[Discuss] Small Realms

[Timothy Collett]

On Jun 4, 2007, at 11:39 AM, Tom wrote:
> I'm really lost there. Are these people who are complaining really  
> expecting the game to be even independent of realm size? I have no  
> idea where this impression can come from. Do people misjudge size  
> factors so much?

I think that the real problem is that once a realm becomes quite  
large (for instance, Abington, Cagilan Empire, Enweil), it can be  
incredibly difficult to oppose them, due to various factors.

I think the primary factors are these:
- The plainly obvious: large realms can field large armies, and so  
you need a coalition to fight them
- The slightly less obvious: generally, they've gotten large by being  
savvy politically and/or militarily, so fighting them effectively  
becomes more difficult
- The insidious: once they're large, people want to stay on their  
good side so they don't get squashed, so they tend to attract allies  
like a flame attracts moths

I think that the best way to counter these is to completely sidestep  
them, since, as you point out, if you're 5 times bigger than the  
enemy, you *SHOULD* be able to defeat him.

So, as has been proposed, make it easier to break up large realms  
into smaller ones.  The changes to secessions help, but people have  
also suggested making colony takeovers much easier.  I notice, Tom,  
that you said that they were deliberately very, very hard: I must ask  
why?  I would contend that if colony takeovers were easier, you would  
see much more of the fluidity that you are looking for, with 1-3  
smaller realms creating a colony in a larger realm becoming a  
commonplace part of war, and some of those colonies actually managing  
to hurt the larger realm enough to prosper and become independent.

Timothy Collett
Anaris Family

--

"The corporation *cannot* be ethical, its only responsibility is to  
make a profit."
  - Milton Friedman




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