edits:
- merged follow-up information
- merged post #33
- added introduction
Independence would be a problem for 99.99% of Dukes. I bet we will have all under control from our desk what will happen in our Duchy.
I will approach you, welcome you nicely, request the tax and if you will refuse I will replace you as Mayor. If your settlement will still refuse to become part of the Duchy , then I would obliterate you from existence.
That is certainly one of the likely outcomes. It'd be very similar to one of your own settlements claiming independence. Likely following the exact same game mechanic.
No matter how good you might think you are at some point someone within your community will get exposed, whitnessed, forget evidence, have their alias burnt, and if enough dots are connected your whole settlement will come under fire from other mayors, barons, counts, or dukes will take notice of your actions and follow the trail of clues you leave behind.
Just remember one thing. Anything you do that is negative might be fun but it will be short lived and have devastating results when it all comes crashing down on your head at some point. The better the life you live built on influence rather than infamy will get you much farther than fighting against the current.
If you have items or assets you no longer have use for feel free to send them my way.
Such is war.
(just throwing this out there: I won't be doing this myself, i have a nice school that i'll be founding inside of a duke's county.
You are making a mistake Avastar right in your first point.
A mayor can get a CB toward its count's title and use it to try and get its independence from the county, that's true, but that wont in any way make it independent from the duke or the kingdom.
If a mayor get independence from its count it is indeed creating a new county, a county that is by default in the duchy of the lord of the count it got its independence from and that new county is also by default a vassal of the duke.
So no matter how you turn it, a CB against a count will either end with the usurper winning the coup and claiming the count's title or the coup is not successful but not failed either and it ends in a stalemate at which point both parties can sue for peace and independence can be part of the conflict resolution, ending with a new county. But in both cases the mayor will become a count and will automatically be a vassal of the duke.
Posted By markof at 4:57 PM - Sun Nov 17 2019
You are making a mistake Avastar right in your first point.
A mayor can get a CB toward its count's title and use it to try and get its independence from the county, that's true, but that wont in any way make it independent from the duke or the kingdom.
If a mayor get independence from its count it is indeed creating a new county, a county that is by default in the duchy of the lord of the count it got its independence from and that new county is also by default a vassal of the duke.
So no matter how you turn it, a CB against a count will either end with the usurper winning the coup and claiming the count's title or the coup is not successful but not failed either and it ends in a stalemate at which point both parties can sue for peace and independence can be part of the conflict resolution, ending with a new county. But in both cases the mayor will become a count and will automatically be a vassal of the duke.
Not necessarily.
For claiming independence:
"Let's say I'm a Mayor of a city in some county. If I can gain enough “favor”, I can either take over as Count of the county, or if I have enough land can claim independence and create my own county" (See DJ-18-Kingdom-Land-Management).
Regarding the coup:
"For the sake of the next section, you can replace the word Count with Duke or King in most circumstances. The process is mostly the same for each.
Once you've got the ability to coup, you must either set up a County Seat in your own lands and declare your independence of the former Count, or you need to march in and take the County seat from your predecessor.
At this point, it behaves much like Adverse Possession. If you set up a County Seat, the reigning count has 28 days to remove your county seat. If he succeeds, you forfeit your titles, a vacuum ensues, and he can appoint a new Mayor/Baron in your stead.
If you succeed, and he/she cannot force you off your lands, then congratulations! You've created a new county! " (See DJ-18-Kingdom-Land-Management).
So, because "you can replace the word Count with Duke or King," if he doesn't even know what is happening, then those 28 rdays end without conflict and "you've created a new [kingdom]! " (See DJ-18-Kingdom-Land-Management). Which means, you'd just need to survive the wrath of the king for 28 rdays.
No you can't adverse posses just any piece of land.
NA-E Luna Locked --------------------------------------------------
Posted By DracoKalen at 5:24 PM - Sun Nov 17 2019
No you can't adverse posses just any piece of land.
