BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Helpline => Topic started by: JeVondair on September 26, 2017, 07:13:17 PM
-
I was wondering about exploring the functionality of dukes. Why is it that Dukes can't manage their duchies the same way a lord can manage their regions? If a duke can appoint a lord, why can they not dismiss them? Why cant one duchess make an agreement with another to exchange a region from one duchy to the other if the mood strikes them? Why can't Duke's designate a ducal capital or a trading hub? Why can't dukes poor money into their duchies to improve things like roads.
I was going to make a feature request, but I'm unsure of where to begin. The Duke game seems a bit limited in terms of game-supported actions/options compared to their real-life medieval counterparts.
-
But most of all, why can't we rename the Dukes' title like we can the council positions?
Now that would be great!
Although, it might already be too confusing with all the personlized title names.
-
But most of all, why can't we rename the Dukes' title like we can the council positions?
Now that would be great!
Although, it might already be too confusing with all the personlized title names.
Realm names and government titles are already confusing. I don't think allowing dukes to be changed will add too much confusion. You already see governor and representative depending on what government type you are using. I think it will simply make people happy by allowing more customization options.
-
But most of all, why can't we rename the Dukes' title like we can the council positions?
Now that would be great!
Although, it might already be too confusing with all the personlized title names.
I can't recall the thread but someone once asked me to draw up new government systems and titles and I just never got around to it. But frankly, so long as we can edit ruler titles, everything else really should be customizable as well. I mean, what if I wanted to go french and say Duc instead? can't :-(
Realm names and government titles are already confusing. I don't think allowing dukes to be changed will add too much confusion. You already see governor and representative depending on what government type you are using. I think it will simply make people happy by allowing more customization options.
+1
-
Well I propose it because in Vix we use 'Head of House' instead of Duke. And we keep pointing that out to new people but it's hard when the game says you're actually a Duke of Duchess.
But when writing the message on here, I realized I already had to look up what position someone played every time somehting custom was used, and that's annoying as well. But one more couldn't hurt, I guess. It's something to take into consideration together with the other question you posed here. We need to find a balance.
Regarding your original questions, they do seem like a lot of work. So I'm saying there's some interesting suggestions in upgrading the Duke game, it might just not be happening anytime soon. Or perhaps when we can work it out some more what the exact additions would have to be.
-
Only 1 person per realm gets to fiddle with these things, and imo, that's a good thing. Back in the days, nothing short of rebellion could change peoples' titles, and that only allowed 5 choices.
I don't really see a point to using foreign language titles, either. Duc is duke. It's the same thing. Are people going to start writing to each other in French too, for flavor? It just adds confusion for little to no return.
It was always the mantra that mechanics trump RP. If the game says something and players say something else, the game is right. If calling dukes kings or heads of houses or other such things are confusing... then maybe stop doing it?
That said, I do concede that some additional title-granting capacities can sometimes go a long way to favor richer RP. It's been requested in the past to allow to create new titles to arbitrarily hand out. I don't believe it was utterly rejected, but I think that some restrictions needed to be thought of, to avoid everyone getting their own vanity title.
To go back on the confusingness of existing customization, I would propose a suggestion, that I'm not sure I like myself: perhaps we could add title icons? We already have a little gender symbol. Maybe we can put a sword symbol to generals, a balance or coin symbol to bankers, a crown symbol to rulers, and a scroll or balance symbol to judges? This would prevent the need to look up any title of foreign government members. If more customization was truly desired (or just to compensate for the already existing multiple choices), this could be extended with a city icon to dukes and a mill icon to lords.
If we wanted the maximum possible customizationability, we could put up a list of all government title powers (assign militia, call peasant militia, ban noble, handle prisons, access granaries, etc.), and then let players break them up into, say, 3-6 titles. Preferably only changeable by rebellion. This would open up a few extra slots for semi-vanity titles, and message perks (message to all generals, for example) would remain unchanged other than for the fact of being switcheable (with at least 3 titles getting a seperate message group and no one getting more than 2).
Personally, this sounds like a lot of work, though, and if we were to go in such levels of customization, I would much, much rather we instead prioritize the geographical mechanics of the game in order to allow mass migrations of realms and player-driven region type changes. The lack of titles is not a major problem for this game, but in some parts of the game, screwed up geography is.
