Re: Terran-D\'Hara Realm Merger

[Stabbity]

Well, historical precedent is not an end-all argument for cases like these (this isn't really a SMA case), but inasmuch as it can be useful I can't think of an historical precedent for merging two realms without war being the cause of the merger, but these cases I shown are precedents where the defeated party folded their defeated lands to an ally and not to their enemy.

The thing is, I'm sure there are plenty of times where this was tried, but the occupying army replied in a manner similar to "lol, no." and kept right on occupying. Which unfortunately is not coded into game mechanics.

[vonGenf]

Which unfortunately is not coded into game mechanics.

What do you mean? Only unconquered regions changed allegiance. I'm not trying to dictate Phantaria's actions here, they can act as they think best.

If a region changes allegiance while a TO is 95% complete, does the conquering realm need to start again at 0%? If that is the case, then I agree with you that it is less than ideal. A TO should go through at that point.

Honestly I don't even know whether Saffalore was being TOed when it switched.

[Stabbity]

I can actually pull some data for that right now as we just had something similar happen. The TO didn't just halt, but I'll see about the progress.

My point is, if my army is sitting in a region, and the Lord is like "I'm going to join Kelperstan so you can't take the place over." the Army currently in the region should be able to prevent the allegiance change. Its not like a hostile army is just going to allow new government officials in and banners to be changed.

[vonGenf]

My point is, if my army is sitting in a region, and the Lord is like "I'm going to join Kelperstan so you can't take the place over." the Army currently in the region should be able to prevent the allegiance change. Its not like a hostile army is just going to allow new government officials in and banners to be changed.

That makes sense.

[Gustav Kuriga]

What do you mean? Only unconquered regions changed allegiance. I'm not trying to dictate Phantaria's actions here, they can act as they think best.

If a region changes allegiance while a TO is 95% complete, does the conquering realm need to start again at 0%? If that is the case, then I agree with you that it is less than ideal. A TO should go through at that point.

Honestly I don't even know whether Saffalore was being TOed when it switched.

Actually it doesn't go to 0%, but instead becomes impossible because TO can only be performed on regions of realms you are at war with. Technically the TO is still ongoing, but it is mechanically impossible to perform the TO actions, or at least that's what I'm getting from the Tara/Coria merging case.

[vonGenf]

Actually it doesn't go to 0%, but instead becomes impossible because TO can only be performed on regions of realms you are at war with. Technically the TO is still ongoing, but it is mechanically impossible to perform the TO actions, or at least that's what I'm getting from the Tara/Coria merging case.

I understand that you would need to declare war to continue the TO, but the part I am wondering is whether the previous work would be lost. It would make sense if, when you declare war, you could pick up where you left. If the TO is still ongoing, then that probably is the way it works, but I've never seen it in action so I don't know.

None of the regions under discussion are under such a 'suspended TO', so this is a theoretical discussion.

[Chenier]

That comparison isn't even close. The Soviets and the Nazis had already in advance agreed to divide Poland between themselves, and were on the same side at the point in the war. France-Britian is perfect, two nations that don't really like each other, but find themselves allied anyway. Its not identical, but then again, this is BM and not RL.

But the Poland analogy is awful.

I did say BEFORE, right? As in, fictional? Obviously, it's a different context once they both marched in. Or are you claiming that France actually did surrender to the UK? These were fictional examples...

A trend worthy of noting there is that every single example was a Lord. Not one single Monarch willingly submitted himself to another. Lords can jump ship whenever, for whatever reason. Where the illegal realm merger rule comes into play is when two rulers decide to peacefully become one entity.

Alaster isn't joining D'Hara, afaik, or at least certainly doesn't get to keep slinging around "Grandmaster" if he does, if he'd even be allowed to stay.

My view is exactly the same as Indirik's on this case, as far as I can see. This case neither fits text or spirit of the rule.

[Indirik]

A trend worthy of noting there is that every single example was a Lord. Not one single Monarch willingly submitted himself to another.

Read closer. The bold parts should help.

A more period appropriate analogy would be the Norman invasion of Ireland in 1169. The King of Leinster was getting soundly beaten by a rival Kingdom. Instead of submitting to his enemy, he fled to England and then France to submit to the King of England/Duke fo Normandy. He came back with English troops and the King of England assumed Overlordship first over Leinster, then over all of Ireland.

Sure looks to me like the King of Leinster voluntarily became a vassal of the King of England in order to save his rule over his land. Kind of like a King submitting to an Emperor.

Because if you're going to carry it to the extreme of "no ruler would ever submit to another", you've just declared that all multi-realm empires in BattleMaster are allowed, as they involve a ruler submitting themselves to another power. Or that it should be impossible to abdicate the throne of a realm, as that involves giving up rule of a realm, and voluntarily submitting yourself to the authority of someone else.

