Strategic Secessions

[Chenier]

When we had this discussion in Riombara, I believe it was said that Grehk actually was the first capital of Riombara, but after Rio was destroyed it was refounded in Athol Margos. Both cities thus make sense.

According to Rio's wiki page, it started out in Rines. Grehk belonged to a whole lot of different realms before Rio took it.

In any case, the most central cities are also *very* valid capital candidates RP-wise.

And with what I've suggested, only Fwuvoghor and Melegra would suffer extra penalties. In any case, Rio can't seriously believe it will hold Fwuvoghor forever with its capital in Grehk. The last attack was botched due to poor Enweilian movement and TMP, but there's otherwise no way Rio can defend that city from so far away against the west's full force. I therefore would not see any unfair prejudice, as 1) they have valid cities that are central, 2) these cities have historical reasons to support them, and 3) the only regions it would hurt are regions that are doomed because of travel times anyways.

Rio wasn't what I was thinking of when I suggested this, but the case applies pretty well.

[Dante Silverfire]

Out of all the ideas that have been bandied around for non-capital recruiting, the duchy-based one is the one that Tom said he would look at, if he ever decided it could work. I think the idea was that you could only recruit troops from the duchy to which you belonged, and you would do it in the "duchy capital". (Which we don't have anymore...) It would not be open recruitment where anyone could recruit any troops that were available in the region. They would only be available to nobles who were aligned to that particular duchy. Not sure this would ever actually happen, though.

I really like this idea for some reason. Could be that I have a duke character who is really intent on improving his duchy all the time and I think it would throw a nice dynamic into the game. This way lords and dukes would really have a way to work with and against each other. This gives lords more leverage because if they have a strong recruitment center in their region, then the duke will want the lord to stay, but the lord can leverage for less taxes and more gold so that he doesn't just move to another duchy and offer his troops as recruitment possibilities there.

[Chenier]

I really like this idea for some reason. Could be that I have a duke character who is really intent on improving his duchy all the time and I think it would throw a nice dynamic into the game. This way lords and dukes would really have a way to work with and against each other. This gives lords more leverage because if they have a strong recruitment center in their region, then the duke will want the lord to stay, but the lord can leverage for less taxes and more gold so that he doesn't just move to another duchy and offer his troops as recruitment possibilities there.

I would have loved this in the old system. But now, we don't have ducal seats anymore... Much more complicated. And I suspect that you'd see many linear duchies that all place their ducal seat on the border with the enemy.

[Indirik]

And I suspect that you'd see many linear duchies that all place their ducal seat on the border with the enemy.

This is one of the potential problems of duchy-based recruiting. Any realm willing to just realign regions on a whim would hold a very large advantage.

[Chenier]

This is one of the potential problems of duchy-based recruiting. Any realm willing to just realign regions on a whim would hold a very large advantage.

Which, imo, is the cast of most realms.

[Sypher]

I would have loved this in the old system. But now, we don't have ducal seats anymore... Much more complicated. And I suspect that you'd see many linear duchies that all place their ducal seat on the border with the enemy.

Seems like it could be discouraged by having some code that does something similar to the 'distance from capital' mechanic but on the duchy level.

Or an acceptable tax rate penalty on duchy regions once a duchy grows beyond a certain number of regions. 

[Chenier]

Seems like it could be discouraged by having some code that does something similar to the 'distance from capital' mechanic but on the duchy level.

Or an acceptable tax rate penalty on duchy regions once a duchy grows beyond a certain number of regions.

Which starts to be complicated, forcing us to ask ourselves "is it still worth it"? I wouldn't want ducal distance from the capital to just become another burden that forces more realm to spend more time and maintenance and management than warfare.

[Stue (DC)]

And i suppose you don't consider "The realm is so big that my entire duchy is going downhill fast, and will soon revolt and go rogue unless I do something about it" a good RP reason?

Not if bloody duke is silent and ruler takes care of it. why having dukes at all if they are silent even in such circumstances? care for their duchy is their primary reponsibility and if they sit idly while ruler cares about their region's maintenence, we really do not have ic play.

And thus give the duke a perfect "RP" reason to secede.

that is the whole point. ruler cares that his duke is holding duchy in good condition, it is not ruler's call to take care for region maintenance all around. if he is unsatisfied with duke, he goes after replacing him and eventuall publicly criticizing him, instead of doing micromanagements.

that should be source of most of interesting things in inter-realm diplomacy. instead, we have all kinds of "pragmatical" meta-gaming, where many in power avoid any conflict, ever, leaving dead-boring silent realm in eternal "stable" life.

