[Discuss] Re: Change to positions

[Rob Croson]

On 25 Aug 2006 at 19:56, Christopher Subich wrote:

> Firstly, unless I'm gravely mistaken, claims get settled with peace 
> treaties.  I don't think that BM warfare has had time to adapt yet, but 
> the addition of claims is probably going to result in shorter, more 
> frequent wars just to settle those claims.
> 
> Realm X attacks Realm Y and wins 3-5 regions.  In order to get use of 
> those regions /now/, Relam X decides to give two of them back to Realm Y 
> in exchange for clear title to the remainder.
> 
> Elapsed time, for a single campaign in the war? 1.5-3 weeks, depending 
> on how long the takeovers take.

I *suppose* that's possible. I just don't see it happening.

Part of the problem could be that the region claim code is still 
buggy, and doesn't really seem to be stopping anyone from doing 
anything at all. On the EC, almost all claimed regions have region 
lords. (The existence of bugs is speculation on my part. I don't 
really believe that all of the lordships on these claimed regions 
were actually bought.)

Even if the claiming was working properly, there are a couple reason 
why I don't think it will actually stop wars any quicker:

* Realms that manage to take regions away from another are *winning* 
the war. They really don't have any incentive to end it just to 
resolve the claims. They don't need to. They were already winning the 
war *before* they took ebemy regions away. Sure, they may only be 
getting half taxes from the region, but that's more than they were 
getting *without* the region. And, the enemy loses the *full* taxes 
from not having the region.

* There are at least two ways for the claims to be removed without 
ending the war. (And possibly more...) First, a smaller realm taking 
regions from a larger realm means that there is no claim in the first 
place. Second, a region going rogue can remove a claim. This happens 
quite a lot during active wars.

In all the peace negotiations I have ever seen, I have never seen any 
realm offer to end the war in in order to simply resolve the claims. 
I don't think that claims have enough of a sting in order make them 
an effective deterrent to end the war. If it were impossible to 
purchase a region command, it were impossible to appoint a local lord 
while a claim exists, morale/loyalty/production declined rapidly on a 
region with a claim, food/gold production were drastically reduced 
(to less than half), and no recruitment were possible from a claimed 
region, then perhaps that might provide enough strength to a claim to 
make it possible to ends wars solely through the benefit of removing 
claims.

> > And of course, I don't think anyone has explained why anyone who 
> > protests the ruler to try and take power won't be banned?
> 
> If you're the only one protesting the ruler, then of course you're going 
> to get banned.

Amen to that!

> Nobody's reported numbers yet (please, someone, do so 
> the first time you protest out an absent ruler!), but my expectation is 
> that it will require only a minority of players to protest a wounded or 
> captured ruler to get him out of office.
> 
> If your coup d'état doesn't have the support of even enough players to 
> kick the weakened leader out, how would your desired government stay in 
> power itself?
> 
> A judge could get ban-happy and go after everyone who protests, but 
> that's going to quickly stir up ill-will -- especially if those 
> protesting have standing themselves.  If there is enough sentiment to 
> protest a weakened leader out, banning everyone who tries will only 
> create more problems.

Agreed.

> > I preferred the old system, it seems that we have solutions (and dubious 
> > ones at that) to non-existent problems.
> 
> The new system seems built on the premise that game code cannot 
> effectively enforce a leadership change when there's no will to do so. 
> Realm Z's leader is wounded, so player A forms a caretaker government... 
> for three days.  Realm Y complains that's not the intent of the game 
> code, and Realm Z's players justly wonder why their popular leader 
> should have to quit "just 'cuz?"
> 
> Recognizing that the division is fundamental and insoluble, the 
> alternative is to allow Realm Z to keep its leader in a fully legal 
> fashion, while penalizing them for doing so.  Keeping a ruler (or any 
> other council member) in prison for two weeks is going to hurt Realm Z. 
>   This harm will raise sentiment for a ruler change, and the game code 
> then makes it easy to do so (protests currently, possibly claiming in 
> the future).

This is the best explanation of the purpose behind the system that I 
have ever heard.

You get a cookie!

> The issue of how the change affects region lords is an entirely seperate 
> issue.  Time will tell if it proves a problem, and if it does then we'll 
> eventually endlessly debate /that/ until Tom up and makes the decision 
> for us. (Ah, the benefits of a benevolent dictatorship).
> 
> In the meantime, my opinion is that this change isn't going to affect 
> region turnover as much as some claim.  If I were a region lord (prior 
> to the keep-your-position change) and I were stripped of the title 
> through injury or capture, I would raise hell if I weren't given my 
> position back at my return.  Presuming that this is typical of region 
> lords that care, the wound-loss of position then only affects the 
> lackadasical region lords.
> 
> Lax governance of regions is another problem entirely, and I think that 
> is being more or less solved by the oath system and local taxation.  In 
> such a system, a region lord that Simply Doesn't Care won't survive the 
> hopeful political intrigue.  This, by itself, will ensure a turnover of 
> incompetent region lords.
> 
> On a complete side note, if serious wound times are increased for rulers 
> and council members, it opens up real infiltrator possibilities.  If 
> relations between realms B and C are deteriorating to the point of 
> imminent war, an infiltrator taking out realm B's ruler for a week will 
> allow C to get the jump on them.  Realm B will be completely unable to 
> actually start the war.
> 
> This argument would also apply to intra-realm politics.  If a powerful 
> figure doesn't want the realm to, say, help a dubious ally in an 
> upcoming war, taking out the ruler would prevent the final round of 
> negotiations.  Duke Diabolus or whoever could then swoop in and complete 
> the negotiations himself (to look like a hero) or scuttle the deal and 
> cement support before the ruler comes back.
> 
> It will depend on precise timing, but the infiltrator's cudgel might 
> just be replaced by a scalpel.

All excellent points.

--
Rob
I know that you believe you understand what you think I said,
but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what
I meant.




-- 
Unsubscribing and other list options:
http://news.battlemaster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss