Change in the rebellion code

[Lefanis]

I am currently involved in a rebellion, and I noted a few points that I felt do not really make sense-

Point one- One of the principal factors leading up to the rebellion was the banning of my Duke character from the realm. So the rebellion succeeded, and my character was unbanned, rejoined the realm, reappointed duke. He assigned all his knights to armies, but can't assign himself,as he is "too new" to the realm. He cannot access the character list, because he is new. He cannot disagree, for he is new. He cannot join any rebellion, because he is new. I raise the points because even though the rebellion is over, the civil war continues, and my character is effectively nerfed from using some potent tools at his disposable, because the game doesn't recognise the past IRL year of his being in the realm. Right now he is rolling with it, but it's sort of silly that one of the ringleaders of the rebelling forces can't even join the rebellion in a official manner.

Point two- I remember that whenever a rebellion fails, there is a nifty tool that can be used to ban all rebels. Why not give victorious rebels a similar tool, ban all loyalists? Let me explain a little more the situation in the realm- which has pretty much split the entire realm in half. There is a large chunk of nobles supporting the rebels, and a large chunk supporting the loyalists. When the rebels won the "rebellion" after displaying their military superiority, they were immediately protested out of office by the loyalists who had been beaten on the field. Now I remember that when you are banned, you are prohibited from protesting on grounds that as you are a traitor, no one gives a damn what you think. Now given that in a rebellion, the loyalist forces have been numerically overwhelmed, and the palace overrun by rebels, who gives a damn about the protests of the loyalists, whose violent protest against the rebels was put down? The code as exists now just ensures that each wide can keep forcing the other out of office, and neither side can have own of their own as judge long enough to ban the opponents. So you have a stalemate, a perpetual civil war, until one side just gets fatigued of it, which really kills the RP for both sides involved.

[De-Legro]

I am currently involved in a rebellion, and I noted a few points that I felt do not really make sense-

Point one- One of the principal factors leading up to the rebellion was the banning of my Duke character from the realm. So the rebellion succeeded, and my character was unbanned, rejoined the realm, reappointed duke. He assigned all his knights to armies, but can't assign himself,as he is "too new" to the realm. He cannot access the character list, because he is new. He cannot disagree, for he is new. He cannot join any rebellion, because he is new. I raise the points because even though the rebellion is over, the civil war continues, and my character is effectively nerfed from using some potent tools at his disposable, because the game doesn't recognise the past IRL year of his being in the realm. Right now he is rolling with it, but it's sort of silly that one of the ringleaders of the rebelling forces can't even join the rebellion in a official manner.

Point two- I remember that whenever a rebellion fails, there is a nifty tool that can be used to ban all rebels. Why not give victorious rebels a similar tool, ban all loyalists? Let me explain a little more the situation in the realm- which has pretty much split the entire realm in half. There is a large chunk of nobles supporting the rebels, and a large chunk supporting the loyalists. When the rebels won the "rebellion" after displaying their military superiority, they were immediately protested out of office by the loyalists who had been beaten on the field. Now I remember that when you are banned, you are prohibited from protesting on grounds that as you are a traitor, no one gives a damn what you think. Now given that in a rebellion, the loyalist forces have been numerically overwhelmed, and the palace overrun by rebels, who gives a damn about the protests of the loyalists, whose violent protest against the rebels was put down? The code as exists now just ensures that each wide can keep forcing the other out of office, and neither side can have own of their own as judge long enough to ban the opponents. So you have a stalemate, a perpetual civil war, until one side just gets fatigued of it, which really kills the RP for both sides involved.

Point One is not to do with rebellions, but with new characters to a realm.

Point Two, the only battle we saw, the rebels lost on the attack. The rebellion succeed due to how the code works when there is no leader, IE the rebels win by default. But back to it, Loyalist upheld their oaths. Apart from the fact that they opposed you, what ground do you have to automatically ban them?

[vonGenf]

Point One is not to do with rebellions, but with new characters to a realm.

Point one has to do with the fact that the character is not new to the realm at all.

It's certainly not trivial to code a better new/old algorithm, though.

[Lefanis]

Point One is not to do with rebellions, but with new characters to a realm.

