Idea for `hostile takeovers`

[Windhraver@aol.co]

I don't think this is a good idea for a new domain action, as it combines two
existing actions (Contest and Rule) under one action. I think they were made
two separate actions for a reason - taking someone else's holdings away from
them shouldn't be an easy task.

- -Rob McCreary

[Teodoro Ornelas]

Esta i uma mensagem de mzltiplas partes em formato MIME.

- ------=_NextPart_000_01BC9F6C.9414B280
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> I don't think this is a good idea for a new domain action, as it combines
two
> existing actions (Contest and Rule) under one action. I think they were
made
> two separate actions for a reason - taking someone else's holdings away
from
> them shouldn't be an easy task.
>
> -Rob McCreary


I fully agree with you. Or, we could create a new domain action that would
be: "Win the game - 100 GB, 100 RP. When you do this, you win the game. You
can now beat your DM to death for all the things he made you pass
through..." ;-))

Teodoro "Dark Shadow" Ornelas
- ------=_NextPart_000_01BC9F6C.9414B280
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> I don't think this is a good idea =
for a new domain action, as it combines two> existing actions =
(Contest and Rule) under one action. I think they were made> two =
separate actions for a reason -  taking someone else's holdings =
away from> them shouldn't be an easy task.> > -Rob =
McCrearyI fully agree with you. Or, we could create a new =
domain action that would be: "Win the game - 100 GB, 100 RP. When =
you do this, you win the game. You can now beat your DM to death for all =
the things he made you pass through..." ;-)) Teodoro =
"Dark Shadow" Ornelas

- ------=_NextPart_000_01BC9F6C.9414B280--

[Brandon Quina]

> I don't think this is a good idea for a new domain action, as it
> combines two existing actions (Contest and Rule) under one action. I
> think they were made two separate actions for a reason - taking
> someone else's holdings away from them shouldn't be an easy task.

Its not an easy task. I think its silly that the only way to take
over a guys domain is to contest him down to NOTHING :) How did all
these 2holding and 2 holding things come out.. People would constantly
trying to contest their enemys..

This dosnt take the place of ruling or contest. First, the action
only works on a province 4+ (ie. a province that can actually HAVE
to actions). Second, its alot more expensive than a rule action or
a contest action-- even if you combine them. Third, its harder to
pull off. And it dosnt save the time that it takes to take over
somebodys holding..

If somebody only has a holding 1-- then you save time.. Any holdings
over that level, and you are either taking more time or the same
amount of time. I think it adds stuff to the game, but use or dont
use it of your own accord..

[Brandon Quina]

> I fully agree with you. Or, we could create a new domain action that
> would be: "Win the game - 100 GB, 100 RP. When you do this, you win
> the game. You can now beat your DM to death for all the things he made
> you pass through..." ;-))

Hmmm, do I smell sarcasm. ::Smiles:: Its not as powerful as you
think. Suppose that you've got a level 0 holding, and the target has
a level 4 holding. You would have to spend 4 domain actions-- assuming
that you succeeded at all of them, to take over his holding. Feel free
to limit the action in other ways as well-- maybe limit it to not
as many times per domain turn.

Also, if your worried that contest and rule wont be used anymore..
Well, the action dosnt work if there is any room in the province-- You
have to fill up all the space before you start fighting over it..

But there has to BE room.. You cant use this in a province of rating
3 or less, cause only one regent can control holdings there..

Also, its also a BETTER way. I could take over a level 4 holding in
two turns. Contest the holding, then invest it into my lands. Wouldnt
cost me much RP either.


- --
Brandon Quina DM of a Birthright PBEM
lore@tmgbbs.com http://www.tmgbbs.com/lore/index.htm

[Windhraver@aol.co]

I interpret the contesting rule a little differently - if you are contesting
a holding, it takes only 2 actions: "if a contested holding is contested a
second time, its owner loses the holding and its slots become uncontrolled."
The only time a holding's level matters is if it's a 0 level holding, in
which case one contest action destroys it All other holdings take only two
successful (and consecutive) contest actions to destroy.

If you have to contest a level 4 holding 4 times, then your "Hostile
Takeover" rule sounds a lot better. :)

- -Rob McCreary

[Brandon Quina]

> I interpret the contesting rule a little differently - if you are
> contesting a holding, it takes only 2 actions: "if a contested holding
> is contested a second time, its owner loses the holding and its slots
> become uncontrolled." The only time a holding's level matters is if
> it's a 0 level holding, in which case one contest action destroys it
> All other holdings take only two successful (and consecutive) contest
> actions to destroy.

> If you have to contest a level 4 holding 4 times, then your "Hostile
> Takeover" rule sounds a lot better. :)

I rule the contest action like that too.. Its just the 'hostile
takeover' is alot friendlier than the other one. You cant use it on
a level 1 or level 0 holding-- the enemy has to have atleast 2 holding
levels there. Basically, its a more peaceful alternative to a
complete takeover..

and by the way-- contesting a holding twice is silly.. Contest it
once, and then invest the holding..

> -Rob McCreary

- --
Brandon Quina DM of a Birthright PBEM
lore@tmgbbs.com http://www.tmgbbs.com/lore/index.htm