Originally posted by nook7I take that vague response to mean you haven't followed the established procedures in these games outlined in my posts. No surprise there. How much have the Asakura grown since turn 6?
l have been sharing the spoils of our conquest with my vassals since they became vassals. The more they have grown and ceded the more l have given and continue to give.
What have you done fpr your vassal No1?
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderSorry, I picked up on your Age of Conquest comment. I couldn't care less about Dragonlords. And I'd suggest they are conventions, not "rules". Anyway, in that game I worked out my own system of compensation for being someone's vassal, which I've implemented here after mutual agreement. I have only one non-sub vassal to whom it applies.
Are you being disingenous? The lord-vassal rules have been present in Dragonlords for a long time.
I assume that a vassal will stay loyal for as long as he's happy, receives a better offer, or gains leverage to renegotiate his contract.
Of course you were told about this by another player, clearly a veteran, in another game entirely! Disparaging your opponents by suggesting they are not playing according to some set of unwritten rules that they've never heard of is a bit weak.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI assume you'll screw them because they were newbies and not aware of the usual arrangements (I never said they were rules but they seem quite fair). Of course, throwing off a lord isn't that easy as it costs you 10% of your troops. So you suckered people in; congratulations.
Sorry, I picked up on your Age of Conquest comment. I couldn't care less about Dragonlords. And I'd suggest they are conventions, not "rules". Anyway, in that game I worked out my own system of compensation for being someone's vassal, which I've implemented here after mutual agreement. I have only one non-sub vassal to whom it applies.
I assume tha ...[text shortened]... ng as he's happy, receives a better offer, or gains leverage to renegotiate his contract.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe deal I offered is the same as the deal I worked out for myself in Dragonlords. Perhaps I screwed myself? So far that was the only game in which I've been a vassal, and this is the only one in which I've had any. No suckering here, partner.
I assume you'll screw them because they were newbies and not aware of the usual arrangements (I never said they were rules but they seem quite fair). Of course, throwing off a lord isn't that easy as it costs you 10% of your troops. So you suckered people in; congratulations.
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIf you're Rob's vassal in DL, I'm sure he's only too willing to let you screw yourself.
The deal I offered is the same as the deal I worked out for myself in Dragonlords. Perhaps I screwed myself? So far that was the only game in which I've been a vassal, and this is the only one in which I've had any. No suckering here, partner.
I was providing this information for those who are apparently unaware of what becoming a vassal is for. Several have stated "well, I'm only a commoner, so I can't win so I became a vassal of a more powerful lord" (of course, your power is based on province transfers). Commoners are quite often members of victory coalitions and becoming a vassal is not a surrender of all chances to win as some have assumed. Of course, if they get themselves crappy deals which include giving up most of their territory gained for little compensation their lord has no reason at all to consider them a viable victory coalition partner.
Useful info for players, no?
Originally posted by no1marauderThere's nothing stupid about the "baseball fan in Kansas" remark.
as pointed out in the article such loyalty without any reciprocal treatment on the part of the lord is NOT "true to the period" (as well as being particulary dumb game strategy).
And you continue to have reading comprehension problems:
In other words, Takauji, twice disloyal for having first turned against his feudal lord and then h ...[text shortened]... arently this particular "baseball fan" happens to be a professor and expert in Asian History.
He seems to spend a lot of time in Kansas and likes baseball. Nothing wrong with that. Baseball is popular. Your issue?
I really do appreciate the source. I looked him up and he's written some papers I want to read. So thanks again.
The oath of fealty asked of a lord to his vassal, when that vassal swore loyalty, was often "watakushi no tame inochi o suteru ka". It was a set phrase.
It means "would you throw your life away for me?"
You'll hear it in Japanese historical re-enactments.
Probably not a Tom Cruise movie though.
There are numerous incidents, Torii Mototada being one of the most famous, where a vassal would undertake a mission that had absolutely no hope of surviving, in order to serve a broader strategy.
These men weren't ALL thieves and lawyers, No1, their lords were often their closest friends. Mototada had served Ieyasu since they were both children.
Men throughout history and in many other cultures and situations have died for their friends.
I don't doubt you'd think they were stupid too.
I do comprehend what Mr Hurst is saying with regard to Masashige and Takauji - and far better than you.
What he is extending is a recent trend in accounting for the rise of the samurai by stating that they were originally a sort of provincial mercenary that the court co-opted, because the latter lacked the equestrian martial skills that they had. Mercenaries are not known for their loyalty. One of the best on this line of thinking is "Hired Swords - The Rise of Private Warrior Power in Early Japan" by Karl F. Friday. Some of his other stuff is well worth a read, too. If I remember correctly I had to send away to the USA to get my copy.
However... Takauji died in 1358. By the late 16th century, when the Sengoku period was reaching its climax, Japan was a very different country. The Sengoku period is usually accepted to have started at the time the Onin wars began in 1467 when the shogunate that Takauiji began fell part. As with anywhere social concepts had evolved greatly. It wasn't as if nothing was going on in the Japanese warrior tradition.
Mr Hurst is not wrong. But taking one thing he has said to support an absolutist and dogmatic version of history that you prefer does him no favours.
You know... you could try to stop calling people "jerk" and whatever else, arguing with everything they say and actually have an intelligent exchange of knowledge and viewpoints. It wouldn't kill you. It's one thing to search the internet for something - anything - you can use to be contrary, but it's a lot more rewarding to actually care about the subject and be open to discourse on it.
Originally posted by drakkarwell stated.
There's nothing stupid about the "baseball fan in Kansas" remark.
He seems to spend a lot of time in Kansas and likes baseball. Nothing wrong with that. Baseball is popular. Your issue?
I really do appreciate the source. I looked him up and he's written some papers I want to read. So thanks again.
The oath of fealty asked of a lord to his vassal, when ...[text shortened]... rewarding to actually care about the subject and be open to discourse on it.