Ganso said:Why not a "roleplay" approach to the whole subject of expansion? Instead of trying to impose strict rules that might even reduce the game to a exercise of bending the rules one could try to find a middle ground.
I'm not quite sure I understand. Are you saying that any and all expansion is allowable, provided you have a reasonable explanation?
I suppose in a way this would work. After all, if you reason is entirely without merit it is unlikely the other players will let you get away with it. In other words, look at Germany in 1939. Had Poland truly invaded them and started the conflagration it is less likely the UK and France would have been inclined to help them. Example: I, as a vassal of Germany, grab rsobota's title (he's close) and DoW, thereby bringing the entire might of the HRE down upon his duchy. Unless he has done something incredibly vile (assassination attempt on my duke, excommunicate me without reason, etc.), the other players aren't going to take too kindly to this. It's the medieval equivalent of dropping a nuke onto your neighbor without any sort of provocation at all.
Not that I would do any such thing (I picked a German duchy because (a) I've never played as one, and (2) because it was one of the few regions without a human player, not so I could go rampaging across the continent without ever really doing anything). But were I to do so, it would be much more reasonable for the other human players to organize some sort of punitive expedition or to cut of all relations with my duchy until I offered reparations, as opposed to, say, kicking me from the game or deducting a title.