Feature Cut: Takeovers

[Bedwyr]

I think most will. The idea is that it is a lot easier to do it via fear, but it requires constant upkeep (you have to go around occasionally reminding people why they rightfully fear you). And as it is troublesome to switch one for the other, many people will conquer via fear and then get stuck with it.

As long as you can rule by fear.  BTO's are a pain in the ass right now because it's almost always worth it to take the region nicely to cut down on rebuilding time, and because there's no possible way to have a region kept in check by, for instance, hanging rebels and still have anything resembling good production.

[Tom]

As long as you can rule by fear.

Totally. There will be options to produce fear that don't crush production. :-)

[Zakilevo]

Totally. There will be options to produce fear that don't crush production. :-)

I am sure you will come up with some awesome options. Like beating down a random peasant? lol

[mikm]

I am sure you will come up with some awesome options. Like beating down a random peasant? lol

Then the takeover should be lot slower and harder then a normal bt.

[Velax]

No thanks. Recently took an enemy capital with a brutal takeover. It took three weeks. Don't really want it any longer or harder than that, thanks.

[Adriddae]

I would imagine using fear as a way of rapidly controlling a region. So, hanging rebels, police raids, rape and killings, would inspire fear fairly quickly and thus being able to pummel the population into your realm. The downside is that fear would be reduced faster. If your not inspiring fear, than the population would rather start wanting to rebel. Loyalty on the other hand would be much harder to earn, but it would last much longer. Realm's would want to use fear during war to quickly takeover regions and deny their enemy resources, but if peace came, loyalty would be more viable since maintaining the regions would cost less.

[Tom]

Exactly. Taking a region through fear will be relatively fast. But then you are stuck with it, and switching it over to loyalty is going to be painful and take a bit of work. Or you can just stick with fear and go there reminding them every now and then. That's the easy road. But there's a risk: If you find yourself in a war and have nobody to go around beating the peasants, you could have rebelling regions at the worst possible time...

[Heq]

I really like it, as it can add flavour to realms and lords.  There becomes a real RP launching point in the difference between the "Dread Lords" and the more traditional nobles around them.

[Ramiel]

I really like it, as it can add flavour to realms and lords.  There becomes a real RP launching point in the difference between the "Dread Lords" and the more traditional nobles around them.

The way some people have suggest we all must behave as would go in the first option - Dread Lords

[Adriddae]

The way some people have suggest we all must behave as would go in the first option - Dread Lords

Well, at least it would be a worthwhile option. Right now, unless your forced to use brutal or hostile takeovers, you would want to use friendly takeovers because they offer the best option of loyalty right now. In the new system your offered to path each with a different benefits. If you want to roleplay a chivalrous noble, you'll have to earn their loyalty. If you want to roleplay a Dreadlord, you'll have to make sure they fear you, or they'll rebel later on. As Heq said, this will make a good distinction between Dreadlords and regular nobles.

[mikm]

Also regions ruled be fear would be taken over much easier by enemy realms using friendly takeover option.The invaders would be seen as liberators and the population would gladly join them.

[Tom]

Also regions ruled be fear would be taken over much easier by enemy realms using friendly takeover option.The invaders would be seen as liberators and the population would gladly join them.

That's what the americans thought many times, and gosh were they wrong most of them. No, a fearful population is likely to watch everyone with distrust. It won't be easier to take oppressed regions, because until you've proven otherwise (i.e. TO via loyalty), they will assume you're just like the others.

[Longmane]

Exactly. Taking a region through fear will be relatively fast. But then you are stuck with it, and switching it over to loyalty is going to be painful and take a bit of work. Or you can just stick with fear and go there reminding them every now and then. That's the easy road. But there's a risk: If you find yourself in a war and have nobody to go around beating the peasants, you could have rebelling regions at the worst possible time...

As a few English kings rudely discovered to their dismay with Scotland and wales   

[Nosferatus]

great idea, always wished for using looting, killing, burning and raping as region 'maintenance'.
Also the whole idea in general makes takeovers more logical and easy to understand.
Another step towards making the game more accessible.

[Uzamaki]

This is definitely an interesting prospect, and as another person who has spent the past couple weeks doing TO's, I wouldn't mind a change like this too much.

But...

How will Cavalier's be effected by this change? They can't loot OR do civil/police work. Does that mean they will basically still remain sideline watchers so far as TO's go?

Will Hero's still be unable to perform civil and police work as well? Which means they are only good for the fear based TO's?

Also, will warriors be more skilled at looting and courtiers more skilled at civil work?

Will RTO's be loyalty based?

And if most realm's will probably switch to Fear based ruling anyways, won't that make Ambassadors a little outdated?