Results 1 to 10 of 12
Thread: Province Divestiture
12-05-2005, 04:56 PM #1
- Join Date
- Feb 2002
- New Haven, CT
This is sort of a BRCS question, but I'll post it here because it also relates to 2E.
In 2E, if you were not the province ruler but held at least 1/2 the law of a province and the province was rebellious against it's ruler, you could divest the province away without occupation.
In BRCS, it appears that you must always militarily occupy a province in order to divest it to a new ruler. Is this correct?
If yes, why not permit a rebellious province in which someone else holds most of the law switch over to the other person?
12-06-2005, 06:33 PM #2
12-07-2005, 05:17 AM #3
- Join Date
- Feb 2002
- New Haven, CT
12-07-2005, 09:34 AM #4
DM fiat here.......boeruine trying to divest a far away province can be given sufficient penalties, and theres the matter of the populace's attitude to the divesting regent as well.A province might be rebellious towards its current ruler but might not always be friendly to all others, and that will further provide a penalty.
Plus you have to agitate the province into rebellion first,thats not as easy as it sounds.
12-08-2005, 08:42 AM #5
Now, if I have this all right I can relate this. I haven't read everything in the books yet, so I might be missing something.
In real life a country can try and take away parts of another country while it's in rebellion without military occupation. It can also be done with military occupation but without any holdings (this second one seems natural, no further explaining).
This can be done behind the scenes with money, offers, etc. Lets go back to the Cold War, a country seems displeased with communism. The United States won't go in to start a war, so we will intice the populace to break free.
Now in real life there are more factors than in the game and the outcomes can be rather interesting. The country may be an anarchy or may just ignore those that helped them.
The United Kingdom wants it's new holdings to pay it's dues, and the French say no and help the holdings try and break free by using money to back them. When it's over the former holdings want nothing to do with France nor are they willing to pay them back.
Now it seems that it used to require you to have holdings, this is not true in real life from my experiences.
Neither require military occupation under the right condition (rebellion). Seems fair.
The new rules don't require holdings, but otherwise is the same. In my experience this is not true but adding in more charts and tables of what MIGHT happen could just bog things down. As is, it can be covered by the DM.
Unless someone can fill me in a bit more to the contrary (which I will then delete this and pretend it never happened). I think this is a vary valid point of discussion and both points are good reasoning; Either could work. This is assuming I am correct in my understanding of the situation (epecially the difference, if they're really the same then no problems).
*I'm not claiming any of these things as fact, so cool it
12-08-2005, 04:31 PM #6
Ok, lets look at this hypothetic example in game terms. If the CIA spends GB and Regency to train insurgents to topple a corrupt regime in said foreign country, they have no holdings in that country, Though I would say that the CIA can support or oppose the divestiture of the region that is in rebellion, they gain no benefit as in they do not have any chance to become the province rulers.
I would say to actually have a chance at divesting the province and then being "invested" with it, you would need to have law holdings in the province.Regards,
12-08-2005, 06:56 PM #7
More Hypotheticals to counter that one a bit, but not too much:
The Lone Star Republic breaks away from Mexico, people aren't as happy as they want, they join the United States for no reason other than that they can. The United States had no holdings in Texas before or after the succession.
Would it be possible that you could divest a province with a shared boarder with you without holdings? Otherwise holdings would be required.
12-08-2005, 08:48 PM #8
It seems for every reason Lonestar joined the US there would be another one for why they didn't make their own. It's kindof as if they broke away, and then joined the US because they chose to, whether it was because they didn't have the power to stand on their own or wanted the added benefits. It would seem to me that one might say the new Regent that formed Lonestar became a Vassal of the US. You probably know the history tons better than me, but from what you wrote that is my take on it.
I guess the feel of Divestiture is that the one doing the divesting has an active part in the outcome of the action, in effect the one that winds up with the provinces, so thus the one that starts or leads the revolt.
Here is a good one though I hope not too touchy.
The Confederacy held Law holdings in the southern united states, due to agitation or whatnot those "Southern provinces" by the rules went into "rebellion" because their "loyalty" during the "loyalty adjustment phase" of 1860 MR was so low towards the regent of the North. The Confederacy "Divested" the southern provinces inwhich it held the majority of the law and so afterwards it was invested with the southern provinces and could then gain regency and GB income each season.
Now they had the option of Becoming France's vassals in a vassalage agreement, and if France bid RP in helping them become a nation they might have agreed to do this, or they could have even ceded their newly won country the second it was their turn to France in a ceremony of investiture using a domain action.
But historically they chose to be their own nation after the divestiture and stay that way until the North used military Occupation to divest them throughout the next 5 years as the north no longer had law holdings in the south, as when the Confederacy broke free they contested them.
So in the above Scenerio, hypothetically if the US's southern provinces went into a state of rebellion and the player of France's realm wanted to get in on the action, I would say as the GM you (France) cannot divest them, but you can bid RP towards it, and you can make a deal with the Regent of Confederacy, he has all the law holdings in the south and you could give him GB or regency to convince him to Divest the holdings. It will take a Diplomacy action on your turn.
One think you will notice though, is in BR, a lot of the regents of one realm do have law holdings in their neighbors' realms, that way they can stir up that little bit of trouble and have a bid for power should they manage to get the province into a state of rebellion.Regards,
12-08-2005, 09:16 PM #9
- Join Date
- Jan 2002
>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
>You can view the entire thread at:
>More Hypotheticals to counter that one a bit, but not too much:
>The Lone Star Republic breaks away from Mexico, people aren`t as happy as they want, they join the United States for no reason other than that they can. The United States had no holdings in Texas before or after the succession.
>Would it be possible that you could divest a province with a shared boarder with you without holdings? Otherwise holdings would be required.
The example seems broken to me.
"Holding" does not mean that the USA would need to have an army in Texas
or own extensive forts or cathedrals or storage houses.
A Law Holding (0) as all holding consists to a great part out of
contacts, relations and people willing to aid your actions.
So US agents working in Texas, e.g. Davy Crocket from Tennessee or
others could represent a law holding (X) of the US in Texas. The
following text copied from a website even speaks about US influence in
the prelude of Alamo:
> Settler and Agitator
> William Barret Travis arrived in San Felipe de Austin in 1831 after
> abandoning a wife and two children in Alabama. He set up a law
> practice in Anahuac and quickly became acquainted with other Anglo
> settlers who were agitating against Mexican rule. In 1835 Travis took
> matters in his own hands when he attacked the Mexican garrison at
> Anahuac with a group of twenty-five men. The act fueled the wrath of
> Mexican president Antonio de Lopez Santa Anna
> against the Anglo colonies of Texas. And it made matters especially
> difficult for the Tejano leaders of the state.
12-08-2005, 10:31 PM #10
To my understanding, he was working with the Lone Star Republic, not the United States.
The main desiding factor was money from what I can tell. The US said they would take the debts with annexation.
Crocket and Travis were both in the Alamo, and both died. This was thirteen days before the independance of Texas, which lasted for a good 9 years before the debt got to them.
So the US did invest something, though I cannot say if they had anything that would qualify as a law holding. Either way, we don't match the current rules. Which was my point and everyone seems to agree with that that has responded to my post.
It used to be 1/2 the law holdings in 2nd edition. Now it doesn't require law holdings.
I think that if it shares a border, it shouldn't need the holdings (or maybe it requires a min of one, but not half). Otherwise to try and divest an area without a shared border, it would have stronger requirements.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)