[Discuss] Temporary position holders

[LilWolf]

Eric Kenseth wrote:
>
>
> How is that valid? That directly targets and hampers a single 
> character and player, not to mention doesn't really makes sence on all 
> levels. As for a perminant king, I see no way in which it truly harms 
> anyone, and indeed enhances many. All you have really stated are 
> coined phrases like 'diplomatic stagnation' and 'low ruler turnover'. 
> Other then that you seem to be argueing for the sake of argueing and 
> not really offering anything new.

But the diplomacy _does_ stagnate if the same people run the island for 
long. I remember what Atamara was like when Eston had been ruled by 
Zathans Bane for god knows how long, Darka had been ruled by Mr_Jones, 
Tara by Jamuga, Cagilan Empire by Zadar Nargath, Norland by Krypton the 
Bold, Talerium by Captain and MI by DA3. All of them had been ruler for 
a year or more(some of them still are after three years!) and the island 
was so stale when it came to diplomacy that anything new would quickly 
get suffocated. The island really livened up only after a lot of those 
old guys got fed up with a few of Toms decisions and other stuff and 
left the game. Getting fed up with the games creator is what it took to 
get a breath of fresh air to the island and that's just sad.

Had there actually been something forcing a ruler change once in a 
while, the island would have livened up a lot more quickly and would 
have been a lot more interesting instead of being what it was for years.

>
> Has it ever occured to you that during the middle ages most kings held 
> the position for a long time, much longer then 1000 days, and 
> diplomacy could at times be so stagnate that wars could last 100 years 
> or so? Perhaps we should not consider BM a game and rather consider it 
> a medievil simulation... wait, wasn't that the plan to begin with?!?

Battlemaster *is* a game for the majority of people, no matter how you 
try to twist things, and as such there are game mechanics in place that 
work differently than real life for the sake of gameplay. The front page 
talks about a game. It has nothing about simulation of real life.

>
> A final consept-- since noone else is offering any new ideas in the 
> last day or so, heres one-- in (semi-)perminent ruler gevernments, 
> rulers are able to claim a hold to their position, assuming that when 
> a position-dropping event happens the realm votes that person as ruler 
> still. Furthermore, this ruler would have some more effects-- a king 
> in prison has a very low chance of escape(unless there is a battle in 
> the capital), can not pay ransom (but the realm's judge gets the 
> option to do so at roughly 2000 gold or so), and the 7-day limit does 
> not apply. Furthermore, whenever a ruler is not well, the realm gets a 
> large (30% or so) income penalty. Finally, the Judge(and perhaps 
> dukes) gains the ability to question the king, calling another vote to 
> see if the king hold the position.
>
> Basicly, it allows kings to continue to hold their place, but with a 
> penalty to the realm, and at the discression to the realm. THEN add a 
> little thing about the king not being re-electable to ensure people to 
> try to abuse past this feature, and you have a balanced system that 
> leaves everyone happy.
>
>
It doesn't really solve the problem. All it does is add a few penalties 
that are easy enough to shrug off as to not matter. It leaves 
infiltrator stabbings fairly meaningless(even reduces their meaning as 
the ruler would have a sure fire way of staying in power). Rulers in 
prison tend to get released quickly because of prisoner exchange agreements.