Transfer of holdings

[X-Osoerde (Alan)]

OoC:

Two Suggestions:

(1)

Transferring a full holding (1+) to an other regent leaves the transferring regent with an holding (0).  However, the transferring regent may employ Disband Holding (as a free action), with respect to such an holding (0), as a part of the investiture ceremony.

(2)

Transferring a full holding (1+) to an other regent leaves the transferring regent with an holding (0); but the ceremony of recognition implies a Disband Holding action (as a free action), with respect to such an holding (0).  However, the transferring regent may retain this holding (0), by employing a court action toward that end.  The said court action, which applies to a single holding (0), has no cost and is automatically successful.

Brandon summed up my thoughts.

[X-Elinie/RiD (Niels)]

OoC:

Two Suggestions:

(1)

Transferring a full holding (1+) to an other regent leaves the transferring regent with an holding (0).  However, the transferring regent may employ Disband Holding (as a free action), with respect to such an holding (0), as a part of the investiture ceremony.

(2)

Transferring a full holding (1+) to an other regent leaves the transferring regent with an holding (0); but the ceremony of recognition implies a Disband Holding action (as a free action), with respect to such an holding (0).  However, the transferring regent may retain this holding (0), by employing a court action toward that end.  The said court action, which applies to a single holding (0), has no cost and is automatically successful.

Brandon summed up my thoughts.

I agree.

[X-Ilien & PCE/GeM (Linde)]

My thoughts:

I think it would be okay to transfere other holding types than Guild without a spell, but agree that province rulership should require a spell.

I think when transfering your entire holding, it is silly that you should be able to retain a lvl 0 holding.... It was part of the holding you transfered.

That being said I think this would make some sense:

If X transferes a lvl 1+ holding to Y who have no previous holding then X is left with no holding.

If X transferes a lvl 1+ holding to Y who already have a lvl 0+ holding then it would be okay with me if X were left with a lvl 0 holding at no extra cost.

If X transferes some but not all of his 2+ holding to Y who have no previous holding it should cost 1 GB extra to reflect the creation cost of Y's new holding.

If X transferes some but not all of his 2+ holding to Y who already have a lvl 0+ holding then no chage.

[X-DM Jon]

My thoughts:

I think it would be okay to transfere other holding types than Guild without a spell, but agree that province rulership should require a spell.

I think when transfering your entire holding, it is silly that you should be able to retain a lvl 0 holding.... It was part of the holding you transfered.

That being said I think this would make some sense:

If X transferes a lvl 1+ holding to Y who have no previous holding then X is left with no holding.

If X transferes a lvl 1+ holding to Y who already have a lvl 0+ holding then it would be okay with me if X were left with a lvl 0 holding at no extra cost.

If X transferes some but not all of his 2+ holding to Y who have no previous holding it should cost 1 GB extra to reflect the creation cost of Y's new holding.

If X transferes some but not all of his 2+ holding to Y who already have a lvl 0+ holding then no chage.

I agree on all the transfer ideas here.
 The investiture matter belongs in the other chain concerning the investiture spell.

[DM B]

Here is an additional issue:

Province 7; regent A has a holding 5, regent B has a holding 1. Regent B transfers his holding to regent A. Regent A now has a holding 6.

As you can see, 5+1 is 6 in this case, even though it certainly involves a LOT less effort than for A to rule from 5 to 6...

[X-DM Jon]

Here is an additional issue:

Province 7; regent A has a holding 5, regent B has a holding 1. Regent B transfers his holding to regent A. Regent A now has a holding 6.

As you can see, 5+1 is 6 in this case, even though it certainly involves a LOT less effort than for A to rule from 5 to 6...

 Well... You could always introduce the whole transfer of holdings thing as a new action, make it cost the same for the lucky recipient as it would ruling up a holding and/or creating holdings - and give it the same DDC's as well?
 You are after all convincing a large group of people that it's a good idea to jump on your wagon AND inserting your own leadership so the holding is loyal...

