[Discuss] Ruler rotation

[Dorian Gray]

In history, when there was a ruler change, there would be some unrest - the
lords would consider a more open bid towards the throne, rebellious groups
would emerge, fanatical religious types or members of an outlawed religion
would appear more, subject kingdoms would look at independence, things like
that. My point is, it wasn't as easy a transition as we have now. Maybe if
we enforce some kind of unrest amongst the people - morale, loyalty drops,
increase in independence across the board - it will do a few things:

1) Encourage realms not to war so much, since if their ruler gets captured
or wounded a lot, they'll soon not be able to control the regions they
started with, even if they're winning.

2) Make it harder to step down in favour of the old guy a week after you're
voted in - if you have a series of rulers in quick succession, the damage
gets worse and worse to the regions.

Also, make it so that the more a realm experiences changes in leadership,
the less damage it does - I'm thinking more of preventing this from
disadvantaging republics/democracies here - it makes sense that the more
'complete' the ruler's control (a Pontifex fairly controlling, a Monarch
certainly so and a Dictator absolute), the more it hurts the regions when
you change.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://news.battlemaster.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20060802/d460a349/attachment.htm