-
Rulers can't dismiss dukes. Rulers can't do much realm stuff either. They are often figure heads with diplomacy buttons. One of my hopes would be That rulers were expanded. Right now, Dukes even have more power than rulers imho. The impression i get is that this is by design.
-
Rulers can't dismiss dukes. Rulers can't do much realm stuff either. They are often figure heads with diplomacy buttons. One of my hopes would be That rulers were expanded. Right now, Dukes even have more power than rulers imho. The impression i get is that this is by design.
Yes. Which is weird to be honest. The game is so centralized yet dukes still wield so much power. Feels like it can't make up its mind. If you want to be a strong ruler, you need your own duchy.
-
When playing with Erik, he always used the term Margrave of Trinbar instead of Marquis to talk about himself... latter, the title was changed by the Devs 8)
If a duke can appoint a lord, why can they not dismiss them?
And then I was punished when I did it by Erik's own methods.
-
Yes. Which is weird to be honest. The game is so centralized yet dukes still wield so much power. Feels like it can't make up its mind. If you want to be a strong ruler, you need your own duchy.
Well as a general rule, it's not possible to dismiss any noble from a position once it's been given to them (with the exception of marshals/vice-marshals/ambassadors). That's always been part of the game - you have to either protest them out or get the judge to ban them.
But what I think would be a good improvement would be to make it so that every duchy has a capital and units from RCs within that duchy can only be recruited at the ducal capital. You could also maybe change the distance from capital penalty so that it uses distance from the ducal capital rather than the realm capital.
That would give rulers an interesting choice to make. They could centralise the realm into one large duchy, which would limit how big it could grow, or create multiple duchies which would increase the maximum size of the realm and its ability to wage war, but with the trade-off of undermining central authority by creating powerful dukes who could declare independence any time they felt like it.
You could also potentially make it so that nobles of a duchy can only recruit at their ducal capital. That'd also strengthen duchy identity and would prevent realms from just creating a new duchy on the frontline of whichever war they happen to be fighting purely for faster refit times.
-
Historically, Dukes almost always held the majority of the power in Aristocracies. Kings were often Dukes themselves as a way of assuring their own power. A King could only strip a Duke of his power by either killing him, basically. But Duke's could and did dismiss lords that displeased them.
-
Anaris has shot down the whole ducal capital idea for years. He has made it abundantly clear the game will only allow recruitment in the capital only.
-
Anaris has shot down the whole ducal capital idea for years. He has made it abundantly clear the game will only allow recruitment in the capital only.
Oh that I know, I should have specified it as more of an RP thing to be supported by Game mechanics so when you click on a Duchy link and it tells you who the Duke is it will also specify the Ducal Seat the Duchy is based around?
-
Well ducal capitals have a number of problems, namely that there isn't, currently, any such thing. You need a city or stronghold to create a duchy, but you do not need to have either of these for a duchy to continue existing. These region types are currently the only ones that can be capitals, and thus allow recruiting (and banking), making them extra valuable. And even when a duchy has at least one, it can have more, and it doesn't mean the duke has any such regions, if any region at all.
I don't think those issues have ever been properly addressed in any feature request. If someone can flesh out a system that would make ducal recruitment sensible, I'm sure it would warrant at least a discussion.
-
Well ducal capitals have a number of problems, namely that there isn't, currently, any such thing. You need a city or stronghold to create a duchy, but you do not need to have either of these for a duchy to continue existing. These region types are currently the only ones that can be capitals, and thus allow recruiting (and banking), making them extra valuable. And even when a duchy has at least one, it can have more, and it doesn't mean the duke has any such regions, if any region at all.
I don't think those issues have ever been properly addressed in any feature request. If someone can flesh out a system that would make ducal recruitment sensible, I'm sure it would warrant at least a discussion.
Nope. Many suggestions came up over the years. None went through. You are free it give it another try though like many others have before.
-
Nope. Many suggestions came up over the years. None went through. You are free it give it another try though like many others have before.
None went through, but I also don't recall seeing any that were quite satisfactory. If you can think of any feel free to link me to it or recap it.
Seems to me that it would require a significant structural changes that are not, of themselves, really positive.
-
In most cases, the ducal capital idea posed too much problems with balancing. Even if it was balanced, it would not provide enough incentives to justify the amount of work it required. So pretty much the reason to change it could not out weigh keeping the status quo.
