Birthright: Chimaeron

The logic of it bothers me. If the province level goes back up then why not the holding levels? The demand for products goes back to same level since population goes back to normal.

No buildings were burned so the infrastructure is still there. If the people's homes are still there to return to so the population goes back to normal then the structures and demand of commerce/worship/law should still be there ready to start back up.

You aren't starting from scratch trying to build infrastructure to meet a higher demand. You're just returning to the empty tannery and sweeping out a bit of dust. The temple seating didn't get reduced...there is plenty of room for returning worshipers to come back to church. They don't have to be reconverted. And it is the same exact people who were buying or worshiping etc that are coming back home.

And just about everything has a counter or a defense in the game except this. The only punishment/penalty is IF the regent or allies have holdings that get reduced. That isn't always the case.

All holdings (except source) are reduced. Seems pretty straight forward that the penalty/punishment is inflicted equally (if not more so on the owner/allies). Additional actions and resources are needed to restore levels. It isn't the most action/resources efficient mechanism. And if more than one holding isn't happy about it, there are likely more effects (withholding of trade resources, bless spells, law assisting with loyalty/taxes, etc).

It is also obviously an act of aggression. I'd rate it above contest and below military action. As in, it justifies military response more than contest does, but isn't itself a military act.

Also, it does bring me back to self occupation. The fact that contesting is triggering military occupation is problematic to me. It means it is too easy to occupy to remove holdings you don't like. I'll need to check the coding, occupation should drive down loyalty by 2 steps/to poor (I like 2 steps better, if not high loyalty it will cause a rebellion).

It seems to me that the goal should be to make self-occupation to be a high-cost desperation move and not the first choice for dealing with annoying individuals. So, why not just have it trigger an automatic rebellion? It's clearly a violation of the feudal oath to use soldiers against your own people (and an even grosser violation of the limited government ideas that underlie a republican form of government), and further serves to erode the importance of Law holdings. The impact of loyalty, then, would be to determine how severe the rebellion is. High loyalty could just provoke a "normal" rebellion, with lower levels of loyalty causing portions of the regent's standing army to join the rebels.

Edit: Alternately, burning out holdings really requires burning -- to destroy a level of holdings you have to reduce the level of the province. When you pillage your own province, you can pick which holdings get reduced but it's going to cost you a lot of blood. Militarily contesting law holdings would involve slaughtering nobles, temples killing faithful, and guilds butchering merchants. It would also mean that you can't militarily remove lvl 0 holdings.

Self-occupation isn't the best idea to begin with. Usually other methods are pursued prior. How often has it been done in current game?

On a side note, if making self-occupation worse for loyalty -- it should not impact loyalty as much if removing sources. The argument about temples, guilds, laws is fairly reasonable -- much less so though when considering sources.

HK - Hamzaa al-Kalari wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 17, 2019 11:21 am

It seems to me that the goal should be to make self-occupation to be a high-cost desperation move and not the first choice for dealing with annoying individuals. So, why not just have it trigger an automatic rebellion? It's clearly a violation of the feudal oath to use soldiers against your own people (and an even grosser violation of the limited government ideas that underlie a republican form of government), and further serves to erode the importance of Law holdings. The impact of loyalty, then, would be to determine how severe the rebellion is. High loyalty could just provoke a "normal" rebellion, with lower levels of loyalty causing portions of the regent's standing army to join the rebels.

Occupation of ones own lands wasn't uncommon in medieval history. Martial law wasn't something unheard of.

And it occurred a number of times in pre-American history before the Revolutionary War kicked off.

I think it has more to do with the levies being composed of the people who work for those holdings than the ones who provide a market for them. So when all the shopkeepers and so forth go to war for years, when they come back their skills will be rusty and their 13-year-old nephew might not have done a great job running the place in their absence.

I don't think immediate occupation should drive loyalty down to rebellious, because then if you're not occupying your own provinces you will actually need to help your enemy increase their loyalty for your own sake, which is bizarre. It's bad enough that the Demagogue spell or a hidden holding can easily cause a rebellion in an occupied province, that occupation costs 1 GB per turn, and that the -1 loyalty per turn after occupation begins makes it difficult to collect taxes from an occupied province.

Self-occupation costs a lot of money, and the risk of rebellion is decent. (Plus, if you do it, a mage there can immediately make your army destroy your holdings with a Source 1 spell.) It makes a lot of sense that it's easier to get rid of holdings with military force than by contesting.

Occupation of ones own lands wasn't uncommon in medieval history. Martial law wasn't something unheard of.

And it occurred a number of times in pre-American history before the Revolutionary War kicked off.

Forget pre-america, current era america.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_Wars

MS - Makaria Smith wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 17, 2019 2:20 pm

HK - Hamzaa al-Kalari wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 17, 2019 11:21 am

It seems to me that the goal should be to make self-occupation to be a high-cost desperation move and not the first choice for dealing with annoying individuals. So, why not just have it trigger an automatic rebellion? It's clearly a violation of the feudal oath to use soldiers against your own people (and an even grosser violation of the limited government ideas that underlie a republican form of government), and further serves to erode the importance of Law holdings. The impact of loyalty, then, would be to determine how severe the rebellion is. High loyalty could just provoke a "normal" rebellion, with lower levels of loyalty causing portions of the regent's standing army to join the rebels.

Occupation of ones own lands wasn't uncommon in medieval history. Martial law wasn't something unheard of.

And it occurred a number of times in pre-American history before the Revolutionary War kicked off.

Sure, but rebellions weren't uncommon either. There's probably a relationship there.