RoE Development > Regent Guide
Annual Stability Increase & Domain Types
Ruideside/OM (RP):
--- Quote ---I'd got alliances with 4 realms, good relations with my jarls, had two churches and the guilds on my side, attacked with surprise following pre-espionage, etc.
--- End quote ---
Exactly. And that is exactly how it should be done. Such a coalition, whether started by a PC regent or an NPC regent, is precisely how such a situation should be handled. Not by an arbitrary rule that makes no sense, and that will have to be waived almost as often as it is applied.
This rule, like most of the rules being proposed by Brandon detracts from the role playing and makes the game more like a video games with the aim being min/maxing to game the system. And I am sorry, I completely disagree with you about dumbing the game down to attract players. All you get by doing that is a lousy set of rules and bad players.
And that is the reason for my vehemence, as you put it, I see an excellent set of rules being messed with in an unbeneficial manner for no valid reason. Take it from me, as somebody who has been tweaking and rewriting rules for a long time it is hard to improve on Bjorn's work - very hard, and this rule, like the others being proposed honestly seems to be making changes just for the sake of making changes rather than to correct a flaw in the rules, and take the game in a direction which will be detrimental to the quality of the game as a whole.
The rules should be as lax as possible to allow players to do whatever they want to, and the DM should then give events appropriate to those actions. That is the way the game is supposed to run. One should not be able to predict with certainty exactly how spreading oneself too thin will effect one. If you strip holdings from other regents without killing them, they will seek revenge. And it may take them a while to cobble together an alliance such as you did, but they will never stop trying. The greedy regent will have all sorts of problems based simply on the fact that he made a whole slew of enemies out of his potential allies.
Oh, and your math regarding the GB cost of the actions is way off. "I" have not spent anywhere near that much - but me, my vassals, and allies have spent a bunch - but there are several of us so the GB expense on any one of us is much less.
Yggdrasil (DM Andy):
The math is very simple Bob, each action costs 1 GB, each court action costs effectively 2 as you need the court, and then the court carries out the action. The math is actually under-selling the point as it still assumes 100% efficiency in action coordination and mutual support.
Ruideside/OM (RP):
Yeah,but there like 6 of us spending on one side, and one on the other, so it actually costs each of us less.
Yggdrasil (DM Andy):
I don't follow. You have 6 courts, 6 (sometimes competing) agenda's, etc - they have 1 court and 1 agenda. Inevitably your cost base is higher as you are paying for 5 more courts and agenda's.
In practice there is a "sweet spot" in terms of number of actions vs more income and the sweet spot moves depending on circumstances, but the spot iss biased towards income (particularly gold) as gold is infinitely scalable in power terms whereas actions need income to be really effective, and successive actions past a certain point inevitably reduce in necessity/profitability - I've had plenty to do in realms (except when playing wizards) but while I could have used another 2 or 3 regent actions easily, another 10 wouldn't have added much as I could do my critical needs and run out of cash well before using the extra 10.
The potential inefficiencies of a multi-realm generally occur when the domains don't pull together if, say, 1 or the 6 hated you and worked against you constantly, 2 loathed each other and spent half their efforts attacking each other and you could only ever get one of them "on side", while another only helped if you paid in full leaving you with only 1 realm to "support you freely" the discrepancy in power gets very apparent very quickly.
The key problem with a romp 'n' stomp usually comes where there are no penalties from pillaging, and province/law get inherent income rather than directly from other holdings, that combination permits the threat of forcible divestiture to be made credibly, which in turn permits the very rapid growth-via-glomph for the consolidator and prevents the building of alliances, experience, etc that would otherwise form against them. Bjorn's Law holding income rules undermine the tactic a lot (the consolidator would likely try to raise taxes first to get the same/similar income), I'll have to check if he has a pillage penalty.
Ruideside/OM (RP):
You don't follow?
OK, I will say it as simply as possible.
We have 6 incomes.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version