> On Jul 23, 13:58, email@example.com wrote:
> > (1) All units of a faction lose a bit of loyalty each month.
> This makes it difficult to send a single unit off exploring,
> because it will revolt. This "feechure" was one thing about BSE
> that I absolutely hated. Add useful complexity.
I wrote a week ago (to the predecessor of this list):
> I don't think that limiting the number of units which one
> leader can control is a good idea. All the arguments have
> already been made about that.
> The problem of "leaders" going and hiding in the
> hinterland is also a real one. I'd propose that either one
> of the following two ideas are implemented to limit that:
> 1. Units which are in different regions than their leader
> unit automatically use a fraction of their loyality
> every month.
> 2. Units which are in the same province as their leader are
> harder to persuade or terrorize.
> Both effects should be small for units which are highly
> loyal, highly skilled or small. On the other hand a mob of a
> 100 peasants left alone without leadership is going to
> disperse all by itself in a few months or follow anybody
> else who offers it money. On the other hand, a high-level
> assassin who operates behind enemy lines won't start
> suddenly becoming disloyal just because he hasn't seen
> his immediate boss for a few months.
> Indirectly either of these effects would also
> contribute to limiting the number of units single
> leaders control directly if one faction tries to spread
> over many provinces. On the other hand even a large
> faction can have a very flat organizational structure if
> it all remains within one city. Both of these effects seem
> desireable to me.