Author Topic: Strategic secession of Iato  (Read 7184 times)

BattleMaster Server

  • Guest
Strategic secession of Iato
« Topic Start: November 06, 2013, 02:06:46 PM »
Summary:Strategic secession of Iato
Violation:Strategic secessions
World:Beluaterra
Complainer:Dominic
About:Marec

Full Complaint Text:
Seceding Iato grants Riombara a front recruitment capital right on the border of the realm they are at war with. Secessions allowing recruitment on the frontlines are clear violations of the rules and have always been sanctionned.

Anaris

  • BM Dev Team
  • Honourable King
  • *
  • Posts: 7871
    • View Profile
Re: Strategic secession of Iato
« Reply #1: November 06, 2013, 02:25:14 PM »
The secession of Iato has been planned for RL years. It is the culmination of what Riombara has been working toward since the end of the Last Invasion: the refounding of IVF under its last ruler who was not a traitor to humanity. This would have happened whether Enweil was at war with Riombara, at peace with Riombara, or dead.

Now, that said, I will grant the timing's not the most astute.
Timothy Collett

"The only thing you can't trade for your heart's desire...is your heart." "You are what you do.  Choose again, and change." "One of these days, someone's gonna plug you, and you're going to die saying, 'What did I say? What did I say?'"  ~ Miles Naismith Vorkosigan

De-Legro

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 3775
    • View Profile
Re: Strategic secession of Iato
« Reply #2: November 06, 2013, 02:29:38 PM »
I always find these things hard. The rules state

"strategic secessions are prohibited. This means creating a new realm, through secession, in order to circumvent recruiting-in-capital-only restriction."

Thus to me part of the problem is proving the intent of the action. Is the new realm at war with Enweil? Does it have significant RC's and nobles such that is represents a true force in the conflict?
Previously of the De-Legro Family
Now of representation unknown.

vonGenf

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 2331
    • View Profile
Re: Strategic secession of Iato
« Reply #3: November 06, 2013, 02:35:52 PM »
Is the new realm at war with Enweil?

The new realm is a planned friendly secession from Riombara. It is a daughter realm and the entire reason for the war is the foundation of such a realm. This has been announced since the end of the last invasion.

Does it have significant RC's and nobles such that is represents a true force in the conflict?

No, or at least not yet.
After all it's a roleplaying game.

Anaris

  • BM Dev Team
  • Honourable King
  • *
  • Posts: 7871
    • View Profile
Re: Strategic secession of Iato
« Reply #4: November 06, 2013, 03:53:48 PM »
Offtopic post moved to its own topic in the BM General forum. Please refrain from bringing up issues that are, at best, tangential to the case at hand in this topic.
Timothy Collett

"The only thing you can't trade for your heart's desire...is your heart." "You are what you do.  Choose again, and change." "One of these days, someone's gonna plug you, and you're going to die saying, 'What did I say? What did I say?'"  ~ Miles Naismith Vorkosigan

trying

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 184
    • View Profile
Re: Strategic secession of Iato
« Reply #5: November 06, 2013, 04:15:29 PM »
There's only 1 player so far in IVF. That's hardly considered a strategic advantage.

Anaris

  • BM Dev Team
  • Honourable King
  • *
  • Posts: 7871
    • View Profile
Re: Strategic secession of Iato
« Reply #6: November 06, 2013, 04:28:38 PM »
As long as the seceding realm stays out of the war there shouldn't be a problem. Maybe they'd agree to sign a non-aggression pact.

I don't believe there should be a problem even if they stay in the war.

It has been absolutely, 100% clear for RL years now that this was going to happen. The timing was up in the air, but the fact of it was totally public.

That Dominic is painting this as an obviously strategic secession speaks to me of a (somewhat understandable) lack of IC/OOC separation in this case.
Timothy Collett

"The only thing you can't trade for your heart's desire...is your heart." "You are what you do.  Choose again, and change." "One of these days, someone's gonna plug you, and you're going to die saying, 'What did I say? What did I say?'"  ~ Miles Naismith Vorkosigan

vonGenf

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 2331
    • View Profile
Re: Strategic secession of Iato
« Reply #7: November 06, 2013, 04:30:05 PM »
As long as the seceding realm stays out of the war there shouldn't be a problem. Maybe they'd agree to sign a non-aggression pact.

