[Discuss] duchy system rework

[jesseball at cox.net]

>You totally lost me in your Response. If you know such positions are 
pointless why do you still want them? 

RESPONSE: They are only of questionable necessity in certain cases, such as bottom rung regions. The point of having all 4 in all cases is that what ever variable that decides what each job is capable of is a matter that is detached from having to be programmed.  Do you have a concrete programmable threshold that would define when a job becomes too low rung in both RP and actual functionality to deprive the option of it being there for the players? I certainly don't.   To say that certain regions have 4 and others have 2 would be arbitrary, limiting, and more time consuming to program. 

>Maybe some Sponsors don't make use of their power over their army but I 
assure you, I've seen with my own eyes a Sponser use *his* army for 
*his* gains.

RESPONSE: That is excellent, but the criteria for such a situation to exist is less likely than it should be in my opinion. 

>The Sponsor controls who the marshal is, and with that 
comes some control over the marshal himself ("you want to stay marshal? 
move us to regionX and bring me some riches") There are Sponsors who 
let the Realm use their army but I would have to say that the army does 
indeed belong to its Sponsor and by extension, his whims. It's not 
really a question of game mechanics, it's a question of non-coded 
character. I happen to like such roleplayed choices. It allows for the 
hard-core-personal-gain choice, or the best-for-the-Duchy choice, or 
the best-for-the-realm-and-therefor-my-region choice, or the ever 
present take-'em-cause-I-really-don't-have-time-to-care choice, and so 
many other lovely subdivisions of choices. 

RESPONSE:  If even you had the marshal in the palm of your hand, in the end it is still just red paper. It is good that RP is what keeps this together. It wold be the same with my own system. It is just that what the army can do is entirely realm based. No matter how much your army hates the king, no matter how much your army loves the duke(you). No matter how much the king had absolutely nothing to do with your TO. It ends up being the king's decision who rules the new conquest and that person becomes the king's vassal. It should be the sponcer of the senior most marshal(the marshal that has the others paying homage) or if there is more than one recombinant army, which ever has the senior most sponcer in title, if both are equal, which army is larger. 

I completely agree with the latter part of this. That is entirely what my system is supposed to encourage. In the olden days, the king raised his personal army and called on dukes for their armies. The dukes called on counts and so on. When the king wasn't fighting, the armies went home to do whatever they wanted. That does not happen here. The duchy based armies(that belong to the realm) seem to be on 24/7. In reality the counts would start to get very mad that their knights were constantly out of their own personal service.  With every region having an army that has to be combined into larger ones, it gives region lords more option to just say 'no.' or even just order his part of the army home, or even elsewhere.  It should be entirely within his rights to do so. It should be shameful for a duke to declare war on his own vassal for such a reason. I strongly believe that once land is given, all you have is fealty, the land is theirs now. I am starting to get off topic...

>I have to disagree that the lords are disconnected. Many lords are in 
the army that the majority of their knights are in.

RESPONSE: The question from me to you is, why are a lord and his knights in an army when he has his own(which may or may not be attached to this other army by homage)? Your opinion seems to be based on a quality of the current system that is overwritten by a quality of mine. 

>Armies *are* region based (though I believe the council members can 
form an army as well?). But due to the fact that each region having its 
own 3-man army is impractical

Armies are region based only in name or some superficial functionality that I am not aware of. 3man armies are only impractical without a homage system, but with one they are more politically dynamic. 

I proposed that every region have its own army by default. that these armies could be combined by marshals paying homage to other marshals in the same region who's sponcers are of superior feudal standing(a marshal's sponcer's liege's marshal first, but failing that moving further up the ladder. If two armies are of sponcers of equal rank under differant lieges, which ever is smaller would be paying homage.). they could leave just as easily. This means that a marshal has control of his own knights and those in armies paying homage(therefor sending orders to them), but that if an army revokes homage, the higher marshal loses that ability to send orders to them. 

>I need a little clarification on that last one. How does one conquer 
his rival's vassals? And where would these knights get this new lord? 
Where would this new get *his* title? 

RESPONSE: by haveing his army TO that region. Remember, diplomacy would be region based. you would have to be at war with his vassal to TO him. By conquering a liege, all his vassals that were not at war with you are expected to swear fealty, but do not have to necessarily. 

So what if an enemy vassal's army is paying homage to his liege's army, but is at peace or even allied with you? They still are. Their army is in service; it is no longer theirs until it is no longer paying homage. this includes expenses. 

A man paying service to his liege against his friend is still a fried, it is just his duty. 

>That seems overly complicated for no reason, no? How is it better than 
what we have?

RESPONSE: The reason is political flexibility based on the feudal contract. Currently the army system is almost federal. With the current army system, intra-realm fighting is imposable(beyond rebellions). Region lords have to pretty much give their knights away to dukes rather than use them for their own purposes. Dukes(assuming they are the sponcers in the current army system) have nearly no fear of their vassals pushing for independence from them. 

Back in the day they asked for everyone down the line and when they said yes, then ordered them around. Currently Dukes and realm generals just tell marshals and therefor armies what to do, and if a lord doesn't like it, he has to protest or remove knights from the army, which puts out this great assumption that lords have to do what they are told. 

The idea is extensive and it likely has holes. However the holes seem bigger and more numerous due to the fact of the medium of communication. I could explain BM as it is to someone who has never played it and it would seem just as complex and confusing.