists.
-
I am saying, based on the political situation of Dwilight, that barring Alaster doing something completely retarded, D'hara would have never gone to war with Terran with the intention of annexing its territories.
Maybe not, but that doesn't make it friendly. D'Hara had not sent a single soldier to defend Terran. It still isn't.
Especially with Pierre as Prime Minister.
What I'm saying is that his rulership of D'Hara is not that firm at the moment, nor is his position as an Elder. Trying to do both at once is not going stellarly well. D'Hara, as a whole, is not overly happy with Pierre's rule.
I hate to say this, as it feels like forummaster more than battlemaster. You assume a lot of things about the intent of characters in a situation that has not fully resolved itself in game. I'm not here to patronize you, I am only trying to defend my actions without completely mixing IC and OOC by describing every intentions of my character in the open on the forum.
-
Maybe not, but that doesn't make it friendly. D'Hara had not sent a single soldier to defend Terran. It still isn't.
What I'm saying is that his rulership of D'Hara is not that firm at the moment, nor is his position as an Elder. Trying to do both at once is not going stellarly well. D'Hara, as a whole, is not overly happy with Pierre's rule.
I hate to say this, as it feels like forummaster more than battlemaster. You assume a lot of things about the intent of characters in a situation that has not fully resolved itself in game. I'm not here to patronize you, I am only trying to defend my actions without completely mixing IC and OOC by describing every intentions of my character in the open on the forum.
You don't need to defend someone to find yourself involved with a friendly action with them. Accepting their entire realm without having directly engaged in actual hostilities (i.e. some form of open conflict. Preach them to death, infil them to death, whatever you have to do) makes the action friendly, and were D'hara truly hostile against Terran, wouldn't it just be easier to let Phantaria take the regions? It would have prevented the current chaos in D'hara at the very least.
-
and were D'hara truly hostile against Terran, wouldn't it just be easier to let Phantaria take the regions?
You assume Pierre is friendly towards Phantaria. Kale is still a pagan, that counts. Much of the rest of D'Hara, however, thinks this would have been the best solution.
-
I think we're getting pretty off topic now, can we have a mod split this into a different thread?