KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

[TinCow]

This post contains the most up-to-date version of the rules. My original post has been moved to the spoiler at the top of post #2.

1. General

*1.1 - Game Settings:

M2TW with the 1.3 patch
Hard Campaign, Very Hard Battles.
Large Unit Size
Battle Timer On
Show CPU Moves
Manage All Settlements
Only two land units (including a general) may travel on each ship.
LIST OF MODS TO BE USED

*1.2 – Avatars: Each player will roleplay a nobleman of FACTION. On joining the game, each player will choose an avatar to represent this nobleman. Avatars can be ‘family members’ or recruitable generals. Players are reminded that due to limitations imposed by M2TW, only avatars on the family tree will be able to marry, have children, and have a chance of becoming FACTION HEIR and FACTION LEADER. Recruitable generals can be spawned at any time, but family member creation is beyond our control. Players may not use agents as avatars, since agents cannot fight battles and have a different set of stats from family members and recruitable generals.

1.3 – Battles: A player whose avatar leads an army that is involved in a battle will be expected to fight that battle. This will involve downloading the savegame of the battle, playing it and then uploading the resulting savegame. Uploading the post-battle save must be done within 48 hours of the pre-battle savegame being uploaded. If the deadline expires, the battle is autoresolved. If a player cannot fight a battle that is assigned to them, the battle may also be fought by any player whose avatar will also be present in the battle. Under no circumstances will a battle be fought by a player whose avatar is not present in the battle. If there is no player available to fight a battle, it must be autoresolved. If there are no allocated avatars involved in the battle at all, it must be autoresolved.

1.4 – Game Management: At the start of each turn, the CHANCELLOR will post an annual report on the events of the last turn, including a save game file for the new turn. After the annual report is posted, players will have 24 hours to download the save, and make their personal moves. Players can move their avatars, move any army (Private, Royal, or otherwise) their avatar commands, move any military units that start the turn inside a settlement they control (garrison units), move any military units that start the turn inside a fort in a province they control (fort units), and fight any battles against the AI that they are capable of fighting with their avatar’s army. The CHANCELLOR may move any avatar or army that has not been moved in this way as he best sees fit, including moves that result in battles, except that he cannot move a player’s avatar, Private/Royal Army, garrison units, or fort units in any manner that player has expressly prohibited. Any player involved in a Civil War may give permission for another player to move their avatar and armies by posting that information in a public thread. The CHANCELLOR may extend the time limit beyond 24 hours at his discretion, but all players are encouraged to act as swiftly as possible to keep the game moving.

1.5 – Events: Whenever they desire, but no more often than once every 10 turns, econ21, TinCow, or anyone they choose may create an in-game Event. Events are not limited in scope, subject matter, or method of implementation. All game rules, including * marked rules, can be violated to implement an Event. The players can prevent the implementation of any single Event through a simple majority of unweighted votes.


2. Feudal Heirarchy

2.1 – Rank Gain and Loss: All noblemen enter the game at the rank of Knight. Noblemen will be promoted to a higher rank as soon as they meet the requirements for that rank. If, at any point, a nobleman ceases to meet the requirements of their existing rank, they will be demoted to the highest rank whose requirements they meet.

2.2 – Gaining and Losing Provinces: Except as stated in Rule 2.7, noblemen gain control of all provinces they personally conquer. In the event that multiple noblemen are part of the conquering army, the nobleman controlled by the player who actually fought the battle is considered the conqueror. If the battle is autoresolved, the commanding nobleman is considered the conqueror. If no nobleman is involved in the battle whatsoever, the FACTION LEADER is considered the conqueror. At the start of the game, TinCow will determine which noblemen receive control of the starting provinces, to a maximum of one province per nobleman. Noblemen can only lose control of one of their provinces if they voluntarily give it to another nobleman, if it is conquered by an AI faction, or if it is occupied by the army of a nobleman who has made a Declaration of War against them (See Section 5).

2.3 – Retinue: At any time, a nobleman may give any retinue item/member they possess to another nobleman or remove it from their avatar without giving it to anyone else. If a retinue item/member cannot be transferred or removed due to game coding, console commands may be used to allow the transfer or removal.

2.4 – Wills & Inheritance: On his death, all of a nobleman’s provinces and retinue are distributed according to the most recent valid Will. In order for a Will to be valid, it must have been posted in a public thread or PMed to econ21 or TinCow prior to the nobleman’s death. Except as noted below, a Will provision is only valid to the extent that it names a living, of-age avatar that is controlled by another player as the inheritor of the province or retinue stated. A player's next avatar may only inherit a single province and a single retinue. A Will may name multiple noblemen as inheritors, so long as each province and/or retinue is only bequeathed to a single nobleman. Any provisions of the Will that do not meet these requirements will be invalid. Valid provisions of a Will will not be negated due to the existence of invalid provisions in the same Will. If there is no valid Will provision for an owned province, the nobleman’s immediate Lord gains possession of the province. If the nobleman also has no Lord, the FACTION LEADER gains possession of the province.

2.5 – Oaths of Fealty: In order to become a Vassal of another player, a nobleman must take an Oath of Fealty by specifically swearing allegiance to that player in a public thread. The prospective Lord has the right to refuse to accept the Oath. An Oath of Fealty can be broken if either the Lord or the Vassal specifically revokes it in a public thread. If a Vassal breaks an Oath of Fealty without the permission of his Lord, he cannot swear a new Oath of Fealty until 5 turns have passed. A nobleman can only have one Lord at a time, but he may have an unlimited number of Vassals. Oaths of Fealty cannot be sworn or broken while the GOVERNING BODY is in session.

2.6 – Loyalty in a Feudal Chain: A Vassal’s loyalty is always to his Lord, even if his Lord is himself a Vassal of another nobleman. If a nobleman swears or breaks an Oath of Fealty, his relationship to his Vassals remains unchanged. In this way, a Lord can bring his entire chain of followers into the service of another nobleman without anyone else having to change their status. Similarly, a nobleman will take his entire chain of followers with him if he breaks his Oath of Fealty.

2.7 – Feudal Ranks: In the event of a conflict, Rule 2.7 takes priority over all other rules. The feudal ranks and positions are as follows:


Knight:
Requirements: None
Influence: 1
Powers:
(1) Can propose one Edict per GOVERNING BODY Session.
Penalties:
(1) Cannot lead more than a half stack army unless it is a Private or Royal Army.
(2) Cannot run for CHANCELLOR.

Baronet:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province.
Influence: 1
Powers:
(1) Can propose one Edict per GOVERNING BODY Session.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control. Can destroy any building in their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property, unless the Baronet is loyal to a higher rank.
Penalties:
(1) Cannot lead more than a half stack army unless it is a Private Army, a Royal Army, or within the borders of a province they personally control.
(2) Loses control of all provinces if they fail to vote in two consecutive Normal GOVERNING BODY Sessions. All provinces lost in this way are given to the Baronet's Lord. If the Baronet has no Lord, the provinces are given to the FACTION LEADER.

Baron:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least 1 nobleman as a vassal.
Influence: 1 + up to 1 Stat Influence.
Powers:
(1) Can propose one Edict or Amendment per GOVERNING BODY Session.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control. Can destroy any building in their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property, unless the Baron is loyal to a higher rank.

Viscount:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have a total of at least 2 noblemen as vassals, vassals of vassals, etc.
Influence: 1 + up to 1 Stat Influence.
Powers:
(1) Can propose one Edict or Amendment per GOVERNING BODY Session.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control. Can destroy any building in their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property, unless the Viscount is loyal to a higher rank.
(4) Owns one Private Army.

Count:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have a total of at least 3 noblemen as vassals, vassals of vassals, etc.
Influence: 1 + up to 2 Stat Influence.
Powers:
(1) Can propose one Edict or Amendment per GOVERNING BODY Session.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control. Can destroy any building in their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property, unless the Count is loyal to a higher rank.
(4) Owns one Private Army.
(5) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can Prioritize one building in any build queue in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain, unless the Count is loyal to a higher rank.

Marquess:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have a total of at least 4 noblemen as vassals, vassals of vassals, etc. Must have served 5 consecutive turns as a Count at some point in time.
Influence: 1 + up to 2 Stat Influence.
Powers:
(1) Can propose two Edicts or Amendments per GOVERNING BODY Session.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control. Can destroy any building in their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property, unless the Marquess is loyal to a higher rank.
(4) Owns one Private Army.
(5) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can Prioritize one building in any build queue in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain, unless the Marquess is loyal to a higher rank.
(6) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can destroy one building in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain, unless the Marquess is loyal to a higher rank. Buildings in the barracks, archery range, stable, siege engine, and gunsmith lines cannot be destroyed with this power.

Duke:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have a total of at least 5 noblemen as vassals, vassals of vassals, etc. Must have served 5 consecutive turns as a Marquess at some point in time.
Influence: 1 + up to 3 Stat Influence.
Powers:
(1) Can propose three Edicts or Amendments per GOVERNING BODY Session.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control. Can destroy any building in their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property, unless the Duke is loyal to a Grand Duke.
(4) Can call Emergency GOVERNING BODY Sessions.
(5) Owns one Private Army.
(6) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can Prioritize one building in any build queue in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain, unless the Duke is loyal to a Grand Duke.
(7) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can destroy one building in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain, unless the Duke is loyal to a Grand Duke. Buildings in the barracks, archery range, stable, siege engine, and gunsmith lines cannot be destroyed with this power.
(8) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can force a transfer of one retinue member/item from any nobleman in their chain of followers to themselves or anyone else in their chain of followers, unless the Duke is loyal to a Grand Duke.
(9) Cannot be banned from a GOVERNING BODY Session.
(10) May seize control of any ships that start the turn in a port inside a province controlled by anyone in their feudal chain (controlled port). Ships may not be seized if there is are units on board that are not controlled by someone in the RANK's feudal chain. Ships seized in such a way cannot be moved by the CHANCELLOR without the RANK's permission, unless they are outside a controlled port and do not have a nobleman on board that is in the RANK's feudal chain.

Grand Duke:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have a total of at least 6 noblemen as vassals, vassals of vassals, etc. Must have served 10 consecutive turns as a Duke at some point in time.
Influence: 1 + up to 4 Stat Influence.
Powers:
(1) Can propose an unlimited number of Edicts or Amendments per GOVERNING BODY Session and their Edicts and Amendments do not need to be seconded.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control. Can destroy any building in their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property.
(4) Can call Emergency GOVERNING BODY Sessions.
(5) Owns one Royal Army.
(6) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can Prioritize one building in any build queue in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain.
(7) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can destroy one building in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain. Buildings in the barracks, archery range, stable, siege engine, and gunsmith lines cannot be destroyed with this power.
(8) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can force a transfer of one retinue member/item from any nobleman in their chain of followers to themselves or anyone else in their chain of followers.
(9) Cannot be banned from a GOVERNING BODY Session.
(10) Can declare war on any AI faction at any time, for any reason.
(11) Can veto one Edict or Amendment per GOVERNING BODY Session.
(12) May seize control of any ships that start the turn in a port inside a province controlled by anyone in their feudal chain (controlled port). Ships may not be seized if there is are units on board that are not controlled by someone in the RANK's feudal chain. Ships seized in such a way cannot be moved by the CHANCELLOR without the RANK's permission, unless they are outside a controlled port and do not have a nobleman on board that is in the RANK's feudal chain.
Penalties:
(1) Cannot swear an Oath of Fealty to another nobleman.

FACTION HEIR:
Requirements: Must be the in-game FACTION HEIR
Influence: +1 to the Stat Influence cap of their other rank
Powers:
(1) This rank is always held at the same time as other feudal ranks. The Influence and Powers of the FACTION HEIR are added on top of the Influence and Powers of the nobleman’s other feudal rank(s), unless the Power specifically states otherwise.
(2) In the absence of the FACTION LEADER, the FACTION HEIR can ban noblemen from a GOVERNING BODY Session. Banned noblemen cannot speak or propose legislation, but they are permitted to vote.
(3) In the absence of the FACTION LEADER, the FACTION HEIR can adjudicate on rule disputes. However, if a rule dispute directly involved the FACTION LEADER or the FACTION HEIR, the nobleman of the highest feudal rank will be the adjudicator. If there are multiple noblemen of that rank, the dispute will be decided between them by a simple, unweighted vote. In the event of a tie, the FACTION HEIR will cast a tie-breaking vote.
(4) Owns one Royal Army. This Power voids the ability of the FACTION HEIR to own a Private or Royal Army through the Powers of any other feudal rank.

FACTION LEADER:
Requirements: Must be the in-game FACTION LEADER
Influence: Authority Stat
Powers:
(1) Can propose an unlimited number of Edicts or Amendments per GOVERNING BODY Session and their Edicts and Amendments do not need to be seconded.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control. Can destroy any building in their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
(3) Can call Emergency GOVERNING BODY Sessions.
(4) Owns one Royal Army.
(5) Twice per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can Prioritize one building in any build queue in any settlement. This power cannot be used on any settlement controlled by a nobleman who is in a state of War with the FACTION LEADER.
(6) Twice per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can destroy one building in any settlement. Buildings in the barracks, archery range, stable, siege engine, and gunsmith lines cannot be destroyed with this power. This power cannot be used on any settlement controlled by a nobleman who is in a state of War with the FACTION LEADER.
(7) Twice per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can force a transfer of one retinue member/item from any nobleman to themselves or any other nobleman. This power cannot be used on any nobleman who is in a state of War with the FACTION LEADER.
(8) Can declare war on any faction at any time, for any reason.
(9) Can veto one Edict or Amendment per 3 ranks of Authority.
(10) Decides which nobleman, if any, a Princess should marry.
(11) Once during his reign, the FACTION LEADER may automatically assume the post of CHANCELLOR. The FACTION LEADER must declare he is exercising that right at a GOVERNING BODY session; he will then be appointed CHANCELLOR with no election. This right can only be invoked once, but the FACTION LEADER may also compete in normal CHANCELLOR elections at other GOVERNING BODY Sessions.
(12) Can ban noblemen from a GOVERNING BODY Session. Banned noblemen cannot speak or propose legislation, but they are permitted to vote.
(13) Can adjudicate on rule disputes. However, if a rule dispute directly involves the FACTION LEADER or the FACTION HEIR, the nobleman of the highest feudal rank will be the adjudicator. If there are multiple noblemen of that rank, the dispute will be decided between them by a simple, unweighted vote. In the event of a tie, the FACTION LEADER will cast a tie-breaking vote.
(14) May seize control of any ships that start the turn in a port inside a province controlled by anyone in their feudal chain (controlled port). Ships may not be seized if there is are units on board that are not controlled by someone in the RANK's feudal chain. Ships seized in such a way cannot be moved by the CHANCELLOR without the RANK's permission, unless they are outside a controlled port and do not have a nobleman on board that is in the RANK's feudal chain.
(15) Banishment The FACTION LEADER can banish noblemen from all FACTION controlled provinces. While Banished, a nobleman can be attacked by any other nobleman without the need for a Declaration of War, unless the Banished nobleman is not inside a FACTION controlled province. Any provinces owned by the Banished nobleman can also be attacked without the need for a Declaration of War. Any provinces conquered in this manner will become the property of the nobleman who conquered them. The Banished nobleman cannot be attacked on the same turn that the Banishment is ordered, unless he is in the same FACTION controlled province as the FACTION LEADER, or an adjacent FACTION controlled province to the FACTION LEADER. The Banished nobleman can defend himself, but cannot initiate an attack without making a Declaration of War. No units may be disbanded or removed from the Banished nobleman's armies or settlements without his permission. The FACTION LEADER will determine the fate of a Banished nobleman who is captured in battle. A Banishment can be ended by an Edict passed by the GOVERNING BODY. If the Banished nobleman is in a feudal chain at the time the Banishment is issued, the highest ranking nobleman in that feudal chain can call an Emergency GOVERNING BODY Session. This session can only be called on the same turn that the Banishment is issued.

The duration of the Banishment is determined by the FACTION LEADER's Authority. With an Authority of 5 or lower, this power may not be used. With an Authority of 6 or 7, one nobleman may be Banished for 5 turns. With an Authority of 8 or 9, one nobleman may be Banished for 10 turns. With an Authority of 10, two noblemen may be Banished for 10 turns each. Regardless of the level of Authority, this power cannot be used within 10 turns of a previous use. Banishment ends when a Banished nobleman is publicly pardoned by the FACTION LEADER, the time limit expires, an appropriate Edict is passed, or the FACTION LEADER dies.
Penalties:
(1) Cannot hold another feudal rank except CHANCELLOR.
(2) Cannot swear an Oath of Fealty to another nobleman and cannot have any Vassals.
Inheritance: On the death of a FACTION LEADER, all Oaths of Fealty pertaining to the nobleman who is the new FACTION LEADER are instantly broken. The new FACTION LEADER takes control of all provinces owned by the previous FACTION LEADER, unless they were given away by a valid Will. The new FACTION LEADER retains possession of any provinces he controlled prior to inheriting the throne.

CHANCELLOR:
Requirements: Must have been elected CHANCELLOR
Influence: During Emergency Sessions called during his term, 2 + up to 5 Stat Influence, or the nobleman's normal Influence, whichever is higher. For every term of 6 turns or more that a nobleman serves as CHANCELLOR, he will receive a permanent +1 bonus to his Influence and a permanent increase of +1 to the maximum Stat Influence of his feudal rank. This bonus is cumulative for noblemen who serve multiple terms as CHANCELLOR. The in-term bonus does not apply to the FACTION LEADER. The post-term bonus does not apply to the FACTION LEADER or to any nobleman who ceased to be CHANCELLOR because he was impeached.
Powers:
(1) This rank is always held at the same time as other feudal ranks. The Influence and Powers of the CHANCELLOR are added on top of the Influence and Powers of the nobleman’s other feudal ranks.
(2) Unless otherwise restricted by the rules, the CHANCELLOR can do anything he wants inside the game except use console cheats, which may be used only as specifically allowed by the Rules. Edicts are only binding on the CHANCELLOR to the extent that the GOVERNING BODY chooses to enforce them.
Limitations on Powers:
(1) The CHANCELLOR must respect all settlement tax rates and build queues. With the exception of Prioritized Buildings, the CHANCELLOR is not required to build anything. However, if anything is built in a settlement, it must be the first item on the build queue. If no build queue is posted for a settlement, the CHANCELLOR can build whatever he likes. The CHANCELLOR may upgrade a province’s walls at any time unless such an upgrade is forbidden in advance by the nobleman who owns the settlement.
(2) No money can be spent on any construction until all Prioritized Buildings have been funded, unless the noblemen who Prioritized them agree otherwise. If there are multiple Prioritized Buildings, and not enough funding for all of them, the CHANCELLOR may choose which to construct first. Rule 4.3 takes precedence over all prioritized buildings.
(3) The CHANCELLOR must respect all requests for the transfer or deletion of retinue members/items, as long as these requests comply with the rules.
(4) (4) The CHANCELLOR cannot disband a unit in a Private Army, Royal Army, city garrison, fort, or controlled fleet if the owner of the a Private Army, Royal Army, city garrison, fort, or controlled fleet gives orders which prevent such a disbanding. This Limitation does not apply to merging depleted units, which the CHANCELLOR may do freely.
(5) Cannot remove a building from any build queue if construction has already begun on it, unless the owner of the province agrees otherwise.



3. GOVERNING BODY

3.1 –Sessions: The GOVERNING BODY will meet in a Normal Session every 10 turns. Out of session, there can be open debate and deliberations. Each Normal and Emergency Session consists of 3 real time days of debate, followed by 2 real time days of voting. econ21 or TinCow can change the length of individual sessions at will.

3.2 – Proposing Legislation: During each session, noblemen may propose Edicts and Amendments, up to the limit allowed by their rank. Edicts and Amendments must be seconded by two other noblemen before they can be put to the vote.

3.3 – Edicts: Edicts require a simple majority of votes to pass and remain in effect until the next normal session of the GOVERNING BODY. Tied Edicts fail. If contradictory Edicts are passed, the one with the most votes takes priority.

*3.4 – Amendments: Amendments require a two-thirds majority of votes to pass and can permanently modify the rules in any way, except for rules marked with a *.

3.5 – Influence: Each nobleman’s voting power is equivalent to his total Influence, as defined by Rule 2.7. No nobleman’s Influence may ever be lower than 1. For the purposes of determining Stat Influence, a nobleman can gain 1 point of Stat Influence for each of the following conditions that he meets: (a) 5+ ranks of Command (b) 10 ranks of Command (c) 5+ ranks of Chivalry or Dread (d) 10 ranks of Chivalry or Dread (e) 10 ranks of Loyalty (f) 8+ ranks of Piety (g) 20+ total stat points (h) 30+ total stat points (i) 40 total stat points (j) nobleman’s name is modified by a trait title that bestows more negative than positive stat points (i.e. the Mad) (k) nobleman is married to a FACTION Princess.

3.6 – War: Except as allowed by rank powers under Rule 2.7, any declaration of war must be authorized by an Edict.

3.7 – Elections: At each Normal Session, on the death of the CHANCELLOR, or on the impeachment of the CHANCELLOR, there is an election for the post of CHANCELLOR. Ties lead to a fresh ballot. A second tie is decided by seniority (avatar age).

*3.8 – Impeachment: The CHANCELLOR can be impeached and removed from office by a two-thirds majority vote of the GOVERNING BODY. Impeachment takes effect immediately after the vote is passed. After impeachment, a fresh election is held to elect a new CHANCELLOR, although the FACTION LEADER may also exercise his power to become CHANCELLOR at that point. The nobleman replacing the impeached CHANCELLOR serves out the remainder of the impeached CHANCELLOR’S term. All Edicts passed in the GOVERNING BODY session that elected the impeached CHANCELLOR remain valid, unless overturned by new Edicts at the Emergency Session that impeached him.


4. Armies

4.1 – Private Armies: Private Armies will consist of a minimum of 3 infantry regiments, 2 ranged regiments, and 1 cavalry regiment. For the purposes of this rule, Generals’ Bodyguard units do not count as cavalry regiments. The owner of a Private Army will determine who commands the Army, where it is to move (if at all), and whom to attack.

4.2 – Royal Armies: Royal Armies will consist of a minimum of 4 infantry regiments, 3 ranged regiments, and 2 cavalry regiments. For the purposes of this rule, Generals’ Bodyguard units do not count as cavalry regiments. The owner of a Royal Army will determine who commands the Army, where it is to move (if at all), and whom to attack.

4.3 – Army Replenishment: If a Private or Royal Army falls below the minimum strength level, all military recruitment must be allocated to restoring the Army to minimum strength before money can be spent on other recruitment, unless the owner agrees otherwise. In the event of a conflict, a Royal Army takes priority over a Private Army. This rule does not apply to armies involved in a Civil War.

4.4 – Historical Army Composition: An army of 10 units or less cannot have more than 3 units of heavy cavalry. An army of 11 units or more cannot have more than 5 units of heavy cavalry. For the purposes of this rule, bodyguard units do not count as heavy cavalry. Armies that do not meet these requirements cannot fight battles under any circumstances, though they can be used for transportation.


5. Civil War

*5.1 – Declaration of War: A nobleman must make a Declaration of War towards a specific nobleman in a public thread before they can attack any of that nobleman’s armies or settlements. A Declaration of War applies to all noblemen of lower rank in the vassal chains of both the nobleman who makes the Declaration and the nobleman who is the target of the Declaration, including vassals who swear an Oath of Fealty after the Declaration of War has been made. A Declaration of War does not apply to any noblemen in the vassal chain who are above the declarer or the target. Neither the nobleman who made the Declaration of War, nor anyone below him in his vassal chain, can attack the target of that Declaration, or anyone below the target in his vassal chain, until the target(s) have been provided with one full turn's worth of movement. This rule does not limit movement in any way, nor does it prevent the target(s) of the Declaration of War from attacking the declarer(s).

*5.2 – Civil War through Oath Breaking: If a Vassal breaks an Oath of Fealty, anyone above him in the feudal chain may choose to instantly enter a state of Civil War. For the purposes Rule 5.1, the nobleman who broke the Oath of Fealty will be considered the person who issued the Declaration of War, and the nobleman who chooses to enter the state of Civil War will be treated as the target of the Declaration of War. If a Civil War begins in this manner, any nobleman who would lose the right to own a Private Army as the result of the breaking of the Oath of Fealty will be allowed to retain ownership of his Private Army until the Civil War ends.

*5.3 – Ending a Civil War: A Civil War will end when all noblemen on one side are dead or all living noblemen on both sides publicly agree to a Peace Treaty. So long as it is limited to changes to the provinces, settlements, armies, Oaths of Loyalty, and retinue of the noblemen signing the Peace Treaty, it will be considered binding law. All terms of a Peace Treaty that go beyond these limits, particularly those that increase a nobleman’s influence or powers beyond those allowed by the rules, will only be binding if adopted by a two-thirds majority of the GOVERNING BODY at the next normal session. Individual noblemen may unilaterally remove themselves from a Civil War within one turn of the Declaration of War that brought them into it by breaking all Oaths of Loyalty that tie them to any nobleman involved in the War and by publicly declaring Neutrality. Neutrality cannot be claimed by a declarer, a target, or any nobleman who has been involved in a PvP Battle during that specific Civil War.

5.4 – PvP Battles: Whenever two hostile armies enter adjacent squares, a PvP Battle will occur, even if the armies have movement points remaining. If both players agree, the battle will be fought via multiplayer, with econ21, TinCow, or anyone they choose acting as umpire. The umpire will determine the map and the precise composition of the armies. If the battle is not fought via multiplayer, there will be a 24 hour voting period to determine how the battle will be fought. The voting options will be (a) Tabletop Battle (b) Abbreviated Tabletop Battle and (c) AI Battle. All players may vote, even those not involved in the battle, all votes will be unweighted, and the option that receives the most votes will be chosen. Tabletop Battles will be in the style of the Battle of Bern and the Battle of Trent and will be umpired by econ21, GeneralHankerchief, or anyone they choose. Abbreviated Tabletop Battles will be identical to a Tabletop Battle, but will be 1 turn in length. Players will determine their starting positions and outline a general strategy for the battle. The umpire will then play out the battle and determine the victor. The umpire may allow a maximum of 1 or 2 additional turns beyond the starting turn if they so choose. The Abbreviated Tabletop Battle will be run by econ21, GeneralHankerchief, or anyone they choose. AI Battles will be custom battles in the TW engine in which the AI will control all units on both sides. AI battles will be umpired by econ21, TinCow, or anyone they choose. The umpire will determine all settings to be used in the battle, including the map and the precise composition of the armies. Regardless of the type of battle chosen, the umpire must attempt to have the battle replicate the in-game state of affairs to the best of his ability. Regardless of the type of battle chosen, the umpire will determine the results, including, but not limited to, units to be disbanded as casualties, avatars to be killed off as casualties, and changes in the control of provinces. Console commands may be used to implement the results.

[TinCow]

Original version of the rules moved here:
Please use this thread to discuss your thoughts on how KOTR went and what we should do for the next game. Comments and criticisms of my proposed rule draft are highly encouraged. Do not be afraid of hurting my feelings. I want a lot of input on this so that the next game will be as good as we can possibly make it. The more problems we can fix right now, the better the game will be. If you have suggestions of your own that are completely at odds with my own suggestions, please do post them. The following rules are simply a suggestion and they are not “the way it’s going to be.” I’ve just provided them as a blueprint of what I think might work well, based on my own feelings about KOTR and discussions with econ21. They can be used as they are, modified in part, or scrapped entirely, depending on what the rest of you want. These games derive all of their entertainment value from the participation of many people; everyone should have a voice in how they are played.

Note: All ‘Spoilers’ are comments I have added to explain or discuss certain specific things. Think of them like the Director's Commentary on a DVD. They are not part of the actual rules and will be removed from any final version.

(Preface Commentary:)Initially, it is important to note that I think we need a major shift in the focus of the entertainment in our ‘big’ TW PBMs. As we all know, the TW AI is not a major source of challenge or excitement. We can boost it with artificial methods, such as we started using in the later stages of KOTR, but even then the AI itself was somewhat boring to compete against. The real excitement of KOTR always came from competition amongst the players. Therefore, I believe that our ‘big’ PBMs, in the WOTS and KOTR style, should from now on be focused on competition between the players themselves, not between the players and the AI. Wherever possible, conflict with the AI should simply be a method to increase competition between the players. I believe that these rules a major shift in that direction. I think further changes to the rules should be focused on increasing player competition and freedom of action, while at the same time streamlining the system whenever possible. Think of it as adding a drop of Mafia to the PBM system.

I have tried very hard to keep the rules simple and easy to understand. The KOTR rules, even from the beginning, caused a fair amount of confusion and took a while to get used to. Since the players will necessarily make the rules even more complex as the game goes on, I believe it is imperative to keep the starting rules to the absolute minimum necessary to play the game. I know this is probably a pretty hilarious statement, given the length of the rules I have created, but if you read them over I think you will see that I have attempted to make them very clear and also kept them well-organized. In addition the rules focus entirely on the mechanics behind the game, not the ‘content.’ This design is intended to create the basic blueprints of a functional feudal society within the limits imposed by RTW/M2TW. If you know anything about D&D, try to think of it like a ‘d20’ system for TW PBMs. I have left all other aspects, including the very purpose of the game, for the players to decide themselves. As such, I have specifically and intentionally omitted rules regarding the following things:

1) Houses – The players can do whatever they want with their feudal structure, it is not pre-defined by the rules. The vassalage system creates defacto houses by its simple existence. The various feudal ‘chains’ can determine for themselves what their names should be, whether they should be geographically contiguous, who can be a member, etc.

2) Victory Conditions – The game is over when the players say it is over. The purpose is to roleplay in a feudal society modeled on the M2TW game engine. All other objectives are arbitrary and up the players to decide upon, if they even need to be decided at all.

3) Crusades/Jihads and Missions – The method of handling these should be decided by the political process, not the rules.

Please note that the following terms are genericized, since the rules are not specific to a single faction. The following terms will be replaced with the proper faction-specific equivalents once the faction is decided upon: FACTION, FACTION HEIR, FACTION LEADER, GOVERNING BODY, CHANCELLOR. The titles of the various Feudal Ranks should be altered to fit the chosen faction as well.


1. General

1.1 - Game Settings:

*M2TW with the 1.3 patch
*Hard Campaign, Very Hard Battles.
*Large Unit Size
*Battle Timer On
*Show CPU Moves
*Manage All Settlements
*Only two land units (including a general) may travel on each ship.
*LIST OF MODS TO BE USED

(Commentary:) I think we should to switch from vanilla M2TW to a mod. Vanilla was fine for the first run-through, but we need something that will provide more of a challenge without having to use console commands all the time. A mod that adds more provinces to the game will also help a great deal with the Feudal Structure I created, as it will work best when each player controls at least one province. At the time I am writing this, my personal preference is for Stainless Steel 4.1, with campaign and battle AI mods layered over it. However, a lot of people seem to be keen on Broken Crescent, so that’s another major option for consideration. Kingdoms should probably be avoided to keep the potential player base as high as possible, however Stainless Steel 6.0 (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=156787) looks really, really tempting to me...

I'm hoping that if we do things right, the next game will result in a format where fighting is an actively dangerous proposition. Advancing in rank thus becomes a good thing for the simple reason that you can have your vassals do the dangerous work for you. Dukes would almost never want to fight battles because of the risk involved and the immense amount of work it took to get to that position. Once you've achieved power, you want to stay alive to use it, not risk your neck in some skirmish. That's vassal work!

While we’re on the topic of Mods, I think we should also add a custom made Mod that will make Recruitable Generals available from every level of wall in both cities and castles, and reduce their recruitment cost to something like 1 florin. We want to have a large number of players in this game, right from the start, because we need more players to support the higher feudal ranks (see Section 2). Allowing these units to be recruited from anywhere and for essentially no cost will allow us to get every player an avatar within a couple turns of starting the game, or at least by the end of the first CHANCELLOR term. We need to avoid the multi-month wait we experienced at the beginning of KOTR.

For those worried that this will result in us steamrolling the AI through a sheer massive number of generals, the Rule 2.7 restrictions on army commands should largely prevent this. In addition, steamrolling the AI isn’t quite as big a deal anyway, since the game is intended to focus on competition between the players, not between the players and the AI. The more provinces we control, the more elaborate and intricate our politics will become.

*1.2 – Avatars: Each player will roleplay a nobleman of FACTION. On joining the game, each player will choose an avatar to represent this nobleman. Avatars can be ‘family members’ or recruitable generals. Players are reminded that due to limitations imposed by M2TW, only avatars on the family tree will be able to marry, have children, and have a chance of becoming FACTION HEIR and FACTION LEADER. Recruitable generals can be spawned at any time, but family member creation is beyond our control. Players may not use agents as avatars, since agents cannot fight battles and have a different set of stats from family members and recruitable generals.

1.3 – Battles: A player whose avatar leads an army that is involved in a battle will be expected to fight that battle. This will involve downloading the savegame of the battle, playing it and then uploading the resulting savegame. Uploading the post-battle save must be done within 48 hours of the pre-battle savegame being uploaded. If the deadline expires, the battle is autoresolved. If a player cannot fight a battle that is assigned to them, the battle may also be fought by any player whose avatar will also be present in the battle. Under no circumstances will a battle be fought by a player whose avatar is not present in the battle. If there is no player available to fight a battle, it must be autoresolved. If there are no allocated avatars involved in the battle at all, it must be autoresolved.

(Commentary:) Note that this rule is specifically worded to eliminate the Active and Reserve Duty differentiation that we had in KOTR. econ21 and I talked about this, and we agreed that we were running into conflicts by allowing substitutes for players on Permanent Reserve Duty, but not for those on Temporary Reserve Duty. The problem is that it isn't always clear when someone is going to be on Temporary or Permanent Reserve. Sometimes they don't even know themselves. Also, it introduced an element of arbitrary determination into the situation when some 'excuses' were deemed valid for substitutes while others weren't.

The wording of this rule is designed to get rid of the TRD and PRD distinction. If you are unable to fight a battle with your avatar, you would have two choices: (1) don't get into a battle and (2) autoresolve. This keeps it simple and does not discriminate against certain excuses or situations. In addition, we think it would be good for the game overall. If only Active Duty avatars can fight battles, then expansion is likely to be slower and the assignment of army commands is likely to be more diverse. Top-level general avatars will have to be withdrawn when their players become unavailable or at the very least they will frequently take a second or even third avatar with them to command in case they cannot fight a battle when it pops up.

1.4 – Game Management: At the start of each turn, the CHANCELLOR will post an annual report on the events of the last turn, including a save game file for the new turn. After the annual report is posted, players will have 24 hours to download the save, and make their personal moves. Players can move their avatars, move any army (Private, Royal, or otherwise) their avatar commands, move any military units that start the turn inside a settlement they control (garrison units), move any military units that start the turn inside a fort in a province they control (fort units), and fight any battles against the AI that they are capable of fighting with their avatar’s army. The CHANCELLOR may move any avatar or army that has not been moved in this way as he best sees fit, including moves that result in battles, except that he cannot move a player’s avatar, Private/Royal Army, garrison units, or fort units in any manner that player has expressly prohibited. The CHANCELLOR may extend the time limit beyond 24 hours at his discretion, but all players are encouraged to act as swiftly as possible to keep the game moving.

(Commentary:)This is a translation of KOTR’s post-Catalcysm OOC CA 14.2, which seems to be popular and works relatively well.

Lines 3 and 4, combined with the Chancellor’s Limitation on Power #4, are an experimental attempt to give the game a bit of the military ‘ownership’ we had during the Cataclysm. People definitely liked ‘owning’ armies in addition to owning a province, and it increased the immersion and the role-playing. However, allowing this without slowing down the game is a difficult balance. We tried to give people absolute control over their own military units in the pre-KOTR HRE test game, and that was an unmitigated disaster. It was way too hard to keep track of units and orders.

However, I think the above way could possibly work. The way I intend it to work is like this: the Chancellor is still in charge of all finances and can order recruitment wherever he damn well pleases. However, since all recruited units start their turn in a settlement, the owner of that settlement will then be able to seize control of them if he desires. He can do this in a couple ways. First, he can give specific orders that prevent the Chancellor from removing the unit from his settlement or disbanding it. This will keep the unit under his control for the foreseeable future. If his garrison overflows and he has been lucky enough to get the funding from a Chancellor to erect a fort within his province, he can personally move the units to the fort and give similar orders preventing them from being removed or disbanded. Since the player always has absolute control over his own Private/Royal Army, he can use the garrison/fort units to stockpile reinforcements to bulk up his offensive power. Just move your Private/Royal Army to within one turn’s movement range of the settlement/fort and transfer your units back and forth as you please.

Combined with the limitation on the Chancellor’s ability to disband, this will allow people to assemble at least a small amount of personal military power that is under their direct control. A Private/Royal Army will still be needed for non-Chancellor-approved offensive operations, since removing units from the settlement/fort without putting them in a Private/Royal Army will subject them to the whims of the Chancellor. However even the lowliest Baronet will be able to accumulate a small defensive force this way, if recruitment is repeatedly done in their provinces.

This also opens up an added level of interaction and politicking amongst the players. Castle settlements will usually get most of the money for military recruitment. This will give the owners of Castle settlements the ability to accumulate (though negotiation or direct seizure) better military forces than owners of city settlements. Thus, developed castle settlements will become more highly prized than some of their city equivalents. Noblemen with castles will thus have greater bargaining power than noblemen without castles. In addition, if noblemen have control over a few units of their own, unit trading could become a new area of negotiation. For instance, House Atreides wants to attack a nearby AI controlled settlement, but they do not have access to a castle and thus their army is largely militia-based. Nearby House Harkonnen has a well-developed castle and has stockpiled several heavy infantry units as a result. House Atreides can negotiate with House Harkonnen for those heavy infantry units. Perhaps retinue is exchanged with House Harkonnen, perhaps votes are pledged on a future Edict, or perhaps an entire province is traded to them. Whenever the deal is made, a House Atreides Private Army moves into the region and House Harkonnen transfers the spare Heavy Infantry from the garrison/fort to the Private Army, thus completing the transaction. A Private Army isn’t even necessary, if both sides trust the Chancellor not to interfere in the deal. House Harkonnen could even agree to ‘deliver’ the units with one of their own Private Armies, depending on the terms of the deal.

This will also have a trickle-down effect on the Chancellorship. Since the Chancellor determines where the money is spent for military recruitment, he can greatly increase the military stockpile of Houses that he favors, while starving Houses that he is at odds with. This in turn will result in more competitive elections, as Houses will not want to see their rivals win the Chancellorship, as it could have disastrous consequences for their own ambitions. While the noblemen can assume absolute control over any units their provinces produce and stockpile them for future use, the Chancellor has absolute control over the treasury. If you don’t let the Chancellor do what he wants, he could refuse to recruit any units in your provinces, leaving you vulnerable. Thus, it’s in the interests of the noblemen not to interfere too much in the Chancellor’s military decisions. In addition, the Chancellor can completely bypass obstinate noblemen by recruiting only mercenaries. Since mercenaries can be recruited outside of a settlement and fort, they are immune to the nobleman’s ability to block them. I think this sounds kind of realistic too. Local lords can prevent others from using their own population for military recruitment, but they cannot control the use of mercenaries. Piss off the Chancellor, and you may find a rival House being bulked up with mercenary units to kick you back into line.

At the same time, the burden of organization should not be too greatly increased, because it will be easy to identify the units that are impacted (in a settlement, in a fort, and in a Private/Royal Army), plus the burden of determining what can and cannot be done is on the noblemen, not the Chancellor. This ties into my closing thoughts on thread management (see the end of the rules). We can use a single ‘Personal Orders’ thread where every player has a single post for their avatar. That post will list every province/settlement and Private/Royal Army they own. Underneath each settlement/army, the player can write any specific orders they have for the units in that settlement/army. For instance, a settlement orders could be: “Milan: Garrison may not be reduced below 5 units,” “Metz: No units may be removed or disbanded at all,” or “Ragusa: Garrison may not be reduced below 4 ranged infantry and 4 melee infantry.” Private/Royal Army orders could be: “Private Army: Commanded by Dieter Sprockets. Remain inside Province X. No units may be removed or disbanded” or “Royal Army: Commanded by Hassel von Hoff. No movement of the army is permitted unless it is by Sir von Hoff.”

Instead of making a new post every time, each player should simply edit their original post to show whatever new orders they have, be it once per turn, once per Chancellorship, or never. This will keep the thread short and organized. All the Chancellor will have to due is scan that post at the beginning of each turn to see what the instructions are, no digging for information will be required. Plus, the players themselves have to create their own restrictions on the Chancellor. If you don’t give orders to the contrary, the Chancellor can do whatever he likes with your settlements and armies.

I think this is likely to result in another more realistic aspect to the game: lots of small armies scattered around the map. Most noblemen are going to want some personal military power just for their own security. Thus, each province will end up having restritions on what can be free removed from its defensive garrison. This will make the formation of large offensive armies require either a symptathetic Chancellor supporting a particular House, or a large army assembled from the resources of several Houses through IC negotiations. In medieval times, assembling a large army almost always required a lot of appeasement of the nobles who supplied the men. This would be mimicked in the game.

Since disbanding of units can be prevented by the noblemen, it’s possible that the faction could end up with financial problems because the military grows too large. I think that’s a good thing, as it will then force political negotiations on how to reduce costs and it will require IC solutions.

If it is determined that giving players this level of control over their own military units is not good for the game, the rules can be reverted to my original version which gave the Chancellor the ability to do what he wants, except for armies involved in a Civil War. To restore the rules to that format, the following needs to be done:

Restore Rule 1.4 to its old format:

1.4 – Game Management: At the start of each turn, the CHANCELLOR will post an annual report on the events of the last turn, including a save game file for the new turn. After the annual report is posted, players will have 24 hours to download the save, move their avatars, and fight any battles against the AI that they are capable of fighting with their avatar’s army. The CHANCELLOR may move any avatar that has not been moved in this way as he best sees fit, including moves that result in battles, except that he cannot move a player’s avatar in any manner that player has expressly prohibited. The CHANCELLOR may extend the time limit beyond 24 hours at his discretion, but all players are encouraged to act as swiftly as possible to keep the game moving.

Delete the Chancellor’s Limitation on Powers #4.

Re-insert the deleted Rule 5.4:

*5.4 – Involuntary Actions: The CHANCELLOR cannot disband or move any unit in an army or settlement belonging to a nobleman involved in a Civil War without the permission of that player.
(Commentary:)The Chancellor doesn’t have to give you reinforcements, but it would be unfair and unrealistic to let him reduce your Private Army to the minimum level right before a battle simply because he wants you to lose. If you prepare well enough before the Declaration of War, you should be able to fight for at least a short while even with a hostile Chancellor. Even then, it would probably be best to make sure the Chancellor is either friendly or at least neutral in the Civil War.


1.5 – Events: Whenever they desire, but no more often than once every 10 turns, econ21, TinCow, or anyone they choose may create an in-game Event. Events are not limited in scope, subject matter, or method of implementation. All game rules, including * marked rules, can be violated to implement an Event. The players can prevent the implementation of any single Event through a simple majority of unweighted votes.

(Commentary:)This is to allow for things ranging from small events like “Earthquake! The Barracks in London is destroyed!” or “Market Hysteria! Unfounded rumors of an imminent shortage in iron supplies have caused a massive financial decline. 20,000 florins are removed from the treasury.” to moderate sized events lasting a few turns, such as “Major French Naval Invasion! 3 full stacks land near Dover!”. It could also include ‘quests’ like "A Crusade to Jerusalem has been called. The first nobleman to enter the city will receive the Crown of Thorns." The last line allows any unwanted events to be easily blocked. It’s not designed to unbalance the game in any way, just a mechanism to give it a little extra spice now and then.


2. Feudal Heirarchy

(Commentary:)The most significant changes to the game are the Feudal Hierarchy structure and the Civil War rules. They should be mostly self-explanatory, but I would like to explain some of the thinking behind them.

First, while it was nice to have a ‘family tree’ of avatars with each group descended from one of Heinrich’s four children, it turned out to be far more of a pain than it was worth IMO. Some people had to wait several months just get their first avatar and we suffered serious problems with supplying people with avatars in their desired Houses for most of the game. There were also some major problems with unbalanced Houses, since the game did not spawn avatars equally amongst our four custom-made divisions. The only positive side of maintaining the family tree was having it look nice in the Library. That seems like a small benefit to me, considering the major inconveniences.

