Looting Feedback

[Lorgan]

More interestingly, I could envision an actual letter of marque being issued to a specific army, granting that army permission to loot in a specific realm, and returning some percentage of the takings to the Crown.

This would not require a declaration of war, just a lack of a peace treaty. It would also not permit any takeovers, just looting.

\o/

[Indirik]

You can already do all of this, with the exception of taxing the loot via mechanics.

[Anaris]

You can already do all of this, with the exception of taxing the loot via mechanics.

Then perhaps the letter of marque should make looting possible even against realms you're at peace with

I'm not saying that I'm definitely going to do something like this, but I do like the idea. I like any idea that has the potential to reduce the proportion of conflict that is aimed at wiping out a realm.

[vonGenf]

More interestingly, I could envision an actual letter of marque being issued to a specific army, granting that army permission to loot in a specific realm, and returning some percentage of the takings to the Crown.

This would not require a declaration of war, just a lack of a peace treaty. It would also not permit any takeovers, just looting.

This sounds a lot like the scrapped new diplomacy system that allowed narrow declarations of war - such as declarations that would only allow looting, or declarations that automatically expired once a limited objective was achieved.

I liked that system except for the treaty friction part. The taxation part is really not necessary for it to work.

[Anaris]

This sounds a lot like the scrapped new diplomacy system that allowed narrow declarations of war - such as declarations that would only allow looting, or declarations that automatically expired once a limited objective was achieved.

I liked that system except for the treaty friction part. The taxation part is really not necessary for it to work.

Well, it's similar to a part of the failed treaty system, yes.

And I don't have a problem with making one of the possible taxation amounts 0%.

[Indirik]

Can't you already loot anyone who is not an ally?

[Chenier]

This sounds a lot like the scrapped new diplomacy system that allowed narrow declarations of war - such as declarations that would only allow looting, or declarations that automatically expired once a limited objective was achieved.

I liked that system except for the treaty friction part. The taxation part is really not necessary for it to work.

Indeed, I'm not quite sure why that system was scrapped, the friction was really the only thing people seemed to oppose.

[Eldargard]

I agree with Indirik here. Having limited engagements with other realms is cool and all but I see no reason to put yet more gold into the pockets of the rich. There is already too much disparity between the rich and the poor in battlemaster for my taste and too few even notice it. Finding yet another way for the rich to get richer does not interest me much...

[Chenier]

I agree with Indirik here. Having limited engagements with other realms is cool and all but I see no reason to put yet more gold into the pockets of the rich. There is already too much disparity between the rich and the poor in battlemaster for my taste and too few even notice it. Finding yet another way for the rich to get richer does not interest me much...

Because the rich are the ones who decide to give opportunities or not to the not rich.

Besides, you exaggerate wealth. Most rulers I come across are not rich. Most have sub-average pay, many are outright poor.

[Indirik]

And this will do nothing to change that.

A ruler can already generate wealth by taxing the dukes. If they choose not to, then that's their own fault.

[Chenier]

And this will do nothing to change that.

A ruler can already generate wealth by taxing the dukes. If they choose not to, then that's their own fault.

He can, but that makes dukes unhappy.

If he can send off nobles to loot and gain a piece of it, however, then that makes everyone happy, doesn't it? The knights get to do something and keep a part of their loot, and the ruler gets to make a bit of coin without upsetting the dukes.

[Chenier]

Two things:

I tried to burn food, lenient, just loads up a blank black page with no hours used.

Also, I switched allegiance of a region with peasant militia, the peasants didn't follow suit. Seems to me like they should have followed their region?

[Anaris]

Two things:

I tried to burn food, lenient, just loads up a blank black page with no hours used.

Good catch. Fixed now; please try it again and let others know to do the same.

Also, I switched allegiance of a region with peasant militia, the peasants didn't follow suit. Seems to me like they should have followed their region?

Hm. When a region is taken over, any militia that remain are supposed to "start a guerrilla war against the foreign oppressors" or some such thing, but I think you're right, if the region changes hands for any other reason, militia should go with it, peasant or otherwise.

[Anaris]

Also, I switched allegiance of a region with peasant militia, the peasants didn't follow suit. Seems to me like they should have followed their region?

To be clear, exactly what script did you use to do this?

(For instance, was it a handover with RegionExchange, a single-region switch with SwitchDuchy, a full-duchy switch with SwitchRealm, or something else entirely?)

[Chenier]

With 6 hours, 89 men, burning food on lenient:

Your men burn 84 bushels of food belonging to the people of Eykfar and from the local granaries.
434 peasants are killed in the process.

With 4 hours, 10 men, outlying villages on lenient:

Your men take 2 gold worth of money and valuables from the people of Eykfar.
8 peasants are killed in the process.

As for the allegiance change, it's as lord joining the duchy of Reeds, which bordered the region in question.