BTW - Thanks for pigeonholing every ruler character into the exact same selfish, "It's all mine Mine MINE!" attitude. So glad that you know exactly how my characters hsould behave better than I do.
So in your opinion, every "planned secession" requires an OOC discussion and agreement, and it can never be done via IC means, and IC agreements?
That is ridiculously wrong.

lol, you are continuing in taking my general comments personally, where it cannot be read anywhere in my posts, so it is useless to discuss on that again.

yes, i believe "planned sesession" cannot come from ic play, even if some sort of ic justification letters come to "cover" something which is mostly circumventing of game mechanics.

rulers can hardly evenr have readon to propose secession insted of dukes, especially realm-wide split in even more than two pieces. that does not have any ic sense, that is simply ignoring and character traits. if duke run duchies in bad shape, rulers should deal with them personally and it is up to dukes how to resolve it.

secession is by no means easy thing, and ruler can hardly have any ic reason to propose it, he will always have more control of even bad-shaped duchy, than control of other realm, and he wants ic power, so if he has no meta-gamed guaranteed loyalty, he has no any logical reason to propose ducal secession.

new estats system should do some good in this direction - ruler can decide to impose heavy-taxes on bad-shaped duchy to compensate lack of funds as he does not care for region maintenance as it is ducal responsibility.

or he can decided to be tactile and lower taxes, knowing about distance problems.

that is ic trouble which need some action from both sides to be resolved, and where outcome if not fully predictable (as in planned secessions) which should make whole point of this game called bm.

[TDLR]

Out of all the ideas that have been bandied around for non-capital recruiting, the duchy-based one is the one that Tom said he would look at, if he ever decided it could work. I think the idea was that you could only recruit troops from the duchy to which you belonged, and you would do it in the "duchy capital". (Which we don't have anymore...) It would not be open recruitment where anyone could recruit any troops that were available in the region. They would only be available to nobles who were aligned to that particular duchy. Not sure this would ever actually happen, though.

I really like this idea as well.

Seems like it could be discouraged by having some code that does something similar to the 'distance from capital' mechanic but on the duchy level.

+1

Which starts to be complicated, forcing us to ask ourselves "is it still worth it"? I wouldn't want ducal distance from the capital to just become another burden that forces more realm to spend more time and maintenance and management than warfare.

I think distance from duchy capital could be implemented to be more of an anti-abuse mechanism than a burden to the game. So, giving an example using FEI geography, Hupar, through various region connections, would have a pretty hefty penalty for being part of the duchy of Remton, but absolutely none to be part of the Duchy of Topenah, Colasan, or Hupar. Unfortunately, Itomazh is stuck with Enlod.

[Chenier]

I think distance from duchy capital could be implemented to be more of an anti-abuse mechanism than a burden to the game. So, giving an example using FEI geography, Hupar, through various region connections, would have a pretty hefty penalty for being part of the duchy of Remton, but absolutely none to be part of the Duchy of Topenah, Colasan, or Hupar. Unfortunately, Itomazh is stuck with Enlod.

The intent isn't as important as the result in this case. Maybe Hupar has a pretty damn good reason to be in the duchy of Remton? It would create a lot of cases where people will have penalties when they didn't use to.

[Indirik]

Not if bloody duke is silent and ruler takes care of it. why having dukes at all if they are silent even in such circumstances? care for their duchy is their primary reponsibility and if they sit idly while ruler cares about their region's maintenence, we really do not have ic play.

And who said the dukes were silent about it? You're making a very big assumption here that, from what I've seen, is wholly inaccurate.

that is the whole point. ruler cares that his duke is holding duchy in good condition, it is not ruler's call to take care for region maintenance all around. if he is unsatisfied with duke, he goes after replacing him and eventuall publicly criticizing him, instead of doing micromanagements.

And the duke doesn't care? Again, that's one huge assumption that I don't see as being supported IG. You're right, i the duke doesn't care about his duchy, then he's a crappy duke. But I don't see that happening IG very often, if at all.

lol, you are continuing in taking my general comments personally, where it cannot be read anywhere in my posts, so it is useless to discuss on that again.

You're the one that flat out dictated how every ruler in the game should act.

yes, i believe "planned sesession" cannot come from ic play, even if some sort of ic justification letters come to "cover" something which is mostly circumventing of game mechanics.

