Fiefdoms

[Lunarius_Haberdash]

I would like to see the addition of Fiefdoms in the interest of creating the potential for functional alliances and rebellions.

A fiefdom is essentially an independent Kingdom that grants access to all of its resources and buffs to the Kingdom it is in fealty to, and vice versa. While in fealty to another Realm the fiefdom shares an authority bar with the realm in question, and the total cost of their mutual buffs are taken from the authority of the realm. The Monarch of the realm swearing fealty must travel to the coronation stone of the realm they are swearing fealty to.

Should the realm in fealty wish to sever its ties with its mother Kingdom, they must either get the blessing of the realm that they are in fealty to (the Monarch receives a request to cede control of the realm from the Monarch in Fealty) or they must erect a stone of rebellion and defend it for 3 Real Days. All members of the realm in question will be notified that the realm is attempting to secede, and will have a way of knowing where the rebellion stone has been built. In either case the Ruling Realm will receive a large authority debuff that will be transferred to the ceding realm, and both realms lose access to the resources of the other. This, in turn, will result in the loss of any buffs dependent on those resources.

Being present in either Realm will provide access to the realm chats of both.
Both realms retain the ability to kick members out of their own realms.
Both realms can see the membership of either realm.
Both realms can expand their own realms without the involvement of the other.
A realm may only be in fealty to one realm and may have no subordinate realms if it is in fealty to another realm.
The realm in fealty may choose to merge with the ruling realm completely (resulting in the deactivation of its coronation stone and all rights of authority)

This adds another layer of politics to Haven and allows realms to forge meaningful alliances while retaining the ability to withdraw from those alliances with meaningful consequences to both. It also allows expanding realms across the ocean (albeit at a steep cost) *AND* allows realms to expand UPWARDS at the same cost. (By creating another Realm, swearing fealty, and then merging those realms)

Discuss

[Sevenless]

I like the idea, but I'm always scratching my head over potential unforeseen consequences with this type of idea. I just get a sneaking suspicion it'll cause problems.

A) Do we like the impact force severed realms have had? This seems to have increased random violence, back to Legacy days. Albeit without palibashing thank god, but this forced severing has undone much of the impacts of realms towards total violence levels it seems to me. This idea would likely return us to realm impact of lowered violence. I like the idea of political contest, but this re-directed focus on kicking around random people on rivers I'm not so sure about. I'm also not sure how the community at large feels about this. I know a lot of the aggressively active forum people will probably argue for punching people for fun, but much of the ingame population tends to prefer less random violence I think.

B) There is absolutely no benefit to being the king compared to a duke. This seems odd unless I'm mis-reading. Do sub kingdoms not have the ability to access any realm abilities so they can't use authority from the main kingdom? I'd expect it to go more like: Sub-kingdoms donate a portion of their authority to the king. Sub-realms cannot build buffs, but any resources they claim over are allocated to the king's realm and they get kings buffs. King gets extra benefits, sub kingdom gets buffs, but there's no reason to have sub kingdoms unless it's either too hard to kill them or across water. Also sub kingdoms still get some authority to use with abilities.

[Lunarius_Haberdash]

There is absolutely no benefit to being the king compared to a duke.

Yes, there are benefits. The entire Realm (including its fiefdoms) get the benefit of all Irminsuls/Monoliths in the combined regions. The Fiefdom gets the ability to enjoy the benefits of the expanded buff as does the realm in fealty.

but there's no reason to have sub kingdoms unless it's either too hard to kill them or across water. Also sub kingdom's still get some authority to use with abilities.

The reason for a fiefdom is to have friendly, smaller kingdoms that are still part of your realm without having to compete for resources, remove autonomy, or otherwise have them under YOUR realm. Some people want to be independent, but would be perfectly happy sharing resources with a larger Kingdom... Joining them, without joining them, essentially. There's no reason under the above system this shouldn't be an option.

"Unless it's too hard to kill them" - This is the problem, there are other forms of government and diplomacy than 'Hail and Kill'

[Sevenless]

Those benefits would, given no existence of this mechanic, be effectively the same as claiming the area normally. Those towns would help the realm, those resources would be claimed by the realm.

[Lunarius_Haberdash]

Those benefits would, given no existence of this mechanic, be effectively the same as claiming the area normally. Those towns would help the realm, those resources would be claimed by the realm.

The issue is you're only looking at numerical advantages, not socio-political ones that could lead to entertaining strife and warfare.

[Vigilance]

So it's literally a functionally useless implementation that requires (assuming of course) a fair bit of dev time?

No thanks

[loskierek]

So it's literally a functionally useless implementation that requires (assuming of course) a fair bit of dev time?

No thanks

we got quests, i dont see why cant we have more useless implementations

[Aceb]

The issue is you're only looking at numerical advantages, not socio-political ones that could lead to entertaining strife and warfare.

Most of "socio-political" stuff can be done by players themselfs, no need for special mechanic or waste time of devs. Maybe if someone rejected You, they didn't want that kind of entertain or simply had no interest to follow your style?

[Lunarius_Haberdash]

The issue is you're only looking at numerical advantages, not socio-political ones that could lead to entertaining strife and warfare.

Most of "socio-political" stuff can be done by players themselfs, no need for special mechanic or waste time of devs. Maybe if someone rejected You, they didn't want that kind of entertain or simply had no interest to follow your style?

This came up because this EXPLICITLY can't be done by players themselves. The ability to retain one's independence as a realm while sharing resources with another realm is not a system that's built in or even possible. You either ARE part of someone's realm, or you're not. Alliances have very little real meaning outside of what each side agrees to do, but there's no way for them to share their resources without joining. Joining precludes the ability to secede and the political aftermath that follows. As I understand it you can't even challenge a realms control without being a realm yourself, meaning there's no way to rise up and throw off a realm that covers you if you don't want to be a part of it.

If your answer to this is "Why wouldn't you want to be part of a realm?" then that's a problem with the realm system as well. There should be benefits to being independent or part of a realm other than the one you're part of.

I happen to like what Irminsuls and Monoliths do but also agree with others that this limits the ability of people to have smaller realms, etc. I'm looking for more ways for people to cooperate, and to conflict.

Fiefdoms are a good road for adding interest to the realms scenario.