BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Locals => Dwilight => Topic started by: Geronus on July 10, 2013, 02:02:40 PM
-
Luria Nova landed troops in Donghai and kicked butt, and have either begun a takeover, or put the region into flames or both. If I was a betting person they intend to form a colony with the stabilizing effect of a certain priest/diplomat.
Except that that would be a strategic secession, I think.
-
Except that that would be a strategic secession, I think.
Well, now, that's an interesting question.
If a realm were to attempt to create a colony right inside another realm that they are at war with, out of regions that are clearly too far away from their own capital not to revolt almost immediately, should that be considered a strategic secession? It's not like there's anything else they could do with those regions...
(Note: This is actually nothing like what LN wants to do with those regions, but I encourage the rumours that it is! ;D )
-
If a realm were to attempt to create a colony right inside another realm that they are at war with, out of regions that are clearly too far away from their own capital not to revolt almost immediately, should that be considered a strategic secession? It's not like there's anything else they could do with those regions...
If it's created out of land that they have taken within that same war, I wouldn't call it a strategic secession. Creating puppet states (marches would be a medieval appropriate term) in the wake of your army's passage is a legitimate war tactic.
If it's created out of lands that were held by the parent realm in peace time, then it could be a strategic secession.
-
If it's created out of land that they have taken within that same war, I wouldn't call it a strategic secession. Creating puppet states (marches would be a medieval appropriate term) in the wake of your army's passage is a legitimate war tactic.
If it's created out of lands that were held by the parent realm in peace time, then it could be a strategic secession.
Well, part of the point here is the "too far away from their own capital not to revolt almost immediately", I think...
-
Well, part of the point here is the "too far away from their own capital not to revolt almost immediately", I think...
Secessions, as a rule, are allowed. If you intention is to create a new realm, then secession is the way to go.
A strategic secession refers to an event where it is not the intention of the characters to create two separate realms, but the players feel they have to do so in order to have two recruitment points.
If the seceded lands are too far to be held by the parent realm, then it becomes impossible to argue that the parent realm would have preferred to remain a single realm but split only in order to gain an addition recruitment point. If they had not split, then they would not have held to the lands they just conquered, rendering the conquest moot.
-
In the event that Lurians would want such a colony such a secession would only be used because the game currently doesn't have the colony takeover in place. Were it not so, colony takeover would be used. Therefore, I don't think that it should be classified as a strategic secession when the game doesn't offer any other alternatives to make a new realm.
-
Well, now, that's an interesting question.
If a realm were to attempt to create a colony right inside another realm that they are at war with, out of regions that are clearly too far away from their own capital not to revolt almost immediately, should that be considered a strategic secession? It's not like there's anything else they could do with those regions...
In the past, we would have just told them to run a CTO. CTOs have never been considered "strategic". Probably because of the difficulty of actually completing a CTO, as well as the state in which the TO leaves the fledgling realm. A secession, however, instantly gives you a functional realm in much better condition.
But now you can't do a CTO.
But you *can* run a normal TO a region on the opposite side of the map, which you never cold do before....
It really is an interesting question. Can you run a TO at that distance, and then hold the region long enough to appoint a lord, make the duchy, and have the duke secede fast enough that the region is still in good enough condition to not instantly revolt, even when you factor in the damage a secession causes?
-
I don't know, it certainly sounds like a move to gain strategic advantage to me. There's really no other reason for doing it. You do it so:
1) You can hold onto the city.
2) You get a base of operations that allows recruiting that's not 800 miles from Luria for further actions against Morek.
Those are purely strategic considerations for the express purpose of gaining an advantage during a war. It would be one thing if they held it for the duration of the conflict and then later seceded it to create a new realm. But to do it right away in the middle of the war, I don't know. Seems like the primary practical result of that will be to give Luria a huge strategic advantage via secession.
-
I don't know, it certainly sounds like a move to gain strategic advantage to me. There's really no other reason for doing it. You do it so:
1) You can hold onto the city.
2) You get a base of operations that allows recruiting that's not 800 miles from Luria for further actions against Morek.
Those are purely strategic considerations for the express purpose of gaining an advantage during a war. It would be one thing if they held it for the duration of the conflict and then later seceded it to create a new realm. But to do it right away in the middle of the war, I don't know. Seems like the primary practical result of that will be to give Luria a huge strategic advantage via secession.
And a colony takeover (if that were actually coded currently) would be different how?
-
And a colony takeover (if that were actually coded currently) would be different how?
Colony take overs were much much harder to do
-
I don't know, it certainly sounds like a move to gain strategic advantage to me. There's really no other reason for doing it. You do it so:
1) You can hold onto the city.
