Falk-fury rages on!

[brilliantlight]

I don't have a problem with canon Drakov. He is one of the best representations of a Dark Ages noble I have seen. Outside of his taste for impalement he is the typical Dark Ages noble. European history has thousands of "Drakovs" in the Dark and Early Middle Ages, outside the impalement.

[Mistmaster]

True, but they are too stupid to be good darklords in my game, hence my rewriting.

[brilliantlight]

True, but they are too stupid to be good darklords in my game, hence my rewriting.

Point taken.

[The Lesser Evil]

I think as far as motivation for not using guns, etc, you can make a rational argument for not doing it in that you might create dependencies other realms could exploit. Unless you change it, Lamordia doesn't really have the infrastructure or population to provide the number of guns to be put into population. Even if it did, being a nation of science and technology development is not necessarily the same as a nation of manufacture. And Falkovnia probably would have trouble manufacturing all the guns it needs itself because it's such an agrarian nation (being the breadbasket of the core). So that would leave Falkovnia needing to rely on nations it was planning on conquering. Besides being rife for sabotage, my sense is that their long-term economic strategy is to induce economic dependency through a trade surplus (granted this is probably a plot from his economic minister, but still.) Buying too many guns.

Likewise, putting mages on the front line risks endearing them to the public imagination and outclassing your classically trained fighters. Having them craft magic items, constructs of war, and other ways to buff your fighters keeps mages subordinate, and the fighters with the kill switch should things go wrong. In addition, the more magic you use, the more you might invite infiltration and spying from more magically advanced nations. (As it is now, the Arcane Ministry has several Fraternity of Shadow moles within it.)

As far as the reasoning why Drakov loses wars in relation to external vs. internal causes, I think it can be a combination of both, and that they interact. Drakov was the leader of a mercenary company, which may say things as to the roles he played on the battlefield. I kind of pictured him as a hands-on leader in the field, where he would lead his men on a battle to battle basis and might depend on his employers on telling him where to go and who to fight in overall wars. So Drakov might be really great at tactics (how to do something) but not so experienced on strategy (what to do). As the darklord of the domain and thus stuck in its borders, he's locked out of being on the battlefront where he really shines. Drakov pretty seriously kicked Claude Renier and the wererats/thieves out of Falkovnia, a battle in which he was on the front lines. But stuck at home, he's much less effective. And then you throw in stuff like border closures and stuff like that, that's a lot of external reasons as to why he loses. So I see the Dark Powers curse as not having to act directly (and it's probably better the less they have to do, the better.)

[brilliantlight]

I think as far as motivation for not using guns, etc, you can make a rational argument for not doing it in that you might create dependencies other realms could exploit. Unless you change it, Lamordia doesn't really have the infrastructure or population to provide the number of guns to be put into population. Even if it did, being a nation of science and technology development is not necessarily the same as a nation of manufacture. And Falkovnia probably would have trouble manufacturing all the guns it needs itself because it's such an agrarian nation (being the breadbasket of the core). So that would leave Falkovnia needing to rely on nations it was planning on conquering. Besides being rife for sabotage, my sense is that their long-term economic strategy is to induce economic dependency through a trade surplus (granted this is probably a plot from his economic minister, but still.) Buying too many guns.

Likewise, putting mages on the front line risks endearing them to the public imagination and outclassing your classically trained fighters. Having them craft magic items, constructs of war, and other ways to buff your fighters keeps mages subordinate, and the fighters with the kill switch should things go wrong. In addition, the more magic you use, the more you might invite infiltration and spying from more magically advanced nations. (As it is now, the Arcane Ministry has several Fraternity of Shadow moles within it.)

As far as the reasoning why Drakov loses wars in relation to external vs. internal causes, I think it can be a combination of both, and that they interact. Drakov was the leader of a mercenary company, which may say things as to the roles he played on the battlefield. I kind of pictured him as a hands-on leader in the field, where he would lead his men on a battle to battle basis and might depend on his employers on telling him where to go and who to fight in overall wars. So Drakov might be really great at tactics (how to do something) but not so experienced on strategy (what to do). As the darklord of the domain and thus stuck in its borders, he's locked out of being on the battlefront where he really shines. Drakov pretty seriously kicked Claude Renier and the wererats/thieves out of Falkovnia, a battle in which he was on the front lines. But stuck at home, he's much less effective. And then you throw in stuff like border closures and stuff like that, that's a lot of external reasons as to why he loses. So I see the Dark Powers curse as not having to act directly (and it's probably better the less they have to do, the better.)