Except he shouldn't be a new character, that is why i feel a change might be beneficial in the future.  I agree with Von Genf that it won't be easy, but if its done it would be a great addition to the game.

Point Two, the only battle we saw, the rebels lost on the attack. The rebellion succeed due to how the code works when there is no leader, IE the rebels win by default. But back to it, Loyalist upheld their oaths. Apart from the fact that they opposed you, what ground do you have to automatically ban them?

Rebels had numerical advantage, before and after the battle, as far as cs and troops are concerned.

What ground do I have? Is any more needed than the fact that they opposed the winning side? Look at all civil wars in history, the losers were either killed or forced to exile, regardless of whether they were rebels or loyalists. Look at the English Civil Wars/Revolution, where the losers were persecuted had lands confiscated, and on occasion, killed outright.

[Ramiel]

Look at the English Civil Wars/Revolution, where the losers were persecuted had lands confiscated, and on occasion, killed outright.

Incorrect in thinking thats because they were losers - that was just for the propoganda. The truth is we just like a good hangining and beheading :p

[De-Legro]

Except he shouldn't be a new character, that is why i feel a change might be beneficial in the future.  I agree with Von Genf that it won't be easy, but if its done it would be a great addition to the game.

Rebels had numerical advantage, before and after the battle, as far as cs and troops are concerned.

What ground do I have? Is any more needed than the fact that they opposed the winning side? Look at all civil wars in history, the losers were either killed or forced to exile, regardless of whether they were rebels or loyalists. Look at the English Civil Wars/Revolution, where the losers were persecuted had lands confiscated, and on occasion, killed outright.

So lets look at this, the easiest way would just be to have the game remember every realm you have been in so you can rejoin the realm seamlessly. Now how should we store this, how many realms per character should we track?

And how long will it remember that you aren't new to the realm? When you return to a realm after 3 years should you still be treated as knowing the ins and outs of it? How about you return after only a month, but a successful rebellion while you were gone has seen the realm change completely in all but name? So we land in the case that if we are doing this for immersion reasons we need a system that can determine just how likely it is that the realm you are rejoining is in any way similar to the realm you left. More tests to right and test and tweak. And when should we run them? Every turn change, only when you rejoin a realm? In the first case we add server load and time to TC, the second results in the possibility that each characters realm list is larger then it needs to be since its not culled.

So there you go 5 minutes of thought, and I can promise you those aren't even close the full extent of things that would need to be considered. So when you start putting it all together is it worth the dev time, testing and bugs to solve something that is likely a pretty rare edge case to start with?

Yes you had the numerical advantage, and they had level 5 walls, which is why your numerical advantage saw you lose the first battle remember? In terms of Civil wars, highly placed members may lose there lands, but do you suggest that ever single knight of the losing side was exiled? I think you will find that was not the case. Out of everyone that fought in the English civil wars just how many were exiled? And more to the point they had the POWER to do so, through truly having the military force and political power. From the way things look in Arcachon that is not the case, one side has a slight military advantage, and both sides are vying for political power. Looks like one side or the other is going to need to woo some of the opposing sides nobles. Stop looking for a I win button to end a close fought contest.

[Lefanis]

And how long will it remember that you aren't new to the realm? When you return to a realm after 3 years should you still be treated as knowing the ins and outs of it?

I don't know, how about a week?

Yes you had the numerical advantage, and they had level 5 walls, which is why your numerical advantage saw you lose the first battle remember? In terms of Civil wars, highly placed members may lose there lands, but do you suggest that ever single knight of the losing side was exiled? I think you will find that was not the case. Out of everyone that fought in the English civil wars just how many were exiled? And more to the point they had the POWER to do so, through truly having the military force and political power. From the way things look in Arcachon that is not the case, one side has a slight military advantage, and both sides are vying for political power. Looks like one side or the other is going to need to woo some of the opposing sides nobles. Stop looking for a I win button to end a close fought contest.

Uhh.. You weren't there, so you wouldn't know. In a rebellion, neither sides get the walls.

One of the oldest rules i can remember of rebellion (having participated in more than my fair share) is that the battles dont matter at all, Only the troops left standing at the end of it.

And no, i am not asking for a "I win" button. If this feature is implemented, it would be a couple months to year before it found its way in game. Given that if a rebellion fails, the loyalists have the option to ban all rebels, i dont see why the rebels shouldn't either.

