That's good reassurance to have. It's so easy to get exploited with no benefit to yourself otherwise."If they try something, beat them up."
Always. Good thing he's allowed to beat them up.no matter where you go there will always be greedy idiots who think they can get away with doing whatever they want consequence free...
Communication and logistics are almost always so underrated. There's a reason why the printing press was such a huge invention.I always feel that Storage skill is the second most important skill in Fantasy setting. The first being Communication or Language skill.
No, that's no solution. The only peaceful solution to satisfy both parties is not to simply hand over territory, it would be to exchange territory. Access to sea is a huge deal, so the empire should, in return, hand over territory with something equally valuable, such as excellent farmland or mines with rich mineral deposits. Your way would merely result in the empire asking later for more, then more, and more. But if the empire has to pay for it with something equally concrete and irreplaceable, there's no such free benefit for them, so they wouldn't do it again.Was hoping they would sign over one port to the empire. Maybe even make it a "shared city" instead of signing it over in entirety.
That could have avoided the war in its entirety. All they had to do was lose something that is likely to be lost anyway (even if they beat back the army, odds are enough cities will be pillaged and enough ppl will die, to be a city or two's worth. And that is if things go well).
While it has been proven irl that appeasement strategies don't work against power-hungry despots, in this case it is very clearly established that all the empire truly wants is access to the sea. So rather than appeasement, it is changing the cost-benefit analysis of war on empire's side by removing the demand that has made a war worthwhile, while only taking a minor loss of territory to avoid large losses of infrastructure, human resources, and probably territory too (the kingdom is the underdog, barring mc shenanigans it's obvious the empire would win eventually either way, so long as it is still worth it for them to force the issue).
It's so rare that the MC's side makes any kind of concession, compromise, gives anything up, or even just trades with an adversary (not counting soon-to-be-allies). Except if it's just the MC personally, since then you have the common doormat MC. Though in this case I'm not sure it's a good idea.Was hoping they would sign over one port to the empire. Maybe even make it a "shared city" instead of signing it over in entirety.
And that's not counting how stock-image it looks with ill-fitting pieces.Yet for some reason the artist depicts Glim as being seated in a valley with a single wall and bare mountains which wouldn't hinder the wildlife at all...
Fairly sure the empire wouldn't agree to such a trade, considering they have a vastly superior military that is bound to win if they decide to just take it anyway. Sure, the war will cost them, but less than trading away some territory that is already well-integrated with their logistical infrastructure and the subsequent need to build forts along a new border.No, that's no solution. The only peaceful solution to satisfy both parties is not to simply hand over territory, it would be to exchange territory. Access to sea is a huge deal, so the empire should, in return, hand over territory with something equally valuable, such as excellent farmland or mines with rich mineral deposits. Your way would merely result in the empire asking later for more, then more, and more. But if the empire has to pay for it with something equally concrete and irreplaceable, there's no such free benefit for them, so they wouldn't do it again.
However, suddenly changing the borders may lead to big troubles in the defence strategy. There would be heavily fortified cities, fortresses, and castles along the border, but if you exchange territories, the borders are partially drawn anew. If the empire still wanted to invade, they might have a much better route for it afterwards, bypassing much of the defences built over centuries.
Yeah... right... And of course the Empire would stop there and would not ever start to demand ever more of what they fancy at that time, because... They're fluffy bunnies? Polite people? Upstanding Players in the International Field?Was hoping they would sign over one port to the empire. Maybe even make it a "shared city" instead of signing it over in entirety.
That could have avoided the war in its entirety. All they had to do was lose something that is likely to be lost anyway (even if they beat back the army, odds are enough cities will be pillaged and enough ppl will die, to be a city or two's worth. And that is if things go well).
While it has been proven irl that appeasement strategies don't work against power-hungry despots, in this case it is very clearly established that all the empire truly wants is access to the sea. So rather than appeasement, it is changing the cost-benefit analysis of war on empire's side by removing the demand that has made a war worthwhile, while only taking a minor loss of territory to avoid large losses of infrastructure, human resources, and probably territory too (the kingdom is the underdog, barring mc shenanigans it's obvious the empire would win eventually either way, so long as it is still worth it for them to force the issue).