Setting HOSTILE/DEFEND for the garrison is also a bit awkward.
Perhaps I'll allow the units to be given orders, but only those two.
I don't like basing their attitudes on the owning noble. The other
alternative is not to allow them to use HOSTILE/DEFEND.
> Why would garrisons switch their loyalty because you defeated the seat
> of power? At best I would expect the men to desert, and force the
> conquerer to go around and install new garrisons, in effect subdue
> the countryside, show the flag, etc. Meanwhile the neighbours can
> take advantage of the reduction of power.
> I am defintely against just handing the kingdom over. Do you want
> emperor Ming the Mild of all of greater atnos to loose the entire
> continent because someone happened to have a good battle result
> on the capital?
Actually, yes. The whole point is to force weak points. Note that Ming
the Mild has the option to build as many castles as he can afford, thus
making his kingdom more secure. If he binds 120 provinces to a single
castle, then he deserves what he gets.
It seems quite realistic to have the land bound to the castle.
> I still like the idea of the noble going around
> collecting the taxes. I can't believe that people can't be bothered to
> ride around on horseback and collect money...
I don't have an opinion on this point. It's certainly easier for me to
not teleport money to the castle, but most players seem to be in favor
of the auto-forwarding of revenue.
* * *
No one liked the generic terrain idea. The cool monsters I mentioned
are not in yet. I will try to have them in by Thursday, but they might
not make it until Monday's turn.
-- Rich Skrenta <firstname.lastname@example.org>