2) You get a base of operations that allows recruiting that's not 800 miles from Luria for further actions against Morek.
Those are purely strategic considerations for the express purpose of gaining an advantage during a war. It would be one thing if they held it for the duration of the conflict and then later seceded it to create a new realm. But to do it right away in the middle of the war, I don't know. Seems like the primary practical result of that will be to give Luria a huge strategic advantage via secession.
There's a big difference between seceding half your contiguous realm to gain a second recruiting center on the other end of it—or moving the capital so that your recruiting center is there—and carving out a forward base in enemy territory, a long way from home.
-
Colony take overs were much much harder to do
More difficult than this?
Can you run a TO at that distance, and then hold the region long enough to appoint a lord, make the duchy, and have the duke secede fast enough that the region is still in good enough condition to not instantly revolt, even when you factor in the damage a secession causes?
-
There's a big difference between seceding half your contiguous realm to gain a second recruiting center on the other end of it—or moving the capital so that your recruiting center is there—and carving out a forward base in enemy territory, a long way from home.
Well yeah, if anything it's even worse. There are mechanics that make it virtually impossible to wage war at great distances in BM. Tom has repeatedly said that this has been done on purpose, and various suggestions to make it easier to wage war on the other side of the island (cash bonds in allied cities, recruit anywhere in your realm) have been shot down more than once based on this exact justification. Carving out a forward base a long way from home to make it possible to wage war at a long distance seems exactly like the sort of meta-game shenanigan that the strategic capital move rule is aimed at preventing in the first place.
-
Well yeah, if anything it's even worse. There are mechanics that make it virtually impossible to wage war at great distances in BM. Tom has repeatedly said that this has been done on purpose, and various suggestions to make it easier to wage war on the other side of the island (cash bonds in allied cities, recruit anywhere in your realm) have been shot down more than once based on this exact justification. Carving out a forward base a long way from home to make it possible to wage war at a long distance seems exactly like the sort of meta-game shenanigan that the strategic capital move rule is aimed at preventing in the first place.
It sounds like, from what you're saying, it would be worse if they didn't secede the city, because then they'd all be able to cash bonds there to pay their men and repair equipment. If they did secede, only those who joined the new realm would be able to cash bonds, and though they would be able to recruit, the only troops they'd have available would be those in the city and whatever small number of regions they had been able to conquer around the city.
Personally, I think this type of play, enabled by sea travel, is different enough than what has gone before that we can't entirely apply the existing rules to it.
Finally, I would note that based on some dev discussion a while back, Tom may be softening slightly on the "no long-distance war" rule, at least under limited circumstances. I just haven't had time to implement the changes he has approved along that line yet.
-
Carving out a forward base a long way from home to make it possible to wage war at a long distance seems exactly like the sort of meta-game shenanigan that the strategic capital move rule is aimed at preventing in the first place.
There is an important semantic difference between a forward base and a realm. If your only goal is to create a recruitment base for nobles whom you expect to come back to the parent realm afterwards, then it is a strategic move. However, if you make war in order to take the lands of your enemy and create a new realm there, then a secession is a legitimate way to achieve your goals.
As all rules which deal with intent instead of facts, it's hard to police.
-
It sounds like, from what you're saying, it would be worse if they didn't secede the city, because then they'd all be able to cash bonds there to pay their men and repair equipment. If they did secede, only those who joined the new realm would be able to cash bonds, and though they would be able to recruit, the only troops they'd have available would be those in the city and whatever small number of regions they had been able to conquer around the city.
Yes you can cash bonds and repair, but that's no different than any other case of a realm seizing a city during a war and then using it as a base. I have no objection to that. When you secede the city, in one swoop you additionally eliminate all distance penalties and add the ability to recruit right on the front line. It's a fairly massive swing in the strategic balance, and I can honestly see no reason to do it except for the strategic advantages it confers.
-
It is an interesting discussion, but perhaps we should move this to another thread, as I foresee this consuming the thread.
I think it is an important discussion, as sea travel will sooner or later make it to other continents(I don't know the timeline on this), and this sort of thing may become more frequent.
I think it would be okay, as long as the realm does not re-merge, considering the difficulty of the task.
-
Well, now, that's an interesting question.
If a realm were to attempt to create a colony right inside another realm that they are at war with, out of regions that are clearly too far away from their own capital not to revolt almost immediately, should that be considered a strategic secession? It's not like there's anything else they could do with those regions...
(Note: This is actually nothing like what LN wants to do with those regions, but I encourage the rumours that it is! ;D )
If it's done for the sole purpose that the realm could not hold onto it... isn't strategy guiding the decision?
-
Secessions, as a rule, are allowed. If you intention is to create a new realm, then secession is the way to go.
