Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 34 of 34
  1. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    125
    Downloads
    81
    Uploads
    0
    Interesting... there seems to be a motion to have provinces attain loyalty, after decades... I think of Europa Universalis, of course, when I hear this.

    So, then, how's this as an entertaining solution - until the new province is assimilated into your Empire, only half the gold is generated from the province and law holdings therein. The other half is lost.

    The amount of time it takes to assimilate the province would need to have factors that would determine the length - I would humbly suggest that the religion, as well as the amount of law holdings held by the conqueror at the time of conquest affect this length of time. No doubt other modifiers could be created as well - such as the alignments of the different rulers impacting it - race, of course, should be significant too (I really don't see the dwarves of Baruk Azhik easily bending knee to an Anuirean overlord).


    However... something else I have noted. Much discussion has come about over the role of pbems - as well as some live in person games - where the players lack a certain respect for the setting/attempt to get their goals accomplished in a relatively short span of time for Anuire (pbem time is usually a turn a month, so 3 years equals 1 year IRL). This leads to conquest in a short time.

    So... to speak to this, I have also noted that players often have a mentality of all-or-nothing. It happens in a lot of strategy games too. How many people have played with someone where a player got stomped down to a small amount of territories, and just dropped the game? Ditto for BR for many (though not all).

    However, we should look to the example (IC, OOC, or whatever) to William Moergan of Osoerde. He has no land, and a small gb income from his law holdings. Many games now start with WM being wiped out.

    I disagree. Why? As a playable nation, not very fun, admittedly, to start with WM. And players are correct in noting that Osoerde can probably simply use the army as per the rules to crush the remaining law holdings - albeit at a substantial domain attitude penalty.

    Without savings? WM is toast. Let's assume, however, that he is getting some tacit financial support from Coeranys. 3 gb income a turn allows for the following:
    3 free Agitate actions, using the lead skill. 1 per action. Wandering from province to province, always a step ahead of Raenech. Worse, creating a law holding in a province, then agitating. If the army goes in after that to destroy the holding, it ends up with a possible rebellion. A regency war begins - one that Raenech has the advantage of, no doubt, but definitely something that keeps him occupied.

    To me, it seems like players often throw it all on one last battle - and then get captured, divested, and often executed. Why shouldn't they form a resistance, like WM has? Once the battle is lost, the war should NOT be over.

  2. #32
    Site Moderator AndrewTall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    2,476
    Downloads
    30
    Uploads
    2
    The romp and stomp problem of a home ruler simply occupying their provinces and crushing all other regents cripples the game from a simulationist perspective if it is without consequence - given that the action effectively means wholesale slaughter approaching genocide if wiping out every other regent the downsides should be terrible - and long lasting.

    That said, if the players want a game where they are god-kings who 'win' the game in a standard timeframe of 2-3 years then occupation needs to be 'free' and conquered provinces 'theirs' immediately for them to have a chance of 'winning' - removing that chance and they just won't play.

    A problem is when the player types mix and the 'win' players quite if they 'lose' leaving the story-teller's to pick up the pieces. This appears to be a key factor in d4-1 problems - together with 'free' occupation issues driving out non-realm regents.

    Re: Conquered lands - I'd keep gold production, but reduce RP gain (the conquerer is not seen as 'the real king') and penalise realm morale - the taxes then wind up kept low to maintain some semblance of order which drops GB production anyway.

  3. #33
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    The tax issue is solved naturally, since its dependent on loyalty and law holdings, if province loyalty remains one step above rebellion until some event takes place, then its not an issue. In EU, you can win a subsequent war and demand the loser withdraw their claims (core). Such recognition that the province was abandoned would start people on the road to accepting their new lord, allowing loyalty to go to rebellion +2 (is that unfriendly?).

    The ability to just agitate up is connected here. If I can be a brutal monster, and just agitate all my provinces up to the theoretical maximum, that should be an issue. Just like with an NPC, we might suppose that no matter how many diplomacy checks they make, their treatment of the NPC sets a theoretical maximum to the attitude of the NPC, it only makes sense that loyalty of a province isn't totally fluid, but depends on the circumstances of the ruler's relationship with the province.

    Rebellion --
    Hostile: regent is keeping the peace, but rebellion might be around the corner. The people are still attached to another regent
    Unfriendly: people have accepted that the regent is here to stay, but they would prefer another regent, the regent needs to treat the province decently
    Indifferent: regent is neither loved nor hated, regent behaves normally
    Friendly: regent is respected and well regarded, regent can demand emergency measures without long term damage to the people, in the face of a real threat, regent is expected to protect, care for, and come to the aid of the people beyond normal circumstances.
    Helpful: regent is loved. People accept higher level of demands as long as there are results that enhance the glory, magnificence, or success of the realm. regent can get away with most anything as long as victory and success are the result.

    Newly conquered provinces should always be hostile, and have a very high (50%) chance of going into rebellion without a garrison, and a reasonable risk (5%?) with a garrison.

    After some demonstration of either the new regent's staying power (defeats the old ruler in a subsequent war) or good will, (acts the hero, defends the people from new threats, provides good justice over the medium term) maximum loyalty becomes unfriendly. You can't impose high taxes and improve the regent's relationship with the people. Moderate taxes is normal. Low taxation is one of those things that demonstrates good will.

    At unfriendly, perhaps a high risk (10%) of rebellion without a garrison, and no chance (0%) with a garrison. &c.

    Actions which result in a gain of regency should significantly improve poor loyalty and actions which result in a loss of regency should significantly reduce good loyalty.

  4. #34
    Site Moderator AndrewTall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    2,476
    Downloads
    30
    Uploads
    2
    The slight problem is rulers like Ghoere and Raenech.

    I'd try:

    Hostile: the regent is seen as an usurper or unworthy to rule. Corruption is rife, with a significant proportion actively trying to undermine the regent's rule - even at risk to themselves.

    Unfriendly: people accepted that the regent is currently in charge, but would prefer a 'proper' ruler who is native / competent / blessed / etc. When forced to they aid the ruler, though most try to pervert the rulers commands or ensure they benefit from any actions whenever they think it won't be noticed. The folk would prefer the rule of a better regent but not enough to really do anything about it.

    Indifferent: Regent is mostly ignored unless they do something out of the ordinary to cause a temporary swing in loyalty. The main hope of the people is to be left alone and they expect such so long as they pay their taxes and don't bother the regent.

    Friendly: regent is respected and accepted as the ruler through either love or fear. The people accept severe temporary measures as necessary sacrifice for the good of the realm or as the price for peace, but they expect to be kept safe and free from change.

    Helpful: regent is loved or feared, but most of all they are accepted as the unquestioned ruler. People accept significant demands and jump to fulfill the regents will, they look down on less fortunate realms with weak rulers and consider themselves blessed for having a powerful/munificent ruler. In return for their loyalty the people expect their regent to be victorious, protect them from all harm, stamp down on corruption and waste, and be clear in their rule.

    I like the idea of maximums - fear only goes so far even for abominations like the Gorgon. I'd say goblins likely also suffer from topping out at friendly, dwarves may bottom out at hostile for any dwarven ruler, etc.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Play any realm?
    By Alakad in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-09-2007, 02:16 PM
  2. New Play by email?
    By Droene in forum Birthright play-by-post
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-29-2005, 08:55 PM
  3. Would Like To Play...
    By Mikal in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-02-2003, 05:10 PM
  4. Looking for a Campaign to Play
    By Merador in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-30-2002, 08:30 AM
  5. Play by EMail
    By Allen in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-25-2001, 03:53 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.