[Discuss] Estates Problems

[Jamie Cheyfetz]

On 5/4/07, Timothy Collett <danaris at mac.com> wrote:
>
> On Friday, May 04, 2007, at 01:53AM, "Jamie Cheyfetz" <jamie.cheyfetz at gmail.com> wrote:
> >A suggestion:
> >
> >Allow the realm that was defeated to choose another realm that will
> >inherit all of their claims.  *That* would give attackers a reason to
> >stop their wars with peace rather than just obliterating their enemy.
>
> You miss the point.
>
> The problem most (I think) have been complaining of in this thread is that there is no incentive for the *defenders* to accept or offer a peace treaty: they know that if they surrender, they'll only be a shadow of their former selves, and think it more worthwhile to force the attackers to destroy them, thus damaging their reputation and making the claims last a long time.

It takes two to make a treaty.  The defenders *do* offer treaties.
Just as the attackers do.  It is now a matter of the distance between
the two treaties.  With what the attackers are usually asking, it is
insulting to the defenders and a smear to their honour to accept the
kinds of treaties being offered by the attackers.  As with most
protracted wars, when it comes down to you being left with a token
realm and your attackers lording it over you, the hatred of the other
realm wins over common sense.

At *that* point, there is no incentive for the attacker to accept any
treaty.  They know that if they wipe out the realm, they won't even
have to bargain.  And the defender has veritably nothing to offer in
trade.  Is it realistic?  Of course.  Is it fun?  I argue it isn't as
it leads to continents of superpowers.

You are right that this suggestion does not address the "make wars
last less time".  It was not meant to.  It was meant to address the
"let's wipe out the realm" problem that others on  this thread have
brought up.  It leads to the continent of superpowers which is
BO-ring.