Realm size vs Potential gain

[Poliorketes]

This is not new mechanics at all. Currently, you are able to send down armies to punish realms who won't do what you tell them to, and for them to give you monetary tribute, a noble must move so that a gold transfer can be made.

Yes... I think if we put a harder limit to realms size, the vassals realms will be 'created naturally'... and the oppressor realms would want others things aside gold... a few 'selected' nobles in their capital, or a few units on their army (always the first ones in suicide attacks)...

so many possibilities! 

[vonGenf]

Yes... I think if we put a harder limit to realms size, the vassals realms will be 'created naturally'... and the oppressor realms would want others things aside gold... a few 'selected' nobles in their capital, or a few units on their army (always the first ones in suicide attacks)...

so many possibilities! 

My point was that what you describe does not require any new mechanics at all. There are already limitations to realm sizes. There is already a mechanic by which a realm can transfer gold to another one (send a noble to the central realm capital and transfer the goal). There are already mechanics for one realm to send troops to help in another realm's  war (alliance). And there are already cases where these mechanics are used in a relation that is hard to describe in other terms than as a vassal-liege relation.

[Bedwyr]

My point was that what you describe does not require any new mechanics at all.

Agreed.  Mechanics would help keep some of these things more stable, but I think if someone (cough-FEI-cough) pulls it off, then you'll start seeing it done elsewhere too.

[Chenier]

My point was that what you describe does not require any new mechanics at all. There are already limitations to realm sizes. There is already a mechanic by which a realm can transfer gold to another one (send a noble to the central realm capital and transfer the goal). There are already mechanics for one realm to send troops to help in another realm's  war (alliance). And there are already cases where these mechanics are used in a relation that is hard to describe in other terms than as a vassal-liege relation.

The existing mechanics are so onerous that it discourages anyone from doing such a thing. If we don't see such tributes take place, it's not because nobody would like to impose a tax on the defeated foes, it's because managing such tributes are just too much work and unlikely to pay off.

[Peri]

For example: North-East Dwilight. The success of the Morek Empire has killed the fun of the region. The only war/event that broke the eternal stagnation was Summerdale's suicidal crusade. And it had a very predictable end.

I am undecided which opinion to have on this matter. You bring up a very good example, but in my (quite biased) opinion, Morek's success is the result of many repeated mistakes of its neighbours. Summerdale could have played it VERY differently, if they suicide that's not Morek's fault, and I wonder therefore whether game mechanics should somehow limit Morek's success when it comes from players choices.

On the other hand I agree with the fact that there is a concrete lack of game mechanics tools to help rulers give to any wars a more interesting outcome. Again I believe this can be solved by players (see for instance Fontan's fate on EC, they have been given a chance, too bad they wasted it), but some additional game mechanics would definitely be helpful in having interesting peace treaties.

I however also agree with most of Indirik's remarks, it's not very easy to let players play as vassals and like it.

[JPierreD]

I am undecided which opinion to have on this matter. You bring up a very good example, but in my (quite biased) opinion, Morek's success is the result of many repeated mistakes of its neighbours.

And I agree with you, but that's besides the point.

Summerdale could have played it VERY differently, if they suicide that's not Morek's fault, and I wonder therefore whether game mechanics should somehow limit Morek's success when it comes from players choices.

I wouldn't mind discussing this in another thread, but I don't want to go off topic in this one. What I said here was not that Morek should be punished, but that the success of /any/ realm should be limited to a less permanent kind of victory. Regardless of how and why they achieve such victory, or how deserving they are of it.

On the other hand I agree with the fact that there is a concrete lack of game mechanics tools to help rulers give to any wars a more interesting outcome. Again I believe this can be solved by players (see for instance Fontan's fate on EC, they have been given a chance, too bad they wasted it), but some additional game mechanics would definitely be helpful in having interesting peace treaties.

When things could be solved by players but are not is when it is likely that the game mechanics are not providing the right environment for that to happen. I won't comment on Fontan for I am not familiar with their situation.

I however also agree with most of Indirik's remarks, it's not very easy to let players play as vassals and like it.

And that is why realms almost always choose death before surrendering: because the winner's demands will most times be so harsh as to not allow the defeated to ever raise again from quasi-vassal status (why would a conqueror impose any less if they could avoid it?).

What I propose is that we remove the ability of the victors to impose an implicit vassalage out of which there is almost no escape, without naming it, and substitute that for en explicit vassalage that can be escaped from given enough time.

[Zakilevo]

And I agree with you, but that's besides the point.

I wouldn't mind discussing this in another thread, but I don't want to go off topic in this one. What I said here was not that Morek should be punished, but that the success of /any/ realm should be limited to a less permanent kind of victory. Regardless of how and why they achieve such victory, or how deserving they are of it.

When things could be solved by players but are not is when it is likely that the game mechanics are not providing the right environment for that to happen. I won't comment on Fontan for I am not familiar with their situation.

And that is why realms almost always choose death before surrendering: because the winner's demands will most times be so harsh as to not allow the defeated to ever raise again from quasi-vassal status (why would a conqueror impose any less if they could avoid it?).

What I propose is that we remove the ability of the victors to impose an implicit vassalage out of which there is almost no escape, without naming it, and substitute that for en explicit vassalage that can be escaped from given enough time.

Look at Perdan. They made a comeback even after getting their asses beat to pulps. Sometimes you just have to suck it up and wait for the right moment.

[Indirik]

What I propose is that we remove the ability of the victors to impose an implicit vassalage out of which there is almost no escape, without naming it, and substitute that for en explicit vassalage that can be escaped from given enough time.