A strategic secession refers to an event where it is not the intention of the characters to create two separate realms, but the players feel they have to do so in order to have two recruitment points.
If the seceded lands are too far to be held by the parent realm, then it becomes impossible to argue that the parent realm would have preferred to remain a single realm but split only in order to gain an addition recruitment point. If they had not split, then they would not have held to the lands they just conquered, rendering the conquest moot.
Except that... doing so would allow troops to recruit right from the front? Thus, doing precisely what you described: adding a second centre for recruitment, closer to (right in the middle of) enemy lands...?
-
In the past, we would have just told them to run a CTO. CTOs have never been considered "strategic". Probably because of the difficulty of actually completing a CTO, as well as the state in which the TO leaves the fledgling realm. A secession, however, instantly gives you a functional realm in much better condition.
But now you can't do a CTO.
But you *can* run a normal TO a region on the opposite side of the map, which you never cold do before....
It really is an interesting question. Can you run a TO at that distance, and then hold the region long enough to appoint a lord, make the duchy, and have the duke secede fast enough that the region is still in good enough condition to not instantly revolt, even when you factor in the damage a secession causes?
CTOs were a LOT harder to pull off than simple TOs followed by secessions, however. They required massive sympathy just to be an option, then took forever to run. Plus, back then, there weren't any ambassadors to beguile the region before the move...
-
Personally, I don't see a problem with spinning of a new realm by secession rather than by CTO, especially given that CTOs are no longer possible.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't strategic capital moves what are restricted, not secessions? Are strategic secessions actually banned?
-
Personally, I don't see a problem with spinning of a new realm by secession rather than by CTO, especially given that CTOs are no longer possible.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't strategic capital moves what are restricted, not secessions? Are strategic secessions actually banned?
Strategic secessions and strategic capital moves are both banned. You can have a peacefull secession, but not a strategic one to gain advantage in a war.
-
Do remember there is nothing wrong with "strategy". I strongly suggest you have one when fighting a war. A "strategic secession" has a very specific definition and just because you can define a secession as strategic does not make it a "strategic secession" under the banned definition.
For instance, Arcaea created a colony during peacetime via secession. That was very strategic, as one if its main purposes was to give Arcaea a steadfast ally in future wars. It was certainly not a "strategic secession", however.
-
Is there any precedent on strategic secessions? i.e. any Titan cases or examples of when it's been down in violation of the rules?
I honestly wasn't aware of this rule. I'm struggling to see what the justification for it was. It seems like the ban on realm mergers would be sufficient to make any strategic secession totally self-defeating in anything beyond a very short run.
To boot, I know of several "strategic secessions" that nobody had a game-rules problem with: Irombrozia and the Meridian Republic both stand out in my mind. Irombrozia absolutely seceded as a strategic action. Rio couldn't reinforce us against Luz de Bia and we felt abandoned, so we broke away to do our own thing. MR was maybe slightly less "strategic" but, still. I'm unsure what a non-strategic secession looks like.
-
To boot, I know of several "strategic secessions" that nobody had a game-rules problem with: Irombrozia and the Meridian Republic both stand out in my mind. Irombrozia absolutely seceded as a strategic action. Rio couldn't reinforce us against Luz de Bia and we felt abandoned, so we broke away to do our own thing. MR was maybe slightly less "strategic" but, still. I'm unsure what a non-strategic secession looks like.
Neither of those was a friendly secession, so far as I am aware. I know for a fact MR wasn't. I wasn't around for Irombrozia, but it is my understanding that Riombara wasn't very happy about that either.
-
The prohibition of strategic secessions' justification is to prevent realms seceding a city to circumvent the 'only recruit in your capital' mechanic. Friendly secessions are still allowed. Essentially, the question comes down to if the secession is intended to legitimately create a new realm or if it is just a strategic action in a war, to give you an advantage.
-
Neither of those was a friendly secession, so far as I am aware.
Friendly secessions are still allowed.
-
Vellos, my point was that to be a strategic secession, it also has to be a friendly one.
-
Vellos, my point was that to be a strategic secession, it also has to be a friendly one.
strategic secessions and friendly secessions are like squares and rectangles. A square is always a rectangle, but a rectangle is not necessarily a square (most of the time it isn't). Using that reasoning, a strategic secession is always friendly, but friendly secessions are not always strategic.
-
strategic secessions and friendly secessions are like squares and rectangles. A square is always a rectangle, but a rectangle is not necessarily a square (most of the time it isn't). Using that reasoning, a strategic secession is always friendly, but friendly secessions are not always strategic.
Correct.
-
Correct.
Yay for junior high geometry!
-
Venn diagram, anyone?
