Birthright: Chimaeron

DM Juan wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 24, 2019 8:50 am

Just a note though, unofficial state X grants the defection effect. Though that is apparently pointless, since you can bypass it by hiring an external force to attack your state faith anyway...

I always thought the defection should affecting the troops, regardless of who gives the orders. You should be at least as likely to fight to defend your state's institutions against orders being given by a mercenary as by a tyrant themselves.

I understand that Birmail does not track the recruited province for units, but could state x defection be based on who pays the maintenance rather than who holds the flag?

This way a regent could hire mercenaries to war on a State X, and not lose them because they convert religion the moment they take up a new flag.

Well, its still easier to look the other way then to do the deed yourself so it makes sense.

But loyal troops present in the province perhaps should have an easier roll anyway? Or perhaps a chance of spontaneous levies rising?

It actually does track muster point. And I agree, it should matter more where the army came from than who happens to lead it.

That would have been nice last turn in Graven -- Mercenaries and Undead for the win!

DM Juan wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 24, 2019 8:50 am

Just a note though, unofficial state X grants the defection effect. Though that is apparently pointless, since you can bypass it by hiring an external force to attack your state faith anyway...

I preferred the free fortification from Taelshore.

It doesn't make much sense for a majority faith to be harder for invaders to crush than a minority one, except due to the size and strength difference. There are disadvantages inherent in hiring someone else to occupy your territory... like, them being able to say it's their territory now.

?

That's like saying, "It doesn't make much sense for a majority of Army-trained citizens to be harder for invaders to crush than a minority one, except due to the size and strength difference."

Clear difference - resources, access, almost every facet would.be impacted.

The fortification was possibly better... will have to evaluate it.
Or contemplate the issue of bypassing it completely being trivially easy.

The fortification works well. Makes an occupation potentially have to last longer and makes someone choose even more so between occupation vs pillage.

RS - Rogr Smith wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 24, 2019 11:41 am

That's like saying, "It doesn't make much sense for a majority of Army-trained citizens to be harder for invaders to crush than a minority one, except due to the size and strength difference."

No, because filling 20 out of 30 temple slots in a realm doesn't make a temple any more of 'an army' than having 10 out of 30.

Giving the majority faith a free fortification has several negative consequences. For one, it means they don't need to have fortifications unless they enough lose holding levels to cease being the majority faith, in which case they suddenly and inexplicably lose their fortifications. There's a lot of ways this could be gamed, like by adding new provinces that don't have the faith so that the faith's status changes, or destroying the temples in some provinces so the temples in others will lose their defenses 'sympathetically', or ceding temple-less provinces to have the remaining temples become fortified.

On the other side, it means free temple fortifications will be very common, slowing down invasions in general, but only in some situations. It also means even armies that don't care about the native religion will have difficulty removing it... but only if and while it remains the majority faith. From history, it seems like minority religions are just as hard to stamp out as majority ones.