Shattered Kingdoms

I have played SK for going on twenty years now and I have rarely been on the receiving end or issued impossible demands. It is generally an ego issue with the leadership of the losing faction refusing to admit defeat. There are two ongoing wars right now that could have ended three months ago with a simple note being posted on the astral board, but the leadership of those factions chose to instead retire and/or go inactive rather than to concede.

This update encourages and rewards that mentality, and it is unhealthy for the game - unless there is a real penalty for retiring with or losing leadership due to inactivity. The player of a character that retires with or loses leadership due to inactivity should be prevented from leading another faction for at least one year RL time.

I've seen it plenty of times, to be honest. "Give us a parcel of your land," "Completely go against your alignment and do this thing," and other similar demands. I'm not suggesting that the most recent wars are an issue, and I'm not suggesting there is a particular issue with any current leaders.

That said, I'm wholly unopposed to imposing leadership limitations on those who bail out on their factions.

I agree with this as well, in fact, I'm pretty sure this already should be the case. As an example, I deleted Berr in November of 2012 (Hammer leader) without appointing a successor after getting PKed. My next character didn't join a faction for a few weeks at least, and even once I did, didn't gain leadership for quite a time despite being one of the only consistent members. There were 2 months or so where I could have been a leader because we either had none or only had one, and I wasn't provided with a slot.

For what it's worth.

I'd like CRS consist more of "benefits to your side" rather than "hurting the other side," but I feel like the recent change where you keep one more skill without a relic is the closest that's going to get.

I remember being in the Hammer many years ago and not having the relic for the entire duration of my character. Rather, it was lost early on, and there were all of two or three Hammers at that time. Eventually it was returned, but long after my character had deleted. I agree, having the little bit of power does help, but it's a moot point when there simply aren't enough people around at one time to ever reclaim it. Same goes for MC. They had their relic gone for like three months one war. MC without emp's fav isn't bad, since they still get shield wall I think. Still.

A couple questions:
If a leader who is actively participating and evolving the game does not meet hours (I know. A long shot hypothetical) and loses their flag, then diplomacy is reset? Even if they get the flag right back? I know Boko and I are offenders in this area, but I'd like to verify. Truces would start again in this instance?

Also, let's say knightlord and Chancellor are both flagged. The Knightlord retires. Does diplomacy hold because the Chancellor remains? Or does one leader retiring result in the diplomacy reset?

As currently set up, any one leader retiring or not posting enough hours will cause a reset. All of the relations for that one faction will be reset to truce (including alliances not just wars).

If this occurs, the leadership on the other side should exchange dialog with the retired faction to determine what occurred and what new relations make sense. If the group does not immediately have any leadership remaining, then things should remain at a truce until one is appointed and that exchange can take place.

There are a few wars that are effectively "eternal" due to alignments, but even these should follow the above practice. Your opponent has suffered an irreversible loss, so take the time to pause and relish the moment.