-
Vellos, my point was that to be a strategic secession, it also has to be a friendly one.
Err... why?
-
Because, as Velax said, 'strategic secessions' for rule purposes have a very specific definition. The Secessions of Irombrozia and MR do not fall under the banned definition of Strategic Secession at all. They were not used to circumvent 'you can only recruit in the capital' restrictions for purely strategy reasons so that the realm (Riombara in this case) could better fight off their enemies, but instead were done because the Duke disagreed with the Realm and decided he was better off on his own. If you're seceding a Duchy and creating a new Realm just so you can refit closer to the front during a war, then you're violating the rules. That kind of requires the secessions to be friendly as well, as otherwise the main purpose is not to circumvent this ingame restriction.
-
Because, as Velax said, 'strategic secessions' for rule purposes have a very specific definition. The Secessions of Irombrozia and MR do not fall under the banned definition of Strategic Secession at all. They were not used to circumvent 'you can only recruit in the capital' restrictions for purely strategy reasons so that the realm (Riombara in this case) could better fight off their enemies, but instead were done because the Duke disagreed with the Realm and decided he was better off on his own. If you're seceding a Duchy and creating a new Realm just so you can refit closer to the front during a war, then you're violating the rules. That kind of requires the secessions to be friendly as well, as otherwise the main purpose is not to circumvent this ingame restriction.
What if you're seceding because you want to make a new realm in land you just conquered?
Because that's what we're actually debating.
My point is that the "friendly and strategic" criterion doesn't work for this instance. Because a thing could be friendly and strategic but not a circumvention of the game's rules: unless we think CTOs were, in spirit, just strategic secessions.
-
Forming a new realm is not a violation of the strategic secessions rule. Forming a new realm for the express intent of allowing quicker refits from a new capital is a violation of the strategic secessions rule.
-
Forming a new realm is not a violation of the strategic secessions rule. Forming a new realm for the express intent of allowing quicker refits from a new capital is a violation of the strategic secessions rule.
Intent is easy to hide, and does not in any way change the effects of the secession.
-
The general case of a strategic secession goes something like this:
- Realm A and Realm B start a war (who declares is pretty much immaterial).
- Realm A looks at its multiple duchies, and feels like their capital is too far from the front.
- Realm A secedes the duchy with the city closest to the front.
Forming a new realm in enemy territory has never really been considered a strategic secession, whatever method has been used to accomplish it.
-
The general case of a strategic secession goes something like this:
- Realm A and Realm B start a war (who declares is pretty much immaterial).
- Realm A looks at its multiple duchies, and feels like their capital is too far from the front.
- Realm A secedes the duchy with the city closest to the front.
Forming a new realm in enemy territory has never really been considered a strategic secession, whatever method has been used to accomplish it.
Also, usually it will be a duchy that they already hold, rather than one they conquer.
-
The general case of a strategic secession goes something like this:
- Realm A and Realm B start a war (who declares is pretty much immaterial).
- Realm A looks at its multiple duchies, and feels like their capital is too far from the front.
- Realm A secedes the duchy with the city closest to the front.
Forming a new realm in enemy territory has never really been considered a strategic secession, whatever method has been used to accomplish it.
It wouldn't be any different in principle to the scenario you're outlining if they did it with a conquered duchy though, assuming the war is still ongoing.
-
Intent is easy to hide, and does not in any way change the effects of the secession.
And yet this rule only governs intent.
-
As in most of the "more lose" rules of the game (in contrast to the Inalienable Rights and the Social Contract), there's one good test:
If there is a discussion about whether or not, then it almost certainly isn't.
If the case doesn't jump out, then it almost certainly is fine, even if some people don't like it.
These rules are meant to stop blatant abuses of the game mechanic. They are constanly being abused by whoever gets shafted to whine and complain and try to get the devs involve in a way that would tilt the balance of in-game events.
-
If there is a discussion about whether or not, then it almost certainly isn't.
I'd be careful with guidelines like that, Tom, because I seem to recall one or two obvious strategic secessions where there was, in fact, quite a bit of argumentation over it. Granted, it was pretty much the people who did it defending it and the people outside accusing them, but still, people can still disagree on what you and I think it blatantly obvious, especially when they have a vested interest in doing so.
-
Has anyone ever been punished for a strategic secession?
-
I'd be careful with guidelines like that, Tom, because I seem to recall one or two obvious strategic secessions where there was, in fact, quite a bit of argumentation over it. Granted, it was pretty much the people who did it defending it and the people outside accusing them, but still, people can still disagree on what you and I think it blatantly obvious, especially when they have a vested interest in doing so.
Yeah, I should have added something like "a REAL argument. you know, with actual points being made and stuff". :-)