User talk:Foreign Curs/Suggestion:Liberation Takeover

Give it to allies? I don't think that's such a great idea... Just seems to further those unbreakable alliances. However, turning the region rogue, that would sound good. A quicker method than sitting and looting for weeks while the peasants keep interfering? -Chénier 16:03, 1 March 2008 (CET)

Now now you miss the concept of this. Realm A would perform the LTO in a region of the enemy realm B that does not border to the regions of realm A, but that does border to the regions of realm C, which is an ally of realm A. If a realm can't take a region, it's better off in the hands of an ally than in the hands of an enemy. Medium 16:23, 1 March 2008 (CET)

No, he understands perfectly. Having allies be able to take over regions for you will only make it more likely that alliances will persist, and that people will try to bring all their allies to a war, so they can take regions as fast as possible, thus resulting in even worse gangbangs than we have seen up till now. This is a Bad Idea. --Anaris 17:03, 1 March 2008 (CET)

If a realm doesn't want to be gangbanged they should bring in their own allies. And if they don't got any that's a clear diplomatic mistake. According to your view on this we should remove takeovers alltogether, because -- although we all agree that takeovers are logical to happen -- they all further gangbanging so to speak. Realms have to die eventually, there's no point is limiting the options and reducing reality just to stretch the timeframe a little bit. Foreign Curs 19:07, 1 March 2008 (CET)

This idea seems to pander to the lowest form of realm: the Alliance Whores. With this idea a realm doesn't have to be strong themselves to gain more land, they just have to have a strong ally. With this, as Anaris already pointed out, Alliances will persist because there would be even less reason to end them. Besides that it is simply not realistic. If one realm wants a region then it has to be them themselves who have to go around and tell the peasants that now they are owned by them. Another realm doing it by proxy would not make any sense to a commoner. A method for this already exists and that is called giving a region to a neighboring realm. It's an extra step but such things should require the extra step for such a serious action in politics. Foreign Curs' statement: "Realms have to die eventually, there's no point is limiting the options and reducing reality just to stretch the timeframe a little bit." is just silly. Realms don't have to die, they aren't living things with a lifespan. How long has the Chin Dynasty (China) stood? And the British Empire? Realms don't have a half life. -Balewind

Precisely. But still, a TO that makes a region rogue would be interesting, as I originally said. -Chénier 23:07, 1 March 2008 (CET)

I don't know about that. It isn't very realistic to walk into a enemy region and tell the peasants to follow no-one. How would you convince them of that? "Y'know, I think you should tear down those banners and swear for no-one. You are better off on your own without the protection of any realm." There is a way to do that but it's not a TO, it's looting the region till it goes rogue. That is how you can illustrate to the peasants that their realm really can't help them and that they really are better off on their own.-Balewind

You're not really reading the suggestion through. From what I see in Balewind's comments he hasn't even done the trouble to read it at all. It's not Realm A takes over a region for Realm B. It's Realm A restores a region to Realm B that previously belonged to them and has a still existant claim over it. You see the crucial difference? You can't have your ally do all the work. All they can do for you is restore your lost lands to you. Not conquer new lands. Plainly restore lost lands. If any, it's going to be the initial agressor realm itself that'll be "whoring" the enemy, as his ally can only restore lost regions and not conquer any new ones. Aside that, if you're so worried about a (insert imposing swearname) Alliance ruling the entire continent, we could even demand that it must be a 'strong' claim and not a 'very weak' or 'weak'. A commoner won't wonder why they're converted to another realm than the one performing the takeover, because they previously belonged to that realm. They'd be happy to go back to their previous claim, and if not happy then at least they'll understand the reasoning behind it. Did the USA not liberate France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, etc... and return them to their previous governments? Or does half of Europe and Afrika count as American soil? It's a very realistic and logical concept. This is actually one of the reasons I know Balewind hasn't read the suggestion through, because obviously he missed out on this part. Foreign Curs 00:07, 2 March 2008 (CET)

Actually I read it end to end, more than once so I could make an educated comment on the idea and my point still stands. This is a benefit for 'Alliance Whores' only. Your point on 'region claims' is moot because region claims are to nobles, not realms. Your example of the USA liberating those European countries is also moot: The USA did not 'TO' any of those nations, they simply were part of a multi nation alliance that kicked out an invading force. Those nations were still soverign nations suffering under occupation, not a part of Germany. This whole simply makes alliances even better and is completley contrary to Tom's desire to end giant federations and alliances that cause continents to stangnate in political deadlock. -Balewind

Well, since Germany actually occupied half of Europe for a total of at least 3 consecuting years, I'd consider the former governments of these countries pretty much gone. And the lands pretty much part of Germany for a long while. It was the USA that reestablished the former borders, called back whatever kings (or other government types) that had fled their nation, initiated the economy with the Marshall plan, etc... The USA did pretty much all the work on reconquering everything, and in BM terms that is called a takeover. Sure, the population welcomed it, but the USA still had to destroy the military forces and remove the German officials from power (that's the definition of a friendly takeover actually).

Consider it this way: If you have Realm A fighting against Realm B, then the only thing that my proposal changes is to annul any progress on both sides. You see: Realm A takes over a region from Realm B, then an ally of Realm B can help restoring thoise regions. So what happens, Realm A makes no progress in destroying Realm B. You now assume that Realm B will destroy Realm A because of its strong alliance. Well, that's wrong, since its ally can't do anything more than it could before against Realm A. Realm B would still have to do all the work, and their ally would still be used as the meatshield it always used to be. Yes, Realm B gets an advantage over Realm A. But that's when Realm A calls in its own allies. If it doesn't have any, then -- as I said -- it's made a huge mistake and yes that'll eventually lead to their downfall. But that's exactly the same as it is now. Realm A would still never survive Realm B and its ally the way the code is now, unless it get his own ally involved. I can see where your coming from, but there's no use in reducing reality just to slow down the inevitable. If a realm will die because of this new type of takeover, then I'm pretty sure it would have died just the same without it. Foreign Curs 11:44, 2 March 2008 (CET)