We have already concluded long ago that allowing recruitable generals is a good thing. By scrapping any formal House system, we also eliminate the risk that the adoption of a recruitable general will screw up the family tree. If the position on the family tree has no real purpose other than for role-playing, it won’t create any major problems if the general is added on in the wrong spot.

Furthermore, if we don’t pay attention to the family tree, we can allow far greater freedom to players in allocating their allegiance. If we are not tied down by the family tree hierarchy, a player can switch loyalties to an entirely different House or even perhaps start a new House of their own. That would add major new political options to the game and make the feudal system that much more important. If you don’t like how your Lord is treating you, you could leave and pledge your loyalty to another Lord. It would also allow for the possibility of powerful families seizing control of multiple Duchies. Imagine if three of the four von Kastilien brothers had each gone to one of the other Houses. With enough political maneuvering, all four brothers could have all ended up as Dukes and ruled the Reich as a united family. This also allows for more flexibility on the number of Houses. Closely allied political Houses could unit to form a single massive House. Internal dissent could cause a House to split in two. Without limits imposed by the family tree, many more political possibilities open up. Thus, I have created the Feudal Hierarchy structure and the Oaths of Fealty, which I believe creates a decent feudal structure while at the same time allowing a great deal of flexibility.

One interesting aspect about this rank structure is that at the beginning of the game, there would probably not be anyone ranked higher than Count. Since the high levels require lower level vassals, and the ‘building block’ level of Baronet requires a province, the higher levels of power would only be ‘unlocked’ as our in-game faction gained territory. With the FACTION LEADER having access to many powers and continuing to hold influence through authority, this creates a very unique and historically accurate situation. In the early days, the FACTION LEADER will have far more political power than the noblemen, if he has a lot of authority. However, once the empire becomes large enough to support players at higher ranks, the FACTION LEADER’s relative voting power will diminish. This will accurately reflect the growing importance of the nobility throughout medieval Europe, as occurred historically.

Also, please note that the structure of the rule allows the GOVERNING BODY to easily pass legislation that alters a single rank without disturbing the overall ladder. We could even abolish ranks or add more into the ladder as needed without too many problems.

Second, one of the main focuses of the Feudal Hierarchy system is focusing the strength of the various ranks on their ‘Powers’ more than their influence. Higher ranks can simply do things that lower ranks cannot. Given the significance of some of these powers, it is in the interests of groups of allies to create an organized feudal ladder to propel their members as high as possible. A rival group of noblemen who have their ‘top dog’ at a higher rank than you do will have a significant advantage over you. This will make political alliances very important, thus encouraging roleplaying and IC maneuverings.

It is also important to note that this feudal ladder has to have people in the lower ranks in order to keep others in the higher ranks. In KOTR, a Duke was supremely powerful no matter how much his Counts may have disliked him. In this system, even a Grand Duke can be brought low if a single Baron defects. This will give the lower ranks some major bargaining power to ensure that they are not ignored in the political process. If you upset your vassals, you can find yourself demoted several ranks very quickly.

I would also like to point out that as part of the Feudal Hierarchy, the Influence system has also been completely overhauled. After discussion with econ21, we concluded that players do not need influence bonuses based on their rank, because high ranks already require them to have loyal vassals who should presumably be voting with them. Power should be gained by securing alliances and creating voting blocs, not by giving people unassailable voting power simply due to their rank. As a result, Influence is now almost completely based on stats, with the exception of the Chancellor who gets a permanent bonus for his efforts.

With this system, everyone gets at least one vote and all votes above 1 are determined both by their avatar’s stats and by their ability to climb the feudal ladder. Having ridiculously high stats will not help you if you cannot advance beyond the basic ranks. Advancing to high ranks will not give you great advantages unless you have the stats to exploit your position. This seems realistic to me and I think it will encourage RPing, greater attachment to avatars, and greater competition for army commands (which have a higher potential of generating stat bonuses) and well-developed cities (which can generate good traits and retinue from high-level buildings).

The Faction Leader will continue to use Authority as their Influence, since it is a good measure of their strength. Given that almost all players will be at 1 Influence in the beginning of the game, early Faction Leaders will be very powerful if they have the Authority to back it up, as it should be.

Also, this system greatly increases the benefits from serving as Chancellor. Since players get +1 Influence and +1 to their Stat Influence cap for EACH term they serve, hopefully we will see more people competing in the elections. People who are able to get elected multiple times (good politicking and RPing) can theoretically become significantly more powerful than others (though to a certain extent they would still suffer if they had low stats). In addition, people may start to weigh their votes far more heavily if they risk giving an opponent a permanent edge over them. No matter how 'capable' the player is, you're going to think twice about electing them a second time unless you are very close political allies. Even if he is somehow reduced to the rank of Knight, a two-term Chancellor could still potentially have as much influence as a Grand Duke. The 'in-term' bonus also makes sure that the Chancellor has far more say during Emergency Sessions that occur during his term, which is realistic. It will also make Impeachment a bit harder, as the Chancellor can theoretically command a good deal of voting power to block his own removal. (See the Rule 3.5 Commentary for more thoughts on Stat Influence.)

Finally, the KOTR requirement for a player to be ‘Knighted’ before leading an army has been removed. That was mainly an annoyance in-game and the title of Knight was usually handed out without any real meaning or purpose. A better solution is simply to restrict the military power of the ranks, such as in the ‘Penalties’ listed for Knights and Baronets. These army limitations for lower ranks would also make it very difficult for low ranks to rebel against their superiors unless they had a large coalition of support.

2.1 – Rank Gain and Loss: All noblemen enter the game at the rank of Knight. Noblemen will be promoted to a higher rank as soon as they meet the requirements for that rank. If, at any point, a nobleman ceases to meet the requirements of their existing rank, they will be demoted to the highest rank whose requirements they meet.

2.2 – Gaining Provinces: Except as stated in Rule 2.7, noblemen gain control of all provinces they personally conquer. In the event that multiple noblemen are part of the conquering army, the nobleman controlled by the player who actually fought the battle is considered the conqueror. If the battle is autoresolved, the commanding nobleman is considered the conqueror. If no nobleman is involved in the battle whatsoever, the FACTION LEADER is considered the conqueror. At the start of the game, econ21 will determine which noblemen receive control of the starting provinces, to a maximum of one province per nobleman.

2.3 – Losing Provinces: Noblemen can only lose control of one of their provinces if they voluntarily give it to another nobleman, if it is conquered by an AI faction, or if it is occupied by the army of a nobleman who has made a Declaration of War against them (See Section 5). On his death, all of a nobleman’s provinces are distributed according to the most recent valid Will. In order for a Will to be valid, it must have been posted in a public thread or PMed to econ21 or TinCow prior to the nobleman’s death. If the nobleman has no valid Will, the nobleman’s immediate Lord gains possession of the provinces. If the nobleman also has no Lord, the FACTION LEADER gains possession of the provinces.

2.4 – Retinue: At any time, a nobleman may give any retinue item/member they possess to another nobleman or remove it from their avatar without giving it to anyone else. If a retinue item/member cannot be transferred or removed due to game coding, console commands may be used to allow the transfer or removal. A nobleman’s retinue can also be transferred at the time of his death, if the transfer was specified in a valid Will.

(Commentary:)While this rule does allow for people to delete ‘negative’ retinue, it makes a lot of sense to me for role-playing purposes. A person’s traits are one thing… you cannot change your own personality. However, you should be able to exile, kill, or destroy any retinue in your possession if you want to. There’s no reason for a 10 piety avatar to have to deal with a Pagan Magician. Plus, allowing people to trade retinue will open up another avenue of political negotiations, which is always a good thing.

2.5 – Oaths of Fealty: In order to become a Vassal of another player, a nobleman must take an Oath of Fealty by specifically swearing allegiance to that player in a public thread. The prospective Lord has the right to refuse to accept the Oath. An Oath of Fealty can be broken if either the Lord or the Vassal specifically revokes it in a public thread. A nobleman can only have one Lord at a time, but he may have an unlimited number of Vassals. Oaths of Fealty cannot be sworn or broken while the GOVERNING BODY is in session.

(Commentary:)The last line serves two purposes. First, it prevents vassals from reducing their lords’ voting power at the last minute before a vote. People should be able to know their exact voting power when going into a vote. Second, it makes the voting system easier to keep track of for those of us who have to do the math.

2.6 – Loyalty in a Feudal Chain: A Vassal’s loyalty is always to his Lord, even if his Lord is himself a Vassal of another nobleman. If a nobleman swears or breaks an Oath of Fealty, his relationship to his Vassals remains unchanged. In this way, a Lord can bring his entire chain of followers into the service of another nobleman without anyone else having to change their status. Similarly, a nobleman will take his entire chain of followers with him if he breaks his Oath of Fealty.

2.7 – Feudal Ranks: In the event of a conflict, Rule 2.7 takes priority over all other rules. The feudal ranks and positions are as follows:

(Commentary:)These titles may also be altered to better suit the chosen faction (i.e. Earl instead of Count if playing England, Emir instead of Duke if playing as an Islamic faction).


Knight:
Requirements: None
Influence: 1
Powers:
(1) Can propose one Edict per GOVERNING BODY Session.
Penalties:
(1) Cannot lead more than a half stack army unless it is a Private or Royal Army.
(2) Cannot run for CHANCELLOR.

Baronet:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province.
Influence: 1
Powers:
(1) Can propose one Edict per GOVERNING BODY Session.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property, unless the Baronet is loyal to a higher rank.
Penalties:
(1) Cannot lead more than a half stack army unless it is a Private Army, a Royal Army, or within the borders of a province they personally control.

Baron:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Baronet as a vassal.
Influence: Up to 2 Stat Influence.
Powers:
(1) Can propose one Edict or Amendment per GOVERNING BODY Session.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property, unless the Baron is loyal to a higher rank.

Viscount:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Baron as a vassal.
Influence: Up to 2 Stat Influence.
Powers:
(1) Can propose one Edict or Amendment per GOVERNING BODY Session.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property, unless the Viscount is loyal to a higher rank.
(4) Owns one Private Army.

Count:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Viscount as a vassal
Influence: Up to 3 Stat Influence.
Powers:
(1) Can propose one Edict or Amendment per GOVERNING BODY Session.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property, unless the Count is loyal to a higher rank.
(4) Owns one Private Army, above and beyond any Private Armies owned by their vassals.
(5) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can Prioritize one building in any build queue in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain, unless the Count is loyal to a higher rank.

Marquess:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Count as a vassal.
Influence: Up to 3 Stat Influence.
Powers:
(1) Can propose two Edicts or Amendments per GOVERNING BODY Session.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property, unless the Marquess is loyal to a higher rank.
(4) Owns one Private Army, above and beyond any Private Armies owned by their vassals.
(5) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can Prioritize one building in any build queue in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain, unless the Marquess is loyal to a higher rank.
(6) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can destroy one building in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain, unless the Marquess is loyal to a higher rank. Buildings in the barracks, archery range, stable, siege engine, and gunsmith lines cannot be destroyed with this power.

Duke:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Marquess as a vassal.
Influence: Up to 4 Stat Influence.
Powers:
(1) Can propose three Edicts or Amendments per GOVERNING BODY Session.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property, unless the Duke is loyal to a Grand Duke.
(4) Can call Emergency GOVERNING BODY Sessions.
(5) Owns one Private Army, above and beyond any Private Armies owned by their vassals.
(6) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can Prioritize one building in any build queue in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain, unless the Duke is loyal to a Grand Duke.
(7) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can destroy one building in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain, unless the Duke is loyal to a Grand Duke. Buildings in the barracks, archery range, stable, siege engine, and gunsmith lines cannot be destroyed with this power.
(8) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can force a transfer of one retinue member/item from any nobleman in their chain of followers to themselves or anyone else in their chain of followers per CHANCELLOR term, unless the Duke is loyal to a Grand Duke.
(9) Cannot be banned from a GOVERNING BODY Session.

Grand Duke:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Duke as a vassal.
Influence: Up to 5 Stat Influence.
Powers:
(1) Can propose an unlimited number of Edicts or Amendments per GOVERNING BODY Session and their Edicts and Amendments do not need to be seconded.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property.
(4) Can call Emergency GOVERNING BODY Sessions.
(5) Owns one Royal Army, above and beyond any Private Armies owned by their vassals.
(6) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can Prioritize one building in any build queue in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain.
(7) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can destroy one building in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain. Buildings in the barracks, archery range, stable, siege engine, and gunsmith lines cannot be destroyed with this power.
(8) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can force a transfer of one retinue member/item from any nobleman in their chain of followers to themselves or anyone else in their chain of followers per CHANCELLOR term.
(9) Cannot be banned from a GOVERNING BODY Session.
(10) Can declare war on any AI faction at any time, for any reason.
(11) Can veto one Edict or Amendment per GOVERNING BODY Session.
Penalties:
(1) Cannot swear an Oath of Fealty to another nobleman.

FACTION HEIR:
Requirements: Must be the in-game FACTION HEIR
Influence: +1 to the Stat Influence cap
Powers:
(1) This rank is always held at the same time as other feudal ranks. The Influence and Powers of the FACTION HEIR are added on top of the Influence and Powers of the nobleman’s other feudal rank(s).
(2) In the absence of the FACTION LEADER, the FACTION HEIR can ban noblemen from a GOVERNING BODY Session. Banned noblemen cannot speak or propose legislation, but they are permitted to vote.
(3) In the absence of the FACTION LEADER, the FACTION HEIR can adjudicate on rule disputes. However, if a rule dispute directly involved the FACTION LEADER or the FACTION HEIR, the nobleman of the highest feudal rank will be the adjudicator. If there are multiple noblemen of that rank, the dispute will be decided between them by a simple, unweighted vote. In the event of a tie, the FACTION HEIR will cast a tie-breaking vote.

FACTION LEADER:
Requirements: Must be the in-game FACTION LEADER
Influence: Authority Stat
Powers:
(1) Can propose an unlimited number of Edicts or Amendments per GOVERNING BODY Session and their Edicts and Amendments do not need to be seconded.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
(3) Can call Emergency GOVERNING BODY Sessions.
(4) Owns one Royal Army.
(5) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can Prioritize one building in any build queue in any settlement they own.
(6) Can declare war on any faction at any time, for any reason.
(7) Can veto one Edict or Amendment per 3 ranks of Authority.
(8) Decides which nobleman, if any, a Princess should marry.
(9) Once during his reign, the FACTION LEADER may automatically assume the post of CHANCELLOR. The FACTION LEADER must declare he is exercising that right at a GOVERNING BODY session; he will then be appointed CHANCELLOR with no election. This right can only be invoked once, but the FACTION LEADER may also compete in normal CHANCELLOR elections at other GOVERNING BODY Sessions.
(10) Can ban noblemen from a GOVERNING BODY Session. Banned noblemen cannot speak or propose legislation, but they are permitted to vote.
(11) Can adjudicate on rule disputes. However, if a rule dispute directly involves the FACTION LEADER or the FACTION HEIR, the nobleman of the highest feudal rank will be the adjudicator. If there are multiple noblemen of that rank, the dispute will be decided between them by a simple, unweighted vote. In the event of a tie, the FACTION LEADER will cast a tie-breaking vote.
Penalties:
(1) Cannot hold another feudal rank except CHANCELLOR.
(2) Cannot swear an Oath of Fealty to another nobleman and cannot have any Vassals.
Inheritance: On the death of a FACTION LEADER, all Oaths of Fealty pertaining to the nobleman who is the new FACTION LEADER are instantly broken. The new FACTION LEADER takes control of all provinces owned by the previous FACTION LEADER, unless they were given away by a valid Will. The new FACTION LEADER retains possession of any provinces he controlled prior to inheriting the throne.

CHANCELLOR:
Requirements: Must have been elected CHANCELLOR
Influence: During Emergency Sessions called during his term, up to 5 Stat Influence +2, or the nobleman's normal Influence, whichever is higher. For every term of 6 turns or more that a nobleman serves as CHANCELLOR, he will receive a permanent +1 bonus to his Influence and a permanent increase of +1 to the maximum Stat Influence of his feudal rank. This bonus is cumulative for noblemen who serve multiple terms as CHANCELLOR. The in-term bonus does not apply to the FACTION LEADER. The post-term bonus does not apply to the FACTION LEADER or to any nobleman who ceased to be CHANCELLOR because he was impeached.
Powers:
(1) This rank is always held at the same time as other feudal ranks. The Influence and Powers of the CHANCELLOR are added on top of the Influence and Powers of the nobleman’s other feudal ranks.
(2) Unless otherwise restricted by the rules, the CHANCELLOR can do anything he wants inside the game except use console cheats, which may be used only as specifically allowed by the Rules. Edicts are only binding on the CHANCELLOR to the extent that the GOVERNING BODY chooses to enforce them.
Limitations on Powers:
(1) The CHANCELLOR must respect all settlement tax rates and build queues. With the exception of Prioritized Buildings, the CHANCELLOR is not required to build anything. However, if anything is built in a settlement, it must be the first item on the build queue. If no build queue is posted for a settlement, the CHANCELLOR can build whatever he likes. The CHANCELLOR may upgrade a province’s walls at any time unless such an upgrade is forbidden in advance by the nobleman who owns the settlement.
(2) No money can be spent on any construction until all Prioritized Buildings have been funded, unless the noblemen who Prioritized them agree otherwise. If there are multiple Prioritized Buildings, and not enough funding for all of them, the CHANCELLOR may choose which to construct first. Rule 4.3 takes precedence over all prioritized buildings.
(3) The CHANCELLOR must respect all requests for the transfer or deletion of retinue members/items, as long as these requests comply with the rules.
(4) The CHANCELLOR cannot disband a unit in a Private Army, Royal Army, city garrison, or fort if the owner of the a Private Army, Royal Army, city garrison, or fort gives orders which prevent such a disbanding. This Limitation does not apply to merging depleted units, which the CHANCELLOR may do freely.


(Commentary:)This last line in Power #2 is particularly important to the game. It’s time to end the OOC debates about what can be done IC. If you don’t like what the Chancellor is doing, use IC means to stop him. The rules allow for many ways to do this, such as negotiation, impeachment, or even Civil War.


3. GOVERNING BODY

3.1 –Sessions: The GOVERNING BODY will meet in a Normal Session every 10 turns. Out of session, there can be open debate and deliberations. Each Normal and Emergency Session consists of 3 real time days of debate, followed by 2 real time days of voting. econ21 or TinCow can change the length of individual sessions at will.

3.2 – Proposing Legislation: During each session, noblemen may propose Edicts and Amendments, up to the limit allowed by their rank. Edicts and Amendments must be seconded by two other noblemen before they can be put to the vote.

3.3 – Edicts: Edicts require a simple majority of votes to pass and remain in effect until the next normal session of the GOVERNING BODY. Tied Edicts fail. If contradictory Edicts are passed, the one with the most votes takes priority.

*3.4 – Amendments: Amendments require a two-thirds majority of votes to pass and can permanently modify the rules in any way, except for rules marked with a *.

3.5 – Influence: Each nobleman’s voting power is equivalent to his total Influence, as defined by Rule 2.7. No nobleman’s Influence may ever be lower than 1. For the purposes of determining Stat Influence, a nobleman can gain 1 point of Stat Influence for each of the following conditions that he meets: (a) 5+ ranks of Command (b) 10 ranks of Command (c) 5+ ranks of Chivalry or Dread (d) 10 ranks of Chivalry or Dread (e) 10 ranks of Loyalty (f) 8+ ranks of Piety (g) 20+ total stat points (h) 30+ total stat points (i) 40 total stat points (j) nobleman’s name is modified by a trait title that bestows more negative than positive stat points (i.e. the Mad) (k) nobleman is married to a FACTION Princess.

(Commentary:)First, remember that Stat Influence is only useful if you have a rank that can make use of them. A lowly knight is not going to have the Influence potential of a Grand Duke, no matter how good his stats are. You have to advance your political position, as well as your avatar’s stats, in order to increase your Influence.

I think the Stat Influence requirements I have set forth in Rule 3.5 are pretty fair. Up to two points can be gained from each of Command, Chivalry, and Dread. One point can be gained from Loyalty and Piety at different levels, to take into account their starting bonuses (5 free Loyalty, 3 free Piety). So, essentially players get a potential +1 for every 5 ranks they gain in a stat. The 20, 30, and 40 markers also benefit the well-rounded characters. In general, I think this is a far better system and encourages roleplaying and player interaction to a greater extent than a simple bonus based on rank.

In addition, I have added two extra IC ‘achievement’ stats that I think will be nice. (j) is mainly a balance bonus that is designed to help out people who are unlucky enough to have avatars that get sent down a really bad trait line. They’re probably already losing a large amount of influence from that trait, so this is a bonus point to give them at least some small influence. It’s perfectly reasonably that even the most negative traits would bestow some kind of small influence, simply because the person is the “extreme” of that trait. For instance, perhaps Bob the Ugly is so amazingly hideous that people close their eyes when he is around, forcing them to listen to him more carefully. I considered making this rule apply to all trait-bestowed titles, but that will generally just result in a double-bonus for people with “good” titles. Since they’re already receiving stat bonuses from the trait, they don’t need an extra boost. Also, reducing the "good" and "bad" determinations to stat points will prevent any debate over what is good or bad. Essentially, if it causes you to lose more stats than you gain, it's bad. If you break even or gain stats, it's good.

(k) is an IC thing, and I think a very good one. It accomplishes two things. First, it gives more available stat influence to people who marry into the royal family, which is logical. Second, it gives the FACTION LEADER slightly more power. Since the marriage of a Princess is determined by the FACTION LEADER, this essentially allows the FACTION LEADER to give a permanent +1 to the Stat Influence cap of the nobleman of his choice. A powerful tool on the rare occasions it pops up, and one that could easily be used for political gain.

3.6 – War: Except as allowed by rank powers under Rule 2.7, any declaration of war must be authorized by an Edict.

3.7 – Elections: At each Normal Session, on the death of the CHANCELLOR, or on the impeachment of the CHANCELLOR, there is an election for the post of CHANCELLOR. Ties lead to a fresh ballot. A second tie is decided by seniority (avatar age).

*3.8 – Impeachment: The CHANCELLOR can be impeached and removed from office by a two-thirds majority vote of the GOVERNING BODY. Impeachment takes effect immediately after the vote is passed. After impeachment, a fresh election is held to elect a new CHANCELLOR, although the FACTION LEADER may also exercise his power to become CHANCELLOR at that point. The nobleman replacing the impeached CHANCELLOR serves out the remainder of the impeached CHANCELLOR’S term. All Edicts passed in the GOVERNING BODY session that elected the impeached CHANCELLOR remain valid, unless overturned by new Edicts at the Emergency Session that impeached him.


4. Armies

(Commentary:)This is a much simpler implementation of the various Household Army rules. It is also necessary to allow for Civil Wars. Since we don’t have pre-defined Houses, the Private Armies belong to individual noblemen of rank. Large vassal chains can have multiple Private Armies, as befits their great power. Low ranking noblemen without allies will have little private military power outside their garrisons. You shouldn’t go to war without a military to back you up and you had best beware angering a nobleman with powerful military resources if you do not have the means to defend yourself.

4.1 – Private Armies: Private Armies will consist of a minimum of 3 infantry regiments, 2 ranged regiments, and 1 cavalry regiment. For the purposes of this rule, Generals’ Bodyguard units do not count as cavalry regiments. All regiments must be professional soldiers, not militia, unless the owner agrees otherwise. The owner of a Private Army will determine who commands the Army, where it is to move (if at all), and whom to attack.

4.2 – Royal Armies: Royal Armies will consist of a minimum of 4 infantry regiments, 3 ranged regiments, and 2 cavalry regiments. For the purposes of this rule, Generals’ Bodyguard units do not count as cavalry regiments. All regiments must be professional soldiers, not militia, unless the owner agrees otherwise. The owner of a Royal Army will determine who commands the Army, where it is to move (if at all), and whom to attack.

(Commentary:)If the personal control of military units provisions (see commentary for Rule 1.4) are kept, we might want to consider removing the “All regiments must be professional soldiers” part of Rules 4.1 and 4.2. Since the noblemen will have the ability to control the composition of their own armies, the Private/Royal Armies could simply be a ‘minimum number of units’ requirement which leaves the quality up to the politics of the game.

4.3 – Army Replenishment: If a Private or Royal Army falls below the minimum strength level, all military recruitment must be allocated to restoring the Army to minimum strength before money can be spent on other recruitment, unless the owner agrees otherwise. In the event of a conflict, a Royal Army takes priority over a Private Army. This rule does not apply to armies involved in a Civil War.

4.4 – Historical Army Composition: Only historical armies can fight battles (ahistorical stacks can be used for transport). No more than half the units in an army can be mercenaries. Crusader mercenaries (crusader sergeants, crusader knights, pilgrims, fanatics, great crosses, etc.) do not count as mercenaries. Crusades are exempt from restrictions on the number of generals. The maxima for each unit type by the number of units in the stack is:

3^Unit|Number of Units in the Stack
3^Type|1-5|6-10|11-15|16+
7^Generals|2|2|2|2
7^Knights|2|4|6|8
7^Cavalry|2|4|6|8
7^Missile Inf|2|3|4|6
7^Heavy Inf|2|3|4|6
7^Other Inf|Any|Any|Any|Any
7^Artillery|1|2|3|4


Unit Type definitions (units can qualify for multiple Types):
Knights: All units with “Knight” in their name plus all heavy cavalry.
Cavalry: All mounted units.
Missile Inf: All dismounted ranged attackers, except artillery units and javelin units.
Heavy Inf: All heavy infantry units.
Other Inf: All unmounted units which do not qualify as Missile Inf or Heavy Inf.
Artillery: All units produced from the siegeworks and gunsmith line of buildings.

(Commentary:)Rule 4.4 is lifted from the KOTR rules. I am open to changes, particularly on the number of Generals in a stack, or even abolishing it altogether.

5. Civil War

*5.1 – Declaration of War: A nobleman must make a Declaration of War towards a specific nobleman in a public thread before they can attack any of that nobleman’s armies or settlements. A Declaration of War applies to all noblemen of lower rank in the vassal chains of both the nobleman who makes the Declaration and the nobleman who is the target of the Declaration, including vassals who swear an Oath of Fealty after the Declaration of War has been made. A Declaration of War does not apply to any noblemen in the vassal chain who are above the declarer or the target. Neither the nobleman who made the Declaration of War, nor anyone below him in his vassal chain, can attack the target of that Declaration, or anyone below the target in his vassal chain, on the same turn that the Declaration of War was made. This rule does not limit movement in any way, nor does it prevent the target(s) of the Declaration of War from attacking the declarer(s).

(Commentary:)The restriction on when the declarer(s) may attack is designed to prevent complete surprise attacks. Since Civil Wars can start at any time, we risk having avatars be ambushed by full stack armies while riding alone. While this is realistic, it is also unfair and could ruin the game for some people. We need to balance the realism of PvP with the fact that this is just a game and we don’t want to create bad blood between the players. Dread should remain in the realm of IC actions, Chivalry should rule OOC actions. A one turn delay should be enough to allow anyone to get to an army, find allies, or surrender before their avatar dies.

*5.2 – Civil War through Oath Breaking: If a Vassal breaks an Oath of Fealty, anyone above him in the feudal chain may choose to instantly enter a state of Civil War. For the purposes Rule 5.1, the nobleman who broke the Oath of Fealty will be considered the person who issued the Declaration of War, and the nobleman who chooses to enter the state of Civil War will be treated as the target of the Declaration of War. If a Civil War begins in this manner, any nobleman who would lose the right to own a Private Army as the result of the breaking of the Oath of Fealty will be allowed to retain ownership of his Private Army until the Civil War ends.

(Commentary:)The Civil War as a result of Oath breaking clause is designed for three purposes. First, it makes Oath breaking (and thus Oath swearing) a more serious thing. You’re going to think real hard about your actions if they might result in a war that you will lose. Second, it prevents noblemen from ‘poaching’ the provinces of others. Without this clause, it would be easy for a nobleman to join a House, get a province, and then break his Oath, taking his old House’s hard earned province with him. This can still happen, but this clause allows the House a chance to get their province back by force. Finally, the last line is designed to give noblemen the opportunity to fight for their survival before their power is totally stripped from them. By breaking an Oath, a nobleman can actually remove someone else’s ability to own a Private Army. This would seriously diminish their power. The last line gives a “use it or lose it” option for the person who is about to lose a Private Army. It does not apply to Royal Armies, because only Grand Dukes can ‘lose’ those and even then they’re just demoted back to a Private Army, not losing their army altogether.

*5.3 – Ending a Civil War: A Civil War will end when all noblemen on one side are dead or all living noblemen on both sides publicly agree to a Peace Treaty. So long as it is limited to changes to the provinces, settlements, armies, Oaths of Loyalty, and retinue of the noblemen signing the Peace Treaty, it will be considered binding law. All terms of a Peace Treaty that go beyond these limits, particularly those that increase a nobleman’s influence or powers beyond those allowed by the rules, will only be binding if adopted by a two-thirds majority of the GOVERNING BODY at the next normal session. Individual noblemen may unilaterally remove themselves from a Civil War within one turn of the Declaration of War that brought them into it by breaking all Oaths of Loyalty that tie them to any nobleman involved in the War and by publicly declaring Neutrality. Neutrality cannot be claimed by a declarer, a target, or any nobleman who has been involved in a PvP Battle during that specific Civil War.

(Commentary:)Essentially, the people in the Civil War should be able to figure out the repercussions of it themselves. I imagine this will usually take the form of surrendering lands, disbanding Private Armies, becoming the vassal of the victor, giving up valuable retinue, losing their Barracks, etc. In order to ensure that this is not exploited as a method to circumvent legislation, the ‘binding’ terms of the Peace Treaty are limited to things that transfer spoils to the victor and penalize the vanquished. Everything else becomes a pseudo-Amendment, which is then considered at the next GOVERNING BODY session. In addition, the Neutrality section is designed to let players get out of a Civil War if they were dragged into it simply because they were a vassal of one of the warring parties.

5.4 – PvP Battles: Whenever two hostile armies enter adjacent squares, a PvP Battle will occur, even if the armies have movement points remaining. If both players agree, the battle will be fought via multiplayer, with econ21, TinCow, or anyone they choose acting as umpire. The umpire will determine the map and the precise composition of the armies. If the battle is not fought via multiplayer, there will be a 24 hour voting period to determine how the battle will be fought. The voting options will be (a) Tabletop Battle (b) Abbreviated Tabletop Battle and (c) AI Battle. All players may vote, even those not involved in the battle, all votes will be unweighted, and the option that receives the most votes will be chosen. Tabletop Battles will be in the style of the Battle of Bern and the Battle of Trent and will be umpired by econ21, GeneralHankerchief, or anyone they choose. Abbreviated Tabletop Battles will be identical to a Tabletop Battle, but will be 1 turn in length. Players will determine their starting positions and outline a general strategy for the battle. The umpire will then play out the battle and determine the victor. The umpire may allow a maximum of 1 or 2 additional turns beyond the starting turn if they so choose. The Abbreviated Tabletop Battle will be run by econ21, GeneralHankerchief, or anyone they choose. AI Battles will be custom battles in the TW engine in which the AI will control all units on both sides. AI battles will be umpired by econ21, TinCow, or anyone they choose. The umpire will determine all settings to be used in the battle, including the map and the precise composition of the armies. Regardless of the type of battle chosen, the umpire must attempt to have the battle replicate the in-game state of affairs to the best of his ability. Regardless of the type of battle chosen, the umpire will determine the results, including, but not limited to, units to be disbanded as casualties, avatars to be killed off as casualties, and changes in the control of provinces. Console commands may be used to implement the results.

(Commentary:)The “even if the armies have movement points remaining” gives a way for players to intercept one another. If you want to chase down an enemy who is fleeing, grab the save before he does. If you expect to be attacked, you could grab the save first and either move yourself out of range of the enemy or to a safer place, such as a settlement or bridge.

The ‘voting options’ section is designed to keep the game moving quickly. Since we will be allowing PvP combat at all times, and the ‘tabletop’ battles can take a week or more to play out (not to mention the effort required to create the map drawings themselves), the game runs a major risk of slowing to a crawl due to PvP battles. Thus, we want to make sure that only battles that the players in general feel are ‘important’ get the full tabletop treatment. If a PvP battle would be an annoyance to the majority of players, it can be resolved more quickly with an Abbreviated Tabletop Battle or an AI Battle. I very much believe that this kind of mechanism is necessary to keep PvP from bogging the game down.

(Closing Thoughts on Thread Management:)KOTR spawned a ridiculous number of threads. This made it hard for new players to locate some of the information they needed. I think in the future we should do our best to consolidate as much information as possible into a single Rules and FAQ thread. Instead of posting the rules at the first post of each OOC thread, we can do it once in a sticky thread and update it as needed. Perhaps that can be the intro to the Library thread. We can store all the useful ‘stat’ info there as well, such as the first post from the Chancellor’s thread which lists the active, inactive, and dead players. All that information is accessed frequently, especially by newbies, and it should be consolidated in one spot for ease of use.

I personally expressed a few peccadilloes about how the OOC threads were used earlier in the game. However, it seems clear to me now that people really do need a ‘chatroom’ to post in. The length and depth of these games naturally creates friendships between players and that should be encouraged. There isn’t really any other place at the Org where the players can post in that manner, so it has to be in the Throne Room. If all the rules and mechanics are removed from the OOC thread and put in a stickied thread, and all specific game-related announcements (i.e. Chancellor’s posts about battles pending) are also in a different thread, the OOC thread can exist on its own without needing to be a point of reference for anything. I would even go so far as to say to stop locking it and starting new threads after 500 posts unless the size somehow causes problems for the host server. If we can have a single massive thread to sink all OOC talk into, then perhaps the Throne Room would be a bit less cluttered and more organized. Furthermore, if no important information about the game is ever posted in the OOC thread, players won’t have to wade through mountains of posts to find something they need. They can stick to the much shorter information threads and avoid the chatter if they don’t have time for it.

I imagine having threads as follows:
Information Thread (Rules, List of Players, Library Info)
IC Diet Thread
OOC Thread
Personal Orders Thread (see Rule 1.4 commentary)
Chancellor’s Report/Game Management Thread
House Threads (managed by the players themselves)



I would like to request that the following be major areas for discussion of the draft rules:

1) What mod(s) should we use and what faction should we play?
2) Are the ranks balanced well? Too many? Too few? Do powers/penalties need to be altered, added, or deleted?
3) Are there better ways to handle PvP than what is suggested in Rule 5.4?
4) Does the added control over military units (see commentary under Rule 1.4) make sense? Will it work as intended? Will it slow the game down too much?
5) Are there any loopholes that need to be closed or important OOC mechanics that have not been covered?

Even if we accept the draft rules, all of these things need to be examined in detail to make sure they’re as good as they can be before we start the next game. A couple weeks of discussion now could save months of headaches down the road.

[GeneralHankerchief]

I'll post my general thoughts on KotR in a bit, since most of my suggestions to TinCow have already been discussed in private. For now, I want to say something about PvP.

I agreed to umpire the battle partially to see the Illuminati’s master plan go to fruition (econ’s post about just perhaps ending KotR in an essential freeze-frame absolutely terrified me) but also because I wanted to try my hand at PvPing, and I wanted to give the game as great of a send-off as it deserved.

I consciously tried to make everything as fair and realistic as possible. The Imperialists still did have outs: I believe that if they got their act together, organization-wise (in which they lagged far behind the Republicans), they had a chance. This never happened. Their best chance was early on, when they had the clear advantage in terms of quality of the Advance Guard. They lost it though when they didn’t move in Turn 1, giving the initiative to the Republicans. I pretty much knew then and there that the battle would go as the Illuminati had planned it. There was a subtle hint about Max Zirn in one of Ruppel’s feedback PMs and a more blatant one in the initial feedback PM to Péter (something along the lines of “you could be walking into a giant Illuminati trap”). If gibson or FH had picked it up, I don’t know what I would have done, but maybe I would have removed Northnovas and/or Ramses out of the picture had they responded correctly.

The battle, especially the later turns when combat was involved, took several hours for me per turn to simulate. I had to seriously screw with the files of the game, something I am always hesitant of doing, specifically to make this battle fair when simulating both sides. It ate up most if not all of my time for two weeks, and while it was worth it, it’s not an experience I want to repeat for a while. I know that econ21 expressed the same sentiment at the end of Will of the Senate when he had just finished umpiring the massive Battle for Rome PvP.

In the new PBM, I have already given my suggestions to TinCow on how to make it easier for the umpires. Even if the new system is adapted, I’m still not going to be your go-to guy for umpiring these things; hopefully I’ll share duties with econ21 when he comes back and/or someone else if they want to try their hand at it.

There might come the time, during your particular conflict, when there is no umpire available to do the battle, whether it be because the umpires are away, inactive, or simply fatigued. Be prepared to fight an MP battle if necessary, guys. Because these things, while clearly the best ways to resolve battles, take a lot of time to do properly.

[Zim]

I can't imagine how much time a huge battle like that took, GH. If the powers that be are ok with it I'd be happy to help out by umpiring some of the battles. I already play around with custom battles a lot to test things. I would need some advice on which files to change to simulate weakened units (halving the unit size for a unit of DFKs, for example) and such, but I believe I could handle it. :bow:

[Ferret]

firstly, wow. These rules look great, so good in fact that atm I cannot find anything that I would like changed.

As for mods and factions I have three propositions:
Broken Crescent:ERE
SS 6.0 when it comes out
Roma Surrectum:Greek Cities.

We should have another poll once everyone has made their suggestions.

[Ramses II CP]

I like the rules. Are we going to run a test game after some initial hashing out?

Okay, my first comment is regarding army composition rules: I hate them. Passionately. During my term as Chancellor I didn't specifically violate any of them, but I did essentially ignore them for recruiting purposes. In Vanilla you'll tend towards all cavalry armies because they work, the game is just broken in that way. I have not found that to be the case in Broken Crescent, and if we use that mod I would prefer there to be no army composition rules or at least rules that are easier for the Chancellor to observe. Even as the Rajputs I only once built an army entirely of elephants, to face the Mongols. Perhaps I could suggest simpler hard limits on numbers but not relative numbers (i.e. Taking 5 elephants into battle is not allowed even in a full stack, but 4 by themselves are fine even without a supporting cast).

I know it doesn't make as much sense, but this system is going to work best with a lot of players. If the Chancellor has to systematically check through each of those player's forces, especially given that they can build their own armies in many cases, it will bog him down significantly.

Next comment: Ship recruitment doesn't seem to be specifically covered in the rules (If it is and I missed it pardon me). I'd like to see recruitment of ships tied into the Feudal system, such that no one below a certain rank (Duke? Lower? It may depend on faction) can recruit a ship, even if their settlement has the technical ability. This will allow us to assign the Faction Leader/Prince another power initially, and give more incentive to moving up the chain, while also emphasizing the possible differences between Dukes with coastal provinces and those without, etc. 'Purchasing' a fleet from a rival faction adds another layer of IC discussion.

I like the rank system. My one question is, how will ranks (Specifically Baronets vs Knights) be assigned initially? Turn 1 will see some people in more powerful positions than others, and the rest of the additions (Via recruitables) may start as Knights. Will it be random at first, or could we (Perhaps) randomly assign the Faction Leader and Heir and then let them start the rivalries off by selecting people to take the initial avatars. That might threaten to drag a bit much OOC into the IC start I suppose. :laugh4:

The PvP system is excellent IMHO.

Added control over military units is a necessary evil. It may result in longer turn times, only a test will tell for sure.

The only significant loopholes I see are regarding agents (Spies, Assassins, Diplomats). Will only the Chancellor control them, or will we allow a certain rank in the feudal system to start recruiting and ordering agents?

I'm all kinds of jazzed up and ready for this now! :2thumbsup:

:egypt:

[Privateerkev]

I would like to request that the following be major areas for discussion of the draft rules:

1) What mod(s) should we use and what faction should we play?
2) Are the ranks balanced well? Too many? Too few? Do powers/penalties need to be altered, added, or deleted?
3) Are there better ways to handle PvP than what is suggested in Rule 5.4?
4) Does the added control over military units (see commentary under Rule 1.4) make sense? Will it work as intended? Will it slow the game down too much?
5) Are there any loopholes that need to be closed or important OOC mechanics that have not been covered?

Even if we accept the draft rules, all of these things need to be examined in detail to make sure they’re as good as they can be before we start the next game. A couple weeks of discussion now could save months of headaches down the road.

1.) Title mods like BBB would work well for this. As for faction, I am confident we can adapt to any faction and read a few books on it.

2.) I like the ranks. Here is a question.

If I am a knight, and I conquer a province, it is mine?
If I am a knight, but beholden to TC, who is my Baronet, and I conquer a province, it is his? And then he can give it to me?
And if TC gives me the province, that would boost me up to Baronet? And him automatically to Baron?

Very interesting. So, 6 people with land can agree to push one of their members up to Grand Duke? Simply by agreeing who to push up the ladder?

Would it help if some of the requirements required 2 vassels instead of 1? That way it would limit the number of people in the upper rank. Otherwise, you might just see "clubs of 6" form and push their people up the ladder. Just a thought.

3.) PvP is good as is as long as we keep finding people willing to donate so much time to running them.

4.) It has the potential to slow things down. The more people that have to download/upload the save, the more chances for problems. I remember quite a few times sitting in the OOC thread waiting for a save to come back. A time limit is a possibility, but with battles sometimes you need a lot of time.

But, army ownership is fun and I see having people feel invested in something as a good thing.

5.) I guarantee that we will find loopholes that you could drive a bus through. No rules are perfect and we'll just have to roll with it. I'll try to let you know of any loopholes I think up. :D

I am a little worried that the game will require an exponentially increasing amount of people. Almost everyone playing will want to go up the ladder. That will require an influx of new people. Then those will want up the ladder. All of this will require more land to be taken. Once all of the interested people in the forum join, that is where the real jockeying for power will begin. Because those at the top will be scrambling to get players under them and out from under their opponents. Plus, if people start dropping out, I see it dragging the whole ladder down with them. Those at the top will see people drop out from under them and that will lower their own rank.

Just my thoughts on the matter. I like the rules overall but it's my habit to see how far the rules can be pushed and I see some real logistical limits to what were doing.

[Ferret]

that is a good point, if a group of 6 forms and pushes on eup to Grand Duke the lowly Baronet could drop out and everyone would be demoted. Is it historically accurate for a Grand Duke to lose his Grand if a Baronet leaves him? I suupose that still could work and they'd just have to find a new baronet. but I agree it should be harder to get to the top rank.

[Privateerkev]

that is a good point, if a group of 6 forms and pushes on eup to Grand Duke the lowly Baronet could drop out and everyone would be demoted. Is it historically accurate for a Grand Duke to lose his Grand if a Baronet leaves him? I suupose that still could work and they'd just have to find a new baronet. but I agree it should be harder to get to the top rank.

Or maybe what I'm worried about will just be solved by player's quest for moderation. I can see the ranks wildly swinging up and down in the beginning and when there is an influx or drop of players. But on further thought, what will probably be sought out by players is not "players" but "stable and reliable players". Sure, you can get a few newbies to join and move you up a couple ranks but they might leave in a week. What will get fought over is the small pool of regulars. This will probably cause the ladders to become more stable as a few factions develop and solidify their holdings.

[gibsonsg91921]

I'm gonna need to change my pants.

[Ramses II CP]

Mmm, PK peripherally raises a good point (In addition to the ones he went at directly, of course). We need some kind of inactivity limitation rules to prevent people from collecting Baronets who are only in the game as a technicality and not really participating. von Essen, von Hapsburg, et al from the end of KotR for example.

Say, if a player under an oath of fealty doesn't declare themselves inactive they are required to demonstrate a minimum amount of participation in order to hold on to their position. For that minimum... voting in each Governing Body session? That'd leave ten turns at most for an inactive baronet to support someone.

:egypt:

[TinCow]

Okay, my first comment is regarding army composition rules: I hate them. Passionately.

As I noted, I am fine with getting rid of them altogether. I agree that they probably cause more problems than benefits. If the majority agree, I'll happily cut all of Rule 4.4.


Next comment: Ship recruitment doesn't seem to be specifically covered in the rules (If it is and I missed it pardon me). I'd like to see recruitment of ships tied into the Feudal system, such that no one below a certain rank (Duke? Lower? It may depend on faction) can recruit a ship, even if their settlement has the technical ability.

Do you want to take ship recruitment away from the Chancellor? As it stands now, no one controls recruitment of any kind other than the Chancellor. Under 1.5, they can seize control of units the Chancellor recruits, but since the Chancellor holds the purse strings, the actual recruitment decisions are entirely up to him.


I like the rank system. My one question is, how will ranks (Specifically Baronets vs Knights) be assigned initially?

Rule 2.2 handles this. Everyone starts as a Knight, but then the starting settlements are handed out by econ21 (or someone else, if econ21 isn't around). That will instantly promote everyone who receives a settlement to Baronet. If Oaths of Fealty are immediately sworn, higher ranks could theoretically be achieved on turn 1, but I doubt we'd see anything higher than Baron.


The only significant loopholes I see are regarding agents (Spies, Assassins, Diplomats). Will only the Chancellor control them, or will we allow a certain rank in the feudal system to start recruiting and ordering agents?

As it stands now, Agents would be 100% controlled by the Chancellor. I remember someone (GH?) proposing that a new 'Power' could be control over agents of various kinds, but that must've gotten lost in the shuffle. That's definitely something that could be added, though.


If I am a knight, and I conquer a province, it is mine?

Only if you are not a vassal to someone else and were in command of the army. Every rank above Knight has the "All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property..." power, so a Knight who has a Lord will be subject to this rule. If the Knight is solo, he can definitely get his own province, but he would need an army in order to do it. Given his penalties, that is likely to be difficult. He probably won't get control of a Private or Royal Army without swearing fealty to someone, so he'd be limited to a half stack army. Getting even a half stack would be difficult unless the Chancellor gave it to you, because you have no ability to 'seize' units since you don't have a province to seize them from.


If I am a knight, but beholden to TC, who is my Baronet, and I conquer a province, it is his? And then he can give it to me?
And if TC gives me the province, that would boost me up to Baronet? And him automatically to Baron?

Exactly correct. Top Dog in the House gets all the provinces and then redistributes them however he wants.


Very interesting. So, 6 people with land can agree to push one of their members up to Grand Duke? Simply by agreeing who to push up the ladder?

Technically 7. 6 would be limited to Baronet, Baron, Viscount, Count, Marquess, and Duke. You would need a 7th to fill the Grand Duke slot.


Would it help if some of the requirements required 2 vassels instead of 1? That way it would limit the number of people in the upper rank. Otherwise, you might just see "clubs of 6" form and push their people up the ladder. Just a thought.

In my original structure, I had the Grand Duke requiring 2 Dukes, but the ranks of Baronet and Viscount were absent. So, a Grand Duke required 9 people (2 Barons, 2 Counts, 2 Marquesses, 2 Dukes, 1 Grand Duke). When I thought about it, I concluded that this was too many. 9 people is a really, really high number and I doubt we'd ever see that many people in an alliance. However, under that system dropping the GD requirement to 1 Duke resulted in a GD for a group of 5 people. This was way too easy, since a 5 person alliance is very doable and the GD is designed to rival the Faction Leader for power. So, I switched it to a 1 Duke requirement, but added in the Baronet and Viscount to hit a happy-medium requirement of 7 people for a GD.

That doesn't mean this is well-balanced, though. This is exactly the kind of stuff we need to be talking about.


3.) PvP is good as is as long as we keep finding people willing to donate so much time to running them.

I'm hoping people will come up with better systems for resolving these battles. Perhaps even using other computer games or web-based systems. At worst, we could just use the AI battles, which shouldn't take too much time. That would essentially be an Autoresolve.


I am a little worried that the game will require an exponentially increasing amount of people. Almost everyone playing will want to go up the ladder. That will require an influx of new people. Then those will want up the ladder. All of this will require more land to be taken. Once all of the interested people in the forum join, that is where the real jockeying for power will begin. Because those at the top will be scrambling to get players under them and out from under their opponents. Plus, if people start dropping out, I see it dragging the whole ladder down with them. Those at the top will see people drop out from under them and that will lower their own rank.

Yep, this is a concern and one that should be discussed. Fewer ranks could help this, but I think we would need to re-balance the powers if we cut some ranks. At the same time, I don't intended for every rank to be filled at all times. I personally think Grand Dukes should be very rare and hard to achieve. I wouldn't be surprised if it took 3-4 Chancellorships for the first GD to appear.

Also, it is my intention to advertise heavily for this game. I want to try and recruit a large body of people from all over the Org, and other forums as well. The system should make it pretty easy for people to join in at any time as well, so I'm hoping we'll get upwards of 20 players at the start, maybe even up to 30 at some times. Ambitious, perhaps, but I think it's achievable.

[TinCow]

Mmm, PK peripherally raises a good point (In addition to the ones he went at directly, of course). We need some kind of inactivity limitation rules to prevent people from collecting Baronets who are only in the game as a technicality and not really participating. von Essen, von Hapsburg, et al from the end of KotR for example.

Say, if a player under an oath of fealty doesn't declare themselves inactive they are required to demonstrate a minimum amount of participation in order to hold on to their position. For that minimum... voting in each Governing Body session? That'd leave ten turns at most for an inactive baronet to support someone.

That's a very good point. That should definitely be done and I'll draw up some text for it. Also, one way of handling this is simply to have someone declare war on the inactive Baronet and squash him flat, taking his province. :2thumbsup:

[Privateerkev]

Ironically, this structure will make characters like Becker to be "highly" sought after. Who wouldn't want a vassel who is perfectly happy to just run his county? Where Becker was not taken very seriously IC in KotR I see characters like him being considered "gold" by those who want to climb the ladder.

[TinCow]

And remember too that even a Grand Duke can be brought low by a Baronet. High ranks will have to keep the low ranks happy, or they won't be high ranked for very long.

[Ramses II CP]

My comments about ships weren't clear (Those rules had stunned me or something); I meant to address more generally control of ships. If you are a Baronet and your province can recruit ships, can you sieze them immediately after recruitment for you own purposes like you can an army in your territory?

The last part of my comments were to suggest that I'd like the ability to take fleets to be restricted to higher ranks and the King/Prince. That way we won't have Baron von Wanderoff sailing to Arguin and setting up his own private fief as soon as the Chancellor sees a need for a ship. Alternately, we could very well have the King/Prince or eventually Duke diverting reinforcements meant for a distant province via ship.

Regarding Agents, I would very much like for nobles to be able to recruit agents (Perhaps not diplomats, seems rather pointless) to their service, capped by rank but not, I repeat, not subject to Feudal control. You don't turn over your spy to your Baron when you swear over. I think there are a lot of story possibilities around a particular noble who has a good spy network, even if he doesn't have a strong province or army.

:egypt:

[TinCow]

That's a good point about the ships. I actually kind of like the idea of a splinter group of players taking control of a completely different area of the map, cut off from everyone else. It shouldn't be easy, though. At what rank would you suggest making that possible? Duke?

Also, I dug through my PMs and found the Agent discussion with GH. Here are the relevant parts:


Powers: I think that powers of warfare, both "civil" and against the AI, should be more addressed. Viscounts and above own their own armies; they should have other people working for them as well. Thus, I propose the following for Viscounts and above:

(x) RANK may train [EITHER ONE OR UP TO TWO, DEPENDING ON RANK] non-priest agent[s] per full 10-turn CHANCELLOR term. These agents are under RANK's direct control unless RANK is loyal to a higher rank.

Agent warfare has definitely been a big part of the Hotseat campaigns and shown itself a little bit in the Swabian Civil War. I think it needs to be represented here.

Of course, it's an issue to be worked out how civil-war agent warfare will be managed, but I suppose we could play to percentages based on the agent's skill and the target's rank/influence/army size, etc.


The agent idea is interesting, but I'd be concerned it would bring more problems than entertainment. Merchants are useless for individual Houses, since they only provide money. That would be fine if we could keep track of individual House finances, but as we saw with the old HRE Test, that's almost impossible to do. Similarly, Diplomats won't do a whole hell of a lot. Priests are nice for roleplaying, but don't bring anything major to a House except for rare circumstances where they need their provinces converted quickly. That leaves spies and assassins. While these are good agents to use, the question remains how to use them in Civil War settings. I really don't want to see players assassinating each other on a roll of the die, because that's no fun. Spies opening gates is possible, I guess, but also a potential balance problem. Perhaps the agent 'power' could be limited exclusively to Spies and Assassins, and they could be banned from use in a Civil War. Essentially, high ranks get one Spy and one Assassin each to use as they wish against the AI, but not against other players.

[gibsonsg91921]

If we're planning on 20-30 people, we may want to think about how big of a mod we'd be downloading. The smaller the mod, the more likely I can do it. I'm sure my parents would leap at the chance to get my out of this game. If that means sacrificing myself for the greater good, so be it. I did ejaculate when I read the rules, however. (Not really, proverbially)

[Zim]

There's one thing I've been wondering about, although it may just be that I've missed something. How do units not from private/royal armies figure into Civil Wars? If the Chancellor favors one side, can he give extra units to their knights? Or can he recruit extra units for the private armies of one side, while only doing the minimum he is required to (not disbanding units, retraining) for the other?

[TinCow]

There's one thing I've been wondering about, although it may just be that I've missed something. How do units not from private/royal armies figure into Civil Wars? If the Chancellor favors one side, can he give extra units to their knights? Or can he recruit extra units for the private armies of one side, while only doing the minimum he is required to (not disbanding units, retraining) for the other?

Under the current rules, the Chancellor can disband units that are outside a garrison, fort, or Private/Royal Army. So, if the Chancellor is actively hostile to you and you are in a Civil War, any units you have outside of these groupings will be vulnerable to his manipulations. Even if you do keep your units from being disbanded, the Chancellor can simply refuse to give you further recruitment, while giving your enemy lots of recruitment.

As you can see, Civil Wars can be very tricky for people on the Chancellor's bad side. However, it can be done in a few ways. First, if you stockpile enough of a military beforehand, you could win before attrition takes its toll. A House with 3 decent sized Private Armies could probably beat a house with 1 Private Army, even if the Chancellor was hostile to them. Similarly, if two Houses attacked a third together, they could overwhelm a House that the Chancellor favored.

What it breaks down to in the current system is that having the Chancellor on your side is a major bonus, and having him against you is a major problem. If you're planning on attacking someone else and you do not have a significant advantage in strength, it would be best to get someone friendly in office first.

Then again, if the Chancellor is that much of a problem and you can't avoid a Civil War, you could always just kill the Chancellor and trigger a new election... :laugh4:

[Cecil XIX]

Commentary as I read-

1.1 - In terms of Mods I was keen originally keenon Europa Barbarorum or Deus lo Vult, but seeing as how most people prefer MII and Stainless Steel incorporates many similar improvements to Deus lo Vult, I think Stainless Steel would be our best bet. No matter how good Broken Crescent is, it just feel wrong to play MII:TW without England, France, the HRE and Spain.

1.3,1.4 - 1.3 is definitely the correct choice, and I am just in love with 1.4. I could not imagie that aspect being dealt with in a better way than what Tincow describes in his commentary. Certainly every Avatar should be given at least enough rope to hang themselves with.

1.5 - I like the idea in general, and I'm glad that there's a way to counter it should we so desire. However, one thing that I did not like about post-cataclysm KOTR was the detachment between the military forces of our enemies and the reality of thier military situation. It would be one thing to consolidate and move AI units that alreay exist, but to go back to adding multiple full stacks of heavily upgrading troops at regular intervals would be to repeat KOTR's worst mistake.

2 - I see no problems with how these rules are written, and I am greatly looking forward them. However, I do have a few questions and suggstions. I believe that Faction Heirs should get royal armies. It seems impossible for the heir to the throne to *not* be royal. I would like the power "Owns one ____ Army, above and beyond any Private Armies owned by their vassals." to be clarified, specifically the meaning of the "above and beyond" portion. Finally, it seems a little odd that the title of 'Grand Duke will most likely be achieved a fuedal pole rather than feudal tree.

3,4,5 - Everything looks good here.

I agree with Ramses thoughts about ships. In my opinion navies in the rules should function similar to armies, except maybe requiring a higher rank.

[Ignoramus]

I would like to request that the following be major areas for discussion of the draft rules:

1) What mod(s) should we use and what faction should we play?
2) Are the ranks balanced well? Too many? Too few? Do powers/penalties need to be altered, added, or deleted?
3) Are there better ways to handle PvP than what is suggested in Rule 5.4?
4) Does the added control over military units (see commentary under Rule 1.4) make sense? Will it work as intended? Will it slow the game down too much?
5) Are there any loopholes that need to be closed or important OOC mechanics that have not been covered?

Even if we accept the draft rules, all of these things need to be examined in detail to make sure they’re as good as they can be before we start the next game. A couple weeks of discussion now could save months of headaches down the road.

1.) I haven't tried SS, but if it's a better version of vanilla MTWII, then I'm all for it.

I definitely think we should play as France. Firstly, apart from the HRE, France was the most splintered kingdom until the late Middle Ages, making it perfect for feudal chains to form. Secondly, unlike England, it isn't on an island, which would reduce the effectiveness of the AI even further still.


I think the rest of the rules are essentially fine.

Just one question. How will the initial settlements and avatar be distributed out? What criteria will decide who gets what?

[gibsonsg91921]

1. If I had my vote, we wouldn't use a mod. I've never used one so I don't know what all the hubbub is, but it just causes extra pains for me. Greater good prevails though - maybe an imitator game like Frozen Crusade could revive or another one could spring up if you decide to use a mod and I can't join up.

2. I love the ranks. Keep them exactly how they are.

3. Abbreviated PvP is gold.

4. I like it, I love it.

5. I haven't caught anything, but I'm no lawyer.

[Ignoramus]

The only problem I can see with the rules is that the Faction Leader can't have vassals. This means that the Faction Leader will have to maintain his authority with one royal army. Not easy.

[Privateerkev]

Just one question. How will the initial settlements and avatar be distributed out? What criteria will decide who gets what?

I think the people who ask, should be the last to get them. :clown:

And the people who quote those people to make a snarky comment, should be the second last. Oops... :embarassed:


But in more seriousness, I have an idea for another power. What about guilds? Is that something we want to decide with edicts? Or can a certain rank decide what guilds get accepted in his area. A certain rank already has the power to destroy a building. I am assuming this includes guild buildings. It would make sense for a certain rank (maybe Duke or Marquis) to tell the Chancellor "accept Merchant guild for this town and no Assassin Guilds in any of my lands."

[Cecil XIX]

The only problem I can see with the rules is that the Faction Leader can't have vassals. This means that the Faction Leader will have to maintain his authority with one royal army. Not easy.

I agree. Historically speaking, I believe the major difference between a King and other lords was of quantity, not quality. I imagine Tincow was worried about giving the FL too much power, but I'm still curious as to why the rules expressly forbid nobles from swearing fealty to the King. Since the King is at the top of the chain, every lord who has not sworn the oath of fealty to another lord serves the King by default, otherwise he wouldn't be in the faction.

This reminds me, what are the rules for deciding the rules? :smash:

[TinCow]

My thought on the FL were that technically everyone was supposed to be loyal to him, so what's the point of having people who are vassals and those who aren't? Is it really possible to have someone who isn't a vassal in a monarchy?

In any case, with the current system there's no benefit to swearing fealty to a FL anyway. The FL is chosen by the computer, so there's no way we can make a vassalage requirement for it. Technically a lowly Knight could become FL, whether we like it or not. The FL already has a ton of power, since he's the only person who starts the game with the ability to have an army. Plus, he can exercise vetos, ban people from the Diet, gets far more votes than most people, and he gets a free Chancellorship which he can use to boost his own military strength greatly. Does he really need more?

I'll respond to the questions I've skipped and start working on some edits tomorrow. Keep the questions/comments coming.

[FactionHeir]

1. What is the incentive behind swearing fealty? It seems like everything to do after swearing makes your assets go to your lord.

2. If you break fealty, do you keep all settlements your lord assigned to you? Or all settlements you had originally captured? Nothing?

3. I think knights should not even have a vote, not be allowed to propose legislation, and only be able to lead quarter stacks to reflect that they are not really nobility or at the very best, landless nobles.

3a. As a result, those priviledges ought to be divided more smoothly over the next few ranks so that swearing fealty actually means something. Say Baronet can vote and propose edicts, but amendments cannot be proposed until there is a viscount (this should also let us play with original rules for longer at the start). Barons should also only be able to lead a 3/4 stack, so until you get your own private army, you cannot have an army that is larger than that of a higher noble for instance.

3b. Alternatively, we could have an upper and a lower house. The upper can vote on amendments as well while the lower cannot vote on amendments.

4. I think a rule is necessary regarding chancellors cancelling construction. Say a building is almost done and the new chancellor hates that other house. He could just remove this 6 turn building from the queue, but that wouldn't be exactly nice (and probably should thus be legislated against) as it was paid for during the previous term already. Similarly, if that was a human error and turn ended, the building's actual turns should be kept track of and constructed via console afterwards (minus the funds that were returned via cancellation)

5. Will there be any positive events rather than negative ones only?

6. Are nobles that swore fealty bound to cast their vote as their lord commands or can they vote their own way during session?

7. How are adoptions handled?

8. How are guilds handled?

9. 3.2 and 3.4 need to be amended to reflect those ranks that can propose without secondment.

10. May I suggest that at least 6 command points are needed for +1 stat influence? and 21+ totals are needed for +1 stat influence?

11. I would like to suggest an army composition that does not have overlaps. This means knights are knights, cavalry are cavalry and heavy infantry are heavy infantry. So if you have a GB, it won't count as cav + knight for instance. This way we can lower the cap on knights and specify what is a knight and what isn't. This is especially true for late game where some units are counted as professionals rather than knights (i.e. gendarmes, lancers, armored swordsmen)

12. What happens if a civil war is declared on someone who is absent from the game?

13. Regarding mods, I am obviously partial to my own mods. But would agree to another mod if it does not require kingdoms.

[Ramses II CP]

I think the incentive to swear fealty has to be provided by the person to whom you're swearing your oath. If the mechanics of the game made it too beneficial to become a vassal the accumulation of power would be easy.

:egypt:

[BananaBob]

Although I did not participate in KotR I think the LTC would fit perfectly into something like this. One year per turn, vastly improved AI and unit re-balancing. You have to build a nation from the ground up etc etc, and you dont need kingdoms.

I cant wait to join in the next PBM:yes:

[deguerra]

Welcome BananaBob.

I should point out, however, that Gold Lands to Conquer also requires the Kingdoms expansion, as it adds many of the Kingdoms additions to the vanilla M2TW campaign.

Overall, I don't want to be the arrogant smartarse, but I really do think Kingdoms has quite a bit to offer in terms of making any M2Tw campaign better, and I must restate that I am all for using it.

[Zim]

Kingdoms definately adds a lot of things for mods, and the most recent versions of most mods require it. I am a bit worried about using it given Tincow's desire to get a lot of people in the new game. Also, Im' not sure it would be a KOTR game without FactionHeir. :yes:

Did the first game, the WOTS, use a mod based on RTW vanilla or BI?


Welcome BananaBob.

I should point out, however, that Gold Lands to Conquer also requires the Kingdoms expansion, as it adds many of the Kingdoms additions to the vanilla M2TW campaign.

Overall, I don't want to be the arrogant smartarse, but I really do think Kingdoms has quite a bit to offer in terms of making any M2Tw campaign better, and I must restate that I am all for using it.

[_Tristan_]

TC, great job on the the rules...

One observation though : about rule 1.4, won't the 24 Hour window be too short if we gather 30+ players to allow everyone to claim the save, play its turn and upload it ?

I personally think rule 4.4 should allow bigger contingent of mercenaries wihtout being ahistorical... Think of France and the Routiers in the 13th century which the French King so expediently sent to Spain, although led by some "French" nobles almost all the men were soldiers of fortune...

[TinCow]

Ok, here are my answers to a lot of questions. Possible changes will follow later.


1.5 - I like the idea in general, and I'm glad that there's a way to counter it should we so desire. However, one thing that I did not like about post-cataclysm KOTR was the detachment between the military forces of our enemies and the reality of thier military situation. It would be one thing to consolidate and move AI units that alreay exist, but to go back to adding multiple full stacks of heavily upgrading troops at regular intervals would be to repeat KOTR's worst mistake.

It was not my intention to use this to beef up the AI like we did in KOTR. I was mainly thinking of using it for 'quests' where people are rewarded for doing something (or perhaps penalized for not doing something). For instance: First nobleman to build a Cathedral gets the ability to spontaneously generate Priest retinue whenever he wants. Or... An wealthy trade ship has been wrecked off the coast of XXXX. The first avatar to reach the wreck gets to buy 3 units of their choice.


I believe that Faction Heirs should get royal armies. It seems impossible for the heir to the throne to *not* be royal.

The more I think about this, the more it makes sense. Giving a FH a Royal Army from the start will make him a powerful figure. This means he will likely be towards the top of the feudal ladder, which makes sense. It will also make inheritance of the throne work better as well. I'll draw up changes that gives the FH a Royal Army, but also prevent him from getting a Private Army on top of that. If he got both, he'd be more powerful than the FL.


I would like the power "Owns one ____ Army, above and beyond any Private Armies owned by their vassals." to be clarified, specifically the meaning of the "above and beyond" portion.

I'll try and change the text to be more clear. Essentially, I just wanted to make it clear that a nobleman's Private Army isn't impacted by any other armies that are owned by anyone else. I should probably chop off the end and leave it as "Owns on ____ Army." Short and sweet.


Finally, it seems a little odd that the title of 'Grand Duke will most likely be achieved a fuedal pole rather than feudal tree.

I am open to suggestions on a different rank requirements.


Just one question. How will the initial settlements and avatar be distributed out? What criteria will decide who gets what?

That's covered under Rule 2.2. econ21 gets to do whatever he wants. That was what we did with KOTR, and if I remember correctly he assigned them to the people who had been the most active in WOTS.


But in more seriousness, I have an idea for another power. What about guilds? Is that something we want to decide with edicts? Or can a certain rank decide what guilds get accepted in his area. A certain rank already has the power to destroy a building. I am assuming this includes guild buildings. It would make sense for a certain rank (maybe Duke or Marquis) to tell the Chancellor "accept Merchant guild for this town and no Assassin Guilds in any of my lands."

I left Guilds out because I thought that should be handled IC. To make this really simple, I could change this power: "Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control." to "Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control. Can destroy any building in any settlement under their control at any time." That way if a guild gets built that you don't like (or anything else) you can trash it and wait for the proper one.


This reminds me, what are the rules for deciding the rules? :smash:

There aren't any, so I'm going with mob rule. :laugh4:


1. What is the incentive behind swearing fealty? It seems like everything to do after swearing makes your assets go to your lord.

Exactly. It's up to your Lord to make it worthwhile. This is one of the reasons why I don't see many people achieving the rank of GD. Keeping vassals happy will be hard.


2. If you break fealty, do you keep all settlements your lord assigned to you? Or all settlements you had originally captured? Nothing?

You keep everything under your control, assuming someone doesn't declare war on you and take them away. (See Rule 5.2 and commentary)


3. I think knights should not even have a vote, not be allowed to propose legislation, and only be able to lead quarter stacks to reflect that they are not really nobility or at the very best, landless nobles.

3a. As a result, those priviledges ought to be divided more smoothly over the next few ranks so that swearing fealty actually means something. Say Baronet can vote and propose edicts, but amendments cannot be proposed until there is a viscount (this should also let us play with original rules for longer at the start). Barons should also only be able to lead a 3/4 stack, so until you get your own private army, you cannot have an army that is larger than that of a higher noble for instance.

This is an interesting idea. I definitely felt like the 'Penalties' ended too early. How does everyone else feel about these suggested changes to Knights?


3b. Alternatively, we could have an upper and a lower house. The upper can vote on amendments as well while the lower cannot vote on amendments.

The Upper/Lower division didn't work very well in WOTS. It increases complexity and doesn't bring much to the table. Your 3a suggestions do the exact opposite.


4. I think a rule is necessary regarding chancellors cancelling construction. Say a building is almost done and the new chancellor hates that other house. He could just remove this 6 turn building from the queue, but that wouldn't be exactly nice (and probably should thus be legislated against) as it was paid for during the previous term already. Similarly, if that was a human error and turn ended, the building's actual turns should be kept track of and constructed via console afterwards (minus the funds that were returned via cancellation)

Makes sense, I will stick a "cannot cancel' rule in under the Limitation of Powers.


5. Will there be any positive events rather than negative ones only?

That's up to the people creating them. My intention was mostly 'quest' type things with rewards.


6. Are nobles that swore fealty bound to cast their vote as their lord commands or can they vote their own way during session?

That's something that should be decided IC. Under the rules, they can vote however they want. Whether they want to follow their Lord or not is up to IC considerations in my mind.


7. How are adoptions handled?

They aren't. I suggest that people simply do their best to RP any adoptions that occur.


8. How are guilds handled?

Currently they aren't. See my response to PK above for a suggestion.


9. 3.2 and 3.4 need to be amended to reflect those ranks that can propose without secondment.

Technically it doesn't. Rule 2.7 takes precedence over all other rules, which applies to the seconding. I predict that we'll be fiddling with 2.7 a lot over the course of the game, so I intentionally avoiding referencing rank powers in other rules. That way, when we want to change a rank, we only need to change that portion of Rule 2.7, instead of several parts of the Rules. We just need to remember that Rule 2.7 overrides all other rules if there is a conflict between them.


10. May I suggest that at least 6 command points are needed for +1 stat influence? and 21+ totals are needed for +1 stat influence?

Do avatars start with a free command point?


11. I would like to suggest an army composition that does not have overlaps. This means knights are knights, cavalry are cavalry and heavy infantry are heavy infantry. So if you have a GB, it won't count as cav + knight for instance. This way we can lower the cap on knights and specify what is a knight and what isn't. This is especially true for late game where some units are counted as professionals rather than knights (i.e. gendarmes, lancers, armored swordsmen)

I'm edging towards removing the army composition altogether. Maybe we should vote on that.


12. What happens if a civil war is declared on someone who is absent from the game?

Tough question. I don't know how to make a rule for that. Hopefully people will behave honorably OOC.


One observation though : about rule 1.4, won't the 24 Hour window be too short if we gather 30+ players to allow everyone to claim the save, play its turn and upload it ?

Under 1.4, the Chancellor can go beyond 24 hours if he wants to and at the start of the game we won't have too many moves to make. I think the best thing to do with this is start with the rule as it stands, and then pass an Amendment later in the game that bumps it up to 48 hours (or whatever is required).


I personally think rule 4.4 should allow bigger contingent of mercenaries wihtout being ahistorical... Think of France and the Routiers in the 13th century which the French King so expediently sent to Spain, although led by some "French" nobles almost all the men were soldiers of fortune...

See my above response to FH. I'll probably post a poll on abolishing the historical army rule altogether.

[Northnovas]

Posted by FH
3. I think knights should not even have a vote, not be allowed to propose legislation, and only be able to lead quarter stacks to reflect that they are not really nobility or at the very best, landless nobles.

We just have to be careful on getting to technical following the feudal system. The voting is an important part of the game participation. Even though we will have recruitable generals if I was not an elector and had voting rights in KotR. I it would have been a long wait for an avatar and possible no involvement in the game.

As a knight you will not be battling all the time.

[Ramses II CP]

Perhaps have it so that a Knight must be under an oath of fealty in order to have a vote? That way there's a little more incentive for the bottom rank to swear fealty as well, and higher ranks can trade giving a Knight a vote for him voting along certain lines.

Say a knight favors CA 1.4 and needs to get a vote while a Duke expects to need one more vote for CA 1.7, he'll take that knight into his service for a minimum of the duration of the GB session so that the knight then gets a vote, and the Duke scores his extra vote. It would increase the political flexibility of the lowest tier of the system while also punishing them for not having a province, but making it possible for them to participate if they so desire.

:egypt:

[Privateerkev]

Ok, here are my answers to a lot of questions. Possible changes will follow later.


The more I think about this, the more it makes sense. Giving a FH a Royal Army from the start will make him a powerful figure. This means he will likely be towards the top of the feudal ladder, which makes sense. It will also make inheritance of the throne work better as well. I'll draw up changes that gives the FH a Royal Army, but also prevent him from getting a Private Army on top of that. If he got both, he'd be more powerful than the FL.

I like that change. Prince should have a Royal Army.


I left Guilds out because I thought that should be handled IC. To make this really simple, I could change this power: "Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control." to "Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control. Can destroy any building in any settlement under their control at any time." That way if a guild gets built that you don't like (or anything else) you can trash it and wait for the proper one.

I like it. But, would you consider giving a Grand Duke the power to dictate what guild goes in his area? If there are going to be few of them, I don't mind them having more powers.


Exactly. It's up to your Lord to make it worthwhile. This is one of the reasons why I don't see many people achieving the rank of GD. Keeping vassals happy will be hard.

I love this rule... Of course, it could have had to do with who was Jan's Duke... ^_^


This is an interesting idea. I definitely felt like the 'Penalties' ended too early. How does everyone else feel about these suggested changes to Knights?

What about allowing the Knight to vote but only if he swears fealty? This would provide an incentive to get people to become vassels.

*edit* I just noticed that Ramses just suggested this. ^_^


Makes sense, I will stick a "cannot cancel' rule in under the Limitation of Powers.

Good idea. Good catch FH!


That's something that should be decided IC. Under the rules, they can vote however they want. Whether they want to follow their Lord or not is up to IC considerations in my mind.

Good. It should be an IC matter how people vote.


They aren't. I suggest that people simply do their best to RP any adoptions that occur.

Since we'll be spamming RBG's from the beginning, there should be few, if any adoptions to worry about.


Technically it doesn't. Rule 2.7 takes precedence over all other rules, which applies to the seconding. I predict that we'll be fiddling with 2.7 a lot over the course of the game, so I intentionally avoiding referencing rank powers in other rules. That way, when we want to change a rank, we only need to change that portion of Rule 2.7, instead of several parts of the Rules. We just need to remember that Rule 2.7 overrides all other rules if there is a conflict between them.

Very good. With the old KotR Charter, it got annoying having to read the whole thing to find every instance of something that you wanted to amend. Hence, the unbelievably tedious "chicken count" argument. :laugh4:


Do avatars start with a free command point?

Occasionally if they have the right trait they do. But 5 loyalty and 3 piety is the default.


I'm edging towards removing the army composition altogether. Maybe we should vote on that.

Sure, why not. Seems like more trouble than it's worth. If we're going for more of a "internal political struggle" focus, who cares what kinds of armies the people are fighting the AI with.


Under 1.4, the Chancellor can go beyond 24 hours if he wants to and at the start of the game we won't have too many moves to make. I think the best thing to do with this is start with the rule as it stands, and then pass an Amendment later in the game that bumps it up to 48 hours (or whatever is required).

I'm still worried about the traffic jam this will cause. Maybe ask people to just download the save and ask the Chancellor to make the move for them. Otherwise, you'll have 20+ people trying to download/upload the save within 24 hours. o_O

[Northnovas]

Now that is thinking there has to be something there for the Knight and that would be the type of influence that could work both ways and utilizing the oath of fealty.

[FactionHeir]

Hmmm it could make sense with vassal knights having a vote, but why not just give them a settlement and make them baronet with it? I guess you could "gamble" and hope they vote your way... it certainly is an interesting proposition.

Army composition: Some limitations are good, just not too stringent as they are currently. If we play a Western faction, I do think we should have a knight limit (only those units that are actually knights) to reflect their rarity in those times.

Avatars do not start with a free command point, but most avatars start with either 1 point in GoodCommander or NaturalMilitarySkill at adoption/birth/generation.

If vassals do not vote as their lord commands, could this be then construed as an offense, as in breaking fealty? It would make sense IMO, or else there isn't much reason behind fealty.

[Privateerkev]

Hmmm it could make sense with vassal knights having a vote, but why not just give them a settlement and make them baronet with it? I guess you could "gamble" and hope they vote your way... it certainly is an interesting proposition.

I guess that is for when a higher rank does not have counties to give. He can only give his patronage and protection. (and armies). The Knight gets a vote. Seems like a fair trade. Obviously, the knight can get land later when there is some.


If vassals do not vote as their lord commands, could this be then construed as an offense, as in breaking fealty? It would make sense IMO, or else there isn't much reason behind fealty.

I'm mixed. On one hand, it limits voting freedom, on the other hand, the vassel could just break off and join another lord. Do you guys think this is a good balance? I'm not sure.

[FactionHeir]

One other thing I am wondering about is whether lords can take away their vassal's holdings. Historically, that would be possible, especially for lower nobility, and it would add some flair if used when there is a good reason (and possibly without provoking a civil war)

Say you don't vote with your lord, he can take your lands after the session but you cannot declare civil war as a result immediately or so.

[TinCow]

Ok, here are my proposed changes based on what has been said so far:

Ship Control:
New power to be added:

(x) May seize control of any ships that start the turn in a port inside a province controlled by anyone in their feudal chain (controlled port). Ships may not be seized if there is are units on board that are not controlled by someone in the RANK's feudal chain. Ships seized in such a way cannot be moved by the CHANCELLOR without the RANK's permission, unless they are outside a controlled port and do not have a nobleman on board that is in the RANK's feudal chain.

In addition, the Chancellor's Limitation on Powers #4 will be modified to read (change is the addition of "controlled fleet"):

(4) The CHANCELLOR cannot disband a unit in a Private Army, Royal Army, city garrison, fort, or controlled fleet if the owner of the a Private Army, Royal Army, city garrison, fort, or controlled fleet gives orders which prevent such a disbanding. This Limitation does not apply to merging depleted units, which the CHANCELLOR may do freely.

The wording on this isn't fabulous, but it's the best I can come up with at the moment. Suggestions are welcome. Essentially, you can 'seize' any boats that are empty or carrying units controlled by your House when they start the turn in a port controlled by your House. You keep them while they remain in port, and while they are transporting your noblemen. As soon as the nobleman disembarks, the Chancellor can grab them back. So if you want them to be around for the 'return trip' you had better leave a nobleman on board to 'guard' them.

The reason I'm sticking in the 'on board nobleman' requirement for retaining possession is that there needs to be some way for the Chancellor to easily keep track of which ships belong to who. I can't think of any other way that makes it completely obvious. Regular military units can get confused and belong to anyone, but there's no way to mix up who controls an avatar. I'm open to better suggestions, though.

Also, at what rank should this power be given? Duke and Grand Duke only?

Baronet Inactivity Penalty:
New Penalty for Baronets:

(2) Loses control of all provinces if they fail to vote in two consecutive Normal GOVERNING BODY Sessions. All provinces lost in this way are given to the Baronet's Lord. If the Baronet has no Lord, the provinces are given to the FACTION LEADER.

One missed vote is too few. Even I missed a vote in KOTR.

Faction Heir Royal Army
Modified Power and New Power for FACTION HEIR:

(1) This rank is always held at the same time as other feudal ranks. The Influence and Powers of the FACTION HEIR are added on top of the Influence and Powers of the nobleman’s other feudal rank(s), unless the Power specifically states otherwise.
(4) Owns one Royal Army. This Power voids the ability of the FACTION HEIR to own a Private or Royal Army through the Powers of any other feudal rank.

Owns one ____ army rephrase
The words "above and beyond any Private Armies owned by their vassals." will be deleted from all army ownership Powers.

Destroy Buildings Power
The following power:

Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
will be modified to read as follows for every rank:

Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control. Can destroy any building in their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.

Canceling Construction
New Chancellor's Limitation on Powers:

(5) Cannot remove a building from any build queue if construction has already begun on it, unless the owner of the province agrees otherwise.


I would like to see more discussion on the following things before I make any rule changes about them:
Changes to Knights and Lower Ranks
Rule 1.4 Time Limit
Agent Power

[Privateerkev]

Ok, here are my proposed changes based on what has been said so far:


Ship Control:
New power to be added:


In addition, the Chancellor's Limitation on Powers #4 will be modified to read (change is the addition of "controlled fleet"):


The wording on this isn't fabulous, but it's the best I can come up with at the moment. Suggestions are welcome. Essentially, you can 'seize' any boats that are empty or carrying units controlled by your House when they start the turn in a port controlled by your House. You keep them while they remain in port, and while they are transporting your noblemen. As soon as the nobleman disembarks, the Chancellor can grab them back. So if you want them to be around for the 'return trip' you had better leave a nobleman on board to 'guard' them.

The reason I'm sticking in the 'on board nobleman' requirement for retaining possession is that there needs to be some way for the Chancellor to easily keep track of which ships belong to who. I can't think of any other way that makes it completely obvious. Regular military units can get confused and belong to anyone, but there's no way to mix up who controls an avatar. I'm open to better suggestions, though.

Also, at what rank should this power be given? Duke and Grand Duke only?

I like it. Gives a vassel something else to do. Maybe in return for better duties and rank later on. I think Duke or Grand Duke is good rank for this power.


I would like to see more discussion on the following things before I make any rule changes about them:
Changes to Knights and Lower Ranks
Rule 1.4 Time Limit
Agent Power

Knights: I've weighed in on voting. As for provinces being stripped of lower ranks, want to re-instate the bonded/freecount system? It would add incentive to be on the family tree.

Time limit: I've already weighed in.

Agents: I think at a certain rank, the noble should get a Spy and/or Assassin to use against the AI. Control of Priests make sense at a high rank too. I remember the trouble Bavaria had with a witch. Duke Gerhard should have had the ability to order priests in Bavaria to go after the witch. This would balance out the Chancellor's ability to punish a noble by letting heretics/witches wander freely. As for what rank specifically, that is open to debate. Maybe mid-level and up for priests. And Grand Duke for Spies/Assassins. When your at the level where you can declare war on the AI, it makes sense to be able to start placing spies in their cities and sabotage/assassinate them.

I have a seperate question on forts/watchtowers. How do we implement it? If I am the Baronet, and TC is the Chancellor, who builds the fort? Do I get prior permission to spend the money from the Chancellor, play the save within the 24 hours, move my avatar to the spot I want, and then build the fort/watchtower? Or do I ask TC if he can build it, then he plays the save, moves my avatar, and then builds the fort/watchtower?

[TinCow]

I have a seperate question on forts/watchtowers. How do we implement it? If I am the Baronet, and TC is the Chancellor, who builds the fort? Do I get prior permission to spend the money from the Chancellor, play the save within the 24 hours, move my avatar to the spot I want, and then build the fort/watchtower? Or do I ask TC if he can build it, then he plays the save, moves my avatar, and then builds the fort/watchtower?

I think we should keep it simple and leave it in the hands of the Chancellor. If you want a fort or watchtower, you've got to his permission to spend the florins. Once you've got a fort in your province, you'll probably want to keep it garrisoned so that it doesn't disappear, since there's no guarantee you'll be able to rebuild it.

I see forts mainly being used as 'frontier' resupply points for friendly Private/Royal Armies. They are placed close to the border and staffed with regiments so that the Private/Royal Army doesn't have to march all the way to the city to get them. If people can assemble a long chain of forts that are 1 turn's movement apart, they could transport regiments a long distance without the need for an avatar and without risking the Chancellor's whims. This might be useful to distribute regiments from a castle to the city provinces of a House.

[Privateerkev]

What about giving the Faction Leader all of the settlement powers a Grand Duke has?

If we let a Grand Duke sieze a ship in a coastal province the Grand Duke owns, it makes sense to me to let the Faction Leader sieze a ship in a coastal province that the Faction Leader owns. That is just one example.

[FactionHeir]

I think maybe limit owned agents to 1 per owned settlement that has a guild that relates to a certain agent. It won't be easy to get them.

Time limit of 24h is fine for offense. Extendable to say 36 depending on how many battles there are possibly. If people want to fight a battle offensively but outside the 24h limit (i.e. they don't have time to do it) then it will be put off until the next turn.

[Ramses II CP]

Personally I think the Faction Leader is powerful enough already. Better to leave him reliant on the higher ranks for some abilities. The more he has to trust and work with the other high ranks, the larger the role they'll play in the game.

I like the rule changes. I especially like the idea of some poor nobleman in the game chafing at being 'left with the ships,' of which there are countless historical examples. It also means that coordination at a higher level is required for naval invasions that aren't supported by the Chancellor (Ones that expect to return anyway), which is realistic.

:egypt:

[FactionHeir]

The leader's power should depend on whether we are aiming for a feudalistic or a democratic game.

In a feudal structure, they need support from the higher nobles, but through sheer force of being the leader have quite some powers that should be unique and/or powerful to make that role more useful than in KOTR.

[_Tristan_]

I think the FL rules are just right as they are... They reflect what really happened at the period...

Strong monarchs with powerful backing from their Dukes could hold the reins of the country pretty easily while weak monarchs could have whole dukedoms secessioning (?)

Take the French King holdings which at some point consisted of only Paris and its area...

[FactionHeir]

Oh, I just had an idea for an example:

The FactionLeader can banish lesser nobles (those who are lesser than Count) from Imperial lands indefinitely. If the banished noble is a vassal of a Count or higher, there may be some formal voting at the next session to end the outlaw status.

While outlawed, the character has to stay outside the confines of the empire or face imprisonment/execution if caught. He can only be caught if pursued, meaning sufficient men-at-arms are sent after the character. If insufficient men are sent, those may be lost. If enough are sent and quickly, they may just intercept the outlaw.

As such banishment order takes time to reach all provinces, he character can be assailed on the same turn only if within 1 province of the FactionLeader. Else within the next.

The FactionLeader of course won't endear himself to the nobility by doing so, so there generally should be some reason behind it. It will also require a minimum of 6 (or 5?) authority to pull off.

What do you think of this idea?

[Privateerkev]

Personally I think the Faction Leader is powerful enough already. Better to leave him reliant on the higher ranks for some abilities. The more he has to trust and work with the other high ranks, the larger the role they'll play in the game.

The way I see it, the FL will still have less military power than a strong Grand Duke. Which is fine. But I think the FL should have the same powers and control over his territories that a Grand Duke has. It might only be one "county" but I'm pretty sure his word there would be law.


I like the rule changes. I especially like the idea of some poor nobleman in the game chafing at being 'left with the ships,' of which there are countless historical examples. It also means that coordination at a higher level is required for naval invasions that aren't supported by the Chancellor (Ones that expect to return anyway), which is realistic.

What's cool, is that it would have to be more of a negotiation. If the noble gets tired of baby-sitting the fleet, he can just leave the lord. Instead of it being a punishment, it would be part of a negotiation. Like, "I'll watch the ships now if I get that army command so I can conquer a county for myself later"

[StoneCold]

One input. This is regarding the attributes and retinues gain using spies and assassins. Since it is allowed to used console to move or remove retinues, maybe in this PBM any traits, retinues gain by the FL, through the action of the Chancellor will be transferred to the Chancellor? Or is that already stated somewhere and I missed reading it?

[Privateerkev]

One input. This is regarding the attributes and retinues gain using spies and assassins. Since it is allowed to used console to move or remove retinues, maybe in this PBM any traits, retinues gain by the FL, through the action of the Chancellor will be transferred to the Chancellor? Or is that already stated somewhere and I missed reading it?

On one hand, I do see a certain poetic justice with making sure the Chancellor gets the retinue/traits. On the other, it is a way to get authority which the FL will want.


Oh, I just had an idea for an example:

The FactionLeader can banish lesser nobles (those who are lesser than Count) from Imperial lands indefinitely. If the banished noble is a vassal of a Count or higher, there may be some formal voting at the next session to end the outlaw status.

While outlawed, the character has to stay outside the confines of the empire or face imprisonment/execution if caught. He can only be caught if pursued, meaning sufficient men-at-arms are sent after the character. If insufficient men are sent, those may be lost. If enough are sent and quickly, they may just intercept the outlaw.

As such banishment order takes time to reach all provinces, he character can be assailed on the same turn only if within 1 province of the FactionLeader. Else within the next.

The FactionLeader of course won't endear himself to the nobility by doing so, so there generally should be some reason behind it. It will also require a minimum of 6 (or 5?) authority to pull off.

What do you think of this idea?

It's certainly interesting. I'm a little worried that it will be over-powered. And could make the game unfun if abused. Maybe some checks on it. I don't know what.

[Ramses II CP]

I think it could be rather fun to be an exile, but I'd hate to see a situation where it was inflicted on someone who didn't enjoy it. Maybe it's better suited to a special circumstances OOC agreement beforehand. The two players see the disagreement coming, and the non-FL player agrees to accept exile before the in game dramatics happen, thus ensuring that the power isn't abused and everyone is having fun with it.

:egypt:

[Ferret]

I think it would be a god feature, but agree with Ramses that it should not be forced upon those that would strongly dislike it.

And Ramses, I have to ask, why do you always put the Egyptian smiley in your posts?

[Zim]

If it's going to require an OOC agreement then we probably don't need to have the power in the rules. If it happened it would just be something worked out OOC and IC between the players as part of a story. :yes:


I think it could be rather fun to be an exile, but I'd hate to see a situation where it was inflicted on someone who didn't enjoy it. Maybe it's better suited to a special circumstances OOC agreement beforehand. The two players see the disagreement coming, and the non-FL player agrees to accept exile before the in game dramatics happen, thus ensuring that the power isn't abused and everyone is having fun with it.

:egypt:

[Ramses II CP]

Because I'm a friendly guy with a sometimes sharp turn of a phrase EF, and I don't want anyone to take any of my posts too seriously. Plus, he looks cool, and I have one of the most famous Egyptian Pharohs for my tag.

Although I admit it probably defeats the purpose if he's in every single post. People just look past it like it's a sig, which is the exact opposite of the effect I desire.

Call it force of habit. Or compulsion. You pick.

:egypt: :egypt: :egypt: :egypt: :egypt: :egypt: :egypt: :egypt:

[Ferret]

okay, I guess it could be a bit like why I always used the :clown: in the OOC threads.

[gibsonsg91921]

I like the :egypt:. It's so Ramses. lol

[AussieGiant]

Hi Guy's,

I'm struggling to keep up with reading everything at the moment. I've run out of a lot of steam...so keep that in mind with my comments.

As a player that was running a House that was tiny for about 4/5 of KotR, it seems as if this would be impossible to achieve given the way the ranking structure is set in the rules.

That seems a little limiting. To me it's kind of like simply majority voting...with this system I think we will get two maybe three big houses...

I'd like to have something like proportional representation, where it is possible for smaller groups to exist and have a good chance of making a difference.

What do you think guys?

Likewise because of th ranking mechanics I get the impression that participation (PK mentioned this before) is going to be 9/10ths of major parts of the power structure.

This goes back to little old Austria, fighting away there with a massive border with just three nobles. I don't want to be reliant on the entire structure of the coalition I'm in based solely around if people are able to participate enough. Plus keeping track of the current "status" of a coalition seems like it will be a little intensive to me.

Thoughts? Am I off base on these points?

[FactionHeir]

I suppose some OOC agreement might be useful for banishing/exiling.
Although as Zim correctly said, this could defeat the purpose of it being an ability.
But reading Ramses' comment, I think adding following may make it fairer (and ensure that players do agree):
- Requires that the noble banished is currently involved in a civil war

This is because the FL can then say "OK, you guys are fighting within my country, and I think I favor X over Y, so Y is hereby declared an outlaw". If you are already in a civil war, its basically assumed that you agree to your character being involved in some more dramatic event.

[Zim]

I like FH's idea regarding banishment. It seems fitting that a Faction Leader could take a side in a Civil War that way. :yes: Perhaps to keep the power from being too unbalancing the banishment would automatically end if the Civil War did? Or would that eliminate the point of having the power in the first place?

I've been kind of thinking about what AussieGiant said. It does seem a bit as if the current ranking system would result in a couple very big groups. In a two or three group system, whoever won the favor of the Chancellor would face little risk from a Civil War. Also, no matter how many players join at the start, in my experience participation in KOTR tended to fluctuate back and forth around a range rather lower than the number of theoretically active (from the active thread) players, making it even harder to get more than a couple groups.

Maybe we could cut out a couple ranks between knight and Duke? That way a theoretically small house could still survive with a decently powerful leader, but a larger house with more people in the intermediate ranks would still have some big advantages (like more personal armies). Grand Dukes could then require two Dukes as vassals, to ensure that they remain rare as Tincow intended.

Anyway, it could be a nightmare to rebalance the rank powers, and I'm sure I missed something important, but it's a thought. :sweatdrop:

[deguerra]

That idea does have some merit. Perhaps could we bestow some powers on Grand Dukes, say, that only become active when he has a certain number of Dukes or whatever other rank under him.

That way, the little groups can get powerful as well, but there is still some incentive for increasing your family.

[Privateerkev]

There might only be 2 or 3 "houses" but they'll probably be relatively fluid. In KotR, the Houses were fairly static until he started using RBG's, got new players, or used OOC methods (like moving the von Mahrens). We were bound by the game's whacky reproduction mechanic and when we stopped spreading our Empire, the family member mechanic stalled.

I predict things will fluctuate wildly for the beginning. We'll stabalize as the characters get fleshed out and we get used to the rules. Then, there will be periods of fluctuation again when new players join, players leave, avatars die, ect...

The House structure will be really up to us. We could all agree IC and just form 1 mega House for awhile. We could all split up. There might be a big house and a couple littles ones. It's pretty much whatever we can think of.

One thought though. We might want to consider making civil wars even harder. If their too easy to start, we might just resort to them all the time and swallow up the smaller groups. Of course that might be balanced out by a relative lack of people willing to implement them. Like KotR, I'd prefer if civil wars were a last resort to stave off massive player boredom. But I see them having the possibility of being used as a basic policy tool. Like it might be used to settle everything.

Or maybe keep civil wars easy to do and we should just get used to being nicer to each-other IC. :beam:

Maybe I'm having a hard time switching gears from focusing on the AI to focusing on internal struggle. Well, that's why we have these breaks in between games I guess. ^_^

[gibsonsg91921]

Maybe it's just me, and that I should probably have no say, but I would wonder if it could be a follower tree instead of a follower chain. I wonder how that would be implemented, though, and I don't want to get rid of any ranks.

[AussieGiant]

Thinking out load again.

Good points PK on the Civil War topic. I certainly would like that to be a relatively unusual thing...but I guess that would have to be handled IC.

Another thing I was thinking about was how the titles are given and revoked. In medieval times when a title was given...and it was given by the FL in most instances, OR inherited through a family (with the FL permitting the continuation of the title and privileges), it wasn't removed due to the structure we have recommended here.

I certainly agree with the general concept but something just a little more rigid would be more accurate and provide a little more of a 'base' for role playing with. Maybe rank allocations are given based on structure but can't be revoked unless by the FL or death (or exile).

To me the main characteristic of feudalism was a series of Oath contracts given from top to bottom in the hierarchy. I know the FL is the only thing we can't really control, and I don't think anyone wants us to control it...but the only linear Oath contract that IS not controlled by us in the one between the Dukes/Grand Dukes and the FL in this example...everything under that is fluid and up to IC situations.

I do believe we should replicate this as best as possible to give the feeling of feudalism.

[Privateerkev]

To me the main characteristic of feudalism was a series of Oath contracts given from top to bottom in the hierarchy. I know the FL is the only thing we can't really control, and I don't think anyone wants us to control it...but the only linear Oath contract that IS not controlled by us in the one between the Dukes/Grand Dukes and the FL in this example...everything under that is fluid and up to IC situations.

I do believe we should replicate this as best as possible to give the feeling of feudalism.

I guess it's a balancing act. If it's too rigid, you'll have instances where it won't be very fun. If it's too fluid, then it isn't feudal.

We're a funny lot. We want power structures. And we want them to be at least somewhat rigid and hereditary. But we want flexibility. :laugh4:

Maybe the new rules replicate that "middle ground" we're looking for and it's just up to us to implement it IC. The fact that civil war is an option when a vassel breaks from a lord is a powerful tool.

I'm starting to wish that we find some easier way to actually implement civil wars. Because the idea of slogging the game to a standstill for a week or two every time someone gets pissed at their Duke makes me want to have civil wars be rare. That's why I said in my last post that I wanted them to be harder to start.

But, if they were resolved in some sort of "quick and dirty" fashion, I wouldn't mind them being more frequent or easier to start. So, it's actually an OOC concern that is making me cautious using an IC tool.

The method Econ came up with for doing civil wars is awesome. But, it is also very time consuming and tedious. One or two of those per game is fine. But a long series of small "Battle of Flemish Crossroads" type battles will make me quite bored.

Now, I don't know what that method would be. But, if the civil wars could be figured out faster, then they would become a powerful IC check on the feudal structure.

*edit*

I know TC has a "voting option" so we get to decide which of 3 ways to work a civil war. I wish there was an even quicker way than the 3 we have. If the power difference between the two parties is too large, just roll dice or something.

[AussieGiant]

I guess it's a balancing act. If it's too rigid, you'll have instances where it won't be very fun. If it's too fluid, then it isn't feudal.

We're a funny lot. We want power structures. And we want them to be at least somewhat rigid and hereditary. But we want flexibility. :laugh4:

Maybe the new rules replicate that "middle ground" we're looking for and it's just up to us to implement it IC. The fact that civil war is an option when a vassel breaks from a lord is a powerful tool.

I'm starting to wish that we find some easier way to actually implement civil wars. Because the idea of slogging the game to a standstill for a week or two every time someone gets pissed at their Duke makes me want to have civil wars be rare. That's why I said in my last post that I wanted them to be harder to start.

But, if they were resolved in some sort of "quick and dirty" fashion, I wouldn't mind them being more frequent or easier to start. So, it's actually an OOC concern that is making me cautious using an IC tool.

The method Econ came up with for doing civil wars is awesome. But, it is also very time consuming and tedious. One or two of those per game is fine. But a long series of small "Battle of Flemish Crossroads" type battles will make me quite bored.

Now, I don't know what that method would be. But, if the civil wars could be figured out faster, then they would become a powerful IC check on the feudal structure.

I also agree PK. Some middle ground would be good. What that is, I have no idea.

Likewise after reading GH's very open and honest recounting of how much time is required to umpire one of those battles made me really wonder if we can deal with it very well.

:wall:

[Privateerkev]

I also agree PK. Some middle ground would be good. What that is, I have no idea.

Likewise after reading GH's very open and honest recounting of how much time is required to umpire one of those battles made me really wonder if we can deal with it very well.

:wall:

Re-reading TC's rule on PvP, it looks like us, the players, get to decide OOC how tedious we want these things to be. Maybe I'm just trying to figure out how to refine the idea.

I guess my point was, that OOC anxieties about the game crawling were making me cautious about using IC tools. Those IC tools can help keep the feudal structure rigid enough to address the concerns you have.

So, I'm just trying to wrap my brain around the new rules. (with no coffee, no less) :coffeenews:

[AussieGiant]

Re-reading TC's rule on PvP, it looks like us, the players, get to decide OOC how tedious we want these things to be. Maybe I'm just trying to figure out how to refine the idea.

I guess my point was, that OOC anxieties about the game crawling were making me cautious about using IC tools. Those IC tools can help keep the feudal structure rigid enough to address the concerns you have.

So, I'm just trying to wrap my brain around the new rules. (with no coffee, no less) :coffeenews:

I also see those points PK.

TC's put a lot of thought into this and it's a lot more subtle than I expected, especially now that I've re-read everything. It seems his understanding of the roleplaying aspect is making somethings "seem" missing, while in fact I'd say he's thought about it but chosen to let IC stuff create the framework we want.

Personally I need some structure. And the feudal aspect is where I'd be looking for it in this game.

Of course I am a true proponent of less OOC rules as the IC stuff will "blow out" the regulations we are talking about here.


I need to get a coffee and have another think.

[TinCow]

Yes, the entire group of players gets to decide how a Civil War is fought. If they pick AI Battles, the game shouldn't slow down much at all. I do still hope that people will come up with different ideas on how to fight these things, though. There's got to be an easier system out there somewhere.

At the same time, I don't expect Civil Wars to be common. They are allowed by the rules because we need them to be possible, but possible is a big step away from frequent. Entering a Civil War is a major gamble for avatars, because it's almost certainly going to end with one of the two sides losing everything they have, possibly including their avatars. As we've seen, PvP combat is far, far more lethal than normal battles against the AI. Unless you're willing to risk your character's death, you're probably going to look for a political solution. Any Civil Wars that do erupt will probably be well-planned strikes designed to overwhelm an enemy quickly before the Chancellor can interfere. I could be wrong, but that's my feeling at least. As a group of players, I don't think we really want to massacre each other all the time. We just want to have the option of using military power as a last resort.

Regarding Houses, the concern over 2-3 large houses is important. It is my personal feeling, though, that we're more likely to see a lot of small Houses rather than a few large ones. We're going to be RPing our characters just like before. A chivalrous avatar concerned with spreading Catholicism in North Africa will not ally himself with a Dread House concerned with conquering England. I expect to see people ally based on geography (mutual defense) and RPing (similar motivation). It will be very, very difficult to keep 5-7 people happy and all working towards the same goal.

At the same time, you only need 3 players to get a Private Army, which is the point at which a House gains the ability to ignore the Chancellor if they want to. It should be pretty easy to get 3 people working together. I would thus expect people to cluster together into groups, which then evolve into political coalitions during Diet Sessions, because no single House has enough votes to get their man elected Chancellor. So, there will be political pandering towards the interests of some of the smaller Houses to secure their votes.

I could be wrong, though. I've been imagining how this system would work in my head for a long time now and I may have convinced myself of things that aren't realistic.

[TinCow]

TC's put a lot of thought into this and it's a lot more subtle than I expected, especially now that I've re-read everything. It seems his understanding of the roleplaying aspect is making somethings "seem" missing, while in fact I'd say he's thought about it but chosen to let IC stuff create the framework we want.

This is entirely accurate. I have tried to only make rules about the mechanics of gameplay, leaving all IC considerations out of it. I sometimes call it 'politics' but the philosophy behind the rules is that the role-playing is the center-piece of the entire game. The rules are simply there to make the game work, but in a way that allows for as much freedom to RP as you want. I've tried to make a system where anyone can try to do almost anything. It may not work, but at least it would be theoretically possible.

[Ramses II CP]

Regarding the Houses, I don't think we'll know for sure unless we run a test game. It seems to me that the system TC put together is flexible enough to allow for houses of all sizes and numbers. If we ended up with the 25 or so players TC wants I'd see at least 5 houses and several more minor factions.

Anyway, I don't want a more rigid, realistic tree system because I think it would be less fun. Having a 'ladder' style system allows for every link in the chain to play a critical role, so being at the top is a constant balancing act. Yes, even that lowly Baronet has a significant influence on his Grand Duke, and if the two don't get along who knows how far down the ladder will unravel. It'll be very interesting, and probably very unstable.

:egypt:

[TinCow]

I definitely think we should run a test at some point, but I'd like to focus that more towards the Civil War mechanics than the feudal rank mechanics. Any 'bugs' in the feudal structure will probably take too long to be noticed in any test game. By contrast, we can figure out really quickly how well the Civil War system will work. I would recommend setting up a test game that is already advanced a couple dozen turns, and then intentionally creating 2-3 rival Houses which go to war against each other to see how the Civil War system will play out. For ease, we can just use AI Battles each time there is one, since the result doesn't really matter anyway.

[Ferret]

I think the way that PvP battles should be handled by the partcipants (and lords of the participants) and the people who are going to run the battle. I don't see why anyone else has the right to contribute to the decision. The fast tabletop style would be my favourite unless it is a very important battle.

[TinCow]

The reason I gave everyone else a vote is because everyone is impacted by a PvP battle. If it takes a week to fight it, the game is slowed down for everyone. Thus, the full-scale Tabletop Battles should only be allowed for battles that the majority of people think are important enough to give full attention to. If the majority of people think it's an annoyance, then we should get the battle done as fast as possible. That's why the vote is open to everyone and unweighted.

[GeneralHankerchief]

I think the way that PvP battles should be handled by the partcipants (and lords of the participants) and the people who are going to run the battle. I don't see why anyone else has the right to contribute to the decision. The fast tabletop style would be my favourite unless it is a very important battle.

This was my initial reaction. Then, however, TinCow stressed the fact that everybody was automatically going to pick the very time-consuming PvP option, which of course was correct, considering that's what everybody, without fail, picked in the past. With the memory of the general drag of Normandy/Flemish Crossroads in my mind, I realized his point. The game shouldn't be slowed down that often, and that's what the other players are for.

Of course, the actual participants have a right to see that their battle is given the proper amount of effort.

PvP was kind of a contentious point until about halfway through Trent when the Abbreviated PvP idea came up. The goal is it'll be easier on everybody - non-participants, participants who might not have time to meet seven consecutive 24-hour deadlines, and umpires - while still being fair.

My initial suggestion was that normal PvP be reserved for extraordinary circumstances only, when it simply demands more attention than one turn of umpire resolution can provide, when nobody will mind the time delay in order to get the battle right.

As far as what consists of extraordinary circumstances, I'm not even going to attempt to define it since it goes against the flow of the other rules. It's up to the players to decide that.

Although, I can't remember proposing this or not, but maybe the participants should get their votes weighted something like 2x the non-particpant's. That should keep things in balance.

-edit- Never mind the last paragraph. Looks like TC clarified while I was typing.

[TinCow]

Since discussion seems to have slowed, I have updated the Rules to strip out all the commentary and to include the changes I mentioned previously. I have given the 'seize fleet' ability to the Duke, Grand Duke, and Faction Leader. If people think it should be extended down further, Marquess would be an option, though I don't think it should go lower than that. I have also included a draft of the new Historical Army Rule based on the discussion in that poll thread.

Also, I have tried to maintain the Faction Leader's authority by giving him a couple powers that the Grand Duke had, but that he did not. Specifically, I added the 'retinue transfer' and 'destroy building' powers to the Faction Leader. I then altered both of those powers, plus the 'prioritized building' power to allow the Faction Leader to use them twice per Chancellor term (Everyone else can only do it once) and I allowed him to use them on any nobleman/settlement in the faction, not just his own possessions. This should give the Faction Leader a lot more political power in the game, since he now has multiple methods of directly rewarding and punishing people for their actions. I also prevented the powers from working on anyone who is at war with the Faction Leader, since it wouldn't make sense otherwise and it gives a way for the noblemen to avoid this power, albeit an extreme one.

Let's keep hammering away at this, though. The changes we have made are good and I expect we'll make a lot more improvements before we're ready to start. I have spoilered away the rank powers to make the rules easier to read.

----------

1. General

*1.1 - Game Settings:

M2TW with the 1.3 patch
Hard Campaign, Very Hard Battles.
Large Unit Size
Battle Timer On
Show CPU Moves
Manage All Settlements
Only two land units (including a general) may travel on each ship.
LIST OF MODS TO BE USED

*1.2 – Avatars: Each player will roleplay a nobleman of FACTION. On joining the game, each player will choose an avatar to represent this nobleman. Avatars can be ‘family members’ or recruitable generals. Players are reminded that due to limitations imposed by M2TW, only avatars on the family tree will be able to marry, have children, and have a chance of becoming FACTION HEIR and FACTION LEADER. Recruitable generals can be spawned at any time, but family member creation is beyond our control. Players may not use agents as avatars, since agents cannot fight battles and have a different set of stats from family members and recruitable generals.

1.3 – Battles: A player whose avatar leads an army that is involved in a battle will be expected to fight that battle. This will involve downloading the savegame of the battle, playing it and then uploading the resulting savegame. Uploading the post-battle save must be done within 48 hours of the pre-battle savegame being uploaded. If the deadline expires, the battle is autoresolved. If a player cannot fight a battle that is assigned to them, the battle may also be fought by any player whose avatar will also be present in the battle. Under no circumstances will a battle be fought by a player whose avatar is not present in the battle. If there is no player available to fight a battle, it must be autoresolved. If there are no allocated avatars involved in the battle at all, it must be autoresolved.

1.4 – Game Management: At the start of each turn, the CHANCELLOR will post an annual report on the events of the last turn, including a save game file for the new turn. After the annual report is posted, players will have 24 hours to download the save, and make their personal moves. Players can move their avatars, move any army (Private, Royal, or otherwise) their avatar commands, move any military units that start the turn inside a settlement they control (garrison units), move any military units that start the turn inside a fort in a province they control (fort units), and fight any battles against the AI that they are capable of fighting with their avatar’s army. The CHANCELLOR may move any avatar or army that has not been moved in this way as he best sees fit, including moves that result in battles, except that he cannot move a player’s avatar, Private/Royal Army, garrison units, or fort units in any manner that player has expressly prohibited. The CHANCELLOR may extend the time limit beyond 24 hours at his discretion, but all players are encouraged to act as swiftly as possible to keep the game moving.

1.5 – Events: Whenever they desire, but no more often than once every 10 turns, econ21, TinCow, or anyone they choose may create an in-game Event. Events are not limited in scope, subject matter, or method of implementation. All game rules, including * marked rules, can be violated to implement an Event. The players can prevent the implementation of any single Event through a simple majority of unweighted votes.


2. Feudal Heirarchy

2.1 – Rank Gain and Loss: All noblemen enter the game at the rank of Knight. Noblemen will be promoted to a higher rank as soon as they meet the requirements for that rank. If, at any point, a nobleman ceases to meet the requirements of their existing rank, they will be demoted to the highest rank whose requirements they meet.

2.2 – Gaining Provinces: Except as stated in Rule 2.7, noblemen gain control of all provinces they personally conquer. In the event that multiple noblemen are part of the conquering army, the nobleman controlled by the player who actually fought the battle is considered the conqueror. If the battle is autoresolved, the commanding nobleman is considered the conqueror. If no nobleman is involved in the battle whatsoever, the FACTION LEADER is considered the conqueror. At the start of the game, econ21 will determine which noblemen receive control of the starting provinces, to a maximum of one province per nobleman.

2.3 – Losing Provinces: Noblemen can only lose control of one of their provinces if they voluntarily give it to another nobleman, if it is conquered by an AI faction, or if it is occupied by the army of a nobleman who has made a Declaration of War against them (See Section 5). On his death, all of a nobleman’s provinces are distributed according to the most recent valid Will. In order for a Will to be valid, it must have been posted in a public thread or PMed to econ21 or TinCow prior to the nobleman’s death. If the nobleman has no valid Will, the nobleman’s immediate Lord gains possession of the provinces. If the nobleman also has no Lord, the FACTION LEADER gains possession of the provinces.

2.4 – Retinue: At any time, a nobleman may give any retinue item/member they possess to another nobleman or remove it from their avatar without giving it to anyone else. If a retinue item/member cannot be transferred or removed due to game coding, console commands may be used to allow the transfer or removal. A nobleman’s retinue can also be transferred at the time of his death, if the transfer was specified in a valid Will.

2.5 – Oaths of Fealty: In order to become a Vassal of another player, a nobleman must take an Oath of Fealty by specifically swearing allegiance to that player in a public thread. The prospective Lord has the right to refuse to accept the Oath. An Oath of Fealty can be broken if either the Lord or the Vassal specifically revokes it in a public thread. A nobleman can only have one Lord at a time, but he may have an unlimited number of Vassals. Oaths of Fealty cannot be sworn or broken while the GOVERNING BODY is in session.

2.6 – Loyalty in a Feudal Chain: A Vassal’s loyalty is always to his Lord, even if his Lord is himself a Vassal of another nobleman. If a nobleman swears or breaks an Oath of Fealty, his relationship to his Vassals remains unchanged. In this way, a Lord can bring his entire chain of followers into the service of another nobleman without anyone else having to change their status. Similarly, a nobleman will take his entire chain of followers with him if he breaks his Oath of Fealty.

2.7 – Feudal Ranks: In the event of a conflict, Rule 2.7 takes priority over all other rules. The feudal ranks and positions are as follows:


Knight:
Requirements: None
Influence: 1
Powers:
(1) Can propose one Edict per GOVERNING BODY Session.
Penalties:
(1) Cannot lead more than a half stack army unless it is a Private or Royal Army.
(2) Cannot run for CHANCELLOR.

Baronet:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province.
Influence: 1
Powers:
(1) Can propose one Edict per GOVERNING BODY Session.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control. Can destroy any building in their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property, unless the Baronet is loyal to a higher rank.
Penalties:
(1) Cannot lead more than a half stack army unless it is a Private Army, a Royal Army, or within the borders of a province they personally control.
(2) Loses control of all provinces if they fail to vote in two consecutive Normal GOVERNING BODY Sessions. All provinces lost in this way are given to the Baronet's Lord. If the Baronet has no Lord, the provinces are given to the FACTION LEADER.

Baron:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Baronet as a vassal.
Influence: Up to 2 Stat Influence.
Powers:
(1) Can propose one Edict or Amendment per GOVERNING BODY Session.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control. Can destroy any building in their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property, unless the Baron is loyal to a higher rank.

Viscount:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Baron as a vassal.
Influence: Up to 2 Stat Influence.
Powers:
(1) Can propose one Edict or Amendment per GOVERNING BODY Session.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control. Can destroy any building in their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property, unless the Viscount is loyal to a higher rank.
(4) Owns one Private Army.

Count:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Viscount as a vassal
Influence: Up to 3 Stat Influence.
Powers:
(1) Can propose one Edict or Amendment per GOVERNING BODY Session.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control. Can destroy any building in their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property, unless the Count is loyal to a higher rank.
(4) Owns one Private Army.
(5) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can Prioritize one building in any build queue in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain, unless the Count is loyal to a higher rank.

Marquess:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Count as a vassal.
Influence: Up to 3 Stat Influence.
Powers:
(1) Can propose two Edicts or Amendments per GOVERNING BODY Session.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control. Can destroy any building in their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property, unless the Marquess is loyal to a higher rank.
(4) Owns one Private Army.
(5) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can Prioritize one building in any build queue in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain, unless the Marquess is loyal to a higher rank.
(6) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can destroy one building in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain, unless the Marquess is loyal to a higher rank. Buildings in the barracks, archery range, stable, siege engine, and gunsmith lines cannot be destroyed with this power.

Duke:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Marquess as a vassal.
Influence: Up to 4 Stat Influence.
Powers:
(1) Can propose three Edicts or Amendments per GOVERNING BODY Session.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control. Can destroy any building in their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property, unless the Duke is loyal to a Grand Duke.
(4) Can call Emergency GOVERNING BODY Sessions.
(5) Owns one Private Army.
(6) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can Prioritize one building in any build queue in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain, unless the Duke is loyal to a Grand Duke.
(7) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can destroy one building in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain, unless the Duke is loyal to a Grand Duke. Buildings in the barracks, archery range, stable, siege engine, and gunsmith lines cannot be destroyed with this power.
(8) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can force a transfer of one retinue member/item from any nobleman in their chain of followers to themselves or anyone else in their chain of followers, unless the Duke is loyal to a Grand Duke.
(9) Cannot be banned from a GOVERNING BODY Session.
(10) May seize control of any ships that start the turn in a port inside a province controlled by anyone in their feudal chain (controlled port). Ships may not be seized if there is are units on board that are not controlled by someone in the RANK's feudal chain. Ships seized in such a way cannot be moved by the CHANCELLOR without the RANK's permission, unless they are outside a controlled port and do not have a nobleman on board that is in the RANK's feudal chain.

Grand Duke:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Duke as a vassal.
Influence: Up to 5 Stat Influence.
Powers:
(1) Can propose an unlimited number of Edicts or Amendments per GOVERNING BODY Session and their Edicts and Amendments do not need to be seconded.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control. Can destroy any building in their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property.
(4) Can call Emergency GOVERNING BODY Sessions.
(5) Owns one Royal Army.
(6) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can Prioritize one building in any build queue in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain.
(7) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can destroy one building in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain. Buildings in the barracks, archery range, stable, siege engine, and gunsmith lines cannot be destroyed with this power.
(8) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can force a transfer of one retinue member/item from any nobleman in their chain of followers to themselves or anyone else in their chain of followers.
(9) Cannot be banned from a GOVERNING BODY Session.
(10) Can declare war on any AI faction at any time, for any reason.
(11) Can veto one Edict or Amendment per GOVERNING BODY Session.
(12) May seize control of any ships that start the turn in a port inside a province controlled by anyone in their feudal chain (controlled port). Ships may not be seized if there is are units on board that are not controlled by someone in the RANK's feudal chain. Ships seized in such a way cannot be moved by the CHANCELLOR without the RANK's permission, unless they are outside a controlled port and do not have a nobleman on board that is in the RANK's feudal chain.
Penalties:
(1) Cannot swear an Oath of Fealty to another nobleman.

FACTION HEIR:
Requirements: Must be the in-game FACTION HEIR
Influence: +1 to the Stat Influence cap
Powers:
(1) This rank is always held at the same time as other feudal ranks. The Influence and Powers of the FACTION HEIR are added on top of the Influence and Powers of the nobleman’s other feudal rank(s), unless the Power specifically states otherwise.
(2) In the absence of the FACTION LEADER, the FACTION HEIR can ban noblemen from a GOVERNING BODY Session. Banned noblemen cannot speak or propose legislation, but they are permitted to vote.
(3) In the absence of the FACTION LEADER, the FACTION HEIR can adjudicate on rule disputes. However, if a rule dispute directly involved the FACTION LEADER or the FACTION HEIR, the nobleman of the highest feudal rank will be the adjudicator. If there are multiple noblemen of that rank, the dispute will be decided between them by a simple, unweighted vote. In the event of a tie, the FACTION HEIR will cast a tie-breaking vote.
(4) Owns one Royal Army. This Power voids the ability of the FACTION HEIR to own a Private or Royal Army through the Powers of any other feudal rank.

FACTION LEADER:
Requirements: Must be the in-game FACTION LEADER
Influence: Authority Stat
Powers:
(1) Can propose an unlimited number of Edicts or Amendments per GOVERNING BODY Session and their Edicts and Amendments do not need to be seconded.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control. Can destroy any building in their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
(3) Can call Emergency GOVERNING BODY Sessions.
(4) Owns one Royal Army.
(5) Twice per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can Prioritize one building in any build queue in any settlement. This power cannot be used on any settlement controlled by a nobleman who is in a state of War with the FACTION LEADER.
(6) Twice per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can destroy one building in any settlement. Buildings in the barracks, archery range, stable, siege engine, and gunsmith lines cannot be destroyed with this power. This power cannot be used on any settlement controlled by a nobleman who is in a state of War with the FACTION LEADER.
(7) Twice per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can force a transfer of one retinue member/item from any nobleman to themselves or any other nobleman. This power cannot be used on any nobleman who is in a state of War with the FACTION LEADER.
(8) Can declare war on any faction at any time, for any reason.
(9) Can veto one Edict or Amendment per 3 ranks of Authority.
(10) Decides which nobleman, if any, a Princess should marry.
(11) Once during his reign, the FACTION LEADER may automatically assume the post of CHANCELLOR. The FACTION LEADER must declare he is exercising that right at a GOVERNING BODY session; he will then be appointed CHANCELLOR with no election. This right can only be invoked once, but the FACTION LEADER may also compete in normal CHANCELLOR elections at other GOVERNING BODY Sessions.
(12) Can ban noblemen from a GOVERNING BODY Session. Banned noblemen cannot speak or propose legislation, but they are permitted to vote.
(13) Can adjudicate on rule disputes. However, if a rule dispute directly involves the FACTION LEADER or the FACTION HEIR, the nobleman of the highest feudal rank will be the adjudicator. If there are multiple noblemen of that rank, the dispute will be decided between them by a simple, unweighted vote. In the event of a tie, the FACTION LEADER will cast a tie-breaking vote.
(14) May seize control of any ships that start the turn in a port inside a province controlled by anyone in their feudal chain (controlled port). Ships may not be seized if there is are units on board that are not controlled by someone in the RANK's feudal chain. Ships seized in such a way cannot be moved by the CHANCELLOR without the RANK's permission, unless they are outside a controlled port and do not have a nobleman on board that is in the RANK's feudal chain.
Penalties:
(1) Cannot hold another feudal rank except CHANCELLOR.
(2) Cannot swear an Oath of Fealty to another nobleman and cannot have any Vassals.
Inheritance: On the death of a FACTION LEADER, all Oaths of Fealty pertaining to the nobleman who is the new FACTION LEADER are instantly broken. The new FACTION LEADER takes control of all provinces owned by the previous FACTION LEADER, unless they were given away by a valid Will. The new FACTION LEADER retains possession of any provinces he controlled prior to inheriting the throne.

CHANCELLOR:
Requirements: Must have been elected CHANCELLOR
Influence: During Emergency Sessions called during his term, up to 5 Stat Influence +2, or the nobleman's normal Influence, whichever is higher. For every term of 6 turns or more that a nobleman serves as CHANCELLOR, he will receive a permanent +1 bonus to his Influence and a permanent increase of +1 to the maximum Stat Influence of his feudal rank. This bonus is cumulative for noblemen who serve multiple terms as CHANCELLOR. The in-term bonus does not apply to the FACTION LEADER. The post-term bonus does not apply to the FACTION LEADER or to any nobleman who ceased to be CHANCELLOR because he was impeached.
Powers:
(1) This rank is always held at the same time as other feudal ranks. The Influence and Powers of the CHANCELLOR are added on top of the Influence and Powers of the nobleman’s other feudal ranks.
(2) Unless otherwise restricted by the rules, the CHANCELLOR can do anything he wants inside the game except use console cheats, which may be used only as specifically allowed by the Rules. Edicts are only binding on the CHANCELLOR to the extent that the GOVERNING BODY chooses to enforce them.
Limitations on Powers:
(1) The CHANCELLOR must respect all settlement tax rates and build queues. With the exception of Prioritized Buildings, the CHANCELLOR is not required to build anything. However, if anything is built in a settlement, it must be the first item on the build queue. If no build queue is posted for a settlement, the CHANCELLOR can build whatever he likes. The CHANCELLOR may upgrade a province’s walls at any time unless such an upgrade is forbidden in advance by the nobleman who owns the settlement.
(2) No money can be spent on any construction until all Prioritized Buildings have been funded, unless the noblemen who Prioritized them agree otherwise. If there are multiple Prioritized Buildings, and not enough funding for all of them, the CHANCELLOR may choose which to construct first. Rule 4.3 takes precedence over all prioritized buildings.
(3) The CHANCELLOR must respect all requests for the transfer or deletion of retinue members/items, as long as these requests comply with the rules.
(4) (4) The CHANCELLOR cannot disband a unit in a Private Army, Royal Army, city garrison, fort, or controlled fleet if the owner of the a Private Army, Royal Army, city garrison, fort, or controlled fleet gives orders which prevent such a disbanding. This Limitation does not apply to merging depleted units, which the CHANCELLOR may do freely.
(5) Cannot remove a building from any build queue if construction has already begun on it, unless the owner of the province agrees otherwise.



3. GOVERNING BODY

3.1 –Sessions: The GOVERNING BODY will meet in a Normal Session every 10 turns. Out of session, there can be open debate and deliberations. Each Normal and Emergency Session consists of 3 real time days of debate, followed by 2 real time days of voting. econ21 or TinCow can change the length of individual sessions at will.

3.2 – Proposing Legislation: During each session, noblemen may propose Edicts and Amendments, up to the limit allowed by their rank. Edicts and Amendments must be seconded by two other noblemen before they can be put to the vote.

3.3 – Edicts: Edicts require a simple majority of votes to pass and remain in effect until the next normal session of the GOVERNING BODY. Tied Edicts fail. If contradictory Edicts are passed, the one with the most votes takes priority.

*3.4 – Amendments: Amendments require a two-thirds majority of votes to pass and can permanently modify the rules in any way, except for rules marked with a *.

3.5 – Influence: Each nobleman’s voting power is equivalent to his total Influence, as defined by Rule 2.7. No nobleman’s Influence may ever be lower than 1. For the purposes of determining Stat Influence, a nobleman can gain 1 point of Stat Influence for each of the following conditions that he meets: (a) 5+ ranks of Command (b) 10 ranks of Command (c) 5+ ranks of Chivalry or Dread (d) 10 ranks of Chivalry or Dread (e) 10 ranks of Loyalty (f) 8+ ranks of Piety (g) 20+ total stat points (h) 30+ total stat points (i) 40 total stat points (j) nobleman’s name is modified by a trait title that bestows more negative than positive stat points (i.e. the Mad) (k) nobleman is married to a FACTION Princess.

3.6 – War: Except as allowed by rank powers under Rule 2.7, any declaration of war must be authorized by an Edict.

3.7 – Elections: At each Normal Session, on the death of the CHANCELLOR, or on the impeachment of the CHANCELLOR, there is an election for the post of CHANCELLOR. Ties lead to a fresh ballot. A second tie is decided by seniority (avatar age).

*3.8 – Impeachment: The CHANCELLOR can be impeached and removed from office by a two-thirds majority vote of the GOVERNING BODY. Impeachment takes effect immediately after the vote is passed. After impeachment, a fresh election is held to elect a new CHANCELLOR, although the FACTION LEADER may also exercise his power to become CHANCELLOR at that point. The nobleman replacing the impeached CHANCELLOR serves out the remainder of the impeached CHANCELLOR’S term. All Edicts passed in the GOVERNING BODY session that elected the impeached CHANCELLOR remain valid, unless overturned by new Edicts at the Emergency Session that impeached him.


4. Armies

4.1 – Private Armies: Private Armies will consist of a minimum of 3 infantry regiments, 2 ranged regiments, and 1 cavalry regiment. For the purposes of this rule, Generals’ Bodyguard units do not count as cavalry regiments. All regiments must be professional soldiers, not militia, unless the owner agrees otherwise. The owner of a Private Army will determine who commands the Army, where it is to move (if at all), and whom to attack.

4.2 – Royal Armies: Royal Armies will consist of a minimum of 4 infantry regiments, 3 ranged regiments, and 2 cavalry regiments. For the purposes of this rule, Generals’ Bodyguard units do not count as cavalry regiments. All regiments must be professional soldiers, not militia, unless the owner agrees otherwise. The owner of a Royal Army will determine who commands the Army, where it is to move (if at all), and whom to attack.

4.3 – Army Replenishment: If a Private or Royal Army falls below the minimum strength level, all military recruitment must be allocated to restoring the Army to minimum strength before money can be spent on other recruitment, unless the owner agrees otherwise. In the event of a conflict, a Royal Army takes priority over a Private Army. This rule does not apply to armies involved in a Civil War.

4.4 – Historical Army Composition: An army of 10 units or less cannot have more than 3 units of heavy cavalry. An army of 11 units or more cannot have more than 5 units of heavy cavalry. For the purposes of this rule, bodyguard units do not count as heavy cavalry. Armies that do not meet these requirements cannot fight battles under any circumstances, though they can be used for transportation.


5. Civil War

*5.1 – Declaration of War: A nobleman must make a Declaration of War towards a specific nobleman in a public thread before they can attack any of that nobleman’s armies or settlements. A Declaration of War applies to all noblemen of lower rank in the vassal chains of both the nobleman who makes the Declaration and the nobleman who is the target of the Declaration, including vassals who swear an Oath of Fealty after the Declaration of War has been made. A Declaration of War does not apply to any noblemen in the vassal chain who are above the declarer or the target. Neither the nobleman who made the Declaration of War, nor anyone below him in his vassal chain, can attack the target of that Declaration, or anyone below the target in his vassal chain, on the same turn that the Declaration of War was made. This rule does not limit movement in any way, nor does it prevent the target(s) of the Declaration of War from attacking the declarer(s).

*5.2 – Civil War through Oath Breaking: If a Vassal breaks an Oath of Fealty, anyone above him in the feudal chain may choose to instantly enter a state of Civil War. For the purposes Rule 5.1, the nobleman who broke the Oath of Fealty will be considered the person who issued the Declaration of War, and the nobleman who chooses to enter the state of Civil War will be treated as the target of the Declaration of War. If a Civil War begins in this manner, any nobleman who would lose the right to own a Private Army as the result of the breaking of the Oath of Fealty will be allowed to retain ownership of his Private Army until the Civil War ends.

*5.3 – Ending a Civil War: A Civil War will end when all noblemen on one side are dead or all living noblemen on both sides publicly agree to a Peace Treaty. So long as it is limited to changes to the provinces, settlements, armies, Oaths of Loyalty, and retinue of the noblemen signing the Peace Treaty, it will be considered binding law. All terms of a Peace Treaty that go beyond these limits, particularly those that increase a nobleman’s influence or powers beyond those allowed by the rules, will only be binding if adopted by a two-thirds majority of the GOVERNING BODY at the next normal session. Individual noblemen may unilaterally remove themselves from a Civil War within one turn of the Declaration of War that brought them into it by breaking all Oaths of Loyalty that tie them to any nobleman involved in the War and by publicly declaring Neutrality. Neutrality cannot be claimed by a declarer, a target, or any nobleman who has been involved in a PvP Battle during that specific Civil War.

5.4 – PvP Battles: Whenever two hostile armies enter adjacent squares, a PvP Battle will occur, even if the armies have movement points remaining. If both players agree, the battle will be fought via multiplayer, with econ21, TinCow, or anyone they choose acting as umpire. The umpire will determine the map and the precise composition of the armies. If the battle is not fought via multiplayer, there will be a 24 hour voting period to determine how the battle will be fought. The voting options will be (a) Tabletop Battle (b) Abbreviated Tabletop Battle and (c) AI Battle. All players may vote, even those not involved in the battle, all votes will be unweighted, and the option that receives the most votes will be chosen. Tabletop Battles will be in the style of the Battle of Bern and the Battle of Trent and will be umpired by econ21, GeneralHankerchief, or anyone they choose. Abbreviated Tabletop Battles will be identical to a Tabletop Battle, but will be 1 turn in length. Players will determine their starting positions and outline a general strategy for the battle. The umpire will then play out the battle and determine the victor. The umpire may allow a maximum of 1 or 2 additional turns beyond the starting turn if they so choose. The Abbreviated Tabletop Battle will be run by econ21, GeneralHankerchief, or anyone they choose. AI Battles will be custom battles in the TW engine in which the AI will control all units on both sides. AI battles will be umpired by econ21, TinCow, or anyone they choose. The umpire will determine all settings to be used in the battle, including the map and the precise composition of the armies. Regardless of the type of battle chosen, the umpire must attempt to have the battle replicate the in-game state of affairs to the best of his ability. Regardless of the type of battle chosen, the umpire will determine the results, including, but not limited to, units to be disbanded as casualties, avatars to be killed off as casualties, and changes in the control of provinces. Console commands may be used to implement the results.

[FactionHeir]

What's your take on my banishment suggestion btw?

[TinCow]

I'm not entirely keen on banishment as it's been proposed. This is the proposal:


The FactionLeader can banish lesser nobles (those who are lesser than Count) from Imperial lands indefinitely. If the banished noble is a vassal of a Count or higher, there may be some formal voting at the next session to end the outlaw status.

While outlawed, the character has to stay outside the confines of the empire or face imprisonment/execution if caught. He can only be caught if pursued, meaning sufficient men-at-arms are sent after the character. If insufficient men are sent, those may be lost. If enough are sent and quickly, they may just intercept the outlaw.

As such banishment order takes time to reach all provinces, he character can be assailed on the same turn only if within 1 province of the FactionLeader. Else within the next.

The FactionLeader of course won't endear himself to the nobility by doing so, so there generally should be some reason behind it. It will also require a minimum of 6 (or 5?) authority to pull off.

While it makes sense IC, it's very complex and would require a lot of extra work for the Chancellor. That in itself wouldn't be that big a deal, but I think that banishment can already be essentially achieved by a Faction Leader with sufficient political clout. If he's got enough control over the Faction, he can get the other noblemen to shun the 'outlaw' and he can have the Chancellor refuse to help him. If things get extreme, he could demand that every nobleman declare war on the 'outlaw' and he could even declare war himself. Under those circumstances, the person would almost certainly be defeated if they stood their ground, leaving flight the only remaining option... which is the same as exile.

The only difference I see with a true banishment power is that it allows the Faction Leader to pull off a banishment even when the majority of the noblemen, and even possibly the Chancellor, do not support it. I'm not sure if I like that. My concept of the game was to give people the tools with which to achieve power, but to make the actual achievement itself dependent upon their ability to play the political game well. Simply giving the Faction Leader a power like banishment essentially circumvents the politics of the game. It would be similar to giving him the ability to execute anyone he wants, unilaterally. While perhaps realistic, I don't think this is necessarily the best course for the game.