Makes sense , like you said Drakov was a mercenary company leader not a king or lord. Not only didn't he learn tactics, he probably didn't learn much logistics either. If he needed more supplies he had his employer send more.

[Five]

Makes sense , like you said Drakov was a mercenary company leader not a king or lord. Not only didn't he learn tactics, he probably didn't learn much logistics either. If he needed more supplies he had his employer send more.

That's not necessarily true; many medieval countries' armies comprised of a significant number of mercenary "elements", due to cost of maintaining a professional army during their more...lucid moments. This could lead to a unique insight, even if through observation, into the mindset/operations of the multinational ruling elite (more accurately, their more capable subjects).

So if a DM were to borrow a page of our history and apply it to Drakov then it's very likely that a part of his curse is that he chose to specialised in a specific form of combat, and thus knows little about others (such as fighting undead, spellslingers, what-have-you). You don't call a plumber to do electrical work sorta thing. Double-down with what The Lesser Evil made note of; the inability to personally lead and apply his vast knowledge of his chosen death deal and we have a largely gimp Drakov, whom I would like to see be more of a Ravenloft A-lister/bird of prey who can claim bloody victory but who cannot claim control over his neighbours (his governors go "native", get ripped apart by an underestimated population, drink themselves to death etc)...and he can't do a damned thing about it. Woe to those around him when he is beak-blocked yet again (always blame your subordinates, never the hand that moulds them)!

[brilliantlight]

Makes sense , like you said Drakov was a mercenary company leader not a king or lord. Not only didn't he learn tactics, he probably didn't learn much logistics either. If he needed more supplies he had his employer send more.

That's not necessarily true; many medieval countries' armies comprised of a significant number of mercenary "elements", due to cost of maintaining a professional army during their more...lucid moments.

So if a DM were to borrow a page of our history and apply it to Drakov then it's very likely that a part of his curse is that he chose to specialised in a specific form of combat, and thus knows little about others (such as fighting undead, spellslingers, what-have-you). You don't call a plumber to do electrical work sorta thing. Double-down with what The Lesser Evil made note of; the inability to personally lead and apply his vast knowledge of his chosen death deal and we have a largely gimp Drakov, whom I would like to see be more of a Ravenloft A-lister/bird of prey who can claim bloody victory but who cannot claim control over his neighbours (his governors go "native", get ripped apart by an underestimated population, drink themselves to death etc)...and he can't do a damned thing about it. Woe to those around him when he is beak-blocked yet again (always blame your subordinates, never the hand that moulds them)!

I wrote that wrong. I meant strategy rather than tactics, and there I agree with him. He probably knows tactics but not strategy. Strategy isn't important for company sized units. He might well be specialized at that. Considering his brutality I would suggest assaults.

[DustBunny]

I wrote that wrong. I meant strategy rather than tactics, and there I agree with him. He probably knows tactics but not strategy. Strategy isn't important for company sized units. He might well be specialized at that. Considering his brutality I would suggest assaults.

I wouldn't put him down in the strategy dept. too much, as you don't get to be a mercenary lord without knowing some basic strategy. From the three (Tac/Strat/Logi), strategy he would want to handle himself - being the supreme ruler and such and making sure his grand designs are followed. Tactics he could only handle with personal appearances or prior instructions, while logistics can be _somewhat_ ignored as being the supreme ruler he simply has to command "Do it and there's spike waiting if you don't" and the minions will move heaven and earth to try and get it done.

I would put it down to other problems - Foreign intelligence and counter-espionage.

In the case of Darkon, intelligence (and normal forces) don't matter as Az can snap his fingers and 5 bajillion undead pop up and stomp the invader. But how does the four towers group keep him away when their combined armies are tiny to the military machine (even with guns they are vastly outnumbered)?

The big three - Borca, Dementlieu and Richemulot have the 'Great Game' (digging up nasty secrets, sabotaging enemies, spying and blackmail) as their national pastimes. It could be assured that they have thoroughly infiltrated Vlad's military and can report on how many times a day he goes to the toilet and the brand of paper he uses - let alone his military plans.