-
Well ducal capitals have a number of problems, namely that there isn't, currently, any such thing. You need a city or stronghold to create a duchy, but you do not need to have either of these for a duchy to continue existing. These region types are currently the only ones that can be capitals, and thus allow recruiting (and banking), making them extra valuable. And even when a duchy has at least one, it can have more, and it doesn't mean the duke has any such regions, if any region at all.
I don't think those issues have ever been properly addressed in any feature request. If someone can flesh out a system that would make ducal recruitment sensible, I'm sure it would warrant at least a discussion.
I do believe even Townslands are available to start a Duchy with.
For a long time I have even believed that duchy capitals actually were a thing (had a conversation with Delvin about this many weeks ago), just because of the fact that you need to have this 1 starting city/stronghold/townsland. And I could have sworn that this starting region was somehow highlighted (bold, italic) on some pages.
Never was so wrong in my life.
-
Haha. :P
Main issues I can think of, off the top of my head:
Are ducal capital extra recruitment slots? Or do they replace capital recruitment altogether?
What about duchies without cities or strongholds, can recruitment be implemented in other region types? Let's also not forget that strongholds don't actually offer banks unless they are a realm's capital.
What region is the capital? What if the duke doesn't have a lord? What if he's a rural lord?
Could this incite realms to create a million duchies? One noble One Duke?
Probably some others but duty calls and I gotta rush out.
-
Haha. :P
Main issues I can think of, off the top of my head:
Are ducal capital extra recruitment slots? Or do they replace capital recruitment altogether?
What about duchies without cities or strongholds, can recruitment be implemented in other region types? Let's also not forget that strongholds don't actually offer banks unless they are a realm's capital.
What region is the capital? What if the duke doesn't have a lord? What if he's a rural lord?
Could this incite realms to create a million duchies? One noble One Duke?
Probably some others but duty calls and I gotta rush out.
I think you made it quite obvious why such a system will never be implemented :P
-
I'm not excluding the possibility of someone getting creative and offering a reasonable answer to those. ;)
I mean, heck, the game used to run: 1 city/stronghold, 1 duchy, and those titles WERE tied together. Reverting to that would fix a lot of these issues if not all of them, though could certainly feel like a step back for many.
Adding ducal seats as optional, so that some duchies with cities offer local recruitment while the rest centralize it in the realm's capital, would probably be a much better fit, and would also address a lot of these issues.
Because I don't think we should start allowing recruitment in non-city/strongholds. I also don't think any given RC should make troops available at more than one location (probably easier to manage at duchy level than RC level), to make sure that decentralization has a proper cost. But I also do like the general idea of greater decentralization, so that a lot of currently non-viable realms could simply be annexed into larger realms where they would be exposed to more other players to collaborate with, and that successful and dynamic realms are not stopped dead in their tracks by mere distance issues. Realms have few enough neighbors as it is and we've greatly incentivized super-realms over the years, which was fine when stale super realms would snuff out dynamic smaller realms, but it increasingly feels like dynamic realms are being mechanically held back into staleness while less successful stale realms enforce their stale status quo.
If realms could expand, and expand, and expand, well, then maybe the stronger realms would do so, and we'd finally see more wars, more border changes, and eventually new blocs rise to oppose them. On Dwi, this could mean: Astrum would have more ability to project some power in the east and in the west simultaneously. Swordfell for north towards Astrum, Morek, and HD and south towards D'Hara and Luria, D'Hara towards east and west, Luria towards north, west, and south, etc. It would mostly mean more realms would have more options and more capacities to do more stuff. And this is better than everyone being holed up.
-
Alright, here's to an idea that is perhaps more fleshed out than previous requests...
- Add a new rank, Archduke. This can only be given by the ruler to a duke that has at least a city in their duchy (strongholds and townslands are not admissible, at least unless you want to start giving banks to strongholds). This creates an Archduchy. Optionally, give realms a few options: Archduke/Archduchy, Viceroy/Vicroyalty, Governor/Dominion. Optional: allow it to be done in strongholds, which automatically gives them banks.
- The duke has up to 5 days to accept his archduke nomination.
- Once promoted to archduke, the archduchy has a grace period of 5 days for an archduchal capital to be chosen, after which region stat penalties start accumulating until he chooses one.