I don't think any role, not even the FL, should have absolute power over any other player in this game. Anyone should be able to resist the moves of someone else, if they are able to assemble enough support from the other players. The FL should definitely be the most powerful role, but it should not be so powerful that it can ignore the opinions of the rest of the players. Historically, Kings were always very reliant upon their nobles, as they supplied the men for his armies, collected his taxes, etc. If the King alienated his nobles, at best he would be impotent and at worst he'd be dead. Forcing our FL to pander to the rest of the players is meant to evoke this. The FL already wields a bigger stick and can bestow greater benefits than anyone else, giving him a major advantage in assembling a supporting coalition. I think giving him powers that directly circumvent the need for political negotiation will unbalance the game.

I think a lot of people are forgetting the FL's single most important power: the ability to become Chancellor instantly and without an election. The Chancellor position in this game has the potential to be incredibly powerful if used properly. A person who uses the Chancellorship specifically to help their allies and injure their opponents can significantly change the balance of power in th game. The FL get an automatic freebie Chancellorship, ensuring that at least once during his reign he can massively reward his friends and greatly damage his enemies. If that's not enough to get the noblemen to obey his will, then he doesn't deserve to have his will obeyed.

[Privateerkev]

I have a question regarding rule 2.3:


2.3 – Losing Provinces: Noblemen can only lose control of one of their provinces if they voluntarily give it to another nobleman, if it is conquered by an AI faction, or if it is occupied by the army of a nobleman who has made a Declaration of War against them (See Section 5). On his death, all of a nobleman’s provinces are distributed according to the most recent valid Will. In order for a Will to be valid, it must have been posted in a public thread or PMed to econ21 or TinCow prior to the nobleman’s death. If the nobleman has no valid Will, the nobleman’s immediate Lord gains possession of the provinces. If the nobleman also has no Lord, the FACTION LEADER gains possession of the provinces.

Say I'm a Count and supply a knight with a private army to conquer Provice X. The Knight conquers Province X and it becomes mine. Then, I give Province X to the Knight and he becomes a Baronet. Then, if the Baronet dies, he can just give Province X to anyone in the game? As long as it is in his will? IC, I think I would be very pissed off if that happened. That land would be mine, conquered by my vassel, using my army.

This leads me to a second question. Can you leave things in your will for avatars that do not exist yet? Like when Ansehelm had the convoluted Franconian heir fiasco? I don't think you should be able to. Maybe a rule that says you can only leave things in a will for an avatar currently controlled by another player. Otherwise, you might have people leaving themselves things in wills so their new avatar can get a "leg up".

[TinCow]

Say I'm a Count and supply a knight with a private army to conquer Provice X. The Knight conquers Province X and it becomes mine. Then, I give Province X to the Knight and he becomes a Baronet. Then, if the Baronet dies, he can just give Province X to anyone in the game? As long as it is in his will? IC, I think I would be very pissed off if that happened. That land would be mine, conquered by my vassel, using my army.

Yes, he could do that. I would be pissed IC as well, but it's no different than hereditary rule. For better or for worse, the Baronet owns the land, the Count does not. The Baronet is the local Lord and his word is law to the local people. He also has the right of hereditary rule. His eldest son will inherit unless disowned, etc. No other nobleman can influence this directly. History is replete with examples of high-ranking nobles and Kings being mightily irked by the heirs of some of their vassals/competitors lands. Inheritance has always been a prickly thing, because it occurs after a person dies and thus puts them beyond the reach of direct influence. Thus it has always been a way for a bitter vassal to get even with a Lord that he disliked, even if he was unwilling to defy him in life.

If you want your vassal to name you the heir to his lands, then you had best make him happy. Either that or march over there and kick him out.


This leads me to a second question. Can you leave things in your will for avatars that do not exist yet? Like when Ansehelm had the convoluted Franconian heir fiasco? I don't think you should be able to. Maybe a rule that says you can only leave things in a will for an avatar currently controlled by another player. Otherwise, you might have people leaving themselves things in wills so their new avatar can get a "leg up".

An interesting question and one we should explore some more. On the one hand, requiring such a thing will simplify the game, which is good. On the other hand, allowing an under-age avatar to be the heir opens up some political possibilities that might be interesting. For instance if Duke Nukem names his son, Nukem Jr, as his heir, but Nukem Jr is only 5 years old when Duke Nukem dies, the Duke's lands will be owned by an avatar that has not yet spawned. This makes them ripe for easy conquest and manipulation by other players, since Nukem Jr. won't appear on the scene to control things directly for some time. Perhaps a Regent would be named to control the province, or perhaps someone else would assume the position by marching his army into the settlement. That would then make an interesting situation when Nukem Jr. came of age and wanted his lands turned over to him.

Of course, that would only be interesting if Nukem Jr. was played by someone. Perhaps allow the Will to name an heir who is underage, but only if they are already assigned to a player.

[FactionHeir]

TC, your stance makes sense, but as outlined a few posts later, the banishment would only be possible against someone involved in a civil war, not against any noble out there just like that.
This is to allow the FL to take sides in who to support if there is strife within his own empire. The outlaw would have to be caught by the FL's troops or those who want to be in the FL's favor, not just by any unit, so there would be little work for the chancellor as people move their own pieces in line to whether they support the FL's banishment or not.


[edit]
To address PK's point, I think if you were to make an underage character inherit the lands, you must also name a regent, who is an avatar already controlled by a player, to take control over the lands until the heir comes of age. As TC points out, there can be power conflicts at that point (Civil War!), which is good.

[TinCow]

Hmmm... that is interesting. I think there's definitely an improvement there somewhere. I'm not convinced that banishment as described is the best system, but I would like to hear more discussion on it and possible powers that the FL could use only during a Civil War. Options could be things that force people to pick sides or that aid one side over the other. A very interesting proposal; I will think on it.

[Privateerkev]

Yes, he could do that. I would be pissed IC as well, but it's no different than hereditary rule. For better or for worse, the Baronet owns the land, the Count does not. The Baronet is the local Lord and his word is law to the local people. He also has the right of hereditary rule. His eldest son will inherit unless disowned, etc. No other nobleman can influence this directly. History is replete with examples of high-ranking nobles and Kings being mightily irked by the heirs of some of their vassals/competitors lands. Inheritance has always been a prickly thing, because it occurs after a person dies and thus puts them beyond the reach of direct influence. Thus it has always been a way for a bitter vassal to get even with a Lord that he disliked, even if he was unwilling to defy him in life.

If you want your vassal to name you the heir to his lands, then you had best make him happy. Either that or march over there and kick him out.

Yeah, that's why I made clear I would be mad IC, and not OOC. OOC, I understand it is what happened in history. I just wanted to be sure I had the rules clear. Thank you for explaining that further. :beam:


An interesting question and one we should explore some more. On the one hand, requiring such a thing will simplify the game, which is good. On the other hand, allowing an under-age avatar to be the heir opens up some political possibilities that might be interesting. For instance if Duke Nukem names his son, Nukem Jr, as his heir, but Nukem Jr is only 5 years old when Duke Nukem dies, the Duke's lands will be owned by an avatar that has not yet spawned. This makes them ripe for easy conquest and manipulation by other players, since Nukem Jr. won't appear on the scene to control things directly for some time. Perhaps a Regent would be named to control the province, or perhaps someone else would assume the position by marching his army into the settlement. That would then make an interesting situation when Nukem Jr. came of age and wanted his lands turned over to him.

Of course, that would only be interesting if Nukem Jr. was played by someone. Perhaps allow the Will to name an heir who is underage, but only if they are already assigned to a player.

I admit my personal exerience with KotR has left a bitter taste in my mouth with regards to this subject.

I believe the game should be about characters accumalating political power. I don't believe that players should accumalate political power. To me, that is missing the point of the game.

In KotR, we saw two instances of a player attempting to "lock in" the Dukeship for his next avatar by naming an heir that had no other player. While I can see FH's point of view regarding having no loyal Swabians to name, it created a lot of resentment among some characters and even some players. And in Franconia, the heir situation was a royal cluster-!@#$.

Ansehelm named an underage avatar as his heir. When that avatar came of age, Econ gave the avatar to his real-life son, Mini-Econ. Stig was visably pissed off OOC. Ansehelm then made one of Siegfried's daughters heir so the person she married would be the next Duke. I can tell you that these moves really caused a lot of frustration both IC and OOC.

Eventually Econ made a rule saying you should name a heir that is currently played by another player. If you name an heir that is under-aged, or of-age but unclaimed, then it would cause a Ducal Council to be called. So, in KotR, you can do it but it will be reviewed by your peers.

I would personally not want to see inheritance passed down to under-age/unmarried females/unclaimed avatars. But if we do, we should at least have some sort of peer-review process to make sure it is rare and not abused. In my opinion, what ever richness could be gained by allowing 5 year old Dukes is far outweighed by the potential IC and OOC trouble it could cause.

Of course, in this game, all of the vassels of Duke Nukem now have another option. While Franconians could only sit and stew over Ansehelm's move, Duke Nukem's vassels could simply leave. Which means a 5 year old Duke would have a bunch of territory but no one to run it. What would happen in that case? Do we pick a "regent" to be a caretaker? How would that work mechancally?

[_Tristan_]

I like the idea of a regency over lands bequeathed by will to an underage avatar, it will allow for some interesting interactions betwen players...

I already envision the regent refusing to release his grip over the lands or doing his best to send the ruler-to-be on military duty to prove his worth (and his ability to die :laugh4:)

[OverKnight]

An heir should be an active player. This isn't exactly historical, but it prevents the power structures from becoming too rigid in the game and gives players on the bottom hope that their day might yet come. This will help in player retention.

Players on the top would also realize that they will reap what they sow, so it might make them a bit less Machiavellian.

[TinCow]

I believe the game should be about characters accumalating political power. I don't believe that players should accumalate political power. To me, that is missing the point of the game.

In KotR, we saw two instances of a player attempting to "lock in" the Dukeship for his next avatar by naming an heir that had no other player. While I can see FH's point of view regarding having no loyal Swabians to name, it created a lot of resentment among some characters and even some players. And in Franconia, the heir situation was a royal cluster-!@#$.

That's a very good point. There are major OOC reasons for not wanting someone to be able to inherit their own lands. I'm sure we could write an elaborate rule about who can inherit and who cannot, but that would probably be long and confusing. Simplicity is probably what your original suggestion was: only living, of-age avatars that are currently assigned to another player can be made heirs. Perhaps I should make a separate rule about Wills altogether, removing the bits and pieces from the other spots that discuss them.

Here's a draft:

2.X – Wills: On his death, all of a nobleman’s provinces and retinue are distributed according to the most recent valid Will. In order for a Will to be valid, it must have been posted in a public thread or PMed to econ21 or TinCow prior to the nobleman’s death. A Will provision is only valid to the extent that it names a living, of-age avatar that is controlled by another player as the inheritor of the province or retinue stated. A Will may name multiple noblemen as inheritors, so long as each province and/or retinue is only bequeathed to a single nobleman. Any provisions of the Will that do not meet these requirements will be invalid. Valid provisions of a Will will not be negated due to the existence of invalid provisions in the same Will. If there is no valid Will provision for an owned province, the nobleman’s immediate Lord gains possession of the province. If the nobleman also has no Lord, the FACTION LEADER gains possession of the province.

[Privateerkev]

2.X – Wills: On his death, all of a nobleman’s provinces and retinue are distributed according to the most recent valid Will. In order for a Will to be valid, it must have been posted in a public thread or PMed to econ21 or TinCow prior to the nobleman’s death. A Will provision is only valid to the extent that it names a living, of-age avatar that is controlled by another player as the inheritor of the province or retinue stated. A Will may name multiple noblemen as inheritors, so long as each province and/or retinue is only bequeathed to a single nobleman. Any provisions of the Will that do not meet these requirements will be invalid. Valid provisions of a Will will not be negated due to the existence of invalid provisions in the same Will. If there is no valid Will provision for an owned province, the nobleman’s immediate Lord gains possession of the province. If the nobleman also has no Lord, the FACTION LEADER gains possession of the province.

I like it. If a lot of people really want the ability to leave things to player-less avatars, I'll help with trying to close the loopholes. But I really really like this better. :yes:

This game is a balance of trying to simulate a historically accurate feudal system, while still being the most fun for the most people. That is why I like that the new feudal structure is strong, yet flexible. I know others have advocated for stronger ties between the noble and his vassels, but I like that the vassel can leave. Sure he might be attacked but he has the option.

I see the heir thing along the same lines. While there are many instances throughout history of kids being made the monarch, I fear it will cause for more trouble than it is worth.

If being historically accurate creates a situation where things might be less fun, then I'll vote on the side of "fun". And this is a "historian-in-training" talking. :beam:

[AussieGiant]

That rule has to go in.

I'm STRONGLY against people holding a position by using that mechanism.

At the very least if someone near the top kicks the bucket then a different "real" person should get a shot at handling the reins.

It's not historical which is something I would like to see therefore the only "trick" I can see is to make sure the eldest male is allocated as a priority and all male members of the line also.

[FactionHeir]

I think that the new rule may be too stringent in that the natural born sons of the avatar that dies may well go completely empty if they are not player controlled even if of age. That doesn't seem fair nor historical at all.

Example: Grand Duke Nukem dies and has (a) son(s) (that is not taken by another player and of age). All his wealth and provinces and retinue go to his vassals or the leader rather than to his son(s). Doesn't seem to make too much sense unless the son(s) have mental traits.

Maybe limit the rule so that not everything can be bequeathed to the player's next character, but a province or two can, depending on station at time of death. And this to only apply if the next character is already of age and unassigned or nearly of age (14 or higher) and unassigned. Otherwise it will go to the player's nearest bloodrelative, or if there are none, the emperor.

[Privateerkev]

I think that the new rule may be too stringent in that the natural born sons of the avatar that dies may well go completely empty if they are not player controlled even if of age. That doesn't seem fair nor historical at all.

Example: Grand Duke Nukem dies and has (a) son(s) (that is not taken by another player and of age). All his wealth and provinces and retinue go to his vassals or the leader rather than to his son(s). Doesn't seem to make too much sense unless the son(s) have mental traits.

Maybe limit the rule so that not everything can be bequeathed to the player's next character, but a province or two can, depending on station at time of death. And this to only apply if the next character is already of age and unassigned or nearly of age (14 or higher) and unassigned. Otherwise it will go to the player's nearest bloodrelative, or if there are none, the emperor.

The problem I see is that it will be open to abuse. A player could just leave his future avatar land and a title. I rather see it go to a new player, even if it means by-passing the "eldest son".

In KotR, we had players pass along IC information to their new avatars. I know you did it with Ruppel. The Order did it when their players had to take new avatars. And I was going to do it with Andreas von Hamburg. To me, this is ok. If you want to plug your new avatar into well developed storylines, I think you should be able to.

But leaving your new avatar land and titles is different in my opinion. It consolidates the power in the hands of a few players instead of leaving it open. This will create resentment both IC and OOC, as we saw in KotR.

I noticed TC has left out family tree politics entirely in his rules draft. I doubt this was an accident. Instead, it is up to the players to move their characters up the ladder.

Unless we want to add in family tree politics into the rules. But maybe that is something that should be RP'd IC instead of legislated OOC. Just my thoughts...

*edit*

What you could do, if you want to leave things to the eldest son, is this. Leave things to a third party. And then when the eldest son comes of age, the third party can then give everything over. This would keep the issue strictly IC using the mechanics already available. This would of course require a third party who is willing to do it. And he could always change his mind. But such is the risk of politics...

[FactionHeir]

The player would only be able to leave a limited amount depending on his current standing, so whatever abuse there may be will be limited to one or two parcels of land and possibly a retinue. As you can see from my wording, there would only be very few cases where this would even be applicable and the character would also need to be on the tree to begin with for this to occur.

If you are a knight or a baronet, fair enough, you might not be powerful enough to leave your son anything. If you are a Grand Duke's son, you would expect at least something rather than be forced by a rule to give absolutely nothing.

On another note, regarding the new rule draft, there seems to be a lack of change in the lower ranks in terms of knights only being allowed to vote if a vassal and possibly Baronets also being limited in army command somewhat.
Actually, it would be a nice touch if a noble of a higher station in the same private army (that belongs to an even higher lord) could take over command of it. Kind of like a Viscount thinking that he should be the leader of the army rather than a knight.

[Privateerkev]

The player would only be able to leave a limited amount depending on his current standing, so whatever abuse there may be will be limited to one or two parcels of land and possibly a retinue. As you can see from my wording, there would only be very few cases where this would even be applicable and the character would also need to be on the tree to begin with for this to occur.

If you are a knight or a baronet, fair enough, you might not be powerful enough to leave your son anything. If you are a Grand Duke's son, you would expect at least something rather than be forced by a rule to give absolutely nothing.

Interesting. I would be more open to this idea if it was limited to really high ranks. I still don't entirely like it though... Like I said before, my experience with this was not a happy one. I'm leaning towards making sure all of the resources get rotated among the players. If we do your idea, it rewards a veteran player because he gets something a new player wouldn't. And while I think that veteran players are important, I'm worried it will create a "old boys" network among a small group of veteran players. Which will make for a less open and happy gaming atmosphere. I do agree your idea would be more historically accurate though. But I'm willing to sacrifice that so things can be more "fun" for everyone.


On another note, regarding the new rule draft, there seems to be a lack of change in the lower ranks in terms of knights only being allowed to vote if a vassal and possibly Baronets also being limited in army command somewhat.

Actually, it would be a nice touch if a noble of a higher station in the same private army (that belongs to an even higher lord) could take over command of it. Kind of like a Viscount thinking that he should be the leader of the army rather than a knight.

Well the higher noble says who the army commander is so that is somewhat figured out already. As for not voting unless your a vassel, I am certainly open to the idea. I do worry a little bit that it might leave new players with little to do. Voting is something that helps tie players to the game and I am hesitant to mess with that. Though, it would help bind the vassel and the lord closer together which some seem to want.

[TinCow]

I think PK hit the nail on the thread with his edit. There is already a way to pass provinces and retinue along to a son who is not yet assigned to a player: use a third party. This occurred to me momentarily when I was thinking about some kind of Regent rule, but it would work perfectly fine here as well. All you have to do is give it to a third-party nobleman who you would intend to act as Regent until the true heir came of age or was taken by a new player. Then that nobleman could just voluntarily pass own ownership to the intended heir. However, since it isn't a mandatory trade, the 'Regent' could simply refuse to hand over possession if that's what he wanted to do. That would have IC implications that would be fun... and all of it without any changes to the rules. I would be perfectly happy to even allow people to pass things onto themselves via that method, because the added buffer of a third party who has absolute control over the final exchange introduces a level of politics and uncertainty that would benefit the game.

As for changes to the rank structure, I didn't make any changes at the low levels because I want to keep discussing them. I haven't seen any consensus on the matter yet, and I want this to be group decision making. Other people are free to draw up their own rule text to be discussed. That would probably be more efficient than waiting for me to figure out what is intended. I do like the multiple ranks in an army thing, though. Something along the lines of adding this text to Rule 1.3 might work:


If there are multiple players involved in a battle, all of whom are capable of commanding it and wish to command it, the player who's avatar holds the highest rank will be the commander. If the avatars are of equal rank, the CHANCELLOR will select which of the players will be the commander.

*edit* Realized the above rule should only apply to non-Private and Royal armies, since those have commanders already chosen for them.

Above idea temporarily suspended while I try to think if there's any situation in which this would actually be necessary.

[Privateerkev]

I think PK hit the nail on the thread with his edit. There is already a way to pass provinces and retinue along to a son who is not yet assigned to a player: use a third party. This occurred to me momentarily when I was thinking about some kind of Regent rule, but it would work perfectly fine here as well. All you have to do is give it to a third-party nobleman who you would intend to act as Regent until the true heir came of age or was taken by a new player. Then that nobleman could just voluntarily pass own ownership to the intended heir. However, since it isn't a mandatory trade, the 'Regent' could simply refuse to hand over possession if that's what he wanted to do. That would have IC implications that would be fun... and all of it without any changes to the rules. I would be perfectly happy to even allow people to pass things onto themselves via that method, because the added buffer of a third party who has absolute control over the final exchange introduces a level of politics and uncertainty that would benefit the game.

As long as the 3rd party transfer remained voluntary, I'd support this. While still open to abuse, this adds in a nice "check and balance" that has the added bonus of encouraging RP'ing and politicking. It was the direct handing down of resources from a player's 1st avatar to the player's 2nd avatar that felt icky to me. The "regent" could decide for himself whether to honor the noble's wishes. The burden would then be on the noble to treat the regent well before he died to help ensure the regent remains loyal. If the regent changes his mind after the noble dies, well then the "eldest son" would certainly have a large IC beef but all of that could be RP'd and could be exciting.
----------------------------------------------

I have two new ideas that are unrelated to matters of inheritance:

1.) What would you think of adding 1 influence to Faction Heirs? They get a +1 cap already. Chancellors get +1 influence plus +1 cap and I think FH's should get the same. The way I see it, there is influence inherent in being a "Prince" and the +1 influence would reflect that.

2.) A Grand Duke (and maybe even a Duke) would have the power once per Chancellor session to mandate that a certain guild in a certain province "must be accepted" if that guild is offered in a province the noble controls. The Grand Duke and Duke already have the power to "prioritize" buildings and this power is along those lines. This means a Grand Duke can say, "During this session, if Hamburg is offered a Merchant Guild, the Chancellor must accept it." And maybe the Faction Leader can dictate 2 "must accepts" for guilds in his settlements. That way, higher ranking nobles can direct the guild strategy in their provinces.

[AussieGiant]

Guy's,

I still can't get my head around the fact that people's positions will yoyo up and down based on what everyone else in that faction thinks about the leader, or anyone else in the faction for that matter.

I know this part of the game is designed like the Mafia games but it is something that I think will detract from the overall situation.

I certainly liked the genealogy and family tree's and what they all meant in KotR, and that includes the adopted general's and spawned characters. I also think these provided great continuity and I also think most of us liked it.

The coat of arms by deguerra and the general feeling of belonging, where very much like the families and the Ducal and Royal son's, brothers and sisters (maybe we might strike it lucky with a few female players...playing princesses and queens would be great) that made up the feudal societies back then.

Even in this structured situation we all know there was certainly more than enough fireworks in the previous game. Therefore I would prefer to keep that part of it. If we leave the more advanced Civil War system in place this will allow for "options" but they are really "final" solutions if things can't be worked out inside the House and the family situation.

People being Grand Duke's one minute then a Duke the next and vis versa all the way up and down the hierarchy doesn't seem appealing or even remotely accurate.

I liked the fact that the Steffen's where a major part of Bavaria and that a few extraordinary nobles attached themselves to the family and provided great service. Likewise I enjoyed Arnold's inability to not continue the line and "hand" things over to the Zirn's through his sister after following on in his fathers footsteps. I would personally like to see these "great houses" established at the beginning, with the knowledge that we are providing a strong mechanism for fragmentation should there be enough support for it.

What is going to seem unnatural is people magically losing titles and their positions due to a mechanism that insitutionalises mistrust and double dealing. There was already more than enough of that going on in the first game...the idea of having very knife edge internal house politics running seems like it will be too hardcore.

Our relationships where already disfunctional enough without advocating it further in the actual rules.

[Ferret]

I think nothing should be left to the same players next avatar, that is just hogging power and part of the fun is earning what you have, not being born with it. However it would make sense if a Grand Duke or Duke left a single settlement to his son. If the player's next avatar is of no relation though then it is just meta gaming and should, imo, be avoided.

[TinCow]

I still can't get my head around the fact that people's positions will yoyo up and down based on what everyone else in that faction thinks about the leader, or anyone else in the faction for that matter.

I don't think there will be a great deal of yo-yoing simply because I think people will tend to stick with their chosen Houses for the most part. If you get a group of people together with similar IC goals, they will tend to want to work together in the long term. However, I do understand what you are saying. It is possible that the Houses will be very unstable, despite what I imagine happening.

One possible way to counteract that without completely scrapping the feudal structure system would be to impose some kind of limit on how often people can switch sides. Perhaps a limit on how often people can swear Oaths of Fealty, but with no limit on how often they can break them. For example, you can only swear an Oath of Fealty once every 10 turns. So, if you join a House, that House is the only one you can be part of for the next 10 turns. You can leave (break Oath) before 10 turns is up, but you won't be able to join a new House until the rest of your time limit expires. So if you want to leave one House and join a second House at the same time, you would have to wait until your 10 turn cooling off period is done before breaking and re-swearing. The longer the cooling off period, the less 'yo-yoing' we are likely to see.

[Privateerkev]

I like that the positions can yo-yo. It will force the upper-ranks to earn their title and not just inherit it.

Power... some people work hard for it. Some people get it as a "sweet-16 present". :laugh4:

As for how important "houses", "royalty", "lineage", "nobility", ect... are, that will be up to us to decide IC. I'm glad TC's rules don't dictate specific House structures, family tree structures, and bloodlines. We'll figure all of that out ourselves.

Maybe it was not as historic to have the nobles yo-yo up and down based on fickle vassals, but it might be a lot more fun. Quite frankly, I believe we had some "weak" Dukes in KotR. And for the most part, they were "weak" because they weren't online much, or felt that they could treat their vassals crappy because there were few consequences. Having the "oaths of fealty" become "breakable", solves a lot of those problems. Is the Duke not online much and ignores you? Just switch to another. Is your Duke sidelining you for personal reasons? Switch to another.

Now, the noble's ability to declare war on someone who breaks an oath is a powerful counter-balance. Also, TC's idea on a "cooling off" period might help too.

[Zim]

I like the idea of requiring land + title being given only to an avatar that already has a character. The idea of having that character possibly be a regent for the leader's underage son is also interesting, since if the regent decides to keep the land a civil war could start between loyalists and supporters of the regent. :2thumbsup:

RE: AussieGiant's concerns, I'm a little ambivalent. I really liked the relative stability of the House structure in KOTR, but also like the fluidity of the new system, where in year x the main power could reside in a single giant House, but 100 years later there might be many, roughly equal ones, as the old one fragmented. The possibility of a Civil War is supposed to make the idea of breaking fealty a weighty decision, but it will be hard to figure out what kind of difference that will make until we play the game for a while (and longer than a potential test game).

[Ferret]

perhaps that coud be an addition to the King's banish ability. If someone breaks an oath of fealty then they could be declared an outlaw. Personally my character will despise anyone who breaks an oath.

[Ramses II CP]

I think the threat of civil war will deter yo-yo'ing. I doubt people are going to willingly let go their Grand Duke power so that Baronet X can go seek his fortune elsewhere. A guy at the top only has to smack one little guy down to keep the rest in line, or cause them to at least make a well developed move with a better chance of success.

Additionally if you develop a reputation for swearing an oath and then not keeping it, how many people are going to want your fealty? Characters that get involved in yo-yo'ing will not be long for the world.

:egypt:

[Privateerkev]

Additionally if you develop a reputation for swearing an oath and then not keeping it, how many people are going to want your fealty? Characters that get involved in yo-yo'ing will not be long for the world.

That's a good point. I like the fact that you can "refuse" someone's oath. There might be some yo-yo'ing in the beginning but I predict a lot of players will want stability and will create that atmosphere. Sure, we'll get a rebel now and then like Wolfgang or Jan, but their success will be limited unless they do it at the right time and place.

[Zim]

I have a question about how the game will start.

Chances are on turn one, barring a few scarce faction + mod combinations, we'll have a fairly small number of players lucky enough to receive a starting FM and probably a territory. Since we're implementing recruitable generals from the start, and TinCow expects to get a large number of players into it in the beginning, we are likely to quickly end up with a lot of avatars with no land and no title.

It seems early on people will try to attach themselves to someone with a title and land, in the hopes of becoming a baronet themselves. So say players x,y, and z all swear an oath of fealty to player q. Soon enough, perhaps thanks to a friendly Chancellor willing to give q troops to use, players x,y,z have all conquered land and become baronet. This allows q to become a baron, but if q wants to raise any higher he needs another baron (if I understand correctly) to swear fealty to him. So he needs one of his baronets to swear fealty to another to raise the other vassal to the level of baron, so that q can become a viscount or whatever the next rank is. To do this that player will have to break his oath to q to swear fealty to their comrade, who is still a vassal to q. This would go on, with the now nascent House fluctuating a bit as it absorbed members outside of the 4 originals, or maybe lost a couple. Eventually something kind of stable might emerge.

If that makes any sense, my concern is basically that it seems the early game will see a lot of breaking of oaths, something I'd hope to be rather rare. I guess the alternative is a decent number of the starting knights avoiding oaths at the start, until they see where they'll fit in their new feudal chain, or maybe independent knights will be lucky enough to get resources from whoever is the first Chancellor to conquer their own territory.

I'm just wondering what the best way to absorb a lot of starting players will be... :juggle2:

[Privateerkev]

I have a question about how the game will start.

Chances are on turn one, barring a few scarce faction + mod combinations, we'll have a fairly small number of players lucky enough to receive a starting FM and probably a territory. Since we're implementing recruitable generals from the start, and TinCow expects to get a large number of players into it in the beginning, we are likely to quickly end up with a lot of avatars with no land and no title.

It seems early on people will try to attach themselves to someone with a title and land, in the hopes of becoming a baronet themselves. So say players x,y, and z all swear an oath of fealty to player q. Soon enough, perhaps thanks to a friendly Chancellor willing to give q troops to use, players x,y,z have all conquered land and become baronet. This allows q to become a baron, but if q wants to raise any higher he needs another baron (if I understand correctly) to swear fealty to him. So he needs one of his baronets to swear fealty to another to raise the other vassal to the level of baron, so that q can become a viscount or whatever the next rank is. To do this that player will have to break his oath to q to swear fealty to their comrade, who is still a vassal to q. This would go on, with the now nascent House fluctuating a bit as it absorbed members outside of the 4 originals, or maybe lost a couple. Eventually something kind of stable might emerge.

If that makes any sense, my concern is basically that it seems the early game will see a lot of breaking of oaths, something I'd hope to be rather rare. I guess the alternative is a decent number of the starting knights avoiding oaths at the start, until they see where they'll fit in their new feudal chain, or maybe independent knights will be lucky enough to get resources from whoever is the first Chancellor to conquer their own territory.

I'm just wondering what the best way to absorb a lot of starting players will be... :juggle2:

You bring up a good point. And that is that there will be a lot of "voluntary" oath breaking. To create the feudal chain, nobles will have to break and then re-make their oaths. Since TC is considering a "cooling off" period with regards to making oaths, perhaps that can be waived when both parties want the oath to be broken. That would allow the House to be flexible and grow. Also it will allow it to absorb losses of players/characters quickly and reform as needed.

I have a separate question about the beginning of the game. If you can't run for Chancellor as a knight, and oaths are frozen during "governing body" sessions, does that mean that the first Chancellor has to come from the starting baronets that Econ picks? I'm assuming we will start off with the first "governing body" session. So the first session will have a few baronets and a bunch of knights. Actually, if there are no RBG's recruited yet, will there be no knights at all? Except if there are more avatars than territories in the beginning of a game of course. Then there will be one or two knights. So, is there a "generic elector" option?

Or will the first "governing body" session only be attended by a few players while the rest of us watch and wait for our RBG's to spawn?

[TinCow]

Knights could simply refrain from swearing an oath until they find a nobleman who is willing to give them a province or an army command. In the beginning, the only people with military power are going to be the Faction Leader, the Faction Heir, and the Chancellor. There's not going to be much pandering to the starting Baronets because those Baronets can't give you much of anything. It's more likely that people would seek to buddy up to the three people (two if the FL or FH becomes the first Chancellor) with power. And of those three people, the FL can't even have vassals. It's likely that the FL would simply end up conquering a couple provinces himself and them handing them out to Knights to create independent Baronets who are not vassals to anyone. Better for the FL to have people in his debt than in the debt of other nobles. This is doubly true if the FL is the first Chancellor, since he'll have essentially all the military power in the game.

Yeah, it may be a bit fluid and improved in the beginning, but the beginning will have relatively few battles and movements, so it will go pretty quickly. I wouldn't be surprised if the first term was only 1-2 weeks. If it helps reassure anyone, I plan on taking a recruitable general to start instead of a beginning landed avatar if it is offered to me. I have enough confidence in the system that I'm willing to start from scratch.

[gibsonsg91921]

Just think about how crazy the HRE of old was. So many principalities... dear God.

For inheritance, I think there should be a one-province and as much retinue as you want inheritance.

[Cecil XIX]

Tincow, when you were making the rules for the Feudal Ranks did you have any alternative ideas on what the requirements would be? If so, could you discuss them?

How about changing the requirements of Baronet and above to read


Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least x land-owning noblemen in their feudal chain.

Where x is the minimum number of nobles that a rank currently requres; one for a Baron, two for a Viscount and all that.

That would not make it inherently easier to keep one's vassals happy, but it would lessen the chances of a catastrophic failure the likes of which every Grand Duke under the current system would face if his Duke rebelled. Certainly there were Lords who had one or two powerful vassals that they had to listen to very carefully, but there were also Lords who had vassals that were only a threat if they banded together. Why not allow for the two extemes and everything in between? It would naturally allow for a greater diversity in the structure of the houses.

[Privateerkev]

Tincow, when you were making the rules for the Feudal Ranks did you have any alternative ideas on what the requirements would be? If so, could you discuss them?

How about changing the requirements of Baronet and above to read


Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least x land-owning noblemen in their feudal chain.

Where x is the minimum number of nobles that a rank currently requres. One for a Baron, two for a Viscount and all that.

That would not make it inherently easier to keep one's vassals happy, but it would lessen the chances of a catastrophic failure the likes of which every Grand Duke under the current system would face if his Duke rebelled. Certainly there were Lords who had one or two powerful vassals that they had to listen to very carefully, but there were also Lords who had vassals that were only a threat if they banded together. Why not allow for the two extemes and everything in between? It would naturally allow for a greater diversity in the structure of the houses.

Ok, are you trying to say it doesn't matter what ranks the vassals are? Like, a Grand Duke only needs 6 vassals in your system? And they could be any rank as long as they own land? So, in your system, there could be a Grand Duke and 6 Baronets?

[TinCow]

Tincow, when you were making the rules for the Feudal Ranks did you have any alternative ideas on what the requirements would be? If so, could you discuss them?

The only other hierarchy I had down was the one I mentioned earlier:

Grand Duke requires 2 Dukes.
Duke requires 1 Marquess
Marquess requires 1 Count
Count requires 1 Baron.

The ranks of Baronet and Viscount did not exist in that system. It was easier to get to Duke, but the Duke wasn't quite as powerful as the current Duke is. It was also much, much harder to get to Grand Duke, as it required a total of 9 people in one House (2 Barons, 2 Counts, 2 Marquesses, 2 Dukes, 1 Grand Duke). It was an acceptable system, but I think the current one is slightly more balanced. There's still more work to be done, though. A lot of flaws have already been pointed out, particularly regarding the Faction Leader. If someone thinks they can come up with a better balance of requirements and powers/penalties, I would very much like to see it. I did not expect my 7 rank tier to be adopted as-is.

We might actually benefit from a detailed examination of how much real power a House would have under different configurations of rank. For instance, if we compared a House led by a Duke to two Houses led by Viscounts. Both require 6 people, but they would have different abilities. The Ducal House would probably triumph, though, because they would have 4 Private Armies to the Viscount Houses' 2 Private Armies. Thus, in pure military strength a Ducal House of 6 people can field as many Private Armies as two Count led Houses totaling 8 people. That doesn't even take into account all the extra abilities that the Ducal House will have that their competitors do not. Is this reasonable? Should the Ducal House of 6 have that much of an advantage over two allied Houses of 4 people each?

Thinking about stuff like this might help us work out what the proper balance should be.

[Ignoramus]

Regarding the wills of vassals, I really am against them being able to bequeath their land at will. In reality, they hold their land of the lord and it's ultimately their lord's. If they die and have natural sons, they should be able to pass their land on to them. But if they don't, then the land should revert back to their lord.

[FactionHeir]

Cecil's idea was what I was about to propose regarding yo-yoing. The number requires could be say 2 larger (at GD level) if they are all baronets and 1 larger if there is nothing else above a baron to balance it out and create incentive to have higher nobles in your lands. It would also eliminate the problem with the broken chain: one noble in the middle breaks, the rest are still sworn to the higher lord but can of course choose to break away as well instead of having to break and rewear to the higher.

[Privateerkev]

We might actually benefit from a detailed examination of how much real power a House would have under different configurations of rank.

Here is what a House led by each rank would have cumulatively. From this, you can mix and match various Houses to compare strengths of various alliance possibilities. Keep in mind, this is the bare minimum each type of House will have. They could have more.

Baronet- 1 person
1 Influence
no forces
one Edict

Baron- 2 people
1 Influence
2 stat Influence
no forces
one Edict
one Edict or CA

Viscount- 3 people
1 Influence
4 stat Influence
1 private army
one Edict
2 Edicts or CAs

Count- 4 people
1 Influence
7 stat Influence
2 private armies
one Edict
3 Edicts or CAs

Marquess- 5 people
1 Influence
10 stat Influence
3 private armies
one Edict
5 Edicts or CAs

Duke- 6 people
1 Influence
14 stat Influence
4 private armies
one Edict
8 Edicts or CAs
can call emergency session
can't be banned from "governing body" session

Grand Duke- 7 people
1 Influence
19 stat Influence
4 private armies
1 royal army
unlimited Edicts and CA's that need no seconds
can call emergency session
can't be banned from "governing body" session
can declare war on AI
can veto one Edict or CA

[Zim]

I think one possible issue doing it that way would be that we plan on bringing lots of players in early on using recuitable generals. With so many generals for the faction, it could be a long time before we see more than one or two marriages and births, at least until we expand far enough to trigger them. This would make it very difficult for early players to have an eldest son to pass their land to. :sweatdrop:


Regarding the wills of vassals, I really am against them being able to bequeath their land at will. In reality, they hold their land of the lord and it's ultimately their lord's. If they die and have natural sons, they should be able to pass their land on to them. But if they don't, then the land should revert back to their lord.

[Privateerkev]

We might actually benefit from a detailed examination of how much real power a House would have under different configurations of rank. For instance, if we compared a House led by a Duke to two Houses led by Viscounts. Both require 6 people, but they would have different abilities. The Ducal House would probably triumph, though, because they would have 4 Private Armies to the Viscount Houses' 2 Private Armies. Thus, in pure military strength a Ducal House of 6 people can field as many Private Armies as two Count led Houses totaling 8 people. That doesn't even take into account all the extra abilities that the Ducal House will have that their competitors do not. Is this reasonable? Should the Ducal House of 6 have that much of an advantage over two allied Houses of 4 people each?

Thinking about stuff like this might help us work out what the proper balance should be.

By looking at the power accumulated by each "type" of House, here are my thoughts. Keep in mind, that the work I did was only on the bare minimum for each House. Technically, each kind of House can have more people of each type other than Grand Dukes.

1.) As TC pointed out, you get more power by going up the ladder. A "Duke" House has twice as much military power as 2 "Viscount" Houses.

2. This is ok with me. It makes rank mean something. If the Duke House gave as much as 2 Viscount Houses, then a lot of people would probably just get Viscount Houses and make alliances. There would be little/no reason to make a bigger house where you have to rely on more people.

3.) Also, encouraging people to form bigger groups encourages people to Roleplay more. It will take a lot of work to make 7 people happy but if you can do it, the rewards are worth it.

4.) A Grand Duke House is an awesome power. 5 armies. Only 2 nobles have to sit out without armies. That is the lowest percentage of army-less nobles than any kind of House. Unlimited edicts and CA's which all 7 nobles can benefit from. 2 nobles who can't be banned and can call emergency sessions. This ensures that all 7 people have a voice and get their opinions heard. The whole House benefits from the ability to declare war on the AI. And one Edict or CA can be vetoed at each session.

5.) I say keep this pretty much as is. Maybe tweak it here or there. But having the powers increase per rank is a good thing in my opinion.

[flyd]

I'll make an observation on stability of houses. A house built upon the minimum requirements, where each noble only has one province and one vassal of one rank below him is unstable. If anyone in the chain rebels, everyone above him drops down.

However, the system, as it is, also allows tree-like structures. You can take smaller houses and combine them: if two counts get together, one can swear an oath to the other, bumping him up to marquess, whose house will have two branches. With any single rebellion, only one branch can collapse. If the marquess gets another baronet for the "weak" branch (the one lacking a count), he can get his viscount vassal promoted to a count, in which case his rank is secure against any single rebellion, although a collapse of one of the branches will leave him in a less stable position.

This branch was done at a count level as an example, but it would be possible to build a house that branches out at multiple levels, improving its stability. The minimum requirements as they are now are fine: it should be able to quickly build an unstable house, or put some effort into a more stable one, or to stabilize an existing one by adding branches. If a knight loyal to a duke gains some land, the duke may want to pass up an opportunity to bump himself up to grand duke and have the new baronet swear an oath to the existing baron (rather than the baronet). The duke stays lower in rank, but the foundation of his house is no longer a single baronet. Even better for the duke if he can find a viscount, who can swear an oath to his count.

I think people will be prone to building tree-like structures, especially if at the start, many small houses start up, which would end up getting combined at the top. Although the minimum requirements are fine as they are now, when trying to balance the number of ranks and their powers, it should be considered that people will not only build linear houses, especially if loyalty proves hard to find... and it probably will.

With trees, there are many, many different kinds of topologies possible. The successful player will probably be the one that best manages to balance stability with height of rank. The only thing that will be tricky to figure out in advance is how many vassals on average people will have. The minimum number of people for a grand duke is 7, but with any branching the number grows quickly. If everyone in a house had two vassals, to get to grand duke would require 127 players. Obviously, that won't happen, and most houses would fall between the extremes.

Further tradeoffs occur if you consider the powers gained. A more branched out house would get more armies and more influence in the votes, but a house that tries to build vertically as quickly as possible would get the special duke and grand duke powers sooner.

In any case, this makes for some very interesting strategic choices on the part of the house leader. The only issue is figuring out what will happen in advance so as to balance things properly. We want neither large numbers of unstable houses, nor a very small number of highly branched houses (and few players at the very top).

What kind of house would you build?

[Privateerkev]

What kind of house would you build?

Under the current rules, I'd say get 6 other people and go for a Grand Duke House as soon as possible.

Offer them the things a Grand Duke can provide.

Tell them that as Grand Duke, you can present any Edict or CA they come up with.

Tell them that you and your Duke will sit out and all 5 of the lower nobles will always have an army command.

Tell them that you and the Duke will say anything they want in the "governing body" since you two can't be banned.

Promise them all that you and the Duke will call emergency sessions if they want it.

Tell them you will declare war on the AI so they can get land.

Tell them you'll veto a piece of legislation they don't like.

Promise to prioritize their buildings.

Promise to use your voting power to pass what they want. Make sure you have the stats to use your 5 stat influence.

As Grand Duke, you will have awesome powers. Find 6 people and tell them you will use those powers for them if they will push you up the ladder.

It might not be the most stable, but if you use those Grand Duke powers for your vassals, they will keep you up there.

[Ignoramus]

I'd like the Grand Duke rank to have to be approved by the Faction Leader, considering the wealth of powers a Grand Duke has. It would create political wrangling, and allow the FL some sort of control over his big vassals.

[deguerra]

I agree on the one hand, but disagree because as I see it a Grand Duke is meant to rival the faction leader and heir.

I'm also still not completely sold on the entire rank system. Somehow, I think a few smaller regional groupings would be better than two or three massive houses. I have nothing to back this up, really, but it seems the little guys should be given a chance if they work together.

As such, I still think smaller houses are limited too much. Perhaps make Duke easier to gain, and Grand Duke harder? Or something along those lines?

[Ignoramus]

Just a suggestion: Perhaps the requirement for a Baronet could be reduced to a fort? That would help smaller houses form.

[Cecil XIX]

The Faction Leader's permission should not be required to create a Grand Duke, as the point of such a position is to create problems for the FL.

My main worry is how large the houses will be. Flydude makes good points about how much Houses can vary in structure but the chains he describes may or may not be practical depending on the number of people. When we think of a one house we should remember that we are talking about only a fraction of the players in the game (Not to suggest that Flydude hasn't done this). That is why my suggestion makes the higher levels easier to reach, but not easier to keep. A Grand Duke may have to choose between the greater power of a straight chain and the safety net provided by simply having six Baronets.