In return any of Vald's attempts to gather intelligence is limited to what he knows of 'Military Reconnaissance Scouting', which is vastly different that professional espionage. His own internal agency/secret police know how to shake informants down, kick down doors, watch troop movements and engage in a bit of torture - which is good when limited to internal issues where you have absolute control, but externally- they are miserable failures.

As such when a Falknovian spy tries to gather information or infiltrate enemy territory, he stands out like a guy wearing Groucho glasses and a trench coat at a CIA agent convention (we won’t even start on the Hawk branding). He either disappears, has a unfortunate accident, or is given enough false information that he reports that the sky in pink and an army of battle toads await any invader.

So when he does send in his advanced parties, they get massacred by ambushes, lost without a trace, poisoned, sent to the wrong place, stolen supplies, wrong (or conflicting) orders delivered, infiltrators stirring up rebellions at home and any number of problems causing the forces to come to a grinding halt. And without any of the other DL's having to exert their super powers.

[Manofevil]

Guys, I just finished reading some articles about the old Trans-Atlantic slave trade and then read your discussion here, and I wonder if you haven't missed certain things entirely.

Here is a passage from this article: https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Sl ... tart_entry

The "crux of the whole enterprise," however, was discipline, according to the historian Marcus Rediker. Maintaining order was critical in keeping an often-desperate crew in line, and the routine violence employed by the captain and his officers trickled down the ranks, as the author of Liverpool and Slavery pointed out: "The captain bullies the men, the men torture the slaves, the slaves' hearts are breaking with despair."

Rebellion or mutiny could spread like a virus, and many captains attempted to snuff out resistance by terrorizing the accused (either crew members or Africans) in full view of their fellows. This most often involved either a cat-o'-nine-tails (a whip of nine knotted cords attached to a handle) and full horsewhips or, for Africans exclusively, thumbscrews. Still, too much violence, employed routinely, might spark mutiny, insurrection, or suicide, making it the captain's job to somehow strike the right balance....Crew members were often the direct recipients of the cruelty. Frequently forced into shipboard service because of debts or run-ins with the law, sailors performed the backbreaking and often violent work of the slave ship, which included building the "house" and barricado, cooking and dispensing food, scrubbing the decks and the often feces-covered hold where the slaves were kept, and policing the captive Africans. They also were the victims of their officers' whips and suffered from the same diseases that ravaged the Africans, so that the mortality rate among sailors, according to one survey taken between 1784 and 1790, reached higher than 21 percent. In fact, according to Rediker, "Half of all Europeans who journeyed to West Africa in the eighteenth century, most of them seamen, died within a year."

Crews still managed to inflict more than their share of suffering on Africans. Typical violence might include the punishment of slaves for some infraction, real or perceived, while an extreme example occurred aboard the slave ship Zong in 1781. Over several days, the crew—at the urging of the captain—bound and threw overboard 122 living Africans. Ten more committed suicide and sixty succumbed to disease, reducing the ship's human cargo from 470 to 278. This was done apparently because the captain feared an outbreak of disease, and his ship's owners were liable for all disease-related deaths; the ship's insurance company, however, would cover unnatural deaths—presumably from punishment, insurrection, or, in this instance, being thrown alive into the sea.

And here are some passages from this article: https://www.thenation.com/article/little-ships-horror/

“Learning cruelty was intrinsic to learning the trade itself,” Rediker writes. For the slave ship captain, it was “a requirement of the job and the larger economic system it served.” At sea, he held within himself every element of authority and command typically distributed more widely through the institutions of social, political and legal authority on land. Each slave ship stood as a despotic state in miniature. But if the captain was an absolute sovereign in his domain, he was also an employee and partner, a principal agent in a heavily capitalized commercial enterprise, the profits of which turned upon the delivery of captives, not corpses. So the captain had to combine the arts of commercial negotiation and economic calculation with the imperatives of carefully calibrated cruelty. In Rediker’s telling, the brutality of the slave trade lay not only in the sometimes casual and sadistic destruction of human life but also in the callous “moral insensibility” that it induced. So, for example, Rediker presents us with the striking image of the pious John Newton rehearsing passages from Scripture while strolling across what he called his “peaceful kingdom” as he prepared to purchase 250 captives on the coast of Sierra Leone. The slave ship produced not only slaves but monsters too.

