Army Rule Change Proposal

[TinCow]

As we all know, we recently encountered some serious problems with LotR. These have caused OOC issues and have moved the game in directions we do not want it to go. After a bit of analysis, the problem is simply that the current army management system is too complex. It is very difficult to figure out what units belong to which players and people are receiving OOC penalties for their mistakes. This system needs to be reigned in before this does any more damage.

The key issues are twofold. First, we need to greatly simplify the army ownership rules. Second, we need to use IC enforcement of the rules as often as possible. I sought out the advice of several veteran players with history going back to WotS and KotR. Specifically AussieGiant, GeneralHankerchief, Ituralde, OverKnight, Privateerkev, Northnovas, and Ramses II CP. After several days of discussion, we have hammered out a plan that we think will work well. I will summarize it in plain english before listing the actual rule changes as would be embodied by a CA.

The army ownership system is simple to the extreme. If it's in your settlement, fort, or army, it's yours. The Megas doesn't need to pay any attention whatsoever to any armies except his own and Captain led stacks and fleets, which are absurdly easy to spot. There will also be no confusion amongst the players as to who owns what, so that problem is solved.

The only possible confusion arises when people co-mingle their armies. So, we resolve this IC and with the game engine. We make no change in the rules for settlement and fort garrisons whatsoever. This means you shouldn't park your army in a fort or settlement of someone you don't trust. If you do and they confiscate your army, whine about it IC, not OOC. This focuses the game back on the IC situation, not the OOC rules. Fleets are also owned by whoever is onboard them at any particular moment. This is simple and lets people control their own movement at sea without risking the Megas sending them sailing in circles until they die of scurvy.

Co-mingled armies in the field are a bit more complex, but can be solved in the same way. If armies are co-mingled in the field, the person with the highest feudal rank owns the entire stack. If both people are of the same rank, then the eldest avatar owns the stack. Just like with the garrison rule above, don't mingle your forces with someone you don't trust. Resolve it IC if it doesn't go the way you like it.

To give this a more feudal feel, people can 'seize' field armies belonging to any of their vassals. You're the Lord, after all, so that army is technically loyal to you. If someone is of a lower rank than you and in the same House, you can just move onto their stack and it becomes yours. There would be IC consequences to this, of course, but that's part of the fun. To keep with the theme that technically everyone is a vassal to the Basileus, the Basileus can seize anyone's army in the entire game. If the Basileus comes stalking looking to take your stack, you can either grovel and kiss his feet or declare war and fight him. Your choice. He's the Emperor after all.

Seizing also applies to Captain stacks, which gives even lowly Strators a shot at grabbing an army. You might piss off the Megas if you did it, but if you grabbed the right stack, you might be able to carve out your own mini-empire just by yourself. Fun all around.

So, that's that. A system that is clear for everyone, (relatively) simple to implement, and still allows for private ownership of armies and thus for PvP. The only thing it's missing is a way for Houses to have military power that is at least somewhat independent of the Megas.

We want to solve this in the simplest way possible, so we've embraced a system we already have that works just fine: Prioritization. We add a Prioritized Unit power onto all ranks, starting at Domestikos on up. Avatars with this power can require that a unit be recruited in any settlement they own or that their vassals own. As with some of the other powers, this one is only available to the 'top dog' in a feudal chain. To keep this balanced, the higher your rank, the more times you can use it per Megas term. This gives leaders of Houses the ability to supply their followers with military units in much the same way that Private Armies worked, but without the hassle of keeping track of the armies. The higher the top dog rank, the more military units he can prioritize, which maintains the current ability of large houses to field stronger armies.

To make this easy for the Megas to implement, we have put a couple restrictions on it. First, people can choose a general kind of unit to recruit (infantry, foot missiles, cavalry) but not an actual specific unit. This continues the current situation, where a friendly Megas can give you good units and a hostile Megas can give you bad units, but it prevents a hostile Megas from completely screwing you over, since you can still get at least the right kind of unit, if not the right type. Artillery and Mercs remain cannot be prioritized and can only be recruited if the Megas lets you. Second, the prioritization powers are only computed during Normal senate sessions (every 10 turns). This makes it easy to keep track of who can do what and also prevents several exploits of the system that could occur if it was a free-form system.

The large number of prioritized units that would be available pose a significant risk of bankrupting the Empire if they are all used. However, this is an IC issue and should be handled that way. If too many people are demanding maximum use of their prioritizations, argue about it in the Senate.