Game mechanics can help drive RP. Just because it's a game mechanic doesn't mean that it can't be used IC to steer the game. That's kind of why they're there. If the realm is too big, and the tax rates are forced to be too low, and the regions can't be held in good condition because the capital is too far away to hold the regions, then you don't think those are valid IC reasons to consider splitting the realm? You don't think it's possible that the ruler could realize that either he gives his blessing to a secession, or suffers a bloody civil war that he thinks he will probably lose?

rulers can hardly evenr have readon to propose secession insted of dukes, especially realm-wide split in even more than two pieces. that does not have any ic sense, that is simply ignoring and character traits.

It doesn't make any sense to your character, which doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't make sense to anyone else's characters/ Please do not pigeon hole everyone else in the game, and say they should act exactly how you would have your character act.

secession is by no means easy thing, and ruler can hardly have any ic reason to propose it, he will always have more control of even bad-shaped duchy, than control of other realm, and he wants ic power...

Again, please stop pigeonholing everyone else to your play style.

new estats system should do some good in this direction - ruler can decide to impose heavy-taxes on bad-shaped duchy to compensate lack of funds as he does not care for region maintenance as it is ducal responsibility.

All duchies are taxed at the same tax rate. You cannot punitively tax one duchy heavier than the others.

And rulers that don't care for how their duchies are run, and just crank up tax rates to compensate, will soon find themselves to be ex-rulers.

[De-Legro]

yes, i believe "planned sesession" cannot come from ic play, even if some sort of ic justification letters come to "cover" something which is mostly circumventing of game mechanics.

rulers can hardly evenr have readon to propose secession insted of dukes, especially realm-wide split in even more than two pieces. that does not have any ic sense, that is simply ignoring and character traits. if duke run duchies in bad shape, rulers should deal with them personally and it is up to dukes how to resolve it.

secession is by no means easy thing, and ruler can hardly have any ic reason to propose it, he will always have more control of even bad-shaped duchy, than control of other realm, and he wants ic power, so if he has no meta-gamed guaranteed loyalty, he has no any logical reason to propose ducal secession.

The problem here is you seem to assume that planned Secessions mean that the Ruler was involved in the planning. It doesn't. I can be as simple as two Dukes close together planning to break off an support each other as they are unhappy with the ruler, or a war or something.

I assume of course like normal these opinions of yours are backed by MANY people you interact with in game. People that are so passionate about the game mind you that they can't be bothered making a forum account and joining these discussions. The majority of these forums that disagree with the basic assumptions that dictate your posts are again of course the vocal minority in game.

[Chenier]

The problem here is you seem to assume that planned Secessions mean that the Ruler was involved in the planning. It doesn't. I can be as simple as two Dukes close together planning to break off an support each other as they are unhappy with the ruler, or a war or something.

I assume of course like normal these opinions of yours are backed by MANY people you interact with in game. People that are so passionate about the game mind you that they can't be bothered making a forum account and joining these discussions. The majority of these forums that disagree with the basic assumptions that dictate your posts are again of course the vocal minority in game.

That's what happened with Fheuv'n. Handkor wasn't involved in the planning, he and a few others weren't very pleased with it. However, with Riombara on their asses, they didn't have much choice but to accept it: better have us as a friend than alienate us.

[TDLR]

The intent isn't as important as the result in this case. Maybe Hupar has a pretty damn good reason to be in the duchy of Remton? It would create a lot of cases where people will have penalties when they didn't use to.

I don't think I agree with that first statement, especially if the result is logical and tempered. Yes, such a system would impose (some, likely light) penalties to duchies that would abuse the system, and these penalties did not exist before. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Also, to keep regions from switching often just for better recruitment results, a penalty could be imposed where the region would run at decreased efficiency for a length of time and wouldn't be able to switch again for at least another length days, if not longer (like the estate system did when you switched from production to authority, etc...)

[Chenier]

I don't think I agree with that first statement, especially if the result is logical and tempered. Yes, such a system would impose (some, likely light) penalties to duchies that would abuse the system, and these penalties did not exist before. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Also, to keep regions from switching often just for better recruitment results, a penalty could be imposed where the region would run at decreased efficiency for a length of time and wouldn't be able to switch again for at least another length days, if not longer (like the estate system did when you switched from production to authority, etc...)

I tend to consider that the game already has a ton of penalties for a ton of stuff, though thank god a bit less since the new estate system. I therefore won't be in favor of anything that increases the average necessity to do maintenance, unless it's easily avoidable (such as by not putting your capital on your border when you have a perfectly central candidate city).