[egamma]

I don't know, how about a week?

Uhh.. You weren't there, so you wouldn't know. In a rebellion, neither sides get the walls.

One of the oldest rules i can remember of rebellion (having participated in more than my fair share) is that the battles dont matter at all, Only the troops left standing at the end of it.

And no, i am not asking for a "I win" button. If this feature is implemented, it would be a couple months to year before it found its way in game. Given that if a rebellion fails, the loyalists have the option to ban all rebels, i dont see why the rebels shouldn't either.

The easiest fix to implement would be a "no protests for 1 day" option after a rebelling succeeds. That way, there's time for the judge to be appointed and bans put in place.

[Lefanis]

The easiest fix to implement would be a "no protests for 1 day" option after a rebelling succeeds. That way, there's time for the judge to be appointed and bans put in place.

I agree, this makes more sense than my original proposal.

[Anaris]

Why not give victorious rebels a similar tool, ban all loyalists?

Here's why:

Griefer McTrollerson is a member of Keplerstan.  He and his two buddies happen to be in the capital with their reasonable-sized units when everyone else is away, and there's no militia.

Griefer McTrollerson calls a rebellion with his two friends to back him up.  Of course, he wins on the first turn, because there are no loyalist forces in the capital.

Current code:
He is then protested out of office, quite rightly, and one of the other 47 people in the realm (those who supported the old regime) is elected as the new ruler.  The ban on the old ruler is lifted and he is allowed to return to the realm he helped build.

Your suggestion:
He then insta-bans everyone else in the realm.  Having only 3 nobles left, the realm collapses.  Everybody loses.  Except Griefer McTrollerson, because he enjoys destroying other people's fun for no good reason.

[Bedwyr]

Don't judges have to wait a week to begin banning people?  If so, then delaying protests that long would be a problem with the palace-coup type protests that Tim is talking about.

What about increasing the protest thresholds for rebel governments?  I.e. Governments who take power by force aren't going to care as much about opposition that isn't armed.

[Anaris]

Don't judges have to wait a week to begin banning people?  If so, then delaying protests that long would be a problem with the palace-coup type protests that Tim is talking about.

New judges have to wait a day or two.

Banning rebels can be done instantly by the ruler, and the way Lefanis was requesting this change, banning loyalists would have been instantly available as well.

What about increasing the protest thresholds for rebel governments?  I.e. Governments who take power by force aren't going to care as much about opposition that isn't armed.

So how long does a government count as being a rebel government?

[Bedwyr]

New judges have to wait a day or two.

Ah, gotcha.

Banning rebels can be done instantly by the ruler, and the way Lefanis was requesting this change, banning loyalists would have been instantly available as well.

Yes, but he's already admitted that there is at least one better idea for going about it, and I'm trying to solve the underlying problem here.

So how long does a government count as being a rebel government?

A week seems reasonable to me.  That allows, for instance, a reformation of the government and all associated elections (if any) to finish, and is still less than the 10 days for serious Ruler fame.

[De-Legro]

I don't know, how about a week?

Uhh.. You weren't there, so you wouldn't know. In a rebellion, neither sides get the walls.

One of the oldest rules i can remember of rebellion (having participated in more than my fair share) is that the battles dont matter at all, Only the troops left standing at the end of it.

And no, i am not asking for a "I win" button. If this feature is implemented, it would be a couple months to year before it found its way in game. Given that if a rebellion fails, the loyalists have the option to ban all rebels, i dont see why the rebels shouldn't either.

So no walls, and yet you still lost the battle. That goes even more against the idea that you had some sort of military advantage doesn't it.

[Lefanis]

So no walls, and yet you still lost the battle. That goes even more against the idea that you had some sort of military advantage doesn't it.

Again, you weren't there, you didnt see the scout reports showing us with double the troops and cs. Anyway, I gave this situation as an example, to demonstrate why I feel a change would benefit the game.

Yes, but he's already admitted that there is at least one better idea for going about it, and I'm trying to solve the underlying problem here.

Well, I just wanted to point out the problem, and I proposed a solution for it. But as long as the issue is sorted, it doesn't really matter what the solution is.