In the end, the system makes ownership of armies VERY easy to identify, or at least as easy as it's possible for it to be in the game. It also uses an existing and proven system (Prioritization) to give large houses power over smaller houses and unaligned Senators. It greatly simplifies the Megas' job, by requiring him to only recruit and manage Captain stacks, he never has to bother with assembling Private Armies for people. He just spends the cash and washes his hands of the matter.

Please feel free to ask questions and point out any issues that you think might crop up. All of the people who helped create this understand the system and support it, so there should be plenty of people who can answer questions and clarify confusing parts. My objective at this point is to continue this discussion about these rule changes in this thread until the 1140 Senate session, at which point they will be proposed as a Charter Amendment.

Here is the wording of the exact changes that would be required:

Army Ownership Restructuring Changes:

Rule 4.1 – Private Armies is deleted.
Rule 4.2 – Royal Armies is deleted.
Rule 4.3 – Army Replenishment is deleted.

New Rules will be added as follows:


4.1 – Armies: Except as stated in Rule 4.2, all Senators own all army units that begin a turn in a stack led by their avatar, in the garrison of a settlement they own, and in the garrison of a fort inside a province they own, regardless of how the units got there. Senators instantly own any Captain-led stack that their avatar moves onto. No one may move or disband any units owned by a Senator without his permission.

4.2 – Seizing Armies: Any Senator may move his avatar onto an army owned by another Senator from the same feudal chain. If this occurs, the Senator with the highest feudal rank instantly owns the entire combined army. If both Senators are of the same rank, the eldest Senator will own the entire combined army. The Basileus may instantly seize any army his avatar moves onto, regardless of the status of the Senator that previously owned it. A Senator may not move his avatar onto an army owned by a Senator from outside his feudal chain unless both Senators agree to the move beforehand. If there is a subsequent disagreement about who owns the units in the army, where the army is to move, or who commands the army, the Basileus will decide. This Rule does not apply to garrisons of settlements or forts. Avatars may never be seized.

4.3 – Naval Fleets: Naval fleets are owned by the Senator with the highest feudal rank who is onboard the fleet. If there are multiple Senators of the same rank, the eldest Senator will own the fleet. No one may move or disband any ships in a fleet owned by a Senator without his permission.

The following line is removed from Rule 5.2 – Civil War through Oath Breaking:

If a Civil War begins in this manner, any Senator 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.

Rule 1.4 – Game Management is re-written as follows (changes in bold):

1.4 – Game Management: At the start of each turn, the Megas Logothetes 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 unit or fleet their avatar owns, and fight any battles against the AI that they are capable of fighting with their avatar’s army. Player may also move any unit, fleet, or avatar they have been given specific permission to move by the respective owner, as long as that permission is posted in a public thread. The Megas Logothetes 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. Players may not move avatars or armies into the territory of a neutral or allied faction without the permission of the Basileus. Nor may they attack the settlements or armies of neutral or allied factions without a declaration of war from the Basileus, a Megas Dux/Exarch or an Edict.

Penalty 1 is deleted from the rank of Strator.

Penalty 1 is deleted from the rank of Comes.

The rank of Domestikos gains the following Power:

If this rank is held during a Normal Senate Session, can Prioritize a total of 2 units per full 10 turn Megas Logothetes term, unless the Domestikos is loyal to another Senator.

Power 4 is deleted from the rank of Hypatos.
The rank of Hypatos gains the following Power:

If this rank is held during a Normal Senate Session, can Prioritize a total of 4 units per full 10 turn Megas Logothetes term, unless the Hypatos is loyal to another Senator.

Power 4 is deleted from the rank of Antypatos.
The rank of Antypatos gains the following Power:

If this rank is held during a Normal Senate Session, can Prioritize a total of 6 units per full 10 turn Megas Logothetes term, unless the Antypatos is loyal to another Senator.

Power 4 is deleted from the rank of Patrikios.
The rank of Patrikios gains the following Power:

If this rank is held during a Normal Senate Session, can Prioritize a total of 8 units per full 10 turn Megas Logothetes term, unless the Patrikios is loyal to another Senator.

Powers 5 and 10 are deleted from the rank of Dux.
The rank of Dux gains the following Power:

If this rank is held during a Normal Senate Session, can Prioritize a total of 10 units per full 10 turn Megas Logothetes term, unless the Dux is loyal to another Senator.

Powers 5 and 12 are deleted from the rank of Megas Dux/Exarch.
The rank of Megas Dux/Exarch gains the following Power:

If this rank is held during a Normal Senate Session, can Prioritize a total of 12 units per full 10 turn Megas Logothetes term.

Power 4 is deleted from the rank of Caesar.
The rank of Caesar gains the following Power:

If this rank is held during a Normal Senate Session, can Prioritize a total of 2 units per full 10 turn Megas Logothetes term. This Power is cumulative with the ability to Prioritize units under any other rank held by the Caesar.

