News

[Discuss] Claims [was: Re: Change to positions]

Christopher Subich csubich at subich.com
Sat Aug 26 08:37:14 CEST 2006


Rob Croson wrote:

> Part of the problem could be that the region claim code is still 
> buggy, and doesn't really seem to be stopping anyone from doing 
> anything at all. On the EC, almost all claimed regions have region 
> lords. (The existence of bugs is speculation on my part. I don't 

That's true.  Fixing any remaining bugs allowing appointment of region 
lords is vital.  I don't mind allowing purchase of the region, since it 
isn't a tactic likely to be overly abused.

> I don't think that claims have enough of a sting in order make them 
> an effective deterrent to end the war. If it were impossible to 
> purchase a region command, it were impossible to appoint a local lord 
> while a claim exists, morale/loyalty/production declined rapidly on a 
> region with a claim, food/gold production were drastically reduced 
> (to less than half), and no recruitment were possible from a claimed 
> region, then perhaps that might provide enough strength to a claim to 
> make it possible to ends wars solely through the benefit of removing 
> claims.

You bring up a very interesting point here... why is it that a region 
without a lord is still perfectly well-behaved?

As it stands now, a region without a lord is perfectly fine -- from what 
I've seen of daily region reports, it's even quite happy because it gets 
only half the tax rate as the rest of the realm.  This is nonsensical.

We're talking about dirty peasants off by themselves, without the firm 
guiding hand of a noble (and his steward / administration staff) to 
manage the region.  These peasants wouldn't still be working their arses 
off in every way but tax payments.

They'd probably keep farming enough to feed themselves, but that's about 
it really -- nobody would be there to make them work the rest of the 
fields.  And idle hands are the devil's playthings, so unrest would 
increase.

Extending your ideas:

* Regions without lords should experience a fairly rapid drop in realm 
control; keeping it even at "Main" level should keep the judge or a 
bureaucrat hopping.  (Also, slipping realm control would speed recapture 
of the land by the claimed realm, without artifical "liberation" mechanics.)
* As realm control slips, so does the behaviour of the peasants.  Food 
production should be greatly hindered (if it isn't already), at the 
point where a province that is "occupied" should barely be feeding 
itself, if it would naturally have a food surplus.
* Why would peasants without a lord bother signing up in an army?  The 
recruitment centres should (if they don't already) empty at a takeover, 
and not refill when realm control is below "Province", and then only at 
a slow rate.  (This, again, may already happen -- I haven't tested).

A claimed region going rogue probably shouldn't eliminate the claim; if 
that's an unwise or difficult change, then a region should first revolt 
back to its original owner (if loyalty to that owner is above some 
threshold) before going rogue.

Combine these factors, and regions with a claim are functionally useless 
without significant bureau/judge/police effort.  They'll still be 
collecting only half taxes, and most of the rest will likely be stolen. 
  The realm won't be able to recruit much (if at all) from the military 
centres, and there won't even be a food surplus to redirect to friendly 
lands.

The existing protection regarding claims for small realms seems largely 
reasonable, and becomes more important if claimed regions are crippled a 
bit more.

Such a system would absolutely give larger realms incentives to end 
wars.  With these suggestions in place, occupied lands really wouldn't 
be worth very much.  The problems (since they're tied to realm control) 
could be fixed with hard work in a handful of regions, but not over 
great swaths of enemy territory -- it might be worth it, for example, in 
a captured city.

 >> [Snip regarding wounded rulers]
> This is the best explanation of the purpose behind the system that I 
> have ever heard.
> 
> You get a cookie!

Yea! I get a cookie! Wooo! :)


More information about the Discuss mailing list