[Discuss] Region Claims

[Timothy Collett]

On Jun 15, 2006, at 9:28 AM, Vinnie wrote:
> How does that make sense?

Taking regions has always been a little too easy.  From the local  
perspective, people tend to get at least a little upset when the  
people who have been overseeing everything and keeping it running for  
their whole lives are suddenly murdered and replaced with their  
smiling murderers (or, worse yet, their bloodthirsty murderers who  
proceed to kill everyone who won't denounce their victims as Evil and  
follow them).  From the larger view, it's not unreasonable for a  
realm to assert that they still "own" regions that have been taken  
from them.

For the first part of claims--not being able to appoint a local lord-- 
I interpret it as the locals simply not accepting his authority as  
long as the realm he represents is actively trying to kill the realm  
they still somewhat feel themselves to be part of.

For the second part--something unspecified but horrible happening if  
you destroy the realm holding the claim--I interpret it as being the  
locals going nuts because you destroyed the realm which, again, they  
still somewhat feel themselves to be part of.

> How does it improve the game?

First of all, it gives some incentive to stop a war.  As things were  
(and, I guess, still are, really), if you're doing well enough to be  
taking regions from someone, there's really nothing pushing you to  
stop.  The only reasons to stop that I can see would be that the  
victim suddenly got more support (in which case, nothing will change:  
before and after, he'll take back his regions and things will go on  
from there), or because the you find that you can't easily hold more  
territory (which is a rarity, as most times people are happy to just  
keep taking and taking).

With claims fully implemented, there are two incentives to stop and  
try to achieve peace.  The first is that you won't be able to appoint  
local lords to any of the regions, which means half taxes, no  
repairs, no new recruitment centers, etc.  The second is that you  
would probably rather keep *some* of the regions in the state that  
they are, even if you have to give up something to sign the treaty,  
in order to avoid the unspecified horrible something that happens if  
you actually destroy the realm.

The second way it improves the game is, as I said, to give more  
leverage to small realms.  Sure, there are some who will be fool  
enough to fight to the death and laugh as their death causes  
unspecified horrors to their enemies.  But others will, instead, use  
the threat of said horrors to get a good deal out of their  
oppressors--maybe get a few regions back, maybe get a promise not to  
attack again (hopefully backed up by a strong third party ;-) ), who  
knows.

Timothy Collett
Anaris Family

--

"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do  
nothing."
~ Edmund Burke




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