And then-

The sailors, the men in between, emerge here at once as tormentors and victims. Often drawn into the work by either poverty or deceit, some seamen in the trade described their fate as worse than slavery. Although Rediker emphatically rejects such claims, he does give extended attention to sailors’ own special hell. Because they were laborers rather than a capital investment, slave ship sailors were more disposable than the captives. As a consequence, in part, they perished with even greater frequency. ..... Mutiny and desertion occurred with some frequency. The two or three thousand sailors who led an uprising in Liverpool in August 1775 targeted the property of slave merchants in particular.

Yet, as Rediker is careful to note, these protests aimed not to abolish the slave trade but to improve payment and working conditions within it. In The Slave Ship, he does not assume that the oppressed found a common interest across racial lines, as he tended to do in some of his earlier work. “Victims of poverty, deception, and violence themselves,” slave ship sailors, Rediker writes, “took out their plight on the even more abject and powerless captives under their supervision and control.” On the middle passage, in the months and weeks that they served as prison guards, their racial status as “whites” briefly mitigated the disadvantages of class.

-Now as Drakov is supposed to be originally based on the legendary (not necessarily historical) Vlad Dracula who supposedly had impaled 100,00 people in the course of his various reigns. Given not just this but the general cruelty of many medieval rulers of the time. I put forward that this particular form of trickle down depraved despotism works with an uneducated population. More modern despotism such as that practiced in the Soviet Union or Pinochet's Chile is most notably marked by disappearances rather than executions. The reason for this is education of the populace. If, as in the modern age, an educated populace is required for a modern economy, it makes sense to get the populace trained and educated if only to the level needed for the economy the despot wants. If, OTOH, the despot is fine with the feudal economy as is, largely because he understands every aspect of it, as we might expect this Drakov I'm attempting to portray probably would, then it makes sense that he would keep as much of his peasantry as ignorant as possible in order to better control them. I've noticed many modern despotic states which at least try to make themselves valuable to members of their populace at every level in order to draw out their best efforts. I believe Drakov and his army of trickle down depravity could do the same through terror. Further, Drakov may just rule in this way because it's the only way he knows. He could try something else but that could cost him everything. Why take the chance? The DPs may well cultivate this attitude in him for obvious reasons. The perpetuation of Drakovian Despotism if you will, could also feed his failure to hold foreign territory because almost NOBODY who's ever lived under any other form of government is going to accept the sheer level of depravity for very long. Going back to the Redliker slave ship example again-

The prisoners thwarted their captors as far as the ghastly circumstances permitted. They seized weapons. They threw themselves overboard. They refused to eat. When unable to lash out at the crew, they sometimes turned on one another. Rediker devotes particular attention to the distinctive experience of enslaved women, far more than most who have written about the middle passage to date. Because slave ship captains regarded women and children as less of a threat to revolt, these prisoners often were allowed more freedom of movement on the ship. This freedom of movement, predictably, helps explain the key roles some women played in shipboard insurrections. A great many more, though, only suffered additional indignities and abuse. Captain and crew raped women and girls with impunity. More than a few captains seem to have done so systematically. And Rediker guesses “that some men signed on to slaving voyages in the first place precisely because they wanted unrestricted access to the bodies of African women.”

The account of the captives’ experience, however, extends beyond the themes of victimization and resistance. Rediker presents striking evidence detailing how captives coped. On one ship enslaved women sing in unison of their despair and longing for home. On another, an enslaved woman offers a long oration of sorrow to other women and girls, who surround her in a series of concentric circles that mark the listeners’ age and status. The slave community, Rediker suggests, first took shape on the slave ship, not on the plantation.

-There's interesting point raised in the middle of all that -Imagine Sexual Predators from all over the core going to Falkovnia to join the army that they may have no shortage of victims to prey upon.

