Birthright: Chimaeron

I am not a big fan of how levying provinces turned into an aggressive weapon to drive down holding levels... making it a cheaper, better contest/self occupy.

I am thinking either

It doesn't permanently reduce holdings unless the level is lost
Or, it reduces holdings randomly at least

Probably #1

It doesn't work for that, does it? You can only levy once per turn, so you can only remove a holding level with it if that law/temple/guild slot is completely full. If there's an empty slot, no holdings are damaged, even if the owner wants them to be. Unless they're so determined they keep levying the province turn after turn, driving down all the holdings there indiscriminately, which isn't 'a better self-occupy', it's a worse one.

I've got a way to think about it that might cover those concerns. Think of the final holding level as sort of a bonus level. Not every province will have all its holding slots filled, all the time, since if they were, and regent levied it, every non-source ruler in the province would get hurt. This would mean full law control would be less common, since it would be lost every time a province was levied. Levies still hurt the province loyalty, too, so that's a good drawback.

I'm okay with the province regent being able to choose which holding is lost. That just means that every province has one floating province level that's dangerous to rule up holdings into because they could be destroyed by a levy at any time. And that means there's an incentive not to establish holdings in provinces that might be levied, or to levy provinces, since doing so could discourage potential allies from investing in the province.

Good, I just heard about it today and couldn't believe it. Had to really question why that was possibly allowed. But heard it was used in the past that way. If it is gone that is good.

I think we are in a unique situation where people's startup selection doesnt really reflect what could have organically occurred and we shouldnt see this tactic used regularly after this initial turmoil rights itself into real(ish) borders.

Yes, levies are more dramatic when province levels are low to begin with, so if it's a problem now, it won't be one later on. (And in play, putting holdings in a hostile regent's realm is a lot harder than it was during start-up.)

If it's possible to levy a province and choose to harm only one holding type that shouldn't be the case. It should reduce the maximum holding levels for all three types of holdings, including the ones the province ruler possesses. (Source potential doesn't go up since source regeneration is a spring thing.)

Yes, it just doesn't permanently reduce holding levels anymore. It is an abusive and silly use of the rule, which was more intended to cause damage when you levy to defend. Will just have levying reduce loyalty 1 step.

That will make levying very hard for its intended purpose, is there another negative effect that could be applied?

I like the damage... I was hoping for an excuse to not obsess about keeping my holding levels at maximum. Lots of realms in the original setting have half their law slots empty on purpose (from the regent's perspective) for thematic reasons, and that works well with being able to levy them without trouble, too.

If there's players that are getting hurt by abuse of the rule, could they just be given replacement holdings in less controversial locations? I don't think the problem would come back after that, since people would be able to see it coming.

Edit: Oh, what if the loyalty loss only occurs if the province loses holding levels? It could even be equal to the number lost, so levying a province that's completely full of holdings, and at high loyalty, would be enough to send it into rebellion. This could add a lot of diplomacy and trade-offs.

Adding to that last one, the owner of the holding, if not the province owner, could waive the loyalty penalty if they didn't want to interfere with the province regent. The loyalty penalty would just be a deterrent option.

DM Juan wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 20, 2020 10:26 pm

I am not a big fan of how levying provinces turned into an aggressive weapon to drive down holding levels... making it a cheaper, better contest/self occupy.

I am thinking either

It doesn't permanently reduce holdings unless the level is lost
Or, it reduces holdings randomly at least

Probably #1

If you want to give it bite, make it so that "loyalist" holdings are lost first -- ie. if you raise a levy, your holdings are depleted first, along with state faith, and state guild holdings. Beyond that, it's random.

If you are striking the banners and calling for all able-bodied men and women to stand in defense of their land, it would make sense that those whose loyalty lies elsewhere would be more reluctant to answer the call than those who are loyalty to the regent making the call to arms.

(as always, Birmail permitting -- otherwise, I think no permanent loss is the way to go.)