[X-Ilien & PCE/GeM (Linde)]

Here is an additional issue:

Province 7; regent A has a holding 5, regent B has a holding 1. Regent B transfers his holding to regent A. Regent A now has a holding 6.

As you can see, 5+1 is 6 in this case, even though it certainly involves a LOT less effort than for A to rule from 5 to 6...

It involves 5 GB less effort for B to rule a lvl 0 to a lvl 1 holding than it would for A to rule a lvl 5 to a lvl 6 holding.

On the other hand if regent A were to transfere one level of his holding to B, that holding would have cost 3GB more to rule for A, than it would have for B just to rule his own holding.

I think it seems to complex to create a general rule for transferance cost based on individual holding levels.

Perhaps you could just say that getting your ally to rule and transfere holdings to you because it is cheaper than if you had to do it yourself is against the spirit of the game. And if someone do it anyway you could deal with it on a case by case basis, either using negative events, failed actions, or both?

I think it should be possible to convince the other holding owners in a province to surrender their holdings to you before you have ruled all empty holding slots though.(Even thoug it would be cheaper for yourself to rule your holdings first and then get the most expensive level transfered to you)


As an afternote. I think it is a bit much to make the transferance of holdings cost the same as rule holdings. Sure, temples might have that problem Jon describes, as it is hard to convince a clergy to change faith. But a city guard is in it for the pay. So is a guilder or a trader. (I am not exactly sure about Manors)

Perhaps you could insert a period of decreaced income from the holding, based on how many holding levels were given, after each transferance to reflect the problems of incorperating old enemies into your workforce?...

All in all this is a tough question.

(Sorry for bad gramma, long sentances and general incomprehensibility. I am tired.)

[X-Points East]

 Well... You could always introduce the whole transfer of holdings thing as a new action, make it cost the same for the lucky recipient as it would ruling up a holding and/or creating holdings - and give it the same DDC's as well?
 You are after all convincing a large group of people that it's a good idea to jump on your wagon AND inserting your own leadership so the holding is loyal...

As an afternote. I think it is a bit much to make the transferance of holdings cost the same as rule holdings. Sure, temples might have that problem Jon describes, as it is hard to convince a clergy to change faith. But a city guard is in it for the pay. So is a guilder or a trader. (I am not exactly sure about Manors)

Perhaps you could insert a period of decreaced income from the holding, based on how many holding levels were given, after each transferance to reflect the problems of incorperating old enemies into your workforce?...

OoC:

Regent Guide quote (regarding Recognition):  "This action is commonly used to transfer holdings between regents as arranged through diplomacy."

[X-Ilien & PCE/GeM (Linde)]

 Well... You could always introduce the whole transfer of holdings thing as a new action, make it cost the same for the lucky recipient as it would ruling up a holding and/or creating holdings - and give it the same DDC's as well?
 You are after all convincing a large group of people that it's a good idea to jump on your wagon AND inserting your own leadership so the holding is loyal...

As an afternote. I think it is a bit much to make the transferance of holdings cost the same as rule holdings. Sure, temples might have that problem Jon describes, as it is hard to convince a clergy to change faith. But a city guard is in it for the pay. So is a guilder or a trader. (I am not exactly sure about Manors)

Perhaps you could insert a period of decreaced income from the holding, based on how many holding levels were given, after each transferance to reflect the problems of incorperating old enemies into your workforce?...

OoC:

Regent Guide quote (regarding Recognition):  "This action is commonly used to transfer holdings between regents as arranged through diplomacy."

Yes, but if IHH agrees in diplomacy to transfere a tempel holding to ETN it doesnt mean that the priests in the holding want to change religion. So wether or not it is arranged by diplomacy seems irrellevant.

Just my 2. cents

[X-Osoerde (Alan)]

Yes, but if IHH agrees in diplomacy to transfere a tempel holding to ETN it doesnt mean that the priests in the holding want to change religion. So wether or not it is arranged by diplomacy seems irrellevant.

Just my 2. cents

Yes, Diplomacy can fail.  This happened to me once when arrangement holding transferals. 