[Stabbity]

Honestly, a region under a TO shouldn't be allowed to change allegiance. Seems like something you'd need actual control of the region to accomplish.

Indirik, the King of Leinster was a Petty King, on par with a Duke, and not the Royalty of England and more conventional nations.

Chenier, you're missing the point. D'hara is no Soviet Union, it is not a state hostile to Terran, has no intentions of becoming hostile to Terran, and barring the current circumstances would likely never become hostile to Terran. Which makes the analogy to Poland-Germany-USSR a poor one in comparison to Britan-France-Germany. And if you want so say fictional, well that invalidates your whole reason for posting a different analogy in the first place. If you want to go fictional well, obviously D'hara is Vermont when Babylon surrendered to it during its war with the Klingon Empire.

[Stabbity]

I'm saying based on the attitude displayed by your nobles and House of Lords, it wouldn't have flown. Edimilison I think said it best, I'd have to check, but "D'hara is spreading itself dangerously thin." Not to mention, doing so and taking the regions is a good way to alienate your allies, but it is a bit late for that.

[Indirik]

Indirik, the King of Leinster was a Petty King, on par with a Duke, and not the Royalty of England and more conventional nations.

Who cares? He was a King. Size of realm is irrelevant.

Or are you trying to say that size of the realm is important? In that case, the ruler of Terran is a petty king, on par with a duke. In fact, his entire realm is significantly smaller than my three-region duchy. In fact, I bet it's significantly smaller than most Dwilight duchies. It's existence as a realm is mostly just a paperwork thing.

[vonGenf]

Indirik, the King of Leinster was a Petty King, on par with a Duke, and not the Royalty of England and more conventional nations.

I'd have thought you would have jumped to the occasion to call Terran a "petty theocracy".

Chenier, you're missing the point. D'hara is no Soviet Union, it is not a state hostile to Terran, has no intentions of becoming hostile to Terran, and barring the current circumstances would likely never become hostile to Terran.

I don't think that's material to the case, but that's factually wrong. I you had held a poll in D'Hara prior to the war you would certainly have found a majority in favor of giving it away to Phantaria. Your spies must not tell you everything.

[Stabbity]

I'd have thought you would have jumped to the occasion to call Terran a "petty theocracy".

I don't think that's material to the case, but that's factually wrong. I you had held a poll in D'Hara prior to the war you would certainly have found a majority in favor of giving it away to Phantaria. Your spies must not tell you everything.

But you're not giving anything away to Phantaria. You're simply annexing them in the most friendliest of ways possible. You cannot simply claim "We're trying to spite our enemies. But D'hara isn't friendly, we're obviously enemies." Unless you want to claim schizophrenia. So what is it? Is Terran attempting to spite its enemies, or is D'hara an enemy?

And obviously D'hara wouldn't want to stand up to the theocracies alongside Phantaria, they'd get stomped. Realistically, baring the current conflict, a D'haran war on Terran was never going to happen. Especially not with Luria chomping at the bit to the East.

I would love to call Terran a Petty Theocracy, however its a term that really isn't applicable in Battlemaster, since it is impossible to have independent Dukes and Landholders.

[vonGenf]

But you're not giving anything away to Phantaria. You're simply annexing them in the most friendliest of ways possible. You cannot simply claim "We're trying to spite our enemies. But D'hara isn't friendly, we're obviously enemies." Unless you want to claim schizophrenia. So what is it? Is Terran attempting to spite its enemies, or is D'hara an enemy?

It has been a stated goal of D'Hara for some time to force Terran to break the federation. If they had done so, we may have been still federated with the Farronite Republic.

As for the intersection between Pierre's goals, Machiavel's goals, Alaster's goals, the Elder Council's goals, D'Hara's goals and Terran's goals, you've played BM for long enough to know that it is infinitesimal, and that BM is a complicated enough game that you can't just peremptorily declare that all these people have been working together and lump them under a single entity.

[Stabbity]

It has been a stated goal of D'Hara for some time to force Terran to break the federation. If they had done so, we may have been still federated with the Farronite Republic.

As for the intersection between Pierre's goals, Machiavel's goals, Alaster's goals, the Elder Council's goals, D'Hara's goals and Terran's goals, you've played BM for long enough to know that it is infinitesimal, and that BM is a complicated enough game that you can't just peremptorily declare that all these people have been working together and lump them under a single entity.

Don't patronize me. I have never said that their goals have been one and the same. I am saying, based on the political situation of Dwilight, that barring Alaster doing something completely retarded, D'hara would have never gone to war with Terran with the intention of annexing its territories. Especially with Pierre as Prime Minister. Just picture the !@#$ storm that would have ensued if Pierre had declared war on a theocracy after a Crusade had been called to defend it against other Astroists.