Another idea that struck me while writing an AAR.

[BigJMoney]

PDF said:

it's just untrue : presence of the pretender raises faith (dominion) and this dominion makes the province tilt stowards the pretender's scales, so people work harder if it is order or productivity, are more healthy if it's Growth, get cold if it's cold and die more if it's Death !

The pretender raises dominion, regardless of what province he's in. If he is 3 provinces away from province X, he might actually raise dominion in province X, and he might not raise it in the province he's currently in. It's a system that uses a little bit of randomness to simulate realism. Also note that once that dominion is raised, it cannot be decreased again until an enemy pretender lowers it. This is because it does not represent the presence of the pretender, but his effect on the levels of faith of the people. I, like you, think this system is a very good one, and does a wonderful job of representing the spread of faith in the pretender god. However, what you yet fail to grasp is that I see a lack of a direct bonus applied to a province only while the worshipped pretender is present. You say, "it is untrue", but it is true, and I will give a final example. This is the last time I will argue this same thing with you:

Example:
Pretender enters a province.
1)The dominion in that province goes up to reflect the fact that faith there is spreading even more. When the pretender leaves, this faith will remain; it is a permanent effect he has had on the people. If they were already at MAX dominion, then he can have no further effect, but word of his greatness spreads to the next province, and they become more like the people here.
2) Because the pretender is currently present among the people, he has a temporary effect on them. Criminals and brigands are less likely to commit crimes and sins, because they feel that retribution may come to their door that very day. Their own god is among them.
Pretender leaves the province
1) The people lose no respect for their god. He has made a lasting impression on them. Unles a stronger god comes to replace him, they will always adore their god.
2) Now that he is gone, however, the local trouble makers feel relieved. They do not feel the same intense fear and guilt they felt while they could behold him in person, and they resume their activities.

I'm sorry, but I don't think you have any leg to stand on if you continue to say that Item#1 covers the need for Item#2. Maybe you think Item#2 is just stupid. You almost say that here:

PDF said:
This suits me perfectly. I like the idea that the Pretender is a godlike being not even bothering himself with unrest and not a kind of awe-inspiring sherif making the brigands surrender arms and going back to their fields. That's what good admin (low taxes) or patrollers are for.

That's fine with me, because I don't think everyone has to agree with me. However, I've felt that I have to defend my idea from people trying to change it into something else; and I will do that.

@Graeme
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, Graeme. I'm going to assume you did not update yourself and read my last post, which explains exactly why I contradicted myself, and corrects the contradiction. I shouldn't have to say that bringing it up again coud be considered intentionally deceitful. Please read my post before this one and update yourself on my stance. You will see that my idea does not call for any change in micro-management. Dominions 3 has an auto-tax system to account for increased or decreased unrest. If there is something I am not aware of, I would appreciate a polite explanation.

@everyone
This thread has gotten to the point where people are worried about flaming. Flaming occurs when people become too emotionally involved in a discussion and cannot control themselves. I apologize if anything I've said by lack of concern for emotionalism has caused someone else to take offense. I tend to be critical and blunt when arguing a position, because it is faster. I am a bit surprised I've actually had to defend myself in the first place. I hope no flaming takes place; there certainly won't be any from me. A final apology for my inability to present my ideas so that others can understand them. I tend to keep OPs as short as possible, because I find that people are impatient and don't read them if they are too long. It can go without saying that there is no ill-will on my part toward anyone; ever.

@ballbarian
You seem to comprehend what I've said fine. I won't give you credit for agreeing with me, because that would be biased, but I do appreciate the fact that you've once pointed out where you too saw that someone was not understanding me.

=$=

[Graeme Dice]

BigJMoney said:
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, Graeme. I'm going to assume you did not update yourself and read my last post, which explains exactly why I contradicted myself, and corrects the contradiction. I shouldn't have to say that bringing it up again coud be considered intentionally deceitful. Please read my post before this one and update yourself on my stance.

I'm certainly not going to go back and change my original post in this thread. That you changed your stance once it was pointed out to you that you were contradicting yourself is immaterial to the fact that you were contradicting yourself in the first place.

You will see that my idea does not call for any change in micro-management.

Your original post does call for a massive increase in micromanagement since you suggest that the player would be happy to directly modify tax rates. I don't see why it's unfair to point this out. I'm certainly not going to go back and edit my post to change it, as that would be incredibly dishonest.

[Frostmourne27]

Graeme Dice said:

Your original post does call for a massive increase in micromanagement since you suggest that the player would be happy to directly modify tax rates. I don't see why it's unfair to point this out. I'm certainly not going to go back and edit my post to change it, as that would be incredibly dishonest.

I would say that his suggestion calls for the oppertunity for more micromanagememnt, but isn't that like saying that the dom3 tax system will require tons of micromanagement? It COULD, but unless you don't want to use it, it won't. And as to him changing his oppinions, it has been said: 'When the circumstances change, I change my view. What do you do?'
I have to disagree with you, I think it's better to be inconsistant than to be wrong.

[BigJMoney]

Graeme, I was not asking you to edit your post. I was asking you to "update your [personal position on the matter]". Besides, the post in question was one you posted after I made my clarification; not your original post. Yes, there was a contradiction in my OP, but thanks to your pointing it out, it's been corrected. Should you continue to use old information in my OP, it's your own neck.

Anyway, I'm content with what I've said in this thread. My final words to anyone who reads this thread for the first time will be a request to, as always, read it in its entirety if one wishes to be informed.

Graeme, Arrelen, and everyone else, have a good week, and I hope everyone had a good 9/11.

=$=