[Discuss] Region control/loyalty depending on troops in the region

[Richard Devries]

I've always had a problem seeing regions that have no troops present 
maintain a Core status with 100% loyalty, just because of one or two 
estates are set to authority. Wouldn't it be better to have 
control/loyalty depend on the strength of the garrison in the region? I 
mean, unless peasants are subdued by the military, they would quickly 
start revolting, wouldn't they?

This would also help spreading armies around more, as more nobles would 
be needed to maintain control over the peasants. One could argue that 
you would just need to dump some militia in the region, but that could 
be solved by making militia prone to siding with the peasants, as they 
have no nobles commanding them. Other units will stay loyal to the 
ruler, and clash with those siding with the peasants. (You would see 
reports like 'There is unrest in Region X! Militia units A, B and C have 
revolted against the Crown! Units D, E and F remain loyal, and it has 
come to a violent clash!' There would be a battle report, something like 
'Battle in Region X! X Insurgents vs. Realm R loyalists')

The downside of this is that it would be very boring to have to sit in a 
region to keep the peasants in check. But if it were a slow process, 
then that might not be such a problem. I.e. if a region does not have 
any nobles and their units there for few days, control and loyalty will 
start to drop because the peasants notice nobody is there to keep them 
under their thumb. Then, a few nobles will have to move there to restore 
order, before it comes to civil unrest.


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