[Discuss] This probably isn't how it's supposed to work

[Anthony Cerqueira]

On 5/19/07, Mark Moss <battlemaster at mmoss.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2007-05-20 at 00:51 +0800, Gias Kay Lee wrote:
> > This aroused several problems:
> >
> > (1) My take is that, the original concept is - the war ends with a
> > peace treaty, the claims resolved, lords instated, regional allegiance
> > switched, and so should regional vassals be switched to the new realm
> > under such condition. There probably is an oversight here regarding if
> > when someone buys the title.
>
> AFAIK, a duke who buys his title is no different than a duke who is
> appointed to the position as far as the game in concerned.  So if a duke
> decides to switch realms, there should be no difference based on how the
> duke came to power.
>
> > (2) Even so, what happens if when a city has been taken? Under such
> > circumstances, a new duchy will be automatically created. Does this
> > mean all of the ducal vassals will be forced to switch realms just
> > right upon the fall of the ducal seat, in the middle of the war? If
> > true, the falling of a city would seem to be far more deadly than
> > previously was - not only the income you will lose, also a good
> > portion of fighting hands will be gone.
>
> Yep.  Although forcing your nobles to change realms against their will
> wiould appear counter-productive.  I'm going to guess that the duke who
> tried this had a very hard time convincing his knights the defection was
> in the best interest of the duchy.  He may still be able to get his
> knights to defend the duchy, but good luck convincing them to attack
> their former realm.
>
> > (3) The regional loyalty thing isn't working any bit. The Judge issued
> > some bans quickly with the typical slogan of "keeping you here is a
> > great risk to our safety", and none of these knights have expressed
> > the least of interests about staying, proclaiming that they are not
> > willing to fight for this new banner and will abandon the realm on the
> > fastest opportunity possible. As the current gaming system does not
> > reward a character well enough for putting the allegiance above all
> > other things, and the fact that not all players are reading the
> > discussion list, I can't ready say whether there's something wrong
> > with this or not.
>
> Were the knights in good standing?  If so, I thought that was meant to
> protect them from a judge's wrath.  If not, it seems the duke forgot a
> step (give your knights good marks so they cannot be banned).



Actually I believe I know what situation he's talking about and it's alittle
different then what you're thinking of. To try and summerize a bit:
 The region was taken, and thus had a claim. The former lord lost his title
and remaind in the first nation (A) while the region was now under the
second (B). A noble in B 'found' (bought) the title to the region and swore
fealty to a duchy in realm B. At that moment all knights and the former lord
of the region in realm A joined realm B.

They were surprised to find the change in nation and were quickly removed
from kingdom B.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://news.battlemaster.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20070520/acaa5765/attachment-0001.htm