To elaborate on large houses further, I believe geographical interests, philosophical beliefs and personalty clashes should make a Grand Duchy a time-consuming balancing act. It should not be possible to easily keep your vassals under your thumb by offering them a constant stream of favors. In fact it should be the hardest thing in the game, and if Privateerkev is right than it could be easier to stay a Grand Duke than to stay a Viscount. That would be terrible

Furthermore, I think that it would be odd if two nobles each had six vassals underneath them and seven provinces, but one was a Baron and one was a Grand Duke. That is a vast difference in power, even though they command theoretically a rather equal amount of money and manpower. I know this problem will still exist to a certain extent under my proposed revision, but it would be less extreme and more sensible. At the very least I agree that a more concentrated structure should have more power.

Ignoramus's suggestion about forts is intriguing, but leaves the question of whoose land such a fort would be built on. That makes me think of nobles owning forts (and troops) on lands other than there own, which is something I like very much as a bone of contention, a sign of submission, or one favor in exchange for another. A noble could also have troops occupying enemy chokepoints and resources! (Can you get trade income from resources with enemy soldiers on them?)

[Privateerkev]

To elaborate on large houses further, I believe geographical interests, philosophical beliefs and personalty clashes should make a Grand Duchy a time-consuming balancing act. It should not be possible to easily keep your vassals under your thumb by offering them a constant stream of favors. In fact it should be the hardest thing in the game, and if Privateerkev is right than it could be easier to stay a Grand Duke than to stay a Viscount. That would be terrible

Both are hard in different ways. A Grand Duke has more "carrots" (and sticks) but has to spread them out among more vassals. A Viscount has less "carrots" but has less vassals to keep happy. A Grand Duke will have more difficulty communicating to each of his people where a Viscount can have a tightly knit little House. Like a father with 2 sons.

As for allowing a Grand Duke to have 6 vassals of any rank, the House would benefit more if we stuck to a ladder

A Grand Duke House in a ladder would have at least:



7 people
1 Influence
19 stat Influence
4 private armies
1 royal army
unlimited Edicts and CA's that need no seconds
can call emergency session
can't be banned from "governing body" session
can declare war on AI
can veto one Edict or CA

Where a Grand Duke House with 6 Baronets would have:



7 people
6 Influence
5 stat Influence
1 royal army
unlimited Edicts and CA's that need no seconds
can call emergency session
can't be banned from "governing body" session
can declare war on AI
can veto one Edict or CA

So, as you can see, the power difference is pretty stark. It would be in the 7 players best interest to push each other up the ladder and have each noble reach the next rank. You can of course accumulate far more power with a tree, if it gets big enough, but it will mean keeping a whole lot more people happy. The ladder method to Grand Duke is the most efficient way to keep 7 people happy and powerful.

I know your way is allowing for flexibility but I think people would go for the ladder even under your system because they can get more out of it.

[FactionHeir]

I'm thinking a compromise might be good.

Say that fealty is sworn not to the next person in the ladder/chain but all to the highest lord. So a Grand Duke (in a ladder case) would have the baronets, barons, viscounts etc all swear fealty to him rather than baronet to baron, baron to viscount.

However, the trick there would be that the person under the grand duke (and successively lower ranks) would still be able to command around the lower ranks that directly swore fealty to the highest, but the lowest can always appeal to the highest if they disagree, noting that the highest will generally favor the links in between rather than the lowest.

Another thought that crossed my mind was that in addition, it would be good if the ladder was not 1 of each (i.e. 1 baronet, 1 baron, 1 viscount all the way up to grand duke) but that each level requires a certain amount of the next lower. The problem with this pyramid structure would be the vast amount of players needed for the next higher rank. To solve that, we could replace people with land. So to be Count for instance instead of requiring 4 vassals, it would require having 4 provinces.

You may think that this means people who conquer a lot automatically have a lot of power. Yes, that would be correct, but also note that if you are a Count without vassals, the overall power you wield is negligible to a Count who has 4 vassals and 4 provinces. In addition, if you die, everything is lost and you can't exactly easily give it to someone to hold onto.

This method would also make ranks a lot more stable, so if a baronet drops out, not everyone automatically drops a rank, but everything is the same if you at least have the number of provinces available to keep yourself at the current level. Now, this may sound as if it would be the same, as a baronet lost means a province lost. I think we can say that if you lose a province/baronet, you don't drop a rank immediately but with a 6-10 turn delay, so you have time to conquer a new one or solve the dispute via diplomacy or war. It would also give some time to think about the future of your "house".

What do you think of the overall gist of the idea? Land instead of vassals required for the next rank.

[TinCow]

A land requirement is interesting and we should explore it. The benefits are as FH mentions: more stability and a well-balanced system as a rank based on land is weaker than an identical rank based on vassals due to the lack of more powerful lower level vassals. The negatives are that it encourages monopolization of provinces and provinces are the building block of most 'ownership' which people seem to like.

Another option is making multiple requirements for various ranks. For example:


Baronet:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province.

Baron:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Baronet as a vassal OR at least two Knights as vassals.

Viscount:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Baron as a vassal OR at least two Baronets as vassals.

Count:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Viscount as a vassal OR at least 2 Barons as vassals.

Marquess:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Count as a vassal OR at least 2 Viscounts as vassals.

Duke:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Marquess as a vassal OR at least 2 Counts as vassals.

Grand Duke:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Duke as a vassal OR at least 2 Marquesses as vassals.

This would encourage cooperation between separate Houses, without those Houses having to break up their own internal structure. We could even come up with multiple 'OR' statements that are increasingly elaborate:


Duke:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Marquess as a vassal OR at least 2 Counts as vassals OR at least 1 Count, 1 Viscount, and 1 Baron as vassals.

[FactionHeir]

I hadn't thought of the land monopoly issue to be honest. However during a diet session, you would want to have people supporting you and during the general game, you want to conquer (and that is difficult if you are doing everything on your own). In addition, if you have a lot of land and no vassals (or very few), your lands are unlikely to be well defended and people (human and AI) might want to go to war with you.

The multiple ORs was what I was thinking of when I mentioned pyramids. Basically a viscount would need 4 baronets and 2 barons to be a viscount, but then I figured 7 people just to be viscount might be too much, which is why I thought of land instead of people as that tends to be more plentiful (and we don't exactly want to have a grand duke running about before say turn 40 or 50).

What we might thus think of is having land interchangeable with people to some extent. Say for instance (not based on actual numbers) a Marquis needs 7 landholders (of increasing rank) and 1 personal province. We can replace this with a Marquis needs 8 lands without vassals (8 controlled) or 8 lands with 1 baron and 2 baronets (4 controlled, 2 taken by baron, 1 each by baronets).

It would be prudent to limit it that while you can give yourself a rank based on number of lands you own (if you are a primary holder and not a vassal), you cannot make your first vassal a count in this case without filling up the lower ranks first. This would limit abuse in the system too, i.e. in KOTR if you had free lands you would always want to have it filled with a count for votes unless that elector was really openly against you - now you would also have to take into consideration whether you really want to fill the who spectrum.

[TinCow]

Adding on a rank by province ownership requirement via "OR" could definitely work. The question is how do we want to balance that? Should it be an exclusive province or vassal requirement? So, a Baronet who had two provinces would become a Baron? Three provinces would become a Viscount? What happens then if the three province Viscount gives one province to a Knight? The Viscount would get reduced to Baron due to insufficient land and vassals. This would be true for every rank in an even 1 to 1 substitution system. In order for a province-requirement rank to switch over to a vassal-requirement rank without being demoted, they would have to give away all of their provinces at the same time. Do we want that?

At the same time, I'm afraid allowing mixing and matching with a 1 to 1 substitution would be unbalanced. Take a Marquess level House of 5 people, for example. It would be easy for the Marquess to grab 2 extra provinces, when compared to the difficulty of recruiting 2 new noblemen and keeping them happy. Is it right to allow the Marquess to bump himself up to Grand Duke just by gaining 2 more provinces? I understand the provinces substitution would have the disadvantage of having fewer ranked noblemen within the House, but that could be circumvented by having the lowest level person take the provinces. You could thus have a 5 person Grand Duke House with the lowest level nobleman being a Count with 3 provinces. Since the Baron and Baronet bring comparatively little power to the House, that wouldn't be much of a loss at all.

[Privateerkev]

Ok, I'm having some trouble visuallizing this so I'm going to do something that might help me, and anyone else trying to wrap their brain around this.

Here is the current system, which is TC's ladder system:


Grand Duke
-Duke
--Marquess
---Count
----Viscount
-----Baron
------Baronet


One swears to the one above him. It pushes a man up the ladder but is unstable.

Here is TC's original alternate system:


Grand Duke
-Duke
--Marquess
---Count
----Baron
-Duke
--Marquess
---Count
----Baron


Makes Duke easier to get but GD harder. Still unstable.

Here was Cecil's original system. It made the only requirement a number of vassals:
Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least x land-owning noblemen in their feudal chain.


Grand Duke
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet

If someone else in the chain wants to move up, they either have to convince a Baronet to join them or get someone new to join.

So, either:

Grand Duke
-Baron
--Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet

or:

Grand Duke
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baron
--Baronet


Here is FH's idea which is a varient of Cecil's:
Cecil's idea was what I was about to propose regarding yo-yoing. The number requires could be say 2 larger (at GD level) if they are all baronets and 1 larger if there is nothing else above a baron to balance it out and create incentive to have higher nobles in your lands. It would also eliminate the problem with the broken chain: one noble in the middle breaks, the rest are still sworn to the higher lord but can of course choose to break away as well instead of having to break and rewear to the higher.


Grand Duke
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet

or

Grand Duke
-Baron
--Baronet
-Baron
--Baronet
-Baron
--Baronet
-Baron

(while trying to stick to FH's formula, the above would not be possible due to the Baron needing a Baronet.)


FD's thoughtpiece took TC's system but explored the possibilities of going for trees instead of ladders as a more stable platform:


However, the system, as it is, also allows tree-like structures. You can take smaller houses and combine them: if two counts get together, one can swear an oath to the other, bumping him up to marquess, whose house will have two branches. With any single rebellion, only one branch can collapse. If the marquess gets another baronet for the "weak" branch (the one lacking a count), he can get his viscount vassal promoted to a count, in which case his rank is secure against any single rebellion, although a collapse of one of the branches will leave him in a less stable position.

This branch was done at a count level as an example, but it would be possible to build a house that branches out at multiple levels, improving its stability. The minimum requirements as they are now are fine: it should be able to quickly build an unstable house, or put some effort into a more stable one, or to stabilize an existing one by adding branches. If a knight loyal to a duke gains some land, the duke may want to pass up an opportunity to bump himself up to grand duke and have the new baronet swear an oath to the existing baron (rather than the baronet). The duke stays lower in rank, but the foundation of his house is no longer a single baronet. Even better for the duke if he can find a viscount, who can swear an oath to his count.

Here are visualizations of FD's examples:


Count
-Viscount
--Baron
---Baronet

Count
-Viscount
--Baron
---Baronet

These two would join and make:

Marquess
-Count
--Viscount
---Baron
----Baronet
-Viscount
--Baron
---Baronet


As you can see, trees are more stable but need more people.

Another of FH's suggestions has to do with all nobles in the chain swearing to the highest:
Say that fealty is sworn not to the next person in the ladder/chain but all to the highest lord. So a Grand Duke (in a ladder case) would have the baronets, barons, viscounts etc all swear fealty to him rather than baronet to baron, baron to viscount.

And with requiring land:
Another thought that crossed my mind was that in addition, it would be good if the ladder was not 1 of each (i.e. 1 baronet, 1 baron, 1 viscount all the way up to grand duke) but that each level requires a certain amount of the next lower. The problem with this pyramid structure would be the vast amount of players needed for the next higher rank. To solve that, we could replace people with land. So to be Count for instance instead of requiring 4 vassals, it would require having 4 provinces.

So, with this idea, you would need a certain amount of land to reach the next rank and everyone in your chain swears to you and you alone.


Count
-Land
-Land
-Land
-Land

A problem I see here is what happens when the Count wants to give a piece of land to make a Baronet? Does the Count drop to Viscount? Who owns the land?


TC's reply was to make a series of OR statements in the rules. If your noble hit any of these qualifications, he got the rank:
Baronet: Requirements: Must have personal control of a province.
Baron: Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Baronet as a vassal OR at least two Knights as vassals.
Viscount: Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Baron as a vassal OR at least two Baronets as vassals.
Count: Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Viscount as a vassal OR at least 2 Barons as vassals.
Marquess: Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Count as a vassal OR at least 2 Viscounts as vassals.
Duke: Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Marquess as a vassal OR at least 2 Counts as vassals.
Grand Duke: Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Duke as a vassal OR at least 2 Marquesses as vassals.


This means that a Viscount would look like:

Viscount
-Baron
--Baronet

OR

Viscount
-Baron
--Knight
--Knight

OR

Viscount
-Baronet
-Baronet


FH came up with a hybrid as a reply:
What we might thus think of is having land interchangeable with people to some extent. Say for instance (not based on actual numbers) a Marquis needs 7 landholders (of increasing rank) and 1 personal province. We can replace this with a Marquis needs 8 lands without vassals (8 controlled) or 8 lands with 1 baron and 2 baronets (4 controlled, 2 taken by baron, 1 each by baronets).



Instead of:

Marquess
-Land
-Count
--Viscount
---Baron
----Baronet

then either:

Marquess
-Land
-Land
-Land
-Land
-Land

Or:

Marquess
-Land
-Land
-Land
-Baron
--Baronet

Or some other combination of land and nobles.


Hopefully this will help people figure out what system they want.

[AussieGiant]

Thanks for the discussion guy's.

From hearing all the points of view I'm feeling more comfortable about how this will work.

This system would certainly mandate that people in higher positions are active, responsive and "in the game", and I believe that will be a good thing.

So thanks for all the feedback. I'd regard my concerns as resolved at this time.

-edit-

And guy's...I think we need to stick with an either/or solution...this is looking like a legal nightmare from where I'm sitting :-)

[FactionHeir]

Adding on a rank by province ownership requirement via "OR" could definitely work. The question is how do we want to balance that? Should it be an exclusive province or vassal requirement? So, a Baronet who had two provinces would become a Baron? Three provinces would become a Viscount? What happens then if the three province Viscount gives one province to a Knight? The Viscount would get reduced to Baron due to insufficient land and vassals. This would be true for every rank in an even 1 to 1 substitution system. In order for a province-requirement rank to switch over to a vassal-requirement rank without being demoted, they would have to give away all of their provinces at the same time. Do we want that?

At the same time, I'm afraid allowing mixing and matching with a 1 to 1 substitution would be unbalanced. Take a Marquess level House of 5 people, for example. It would be easy for the Marquess to grab 2 extra provinces, when compared to the difficulty of recruiting 2 new noblemen and keeping them happy. Is it right to allow the Marquess to bump himself up to Grand Duke just by gaining 2 more provinces? I understand the provinces substitution would have the disadvantage of having fewer ranked noblemen within the House, but that could be circumvented by having the lowest level person take the provinces. You could thus have a 5 person Grand Duke House with the lowest level nobleman being a Count with 3 provinces. Since the Baron and Baronet bring comparatively little power to the House, that wouldn't be much of a loss at all.

I was thinking of a non-1 to 1 concept. You would need the amount of land for a certain title equal to the number of lands you would have to hold if this were a straight chain. So this way if someone swears fealty, you don't drop a rank but keep it.

[AussieGiant]

I was thinking of a non-1 to 1 concept. You would need the amount of land for a certain title equal to the number of lands you would have to hold if this were a straight chain. So this way if someone swears fealty, you don't drop a rank but keep it.


ah ha, now that's a good idea.

[Privateerkev]

I am wary of tying titles to land (beyond the 1 land requirement we have already).

Like TC said, it might become easier to get land than nobles. You don't have to communicate with the province. Just keep the settlements happy and you'll have your title. I fear this would decrease role-playing.

I like that the high noble is in a precarious position. It forces him to be active and to communicate with his people. If a high noble just needed land, he could just sit on it and wait for people to come to him.

Under the current system, I think we found a pretty good balance of power/responsibility. The vassals give the noble power but the noble then has a responsibility to the vassals. If you bind the noble's power to land, you take away a lot of his responsibility to his vassals and he can just ignore them or treat them crappy.

Now as to making rank requirements a series of OR statements, I think something like that would work. Things will still work the same way but the House would have more options. Having Cecil's pure "numbers only" requirement might eliminate the middle ranks. But TC's hybrid of OR requirements might keep things balanced. It would still be in people's best interest to cooperate and push people up the ladder but they won't "have" to do it.

I'm noticing people seem to have an anxiety towards trusting people in the game. They don't want their position to be threatened by the whim of the vassal. To that I say, A.) civil war for oath breaking is a powerful deterrent that will act in the noble's favor, and B.) it will be up to the noble to apply carrots and sticks effectively in order to achieve high ranks.

Also, having a "cooling off" period between oath-breaking that is not approved by both members might help make things more stable. I would be much more in favor of this than tying titles to land. I do believe that all oath-breaking that is approved by both parties, be unlimited so the Houses can be more flexible.

[Privateerkev]

I was thinking of a non-1 to 1 concept. You would need the amount of land for a certain title equal to the number of lands you would have to hold if this were a straight chain. So this way if someone swears fealty, you don't drop a rank but keep it.

Then who's land is it if someone swears fealty? Under your system, a Viscount would need 3 lands. Say he wants a Baronet. A Baronet needs 1 piece of land. Does the Viscount need to get a 4th? If they give the Baronet 1 of their 3? Wouldn't that drop them to Baron? If not, would the land have 2 owners? Can land have 2 owners?

Viscount
-land
-land
-land

then becomes

Viscount
-land
-land
-Baronet
--land

Your proposing that it be:

Viscount
-land
-land
-land
-Baronet
-land

OR

Viscount
-land
-land
-land <--- this land shared between two nobles
-Baronet

See where I'm confused? Who would own the land?

[Zim]

I'm not sure I like the idea of just owning land being able to get a character to a high title. As long as rank was tied to vassals there was a reasonable limit to the number of high ranks we'll see. If it takes 7 people in a feudal chain to make a Grand Duke, and we end up with 20 some active players at any given point, then we'll see no more than 3 Grand Dukes at any point, and probably fewer since the Grand Dukes have to keep so many people happy.

Land, on the other hand, does not have to be kept happy. As long as you can keep conquering it, you can keep raising in rank. This could result in a disturbingly high number of Grand Dukes as our faction expands (a rank that's supposed to be very rare and a rival for the Faction Leader). Suddenly the only cap on the number of Grand Dukes in the game is how many settlements our factions can capture. Since he can start wars, a Grand Duke could even conquer up to 14 settlements on his own, and pick the player he trusts most to take 7 of them to make another Grand Duke.

If we are using a land and/or vassals system, I think we should make the rank of Grand Duke much harder to obtain, so that it isn't easy for the mid level ranks to just conquer their way to becoming Grand Dukes.

[StoneCold]

Just throwing a few more ideas out on the ranks system.

How about a suspension of rank changing when the game is not in governing session? A guy could break oath with his superior anytime, the superior will keep his rank until the next session and in the mean time settle the score with him. This could probably lead to players breaking oath just before the governing session though.

A way of preventing 6 players from going up the rank ladder to fast maybe to limit how many levels of rank a avatar can gain per session? Set a limit as above where rank only changes in each session, that only a rank is gain per term and you can only swear to someone of same rank and higher?

I really like the idea of a baronet being someone with just a fort on his lord's land.

With regards to the RBG, how many could be spawn at a turn anyway? Meaning there will still be a waiting list probably until the 2nd governing session?

[Privateerkev]

I've noticed conversation slow down in here so I'll re-ask a couple questions I had posted and I'll put up my analysis of House structures for easy reference.

1.) What would you think of adding 1 influence to Faction Heirs? They get a +1 cap already. Chancellors get +1 influence plus +1 cap and I think FH's should get the same. The way I see it, there is influence inherent in being a "Prince" and the +1 influence would reflect that.

2.) A Grand Duke (and maybe even a Duke) would have the power once per Chancellor session to mandate that a certain guild in a certain province "must be accepted" if that guild is offered in a province the noble controls. The Grand Duke and Duke already have the power to "prioritize" buildings and this power is along those lines. This means a Grand Duke can say, "During this session, if Hamburg is offered a Merchant Guild, the Chancellor must accept it." And maybe the Faction Leader can dictate 2 "must accepts" for guilds in his settlements. That way, higher ranking nobles can direct the guild strategy in their provinces.

Here is my analysis on the minimum power each type of House would have under the current rules:

Baronet- 1 person
1 Influence
no forces
one Edict

Baron- 2 people
1 Influence
2 stat Influence
no forces
one Edict
one Edict or CA

Viscount- 3 people
1 Influence
4 stat Influence
1 private army
one Edict
2 Edicts or CAs

Count- 4 people
1 Influence
7 stat Influence
2 private armies
one Edict
3 Edicts or CAs

Marquess- 5 people
1 Influence
10 stat Influence
3 private armies
one Edict
5 Edicts or CAs

Duke- 6 people
1 Influence
14 stat Influence
4 private armies
one Edict
8 Edicts or CAs
can call emergency session
can't be banned from "governing body" session

Grand Duke- 7 people
1 Influence
19 stat Influence
4 private armies
1 royal army
unlimited Edicts and CA's that need no seconds
can call emergency session
can't be banned from "governing body" session
can declare war on AI
can veto one Edict or CA

Here is my take on ladder vs tree:

As for allowing a Grand Duke to have 6 vassals of any rank, the House would benefit more if we stuck to a ladder

A Grand Duke House in a ladder would have at least:

7 people
1 Influence
19 stat Influence
4 private armies
1 royal army
unlimited Edicts and CA's that need no seconds
can call emergency session
can't be banned from "governing body" session
can declare war on AI
can veto one Edict or CA


Where a Grand Duke House with 6 Baronets would have:

7 people
6 Influence
5 stat Influence
1 royal army
unlimited Edicts and CA's that need no seconds
can call emergency session
can't be banned from "governing body" session
can declare war on AI
can veto one Edict or CA

So, as you can see, the power difference is pretty stark. It would be in the 7 players best interest to push each other up the ladder and have each noble reach the next rank. You can of course accumulate far more power with a tree, if it gets big enough, but it will mean keeping a whole lot more people happy. The ladder method to Grand Duke is the most efficient way to keep 7 people happy and powerful.

I know your way is allowing for flexibility but I think people would go for the ladder even under your system because they can get more out of it

Here is my attempt to visualize the different House structures we are coming up with:

Ok, I'm having some trouble visuallizing this so I'm going to do something that might help me, and anyone else trying to wrap their brain around this.

Here is the current system, which is TC's ladder system:


Grand Duke
-Duke
--Marquess
---Count
----Viscount
-----Baron
------Baronet


One swears to the one above him. It pushes a man up the ladder but is unstable.

Here is TC's original alternate system:


Grand Duke
-Duke
--Marquess
---Count
----Baron
-Duke
--Marquess
---Count
----Baron


Makes Duke easier to get but GD harder. Still unstable.

Here was Cecil's original system. It made the only requirement a number of vassals:


Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least x land-owning noblemen in their feudal chain.


Grand Duke
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet

If someone else in the chain wants to move up, they either have to convince a Baronet to join them or get someone new to join.

So, either:

Grand Duke
-Baron
--Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet

or:

Grand Duke
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baron
--Baronet


Here is FH's idea which is a varient of Cecil's:


Cecil's idea was what I was about to propose regarding yo-yoing. The number requires could be say 2 larger (at GD level) if they are all baronets and 1 larger if there is nothing else above a baron to balance it out and create incentive to have higher nobles in your lands. It would also eliminate the problem with the broken chain: one noble in the middle breaks, the rest are still sworn to the higher lord but can of course choose to break away as well instead of having to break and rewear to the higher.


Grand Duke
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet

or

Grand Duke
-Baron
--Baronet
-Baron
--Baronet
-Baron
--Baronet
-Baron

(while trying to stick to FH's formula, the above would not be possible due to the Baron needing a Baronet.)


FD's thoughtpiece took TC's system but explored the possibilities of going for trees instead of ladders as a more stable platform:


However, the system, as it is, also allows tree-like structures. You can take smaller houses and combine them: if two counts get together, one can swear an oath to the other, bumping him up to marquess, whose house will have two branches. With any single rebellion, only one branch can collapse. If the marquess gets another baronet for the "weak" branch (the one lacking a count), he can get his viscount vassal promoted to a count, in which case his rank is secure against any single rebellion, although a collapse of one of the branches will leave him in a less stable position.

This branch was done at a count level as an example, but it would be possible to build a house that branches out at multiple levels, improving its stability. The minimum requirements as they are now are fine: it should be able to quickly build an unstable house, or put some effort into a more stable one, or to stabilize an existing one by adding branches. If a knight loyal to a duke gains some land, the duke may want to pass up an opportunity to bump himself up to grand duke and have the new baronet swear an oath to the existing baron (rather than the baronet). The duke stays lower in rank, but the foundation of his house is no longer a single baronet. Even better for the duke if he can find a viscount, who can swear an oath to his count.

Here are visualizations of FD's examples:


Count
-Viscount
--Baron
---Baronet

Count
-Viscount
--Baron
---Baronet

These two would join and make:

Marquess
-Count
--Viscount
---Baron
----Baronet
-Viscount
--Baron
---Baronet


As you can see, trees are more stable but need more people.

Another of FH's suggestions has to do with all nobles in the chain swearing to the highest:


Say that fealty is sworn not to the next person in the ladder/chain but all to the highest lord. So a Grand Duke (in a ladder case) would have the baronets, barons, viscounts etc all swear fealty to him rather than baronet to baron, baron to viscount.

And with requiring land:


Another thought that crossed my mind was that in addition, it would be good if the ladder was not 1 of each (i.e. 1 baronet, 1 baron, 1 viscount all the way up to grand duke) but that each level requires a certain amount of the next lower. The problem with this pyramid structure would be the vast amount of players needed for the next higher rank. To solve that, we could replace people with land. So to be Count for instance instead of requiring 4 vassals, it would require having 4 provinces.

So, with this idea, you would need a certain amount of land to reach the next rank and everyone in your chain swears to you and you alone.


Count
-Land
-Land
-Land
-Land

A problem I see here is what happens when the Count wants to give a piece of land to make a Baronet? Does the Count drop to Viscount? Who owns the land?


TC's reply was to make a series of OR statements in the rules. If your noble hit any of these qualifications, he got the rank:


Baronet: Requirements: Must have personal control of a province.
Baron: Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Baronet as a vassal OR at least two Knights as vassals.
Viscount: Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Baron as a vassal OR at least two Baronets as vassals.
Count: Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Viscount as a vassal OR at least 2 Barons as vassals.
Marquess: Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Count as a vassal OR at least 2 Viscounts as vassals.
Duke: Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Marquess as a vassal OR at least 2 Counts as vassals.
Grand Duke: Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Duke as a vassal OR at least 2 Marquesses as vassals.


This means that a Viscount would look like:

Viscount
-Baron
--Baronet

OR

Viscount
-Baron
--Knight
--Knight

OR

Viscount
-Baronet
-Baronet


FH came up with a hybrid as a reply:


What we might thus think of is having land interchangeable with people to some extent. Say for instance (not based on actual numbers) a Marquis needs 7 landholders (of increasing rank) and 1 personal province. We can replace this with a Marquis needs 8 lands without vassals (8 controlled) or 8 lands with 1 baron and 2 baronets (4 controlled, 2 taken by baron, 1 each by baronets).



Instead of:

Marquess
-Land
-Count
--Viscount
---Baron
----Baronet

then either:

Marquess
-Land
-Land
-Land
-Land
-Land

Or:

Marquess
-Land
-Land
-Land
-Baron
--Baronet

Or some other combination of land and nobles.


Hopefully this will help people figure out what system they want

And here is my question regarding tying rank to land:


Then who's land is it if someone swears fealty? Under your system, a Viscount would need 3 lands. Say he wants a Baronet. A Baronet needs 1 piece of land. Does the Viscount need to get a 4th? If they give the Baronet 1 of their 3? Wouldn't that drop them to Baron? If not, would the land have 2 owners? Can land have 2 owners?

Viscount
-land
-land
-land

then becomes

Viscount
-land
-land
-Baronet
--land

Your proposing that it be:

Viscount
-land
-land
-land
-Baronet
-land

OR

Viscount
-land
-land
-land <--- this land shared between two nobles
-Baronet

See where I'm confused? Who would own the land?

[_Tristan_]

I find FH's idea of land and oath allowing both to get an avatar up the ladder.

As to PK's question of what happens when the say Count gives land to his vassal, I have a proposition.

It would require some tracking but should allow also for greater stability.

It would require to differentiate free-hold Lords from tenants.

Let's say our Count owns 4 settlements and gives one to a Knight to make him a Baronet. With the rule as it is, it should drop him one level and make him a Viscount but with the land remaining in the same house I see no need for him to drop.

This would allow a house to gain power from the top rather than from the base. It could be used by the ranks higher up to even recruit members from other Houses (buying a rival house Baron with a Viscount title...)

Now let's say that this same Baronet breaks his oath, then the land granted earlier returns to the Count (a sort of loan...).

This would allow for more stable relationships between Count and Baronet.

The Baronet gains the use of the province for himself but in return he must remain loyal to his Lord or lose all.

I don't know whether the Count in this example should be allowed to wrest the land from the Baronet out of oath-breaking...

This would require to track which Baronets are free-hold and which are tenants for their Lords.

I hope this makes sense...:dizzy2:

[Privateerkev]

I find FH's idea of land and oath allowing both to get an avatar up the ladder.

As to PK's question of what happens when the say Count gives land to his vassal, I have a proposition.

It would require some tracking but should allow also for greater stability.

It would require to differentiate free-hold Lords from tenants.

Let's say our Count owns 4 settlements and gives one to a Knight to make him a Baronet. With the rule as it is, it should drop him one level and make him a Viscount but with the land remaining in the same house I see no need for him to drop.

This would allow a house to gain power from the top rather than from the base. It could be used by the ranks higher up to even recruit members from other Houses (buying a rival house Baron with a Viscount title...)

Now let's say that this same Baronet breaks his oath, then the land granted earlier returns to the Count (a sort of loan...).

This would allow for more stable relationships between Count and Baronet.

The Baronet gains the use of the province for himself but in return he must remain loyal to his Lord or lose all.

I don't know whether the Count in this example should be allowed to wrest the land from the Baronet out of oath-breaking...

This would require to track which Baronets are free-hold and which are tenants for their Lords.

I hope this makes sense...:dizzy2:

It definitely makes sense.

The idea of owning/renting is certainly interesting. It would provide a compromise to the flexible/rigid discussion we are having. I would personally prefer a more fluid and flexible system, but if the majority of the players wish for more stability, then this is one way to achieve it. I only caution us against making the system too rigid. Otherwise, we'll just have KotR all over again with a few new rules.

I did think of a way to implement your idea. TC's new rules already mandates a seperate thread where each of us will have a single post that we update. On that post, we are to put our army and settlement information so the Chancellor has one place to go look things up. Land owning/renting could go there. The player with the lord could just put in the post all the land he "owns" and who is "renting". This would solve the book-keeping problem you saw.

[TinCow]

I like this rent/own idea. I think there may be a solution to our conflicting ideas by allowing the Lord to choose whether the land being given to his Vassal is being permanently given or simply loaned. A proper balance of the rules would result in loans giving the Lord more rank stability, but fewer benefits, while a transfer of ownership would decrease rank stability, but provide greater vassal powers.

I'll think on this in more detail when I have time.


With regards to the RBG, how many could be spawn at a turn anyway? Meaning there will still be a waiting list probably until the 2nd governing session?

No matter what mod we pick, we need to slap another one on top to make RBGs recruitable in every settlement at all times (through all levels of walls/castles) for 1 florin and with a regeneration rate of 1 every turn. With just 4 starting provinces and no conquest, we should thus be able to recruit 40 RBGs before the end of the first term, way more than we'll need. RBG upkeep should probably be reduced as well so that we don't bankrupt ourselves in our efforts to give everyone an avatar.

[Privateerkev]

I like this rent/own idea. I think there may be a solution to our conflicting ideas by allowing the Lord to choose whether the land being given to his Vassal is being permanently given or simply loaned. A proper balance of the rules would result in loans giving the Lord more rank stability, but fewer benefits, while a transfer of ownership would decrease rank stability, but provide greater vassal powers.

What about making 1 "owner" = 2 "renters". That way, we don't have to keep track of which Dukes (and other ranks) have which powers. They would all have the same powers, but what is needed to get them will vary depending on whether you "give" your land away or "loan" it.

Here is an example:

Say I'm a Baronet with 5 territories. I would need 2 more people to be a Viscount under the current rules.

Under my idea, you could either "give" the land in return for fealty or "lend" the land in return for fealty. Say you could give your land to two people and become a Viscount. Or, lend 4 pieces of land to 4 people and then become a Viscount under my idea of a 1/2 give/loan ratio. (or give 1 land away and rent 2)

The only difference between a "owner" and a "renter" is that a "renter" can't leave the land in his will and loses the land if the oath is broken.

This allows for more stability because the Lord has an option to get the land back. But, this compromise rewards RP'ing by allowing lords who trust their vassals more to get the benefits easier.

Plus, we get away from tying titles to land. A noble with 5 pieces of land is still a Baronet. But that land is "his" land and he can decide whether to "give" it or "lend" it.

And we don't have to water down the powers.

Any thoughts?

[_Tristan_]

I like the idea, PK...

This really makes a difference between having free-hold and tenants vassals...

One question though : in your example, what happens in the case of the Baronet's death ?

The vassals who have got title (land given) should retain their lands but what of the loaned lands ?

Could a will assign them as free-hold to the tenants ? Is it automatically made free-hold (which would lead to some IC assassination attempts on the Baronet) ?

[TinCow]

One idea for rent vs. own could be that all ranks are treated exactly the same, but a person who has a rental land would not get a Private or Royal Army out of it. The rentee could still accumulate an army in the garrison or a nearby fort, of course. That would be easy to keep track of and easy to implement, while still providing a major penalty for use of rental over ownership.

[Privateerkev]

One idea for rent vs. own could be that all ranks are treated exactly the same, but a person who has a rental land would not get a Private or Royal Army out of it. The rentee could still accumulate an army in the garrison or a nearby fort, of course. That would be easy to keep track of and easy to implement, while still providing a major penalty for use of rental over ownership.

I like that too. Seems like another good compromise.

Tristan brought up the question of what happens to land when the noble dies. Does the renter lose the land to whoever the noble leaves it to in the will? Or, does the renter automatically aqcuire the land upon the death of his lord?

*edit*

I can't see a case where a rental land would be denying someone a Royal Army. A Grand Duke or FL wouldn't be renting from someone. A Prince might but I think the Prince should keep his royal army if he is a renter. He is the Prince after all... ^_^

[TinCow]

For inheritance purposes, the rental land would still technically belong to the Lord, so he should be able to dispose of it as he wishes in his Will. That's part of the 'stability' he would get out of it.

Regarding the Prince, perhaps he simply shouldn't be allowed to rent at all. No self-respecting heir to the throne would tolerate such a situation. Give him 1 turn after he becomes the Heir to re-arrange his affairs, then make all rental lands he possesses return to their original Lord and bar him from all future rentals.

[Privateerkev]

For inheritance purposes, the rental land would still technically belong to the Lord, so he should be able to dispose of it as he wishes in his Will. That's part of the 'stability' he would get out of it.

Regarding the Prince, perhaps he simply shouldn't be allowed to rent at all. No self-respecting heir to the throne would tolerate such a situation. Give him 1 turn after he becomes the Heir to re-arrange his affairs, then make all rental lands he possesses return to their original Lord and bar him from all future rentals.

Both sound good to me.

Do oaths of fealty still work the same? Say a Baronet has 3 land. He gives one to the Baron and lends one to a Baronet. Does the Baronet still swear to the Baron? Or would the Viscount have to give both to the Baron so the Baron can rent one to the Baronet?

[TinCow]

In order for this rule change to really be able to achieve the stability people want, we would have to allow for oaths to be sworn like they currently are. Restricting it to something like direct swearing only to the person who is renting you the land would vastly reduce the utility of such an arrangement. So, I say keep oaths and rentals completely separate. You can rent to anyone you want and you can swear to anyone you want, and whether the two have any relation to each other is up to the players. I'll write up some draft language later, but I also think we need to bar 'subletting' simply because it would start to make things very confusing. You can rent land to whomever you want, but that person cannot then rent it out to a third person.

I will probably implement this rule by bringing back the 'Bonded' and 'Freehold' distinction that never worked well in KOTR. In order to make it work effectively, I'll change the language of each land-owning rank to allow them to rent out property. I will then add a new rank called Bonded Noble whose requirement is renting a land and which will be held simultaneously with another rank, like the Heir and Chancellor. The Bonded Noble rank will work by overwriting a few of the powers/penalties of the nobleman's other rank. Technically everyone who wasn't Bonded would be Freehold, but since Freehold would be the natural state, I see no reason to include it as a separate rank. Thus we will have 'normal' ranks and 'Bonded' ranks. A Viscount who owns his land will still have the formal title of Viscount, but a Viscount who rents his land will have the formal title of Bonded Viscount.

The main question is... would this kind of arrangement be enough to staisfy the players who want more stability than the current system? This is definitely not as strong as some of the proposals FH and others have been putting forward, so I'd like to hear their take on it.

[Cecil XIX]

I am against the idea of rental land, as it moves too far away from the idea of ownership. It's also too complicated. I'd rather stick with Tincow's original idea.

I especially dislike the idea that the Prince should be denied from gaining power in a certain way. Barring him from renting means there will be times when a noble will lose power upon becoming Prince, which is rediculous.

[TinCow]

I'm going to put up a poll about this general topic. It's clear we're not going to find a solution that makes everyone happy, so I think we need to determine where the majority opinion lies.

[Cecil XIX]

I think it is important that after we finish with the test game we should decide what mod and faction we're going to play as before we make any decisions about the other rules. Ideally we should be mimicing the system of government used by our chosen faction to at least some extent, and that should be reflected in the powers of the Chancellor, the Faction Leader, and the especially the fuedal rank structure.

[Zim]

Judging from the mod poll it looks like we'll be playing Stainless Steel 4.1. It would be nice to have that confirmed and be able to discuss a faction, though. :yes:

[AussieGiant]

Another good point from Cecil....

The thing with us playing the HRE was that it was very fragmented and did fit with the way things were being played in the actual game.

Keep in mind there we far more stable and "controlled" Kingdoms back then. If we play some type of semi feudal system it might seem very out of place to the point of being unrealistic in comparison with what was happening at the time. I say this because I expect most of us to start reading about the kingdom we choose when that is finally done. The more realistic it is, the better it will be for the game and our roleplaying abilities.

As for the land question...well fuedalism was based entirely around land ownership...if you had it then you had power...if you didn't, well, then you where in a bit of trouble.

Having said that, I think it will complicate the situation dramatically if we have some type of hybrid system. We should try for a simple and "representative" type feudal system, rather than trying to simulate things too much.

[Privateerkev]

Another good point from Cecil....

The thing with us playing the HRE was that it was very fragmented and did fit with the way things were being played in the actual game.

Keep in mind there we far more stable and "controlled" Kingdoms back then. If we play some type of semi feudal system it might seem very out of place to the point of being unrealistic in comparison with what was happening at the time. I say this because I expect most of us to start reading about the kingdom we choose when that is finally done. The more realistic it is, the better it will be for the game and our roleplaying abilities.

As for the land question...well fuedalism was based entirely around land ownership...if you had it then you had power...if you didn't, well, then you where in a bit of trouble.

Having said that, I think it will complicate the situation dramatically if we have some type of hybrid system. We should try for a simple and "representative" type feudal system, rather than trying to simulate things too much.

This is a more general post not directed at you in particular. But I think of this every time someone mentions wanting the game to be "realistic".

I guess my perspective is different. I don't care what feudal structure/faction combo we have. If it is not historically accurate, I certainly won't be losing any sleep over it. And that is because M2TW is not historically accurate. At all. Period. This is why I laugh when people complain in the Citadel that hornet-nest-throwers, flamethrowers, or Panzerphaunts are not "period". The entire way that the game portrays society is not "period". None of it.

It's a game. It's meant to be fun and it achieves that. It is not meant to be a historical simulator. It is meant to reduce culture to simplistic and reductionist forms so it does not distract from the point of the game, which is to zoom in on your little men killing each other. The rest is just gravy. When you start learning about history, the first thing you realize is that the real world is just the opposite. The real world is messy, complicated, and ever-changing.

I have a lot of confidence in 2 things:

1.) I have confidence that enough of us will do enough reading to create an immersive environment.

2.) That we'll have fun no matter what faction/feudal structure we play in.

As for land, sticking it in as the building block for the most basic rank is one thing. Making it where the accumulation of more of it is the "only" means of achieving the higher ranks is something else. I caution us from moving too far towards the latter.

[AussieGiant]

Sure thing PK. The game is certainly not a simulator but there is a substantial amount of effort invested in giving the game the right "feel" for want of a better word.

I'm certainly not about to reference the game for any historical purposes :beam:

On a personal level I'm simply looking to for a back drop that fit's "us", as in the total mayhem and carry on we are going to get ourselves into...if we have something that can be "basically" believable then I'd prefer that.

And...I also agree with you on your two numbered points. In the end if we don't have that then it wont impact things too much.

I like the final sentence too. That sums up my feelings also.

To get in "the club" i.e. Nobility, then a piece of land would be good as a starting point...any further advancement is better suited to other concepts.

[Privateerkev]

Sure thing PK. The game is certainly not a simulator but there is a substantial amount of effort invested in giving the game the right "feel" for want of a better word.

I'm certainly not about to reference the game for any historical purposes :beam:

On a personal level I'm simply looking to for a back drop that fit's "us", as in the total mayhem and carry on we are going to get ourselves into...if we have something that can be "basically" believable then I'd prefer that.

And...I also agree with you on your two numbered points. In the end if we don't have that then it wont impact things too much.

I like the final sentence too. That sums up my feelings also.

To get in "the club" i.e. Nobility, then a piece of land would be good as a starting point...any further advancement is better suited to other concepts.

!@#$

Here I thought you were going to disagree with me!

I logged on all happy in anticipation of a long dragged out emotional drama fest!

You have denied me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I will never forgive this! Never!

The nerve of you to agree to everything I said! :furious3:

:clown:

On a more serious note, why aren't you in the test game? I think it will be fun! :2thumbsup:

(I apologize if anyone takes offense at the thread derailment. This thread has slowed down now that we're still waiting for the voting to finish, and the test game to start, and new rules to be proposed. I'm just bored and avoiding my 25 page paper that is due tomorrow.) :yes:

[AussieGiant]

!@#$

Here I thought you were going to disagree with me!

I logged on all happy in anticipation of a long dragged out emotional drama fest!

You have denied me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I will never forgive this! Never!

The nerve of you to agree to everything I said! :furious3:

:clown:

On a more serious note, why aren't you in the test game? I think it will be fun! :2thumbsup:

(I apologize if anyone takes offense at the thread derailment. This thread has slowed down now that we're still waiting for the voting to finish, and the test game to start, and new rules to be proposed. I'm just bored and avoiding my 25 page paper that is due tomorrow.) :yes:

Sorry there PK...:clown:

If you want me too I can go and get Arnold's blood soaked shoulder pads and we can go into the Diet for one more round of pontificating? :beam:

[Privateerkev]

Sorry there PK...:clown:

If you want me too I can go and get Arnold's blood soaked shoulder pads and we can go into the Diet for one more round of pontificating? :beam:

with who? Jan's ghost? :laugh4:

I'm pretty sure Alfgarda is considered a traitor to the Republic so she is out of the question. That and I couldn't get her yelling and screaming like I could with Jan. It just didn't feel right having a 60+ plump widow telling someone to go !@#$ themselves. :beam:

I actually miss von Essen. I was all ready to turn him into a long-winded legalistic strict constructionist. Loyal to Arnold of course, but very much the bane of the Diet for his law-fare. But he died so young... :sweatdrop:

[FactionHeir]

Mind if I argued with you instead :grin:

[Privateerkev]

Mind if I argued with you instead :grin:

:beam:

yay! :balloon2:

sure, argue (or debate if you prefer) away! It would help re-rail this thread anyways. I should probably keep researching but that never stopped me. :laugh4:

[Askthepizzaguy]

I have a quick question... who is in charge of this crazy project? The head honcho? The big cheese? The taco grande?

