BattleMaster > Magistrates Case Archive
Strategic secession of Iato
Vita`:
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:
--- Quote from: Anaris on November 06, 2013, 06:35:06 PM ---No, but the rule does care about intent, when intent can be reasonably determined. Surely the fact that the creation of this realm has been declared as a goal for so long—and the fact that it would have been founded regardless of the war—is a strong indication of intent.
--- End quote ---
IMO the intent is not as important as the consequence. The consequence of this secession appears to be precisely the type of unfair disadvantage that the rule exists to prevent. Doesn't matter that they've been thinking about it for years. It looks kinda like insider trading to me.
Chenier:
--- Quote from: Anaris on November 06, 2013, 07:34:41 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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: Anaris on November 06, 2013, 07:45:13 PM ---Please describe for me exactly how this realm with one depopulated region and one noble will cause a measurable unfair disadvantage for Enweil.
--- End quote ---
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:
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.
Chenier:
--- Quote from: Anaris on 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.
--- End quote ---
Where is it "explicitly" permitted, exactly?
And this secession does allow precisely that: recruitment on the enemy capital's doorstep.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version