I don't think your system allows that to happen. It does not change the fact that:

1) Players don't *want* to be vassals, so won't choose the vassalage option
2) Players often want to be very punitive, and impose extremely insulting and unpalatable conditions on defeated foes
3) Players find it almost impossible to accept these extremely punitive conditions

Instituting an option that garnishes X% of a realm's income to send to another realm as tribute does not seem to me to be something that will change any of those facts. If Realm A can't take all of Realm B's lands, then it can drive them rogue, and then replace Realm B with Realms C and D (as happened with Ibladesh).

[JPierreD]

Look at Perdan. They made a comeback even after getting their asses beat to pulps. Sometimes you just have to suck it up and wait for the right moment.

I would like to see that happening more often than it does now, that's the idea of the proposal.

I don't think your system allows that to happen. It does not change the fact that:

1) Players don't *want* to be vassals, so won't choose the vassalage option

No, it takes that into account. For a realm to expand it has two options: it either fragments itself or it grows into an Empire with a center of power and tributary states. Regardless of which, both choices create much more unstable situations, making conflicts and war a much more realistic possibility.

2) Players often want to be very punitive, and impose extremely insulting and unpalatable conditions on defeated foes

And the idea is for them to be able to impose insulting and unpalatable conditions (such as the proposed Vassalage is), but avoiding them to be permanent ones (such as 99% of the current proposals are: territorial gains).

3) Players find it almost impossible to accept these extremely punitive conditions

Because there is usually no way to come back from them. If the winning realm eats a large enough chunk of yours you are stuck as an undeclared vassal forever. If it only takes part of your income for as long as you cooperate (because it cannot eat your land nor wants to colonize it), then the option doesn't get that ugly.

Instituting an option that garnishes X% of a realm's income to send to another realm as tribute does not seem to me to be something that will change any of those facts. If Realm A can't take all of Realm B's lands, then it can drive them rogue, and then replace Realm B with Realms C and D (as happened with Ibladesh).

Yes, that is one of the possibilities, which will not always be the one conquerors want. Astrum wanted Caerwyn to remain, just without Golden Farrow. Luria Nova didn't want to destroy Fissoa, just make it a vassal. As that was impossible from current game mechanics after the war they merely turned into "associates" of the Lurian Empire. And so on.

Right now we seem to have only two acceptable options: Total destruction or return to status quo ante bellum with very little modifications. How about we add a third?

[Peri]

I don't think your system allows that to happen. It does not change the fact that:

1) Players don't *want* to be vassals, so won't choose the vassalage option
2) Players often want to be very punitive, and impose extremely insulting and unpalatable conditions on defeated foes
3) Players find it almost impossible to accept these extremely punitive conditions

Instituting an option that garnishes X% of a realm's income to send to another realm as tribute does not seem to me to be something that will change any of those facts. If Realm A can't take all of Realm B's lands, then it can drive them rogue, and then replace Realm B with Realms C and D (as happened with Ibladesh).

I guess one way out of this would be to make it more profitable for realm A to keep realm B alive and a vassal rather than destroying it completely, possibly with a profit decent enough to counterbalance the risk of having a potential enemy still around. After all it's not always possible or desirable to spawn realms C and D, and driving everything rogue does not really benefit A besides removing B.

This is probably what motivates JPierreD in proposing a vassallage system which might lead realm A to think "hey instead of proposing a humiliating treaty which will be eventually rejected, let's settle for something milder which can lead to some advantage for us". I am however unsure seizing a % of realm B's money is enough, even if that could be a starting point as periodic player-driven tributes are simply too unhandy and unreliable and are rarely considered for peace treaties.

[Chenier]

I guess one way out of this would be to make it more profitable for realm A to keep realm B alive and a vassal rather than destroying it completely, possibly with a profit decent enough to counterbalance the risk of having a potential enemy still around. After all it's not always possible or desirable to spawn realms C and D, and driving everything rogue does not really benefit A besides removing B.

This is probably what motivates JPierreD in proposing a vassallage system which might lead realm A to think "hey instead of proposing a humiliating treaty which will be eventually rejected, let's settle for something milder which can lead to some advantage for us". I am however unsure seizing a % of realm B's money is enough, even if that could be a starting point as periodic player-driven tributes are simply too unhandy and unreliable and are rarely considered for peace treaties.

Spawning realms C and D requires a great number of nobles that realms I have played in have not had available in many many years. Such colonies drain a realm of their nobles, which ends up hurting the realm badly (as Fheuv'n did to Enweil). Hence why utter destruction of an enemy becomes more and more desirable, because both colonization and annexation is practically impossible in most cases, and tributes are extremely onerous to maintain under the current system.

[vonGenf]

Right now we seem to have only two acceptable options: Total destruction or return to status quo ante bellum with very little modifications. How about we add a third?

If I think of the modern period, I can find many historical examples of states that became client states through economic/military domination, however that is outside the scope of BM. Thinking about the medieval period, I have a hard time thinking about any other mechanism than simply oaths.... Is there a specific example you have in mind and would like to see reproduced in BM? From there, it may be easier to work out the mechanism to make it happen.

[Chenier]

If I think of the modern period, I can find many historical examples of states that became client states through economic/military domination, however that is outside the scope of BM. Thinking about the medieval period, I have a hard time thinking about any other mechanism than simply oaths.... Is there a specific example you have in mind and would like to see reproduced in BM? From there, it may be easier to work out the mechanism to make it happen.

I think that's what is being requested. A vassal realm would have its ruler swear fealty to the crown of another realm.

[vonGenf]

I think that's what is being requested. A vassal realm would have its ruler swear fealty to the crown of another realm.

Well, you can already do that. You can sign a treaty that says "I swear fealty to you". The question is how to enforce that status.

[Indirik]

The question is how to enforce that status.

That's up to the players to enforce.