Doesn't adverse possess only apply to claiming abandoned land? Not conquering or claiming independence from a government? Casus belli and adverse possession are legal methods of obtaining land. Rogue settlements, by definition, are illegal acts that make the actors criminals and give others casus belli.
Regarding conquering:
Caspian said: puu.sh/EFJ0w/50109b34e6.png
Is there a link that says we magically can't build a house deep in a jungle without buying the parcel first (something saying the equivalent that it's impossible to build before paying a Count)? If so, then will the Lich need to tell the Count that he wants to buy another parcel before expanding his dungeon?
A rogue settlement will be illegally claimed, but that's exactly what conquering / claiming independence is; it's a crime against the current government.
Its an interesting thought experiment. Right now we lack enough concrete information from SBS to evaluate the fine details of the options available in game, but in theory (and based on what has been said), it should be possible and in some circumstances even successful...
adverse possession is for a abandoned piece of land. That is land someone owned and abandoned.
Or if you displaced the current owner.
Then you can hold it for 28 days and then it's yours.
NA-E Luna Locked --------------------------------------------------
awesome thanks! there is so much to this game. I LOVE IT! yet, it makes it hard to remember everything and how they all interrelate
You can debate mechanics, but I don't believe your initial premise.
Have a look at the number of parcels in the counties on the game maps. Figure the dimensions of these counties. Then look at how settlements are distributed within them. Elyria is populated everywhere.
How is someone going to hide a hamlet when every spot is so close to an existing settlement?
underground? in a hard to reach spot? somewhere where people just rarely frequent? even if a random stumbles upon it, they won't know it isn't on owned land and, unless they are making maps, its location wont spread. They'll just think it's a new town and maybe they will frequent it but the chance of its location being told to a Count by a random explorer is very low.
but whatever way it remains hidden and for however long, rogue settlements or something similar should exist. especially for colonizing across the ocean where nobody will know who the current count is for whereever the ship makes landfall. it'd be totally immersion breaking, ie: "game popup: you can't build here because you need to buy the land from the governing count" or "game popup: you can't receive government benefits because you need to turn in a town charter with the governing count." wait.. the game just magically told you that there is a count that controls this land.
town benefits aren't conferred magically because of a contract. they are conferred due to becoming more organized and being managed better. likewise, allegiance isn't conferred by crossing a border, nor should loyalty be forced upon a player, they aren't slaves... allegiance should be selected upon creating the Town Charter.
if the governing count/duke/king that should have received the Charter, doesn't receive it and learns that it was turned in elsewhere, then has the option, casus belli, to smash the settlement.
In the OP's example, the settlement was described as completely underground. I recall reading that some structure must be on the surface of at least one parcel, in order to dig the "gateway" into the subterranean parcels. This of course is a minor point, but enough to obviate the notion of a settlement that is entirely undetectable from the surface.
There are probably parcels that are hard to reach from their county seats, and these might be considered by counts to be not worth bothering about. On the other hand, any collection of parcels sufficient to form a town will probably not fit in such isolated locations. Such squatter settlements may have a chance of avoiding notice by the authorities, unless they become so annoying to neighbors that the authorities will take action to reduce the neighbors' complaints.
The critical obstacle as I see it is not whether a random adventurer stumbles upon the giveaway parcel, i.e., the one with the single necessary structure upon it. The issue is whether the count or their delegate comes across it. This is most likely to happen via organized patrolling intended in part to find potential squatters to either evict or add to the tax rolls. If active patrols with this intent occur often enough and are thorough enough, I don't think squatting will be very successful. As I understand it, it is the responsibility of counts to rule their lands sufficiently well that all who are legally bound to pay taxes actually do pay those taxes. A count who ignores squatter settlements where taxes should be collected is therefore remiss in their duties to their liege lord. A possible defense for such a count is that the taxes to be collected do not equal or exceed the cost of collecting them.
I expect that some players will attempt to achieve the OP's scenario, and that some will succeed for a while. If their intent or method is to create greater mayhem than simply avoiding taxation that is not worth the expense of enforcing, I don't expect that they will succeed indefinitely.