[Discuss] Dukes still not recognised properly?

[Garrett Schaffer]

On 1/3/07, Dorian Gray <portrait.of.dorian.gray at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Even with the advent of the new tax system, I don't think Dukes will be
> played as they should. Dukes, in reality, would almost conduct their own
> diplomacy - trying to gather regions away from other Dukes, hoarding
> food/gold, raiding with their private armies into other realms. In game,
> Dukes can't get away with any of this because:
>
> -There's still no recognised need for a lord to switch Duchies one way or
> another - this may well change with oaths in full effect though.
>
> -We can still work out mathematically how much a region should be giving,
> and if it isn't, punish the lord. This is almost like using OOC means, since
> the gold that a region at 100% isn't really visibly variable and it can be
> worked out from there, where in reality it could vary greatly. With food,
> AFAIK the Banker still manages food.
>
> -Settings make it difficult to attack - if you're at peace, you can only
> ever attack on murderous if you want to go raiding, and your options are
> still limited - you can't loot or take over or anything like that, which the
> objective of a raid would be. Then the ruler of the victim realm would
> appeal and there'd either be all-out war or the ruler will strip the duke of
> their title. There's secession as a counter, but even since claims and
> everything else I've still seen three realms destroyed and a fourth about to
> be (three of the four being secessions). At least two of those have had
> rulers agree to surrender (what's left of) their realms without a fight -
> this might be historically accurate (keeping lords in power after an
> invasion), but I'm not sure whether that was ever a gameplay no-no, since
> IIRC people have been bolted for it before.
>
> -Dukes appointed are usually chosen out of their loyalty to the ruler,
> which wasn't always the way it happened in real life - there were often rich
> and powerful lords that the ruler had to appease in order to stay in power.
> These days, if a Duke tries anything like that, the inevitable result seems
> to be fine/banishment/exile/stripping of titles and secession.
>
> Basically, while in theory the Dukes are meant to have a decent amount of
> power, in practice they're still very much limited, with the rulers still
> being the ones with the real say in the end. There are some semi-democratic
> solutions in most realms such as an extended 'realm council', and there are
> people that do try and RP their Dukes as being the realistic, arrogant and
> powerful people they should be, but it's not quite the same. I'd like to see
> privately sponsored armies looting border regions of their own free will,
> rulers having to beg for support, etc. but I just don't think it'll happen
> the way people see them now.
>
> Does anyone else see this or is it just me?
>
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribing and other list options:
> http://news.battlemaster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>

I very much agree with you. But I also think, that in implementing these
changes, the ruler should be a powerful person, generally a duke (or in
democracies/republics a former duke). I can't think of any ways to
accomplish that without limiting rulers to only lords or dukes, which I'm
against. But the idea of a puppet king shouldn't be an often occurrence,
though they, speculating, likely did occur.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://news.battlemaster.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20070103/8886f99a/attachment-0001.htm