If I had a comment I wanted to direct to the person or persons who are ultimately responsible for KOTR 2, whom would I contact?

[Zim]

Tincow and possibly Econ21 after he returns from his break.

[OverKnight]

After shaking off a bit of the post KotR blues, I've reviewed the rules for the second time.

Considering Rank Stability, I have to second the idea that rank requirements only be calculated once a Term, either before or after the Legislative Session. I'd say before, so Lieges are a bit more responsive to constituents. I'd also suggest that inactivity be taken into account at that time. Once every two terms seems a bit unresponsive.

I'm against Renting land, my thoughts on this are posted in the relevant poll.

Of course, I won't have a true feel for the rules until we begin playing.
If KotR is any indication, this new Charter will be a living document.

[AussieGiant]

I'm still not over the post KotR blues yet, but I'm around...:burnout:

If we are going to yoyo ranks, then just before election time is the best point. No more and no less. At least that creates some stability for a period of time and allows for the rest of the game mechanics to work.

I don't think we should include land as part of the process. If we do, then just one province as part of gaining the first rank (nice historical touch) and that's it, and there is certainly no "renting" concept to confuse things further.

[Privateerkev]

My idea on oath swearing is this:

If both parties agree, then there is no limit to oath breaking/taking except when a "governing body" is in session.

You can always break an oath.

But if you break one without the permission of your lord, you can only re-make an oath once per session.

That way, the Houses can re-arrange at will. The vassals have a small measure of power but not too much. If you wish to be in no House, that should be your right. It's up to you if you don't want the protection/security of being part of an oath lineage. But if you don't like a House, and leave without the lord's permission, then if you swear to another lord, you can still leave, but you can't swear again until the next session.

[AussieGiant]

I don't like the idea of institutionalised oath breaking being a part of the actual rules.

An oath should be given and then handled on a case by case basis using sometype of IC court system. The idea that a noble can just "up and leave" (which I agree should be allowed in the game) is anthema to me and something that just feel's wrong in a game based around Medieval times.

PK, do you think there another option for this?

[Privateerkev]

I don't like the idea of institutionalised oath breaking being a part of the actual rules.

An oath should be given and then handled on a case by case basis using sometype of IC court system. The idea that a noble can just "up and leave" (which I agree should be allowed in the game) is anthema to me and something that just feel's wrong in a game based around Medieval times.

PK, do you think there another option for this?

Keep in mind that there is still the rule that says a noble can declare war on his vassal for breaking the oath. And for the purpose of the rules, the noble would be the defender since he is the offended party. I think this will limit the amount of oath-breaking that happen without the lord's permission. I think the option should be there for the vassal to leave if he wants but there can be severe consequences. Such as the fact that the noble can declare civil war, hunt the former vassal down, and kill him.

[AussieGiant]

Keep in mind that there is still the rule that says a noble can declare war on his vassal for breaking the oath. And for the purpose of the rules, the noble would be the defender since he is the offended party. I think this will limit the amount of oath-breaking that happen without the lord's permission. I think the option should be there for the vassal to leave if he wants but there can be severe consequences. Such as the fact that the noble can declare civil war, hunt the former vassal down, and kill him.


Good points...

I just don't like it...it seems a little irrational :beam: I guess that's my inbuilt ethical side coming out.

If you break and oath with me...

I'll come after you with a blunt spoon...

...because it takes a lot longer to bludgeon someone to death with a blunt spoon. :beam:

Everyone might want to take note of that statement for future reference. :clown:

[Privateerkev]

Good points...

I just don't like it...it seems a little irrational :beam: I guess that's my inbuilt ethical side coming out.

If you break and oath with me...

I'll come after you with a blunt spoon...

...because it takes a lot longer to bludgeon someone to death with a blunt spoon. :beam:

Everyone might want to take note of that statement for future reference. :clown:

"a spoon brother? why not an axe?"

"because it's blunt you twit! It will urrt more!"

[AussieGiant]

"a spoon brother? why not an axe?"

"because it's blunt you twit! It will urrt more!"

LOL.

Exactly. Gotta go PK.

@ All: Have a good day and night. See you all tomorrow.

P.S. Good work TC. The test game looks very interesting.

[TinCow]

Ok, based on the Feudal Structure Stability Poll, I think it's pretty clear that the feudal ranks need to branch out a bit instead of being completely linear. I will get to work on a few alternate systems that we can discuss. However, we're all very divided about the land issues, both renting and rank based on land. I've proposed some ideas about both in the past, but I've got to be honest that I don't like them and I think they'll cause more problems than benefits. If you guys want to implement some kind of land rules, I need to see a consensus form on the matter. If it remains split on both issues, I'm not going to implement them.

Also, since we seem to have embraced the ability to 'seize' units and hold onto them permanently, I would like to eliminate the following text from both Rule 4.1 (Private Armies) and Rule 4.2 (Royal Armies):


All regiments must be professional soldiers, not militia, unless the owner agrees otherwise.

As I said in my original commentary, since the noblemen will have the ability to control the composition of their own armies, the Private/Royal Armies could simply be a ‘minimum number of units’ requirement which leaves the quality up to the politics of the game. It would make the early game simpler and would add an extra level of politics and negotiation. It will also make people more cautious about risking rare and valuable units in battle, since the Chancellor could replace them with militia if he really wanted. Anything that brings IC considerations into a player's battle against the AI is a good thing IMO.

[Ituralde]

I have not yet read all comments in this thread, probably about half of the answers, so please forgive me any oversight if I touch too heavily on stuff that has already been mentioned.

First off I was a little surprised to see this ruleset from TinCow. During my active time and also during my absence I have also thought about future possibilities for this kind of game and in my mind I have always tended towards a more open feudal structure where Houses and their followers are made up solely through the decisions of the players. The surprise was only little, because playing with TinCow and seeing him handle things like the Cataclysm gave me the feeling that we share certain goals we want to achieve in these games.

So all in all I am quite happy with the ruleset proposed. My own ideas never made it into a precise ruleset, because I just couldn't think of a way to encompass it all. The same is true now however for TinCows rules. While I agree with them on principle and have faith in TinCow for putting concepts into abstract rulesets, I still have problems with getting the whole thing to fit in my head. I understand the ranks and their powers, but still I'm wondering how it will really pan out in a game. These things are really hard to predict beforehand so I'm willing to let myself be surprised by the system. Right now I'm still trying to figure out the exact possibilities this system offers and whether it's the best implementation of this open feudal structure. I will reread the ruleset some more and catch up on all of the thread shortly, maybe then I'll be able to pinpoint the exact things that hinder me from grasping the whole thing completely.

I'm sorry if the above is only a lot of rambling, but maybe it was helpful for some. I'm not saying that TinCows system won't work or that it's bad, quite the opposite. It's just that right now I can't get my mind around it. How does it work exactly? What are the exact consequences? I'm definetly going to follow the Test Game with interest.

[TinCow]

I'm not saying that TinCows system won't work or that it's bad, quite the opposite. It's just that right now I can't get my mind around it. How does it work exactly? What are the exact consequences? I'm definetly going to follow the Test Game with interest.

This is exactly why I wanted a lengthy period to discuss and tweak the rules. I'm very confident in them, but I've also been thinking about them off and on for the last 4 months. While that lets me understand them more easily, it also potentially blinds me to major flaws. Several have already been pointed out and corrected, and I still feel like there's a lot more work to be done on it. The more time that is spent analyzing them now, the better it will be when the game starts.

I expect the Test Game to mainly reveal any problems with the Civil War system and the changes to the game management which allow people more control over their armies. I don't think it will tell us much about whether the feudal structure itself is a good system. I don't really know of any way to test that which wouldn't require multiple months of play-time and character development.

[Ituralde]

Thanks to all the people who discussed this, especially Privateerkev and FLYdude often spoke my mind with their posts. I know I'm getting into this a little late, but right now I'm really intrigued by the possibilities this system offers.

To me the biggest problem also lies in the stability vs. power issue that has been discussed the most in this thread. Right now there are the two systems where you either build a ladder or a tree. (Thanks to PK for his visualization!) The one granting more power and the other granting more stability. I haven't looked at the respective poll yet, but to me the whole land ownership/renting system sounds like too much hassle for too little real effect. It adds a whole new layer of rules that doesn't achieve enough for the complication it brings to the rules. In my eyes the positive side of owning more land than is required is added stability. If you are Grand Duke under the ladder system and the bottom rung seems particularly annoying, you don't have to worry. Should he really rebel you can always give one of your spare provinces to create another Baronet. That's the added stability right there!

What bothers me more is the possibility of rapid fluctuation as it exists now. While on the one hand I find it good that Houses are able to appear out of nowhere there are some negative implications too. For example three people could band together and decide that everyone of them wants to be Viscount once in a while. So instead of forming a proper feudal hierarchy that lasts some time they just arrange for their ladder to reorganize every 10 turns. Breaking their oaths and swearing them again, pushing another one of their number to the top. While all within the rules and probably fun for the participants I would find this a major annoyance for RP purposes. Becoming a Viscount should mean something more than just being part of some whacky three way ensemble.

Another thing that has been touched upon but not to the depth I prefer is the matter of inheritance. To me this should be a big point! Maybe the family tree should factor in at this point. Right now it doesn't matter whether you're on the family tree or not, which is nice to a certain extent, but then again I especially liked the drama and excitement created by the family tree the most in KotR. Especially with the new fealty system it would be something special if your brother would not join the same House as the rest of your family. Maybe being on the family tree should give the benefit of appointing one of your sons as heir, while when you're not on the family tree your choice of heir has to be approved by the person above you in the feudal chain, ultimately leading to the FL. This would increase the FLs power and also make Princesses vastly important again. Because you now have an incentive to get on the family tree!

Spawned generals will still be able to make their fortune in this life and rise to large powers, but they know that it will be much harder for them to leave a lasting legacy due to their limited control on inheritance.

A third thing I wanted to throw in regarding the stability vs power issue was to probably change the requirements for each rank slightly. I envision a system where you have initial requirements that you need to fulfill to get a certain rank and then there are minimum requirements you need to fulfill to keep a rank.

Let's go back to the Grand Duke again. Instead of just a straight ladder under you, you need at least two more vassals that branch of somewhere. Then you can become Grand Duke. Once you are Grand Duke though, you have achieved something and deserve a little rest. You still stay Grand Duke even if you just have the ladder under you. The problem here of course would be to balance the requirements in a way that wouln't make it too hard to gain the new rank and also doesn't make it too easy to hold on to it.
Also this would prevent the Viscount scenario I described above.

So those are basically my thoughts on the major subjects. I'm interested to hear what you think!

[AussieGiant]

You've outlined things very well Ituralde.

My thoughts are:

Scrap the land issue entirely for the reasons you stated. Those that are allocated land should manage it, but titles and positions in the Houses existed in KotR entirely without land being allocated and this can continue in my view, especially with the ranking system we will have in place courtesy of TC's work. If you have land then the Mod seems to place titles on you and there are some IC benefits but it should be a "nice add on" not a legislated part of the rules.

I've also raised the unnatural fluctuation mechanics which both TC and PK, plus a few others have address my worry to the point that I have now lowered my concerns on the matter.

Having said that if it's in the rules then it can be exploited as you mentioned. Given the Civil War mechanics and oath mechanics I certainly think the fluctuation mechanics should be removed entirely. It's artificial, unrealistic and with both the oath and civil war mechanics in place everyone has two ways of getting out of a situation if it becomes really unworkable. My conclusion is to allow allocation of rank but they are permanent once allocated. The idea that the head of a house can change as part of some ranking system is not a positive. IC and the other mechanics should be the way the head of a house or any other position is removed. That means they either die, they lose the oaths of the people below them, or there is a civil war in which he is deposed.

Regarding the Houses and the Family tree...I certainly want the family tree to be accurately represented in the game with no artificial changes made. The lineage and House structures mixed together would provide excellent role playing opportunities.

[TinCow]

Ituralde makes some very good points. I'm somewhat at a loss for how to write a system that has different 'promotion' requirements from 'sustaining' requirements which is still simple and balanced. However, it occurs to me that what we really need to do is add in penalties to deter people from upsetting the feudal system without a really good reason.

While the option to declare war on a 'traitor' vassal is certainly a deterant, it won't stop the traitor from instantly being promoted from Baronet to Grand Duke if he gets together a colition of disgruntled low-level ranks. It does also seem strange to me that it's theoretically possible for a person to go from Knight to Grand Duke on the same turn. There are simple and effective solutions to both of these problems: time requirements.

1) Alter some rank requirements to read as they currently do, but add in "AND must have held LOWER LEVEL RANK) for 5 turns." If we added this to GD, Duke, and Marquess, then people could be instantly promoted up to Count, but then they would have to serve 5 years as Count, 5 years as Marquess, and 5 years as Duke before GD would become available to them. Balance could be achieved by extending, shortening, or abolishing the time requirement for the various ranks. Perhaps shorter 'time in rank' at low levels than higher.

2) Put in a 'cooling off period' for re-swearing if you break your Oath. Civil War is a major deterent, but I doubt we'll see it every time a vassal betrays his house. If we prevent someone from re-swearing after breaking an Oath for a certain period of time (maybe 5 turns, 10 at the most), people will have to really consider their choices before fleeing a House. Depending on whether we want to stop House internal re-organization or not, we could restrict the cooling off period only to oaths that are broken without the consent of the Lord.

[Ituralde]

I thought about some turn requirement too but didn't mention it because I feared it would be too artificial. The more I think about it though, the more I like it. I would propose upping it to 10 turns of being Duke before you can become Grand Duke. Maybe even make it a requirement every time. I'm sure the thing we don't want to see is an unstable House where the leader is a Grand Duke this round and Duke again the next and a Grand Duke the round after.

I'm not too keen on the cool off period though. Especially for low ranks that don't have much military resources it is the only way to escape the wrath of their former master if they can attach themselves to someone else. I don't think we should loose this as it provides a big field for intrigue. "I know your lord doesn't listen to me. Why don't you join me then you can conquer that land over there. And as a result I am a Duke and can protect youe ven better!"

And as OK mentioned earlier the point of calculation for titles is important too. Making it once before the meeting of the Legislative Body sounds fine on paper but I fear it's wide open for abuse and might lead to people only concentrating on having their required number on that turn and start to neglect it afterward.

Another idea behind the initial requirements and the minimum requirements was to give the leader of the feudal chain some freedom once he has reached a high position. I think a Duke or Grand Duke should be able to piss off his subjects to a certain extent. But this can probably be better achieved by people deciding to go the safe route and keep some more vassals than are needed for their current rank.

Which brings me to another point that just occured to me. Who exactly appoints the higher rank? If we have two Baronets one of them will become Baron, that's clear enough. But what happens now. The remaining Baronet gets another vassal pushing him up to Baron, which forces the Baron to become Viscount. But what if he'd rather be amore stable Baron? I guess he would then have to get the new Baronet to swear direct fealty to him and not to his Baronet, right?
I'm starting to confuse myself right now, but I hope the point gets across that sometimes you could get pushed to some unstable position you don't want just because your lowest vassal decides to get his own vassal. I can already imagine the nightmare these feudal chains can become if there's "cross-vassalization" so to speak. But leaving it out entirely wouldn't make sense either.

Ah this makes me shudder with anticipation with all the possibilities this system opens up, but at the same time afraid of the structure become too complex to handle. I'm really looking forward to see this in action now!

[TinCow]

Ok, here's my first draft of a new rank structure. I have done three things.

1) I have made the system branch slightly by requiring the Marquess to have 2 loyal Counts. This significantly increases the total population requirements for higher ranks, so I have compensated by eliminating the Baronet rank. I then rebalanced the rank powers/penalties a bit to compensate for this.

2) I have added in 'time-in-rank' requirements to some of the higher levels. This will prevent anyone from instantly gaining a high rank without having first done their time at a lower rank. This should increase stability a bit. I have varied the time-in-rank requirements for the various ranks, making the higher ranks require more time, and thus become harder to achieve. However, I have also allowed the time-in-rank requirement to be 'permanently' achieved. Ituralde has expressed disagreement with this aspect of the time-in-rank requirement, but I think it’s better this way for a couple reasons. First, the time-in-rank requirements for the high levels require a long time for the high ranks. In order to get to Grand Duke, you need to have served at least 20 turns at lower level ranks. That is two full Chancellorships, not counting any extra time you served and any time you had before you got to Marquess. If we make these time limits reset every time you lose a rank, people will die of old age before they regain their old positions. This seems wrong, especially since a Grand Duke can easily be dropped down to Count or below by a properly placed defection, which would thus erase ALL 20 turns of his service. Second, I think of the time-in-rank requirement as something of an IC prestige requirement as well. Once you have done the time, you are considered by the nobility at large to be ‘worthy’ of higher rank. Simple political turmoil that temporarily changes your rank would not change the fact that you’re still regarded highly by the nobility at large. Think of Winston Churchill, for example. He was a Cabinet member and on his way to PM when he lost his seat in Parliament, thus kicking him out of government altogether. However, when he regained his seat and returned to politics, he quickly climbed back to the highest ranks of governance. Despite his complete demotion, he still was considered ‘capable’ of the higher ranks due to his previous experience.

3) I have added in a cool-down time on swearing oaths after a nobleman has broken an oath without the permission of his Lord. I understand Ituralde’s hesitation on this one, but I think it might work nicely. The requirement is short (5 turns) and meshes nicely with the Civil War by Oath Breaking rule. What this essentially does is stops low-level vassals from leaving a powerful House unless they have another powerful House that is willing to back them. Leaving a low level House isn’t a big deal, as long as the person has assembled a large enough garrison to defend themselves. They could easily have a garrison capable of handling a single Private Army if they prepare right, so it’s really only the high level Houses that would become difficult to leave. Even then, just because they can’t swear fealty for 5 turns doesn’t mean they are completely vulnerable. All it means is that if you’re going to leave a powerful House without permission, you had better have another House backing you. Their ‘new’ House will then have to defend them for 5 turns before it gets the benefit of the new vassal. This will make vassal-poaching a serious undertaking, not to be taken lightly. In addition, this will stop ‘peasant rebellions.’ Oath-breaking en mass by low-ranks will only result in lots of dead low level noblemen, not in the sudden appearance of a new and powerful House. In addition, this rule doesn't really bother high-level defections, since those ranks will still retain all their power as long as their vassals remain true to them. A Duke who bails on a Grand Duke and retains all his vassals will actually be much more powerful than his former Lord, so he doesn't need protection.

I think the end result of all of these changes is a more stable and organic structure that will grow slowly and steadily. Sudden losses of power are still possible, but gaining high ranks will take time and a certain amount of stability. Here are the proposed rule changes:


2.5 – Oaths of Fealty: In order to become a Vassal of another player, a nobleman must take an Oath of Fealty by specifically swearing allegiance to that player in a public thread. The prospective Lord has the right to refuse to accept the Oath. An Oath of Fealty can be broken if either the Lord or the Vassal specifically revokes it in a public thread. If a Vassal breaks an Oath of Fealty without the permission of his Lord, he cannot swear a new Oath of Fealty until 5 turns have passed. A nobleman can only have one Lord at a time, but he may have an unlimited number of Vassals. Oaths of Fealty cannot be sworn or broken while the GOVERNING BODY is in session.

(For 2.7, I cut off everything above Grand Duke, since no changes were made to those ranks.)


2.7 – Feudal Ranks: In the event of a conflict, Rule 2.7 takes priority over all other rules. The feudal ranks and positions are as follows:

Knight:
Requirements: None
Influence: 1
Powers:
(1) Can propose one Edict per GOVERNING BODY Session.
Penalties:
(1) Cannot lead more than a half stack army unless it is a Private or Royal Army.
(2) Cannot run for CHANCELLOR.

Baron:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province.
Influence: 1
Powers:
(1) Can propose one Edict per GOVERNING BODY Session.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control. Can destroy any building in their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property, unless the Baron is loyal to a higher rank.
Penalties:
(1) Cannot lead more than a half stack army unless it is a Private Army, a Royal Army, or within the borders of a province they personally control.
(2) Loses control of all provinces if they fail to vote in two consecutive Normal GOVERNING BODY Sessions. All provinces lost in this way are given to the Baron's Lord. If the Baron has no Lord, the provinces are given to the FACTION LEADER.

Viscount:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Baron as a vassal.
Influence: Up to 2 Stat Influence.
Powers:
(1) Can propose one Edict or Amendment per GOVERNING BODY Session.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control. Can destroy any building in their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property, unless the Viscount is loyal to a higher rank.

Count:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Viscount as a vassal
Influence: Up to 2 Stat Influence.
Powers:
(1) Can propose one Edict or Amendment per GOVERNING BODY Session.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control. Can destroy any building in their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property, unless the Count is loyal to a higher rank.
(4) Owns one Private Army.
(5) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can Prioritize one building in any build queue in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain, unless the Count is loyal to a higher rank.

Marquess:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least two Counts as vassals. Must have served 5 consecutive turns as a Count at some point in time.
Influence: Up to 3 Stat Influence.
Powers:
(1) Can propose two Edicts or Amendments per GOVERNING BODY Session.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control. Can destroy any building in their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property, unless the Marquess is loyal to a higher rank.
(4) Owns one Private Army.
(5) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can Prioritize one building in any build queue in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain, unless the Marquess is loyal to a higher rank.
(6) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can destroy one building in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain, unless the Marquess is loyal to a higher rank. Buildings in the barracks, archery range, stable, siege engine, and gunsmith lines cannot be destroyed with this power.
(7) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can force a transfer of one retinue member/item from any nobleman in their chain of followers to themselves or anyone else in their chain of followers, unless the Marquess is loyal to a higher rank.

Duke:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Marquess as a vassal. Must have served 5 consecutive turns as a Marquess at some point in time.
Influence: Up to 4 Stat Influence.
Powers:
(1) Can propose three Edicts or Amendments per GOVERNING BODY Session.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control. Can destroy any building in their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property, unless the Duke is loyal to a Grand Duke.
(4) Can call Emergency GOVERNING BODY Sessions.
(5) Owns one Private Army.
(6) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can Prioritize one building in any build queue in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain, unless the Duke is loyal to a Grand Duke.
(7) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can destroy one building in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain, unless the Duke is loyal to a Grand Duke. Buildings in the barracks, archery range, stable, siege engine, and gunsmith lines cannot be destroyed with this power.
(8) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can force a transfer of one retinue member/item from any nobleman in their chain of followers to themselves or anyone else in their chain of followers, unless the Duke is loyal to a Grand Duke.
(9) Cannot be banned from a GOVERNING BODY Session.
(10) May seize control of any ships that start the turn in a port inside a province controlled by anyone in their feudal chain (controlled port). Ships may not be seized if there is are units on board that are not controlled by someone in the RANK's feudal chain. Ships seized in such a way cannot be moved by the CHANCELLOR without the RANK's permission, unless they are outside a controlled port and do not have a nobleman on board that is in the RANK's feudal chain.

Grand Duke:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Duke as a vassal. Must have served 10 consecutive turns as a Duke at some point in time.
Influence: Up to 5 Stat Influence.
Powers:
(1) Can propose an unlimited number of Edicts or Amendments per GOVERNING BODY Session and their Edicts and Amendments do not need to be seconded.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control. Can destroy any building in their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property.
(4) Can call Emergency GOVERNING BODY Sessions.
(5) Owns one Royal Army.
(6) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can Prioritize one building in any build queue in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain.
(7) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can destroy one building in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain. Buildings in the barracks, archery range, stable, siege engine, and gunsmith lines cannot be destroyed with this power.
(8) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can force a transfer of one retinue member/item from any nobleman in their chain of followers to themselves or anyone else in their chain of followers.
(9) Cannot be banned from a GOVERNING BODY Session.
(10) Can declare war on any AI faction at any time, for any reason.
(11) Can veto one Edict or Amendment per GOVERNING BODY Session.
(12) May seize control of any ships that start the turn in a port inside a province controlled by anyone in their feudal chain (controlled port). Ships may not be seized if there is are units on board that are not controlled by someone in the RANK's feudal chain. Ships seized in such a way cannot be moved by the CHANCELLOR without the RANK's permission, unless they are outside a controlled port and do not have a nobleman on board that is in the RANK's feudal chain.
Penalties:
(1) Cannot swear an Oath of Fealty to another nobleman.


Please note that this system does make the high ranks very hard to achieve. A Marquess requires 6 vassals (minimum House population of 7) and 5 years-in-rank. A Duke requires 7 vassals (minimum House population of 8) and 10 years-in-rank. A Grand Duke requires 8 vassals (minimum House population of 9) and 20 years-in-rank. Under this arrangement, getting to Grand Duke will be a major, major accomplishment and is not likely to happen more than once or twice in the game, if at all.

[FactionHeir]

I would like to throw in something regarding dead noblemen.
If we have civil war and people use it as a way of trying to cause ruckus for instance, it might be worthwhile considering a minimum respawn time for an avatar that dies as a result of PvP action (possibly also for AI action). Immediate (1 turn) respawn seems rather bad I suppose.

My second point is regarding banishment. There's been some discussion on that but there hasn't been a vote. Care to make one?

[TinCow]

I see no problems with an immediate respawn because the death will erase all progress made with the previous avatar. You'll have to start from scratch, which is enough of a penalty in itself IMO.

Go ahead and make a banishment poll, but I would like to see an actual concrete proposal posted with it. I haven't seen much more than vague ideas bandied about so far. Write up some proposed rule text for it so that we can better understand what we're talking about.

[AussieGiant]

I'm certainly getting a headache, but without a real concrete alternative option I am not going to hammer the logic too hard. That's just unfair on TC.

I think we are in danger of over complicating this already.

The mechanisms for abuse are starting to become apparent.

Let me give this idea a shot.

All in all there where some good, some bad and some neutral Duke's in KotR.

As Arnold I was appointed by my father and became Duke based on hereditary lines, very accurate and part of the family tree situation.

I was active and essentially provided a good basis for all the nobles who joined to the house. (At least that is the impression I got and it seemed to be confirmed at the end when there was a flurry of nobles in Austria.)

If I died I would have handed the Dukedom off to one of the Zirn sons as part of the family line...I could have easily given it to someone else outside of the family line as I am free to do so, but, it is all played out IC.

There was an instance in which separation was demanded and it was resolved through peaceful means IC between me and Becker/Cecil. Even without the current proposed mechanics in place the PvP battles would have seen a collision between Arnold and Becker if there was not resolution.

I don't see what's wrong with having the same system but having the Duke allocate titles in his 'aligned' families using two or three set positions. For example I could have made the Karl Zirn, Baron of XXXX (based on his land or anything else I chose). If I wanted to change him to a Count later on then I could have, or even higher to an Earl. These titles have set powers but are not based on land.

I'm using this system because a Dukedom is a Dukedom...you don't get to be a Count in a Dukedom without the Duke permission, likewise you don't get to be an Earl inside a counts auspice without his permission and down it goes...it's one of the simplest set ups of government known to exist.

So all that is needed is an explanation of which powers the various ranks have and then let IC relations sort out who gets what and who doesn't.

With good solid civil war mechanics in place this will allow for a game structure that can support the "nuclear option" if IC work can't resolve House issues.

I'm deliberately leaving out the rank system and oath system to see if it can be kept that simple based on what everyone else thinks.

So...am I now standing in the room naked or doesn't someone "get my drift"?:beam:

[FactionHeir]

Lets both make a poll? :grin:

[Privateerkev]

AG, maybe I'm reading your proposal wrong but it comes across to me as a little too inflexible for my taste. While it might indeed be more "realistic" I prefer TC's more malleable rank system.

That being said, I like think the ideas presented lately are interesting and might limit the "up and down" instability people fear.

1.) I like the oath of fealty "cool down" and it is similar to what I proposed.

2.) One branch requirement is fine but I would caution against adding two or more.

3.) Time in service is interesting but I wonder if it should be lowered. The upper ranks should be hard to get, not impossible. Either half the time required, or cut out the "consectutive" requirement. Or some hybrid.

As for other ideas presented lately:

1.) I think there should be no "time out" for avatar death. That could lead down the dangerous road of making it quite "unfun" for players. Our inheritance restrictions already limit the possibility for abuse so I think that is enough.

2.) I don't know if banishment will be fun. Outside of a civil war, it seems to be too heavy-handed OOC. In a civil war, it seems it would be moot. In the test game, it wouldn't make much of a difference if my character was "banished" at the moment. He still has an army and he is still marching upon another House with the Chancellor's "permission".

[Ituralde]

First off, I agree with TinCows arguments against the stuff I mentioned, which he hasn't implemented into the new draft. The explanations sound good and it looks doable to me.

Of course the massive increase of numbers needed to create a Grand Duke now could be subject to debate. In a sense we are back at a point where 9 people in total are needed for a Grand Duke, which led TinCow to create the middle ranks in the first place. I'm not saying it's too much per se, but I wouldn't argue too strongly against someone who was of that opinion.

Apart from that I like the rules proposed. I understand some of AussieGiants worries, but several situations in KotR have shown us that a OOC ruleset is needed. The system you propose just give ranks but not an easy way of attaining them. Thought through to the end all titles would come from the FL then, which while being realistic in some ways isn't too much fun. The creation of new Houses, especially of some renegade House that only has loose ties to the rest of the Empire, for example through geographic separation, becomes close to impossible. I like the open character of the proposed system much more.

I guess some of the rigid structure can be gotten back if we incorporate the family tree again via inheritance laws, as I mentioned previously. I have a rule like the following in mind.

Edit: Or Ammend it to 2.5
2.5 - Wills&Inheritance: [...]. Any heir specified in the Will needs to be approved by the direct lord of owner of the Will. If there is none then the FACTION LEADER has to approve. Members of the family tree that specify one of their natural sons as heir are exempt from this rule.

You could even make a privilege out of it later on. Say Grand Dukes can appoint their heir without peer approval. Something like that.

[Privateerkev]

X.X - Heirs: Any heir specified in the Will needs to be approved by the direct lord of owner of the Will. If ther is none then the FACTION LEADER has to approve. Members of the family tree that specify one of their natural sons as heir are exempt from this rule.

You could even make a privilege out of it later on. Say Grand Dukes can appoint their heir without peer approval. Something like that.

I fear that would give far too much power to the FL. If there is a rival House, he can just deny their wills and all land would just revert back to him. The Chancellor is powerful because he is elected from among the players. The FL is just chosen by the game's wonky heir mechanic and I feel uncomfortable giving the FL that much power.

As for giving the family tree more power, we already pick our FL and FH from the tree. Those are two powerful positions based solely on the tree. I feel that is enough. The rest can be decided by us IC.

[Ituralde]

Well as I said, the remedy for that would be to get on the Family tree and make some heirs. Also you could give the privilege to name your own heir earlier. Make it available from Duke upward or even Marqees. The system is really quite flexible there. I think it just bothers me that it doesn't matter whether you give your land to your son, who is your natural heir, or to some other noble that just happens to be around.

If you lower the rank requirement for the privilege it is also a further incenvtive to form a big house as this gives you more independence from the FL, like it should be.


Edit: I just really liked the jockeying for marriage with one of the Princesses in KotR, this would put a game mechanic reason to it.

[TinCow]

First off, I agree with TinCows arguments against the stuff I mentioned, which he hasn't implemented into the new draft.

Actually, I did stick them in. The time-in-rank bit is embodied by the "at some point in time" text after the new requirements. The oath cooldown bit is embodied by the "If a Vassal breaks an Oath of Fealty without the permission of his Lord, he cannot swear a new Oath of Fealty until 5 turns have passed." text in Rule 2.5.

[Ituralde]

Actually, I did stick them in. The time-in-rank bit is embodied by the "at some point in time" text after the new requirements. The oath cooldown bit is embodied by the "If a Vassal breaks an Oath of Fealty without the permission of his Lord, he cannot swear a new Oath of Fealty until 5 turns have passed." text in Rule 2.5.

Yeah, but I was initially against the cooldown, but you convinced me that it can work. And I was also initially for making the time-in-rank reset, which you didn't put in the rules either and I agree with that decision.
That's all I was trying to say with that paragraph.

[AussieGiant]

Ok, so I'm going to put my clothes back on.

********************

So in the current system what is the impact of the family tree on our game as far as everyone is concerned?

[TinCow]

Well as I said, the remedy for that would be to get on the Family tree and make some heirs. Also you could give the privilege to name your own heir earlier. Make it available from Duke upward or even Marqees. The system is really quite flexible there. I think it just bothers me that it doesn't matter whether you give your land to your son, who is your natural heir, or to some other noble that just happens to be around.

If you lower the rank requirement for the privilege it is also a further incenvtive to form a big house as this gives you more independence from the FL, like it should be.

Edit: I just really liked the jockeying for marriage with one of the Princesses in KotR, this would put a game mechanic reason to it.

I agree with Ituralde on this. I would like to see some mechanism that would at least encourage some form of loyalty to a hereditary family system. While we need to have a system that doesn't require anyone to follow the family tree, that doesn't mean it should be ignored altogether. I would even expand it to allow people to give select son-in-laws as heirs, as long as a natural born son did not exist. This would also mesh well with the 'rental' system that a lot of people seemed to like. While lands would not be rented from a Lord, the Lord could reclaim them from a vassal after his death if the vassal didn't have the proper offspring. We could balance it by requiring the Lord to use his 'veto' of the will before the vassal's death. That would move the vetoing of wills into the political negotiation sphere, adding another layer to the game.

[Ituralde]

Ok, so I'm going to put my clothes back on.

********************

So in the current system what is the impact of the family tree on our game as far as everyone is concerned?

Well I hope I made my opinion on how to use the family tree clear. And if I understood you correctly this should be along the lines you wanted too. Like TinCow says it's an incentive to follow the traditional hereditary system, much like what Austria did in KotR. And of course it should be expanded to son-in-laws too. I mean he counts as a normal heir in line for faction heir to even if he's only a son-in-law, so we shouldn't treat him differently.

[Privateerkev]

Ironically, I was against RBG's in KotR for a long time. Now, I see their utility. Because of the way we will expand, I fear there will be not much of a family tree for a long time. I do not want to see us punish RBG's too harshly. They already can not become FL's or FH's unless they marry in or get MOH. I don't know if making a complicated inheritance system will solve the balance problem. I like that the wills are flexible. Like TC said in an earlier post, if the Lord wants a vassal to name him in the will, he better treat the vassal well.

The proposed system would severly hamper a House leader that is an RBG. His House could be effectively destroyed upon his death since the FL can just veto the will. I fear that gives the FL far too much power.

[AussieGiant]

I certainly think TC and Ituralde have addressed the issue and I like the idea that following the historical system will be encouraged.

I see your point PK.

As their could be upwards of 15 players at the start there is going to be a boat load of RBG's. That means the computer is not going to have any births at all while the province/avatar balancing mechanism is trying to work in the game itself.

As for the FL or RBG House leader issue then perhaps the RBG needs to be a bit more careful with the FL relationship to ensure the line continues. I like that as it represents the more tenuous relationship between merit based characters and blood line characters.

You can choose your friends, but you can't choose your family.. and vice versa.

[Privateerkev]

I am amused that there seems to be a reversal of the RBG argument in KotR. :D

In KotR I argued that RBG's should have less rights and should not become Duke. I was told that should be an IC decision and that seems to be what we went with for the rest of the game. RBG's got all the rights that FT members got, except that they could not be FL's or FH's.

Now, there is a reverse trend and I am on the opposite side of the argument. I think we should apply the same logic to RBG's that we did in KotR. They can't be FL or FH but the rest is equal. Let any other RBG discrimination come about due to IC legislation.

But, others now want to write RBG discrimination into the legislation just like I wanted to do in KotR.

It seems both parties have convinced each other of the other's former point of view. :beam:

Like I have been saying about a few things, I understand player's desire for more stability but I caution us from taking it too far. If the game became too rigid, I fear it would be less fun for many of us.

[Ituralde]

You should also consider that should the FL neglect too many Houses in this fashion there could alwas be a CA to further restrict this power or abolish it alltogether. If there are many RBG owned Houses it would be in their best interest too.

[Privateerkev]

You should also consider that should the FL neglect too many Houses in this fashion there could alwas be a CA to further restrict this power or abolish it alltogether. If there are many RBG owned Houses it would be in their best interest too.

I guess I rather see the opposite happen. Start out with RBG/FT equality (except for being FH or FL) and then, if people want, legislate inequality. If the FT people rise in stature and political power, they can then pass laws limiting the powers of RBG's. This is exactly what was argued against me in KotR and I now think they were right. ^_^

[AussieGiant]

I can't remember what I said in the RBG discussion.

What I do know now is that consistent rules, where ever possible should be the aim.

I've already started some political 101 assessments on the current rules and EVERYONE will need to be "up to speed" on the rules of this game or they will be at a severe disadvantage. You wont be able to simply play...that's got to be taken into account with all these discussion.

[Privateerkev]

I can't remember what I said in the RBG discussion.

What I do know now is that consistent rules, where ever possible should be the aim.

I've already started some political 101 assessments on the current rules and EVERYONE will need to be "up to speed" on the rules of this game or they will be at a severe disadvantage. You wont be able to simply play...that's got to be taken into account with all these discussion.

I agree that we seem to be moving towards more complicated rules. It's interesting that the flexible rules seemed more simple. And it's our attempts to add stability that seem to be adding complication. I thought it would end up the opposite. A total Dictatorship would be very very simple. Not very fun but simple. I assumed any move towards stability would simplify things. But its seems to have done the opposite.

Enough players are uncomfortable with the original flexibility and have slowly been chipping away at certain rules in order to make it easier to maintain power once you gain power. This seems to have made the rules more complicated as there are now more exceptions and caveats, all designed to maintain the status quo.

Of course this is just my perception.

As for "playabilty", it seems that a knight or a baronet still leads a relatively simple existence. There is not much to do. You simply find someone and obey them. I think it's a good starting block for figuring the game out.

It's the middle ranks that seem to be getting squeezed out or harder to maintain. Those who rise to the top first will now find it easier to stay there. Those on the bottom, who are happy with it, will find it easy. Those in the middle, seem to have their powers eroded away and will find it harder to rise to the top.

If we erode the middle, we will have a few players at the top who make all the decisions. And we will have the rest on the bottom with few options. It will be very much like KotR pre-cataclysm. We decided OOC to have the cataclysm to "spice things up" a bit. And people took the opportunity to re-arrange the power structure a bit.

It seems many of us like flexibility when we're on the bottom and like stability when were at the top. :clown:

[Ituralde]

My aim is not to disadvantage RBGs but rathet to give an advantage to being on the family tree. I know this may sound like splitting hairs, but I think it's important to know where my motivation for this is coming from.

With the things TinCow mentioned in addition to the stuff I proposed I'm really convinced that this would open up a whole new layer to the game. The primary goal of most people will be to get power for themselves. When it comes to preserving this power that's where the whole family tree mechanic will kick in.
In my mind I'm still convinced that this could be a fun system and I would miss this added layer. We can't model a feudal society without putting some restraints on the player base. While I agree that you should have pretty even chances I don't want the game to turn too democratic.
When I have the choice between complete even chances and fun and interesting game possibilities that will surely arise from such a system, I would choose the latter. I honestly would not mind playing a RBG in my proposed system.


And while we're touching on the subject of death and inheritance already there are some things that came to my mind. What happens to the requirement regarding time-in-service when you inherit a Ducal title or above? What happens when a character dies and has no valid Will? This would revert the province back to the FL, effectively cutting that Houses power, or did I get the inheritance laws wrong?

[Privateerkev]

My aim is not to disadvantage RBGs but rathet to give an advantage to being on the family tree. I know this may sound like splitting hairs, but I think it's important to know where my motivation for this is coming from.

With the things TinCow mentioned in addition to the stuff I proposed I'm really convinced that this would open up a whole new layer to the game. The primary goal of most people will be to get power for themselves. When it comes to preserving this power that's where the whole family tree mechanic will kick in.
In my mind I'm still convinced that this could be a fun system and I would miss this added layer. We can't model a feudal society without putting some restraints on the player base. While I agree that you should have pretty even chances I don't want the game to turn too democratic.
When I have the choice between complete even chances and fun and interesting game possibilities that will surely arise from such a system, I would choose the latter. I honestly would not mind playing a RBG in my proposed system.

I think I see where your coming from. Your pretty much using the arguments I used in KotR. If you "advantage" the family tree, you then by default "disadvantage" RBG's.

RBG's will make up the bulk of the early game. You said they should just get on the tree if they want to be more stable but that will not be easy early on. They have exactly two ways of getting on the tree. Being married to a Princess or MOH. Kids and MOH's will probably be very rare until we conquer a ton of territory. So they will not have access to those advancement options until the "middle game".


And while we're touching on the subject of death and inheritance already there are some things that came to my mind. What happens to the requirement regarding time-in-service when you inherit a Ducal title or above? What happens when a character dies and has no valid Will? This would revert the province back to the FL, effectively cutting that Houses power, or did I get the inheritance laws wrong?

As far as I know, you can't inherit the "title". Just the land. You get the title if someone else swears to you and you meet the time requirements.

Currently, if there is no will, lands go to the Lord. If there is no Lord, they go to the FL. If you veto the will of the House leader, that land goes to the FL. Which will hit RBG led Houses rather hard. And with little chance of getting on the tree in the "early game", I think that might be a tad too harsh.

[AussieGiant]

@ PK, I certainly agree that it comes across as trying to maintain power once someone achieves it. My main aim is to try and have something that is more feudal than democratic...given the backdrop.

It seemed to work well in KotR and no one was too overtly unhappy with the way things went. TC's system is great but I'm leaning towards something that is a little more stable...and it does seem strange that this is complicating things rather than simplifying them :yes:

I definitely don't want the middle tier or any tier being unduly disadvantaged, BUT, I would prefer to have a steadily more stable situation as you go up the ladder...that is what I would prefer. The idea of Duke's or Grand Duke's being transitory seems a little mad...sure there should be IC mechanisms in place to resolve some of the inactive or ineffective Duke's seen in KotR, but if it is too much then I don't see the advantage in the role-playing opportunities in a game based around the medieval times. I mean we killed a FL...that's a fairly good indication that change is possible with just the Civil War process.

As someone that went from one extreme to the other in KotR I do understand the issue. For a time there I was also wondering if Leopold would hand the Ducal seat to me so I also played in a period of "middle class" status for want of a better term.

I fully expect to be at the bottom and am interested to see where things lead, so I certainly see these rules applying to me.

Ituralde's definition is very well put.

"The aim is not to disadvantage RBGs but rather to give an advantage to being on the family tree."

[Ituralde]

I didn't know about the part with the title. Although the rules are pretty clear on that I'm not sure if I like it. I'd rather have titles be inheritable too, it's a feudal structure after all. It just seems strange to me to have this fluctuation in the Houses all of the time. Every time somebody dies really, not to mention what happens if multiple people die in one turn and nobody fulfills the time requirements for the higher ranks anymore. High Ducal House X would suddenly find itself reduced to some Viscounty although every leader provided a valid heir.

And one more time back to the disadvantage and advantage. Like I said I was splitting hairs, but in the end it would suit either side not to think of advantage and disadvantage but just of game depth. Sure right now a Grand Duke has advantages, also a Chancellor, but that of course makes everyone else disadvantaged too. The way I think we all should look at this as an advantage to the game as a whole!

Your main concern seems to be that large Houses could be destroyed by a malevolent FL. Aside from the IC things that have to happen for this, I already said that I see no problem in including immunity from this peer review for higher ranks. Make it available for a Duke or Marquee even and large Houses will not have to worry about this, no matter whether the leader is an RBG or not.
Aside from that since currently no titles are inherited and thus no obligations, you never have the guarantee that the Heir you chose will actually follow the same House again. He will be free to swear an oath of fealty to anyone he wishes!

Also I seem to have neglected the land issue in all of this during my initial plans. But now that I become more and more aware of the consequences I like it more and more. Make large and stable Houses and you're never touched by this. Stay a small House, aggrevate the FL and you're not on the family tree. Tough luck!

I agree though that it would be more ideal if the family tree mechanic was more open to manipulation. I guess the influence from the avatar/land ratio on the family tree births and adoption is hardcoded? This could indeed inconvenience many things. I'd really hate to loose the family tree altogether though.

[Privateerkev]

The idea of Duke's or Grand Duke's being transitory seems a little mad...sure there should be IC mechanisms in place to resolve some of the inactive or ineffective Duke's seen in KotR, but if it is too much then I don't see the advantage in the role-playing opportunities in a game based around the medieval times.