It's your game, of course, and everyone's free to do as they please. If you wish to modernize Drakov to make him more understandable to your players or even sanitize him to avoid sickening your players, everyone is free to do so, but this has always been the image I have had of Drakov ever since the Black box and I felt the need to share it again. It occurred to me as I was typing this that I know of a very good visual model for someplace very like my vision of Falkovnia. The portrayls of Outworld from these two walkthroughs of the Mortal Kombat video games are very similar to my idea of Falkovnia. i.e. barbarism and corpses left to rot everywhere you look. See for yourselves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xyr0SX9 ... zCR3hSMwCi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIfwUyu ... i&index=82

[tomokaicho]

All this talk of Vlad Drakov is getting the noggin' joggin'. I was reminded by a post on this thread that Drakov cannot mystically close his borders, unlike most of the other Darklords. This then raises the question - what if Vlad Drakov is not quite as restricted as other Darklords to remain in the borders of their own domains. To whit -

Dread Possibility
Vlad Drakov is not confined to Falkovnia, and can in fact leave his domain. Vlad Drakov can enter any territories occupied by his forces, even if the area is in the domain of another Darklord. This means that Drakov is able to personally direct his forces in battle in other domains. As Drakov is too wary to enter other domains for personal reasons, he is completely unaware that he cannot do so. Because Vlad Drakov is unique in his limited ability to cross domain borders (directly associated with his curse), he does not have the ability to mystically close his own borders. When another Darklord closes his borders and Drakov is fleeing the domain, Drakov is not impeded by the closed borders at all, and can cross through the closed border into Falkovnia safely. Not so his soldiers, however.

[DustBunny]

All this talk of Vlad Drakov is getting the noggin' joggin'.
Dread Possibility
Vlad Drakov is not confined to Falkovnia, and can in fact leave his domain. Vlad Drakov can enter any territories occupied by his forces, even if the area is in the domain of another Darklord. This means that Drakov is able to personally direct his forces in battle in other domains. As Drakov is too wary to enter other domains for personal reasons, he is completely unaware that he cannot do so. Because Vlad Drakov is unique in his limited ability to cross domain borders (directly associated with his curse), he does not have the ability to mystically close his own borders. When another Darklord closes his borders and Drakov is fleeing the domain, Drakov is not impeded by the closed borders at all, and can cross through the closed border into Falkovnia safely. Not so his soldiers, however.

Very interesting indeed. Can you jump up and down a bit for more joggin?

While the borders on the map of Falk are fixed, they do have the possibility of growing/overlapping (we have seen it before with Barovia and Gundark) _IF_ Vlad can successfuly control the area. Lose control and the border shrinks back to it's normal place. A few troops marching around wouldn't count, but maybe a major military installation or camp would. When the border is 'expanded', he can prance around in the new territory and feel good - but invariably he loses control (the other DLs take their territory back or the DPs tweak events causing a loss) which would drive him up the wall.

It would also explain why other less powerful Darklords are somewhat wary - he theoretically could take their territory.

[Mistmaster]

All this talk of Vlad Drakov is getting the noggin' joggin'. I was reminded by a post on this thread that Drakov cannot mystically close his borders, unlike most of the other Darklords. This then raises the question - what if Vlad Drakov is not quite as restricted as other Darklords to remain in the borders of their own domains. To whit -

Dread Possibility
Vlad Drakov is not confined to Falkovnia, and can in fact leave his domain. Vlad Drakov can enter any territories occupied by his forces, even if the area is in the domain of another Darklord. This means that Drakov is able to personally direct his forces in battle in other domains. As Drakov is too wary to enter other domains for personal reasons, he is completely unaware that he cannot do so. Because Vlad Drakov is unique in his limited ability to cross domain borders (directly associated with his curse), he does not have the ability to mystically close his own borders. When another Darklord closes his borders and Drakov is fleeing the domain, Drakov is not impeded by the closed borders at all, and can cross through the closed border into Falkovnia safely. Not so his soldiers, however.

My take on Drakov move along that line, taking it even a bit further; he can leave Falkovnia, period, and he can even force borders opened for himself and his soldiers; I actually picture him as a Napoleon-level tactician, as a good strategist, and a passable logistic expert; his problem lays in delegating; he tends to prefer faithfull executors to skilled collaborators, as he is paranoical, like all tyrants are bound to be; thats applies not as much in the army like it does in the bureacracy and management departments; that mean that, every time he leaves to lead a campaign, something is bound to happen, in Falkovnia or at the opposite border in respect of the active front; this force him to hastily leave the front, where he is probably on the brick of triunph and leave active fronts or freshly conquered lands in hands not as skilled as his own; so to solve a crisis, he loose or will loose his military gain; that's not an immediate effect; I pictured him actually conquerring almost all of Dementlieu, all of Lamordia, all of Borca and all of Dorvinia in different times, only to loose it maybe during a campaign agaist Darkon; and he actually won at least one of the Dead Man Campaigns, almost doubling Falkovnia in size, only to loose it one year later. This is how I depict Drakov's curse; he fails because he is too pridefull to delegate properly. (I like self inflicted curse the best.)

