Post by Lidhuin on Jul 4, 2020 22:48:17 GMT
At the very lowest level are insults. At this point, there are no mechanical in-game consequences for stating that your opponent has "wit’s as thick as a Tewkesbury mustard". It can be a good way to establish enmity. Remember, their character is the enemy of your character. They are not your enemy. They are another person. Remember that.
At the next level of conflict are contests:
Simply contesting holdings is not an act of war. It can never be construed as an act of war. A character who regards someone contesting their holdings as an act of war will be ridiculed by NPCs and will suffer disadvantages as a direct consequence.
See below regarding declaring war.
However, friends also do not (should not) contest each other's holdings, and neutral parties will generally only contest if there's no further room to grow. Note that discontent vassals might contest your holdings. A tyrannical ruler strikes that down with force of arms (but see above about declaring war). A good ruler resolves it either through better contests of their own, or diplomacy. To simulate this:
Contesting must be a viable action. A common issue in Birthright is that contesting takes up an entire action that could be spent ruling, so isn't just inefficient to contest - it's downright counterproductive. Therefore, a successful contest will be immediately followed by a free rule holding action (with a +1 ob, in addition to generally not being all that planned out with regards to helping dice and whatnot), which may or may not succeed on its own merits.
Corollary to contests: For bookkeeping purposes, every player is assigned an initiative and acts in turn order. Rather than potentially lose their turn, a Rule Holding in a province that becomes full of that holding will instead be assumed to be a Contest against the player of choice. If left up to the GM, that'll generally be the player presumed to be most hostile to the Ruling player. Players are, of course, free to place whatever simple criteria they want on their actions.
Raids:
Somewhere between contests and wars. They are a work in progress at this time.
War:
While neither insults nor contest are acts of war, there's nothing stopping someone from issuing a declaration that they're fed up with you and will now take up arms. However, failing to declare war because "well they contested my holdings" will make you a subject of ridicule, as noted above.
So, Lord McCullen insulted your mother and called her fat as a chicken fattened up on blueberries. You take such offense you decide he needs to be taught a lesson. You may, without penalty, declare war, citing the insult as a cause, and then wage the war until you (or the world at large) consider the matter to be settled. You could also attack him without a declaration of war, but there will be some form of penalty - until and unless you're pretty much only surrounded by brigands and dishonorable, which would you make a pariah (and that would be the ultimate penalty of continuously attacking with declarations of war) and also make you surrounded by a bunch of untrustworthy scum.
Similarly, if Lord McCullen contested your holdings, you could decide to declare war and then wage war over it. It's a bit extreme, but as long as you followed decorum, nobody will fault you for it. If you decided the contest itself was an act of war, well, I've got bad news for you: It's not. You'll be ridiculed. Honorable men will avoid you. See above.
But if you're Lord McCullen and someone declares war on you in the spring, then of course you are at war with the person who declared war on you in the summer. You don't need to declare war in response to a declaration of war.
When declaring war, you should declare your intent with the war.
The method and means of actually waging war are a work in progress.
At the next level of conflict are contests:
Simply contesting holdings is not an act of war. It can never be construed as an act of war. A character who regards someone contesting their holdings as an act of war will be ridiculed by NPCs and will suffer disadvantages as a direct consequence.
See below regarding declaring war.
However, friends also do not (should not) contest each other's holdings, and neutral parties will generally only contest if there's no further room to grow. Note that discontent vassals might contest your holdings. A tyrannical ruler strikes that down with force of arms (but see above about declaring war). A good ruler resolves it either through better contests of their own, or diplomacy. To simulate this:
Contesting must be a viable action. A common issue in Birthright is that contesting takes up an entire action that could be spent ruling, so isn't just inefficient to contest - it's downright counterproductive. Therefore, a successful contest will be immediately followed by a free rule holding action (with a +1 ob, in addition to generally not being all that planned out with regards to helping dice and whatnot), which may or may not succeed on its own merits.
Corollary to contests: For bookkeeping purposes, every player is assigned an initiative and acts in turn order. Rather than potentially lose their turn, a Rule Holding in a province that becomes full of that holding will instead be assumed to be a Contest against the player of choice. If left up to the GM, that'll generally be the player presumed to be most hostile to the Ruling player. Players are, of course, free to place whatever simple criteria they want on their actions.
Raids:
Somewhere between contests and wars. They are a work in progress at this time.
War:
While neither insults nor contest are acts of war, there's nothing stopping someone from issuing a declaration that they're fed up with you and will now take up arms. However, failing to declare war because "well they contested my holdings" will make you a subject of ridicule, as noted above.
So, Lord McCullen insulted your mother and called her fat as a chicken fattened up on blueberries. You take such offense you decide he needs to be taught a lesson. You may, without penalty, declare war, citing the insult as a cause, and then wage the war until you (or the world at large) consider the matter to be settled. You could also attack him without a declaration of war, but there will be some form of penalty - until and unless you're pretty much only surrounded by brigands and dishonorable, which would you make a pariah (and that would be the ultimate penalty of continuously attacking with declarations of war) and also make you surrounded by a bunch of untrustworthy scum.
Similarly, if Lord McCullen contested your holdings, you could decide to declare war and then wage war over it. It's a bit extreme, but as long as you followed decorum, nobody will fault you for it. If you decided the contest itself was an act of war, well, I've got bad news for you: It's not. You'll be ridiculed. Honorable men will avoid you. See above.
But if you're Lord McCullen and someone declares war on you in the spring, then of course you are at war with the person who declared war on you in the summer. You don't need to declare war in response to a declaration of war.
When declaring war, you should declare your intent with the war.
The method and means of actually waging war are a work in progress.