That sentence portrays your point of view beautifully. :yes:

And it is where we seem to disagree. We place a different amount of importance in portraying a "feudal" system. I place less importance and you place more importance. That view is what seems to drive our respective ideas for the game.

I do want to point out, that despite the fact that I disagree and raise objections, I really like how this overall discussion has gone. There seem to be two opposite points of view and we seem to be reaching a consensus that is more in the middle. And in my opinion that is good for the "health" of the game. It needs to be the most fun for the most people. A very flexible game or a very strict game would probably only be fun for a few of us. While we are moving slightly away from my "vision" of the game, we are not moving too far from it.

So in general, I like where these rules are heading. But in the meantime, I'll keep giving my opinion and sharing my point of view. :2thumbsup:

[AussieGiant]

That sentence portrays your point of view beautifully. :yes:

And it is where we seem to disagree. We place a different amount of importance in portraying "feudal" system. I place less importance and you place more importance. That view is what seems to drive our respective ideas for the game.

I do want to point out, that despite the fact that I disagree and raise objections, I really like how this overall discussion has gone. There seem to be two opposite points of view and we seem to be reaching a consensus that is more in the middle. And in my opinion that is good for the "health" of the game. It needs to be the most fun for the most people. A very flexible game or a very strict game would probably only be fun for a few of us. While we are moving slightly away from my "vision" of the game, we are not moving too far from it.

So in general, I like where these rules are heading. But in the meantime, I'll keep giving my opinion and sharing my point of view. :2thumbsup:

I entirely agree. Our basic concepts are coming from different sides and therefore the more detailed operational issues will reflect these concepts in the form of disagreements.

I've thought about where you are envisioning things from, and I was nearly prepared to cast aside the importance I'm attaching to the feudal aspects of the game and essentially align myself with this more democratic fluid point of view...but, I decided against it...I like it before and it really added to KotR IMHO.

That combined with the fact Ituralde started throwing in examples that made me cringe...these two things solidified the choice to try and stick with this approach of a more stable, "feudal" approach.

[Privateerkev]

I will say that Ituralde's comment about limiting the "no will/no inheritance" policy to low ranking RBGs goes a long way towards alleviating my concerns. I agree that if a RBG gains a certain rank, like Marquess, then he should be immune.

I don't mind depth, or even things being slightly unbalanced. I just fear things becoming so stable, that those on the top become untouchable. Which means they don't need to listen those under them as much.

I know the test game is meant to test the civil war mechanics, but it is giving me some insight into the current rank system. And I really like it. Sure I play a Count and have a small measure of power. But I simply can not ignore my vassals. In fact, I need them. Even though it's just a test, it has provided RP oppurtunities that I have already found rich and rewarding.

[Ituralde]

The funny thing is that especially the inheritance rules are designed to make the game unstable. I mean they don't change that you still need your vassals, but they give another angle from which a House can be attacked or put into disarray and forces you to interact with other people. Be it to get on the family tree or to get your Will ratified by the FL.

[Privateerkev]

The funny thing is that especially the inheritance rules are designed to make the game unstable. I mean they don't change that you still need your vassals, but they give another angle from which a House can be attacked or put into disarray and forces you to interact with other people. Be it to get on the family tree or to get your Will ratified by the FL.

The first will rule was pretty much "anything goes". Then we limited it to current avatars that have a different player so players couldn't send all of their territory to their next avatar.

I admit it does add a large element of instability to the game. The alternative is to limit who you can name in your will. And limiting that seems to funnel territories to the top by default.

One possible exploit of your proposed rule is this:

Say there is an RBG Duke. Under your rule, he is immune to having his will over-ridden. He wants to leave all of his land to his loyal Baronet because everyone else has been a disloyal slimeball.

The FL can bribe everyone in the middle of the chain to break their oath to the Duke. The Duke would plummet in rank to a point where his will can be over-ridden by the FL. The FL can then give the land to the disloyal vassals as payment for breaking their oath. The loyal Baronet gets totally left out. And the former Duke dies with having his will completely ignored.

[TinCow]

First of all, I don't think the rules have been made any more complex than they originally were. The only rules changes that have been made to increase stability were the ones I just did. Those changes were composed of exactly one line being added to rule 2.5 and one line added to the requirements of the Marquess, Duke, and Grand Duke. That's all that happened. I really don't see that as any significant increase in complexity when compared to the rest of the rules. If you ask me, this system is far easier to read and understand than KOTR ever was, and we managed to play with that just fine.

Second, I don't think the middle ranks are disadvantaged. The first true 'power' rank is Count, which gives a Private Army and the nice ability to Prioritize a building. It is pretty easy to achieve the rank of Count, since all you need is 3 provinces and 3 players. Every active player should be able to reach that rank at some point. I would expect to see many Count-led Houses, and I don't think that's a bad thing. Three people with adjacent provinces, access to a Private Army, and the ability to Prioritize a building could probably survive solo completely cut off from the rest of the faction without too many problems. If a Knight wants some excitement, he can get two fellow Knights, get a half stack army from the Chancellor, and set sail to a distant corner of the world for fortune and glory. Those three could carve out a small House for themselves and fight for its survival and prosperity, eventually becoming an organized and effective group. If they succeed, it's fun and exciting. If they fail and all die in far away lands, it's also fun and exciting. Sure, in the proposed new system Marquess is hard to achieve, but so what? Why does that make the ranks below it less fun?

Finally, I am very much against inherited titles/ranks. That was exactly the problem that made the KOTR Houses so stagnant. Dukes were all powerful and the lower level ranks just had to deal with it. If you weren't the favorite yes-man of the Duke, you essentially had no chance of advancement in the game. While that might be realistic, it's not fun. We're here to be entertained first, and be historically accurate second.

[AussieGiant]

I agree PK.

Keep in mind your experience is vastly different to mine coming out of KotR.

I didn't ignore any of my vassals, in either "house" I was in, but I did that purely IC and it paid off in the end. Essentially I was involved in two houses as a central organising figure for the most part.

I rarely dictated, I predominately consulted and only occasionally did I pull out the Ducal bat...but always IC which does suit a feudal game.

It worked for me and was a rewarding experience to say the least. In that light I certainly want to allow for players in the top spots to be "removed" IC if they are OOC or IC going too far in any direction. But to me, the Civil War mechanics allow for that now.

Cecil/Becker wanted to separate, because of IC development...I rose to the occasion and did what I had to do to broker an arrangement. But I had the upper hand...and IMO a Duke should have in this situation.

If hypothetically I was to be a Duke again, I certainly don't want to be governing well and then have some character like Igno (and I love the way Igno plays just for the record) was playing as 'Hapsburg' causing the entire house of cards to fall down around my ears with little or no ability to prevent it. That's the side of the coin I'm trying to present to everyone. This is just a little too far the other way in my opinion.

-edit-

Having just now read TC's last post, I'm fairly certain my view will not be implimented and I see where everyone is coming from. I think the next game is going to feel much different than that last and that's "All Good" for me.

[TinCow]

For the record, there's no real way for any single player to completely destroy a House. At most, a single player can drop the top dog rank down a level and steal a province or two. In order to do more damage than that, other people would have to work with him. If you've got a multi-person rebellion going on in your House, then it's your own fault. You either didn't keep your vassals happy or you chose unreliable vassals in the first place. Keep in mind, you can simply avoid Igno's volatile characters by refusing to having them in your House. Simple. Pick your vassals well and treat them with care and I highly doubt you'll have any problems.

[Privateerkev]

I agree PK.

Keep in mind your experience is vastly different to mine coming out of KotR.

I didn't ignore any of my vassals, in either "house" I was in, but I did that purely IC and it paid off in the end. Essentially I was involved in two houses as a central organising figure for the most part.

I rarely dictated, I predominately consulted and only occasionally did I pull out the Ducal bat...but always IC which does suit a feudal game.

It worked for me and was a rewarding experience to say the least. In that light I certainly want to allow for players in the top spots to be "removed" IC if they are OOC or IC going too far in any direction. But to me, the Civil War mechanics allow for that now.

Cecil/Becker wanted to separate, because of IC development...I rose to the occasion and did what I had to do to broker an arrangement. But I had the upper hand...and IMO a Duke should have in this situation.

If hypothetically I was to be a Duke again, I certainly don't want to be governing well and then have some character like Igno (and I love the way Igno plays just for the record) was playing as 'Hapsburg' causing the entire house of cards to fall down around my ears with little or no ability to prevent it. That's the side of the coin I'm trying to present to everyone. This is just a little too far the other way in my opinion.

Our experiences were vastly different. I was in a House where the Duke kept trying to name an unused avatar as heir for OOC reasons. The player bluntly told me both IC and OOC that he did not need to take any of our opinions/wishes into consideration and his rule was simply law. The result led to Fritz being a perfect recruit for the Order, Jan and Dieter being more loyal to Outremer, and Peter and Tancred going off and sacking Constantinople.

There was no hope for advancement. Period. No matter what, your avatar would never be Duke as long as Ansehelm was allowed to pick crazy heirs with no players. And even when we put a stop to that, he only had to keep Peter happy. The rest of us had to suffer at his whims. Sure he made up the "Furst" positions but since they were not written in law, they were discarded at his whim a few times.

This created a very difficult situation to RP in. While Fritz and Jan were able to overcome, it was only because they had help outside of the House. So, I admit that experience colors my judgement and makes me wish for a very very flexible system. And that is so myself and no other player has to go through it again.

But, a very flexible system seems like it would not be fun for a large group of people. So, I try to compromise and find ways to add some stability while trying to caution us against going to far.

Your statement goes a long way towards alleviating that fear:
In that light I certainly want to allow for players in the top spots to be "removed" IC if they are OOC or IC going too far in any direction. But to me, the Civil War mechanics allow for that now.

Your above quote allows for a more stable system that won't be abused like it was in KotR. As long as that basic premise is followed, I don't mind if certain rules are inserted here and there to increase stability.

[AussieGiant]

For the record, there's no real way for any single player to completely destroy a House. At most, a single player can drop the top dog rank down a level and steal a province or two. In order to do more damage than that, other people would have to work with him. If you've got a multi-person rebellion going on in your House, then it's your own fault. You either didn't keep your vassals happy or you chose unreliable vassals in the first place. Keep in mind, you can simply avoid Igno's volatile characters by refusing to having them in your House. Simple. Pick your vassals well and treat them with care and I highly doubt you'll have any problems.

That's a 10-4 TC...reading you loud and clear. :beam:

@PK...and that's why something needs to be in. Looking at it from across the other side of the Diet chamber I was always tempted to try and recruit you some of you to Austria, being a small house the possibilities I had running through my head where endless.

Your experience needs to be avoided...the question from my side is...can my experience be had in this system?

[Privateerkev]

Your experience needs to be avoided...the question from my side is...can my experience be had in this system?

Good question.

The thing is, while the rules kept Arnold as Duke for life, your House only achieved what it did because of the way you RP'd. Like you said, you developed things IC and maintained a good relationship with your vassals.

So, it is hard for me to tell if the success Austria saw was because the rules kept things stable or because of your role-playing. I would argue it was because of the latter more than the former. Ansehelm had stability written into the rules but his House was less successful in seeing it's goals realized.

Umm.. I don't think that answers your question though.

[Cecil XIX]

Your experience needs to be avoided...the question from my side is...can my experience be had in this system?

I would say that your experience could easily be had in this system. This is especially true of Becker's seccession, which under these rules would have gone exactly the same.

Edmund breaks Oath of Fealty, Arnold threatens Civil War if Edmund doesn't return, they negotiate, Edmund returns and Civil War is avoided. I suspect we'll see more incidents like that in the successor game, especially if the rebels time their oath-breaking right.

[TinCow]

Umm.. I don't think that answers your question though.

I think it does, because that was my experience with Bavaria as well. The only internal turmoil Bavaria ever experienced was as a result of the Heinrich/Otto alliance. You may have forgotten, but Mandorf essentially had his spot as Duke usurped because his underling become good pals with the Kaiser. Otto then took over the Duchy and the rest of Bavaria's history was pretty stable. Both this turmoil and the later stability and success were directly due to role-playing, not the rules. If stability can be achieved with RP in KOTR, it can be achieved with RP in the next game as well.

I tried very hard with Lothar to make sure that the lower-level Bavarians were given plenty of stuff to do and were treated well. While I created an IC justification for this, I did it mainly for OOC reasons. I was essentially becoming Duke for the second time, and I wanted to make sure everyone below me was still having fun, despite the fact that they were barred from further advancement. The reason I delayed on naming an heir was that there was no way I could find an IC reason for Lothar not to continue with hereditary rule, but at the same time I didn't want to exclude Warmaster Horus from the position because he had never had a shot at it. I eventually named Herrmann as heir when I knew the game would end with Lothar still as Duke. That solved my IC and OOC conflicts.

In the next game, I want to make sure that such conflicts never arise in the first place. I don't want to have to metagame to make sure that everyone else gets to have a shot at high ranks. Thus, I want there to always be options for people to gain power, no matter what circumstances they are in. The options don't have to be easy, but they have to at least exist. If the majority feel differently, I will go along with it, but that is my sentiment.

[Cecil XIX]

Silly of me to forget this, but the revised Rank system is an improvemen in my eyes. The only complaint I have is that it is irritating to know that in order to get more power you usually have to avoid getting other players to swear fealty directly too you.

[Zim]

Maybe as someone who spent virtually his entire KOTR career as a RGB (save two turns at the end I think) I might be able to offer a different perspective RGB rights issue.

I joined right when RGBs were being allowed and the debate over whether they should have any penalties had just started. Although I had the option of taking an available family member, I decided not to tread on another player's toes by refusing to take an avatar he had been grooming to take over when his died (not sure it worked as the player still seemed a bit miffed, but I figured I'd done what I could. :clown: ). Having passed up a chance for an FM for OOC reasons, I was pretty strongly on the side of the "pro RGB" players, and did what I could to support the position given my then limited understanding of the rules.

So I joined Hummel's rebellion to try to balance out the sides in the Civil War a bit, figuring it'd be fun to just jump right in to one of the most exciting parts of the game. I was never taken entirely into Hummel's confidence, but I had a lot of fun working out a defense of Flanders with fellow rebel deguerra, and getting in on the thinng with Martin Luther.

My first character died (winning a battle :dizzy2: ) but I decided to stay in the same House (Swabia) to keep in touch with some of the players I'd intereacted with as a rebel. Swabia's Duke tended not to give a lot of input to other Swabians, and I saw a chance at a fun game helping Overknight to defend Outremer, so off I went. That part of the game was even more fun, and the first time I felt like my cooperation with my character's superior was a partnership. This kept me in the game until the end, and the fun I had as Andreas was a big part of why I decided to grab a character for the final battle, despite not being very interested in PVP battles.

I guess the point of this longwinded story is that my entire time in KOTR how much I had to do depended on either a lot of work by myself and comrades to find things, or my immediate superior. At no time did the system seem to offer me a lot of chance for advancement. Even as the "number 2" person in Outremer, Viceroy is a rank appointed by the Kaiser, and I could be passed over. Having no family ties, I had to work harder to establish relationships with other players. If I did attain the rank of Viceroy, I'd have little control over who got it next. Were I to aspire to the rank of Duke, I'd have little chance of ever getting it.

This was fine, as I always had a good time, and it wouldn't have crushed me to stay a baron forever. However, the thing I like about the new system is that it offers a lot of flexibility for a new player coming in mid game, if he is very active, to achieve a high rank eventually, or to choose to stay at a low one. I have no problems with with adding special powers (like the banishment one) to the FL and FH, or making the higher ranks more stable. RPing will also likely give an advantage to those with familial ties to other powerful characters. However, I dislike the idea of making a rule along the lines of "RGBs don't really own their land and can't will it to whoever they want". :thumbsdown: I think stuff like that will eliminate a lot of the fun for any new players we pick up who may not have a chance to get an FM unless they want to wait a long time for one to spawn.

Just my :2cents: American, depreciating in value every day.

[Ramses II CP]

I personally favor more flexibility and instability. I haven't been chipping in on this discussion because I wanted to see the sides shake themselves out (And I was out of town), but I would find it very hard to accept that there is a set time to declare you are breaking your oath. If it is only allowed right before a Diet session then we'll end up draining the reactive passion out of oath breaking and turn it into a calculated position.

The way I saw oath breaking was as a a sort of sieze the moment decision. Your lord does something you can't abide, or you get an opportunity you can't refuse from another lord, and that very year you break away. If we have to wait for permission there is going to be a lot of stabilty where, IMHO, a lot of flexibility would make for a more entertaining game mechanic.

Just to make my bias clear, I don't give a fig about the historical accuracy of the system. We aren't going to have an accurate system simply because we can't model the brute power of feudal lords that formed the basis of control, so it's better to move towards a system that is flexible enough to be fun while not so unstable that Baronet can become a Grand Duke at an instant's notice.

Here's my suggestion:

1. Relax the cap on the oath breaking such that a person can break their oath once every five turns max. Anyone who does it so often is not going to be a desirable vassal anyway, while this does provide enough flexibility to escape a bad lord before they take benefit in the Diet from your vassalage.

2. Cap the maximum number of ranks a person can rise over a set period. If, for example, you can only rise 2 ranks per diet session then we will instantly stop the wild swing from Knight to Grand Duke and reduce the motivation for political oath breaking. This should appease the accuracy crowd a bit. :beam:

3. Base rank calculations secondarily on land at (req) +2 provinces. To become a Baronet you would need to control 3 provinces. This way if you gain 2 provinces you have to ask yourself if it's better to move to Baron by giving away one of them, or to conquer another and become a 'stable' Baron independent of vassals. Now we have a mechanism to defray the mass exodus of oath breaking without rapid rises and falls in status. If you break your oath without a civil war your land stays with your Lord currently, which means his rank might not fall.

For example:

Count Guillemot de Lyon has 3 vassals, each of whom controls 1 province. He himself controls 2. If all of his vassals decide to depart and form a new house he would only need to conquer 1 more province (Rank 4 needing 4 base provinces +2) to maintain his rank, and the most that his rank could fall is a single step even if all of his vassals depart, (Assuming he maintains control of the land).

If he had the minimum amount of land he would need to conquer 2 provinces, obviously, which is the intent of the rule.

The purpose of this would be to allow for oath breaking to have a role in the game, especially since a solo Count with 6 provinces to defend and only one army looks exceptionally vulnerable to being attacked, without causing wild swings in the ranks. Also the sudden aquisition of more land or vassals cannot rapidly raise your ranks out of control.

Another side benefit of this model would be that the Faction Leader and Heir are initially much more powerful than they will be after houses form and become stable, so we have a shift over time in the way the power structure works. We'll probably have that anyway though.

We'd want to make it clear in the rules that it's never beneficial for a Lord to dismiss his vassals, which I don't believe can be done currently anyway, just in case.

Thoughts?

edit: Also I suppose I should lay out explicitly that there's going to be a clear gamble per every Diet session for land based nobles. If you're the Count with 6 provinces above and you've been at that rank the whole session, but you strongly desire more political influence before the Diet you can attempt to organize a vassal based house and move yourself up 2 ranks. The only thing you lose is stability. The incentive to remain a land based noble will be slight but the option will exist to prevent those wild swings in rank, and there may be an IC role to play as a land rich, stable member of the nobility.

:egypt:

[Zim]

Just as a P.S. I greatly enjoyed my time in KOTR and would do everything (almost :clown: ) the same exact way were I to have another shot at it. I still appreciate the added flexibility of the new system, with more avenues of advancement. I feel it will prevent the lessening of activity on the part of new players we saw a some of in my time in KOTR, and that's why I feel we should avoid handicapping RGBs (which will likely go to new players later in the game). :yes:

[TinCow]

Ramses: Are you therefore proposing that when you break an oath, you lose ownership of you lands?

Zim: For the record, I plan on taking a RGB right from the start. I made these rules and I have enough faith in them to carve my own way in the world from the lowest possible tier.

[Ramses II CP]

TC: I thought that was the system we had in place. That when you break your oath your lands stay with your Lord.

I suppose if that seems harsh perhaps we should allow for a declaration of civil war from the bottom and top. It doesn't seem harsh to me because I expect most oath breaking will occur when another house offers you more land or rank anyway.

:egypt:

[Privateerkev]

If you break your oath without a civil war your land stays with your Lord currently, which means his rank might not fall.

If you break from your lord, you take the land with you. It's your land. If Michiel breaks from Guillemot, he takes Valencia with him. It would then be up to Guillemot to either accept it, or go and take it back by force. So, Guillemot would lose the vassal, any vassal under that one, and their land.

[TinCow]

No, that's not how the current system works. The only ways to lose you lands at the moment are:

1) Give them up voluntarily
2) Have them conquered by the AI
3) Have them conquered by another nobleman
4) Die

[Ramses II CP]

I also just realized that my calculations are off on the Baronet example. In my head I had it that Baronet, being the first rank, should be a sort of rank 0 instead of rank 1, with Baron being rank 2. I didn't say it that way, but that's the way it's meant to function, otherwise starting the land ladder is so much harder than the vassals ladder no one will attempt that way.

edit: Then definitely I would propose that under this system if you break your oath, you lose your land. Another disincentive to oath breaking and increased stability in my supposedly less stable system. ;)

:egypt:

[Zim]

Gah, in writing my longwinded story I seem to have made my point unclear. :sweatdrop: I believe the current system is much more flexible, and whatever type of character I start with will have a chance to obtain power if he has the desire and ability.

I just don't like the idea of adding penalties to RGBs that was argued for a bit ago. :whip:


Zim: For the record, I plan on taking a RGB right from the start. I made these rules and I have enough faith in them to carve my own way in the world from the lowest possible tier.

[Privateerkev]

I just don't like the idea of adding penalties to RGBs that was argued for a bit ago. :whip:

What's funny is that your one of the people who convinced me. And now I will advocate for the downtrodden RBG. It is time for you and I to renew our old call.


FOR FLEMISH CLOTH!!!!

Oh wait... not that one... This one!


RBG's of the world unite!!!!

:clown:

[TinCow]

When considering the RGB issue, people should realize that a significant majority of people will have to use RGBs. Even large starting factions like France and ERE in SS 4.1 will only have a handful of family members at the start. We will then start pumping RGBs out as fast as possible so that everyone gets an avatar quickly. This will halt all births for a very long time. People may well get added to the family tree quickly due to MoH events, but if we end up with 20-30 players, it could take several months before new children are actually born, let alone mature, due to a far higher number of RGBs than provinces. Other than the people who get the Family Members who exist at the start, everyone else is going to have to use RGBs.

[Zim]

Depending on who wins the faction poll both can be ressurected. :beam:

RBG's of the world unite!!!! :charge:


What's funny is that your one of the people who convinced me. And now I will advocate for the downtrodden RBG. It is time for you and I to renew our old call.



Oh wait... not that one... This one!



:clown:

[Ramses II CP]

So, another way to look at my proposal without altering the oath breaking land rules is as (The change is essentially only in the plus):

Baronet (Rank 1) (1 Knight vassal and 1 province or 2 provinces)
Baron (Rank 2) (1 Baronet vassal and 1 province or 3 provinces)
Viscount (Rank 3) (1 Baron vassal and 1 province or 4 provinces)
Count (Rank 4) (1 Viscount vassal and 1 province or 5 provinces)
Marquess (Rank 5) (1 Count vassal and 1 province or 6 provinces)

etc.

We could also do a sliding increase to the scale so that it isn't too easy to hold on to high rank, for example:

...
Count (Rank 4) (1 Viscount vassal and 1 province or 6 provinces)
Marquess (Rank 5) (1 Count vassal and 1 province or 7 provinces)
Duke (Rank 6) (1 Marquess vassal and 1 province or 9 provinces)
Grand Duke (Rank 7) (1 Duke vassal and 1 province or 11 provinces)

The basic intent remains the same, in coordination with the other bits I listed.

edits: Obviously vassal's lands count in the total number of provinces owned for the second calculation.

To re-explore the rise and fall in ranks, take a Marquess for example

Marquess X has a vassal chain and holds two provinces personally. One member of the chain decides to leave, taking with them their land. In order to hold his position the Marquess needs his 3 remaining vassals and their land, the 2 lands he currently holds, and one more province (In the sliding scale he needs 2 more provinces) he must conquer. This way we can defray the cost of losing a single vassal.

What if, as in my original example, all of his vassals depart? He holds only two lands and drops all his rank again, but assuming he can successfully prosecute a civil war against at least one of the departing vassals he can claim that land and defray his fall. This is why I originally imagined lands staying with the top lord.

:egypt:

[Privateerkev]

What your proposing is close to what FH has been advocating for awhile. Currently, the land issue is up for a vote in the Feudal Stability poll. The "no" vote for land being a basis for gaining ranks is ahead by 1. Ironically, you were one of the no votes. ^_^

Personally, I think it's fine to have the building block for rank to be 1 piece of land. But after that, I think it should be based on oaths. It will encourage RP'ing and discourage land hording.

[Ramses II CP]

Not ironically at all, I dislike the idea of ranks being based solely on land. What I'd like to see is a system that lets people get comfortable with increased oath breaking. I am quite uncomfortable with the idea that we might vote in a system that is so stable it's not substantially different from KotR, where ranks were completely immobile (And mostly irrelevant) for the entire time I was in the game.

:egypt:

[Privateerkev]

Not ironically at all, I dislike the idea of ranks being based solely on land. What I'd like to see is a system that lets people get comfortable with increased oath breaking. I am quite uncomfortable with the idea that we might vote in a system that is so stable it's not substantially different from KotR, where ranks were completely immobile (And mostly irrelevant) for the entire time I was in the game.

I feel your pain.

Ok, I think I see where your coming from now.

Basically, I would like your system less than our current system but more than a pure land system.

Also, I see you have been studying Guillemot's feudal situation. Any reason? ;)

[Zim]

I have no major objection to a sort of mixed system like Ramses is proposing. The only concern I'd have is that as our faction grew bigger, we might see a ton of people electing to take the titles of Duke or Grand Duke based on the land they possess. Ramses sliding scale would make this very difficult to do if you plan on having any vassals of rank at all (not likely given a Grand Duke who gained power that way would have to protect 11 provinces with one army).

[Privateerkev]

I have no major objection to a sort of mixed system like Ramses is proposing. The only concern I'd have is that as our faction grew bigger, we might see a ton of people electing to take the titles of Duke or Grand Duke based on the land they possess. Ramses sliding scale would make this very difficult to do if you plan on having any vassals of rank at all (not likely given a Grand Duke who gained power that way would have to protect 11 provinces with one army).

Yeah but Ramses hybrid will not let an oath-breaking noble take their land with (if I read that wrong Ramses, please let me know. A later post seems to say something different.)

I believe you should be able to take your land with you if you leave. Not being allowed to, funnels far too much power (and land) up to the top.

If the noble accepted that his vassal might leave one day, and take his little parcel of land with, then I would be more comfortable with a sliding scale.

It's the permanent accumulation of land that bothers me. :yes:

[Zim]

From this comment of his I think he intends for vassals to take their landd with them if they break their oath. If not then that would be a condition for me to support a hybrid system like that. :yes:

"What if, as in my original example, all of his vassals depart? He holds only two lands and drops all his rank again, but assuming he can successfully prosecute a civil war against at least one of the departing vassals he can claim that land and defray his fall. This is why I originally imagined lands staying with the top lord."

Of course, that's just another reason to support equal rights for RGBs regarding land ownership and wills. :charge: ~;)


Yeah but Ramses hybrid will not let an oath-breaking noble take their land with (if I read that wrong Ramses, please let me know. A later post seems to say something different.)

I believe you should be able to take your land with you if you leave. Not being allowed to, funnels far too much power (and land) up to the top.

If the noble accepted that his vassal might leave one day, and take his little parcel of land with, then I would be more comfortable with a sliding scale.

It's the permanent accumulation of land that bothers me. :yes:

[Privateerkev]

From this comment of his I think he intends for vassals to take their landd with them if they break their oath. If not then that would be a condition for me to support a hybrid system like that. :yes:

Yeah, I saw that but I wasn't sure. Which is why I added the caveat in parenthesis. I figure no one could speak better for Ramses than Ramses. :clown:

[Ramses II CP]

My preference is that lands not go with the lower nobles when they depart. TC, however, pointed out that this isn't the way the current system works, so I revised my idea to incorporate the way the current system works. Either way will be fine, but the first way is more stable while not making oath breaking impossible. I put up the change because I didn't want people to have to go too far to see the benefits of my idea. :beam:

FH's system isn't far from my system, the only core difference is the reasons for adopting our respective approaches. I do not want a system based just on land, but I do want flexible oath breaking. I couldn't see any way to get people comfortable with the idea of non-scheduled oath breaking (i.e. IIRC There was a proposal above that oaths could only be broken at each diet session or similar) without including more stability.

I like the idea that someone in a chain sacks a city, and immediately another member of that chain breaks his oath in disgust. I hate the idea that the situation above occurs, and someone has to wait 10 turns to do anything about it other than talk.

:egypt:

[Cecil XIX]

I agree that Electors should be able to break their oaths at any time. That should be combined with a cool-down period to prevent gamy exploits.

But I am wholeheartedly against preventing nobles from taking landswith them when they oath break. That would destroy the sense of ownership that we should be cultivating.

[FactionHeir]

For clarification: My idea is not that all titles solely be based on land but instead that land can also be used to obtain titles if you cannot find (sufficient) vassals.

While you may argue that this might make a player overly powerful, I must ask how likely it is for one person to conquer land after land on his own without support? Similarly, would this person be able to have his own army kept up by the chancellor all that easily?

The only way someone can expand rapidly is by having many vassals and thus many armies. Being a lord with land but no or few vassals means that you don't have as much political and military power as those that do and your lands are vulnerable for civil war pickings or AI pickings if you overstretch yourself which will happen eventually.

Thus, land ownership titles do balance out, especially with the current inheritance system. Afterall, wouldn't the FactionLeader just love to take all that land for himself with little opposition (and give it to other houses)?

[Ituralde]

I see that the inheritance of titles is strongly debated. To be honest this is something of a flavour thing to me. It won't make or break the game for me, but it would be nice to have. Another thing that was made more and more clear to me that the M2TW family tree mechanics combined with our massive use of RBG (which I completely agree with) will probably produce such a messed up family tree that it might not be worthwile to pay attention to it after a short time. I really would have liked my system, but realize that for it to function properly we would need a decent amount of births. This is unfortunately not under our control.

I also misunderstood the current inheritance system with all its implications and I agree that giving the FL the right to regain every land from lower rank nobles if he so desires can seem a tad harsh. I would still play with it, but I can understand where some people are coming from here and would not like to see their experiences repeated here. I'm not sure how much Civil War could prevent single persons from becoming too whacky, but I'm convinced they would be a good regulation even with my inheritance rules. Hate the FL, kill him!

I really think that with the Oath Swearing/Breaking mechanic and the Civil War there really isn't any situation that can't be solved IC to everyone's satisfaction. I thought quite long whether any of the rule changes are strictly necessary, since all of it can be modeled through IC roleplay very nicely. This goes for all situations that have been brought up as example against my inheritance rule too. Especially your example PK was quite far-fetched. If the FL can seduce all your vassals then something else went wrong in the first place!

My fear is probably that Houses won't feel like traditional feudal structures, but more along the lines of political parties. Where you join because of the same goals. This means that people who inherit land, but don't inherit the title with it will just wander off to some other House should they share similar political goals. I fear that we'll never see traditional House areas and this also decreases strife within the House.

So while I'm willing to drop the RGB issue I'd lie to see inheritance of titles. I would imagine it to work in a way, where a Grand Duke chooses his Heir, who can happen to be the Marquee too, by the way, so this is not saying that a Marquee is limited in his advancement or overlooked. And then, as an important step the Oaths of his vassals have to be resworn to the new Duke. Say the Marquee is not happy with the decision of having some upstart above him, he can just refuse to swear fealty and be his own House along with all of his vassals. Just as it would be in the current scenario where no titles are inherited. So the Duke would be interested in choosing a non-controversial figure as his heir that is accepted by all his vassals, even being one of his vassals, as this should work out best for the longevity of his House.

I know that all of the above can already be had with the current system but I would like to provide an incentive to see that happen more frequently. So instead of getting a title handed to you, you just get the privileges of it and then have to hold on to the position. So should all your vassals be pissed you at least have an army and can threaten to go to War with your former House with at least some backing. Should you not be able to resolve the situation until the next Diet Session though, all is lost for you and you become a simple Baronet.

So as said before, the above would add a lot of flavour to the game for me, while its potential downsides are not too harsh.


On the other topic brought up here, I am against titles being based on land. Be it solely land or some hybrid form. I agree with what PK said earlier. You gain power by giving away land to vassals, not by hoarding it. I think this is a good system as it forces people to interact with other players if they want power!

[Privateerkev]

Especially your example PK was quite far-fetched. If the FL can seduce all your vassals then something else went wrong in the first place!

Well, it could only take the FL bribing one of your vassals so it might not be quite as far-fetched as you say. If, under your rules, a Duke is immune to having his will vetoed but a Marquess isn't then the FL would just have to drop him one level right before he dies. Under your rules, I'm fairly confident a FL can find at least 1 person in the chain to break an oath in exchange for land.

Your other points are well taken though. :yes:

*edit*

But I am confused as to how your title system would work. Sorry but it's getting late and I'm getting cobwebs in my brain. ^_^

[Ituralde]

Well, it could only take the FL bribing one of your vassals so it might not be quite as far-fetched as you say. If, under your rules, a Duke is immune to having his will vetoed but a Marquess isn't then the FL would just have to drop him one level right before he dies. Under your rules, I'm fairly confident a FL can find at least 1 person in the chain to break an oath in exchange for land.

Your other points are well taken though. :yes:

*edit*

But I am confused as to how your title system would work. Sorry but it's getting late and I'm getting cobwebs in my brain. ^_^

But wouldn't this then strengthent the people in the middle of the chain. Maybe it's even the Marquee himself who foreswears his oath just so that he can gain more advancement. I'd see this as a plus, really. Also once you're Duke and you have written your Will and then it should be valid for the rest of your life.


Well my inheritance of titles would be more of a convention of sorts. I can't get myself to like the current system too much, where Houses will always loose power when one of their members dies, no matter in which position. By choosing an heir to your title within the feudal chain you encourage him to retake the same Oaths your predecessor had. Thus making any House more stable. But to not make it too stable there are no penalties for not reswearing those oaths. This goes both ways. A death resets all Oaths, obviously, but encourages the people to take the same oaths again.

I hope that made more sense. Like I said much of this could just become IC convention anyways, but I want to make sure! :2thumbsup:

[AussieGiant]

Wow this is going at a brisk pace.

Ok so having seen Ramses wade in, TC's expert and steady hand, plus Ituralde, Zim and PK...I'm dropping the "stability, feudalism" position entirely.

And I have to say what Ramses is proposing is extremely positive to me.

By their very nature "Landed Gentry" are more stable than those nobles without it and have just a title. The idea that "Landed Gentry" have "less" to worry about regarding oaths and that their land gives them their position is excellent. Combine this will a "mid" to "lower upper" cap on how high a rank you can attain with this "Landed Gentry" solution is great .

If you want to get further than say a "Count" then you have to pursue a more fluid, less stable, "Rank" based structure.

Now I know I was just advocating against this but the way Ramses has outlined it so far I think it is doable. Given TC's Cray Computer brain is in the background I'd say the resident guru "could" come up with something that portrays these two system concepts without blowing someone's fuses out.

Ituralde's work on the inheritance system could be tweaked to cover any of the issues we can't work out in the hybrid concept, sort of like a "check" against an in balance we can't easily work out in the main ranking system.

As for the general change of heart...well hey, you're a convincing lot.

Let's embrace a free market, democratic feudal system that would make us all proud :egypt:

[Privateerkev]

But wouldn't this then strengthent the people in the middle of the chain. Maybe it's even the Marquee himself who foreswears his oath just so that he can gain more advancement. I'd see this as a plus, really. Also once you're Duke and you have written your Will and then it should be valid for the rest of your life.

Ah I'm sorry, I misunderstood you. In the current rules, you lose your title when a vassal drops out. So, in your rules, I assumed it would be the same. That's why I was worried about a FL destroying a RBG led House. So, in your rules, if Duke's are immune to having the will vetoed, then it is good no matter what rank they drop down to?

*edit*

Or have I just confused two totally different rules... damn my cobwebby brain right now... ^_^


Well my inheritance of titles would be more of a convention of sorts. I can't get myself to like the current system too much, where Houses will always loose power when one of their members dies, no matter in which position. By choosing an heir to your title within the feudal chain you encourage him to retake the same Oaths your predecessor had. Thus making any House more stable. But to not make it too stable there are no penalties for not reswearing those oaths. This goes both ways. A death resets all Oaths, obviously, but encourages the people to take the same oaths again.

I hope that made more sense. Like I said much of this could just become IC convention anyways, but I want to make sure! :2thumbsup:

Well, we have it where you can pass land through wills so that can somewhat keep the Houses stable. In the test game, I left my land to my 2nd in command. If my guy dies, he gets the land and his people are still sworn to him. So, the House is still around. Sure they can switch it up if that is their choice. But it would be relatively easy for my 2nd to hold things together if he wanted.

[Zim]

I rather like the idea of titles being inherited along with land in the case of an avatar death. :yes: Otherwise Houses would be very unstable.

Maybe when a player of high rank dies the players under him would then make a choice whether to transfer loyalty to the new heir or not. If it became IC "custom" that oaths should usually move to the new heir, there could be IC pressure on players who reject their new lords without good cause. Perhaps it could even be required to break an oath to avoid transfer of fealty if the heir happens to be a son or other very close relative (i.e. brother) of the high ranking lord. This would give an advantage to members of the royal family while still allowing RGBs to will their land.

[Privateerkev]

If I'm hearing this right,

Titles will be passed down but no one has to follow them?

How is that different from what we have?

We can effectively do that now. I can say in the test game that Ig will be Count if I die. Of course he'll need a new vassal afterwards. It will only hold enough weight as others let it.

[_Tristan_]

I Another thing that was made more and more clear to me that the M2TW family tree mechanics combined with our massive use of RBG (which I completely agree with) will probably produce such a messed up family tree that it might not be worthwile to pay attention to it after a short time. I really would have liked my system, but realize that for it to function properly we would need a decent amount of births. This is unfortunately not under our control.


One solution to the Family Member/RBG ratio discrepancy that we will certainly face to accomadoate a large number of players could perhaps be resolved with some modding of the game.

I think it is possible to add or remove Branches on the Family Tree before starting the game.

Take France for for example, at the beginning of the game, the FT comprises King Philippe, Prince Louis, Princess Constance and two underaged sons, Henry and Michiel. Add to this 2 or 3 starting generals out of the FT.

We could change the game files to allow for more Family Members (thus more branches on the family tree) or even more starting generals.

This should give more weight to the Family memer thus alliviating Ituralde's fears that the FT goes completely unnoticed.

Add some princesses (or potential princesses) and you'll have some IC woeing ...

[Ituralde]

@Tristran:
I am really not a modder, but I really like what you're saying. I would be all for it. If you start with enough Family Tree generals from the start and already have some Princesses that would be nice! :2thumbsup:

@PK:
I think the only difference is that for this one round the heir gets the full title, meaning he will also get any Personal Armies and such, if they are associated with the current title. So there's more incentive to reswear your Oaths. Otherwise you might have a disappointed guy running around with his Private Army trying to chop your head off!
This is only one possible scenario. If the Heir realizes that there is too much opposition against him he can always just drop the cause and retire to be a low Baronet.

This system is designed to not have a House drop its max rank every time someone dies.

[AussieGiant]

One solution to the Family Member/RBG ratio discrepancy that we will certainly face to accomadoate a large number of players could perhaps be resolved with some modding of the game.

I think it is possible to add or remove Branches on the Family Tree before starting the game.

Take France for for example, at the beginning of the game, the FT comprises King Philippe, Prince Louis, Princess Constance and two underaged sons, Henry and Michiel. Add to this 2 or 3 starting generals out of the FT.

We could change the game files to allow for more Family Members (thus more branches on the family tree) or even more starting generals.

This should give more weight to the Family memer thus alliviating Ituralde's fears that the FT goes completely unnoticed.

Add some princesses (or potential princesses) and you'll have some IC woeing ...


Well bloody hell, we have to look into that!!

If we can start the game with as large and as populated a Family Tree as possible, that would be excellent and definitely the direction we should go in...big, varied families would be fantastic.

Where’s FH when you need him?

FH!!! Mate, we need some of your skillzzza.

[Privateerkev]

@PK:
I think the only difference is that for this one round the heir gets the full title, meaning he will also get any Personal Armies and such, if they are associated with the current title. So there's more incentive to reswear your Oaths. Otherwise you might have a disappointed guy running around with his Private Army trying to chop your head off!
This is only one possible scenario. If the Heir realizes that there is too much opposition against him he can always just drop the cause and retire to be a low Baronet.

This system is designed to not have a House drop its max rank every time someone dies.

Then what would rank be based on in your system? In the current one, it is based on having one piece of land, a certain kind of vassal, and some ranks require a time limit to pass. But, the time limit is just a draft so let's go with the current rules at the top of the page for reference.

If a House Leader dies, and passes his title, what happens when the Heir does not have the vassal requirement? The death would drop the whole line down a rank. So, what is being passed on?

Now you've said that your system would make the rank not drop, but wouldn't that mean that you then have to base the rank on something completely different than vassals?

See where I'm coming from?

Now, do you have it where vassals gain you rank but losing them doesn't make you drop rank? So, if it takes 6 people to make a Duke, your saying the Duke should keep it if 1 or 2 people leave? And when the Duke dies, he can name someone Duke even though his tree might only have 4 people left?

Please let me know if I'm reading your rules right.

[Zim]

I"m a bit sleepy so I'm probably not explaining myself well.

I think IC custom is more than enough to handle the problem in most cases, but that if someone wills his land to his character's son (of age and controlled by a different player, or course, as per the rules), his title would transfer automatically, and the player's former vassals would have to break their oath prevent it. It makes sense to me for a Duke to leave his title to his son.

One tricky thing would be deciding whether the son of a high ranking noblemen would be exempt from the (held lesser rank for x turns) rule to inherit a title. I also have no idea what the best way to deal with the situation of the now promoted son already being in a neccessary part of the feudal chain, since having him replace the now dead nobles second in command as the new Marquess or whatever would probably tick the guy off.



It was just a thought, and Ituralde's idea is likely better. :yes:


If I'm hearing this right,

Titles will be passed down but no one has to follow them?

How is that different from what we have?

We can effectively do that now. I can say in the test game that Ig will be Count if I die. Of course he'll need a new vassal afterwards. It will only hold enough weight as others let it.

[Privateerkev]

I think IC custom is more than enough to handle the problem in most cases, but that if someone wills his land to his character's son (of age and controlled by a different player, or course, as per the rules), his title would transfer automatically, and the player's former vassals would have to break their oath prevent it. It makes sense to me for a Duke to leave his title to his son.

One tricky thing would be deciding whether the son of a high ranking noblemen would be exempt from the (held lesser rank for x turns) rule to inherit a title.

It was just a thought, and Ituralde's idea is likely better. :yes:

Ah, I see it took a sleepy mind to talk sense to a sleepy mind. This makes much more sense now. (no offense to Ituralde, but his clear writing obviously could not make it through my sleepiness. :beam: )

But still, what do we do about the vassal requirement? If Duke A, names Marquess B his heir, and then dies, the Marquess will have no Marquess to swear to him. He would need a new person to swear to his Baronet (or in the middle of the chain) to push him up to Duke under the current rule.

Moving away from that moves us away from having vassals as an essential building block. If I can just keep my title, all because people die, that seems like it might make the game too static. And if I can make sure my son keeps my title, all because I die, that also seems too static.

So, if we do this, what are we basing titles on? Is it still vassals, and we just waive the requirement under certain circumstances? It sounds like something we would have to nail down pretty tight.

*edit*

Also I am confused on which oaths need to be "re-sworn". When the Duke dies, the Marquess still has his Count (who still has his Viscount) and so on. The feudal chain is exactly the same except the guy on top died so there is no Duke. The House is still there if the members wish it to be. Basically what is being proposed for that situation is that we just "call" the Marquess a Duke without requiring him to find an extra vassal. So, Dukes will start varying in how many vassals they have.