|
Post by Naathi Adventurer on Jan 9, 2019 21:37:03 GMT
While answering the original question of the "best setting for a canon game", disabling claim fabrication quicky came to mind but I also immediatly had second thoughts -- because of "Robert's Rebellion" as well. Was Robert Baratheon ascension to the Iron Throne the result of a claim fabrication? I have to admit there are strong arguments either way -- both relying upon solid lore evidence. Ultimately, I was unable to pick a side, and, I wondered if Martin's texts would actually be consistent in that regard anyway.
In any case, notwithstanding Robert's Rebellion, claim fabrication does not seem to run rampant in Westeros (or Planetos, for what I know).
Besides, in my experience, should claim fabrication be allowed, every ruler, including third sons of minor counts, who, miraculously ascend to rulership following a pandemic great sickness devastating their whole family and heirloom, may attempt it, and, will often succeed. Conversely, disabling claim fabrication will vastly reduce the pace of the game drifting away from its initial canon state while still keeping a decent amount of activity (minor claims, dragon owners, adventurers, etc.).
In short, I suggested disabling claim fabrication because a playthrough with randomness held in check is what I guess the original poster wanted when asking for a canon game.
|
|
Toccs
Moderator
Posts: 474
|
Post by Toccs on Jan 9, 2019 23:13:03 GMT
Doesn't succession crisis only trigger when there are no heirs? He usurped it on a "flimsy" claim that in terms of game mechanics I don't think he would have even had.
Claiming the throne wasn't ever a part of their reasoning for going to war. He only took the throne because when the war was over and the dust settled the royal family was entirely dead or in exile and he was the only claimant left. When Robert asked Ned why he didn't claim the throne, Ned's response was "you had the better claim".
|
|
|
Post by rufff1 on Jan 9, 2019 23:52:08 GMT
Doesn't succession crisis only trigger when there are no heirs? He usurped it on a "flimsy" claim that in terms of game mechanics I don't think he would have even had. If you consider that legally speaking Robert was by the end of the war the de jure heir to the throne (Rhaegar, Aerys, Aegon all dead (or are they ) and Dany is technically ineligible to succeed under Targaryen house law which has banned female succession since the Dance). If he had tried to claim the throne at the start of the war you're right, it'd be a flimsy claim, but he didn't the war was for Lyanna and against the tyranny of Aerys, by the end of the war with most Targs having died Robert had also acquired a very strong claim just by a very literal process of elimination
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Jan 10, 2019 9:40:03 GMT
Well, in terms of the show, his claim to the throne was pretty much the same as Aegon the Conqueror. He took it because he could. Although in case of Aegon it was because of his dragons and the force they brought. In case of Robert, it was because most of the other lords went with it. They did no longer want Targaryens and Robert had a vague claim plus was the one who overthrew them. In the end, a claim is just a recognition from the other lords and people of the realm, that you should have that throne, not anything physical.
In the terms of the game, this obviously does not work, as the game can't be as detailed as real life. I would agree the closest thing would be a war against tyrany with a succession crisis.
|
|
|
Post by rufff1 on Jan 10, 2019 11:18:53 GMT
Well, in terms of the show, his claim to the throne was pretty much the same as Aegon the Conqueror. He took it because he could. Although in case of Aegon it was because of his dragons and the force they brought. In case of Robert, it was because most of the other lords went with it. They did no longer want Targaryens and Robert had a vague claim plus was the one who overthrew them. In the end, a claim is just a recognition from the other lords and people of the realm, that you should have that throne, not anything physical. In the terms of the game, this obviously does not work, as the game can't be as detailed as real life. I would agree the closest thing would be a war against tyrany with a succession crisis. I think it is important to remember that whilst in a way Robert's claim was the same as Aegon's - because he could - the fact was during the War he wasn't claiming the throne, so it wasn't really a claim fabrication. The War was fought for separate reasons, but by the end of it you had five of the great houses knowing that there was no way that if they put the last remaining Targaryen male on the throne that he wouldn't eventually come for revenge after they had killed most of his family. So after the war was won they then had to work out who they could put on the Throne and conveniently the Baratheon claim was a decent fig leaf for it. I don't think anyone at the Battle of the Trident was shouting "For King Robert" - the claim came once the war was won and they realised the only Targaryen male left was an unstable 8 year old who in all likelihood would execute each and every one of them. I think a good metaphor is the Reformation - Martin Luther didn't set out seeking to split the Church but once he had been declared a heretic after the Diet of Wurms the only way forwards for him was to create Protestantism.
