Too large realms (possibility of penalizing bigger realms more?)

[fodder]

That's not team play. Realm v. Realm warfare is team play. Duchy V. Duchy warfare is a political intrigue game.

it's still teamplay, just different sort of teams. instead of a polity that's kingdom size, you have a polity that's duchy size. basically the same thing but automatically have everything shrunk. a duchy can be made into the equivalent of a small realm via change in game mechanics.

just like you can stick a layer on top of kingdom and call it empire. or what is more commonly known as alliances in the game.

[Stue (DC)]

I hardly believe your city was created through secession. 

it is city where i live now, not actually my city. and yes, when large-empire sovereign imposed too heavy taxes on them, they declared his rule null and void which equals secession, beforehand they made heavily defended city fort, and established good working diplomatic ties with others in surrounding, which created noble republic eventually, beginning at about 1200's, finishing with Napoleon occupation.

as far as i know there are many examples how cities are fighting with royals over taxes. many royals asked cities to accept some level of taxing to avoid military occupation and overthrowing of local command, and if we want to have realms as political facts, city taxing would be their major power.

and that has nothing to do with modern time nationalism, rulers were spreading their rule through either conquering or agreeing taxes with cities, which particularly applies to city in Mediterranean surrounding, which were mostly formed in roman times, some of them even in greek times, and medieval rulers appeared at very beginning of medieval times, where sign of their presence were taxes and army service obligations imposed, and who opposed that had to fight and either lose command or obey.

actually, "nationalism" existed over whole middle age, where Holy Roman Empire is - to my limited knowledge - the most extreme example of weak rulers vs. strong dukes, and even there rulers spent centuries in constant struggles to gain more power.

historically, the never manage it and Westphalia peace was ultimate admission of surrender, but if we are recreating history in BM, in simplified manner, we should be allowed to recreate that conflict.

maybe i can say it in simpler manner: in rl, dukes were always stronger than rulers holy roman empire, but struggle existed all the time, and there would be no struggle if rulers knew they will never win over dukes.

if devs announce duke's historical victory in advance, than there is nt struggle, history is resolved in advance. and that very much explains lack of conflict mentioned in some other posts. dukes were more powerful than rulers, but they had to fight for that power all the time. and they won in holy roman empire, they did not win in french realms, nor in east european realms, while in england they got even more, later, so all kinds of outcomes were present, and all-time internal fights were present.

is it not good background for bm, where proponents of ducal power should fight proponents of royal power all the time, in-game.

that is my thoughts only...

[Fleugs]

it is city where i live now, not actually my city. and yes, when large-empire sovereign imposed too heavy taxes on them, they declared his rule null and void which equals secession, beforehand they made heavily defended city fort, and established good working diplomatic ties with others in surrounding, which created noble republic eventually, beginning at about 1200's, finishing with Napoleon occupation.

The point was, your city already was there before it "seceded". It's not like it came out of nowhere. By the way, which city? I like medieval European history somewhat... although I loathe the Catholic aspect of it.

as far as i know there are many examples how cities are fighting with royals over taxes. many royals asked cities to accept some level of taxing to avoid military occupation and overthrowing of local command, and if we want to have realms as political facts, city taxing would be their major power.

That's true. Plenty of "city revolts" had to do about taxing. However, taxing wasn't steady and continuous as it is now. It was, mostly, based on a year-to-year principle. The more power the monarch had, however, the more he was able to impose "continuous" taxes... which then, later on, would most likely lead to a new revolt.

and that has nothing to do with modern time nationalism, rulers were spreading their rule through either conquering or agreeing taxes with cities, which particularly applies to city in Mediterranean surrounding, which were mostly formed in roman times, some of them even in greek times, and medieval rulers appeared at very beginning of medieval times, where sign of their presence were taxes and army service obligations imposed, and who opposed that had to fight and either lose command or obey.

Now, this is a very good example of how the fall of the Roman Empire is, mostly, believed to be a radical break (and thus the beginning of the Middle Ages), but it is not. Many medieval kings, certainly before the year 1000, saw themselves as the heir to the Roman Empire. They considered themselves Emperor of Rome. The Church had assumed the spiritual part of the "roman population" (ergo, the Pope could be considered the Spiritual Emperor). As such the changes that went through history cannot be defined as "medieval" or "roman", but are more gradual. The first "medieval" kings - "barbarians" - only managed to maintain their power by conquering and rewarding their warriors. When they got to the point that they lost battles or could not reward their followers, revolt was likely to happen, and several more kingdoms were created that would battle eachother (disputed succession etc.).

actually, "nationalism" existed over whole middle age, where Holy Roman Empire is - to my limited knowledge - the most extreme example of weak rulers vs. strong dukes, and even there rulers spent centuries in constant struggles to gain more power.