- All recruitment centers in archduchies cease to be available for recruitment in the realm's capital
- Nobles are allowed to recruit from both their archduchy capital and realm capital, but only from the each's respective lists accordingly
- Region distance from capital penalties in archduchies are calculated off of their distance from their archducal capital.
- Archdukes are not an intermediate rank between dukes and rulers, but a privileged duke rank. In other words, archdukes cannot have other dukes below them, cannot create other duchies themselves.
- Alternatively, archdukes are an intermediate rank between dukes and rulers, making duchies optionally a part of archduchies, where archdukes that have multiple cities in their domains can delegate powers to subordinate duke, but without the power to make additional archdukes themselves. Probably more work to code than the former option, the tradeoff being potentially more complex (and thus engaging) feudal structures between players
- Choosing an archduchal capital costs gold. It can later be moved for gold. Perhaps 75% of the cost of moving a realm's capital.
- If an archduchy loses its capital, it suffers the same penalties as a realm without a capital does. Namely, it no longer has region from which people can recruit from its recruitment centers.
- If the lord of the archduchy's capital changes allegiance to another (arch)duchy, a h/p penalty is inflicted. Similarly, this should apply to lords of a realm's capital that switch to another realm.
- For the purposes of distance from the capital penalties, when the capital is lost, the game will assume the capital is in the same spot until a new one is selected (as I think it does with realm capitals that are lost). The region doesn't grant any other capital benefits however.
- If an archduchy has been without a capital for a month, it is dissolved.
- When an archduchy hasn't had a capital for over a week, the ruler can dissolve it.
- When an archduchy doesn't have an archduke, the ruler can dissolve it.
- Dissolution of an archduchy reverts it to a regular duchy.
- When an archduchy doesn't have an archduke, the ruler can appoint a noble that belongs to it as new archduke.
- Optional/Debatable: Under some circumstances (tied with government setting or as an option to rulers), archdukes can be an elected position
- There is an in-realm archduke message group, but not an inter-realm "to peers" type one.
- Archdukes have no more powers than regular dukes do, save for the ability to build and then move their capital. Under the intermediate rank system, this also implies taxation over dukes.
- Rulers would be able to set a different tax rate on duchies below them and archduchies below them.
- Archduchies have no diplomacy and cannot fight each other
- Optional: enable archduchal rebellions, where nobles of an archduchy can try to overthrow their archduke, recycling much of the current rebellion mechanics. During this archduchal rebellion, the realm's judge cannot ban any of the nobles belonging to that archuchy until a week after the rebellion is resolved. A defeated archduke loses all feudal titles but is not automatically banned. Unsuccessful rebels get their automatic ban, though the realm's judge can choose to absolve them.
- Archdukes get royal status after having had the title for over a month.
I think this is a fairly exhaustive layout of how it *could* work.
Main disadvantage: the work required to code and debug it, obviously. To consider the potential of superpowers crushing everyone else, I guess, but I don't think we have the demographics for that anymore, nor that it makes it really much more of a threat than a coalition of allied realms.
Advantages: More interplayer interactions, break realms' isolation, enable/structure/support the more colonial and imperial setups many realms have tried over the years and for which there is an obvious player desire. This system could actually help fix a lot of the structural problems that dynamic demographics would target. For example, say Madina decides their spot is boring and they want to move elsewhere, well they could go takeover Golden Farrow, or Shinnen, and start building up infrastructure there. But instead of ditching all of their assets to make it their capital right away, or splitting up their handful of nobles to make a new realm in paralel to eventually ditch their homeland, they could take it over, make it an archduchy, and then keep both their homeland and their new acquisition. Then, gradually, their homeland could amass funds to build up the new archduchy, with nobles going back and forth between the two as needed, until the new archduchy starts having walls, recruitment centers, taxes. Gradually, nobles could swear fealty to regions of the new archduchy, recruit from there, and less and less nobles will need to make the trip between it and the homeland. And since they aren't gaining a million new nobles and the monster code still applies, the more they expand to this new destination, the more they are likely to lose regions in their homeland, until it's just relics left. This not only makes the move possible, but also tempting, even if in a purely colonial and non-migratory manner. If Madina, or Astrum, or D'Hara, or anyone else decides "Hey, Golden Farrow looks nice, maybe I should settle it", they are no longer bound by distance if they make it an archduchy. But say D'Hara decides to build it up, pump lots of gold into it... then that's a somewhat alluring prize for other realms to try to take from them. Similarly, it also exposes the rest of their regions. After all, troops take time to march, there's no way D'Hara can defend Golden Farrow, Port Raviel, and Sallowtown simultaneously. Plus the costs of sea travel...