That's not really the point here. Of course the new realm is involved in the war - in fact the main goal of the war was to found this new realm in the first place. It would be disingenuous to claim the new realm is neutral.
After all it's a roleplaying game.

Vita

  • Administrator
  • Honourable King
  • *
  • Posts: 2250
    • View Profile
Re: Strategic secession of Iato
« Reply #8: November 06, 2013, 04:36:43 PM »
This seems pretty simple to me. Are riombarans joining in order to gain a capital next to their enemy? No, apparently there's only one character so far. Was it built up with military infrastructure pre-secession to more effectively wage war before seceding? No. Is the new realm going to be a riombaran copycat in diplomacy or forge its own path? Likely the latter. Did the planning of this secession start with 'we can gain a military advantage by having a new capital next to Enweil'? From what I've read here, I would surmise the answer is no. Is there IC reasoning/roleplay behind the creation of the new realm?

None of these answers seem indicative of strategic secessions to gain an advantage in a war that seems to have already been won anyway.

Remember, there is a difference between a secession during a war and a secession to gain a strategic advancement during a war.

Chenier

  • Exalted Emperor
  • ******
  • Posts: 8021
    • View Profile
Re: Strategic secession of Iato
« Reply #9: November 06, 2013, 05:58:11 PM »
As long as the seceding realm stays out of the war there shouldn't be a problem. Maybe they'd agree to sign a non-aggression pact.

No, because Enweil obviously wants to reclaim its city, therefore anyone other than Enweil holding it is a hostile act against Enweil.

I don't believe there should be a problem even if they stay in the war.

It has been absolutely, 100% clear for RL years now that this was going to happen. The timing was up in the air, but the fact of it was totally public.

That Dominic is painting this as an obviously strategic secession speaks to me of a (somewhat understandable) lack of IC/OOC separation in this case.

The secession should be done after the war so that no strategic advantage is granted. Otherwise it's a stupidly bypass of the rule, anyone can just declare they'll make a colony out of every strategic enemy city before declaring war, suddenly making it all okay? This secession allows the flanking of Enweil, and recruitment in considerably closer to what Riombara can pull off, with much easier control and defense issues. Before the secession, distance from the capital was surely causing problems, tax limit was probably incredibly slow, and sending troops there would take forever. Alleviating all of these issues makes it much easier to deny Enweil the opportunity to reclaim it.

This seems pretty simple to me. Are riombarans joining in order to gain a capital next to their enemy? No, apparently there's only one character so far. Was it built up with military infrastructure pre-secession to more effectively wage war before seceding? No. Is the new realm going to be a riombaran copycat in diplomacy or forge its own path? Likely the latter. Did the planning of this secession start with 'we can gain a military advantage by having a new capital next to Enweil'? From what I've read here, I would surmise the answer is no. Is there IC reasoning/roleplay behind the creation of the new realm?

None of these answers seem indicative of strategic secessions to gain an advantage in a war that seems to have already been won anyway.

Remember, there is a difference between a secession during a war and a secession to gain a strategic advancement during a war.

All of these questions are just ways to ferret one out of a very simple rule, making it a useless and hollow one. If justifications can be given to make exceptions to the rule, then people will ALWAYS be able to find justifications, and thus the rule will NEVER be enforcable.

The war was made to carve out Enweil. This secession helps achieve this goal. Thus, this secession yields strategic advantages. The rest is moot. Building infrastructure will be easier now. Nobles will be able to join. Increasing strength will be considerably easier with the significantly alleviated bureaucratic and logistic burdens.

One cannot argue that it isn't a strategic secession just because it could have been "more" strategic. Plopping a puppet colony in the heart of your enemy's realm is a blatant strategic achievement.