A particular case: the Holy Roman Emperor (from German Nobility) were mostly interested in conquering Italian states. Hence why this has always been such a "weak" country, in comparison to France or whatnot. They simply shifted their attention to Northern Italy and that gave the local leaders a bigger chance of asserting their own power.

historically, the never manage it and Westphalia peace was ultimate admission of surrender, but if we are recreating history in BM, in simplified manner, we should be allowed to recreate that conflict.

It would be more fun to see history created "by chance". By which I mean it is not the target, but it just so happens to resemble a historic war.

[vonGenf]

it is city where i live now, not actually my city. and yes, when large-empire sovereign imposed too heavy taxes on them, they declared his rule null and void which equals secession, beforehand they made heavily defended city fort, and established good working diplomatic ties with others in surrounding, which created noble republic eventually, beginning at about 1200's, finishing with Napoleon occupation.

..... Mainz? Moscow?

Man, that is a though one. Any more clues?

[fodder]

if devs announce duke's historical victory in advance, than there is nt struggle, history is resolved in advance. and that very much explains lack of conflict mentioned in some other posts. dukes were more powerful than rulers, but they had to fight for that power all the time. and they won in holy roman empire, they did not win in french realms, nor in east european realms, while in england they got even more, later, so all kinds of outcomes were present, and all-time internal fights were present.

is it not good background for bm, where proponents of ducal power should fight proponents of royal power all the time, in-game.

that is my thoughts only...

well.. the thing is.. those kings are not just kings. they are dukes and counts and what not too. just like a duke isn't just a duke of squat, they are counts of lots of what not too. which bm doesn't allow really.

what if the base unit for bm is count/equivalent? and you become a duke after beating up the other counts and getting them of acknowledge you are duke? similarly if you are a duke and get other dukes to submit to you and you become king?

ie.. it's not even necessary to have kings

what if we scale things back even more? where there's a lord per region with the new map we have a knight per region/subregion and build things up to more than 1 knight per lord. say 1 lord has 10 knights, so on and so forth?

[Chenier]

Just relooked at the forum after months upon months, and reading through this thread, I find it odd that it wasn't mentioned that larger realms also tend to get the vast majority of new nobles from newer players from my own personal experience at least. I'm a part of large and small realms but nobles almost always seem to be joining new into large realms while not as much in small realms. I think that is likely one reason large realms stay large. They get more nobles to join them, then smaller realms some times. Yes, sometimes good small realms can retain their nobles more for reasons, but there are other times that realms just start falling apart because the lack of nobility prevents them from doing anything else compared to the large realms around them. My example here is Coria, although it may not be considered a small realm by other continent standards, it certainly is in Atamara, at least by number of nobles.

This is absolutely true. New players are attracted by the power of large realms. If they are anything like I was, they seek powerful realms to be able to do a lot of things collectively, without consideration of personal advancement opportunities. People like winning battles, and you suspect you'll win more by joining the large realms.

The game should perhaps give a brief intro to newcommers to describe general trends on social mobility, and present the good aspects of small realms that they might have not otherwise thought of. Encouraging new players to small realms would likely be a good idea, because I don't think the idea of joining a tiny struggling realm to sound very alluring to them, despite the great opportunities for advancement they present.

I think the political progression system depends on the realm.  Some realms are inherantly more anarchistic then others so progression is easier.

Political identity is a hard thing to get, as it is historically more religious and racial then regional.  I'll use Chenier and myself as modern examples.  Compared to other nations we are Canadian, except in reference to our "home" (say, France and Ireland) countries, to whom we are provincial (Quebecois or Avalonian), however, while we are clearly from different areas, the term RoC (Rest of Canada) is a shared concept.

A French Catholic is Quebec has more in common with a Catholic Avalonian then a Protestant Avalonian has with that same Catholic Avalonian who grew up two blocks away.  Eastern Canada is vastly more progressive then any state represented in battlemaster and while I wouldn't want mechanical forces put in play, I'm really of the mind that there should be a mental pecking order for many nobles.

1.  Same religion
2.  Political advantage
3.  Regional allies

This will solve the "big realm" issue as say, Dutchy #1 in the north will constantly be trying to keep Dutchy #2 in the sotuh from gaining position and power, which will eventually lead to either a political or scessionistic throwdown.  I'd love to see more Dukes pushing "their guy", rather then "who's the best".

I've found it quite fun to grow my ducal power bases whenver I got them. I am slowly building Iato, a tiny remote ravaged border-city, into a powerful regional entity. I brought the duchy of Paisly a long way as well, from a brand new pack of ruins into D'Hara's most prosperous city and duchy (it now has full population). Fun stuff. Dukeships are something you can easily build upon, I find, through a wide variety of means.