|
|
|
Post by Salty_Balls on Jan 10, 2019 16:33:51 GMT
Doesn't succession crisis only trigger when there are no heirs? He usurped it on a "flimsy" claim that in terms of game mechanics I don't think he would have even had. If you consider that legally speaking Robert was by the end of the war the de jure heir to the throne (Rhaegar, Aerys, Aegon all dead (or are they ) and Dany is technically ineligible to succeed under Targaryen house law which has banned female succession since the Dance). If he had tried to claim the throne at the start of the war you're right, it'd be a flimsy claim, but he didn't the war was for Lyanna and against the tyranny of Aerys, by the end of the war with most Targs having died Robert had also acquired a very strong claim just by a very literal process of elimination You're conveniently forgetting about Viserys, who was by all accounts the rightful heir to the throne at the time.(right sex, the direct descendant of the previous king, a Targ, etc). So in my opinion, purely ck mechanics wise, the whole Robert's rebellion conflict would make more sense as a regular war against tyranny in which the victors choose the most suited candidate amongst the prominent participants of the rebellion as the new king, since if they had followed the guidelines of installing the next person in line according to law Viserys would we the right choice, instead of some distant matrilineal cousin of the deposed king.
Also it is worth noting that even if Robert hadn't had any relations with the Targ family whatsoever, he would still become king in the end, just based on common sense and the rebellion would still take place, since the main catalyst of the war was Lyannas kidnapping and the murder of Ned's family and his and Robert's consecutive arrest attempts and not the pushing of Bobby B's claim.
|
|
|
Post by rufff1 on Jan 10, 2019 18:03:04 GMT
If you consider that legally speaking Robert was by the end of the war the de jure heir to the throne (Rhaegar, Aerys, Aegon all dead (or are they ) and Dany is technically ineligible to succeed under Targaryen house law which has banned female succession since the Dance). If he had tried to claim the throne at the start of the war you're right, it'd be a flimsy claim, but he didn't the war was for Lyanna and against the tyranny of Aerys, by the end of the war with most Targs having died Robert had also acquired a very strong claim just by a very literal process of elimination You're conveniently forgetting about Viserys, who was by all accounts the rightful heir to the throne at the time.(right sex, the direct descendant of the previous king, a Targ, etc). So in my opinion, purely ck mechanics wise, the whole Robert's rebellion conflict would make more sense as a regular war against tyranny in which the victors choose the most suited candidate amongst the prominent participants of the rebellion as the new king, since if they had followed the guidelines of installing the next person in line according to law Viserys would we the right choice, instead of some distant matrilineal cousin of the deposed king.
Also it is worth noting that even if Robert hadn't had any relations with the Targ family whatsoever, he would still become king in the end, just based on common sense and the rebellion would still take place, since the main catalyst of the war was Lyannas kidnapping and the murder of Ned's family and his and Robert's consecutive arrest attempts and not the pushing of Bobby B's claim.
I'm not forgetting Viserys, I'm saying if you're a Targ legitimist by the end of the war Viserys is the rightful king but Robert is his heir, given that situation you exile one person and Robert is legally King which is what they did. As for Robert becoming King at the end of the war I'm not so sure, Robert didn't particularly care about the throne (the exchange with Ned where he said they should have crowned Ned and Ned shrugs says only Robert had a claim makes this clear). I reckon if the Baratheon claim hadn't existed there would have been a more measured consideration amongst the winning Lords - maybe giving it to the Lannisters as they held KL, or holding a great council to adjudicate heirs for a sense of legitimacy. I think the reason GRRM gave Bobby B a claim was as a justification for the worst potential king out of the tetrarchy/pentarchy of rebel lords the throne - because one of the was already a clear claimant they never bothered to think if Jon Arryn, Ned, Hoster, or Tywin might have done a better job.
|
|
|
Post by didgeridoo on Jan 10, 2019 19:43:03 GMT
Is it not mechanically a claim war for the sake of canon? It's just called the war of the usurper in game. If it were a tyranny war it would end differently than him just becoming king. ?
|
|
Toccs
Moderator
Posts: 474
|
Post by Toccs on Jan 10, 2019 21:18:20 GMT
Is it not mechanically a claim war for the sake of canon? It's just called the war of the usurper in game. If it were a tyranny war it would end differently than him just becoming king. ? Yes, it's set up the way it is in the mod to replicate the canon results of a rebel victory. A tyranny war or a war to depose Aerys would be more lore accurate but gameplay/balance always trumps lore accuracy.
|
|
|
Post by didgeridoo on Jan 11, 2019 16:47:39 GMT
Hi all! I just want to know what is, for you, the best setting for a canon game? we kind of got off topic here. I wasn't entirely sure if werther meant literally canon or lore friendly. I was curious to see answers either way.
|
|
|
Post by Salty_Balls on Jan 11, 2019 17:09:09 GMT
You're conveniently forgetting about Viserys, who was by all accounts the rightful heir to the throne at the time.(right sex, the direct descendant of the previous king, a Targ, etc). So in my opinion, purely ck mechanics wise, the whole Robert's rebellion conflict would make more sense as a regular war against tyranny in which the victors choose the most suited candidate amongst the prominent participants of the rebellion as the new king, since if they had followed the guidelines of installing the next person in line according to law Viserys would we the right choice, instead of some distant matrilineal cousin of the deposed king.