Furthermore, it would finally disincentivize single-duchy realms. As it is, the game actively punishes realms that choose to delegate powers by creating multiple duchies. If at least it would add some benefits, realms would be more likely to spread the power around.
-
Nope. Doubt this will get through. The very idea of allowing people to recruit in pretty much a second capital is not going to fly as long as we have the 'no tactical relocation of your capital' rule. Your idea pretty much goes straight against that rule.
-
Nope. Doubt this will get through. The very idea of allowing people to recruit in pretty much a second capital is not going to fly as long as we have the 'no tactical relocation of your capital' rule. Your idea pretty much goes straight against that rule.
Honestly, I dislike that rule. It's a rule based on intent, and that kind of rules are terrible. It's the kind of rule that means that a less rules-savy player who does a capital move for legit reasons but accidentally mentions the recruitment benefit can suffer the wrath of the titans, while a more rules-savy player who does a capital move for uniquely tactical reasons can pull it off without any sanctions. Titans aren't mind readers, and there have been at least a handful of cases where rulers were given the benefit of the doubt for otherwise extremely sketchy and convenient capital moves.
Same is to be said of strategic secession.
And realm mergers.
All of these policies... they are still there on paper, but there have been just so many cases of them happening without any divine sanction. Heck, friendly secessions used to be illegal, but it was conceded that we can't really fairly police attitudes. The rise of individualism and frenemies made all of these things pretty moot. Rules can evolve, and I think it would be fair to strike these out. With the game as it is today, and how it is likely to be for years to come, these behaviors are only problematic in the sense of unpredictable enforcement, of not knowing who will get away with what.
I mean, so what if people bring their capitals to the front? MORE WAR. Back when these rules were made, the distance from capital penalties were lesser, we had way more nobles, way more wars, colony takeovers were a fairly common thing (do they still even EXIST?). This ain't 2009 anymore.
More than being of the opinion of "you are right, this would break those rules, it's not workable", I'm more of the opinion of "you are right, this is incompatible with those rules, it's about time we scrap them". We've been struggling with "too much peace" for ages, all the meanwhile it's become harder and less rewarding to actually wage wars. Growth was penalized by shrinking the distance from capital limit, it's desincentivized by density mechanics, all on top of a declining player base.
We need more wars, not less. If it means people create mini-capitals at the border to more effectively go to war with their neighbors? Why the hell not.
That said, these archduchal capitals are not the same as moving the realm's capital. For example, if Astrum were to move its capital to Unterstrom, then it could immediately have access to 100% of its RCs to push the war against Swordfell (fictional example), and quickly massively renew their army within moments. If Unterstrom was made an archduchy, then only the nobles aligned to it could recruit there, and only from the RCs of regions that belong to it. This is, at most, a handful of nobles choosing from, at most, a handful of RCs. There may not even be all unit types, and many of these could suck. There would not be the same drastic effect of a strategic capital move, which' largest issue was the RAPID relocalization of power. After all, even with the no strategic capital move rule, Astrum would only need to take a few more regions east to justify "a more central capital". And, I mean, look at D'Hara, it's flopped its capital left and right while rarely having a really central one and never getting a warning.
It would imply, however, that Astrum would be able to expand into Swordfell. Not that handful of nobles with that handful of RCs isn't going to obliterate Swordfell, but it does add the possibility of taking a region or two. Astrum could grow. But... how is this bad? Given how we want more wars? The more Astrum expands, the more likely other realms are to react, as well. And these realms would also be able to prop up archduchies along the Astrum border to carve out some spaces there. Remember, please, that these are all fictional examples, I'm not a part of Astrum and I cannot say what they want to do or what they would do, I'm just creating fictional possibilities.
