Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does this intrigue anyone else? I believe it offers another avenue of approach to dealing with repeat offenders in community norms.
I would like to see this work as a SAD, but for settlements. Making a demand of tribute, and if the recieving party declines being able to go to war with a minor modifier in the resource cost.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Presumably, if the tribute were accepted, you would not only be unable to declare war for the specified period, but also any wardec on the tributary would also apply to you, at no additional cost to anybody, and there would be a reputation penalty for any resident of your settlement who attacked any resident of theirs, even if there normally would not have been?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I did not state vassalage. I stated tribute. If a settlement demands tribute it could be for a number of reasons. And it identifies no affiliation with the settlement the tribute is demanded from.
Countries have been doing this since the dawn of recorded history. There is a clear difference between a Vassal state and a settlement that offers tribute to stay the hand of the stronger military power.
And settlement politics need have no impact on individuals to an extent. Is the United States blamed whenever a commercial entity performs an aggressive takeover of a foreign business?
I do agree with the first comment. Just like a SAD, there should be heavy repercussions for demanding a tribute and then following through with war afterwards.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Presumably, if the tribute were accepted, you would not only be unable to declare war for the specified period...
I'm not sure I would agree with that.
It seems quite possible to me for a large army to be present at a City's gates and demand "One Meeeelion Coin" in tribute. If the City readily meets the demand, the army might realize they didn't ask for enough and demand a second tribute.
I don't think the game system should try to formalize Tribute.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
As described, a group that wants to go to war gets an advantage from having a tribute request declined; there needs to be some factor which discourages demanding tribute until the target cannot/will not pay so as to get a reduced wardec cost.
An influence cost on the tribute demand might also suffice.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
An influence cost on the tribute demand might also suffice.
Settlement-to-settlement it would be a DI cost; company-to-company it would be an influence cost.
In the Man in Back blog entry it stated Declaring and maintaining a state of war requires a settlement to spend a large amount of coin and to set aside a portion of its Development Indexes (the measure of a settlement's advancement) and is expensive.... One might expect that a tribute demand also requires some DI expenditure, just like companies will use Influence in forging alliance for trade or security purposes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the City readily meets the demand, the army might...
...simply attack anyway. I believe the game shouldn't restrict such an important option for potential aggressors.
Whether a ransom, tribute, or bribe will have the promised effect should be part of the calculus of the situation. In no other way will we be able to trust one another, so why this one?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would prefer there be no game systems in play at all with respect to Tributes. Attackers shouldn't get any benefit for demanding one, and defenders shouldn't get any benefit from paying one.
IMO
Agreed. To be honest if there was an in game mechanic that required me to set aside DI or influence to get tribute I would ignore it and just demand that I be payed completely bypassing the mechanic.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right- the initial though of 'wouldn't it be awesome if' refusing tribute allowed easier declarations of war if done within the rules turns into 'nobody does that'.
You are of course free to threaten, cajole, and blackmail settlements without any rules for doing so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In no other way will we be able to trust one another, so why this one?
But we will be able to trust each other (somewhat) through contract mechanisms and SAD mechanisms and the like. I'd think that contract-like mechanisms might be appropriate at the company and settlement level as well as the character level.
But if a SAD is reneged upon, the Outlaw would suffer double reputation hits. Likewise, if a settlement collects tribute then attacks within some protected period, that could (for example) double their DI costs for declaring and maintaining the war. I don't think refusing a tribute demand should lower the cost of a war, though.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Right- the initial though of 'wouldn't it be awesome if' refusing tribute allowed easier declarations of war if done within the rules turns into 'nobody does that'.
Self-reflection and self-correction is a truly awe-inspiring and beautiful thing to behold :)
I'd think that contract-like mechanisms might be appropriate at the company and settlement level as well as the character level.
Good point. I certainly hope the Contract system is flexible enough to allow something like this, without it having to be its own system. I'm starting to think the SAD might be better as a simple contract as well...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Are taxes tribute by another name?
It depends what you get for them. If the only benefit you're getting is not being killed today, it's tribute. If you're getting peace and stability, a good trade environment, road improvements, etc, etc, you're paying taxes, even if someone else sees benefits, too.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That would be an idea worth looking into; have taxes and tributes work off the same system, with different qualifiers and goods/services delivered either way to distinguish the two. Certainly, some citizens in a tax-heavy land are probably going to feel like they're only paying tribute. :)