Also it is worth noting that even if Robert hadn't had any relations with the Targ family whatsoever, he would still become king in the end, just based on common sense and the rebellion would still take place, since the main catalyst of the war was Lyannas kidnapping and the murder of Ned's family and his and Robert's consecutive arrest attempts and not the pushing of Bobby B's claim.
I'm not forgetting Viserys, I'm saying if you're a Targ legitimist by the end of the war Viserys is the rightful king but Robert is his heir, given that situation you exile one person and Robert is legally King which is what they did. As for Robert becoming King at the end of the war I'm not so sure, Robert didn't particularly care about the throne (the exchange with Ned where he said they should have crowned Ned and Ned shrugs says only Robert had a claim makes this clear). I reckon if the Baratheon claim hadn't existed there would have been a more measured consideration amongst the winning Lords - maybe giving it to the Lannisters as they held KL, or holding a great council to adjudicate heirs for a sense of legitimacy. I think the reason GRRM gave Bobby B a claim was as a justification for the worst potential king out of the tetrarchy/pentarchy of rebel lords the throne - because one of the was already a clear claimant they never bothered to think if Jon Arryn, Ned, Hoster, or Tywin might have done a better job. The Lannisters being granted the crown just because they treacherously back stabbed the king in the last episode of the war and sacked the already doomed Targ capital wouldn't make much sense. Especially considering Ned's and John Arryn's characteristics, who as men of honor would look upon such actions with skepticism at best. Also there would have been no reason for the primary rebel LPs to elevate the Lannisters above themselves, I mean sure you could argue that they were ex royalty but so were the other rebel families who were no less prestigious (Starks, Arryns).
So the only realistic choices would have been either Bobby B, Ned or John Arryn (the Tully's being irrelevant since they were realistically just a house of medium rank nobles upjumped to LPship by the Targs and hoster Tully not being as close to the other members of the rebel tetrarchy like the before mentioned 3 were). Bobby B being most suited amongst them stems from the fact that Ned wouldn't make a good king based on the fact that most of his subject's would have viewed him as a foreigner worshipping alien gods and John Arryn simply being too old for the job.
|
|
|
Post by slavic on Jan 23, 2019 12:50:55 GMT
They should probably make the Sunset Invasion turned to OFF by default, by the next patch.
|
|
|
Post by slavic on Jan 26, 2019 2:01:23 GMT
Is the Cult of Starry Wisdem considered "canon"?
I ask because it's by default turned off.
|
|
Toccs
Moderator
Posts: 474
|
Post by Toccs on Jan 26, 2019 2:48:43 GMT
Is the Cult of Starry Wisdem considered "canon"? I ask because it's by default turned off.
It's a part of canon, I'm not sure why it is default as OFF.
|
|
|
Post by kash on Jan 26, 2019 11:59:33 GMT
It seems like the quartered Demesne Size will not affect me too much before I become a high lord. But with the rules No fabricate, DS quartered, Enhanced Marriage AI and Dynastic Stability, I'm curious to know if conquering two others lordship (like Deddington and Saltspan) will even be possible...
With that set of game rules, you are realistically looking at a game that lasts for hundreds of years with no tangible progress made by anyone.
Not neccesarily true... I got the Iron throne in 4 generations as the Tarlys from Roberts Rebellion while Tyrions son united Dorne and the Westerlands. It makes it a lot tougher though. The reason I have stopped using quartered demesne is that it screws too much with the AI. In the case of the LP of any kingdom NOT owning their traditional seat they will go into an deathspiral of revoking and granting the county, until overthrown, which will repeat as soon as whoever takes over is strong enough to start the process all over again. It just got to exhausting to keep track of it, since it required always loading the game as soon as this situation arised and manually moving their capital, which was only possible if they were at peace anyway. With halved demesne your typical lord paramount will have a demesne of 2, so they can keep their original castle until the I in AI kicks in and moves it's capital. The Targs will also keep dragonstone so they have a place to stash their heirs. With quartered they will hand it off to a random within a couple of months of the game start.
|
|