While at it, we could also scrap the realm merger ban. I mean, it used to do big controversies, but we've pretty much given up on it by now. Fact is, sometimes, a realm has no future. Either because it will collapse due to hostile realms, due to starvation, due to rogues, or plainly due to inactivity. The archduchy system would grant a framework for which to codify realm mergers. Rulers could surrender their realms to another, transforming it into an archduchy (make the process take long enough that if the ruler has gone rogue, players can rebel to make it abort, preferably with various mechanics favoring the rebels over loyalists).
If one is afraid of it being "overpowered", then bonuses can be given to realm capitals versus archduchal capitals, or building archduchal capitals can be more expensive rather than cheaper than regular capitals, or other such balancing mechanics. But while keeping cautious to not overly penalize successful realms. Because as it is, we have serious structural problems with this game. The continents are too sparsely populated, the maps have too many geographic barriers, and there are too many mechanics crushing both the means and the will to go to war. Archduchies would not really do anything direct for the first of these problems (unless they make things dynamic again, allowing player attraction growth), but it would certainly address the other two, by allowing realms to set up limited recruitment capacities beyond geographic barriers and by re-enabling the existence of vast realms.
-
Realm merger + second capital + no strategic relocation sound like a disaster. More wars are good but that's not the way the devs want to go. They want smaller realms which I am actually against with the current density since the game simply cannot support so many small realms like they have envisioned. A bunch of small 5-10 people realms will just fall into inactivity and kill the game faster than other changes can probably be capable with. I mean there were definitely some realm merger cases like Solaria joining LN but some cases are exempt for special reasons. So if you want a second capital for now, just break your realm in 2. Just make a guild to connect two realms and play like that.
Unfortunately, rules won't change because you simply do not like them. Many rules of course were established during the time when the game had at least three times as many players but the reason why they were created still stands. Although the game seems to simply introduce more rules to force players to play in a certain way envisioned by the devs.
-
Realm merger + second capital + no strategic relocation sound like a disaster. More wars are good but that's not the way the devs want to go. They want smaller realms which I am actually against with the current density since the game simply cannot support so many small realms like they have envisioned. A bunch of small 5-10 people realms will just fall into inactivity and kill the game faster than other changes can probably be capable with. I mean there were definitely some realm merger cases like Solaria joining LN but some cases are exempt for special reasons. So if you want a second capital for now, just break your realm in 2. Just make a guild to connect two realms and play like that.
Unfortunately, rules won't change because you simply do not like them. Many rules of course were established during the time when the game had at least three times as many players but the reason why they were created still stands. Although the game seems to simply introduce more rules to force players to play in a certain way envisioned by the devs.
I don't really agree, and I'm not saying this for personal gain. I don't really want my realm to be split and we don't really need a second recruiting location. Westgard's always had things to do since I joined it and I don't expect it to change, I don't feel such changes would be good because my own realm would benefit from it, but because, from the outside, it looks like a lot of those other realms really need something to change.
I joined this game over 10 years ago, the rules aren't immutable. There are staples, sure, but those policies we speak of, they weren't even on the wiki before 2009, and only as "policies", the first iterations didn't mention them, and the last 5 years of gameplay strongly suggest they are no longer being applied in any noticeable way. Rules are there to make sure the game remains fun. If they make the game less fun, then they don't have a purpose anymore.
The dev team have encourage denser realms. I'm not opposed to this, heck I was greatly in favor, I'm just also gradually increasingly seeing risks and downsides to these measures. Decentralizing recruitment could potentially lower the impacts of some of the pro-density mechanics, but it mostly just gives more flexibility, especially to realms with screwed up geography. It's not about making realms larger at no cost or making them equally powerful everywhere, but allowing greater dispersal of resources in order to facilitate taking advantage of opportunities, and creating unprecedented ones. It'd allow a middle ground position between "allow realms to send 100% of their might anywhere to be able to crush enemies in all corners of the map" and "allow realms to spread out their abilities a bit so that they aren't left without options if there's no one near them on the map".
-
So, I'd like to try and narrow this down to some more easily implementable proposals:
Give the option to create a ducal capital from a city or stronghold (or maybe townsland?) - either the ruler or duke could create one and the cost of doing so would be 75% of the cost of creating a realm capital.
Creating a ducal capital would have the benefits of either:
OPTION A
Allow recruitment from RCs in that duchy at the ducal capital with the trade-off that those recruits are also no longer available at the realm capital. It could also be the case that only nobles of that duchy could recruit at the ducal capital.
