| Summary: | Strategic secession of Iato |
| Violation: | Strategic secessions |
| World: | Beluaterra |
| Complainer: | Dominic (http://battlemaster.org/UserDetails.php?ID=18770) |
| About: | Marec (http://battlemaster.org/UserDetails.php?ID=30188) |
Is the new realm at war with Enweil?
Does it have significant RC's and nobles such that is represents a true force in the conflict?
As long as the seceding realm stays out of the war there shouldn't be a problem. Maybe they'd agree to sign a non-aggression pact.
As long as the seceding realm stays out of the war there shouldn't be a problem. Maybe they'd agree to sign a non-aggression pact.
As long as the seceding realm stays out of the war there shouldn't be a problem. Maybe they'd agree to sign a non-aggression pact.
I don't believe there should be a problem even if they stay in the war.
It has been absolutely, 100% clear for RL years now that this was going to happen. The timing was up in the air, but the fact of it was totally public.
That Dominic is painting this as an obviously strategic secession speaks to me of a (somewhat understandable) lack of IC/OOC separation in this case.
This seems pretty simple to me. Are riombarans joining in order to gain a capital next to their enemy? No, apparently there's only one character so far. Was it built up with military infrastructure pre-secession to more effectively wage war before seceding? No. Is the new realm going to be a riombaran copycat in diplomacy or forge its own path? Likely the latter. Did the planning of this secession start with 'we can gain a military advantage by having a new capital next to Enweil'? From what I've read here, I would surmise the answer is no. Is there IC reasoning/roleplay behind the creation of the new realm?
None of these answers seem indicative of strategic secessions to gain an advantage in a war that seems to have already been won anyway.
Remember, there is a difference between a secession during a war and a secession to gain a strategic advancement during a war.
No, but the rule does care about intent, when intent can be reasonably determined. Surely the fact that the creation of this realm has been declared as a goal for so long—and the fact that it would have been founded regardless of the war—is a strong indication of intent.
You seem to be deliberately ignoring the fact that there's a lot more than time involved here.
So are you saying that any secession during wartime that doesn't immediately declare war on its parent realm is a strategic secession?
So you agree that Enweil has more or less lost the war already, too. If you are attempting to argue that if Riombara had kept Iato, Enweil could have won the war, but now they can't, you're not doing a very good job of it.
Please describe for me exactly how this realm with one depopulated region and one noble will cause a measurable unfair disadvantage for Enweil.
Secession of a distance duchy to improve maintenance, due to distance from capital and/or realm size, is explicitly permitted.
The forbidden strategic benefit is specifically and solely the one OOC benefit that the capital has over other cities in the realm: recruitment.
Where is it "explicitly" permitted, exactly?
And this secession does allow precisely that: recruitment on the enemy capital's doorstep.
By one guy. With practically no income, and a city that can barely support any infrastructure. Yeah, that's unbalancing.
Anaris, you seem to forget that this one guy won't be alone for long. After all the realm is being created for a few nobles.
Even if only 4 more nobles join now, Riombara has 7 other cities and a lot of gold and food they can provide for the 5 nobles.
They can fund 2-3 RCs on the city of Iato, and these nobles for the war.
These nobles can make an attack on Enweill and Nothoi quicker, causing the same mayhem Nothoi was causing on Riombara, with faster recruitment, without the need to go all the way to the other side of the map to get fresh units.
This does give them strategic advantage.
And please mbeal44 keep it civil.
All replies need to follow these rules, or they will be moderated:
- remain strictly on topic. Information relevant to the actual case only. This goes especially for speculations, hypotheticals, variations - discussing of the this could be... if... kind are unwanted. We have a specific case before us and will decide that case, nothing else.
- be positive and friendly. Don't insult or troll.
- add new information. Repeating a point does not increase its truth value.
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.