Powers 4 and 14 are deleted from the rank of Basileus.
The rank of Basilues gains the following Power:

If this rank is held during a Normal Senate Session, can Prioritize a total of 15 units per full 10 turn Megas Logothetes term.

Power 2 and Limitation on Power 4 are deleted from the rank of Megas Logothetes.
The rank of Megas Logothetes gains the following Powers:

(2) The Megas Logotheses is responsible for all monetary expenditures in the game. The choice of what to build/recruit and where is entirely up to him, except as stated in the Limitations on Powers.
(3) The Megas Logothetes can move all armies that start a turn led by a Captain except as stated in Rule 4.1.
(4) The Megas Logothetes can move all fleets except as stated in Rule 4.3.
(5) The Megas Logothetes can move and use all agents.
The rank of Megas Logothetes has Limitation on Powers 2 is re-written as follows (changes in bold):

(2) No money can be spent on any construction until all Prioritized Buildings have been funded, unless the Senators who Prioritized them agree otherwise. If there are multiple Prioritized Buildings, and not enough funding for all of them, the Megas Logothetes may choose which to construct first. Prioritized Buildings cannot be funded until all Prioritized Units have been funded.
The rank of Megas Logothetes gains the following Limitation on Powers:

(4) Prioritized Units – No money can be spent on any recruitment until all Prioritized Units have been funded, unless the Senators who Prioritized them agree otherwise. If there are multiple Prioritized Units, and not enough funding for all of them, the Megas Logothetes may choose which to construct first. Senators may specify the Type of Unit to be recruited and the Location for the recruitment. The Type of Unit is restricted to the broad classifications of infantry, foot missiles, and cavalry. Artillery and Mercenaries cannot be Prioritized. A unit may be retrained instead of recruited if the unit is already located in a settlement where it can be retrained in some fashion. Except for the Basileus, the Location is restricted to any settlement owned by the Senator requesting the Prioritization or any settlement owned by a vassal in his feudal chain. The Basileus may specify any settlement in the Empire as the Location.

Miscellaneous Rule Cleanup Changes:

Rule 1.6 - Game Balancing is deleted.

The following line will be added to Rule 3.3:

Edicts are only binding on the players to the extent that the Senate chooses to enforce them.

A new Rule will be added as follows:

3.4a – * Amendments: Rules marked with a * can be permanently modified via an Amendment if TinCow gives his approval for the modification.

[AussieGiant]

I'd like to jump in early and post here the kernel idea that passed between TC and I that has lead to this recommendation.

-----------

CA have spent just a bejeezus amount of time creating a realistic immersive experience for gamers. Let's use this to the best of our ability, build everything around what we see and know of the game and then write a very thin film of wording (rules) over the top in order to create the characteristics we would like to add.

Nothing more; don't get tempted to codify anything.

Let the IC world decide if something is possible. If it is, then can it be managed? If it can be managed, then can it survive? If it does, then great!! It stays until something IC breaks down.

IC, IC, IC. That's the only way to get the guys to focus on what's happening IC not what is happening OOC.

-----------

[_Tristan_]

One single problem I can see with the new rules is that Captain-led stacks will become a rare commodity... Once the Megas decides to spawn some units and send them from Province A (where they were recruited) to Province C (where Senator X expects them) through province B (where Senator Y is lurking), he runs the risk of seeing them seized by Senator Y at the detriment of Senator X...

Though I can see how we could deal with this IC, it might in fact endanger some avatars (if for example Senator X relied on the newly available units to face an upcoming threat...)

Doesn't the Megas lose too much power in this ?

EDIT : And great rules, btw... :2thumbsup:

They would have made Methodios' life much easier in the past...

[AussieGiant]

One single problem I can see with the new rules is that Captain-led stacks will become a rare commodity... Once the Megas decides to spawn some units and send them from Province A (where they were recruited) to Province C (where Senator X expects them) through province B (where Senator Y is lurking), he runs the risk of seeing them seized by Senator Y at the detriment of Senator X...

Though I can see how we could deal with this IC, it might in fact endanger some avatars (if for example Senator X relied on the newly available units to face an upcoming threat...)

Quoting someone we all know well when this was brought up before.

"At this point, as far as I am concerned, if there's an IC solution it's not a hole, it's a feature!" :beam:

Work it out IC and take it into account when choosing where to recruit.

[Privateerkev]

Doesn't the Megas lose too much power in this ?