As a side note, RoE temples are not monolithic, nor monotheistic. It is VERY plausible that certain domains may integrate within one another, based upon their dogma, current relationship, etc.  The IHH integrated the Lysheans for instance; the ETN took over their vassal the NOS after the death of Honored Brother Moor, etc.

Basically, I am saying that saying that the priests are changing religion is somewhat inaccurate.  It would be more like they are changing between denominations of christanity, or something similar to that.

[X-Points East]

Here is an additional issue:

Province 7; regent A has a holding 5, regent B has a holding 1. Regent B transfers his holding to regent A. Regent A now has a holding 6.

As you can see, 5+1 is 6 in this case, even though it certainly involves a LOT less effort than for A to rule from 5 to 6...

OoC:

Regent Guide quote:  "The DDC of a ceremony of recognition is 5 if the owning regent concurs, 10 + province/holding level if the provinces or holdings in question are uncontrolled."

Perhaps the DDCs could be modified along the following (or similar) lines:  "5 + province level/(combined) holding level" and "10 + province level/(combined) holding level", respectively?

[X-Haelyn's Aegis/RK (Andy)]

Yes, but if IHH agrees in diplomacy to transfere a tempel holding to ETN it doesnt mean that the priests in the holding want to change religion. So wether or not it is arranged by diplomacy seems irrellevant.

Just my 2. cents

Yes, Diplomacy can fail.  This happened to me once when arrangement holding transferals. 

As a side note, RoE temples are not monolithic, nor monotheistic. It is VERY plausible that certain domains may integrate within one another, based upon their dogma, current relationship, etc.  The IHH integrated the Lysheans for instance; the ETN took over their vassal the NOS after the death of Honored Brother Moor, etc.

Basically, I am saying that saying that the priests are changing religion is somewhat inaccurate.  It would be more like they are changing between denominations of christanity, or something similar to that.

I would go further.

All they are changing is the political group to which they belong - I would expect that all "people" domains, whether law, guild, temple have large numbers of groups with differing agenda's in them.  the domain is then the 'wider' political group which says 'we'll take care of external matters, referee disputes, etc' - basically a stronger than usual vassal:lord bond.

So when a temple 2 is transferred from say, the Aegis to the Militant order, it would reflect not a mass conversion of the brethren, but rather an agreement by a number of independent churches to seek guidance from Patriarch States rather than High Marshal Khairien.

If you make domains monolithical blocks then any sort of conversion, contest, rule etc becomes almost impossible - changing people's religion and cultural identity in particular.  If however a relatively small amount of the domain is 'core' representing the political/spiritual leadership then the system works far better.

[X-Haelyn's Aegis/RK (Andy)]

Here is an additional issue:

Province 7; regent A has a holding 5, regent B has a holding 1. Regent B transfers his holding to regent A. Regent A now has a holding 6.

As you can see, 5+1 is 6 in this case, even though it certainly involves a LOT less effort than for A to rule from 5 to 6...

And I will certainly reflect that benefit in any bargaining that I do, as I am sure will everyone else.  The 'problem' is therefore probably self correcting.

[X-Ghieste & HOT/GH (Matt)]

Here is an additional issue:

Province 7; regent A has a holding 5, regent B has a holding 1. Regent B transfers his holding to regent A. Regent A now has a holding 6.

As you can see, 5+1 is 6 in this case, even though it certainly involves a LOT less effort than for A to rule from 5 to 6...

Should there therefore be a cost implication in such a move then, to at least claw back some of the effort that would have otherise have been exerted, in RP or GB or both?

[X-Elinie/RiD (Niels)]

Guys, guys, guys, until we have someone creating low level holdings, then selling them off to the primary holding owner in that province, do we need to even care?

The system isn't broken, its quirky, maybe, not broken. Why are we arguing this over?

Personally I like to tweak character impact on the domain level, not nitpick about a potential loophole that is not even being used.

Also, to the ones awaiting emails from me, my internet is kinda screwy atm as I'm between ISP's. Gonna make an effort to get stuff out this weekend though.