Strategic secession?

[Geronus]

It sounds like, from what you're saying, it would be worse if they didn't secede the city, because then they'd all be able to cash bonds there to pay their men and repair equipment. If they did secede, only those who joined the new realm would be able to cash bonds, and though they would be able to recruit, the only troops they'd have available would be those in the city and whatever small number of regions they had been able to conquer around the city.

Yes you can cash bonds and repair, but that's no different than any other case of a realm seizing a city during a war and then using it as a base. I have no objection to that. When you secede the city, in one swoop you additionally eliminate all distance penalties and add the ability to recruit right on the front line. It's a fairly massive swing in the strategic balance, and I can honestly see no reason to do it except for the strategic advantages it confers.

[Frostwood]

It is an interesting discussion, but perhaps we should move this to another thread, as I foresee this consuming the thread.

I think it is an important discussion, as sea travel will sooner or later make it to other continents(I don't know the timeline on this), and this sort of thing may become more frequent.

I think it would be okay, as long as the realm does not re-merge, considering the difficulty of the task.

[Chenier]

Well, now, that's an interesting question.

If a realm were to attempt to create a colony right inside another realm that they are at war with, out of regions that are clearly too far away from their own capital not to revolt almost immediately, should that be considered a strategic secession? It's not like there's anything else they could do with those regions...

(Note: This is actually nothing like what LN wants to do with those regions, but I encourage the rumours that it is! )

If it's done for the sole purpose that the realm could not hold onto it... isn't strategy guiding the decision?

[Chenier]

Secessions, as a rule, are allowed. If you intention is to create a new realm, then secession is the way to go.

A strategic secession refers to an event where it is not the intention of the characters to create two separate realms, but the players feel they have to do so in order to have two recruitment points.

If the seceded lands are too far to be held by the parent realm, then it becomes impossible to argue that the parent realm would have preferred to remain a single realm but split only in order to gain an addition recruitment point. If they had not split, then they would not have held to the lands they just conquered, rendering the conquest moot.

Except that... doing so would allow troops to recruit right from the front? Thus, doing precisely what you described: adding a second centre for recruitment, closer to (right in the middle of) enemy lands...?

[Chenier]

In the past, we would have just told them to run a CTO. CTOs have never been considered "strategic". Probably because of the difficulty of actually completing a CTO, as well as the state in which the TO leaves the fledgling realm. A secession, however, instantly gives you a functional realm in much better condition.

But now you can't do a CTO.

But you *can* run a normal TO a region on the opposite side of the map, which you never cold do before....

It really is an interesting question. Can you run a TO at that distance, and then hold the region long enough to appoint a lord, make the duchy, and have the duke secede fast enough that the region is still in good enough condition to not instantly revolt, even when you factor in the damage a secession causes?

CTOs were a LOT harder to pull off than simple TOs followed by secessions, however. They required massive sympathy just to be an option, then took forever to run. Plus, back then, there weren't any ambassadors to beguile the region before the move...

[Vellos]

Personally, I don't see a problem with spinning of a new realm by secession rather than by CTO, especially given that CTOs are no longer possible.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't strategic capital moves what are restricted, not secessions? Are strategic secessions actually banned?

[Naidraug]

Personally, I don't see a problem with spinning of a new realm by secession rather than by CTO, especially given that CTOs are no longer possible.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't strategic capital moves what are restricted, not secessions? Are strategic secessions actually banned?

Strategic secessions and strategic capital moves are both banned. You can have a peacefull secession, but not a strategic one to gain advantage in a war.

[Velax]

Do remember there is nothing wrong with "strategy". I strongly suggest you have one when fighting a war. A "strategic secession" has a very specific definition and just because you can define a secession as strategic does not make it a "strategic secession" under the banned definition.

For instance, Arcaea created a colony during peacetime via secession. That was very strategic, as one if its main purposes was to give Arcaea a steadfast ally in future wars. It was certainly not a "strategic secession", however.

[Vellos]

Is there any precedent on strategic secessions? i.e. any Titan cases or examples of when it's been down in violation of the rules?

I honestly wasn't aware of this rule. I'm struggling to see what the justification for it was. It seems like the ban on realm mergers would be sufficient to make any strategic secession totally self-defeating in anything beyond a very short run.

To boot, I know of several "strategic secessions" that nobody had a game-rules problem with: Irombrozia and the Meridian Republic both stand out in my mind. Irombrozia absolutely seceded as a strategic action. Rio couldn't reinforce us against Luz de Bia and we felt abandoned, so we broke away to do our own thing. MR was maybe slightly less "strategic" but, still. I'm unsure what a non-strategic secession looks like.

[Geronus]

To boot, I know of several "strategic secessions" that nobody had a game-rules problem with: Irombrozia and the Meridian Republic both stand out in my mind. Irombrozia absolutely seceded as a strategic action. Rio couldn't reinforce us against Luz de Bia and we felt abandoned, so we broke away to do our own thing. MR was maybe slightly less "strategic" but, still. I'm unsure what a non-strategic secession looks like.

Neither of those was a friendly secession, so far as I am aware. I know for a fact MR wasn't. I wasn't around for Irombrozia, but it is my understanding that Riombara wasn't very happy about that either.

[Vita`]

The prohibition of strategic secessions' justification is to prevent realms seceding a city to circumvent the 'only recruit in your capital' mechanic. Friendly secessions are still allowed. Essentially, the question comes down to if the secession is intended to legitimately create a new realm or if it is just a strategic action in a war, to give you an advantage.

[Vellos]

Neither of those was a friendly secession, so far as I am aware.

Friendly secessions are still allowed.

[Geronus]

Vellos, my point was that to be a strategic secession, it also has to be a friendly one.

[Gustav Kuriga]

Vellos, my point was that to be a strategic secession, it also has to be a friendly one.

strategic secessions and friendly secessions are like squares and rectangles. A square is always a rectangle, but a rectangle is not necessarily a square (most of the time it isn't). Using that reasoning, a strategic secession is always friendly, but friendly secessions are not always strategic.

[Geronus]

strategic secessions and friendly secessions are like squares and rectangles. A square is always a rectangle, but a rectangle is not necessarily a square (most of the time it isn't). Using that reasoning, a strategic secession is always friendly, but friendly secessions are not always strategic.

Correct.