That isn't what Cwin was suggesting though.

She was suggesting that villiages will revolt in pairs due to a small skirmish breaking out. It wouldn't last constantly like Faethorn - it would just be during the normal Influencing period. Which makes it nothing like Faethorn and not really any different than the current scenario, except you'd really have to work to take both.

sooo, the villages attack each other, and then decide that during the battle they wish to give up the support they get from their parent nations?

Its more like hostilities build and build until an essential riot breaks out. This happens in the real world despite the fact that the rioters tend to be going against their government or police force.

But maybe that could be a way to keep villages longer?

Say you control Estelbar. If you raid Acknor, then that pair takes longer to revolt. The same if you control Acknor and raid Estelbar. The reasoning behind this is that those villages view the raids as support from their patron city/commune, so they're willing to restrain their own actions for a bit longer.

Now, you'd be 'helping' your enemy by letting them keep the village longer, but you'd be helping yourself more. Maybe have a morale meter for the villages so that it hurts the ones being raided?

If you control Estelbar and kill an Acknor Loyal, Estelbar morale goes up, and vice versa.
If an Estelbar loyal is killed, Estelbar morale goes down, and vice versa.

Morale adjusts the commodity/power tithes to the controlling organizations. So, if both sides are raiding equally, then they keep normal production, but they keep te villages a decent while longer. If only one side is raiding, then they keep the villages longer, but one side will get a greater gain where the other will get lower - maybe even have it where if morale drops too low, it drains power from the controlling org?

Less of a 'wish' and more of 'they lose control'.

Essentually, a village pair would hate each other, similar to how Celest and Magnagora or Glomdoring and Serenwilde do. That hate eventually leads to the pair (JUST that pair) going to War. In truth, it'll just mostly feel like how Revolts go now: 90% of this is just a change in the RP level.

The actual cause for the nation losing control of the village would probably differ between villages.. for example:

Estelbar is happy to have a strong nation that can protect them..but WHICH nation isn't all that important to them so long as they GET that protection. They are currently relying on Serenwilde* for that protection

Acknor, meanwhile, is focused completely upon their chief and their farming capabilities, to the exclusion of all else. Magnagora, currently, has muffled some of the power the chief has (since all must be loyal to the nation) in return of more aid in their farming.

*The story won't change if a different nation has the village. You can switch the names around or use Celest and Glomdoring if you like.

Well, eventually, the chief grows tired of being second fiddle and rises up to claim "What is rightfully his". He gathers the orcs and sends them off against Estelbar: a move that will not only empower the village but steal the village away from Magnagora.

The resulting attack leaves Estelbar into a panic. After several deaths and captures, the leaders quickly evoke Peace and rally to find a way to rescue their lost ones. The evoking, however, breaks the Power link with Serenwilde. Between this and the attack, Estelbar assumes that Serenwilde has given up on them and they send an aetherwave for help if anyone.. ANYONE can save them.

The result? Both villages in unrest, "orcs wielding berries" in a peaced Estelbar while "terrified furrikins" wander Acknor. The nations rush in to do what they can to quell it all and, meanwhile, use the situation to their benifit, convincing Estelbar where their protection lies and subverting Acknor into thinking that they can do better letting another nation handle thier buisness.

OOCwise: Both villages go into Revolt...I mean War, and the nations can go Influence/kill to claim one or both nations (yes, you can both convince the Furries that the orc raids will end and the orcs that the furries will be enslaved..it'll make you a wishy-washy, untrustworthy opportunist but, oh well..sticks and stones).

The other villages will have different issues and (convienently) other reasons for them to lose their trust/link/whatever with their old nation and be willing to listen to others. In the end, it'll still work the same way.

Also, another idea: Make the 'war' itself do something. Empowering/questing/killing/weakening the villagers will affect how well they are winning their war (i.e. killing orcs in Estelbar and Acknor, or rescusing furriken using the farmer quest gives Estelbar an advantage, while killing Furrikins and enslaving farmers gives more advantage to Acknor.) When both villagers are claimed, the war ends with one side the winner. The winning village gives more power/resources while the losing village gives less.

Result: Even if you CAN'T claim Estelbar you can still work to make them lose the war, thus making the keeping of Acknor more worthwhile.

sidenote: Of course, if you HAVE claimed both villages, both villages will quickly lose respect in you and go to war MUCH sooner. One nation holding every village in the Basin should be possible, but unstable and lead to almost constant revolts.

As for the mining villages: Best idea I have is to just make all three go off against each other, with only one 'winner'. Magnagora, then, would probably still end up with Angkrag but their goal would be to make them win over the other mining villages.

Dariuchi...Blah.. no clue. Either make it go free, have it go against Angkrag (though it'll mean Angkrag almost constantly going off, UGG), or make Angkrag lose the undead miners and focus on silk/marble (meaning the mining war would be between Rockholm and Southgard with all 4 nations going for them).

On the war idea:

Villages could get into a dispute with each other (perhaps over the price of eggs!) , and have the argument escalate into conflict. This can be either armed conflict, or more underhanded supplication of the other village's resources, such as subterfuge.

The organizations of the basin all go into the two villages and influence in one of two ways, kind of like crusade or sanctuary.

Whoever influences the village first can push for mediation, or conquest. Here, the RP would be that of a village trying to win its little war with another village, and beseeching the various communes and cities for help. For example, Stewartsville and Delport are at war. Celest comes to the aid of Delport, and arms its people while the people of Magnagora go into Stewartsville and demonstrate the might of the Magnagoran army.

Most of the time, the villages end up in a stalemate, with each organization retaining one the village pair. Every once in a while (during a bout of superb influencing), one village can conquer the other village, giving an organization both villages in the pair. In these cases, the conquered village will be held by one organization, but should revolt at half the normal time (perhaps allow people to cut down the time until the revolt using influence skills).

An alternative option would be (for more peaceful cities/organizations) mediation, which, if successful would result in the holding of both villages for the normal amount of time.

Finally: village pairs should not be static. There should be swings in which villages get into conflicts with each other.

What this means, is that it will be very difficult for any one city or commune to hold every village in the basin. It opens up more influence strategies, and allows government type to play more of a role.

What do you guys think? Sorry if its not very coherent - I'm about to go to bed.