Vita

  • Administrator
  • Honourable King
  • *
  • Posts: 2250
    • View Profile
Re: Strategic secession of Iato
« Reply #10: November 06, 2013, 06:17:36 PM »
I'm not making exceptions to the rule. If its the rule on the 'Rules and Policies' wiki page, I wrote that myself, with input from Tom. The rule, and what I remember Tom saying about his motivations for the rule, was strictly about a realm using a secession to gain an undue strategic gain in the war, as related to recruitment and similar mechanics. This secession has no bearing with that, but is the fulfillment of the intention of the war.

If this were a strategic secession, this would truly be the most ill-planned strategic secession I've seen with only one character making the move over in the switch. I haven't looked at a map, but likely one region too? And the condition of the region or infrastructure?

Frankly, this is one of those rules that exists as a relic of earlier attitudes. I haven't seen a legitimate case of strategic secession in years, despite constant accusations. I'm thinking the last one to my memory was in Luz de Bia, and one of the last lightning bolts or storms (i don't remember which)?

Buffalkill

  • Mighty Duke
  • ****
  • Posts: 503
    • View Profile
Re: Strategic secession of Iato
« Reply #11: November 06, 2013, 07:44:07 PM »

Chenier

  • Exalted Emperor
  • ******
  • Posts: 8021
    • View Profile
Re: Strategic secession of Iato
« Reply #12: November 06, 2013, 07:57:54 PM »
You seem to be deliberately ignoring the fact that there's a lot more than time involved here.

So are you saying that any secession during wartime that doesn't immediately declare war on its parent realm is a strategic secession?

So you agree that Enweil has more or less lost the war already, too. If you are attempting to argue that if Riombara had kept Iato, Enweil could have won the war, but now they can't, you're not doing a very good job of it.

Win the war, no, but that doesn't mean that Enweil can't try to reclaim Iato anyways and try to drag out the conflict as much as possible. War isn't just about winning. Just because a realm is dommed anyway doesn't mean it's fine to cheat against it.

Please describe for me exactly how this realm with one depopulated region and one noble will cause a measurable unfair disadvantage for Enweil.

Again, just because the war is so lopsided doesn't mean that it's fine to cheat.

I've already given reasons why this hurts Enweil, though you seem to intentionally ignore them. I even repeated them. Seceding grants an instant passive defensive bonus to Iato, and grants the potential for increased offensive capacities.

So what if it has little infrastructure now? Does it really make it any less of a strategic secession if the guy waits until after the verdict is made to build a ton of it? Again, you put time in question. "At the time of the secession, the military power of the colony was small" appears to be your argument here. That one depopulated region can expand, you know? It can build infrastructure. Nobles can join it. Who knows how strong it will be in a month? The gains need not be immediate (though I will stress again that there ARE immediate gains) to be strategic. Enweil hopes to impose as much attrition as possible to an enemy it cannot defeat. This secession allows Riombara to cut down on a whole lot of attrition by having a place right by Enweilian lands for its supporters to attack and expand from. Or are you going to tell me that the distance from the capital penalty between Pahk and Iato will be the same as those Iato had from Riombara's capital...?

Anaris

  • BM Dev Team
  • Honourable King
  • *
  • Posts: 7871
    • View Profile
Re: Strategic secession of Iato
« Reply #13: November 06, 2013, 08:00:10 PM »
Secession of a distance duchy to improve maintenance, due to distance from capital and/or realm size, is explicitly permitted.

The forbidden strategic benefit is specifically and solely the one OOC benefit that the capital has over other cities in the realm: recruitment.
Timothy Collett

"The only thing you can't trade for your heart's desire...is your heart." "You are what you do.  Choose again, and change." "One of these days, someone's gonna plug you, and you're going to die saying, 'What did I say? What did I say?'"  ~ Miles Naismith Vorkosigan

Chenier

  • Exalted Emperor
  • ******
  • Posts: 8021
    • View Profile
Re: Strategic secession of Iato
« Reply #14: November 06, 2013, 08:48:22 PM »
Secession of a distance duchy to improve maintenance, due to distance from capital and/or realm size, is explicitly permitted.

The forbidden strategic benefit is specifically and solely the one OOC benefit that the capital has over other cities in the realm: recruitment.

Where is it "explicitly" permitted, exactly?

And this secession does allow precisely that: recruitment on the enemy capital's doorstep.