[brilliantlight]

All this talk of Vlad Drakov is getting the noggin' joggin'. I was reminded by a post on this thread that Drakov cannot mystically close his borders, unlike most of the other Darklords. This then raises the question - what if Vlad Drakov is not quite as restricted as other Darklords to remain in the borders of their own domains. To whit -

Dread Possibility
Vlad Drakov is not confined to Falkovnia, and can in fact leave his domain. Vlad Drakov can enter any territories occupied by his forces, even if the area is in the domain of another Darklord. This means that Drakov is able to personally direct his forces in battle in other domains. As Drakov is too wary to enter other domains for personal reasons, he is completely unaware that he cannot do so. Because Vlad Drakov is unique in his limited ability to cross domain borders (directly associated with his curse), he does not have the ability to mystically close his own borders. When another Darklord closes his borders and Drakov is fleeing the domain, Drakov is not impeded by the closed borders at all, and can cross through the closed border into Falkovnia safely. Not so his soldiers, however.

My take on Drakov move along that line, taking it even a bit further; he can leave Falkovnia, period, and he can even force borders opened for himself and his soldiers; I actually picture him as a Napoleon-level tactician, as a good strategist, and a passable logistic expert; his problem lays in delegating; he tends to prefer faithfull executors to skilled collaborators, as he is paranoical, like all tyrants are bound to be; thats applies not as much in the army like it does in the bureacracy and management departments; that mean that, every time he leaves to lead a campaign, something is bound to happen, in Falkovnia or at the opposite border in respect of the active front; this force him to hastily leave the front, where he is probably on the brick of triunph and leave active fronts or freshly conquered lands in hands not as skilled as his own; so to solve a crisis, he loose or will loose his military gain; that's not an immediate effect; I pictured him actually conquerring almost all of Dementlieu, all of Lamordia, all of Borca and all of Dorvinia in different times, only to loose it maybe during a campaign agaist Darkon; and he actually won at least one of the Dead Man Campaigns, almost doubling Falkovnia in size, only to loose it one year later. This is how I depict Drakov's curse; he fails because he is too pridefull to delegate properly. (I like self inflicted curse the best.)

How can Drakov control a square KM of Darkon for a year? Azalin can summon infinite undead. I don't care how much of a military genius you are but if your enemy can always keep sending X troops not matter how many you kill he will attrit you to deathl

[brilliantlight]

I wrote that wrong. I meant strategy rather than tactics, and there I agree with him. He probably knows tactics but not strategy. Strategy isn't important for company sized units. He might well be specialized at that. Considering his brutality I would suggest assaults.

I wouldn't put him down in the strategy dept. too much, as you don't get to be a mercenary lord without knowing some basic strategy. From the three (Tac/Strat/Logi), strategy he would want to handle himself - being the supreme ruler and such and making sure his grand designs are followed. Tactics he could only handle with personal appearances or prior instructions, while logistics can be _somewhat_ ignored as being the supreme ruler he simply has to command "Do it and there's spike waiting if you don't" and the minions will move heaven and earth to try and get it done.

I would put it down to other problems - Foreign intelligence and counter-espionage.

In the case of Darkon, intelligence (and normal forces) don't matter as Az can snap his fingers and 5 bajillion undead pop up and stomp the invader. But how does the four towers group keep him away when their combined armies are tiny to the military machine (even with guns they are vastly outnumbered)?

The big three - Borca, Dementlieu and Richemulot have the 'Great Game' (digging up nasty secrets, sabotaging enemies, spying and blackmail) as their national pastimes. It could be assured that they have thoroughly infiltrated Vlad's military and can report on how many times a day he goes to the toilet and the brand of paper he uses - let alone his military plans.

In return any of Vald's attempts to gather intelligence is limited to what he knows of 'Military Reconnaissance Scouting', which is vastly different that professional espionage. His own internal agency/secret police know how to shake informants down, kick down doors, watch troop movements and engage in a bit of torture - which is good when limited to internal issues where you have absolute control, but externally- they are miserable failures.