OPTION B
Adds an extra region's distance from the ducal capital before the "distance from capital" penalty starts to reduce region stats.
***
To me the advantages of this are that it creates an incentive for realms to create duchies to combat limits on expansion. The price of doing so, however, is creating powerful dukes who can break away any time. It would allow the realm to improve its military capabilities in a particular area, but at the price of weakening its military abilities everywhere else. So you have a choice to make between a single, unified administration of your realm in a smaller area or a disunited administration of your realm in a larger area.
This would mean that realms were able to get bigger than they are currently able to but it would also make it more likely that conflicts within a realm would result in a powerful duke seceding to create his own realm. So, rather than realm reaching the current mechanic enforced limit of "you've expanded too far so your region stats are going to tank and there's nothing you can do about it", your realm would be able to grow bigger but at the price of creating powerful dukes which means that, sooner or later, one of them is going to declare independence.
So there'd still be a limit on realms growing too big but that limit would be enforced by internal conflict and secessions. This, to my mind, would be a big improvement on the current "grow to 14 regions with a single duchy then stagnate" model of realm evolution.
-
Honestly, I think I'd add option B right away, as a passive feature.
"Every duchy that contains at least one city or stronghold increases the allowed distance from the capital before anarchists become an issue and increase the tax tolerance".
No need to build anything, just have it auto apply. It feels fundamentally wrong how the game discourages realms from having more than one duchy. And the newish size limit feels too small, there needs to be a way to increase it to what it used to be.
-
Even without applying all of this, what would be much easier to change is the current realm size penalty bonus into a duchy size bonus.
The more regions are part of the duchy, from a certain amount onward(like 4 or 5), the bigger the realm penalty.
Realms that ignore duchies and maintain a single large duchy get more penalized then realms with many smaller duchies.
This would already make dukes more important, increase their role and increase their numbers.
This wont effect the core of the game radically as the ideas suggested earlier.
Allthough i do really like the ideas of duchal capitals.
-
Even without applying all of this, what would be much easier to change is the current realm size penalty bonus into a duchy size bonus.
The more regions are part of the duchy, from a certain amount onward(like 4 or 5), the bigger the realm penalty.
Realms that ignore duchies and maintain a single large duchy get more penalized then realms with many smaller duchies.
This would already make dukes more important, increase their role and increase their numbers.
This actually sounds like a really good first step, and it would be pretty straightforward to implement too.
-
Yes. Which is weird to be honest. The game is so centralized yet dukes still wield so much power. Feels like it can't make up its mind. If you want to be a strong ruler, you need your own duchy.
I cannot help but agree with Zakky here. Usually ruler will have its own duchy to rule over. When my Ruler character steps down as Duke of a duchy, he cannot be subjected to another Duke power, so he cannot hold any region. Anyway when he passed through a region which seen much fighting, the people of the region elect him as Duke and formed a Duchy under him automatically without he need to create a new duchy. And the region is not Townsland or City type. Of course I Roleplay it as people of the region supporting his realm cause.
I do believe even Townslands are available to start a Duchy with.
For a long time I have even believed that duchy capitals actually were a thing (had a conversation with Delvin about this many weeks ago), just because of the fact that you need to have this 1 starting city/stronghold/townsland. And I could have sworn that this starting region was somehow highlighted (bold, italic) on some pages.
Never was so wrong in my life.
Yes, Townsland can be its own duchy too. I have created duchy around Townsland before.
-
Let's remember that the sum of new mechanics needs to give some breather room for successful dense realms to expand further, and not further bring everyone down to the ~10 region soft cap.
-
Let's remember that the sum of new mechanics needs to give some breather room for successful dense realms to expand further, and not further bring everyone down to the ~10 region soft cap.
Agreed.
-
Honestly, I think I'd add option B right away, as a passive feature.
"Every duchy that contains at least one city or stronghold increases the allowed distance from the capital before anarchists become an issue and increase the tax tolerance".
No need to build anything, just have it auto apply. It feels fundamentally wrong how the game discourages realms from having more than one duchy. And the newish size limit feels too small, there needs to be a way to increase it to what it used to be.
Even without applying all of this, what would be much easier to change is the current realm size penalty bonus into a duchy size bonus.
The more regions are part of the duchy, from a certain amount onward(like 4 or 5), the bigger the realm penalty.
