Political parties

[DeletedUser]

Barons don't have the trust of the whole tribe in leadership stability, they have minor roles in the upkeep of the tribe and are very specialised unlike Dukes who have an overall role in the tribe.

I don't agree with this. I think more that the barons are more trusted by the tribemembers then the dukes. Not because the dukes are bad, but they have the last word, and if they are nearly there the barons are mostly the ones who can try to stop / change it. Barons are more like the "normal" member so will think more as them. But that's my opinion

Barons handle the paperwork while Dukes make the decisions, if someone wants to join a tribe they run it thru the recruiter who weeds out problems and ne'er do wells and brings the good prospect to the dukes to decide, a tribe wants a NAP with their tribe they contact the diplomacy Baron who decides if the tribe is worthy or not of becoming a NAP.

Barons are there to reduce the work load for Dukes so as to keep the dukes from stressing out in the job or going bonkers, the barons handle the details the dukes handle the decisions.

Again I don't agree. That's, what already is said earlier, not reducing the workload of the dukes but increasing it. The meaning of being baron is "take over tasks", not the paperwork. If you have a special recruiter he will do the recruiting, not reading all the mails answer them, then forward it to the dukes so they have to recruit everything. Now you can talk with the dukes about recruiting one or not, but it's still the recruiter recruiting.

The same with a diplomat, if the tribe wants diplomacy with a tribe the council will talk about the things they want in an alliance / NAP, but it will be the diplomat doing all the talks and setting it. The dukes are only supervising it, and maybe have the last word and decision but normally if you have barons with some tasks that will be the ones doing it, not only the paperwork.

 

[DeletedUser89005]

I exaggerated for the sake of brevity. I'm sure you understand my point.

indeed i did, just seemed quite laid back for me to go along with..

 

[Ripfin]

ok my point is being missed say you have a recruitment Baron, he gets 30 requests to join the tribe, he goes thru the requests and finds only 3 worthy of joining the tribe, he tells the others thanks but no thanks and forwards the 3 worthy ones to the dukes to approve or disapprove.

Barons are there so Dukes don't have to mess with the little things. Barons can be war group captains, diplomats, recruitment officers and so on, but it will be the dukes who makes the final decision based on what their Barons tell them.

with the Triumvirate you will have one duke who is in charge of tribal defenses and one Duke in charge of tribal offenses, or in a case where a tribe is split up in 2 continents ea. Duke will be in charge of their continent and so on, while the main Duke (or dictator if you prefer) is in charge of the tribe as a whole.

I have seen way too many Dukes lose it or go off or just leave because they were the only duke and too much pressure was placed on them.

with my form of leadership no one has too much pressure on them and they can enjoy the game more so.

 

[DeletedUser]

I think a duke will make or break a tribe, every time. Every tribe I've seen collapse in this world failed due to its dukes making poor decisions. Granted, I mainly pay attention to only K45. But still.

There is nothing more important than diplomacy in this game. Personal diplomacy between you and your tribemates, diplomacy between tribes, and personal diplomacy between you and players in other tribes. Those three kinds of diplomacy are guaranteed to make or break both you and the tribe you are in.