Feature Cut: Takeovers

[Tom]

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?

Didn't I say that there would be TO-specific actions added?

[Sacha]

On a side note, cavaliers can do police work, right?

[Uzamaki]

Didn't I say that there would be TO-specific actions added?

Oh, my bad, I must have missed it.

[Tom]

I'm making progress on this and it will go live soon, together with a large update that I've been holding back for a while. There will likely be a bit of breaking, but I am thrilled at the new takeover mechanics. Here are some highlights:

• No more "takeover units" - the total amount of troops you have in the region matters, not the one unit starting the process
• Active participation - you can't just sit there and wait. Well, you can, but if you do, your takeover will take literally forever, because only the new Takeover Actions will make it proceed
• No more pesky peasant uprisings - unless you leave the region, your TO will "stay on". If the enemy realm wants to stop you, they will have to haul their asses over and kick you out.
• More reasonable times - no more spending three days to TO a region with 50 people in it. Especially depopulated rogue regions can easily be taken in a day now. But if you plan to conquer a large place that loves its current realm, you better bring a huge army - or spend a really, really long time.
• Is it better to be feared or loved? - you decide. Conquer a region by oppression or by liberation. Your actions decide. You can even change your mind halfway through (though that's not exactly going to make things easier).

[Lorgan]

Nice.

[egamma]

Yay!

[JPierreD]

Niiiice

[Chenier]

I'm making progress on this and it will go live soon, together with a large update that I've been holding back for a while. There will likely be a bit of breaking, but I am thrilled at the new takeover mechanics. Here are some highlights:

• No more "takeover units" - the total amount of troops you have in the region matters, not the one unit starting the process
• Active participation - you can't just sit there and wait. Well, you can, but if you do, your takeover will take literally forever, because only the new Takeover Actions will make it proceed
• No more pesky peasant uprisings - unless you leave the region, your TO will "stay on". If the enemy realm wants to stop you, they will have to haul their asses over and kick you out.
• More reasonable times - no more spending three days to TO a region with 50 people in it. Especially depopulated rogue regions can easily be taken in a day now. But if you plan to conquer a large place that loves its current realm, you better bring a huge army - or spend a really, really long time.
• Is it better to be feared or loved? - you decide. Conquer a region by oppression or by liberation. Your actions decide. You can even change your mind halfway through (though that's not exactly going to make things easier).

Will there be a continental variable? Some continents have a much higher noble density than others, making providing very large numbers much easier in some continents than others. It'd be nice if a variable in the formula was added to take into considering nobles/owned regions, though without necessarily making TOs twice as easy in continents with twice the density, but just as a small adjustment. This would also help automatically scale the difficulty a bit as the player base either increases or (more likely) declines.

[Longmane]

Sounds that Cats whiskers that does Tom 

[Geronus]

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.

Following this metaphor though, the population will be *glad* to get rid of their old rulers. I would say that a loyalty based TO of a region that's been ruled through fear should proceed more quickly BUT that when it succeeds, the starting loyalty to the new realm will be tenuous at best. You will have to work very hard to keep their trust or they will quickly become rebellious.

[De-Legro]

Following this metaphor though, the population will be *glad* to get rid of their old rulers. I would say that a loyalty based TO of a region that's been ruled through fear should proceed more quickly BUT that when it succeeds, the starting loyalty to the new realm will be tenuous at best. You will have to work very hard to keep their trust or they will quickly become rebellious.

The difficultly encountered in several wars with Heart and Mind campaigns to win over oppressed people would suggest this is not the case. When a population has been subject to severe oppression, they do not give their trust to a new group easily, they live in constant fear, they doubt the sincerity of their new masters, they worry that it is just the beginning of some new form of oppression. You know you are sincere and truly wish to earn their loyalty, they are just waiting for the whip to return.

They also have a hard time accepting that they are truly free of their Old masters, or that their old masters won't come back.

[Geronus]

The difficultly encountered in several wars with Heart and Mind campaigns to win over oppressed people would suggest this is not the case. When a population has been subject to severe oppression, they do not give their trust to a new group easily, they live in constant fear, they doubt the sincerity of their new masters, they worry that it is just the beginning of some new form of oppression. You know you are sincere and truly wish to earn their loyalty, they are just waiting for the whip to return.

They also have a hard time accepting that they are truly free of their Old masters, or that their old masters won't come back.

Indeed, but this is exactly what I am saying. They would be quick to get rid of their old ruler, but slow to trust the new one.

[Chenier]

Indeed, but this is exactly what I am saying. They would be quick to get rid of their old ruler, but slow to trust the new one.

On the contrary, if the fear for reprimand of their old masters, they would likely be more hesitant to switch, because that would both leave them at the mercy of the new guys and at the mercy of the old guys' wrath.

[De-Legro]

What Dom said, history has shown that heavily repressed people will often resist liberation and attempt to retain the hated power structure. Various reasons exist, like fear of punishment of the old rulers regain power. Think of it as large scale Stockholm Syndrome.

[Chenier]

Because no matter how bad you have it, it could always be worse.