Realms that ignore duchies and maintain a single large duchy get more penalized then realms with many smaller duchies.
This would already make dukes more important, increase their role and increase their numbers.
This wont effect the core of the game radically as the ideas suggested earlier.
Allthough i do really like the ideas of duchal capitals.
I do really like how this conversation has developed. I still think Dukes should be able to terminate their lords at will, but I really love this as well. I appreciate all of your thoughts/effort shared thus far!
-
Nah I like rulers not having the power to boot everyone else. Most interesting strifes were caused precisely by this.
-
Well as a general rule, it's not possible to dismiss any noble from a position once it's been given to them (with the exception of marshals/vice-marshals/ambassadors). That's always been part of the game - you have to either protest them out or get the judge to ban them.
But what I think would be a good improvement would be to make it so that every duchy has a capital and units from RCs within that duchy can only be recruited at the ducal capital. You could also maybe change the distance from capital penalty so that it uses distance from the ducal capital rather than the realm capital.
That would give rulers an interesting choice to make. They could centralise the realm into one large duchy, which would limit how big it could grow, or create multiple duchies which would increase the maximum size of the realm and its ability to wage war, but with the trade-off of undermining central authority by creating powerful dukes who could declare independence any time they felt like it.
You could also potentially make it so that nobles of a duchy can only recruit at their ducal capital. That'd also strengthen duchy identity and would prevent realms from just creating a new duchy on the frontline of whichever war they happen to be fighting purely for faster refit times.
+1 I actually agree with this whole idea
-
Dukes are never going to have the power to dismiss lords upon their whim. When you make a lord (or your predecessor), you are granting them the title for good, not 'until I say otherwise'. Remember, BM is not a historical simulation, but a game that must make balance decisions, based in medieval history.
As said earlier, duchy capitals have been frequently requested, frequently rejected. Again, a matter of game balance.
The realm size penalties do not need relaxed, nor do we need ducal size penalties. There aren't realms in BM with proper density. If you allow realms to grow larger, you reduce the number of realms, the number of potential council positions, the number of potential conflicts between realms, increase the distance you have to march to fight et cetera. The point is to localize conflicts, not have a few empires under the control of a few characters. That tends to be how islands get locked in peace more easily than having a wide variety of different personalities leading realms and conflicting with other personalities.
-
Dukes are never going to have the power to dismiss lords upon their whim. When you make a lord (or your predecessor), you are granting them the title for good, not 'until I say otherwise'. Remember, BM is not a historical simulation, but a game that must make balance decisions, based in medieval history.
As said earlier, duchy capitals have been frequently requested, frequently rejected. Again, a matter of game balance.
The realm size penalties do not need relaxed, nor do we need ducal size penalties. There aren't realms in BM with proper density. If you allow realms to grow larger, you reduce the number of realms, the number of potential council positions, the number of potential conflicts between realms, increase the distance you have to march to fight et cetera. The point is to localize conflicts, not have a few empires under the control of a few characters. That tends to be how islands get locked in peace more easily than having a wide variety of different personalities leading realms and conflicting with other personalities.
Sirion has 50 nobles for 20 regions. Westgard has 30 nobles for 7 regions. A bunch of realms have a 2:1 density, or slightly more or slightly less.
When it comes to Dwilight, the issue of distance between realms is moot, because the capitals are mostly static. All the realm size penalties do is encourage rogue areas between realms. It doesn't reduce marching distances, heck it increases it, because if a realm was to expand into another, at least that would mean shorter refit cycles for the latter.
Nobody wants to return to how things were in the 2000s, where a clique could control half a continent, with their double characters, and three quarters of characters having no title at all. But is now really the perfect sweet spot? Where there are basically as many titles as there are characters? Where most people run without any competition in all elections, and where it's hard to find candidates for many. Less realms would not be a terrible thing.
That said, the core of the issue is not more or less realms, it's about realms having incentives to war each other. And with far away capitals and soft size caps on realms, realms have no incentives to fight each other.
These change proposals, for the most part, are not for the sole sake of realms being able to grow huge. It's for the realms to be able to expand into each other. To have a reason to fight each other. Because looting doesn't give much and you can't reliably make a region go rogue. The point of having more supraduchies and using them to grow realms isn't to make mega realms, but to give realms something to fight for.