As such when a Falknovian spy tries to gather information or infiltrate enemy territory, he stands out like a guy wearing Groucho glasses and a trench coat at a CIA agent convention (we won’t even start on the Hawk branding). He either disappears, has a unfortunate accident, or is given enough false information that he reports that the sky in pink and an army of battle toads await any invader.

So when he does send in his advanced parties, they get massacred by ambushes, lost without a trace, poisoned, sent to the wrong place, stolen supplies, wrong (or conflicting) orders delivered, infiltrators stirring up rebellions at home and any number of problems causing the forces to come to a grinding halt. And without any of the other DL's having to exert their super powers.

He was the leader of a mercenary band, he might know the basics of strategy but more advanced knowledge of it was probably of little concern to him. He followed the orders of his employers who handled that. You don't need to know strategy very well if you are leading a band of mercs, for one thing you are small potatoes compared to the rest of the army.

A leader overly dependant on a single band of mercs risks getting overthrown by them. They usually hired more than one band of mercs and were in charge of overall strategy.It keeps them more in control.

But I agree with you that MI is an even bigger weakness. The majority of his neighbors, as you point out, are big players in the Great Game and so he is completely out of his depth there. Hell, a lot of his agents are probably double agents as he treats his people like crap and all but one of his neighbors excell at digging up dirt. The one that isn't is the only one that is even semi-friendly.

[Mistmaster]

All this talk of Vlad Drakov is getting the noggin' joggin'. I was reminded by a post on this thread that Drakov cannot mystically close his borders, unlike most of the other Darklords. This then raises the question - what if Vlad Drakov is not quite as restricted as other Darklords to remain in the borders of their own domains. To whit -

Dread Possibility
Vlad Drakov is not confined to Falkovnia, and can in fact leave his domain. Vlad Drakov can enter any territories occupied by his forces, even if the area is in the domain of another Darklord. This means that Drakov is able to personally direct his forces in battle in other domains. As Drakov is too wary to enter other domains for personal reasons, he is completely unaware that he cannot do so. Because Vlad Drakov is unique in his limited ability to cross domain borders (directly associated with his curse), he does not have the ability to mystically close his own borders. When another Darklord closes his borders and Drakov is fleeing the domain, Drakov is not impeded by the closed borders at all, and can cross through the closed border into Falkovnia safely. Not so his soldiers, however.

My take on Drakov move along that line, taking it even a bit further; he can leave Falkovnia, period, and he can even force borders opened for himself and his soldiers; I actually picture him as a Napoleon-level tactician, as a good strategist, and a passable logistic expert; his problem lays in delegating; he tends to prefer faithfull executors to skilled collaborators, as he is paranoical, like all tyrants are bound to be; thats applies not as much in the army like it does in the bureacracy and management departments; that mean that, every time he leaves to lead a campaign, something is bound to happen, in Falkovnia or at the opposite border in respect of the active front; this force him to hastily leave the front, where he is probably on the brick of triunph and leave active fronts or freshly conquered lands in hands not as skilled as his own; so to solve a crisis, he loose or will loose his military gain; that's not an immediate effect; I pictured him actually conquerring almost all of Dementlieu, all of Lamordia, all of Borca and all of Dorvinia in different times, only to loose it maybe during a campaign agaist Darkon; and he actually won at least one of the Dead Man Campaigns, almost doubling Falkovnia in size, only to loose it one year later. This is how I depict Drakov's curse; he fails because he is too pridefull to delegate properly. (I like self inflicted curse the best.)

How can Drakov control a square KM of Darkon for a year? Azalin can summon infinite undead. I don't care how much of a military genius you are but if your enemy can always keep sending X troops not matter how many you kill he will attrit you to deathl

Because, obviously, my Azalin can't summon infinite undead and, also, it was part of an elaborate plot Azalin used to root out dissense, feigning to get deposed, allowing the falkovnian invasion, and than, after one year return, claimed as a saiviour, with his undead horde. There are still a lot of undead in Azalin disposition, but they are mindless Zombies and Skeletons which need direction, and when Azalin is occupied with an attack he can't fight another army on another point of the vast Darkonian-Falkovnian border. Plus, Azalin is a Chess-Master strategist, that meaning that sudden change of tactics can take him aback, expecially with little time to react; he needs time to be really performant. And when he, at last, acts, he probably will win.