He loses some but he also loses a lot of paperwork. The paperwork I have to do to make sure I "follow the law" in this game is getting absurd. Private armies pretty much forces you to keep track of every single unit in the game. Because the owners can change the composition of their armies at will. If you don't keep a close eye on the SOT, and compare it to the save game, a player can switch their "army" from one stack to another and put you in danger of moving the wrong stack.

The new rules totally do away with this. I can only speak for myself but I would happily do away with some "power" if it means less OOC tension and less paperwork.

As I said before, if players want to be empowered, they can start doing some of the paperwork.

[_Tristan_]

Then I'm fine with all of it :2thumbsup:

[TinCow]

Tristan is right about Senators seizing Captain-led stacks. There is a lot of room with this new system for people to be nasty, uncooperative, and abusive of their powers. However, the game still has boatloads of ways to stop this. The Senate can take action against the culpirt via Edicts and CAs. The Megas can starve them of resources in numerous ways. Individual Senators and Houses can also simply declare war and punish the person themselves. This last point in particular is something that I think people need to consider far more seriously in the future, particularly as inividual military power is likely to increase as a result of these changes.

[_Tristan_]

Yes, I think we might some more PvP now with this new set of rules...

[Warmaster Horus]

Yes, I think we might some more PvP now with this new set of rules...
Oh yeah... Civil wars are now more... fair, I guess. It's all a matter of grabbing captain stacks first (if I understood correctly).

[Privateerkev]

What hasn't been mentioned during the discussion is that this makes the timing of when a new save is released, really really important. If you get the new save first, your avatar gets to go and snag captain stacks. If you get it later, your left with the left overs.

This is an observation, not a complaint. There are plenty of IC ways to deal with this.

*edit*

Tincow gave me permission to post the QT link:

Army rules QuickTopic (http://www.quicktopic.com/42/H/85nGmPjrXp4t)

Now you can see the discussion that led to the rules you see above.

[TinCow]

I actually doubt Captain stacks will be seized often, simply because I don't expect to see a whole lot of Captain stacks. You have to keep in mind that the only way a Captain stack can be created is if someone voluntarily gives up units they own. All units have to be spawned into a settlement of some kind, and as such they instantly are owned by a Senator. Not even the Basileus can seize a unit inside a settlement or fort, so that units are 100% safe. In order for a Captain stack to be created, the owner of that settlement will have to voluntarily remove them from his city or give permission to someone else to do so.

I think this is unlikely to happen, and will only occur when there's a friendly Megas in power who will move the Captain stack to wherever it is supposed to go. That means that most Captain stacks are going to exist only as a pre-arranged agreement between the Megas and the person who created it. If a third party runs in and grabs that stack, they're going to piss off some very powerful people. More likely, units will only be removed from cities when the avatar that owns them is nearby and can instantly incorporate them into his own army, or an army of an ally.

In general, I expect people to start relying on their provinces a lot more than they used to. This system really makes your province your lifeblood. It is your base of power and the thing that allows you to accumulate military strength. Poor towns that can only produce town militia will generally limit a person to owning a poor quality army, unless they can make powerful friends who will give them better units that were produced elsewhere. As a result, not all provinces are going to be the same anymore. Heavily upgraded castles like Corinth will be very valuable because they will provide a means for private production of good armies without relying on anyone else. A House that has only poor town/city provinces will not be able to get any good military units unless they can convince the Megas to hire Mercs for them or can get them from other Senators.

I like this because it opens up the door for unaligned Senators and small Houses to play interesting roles. An unaligned Senator with a good army could sell his military units to other Houses who don't have good militaries. A Strator or Comes who somehow got a strong army could even act as a mercenary, fighting for whoever will pay his fees. Small Houses and unaligned Senators will still have far less influence during votes, but they will have interesting options available to them. It's no longer going to be a situation where you have to join a big House in order to have power.

[AussieGiant]

While it is a first come first serve on the save there are a variety of mechanism to combat this:

* Recruit near where your armies are located. This will reduce the time regiment(s) spent not being "under command"

* House's with more avatars can managing the reinforcing process much easier. Going it alone will make this rather difficult.

* And always remember, IC group dynamics. If you annoy people, you'll find yourself being annoyed back.

* If you own a settlement and recruit forces in it, no one can come into your castle or city and take them, i.e. your SOT. But as soon as you move them outside without anyone in command then they are fair game.

* This is a bullet point of all the way's I haven't thought of managing this.

Plus honestly;

------------

Forcing marching his 4000 billmen from Cornwall to London, the regimental captain always thought to himself just what a risk it was for his liege, the Earl of Cornwall, for not sending one of his nobles or coming himself to lead such a large reinforcement division.

Reports were very clear that Prince Edward Plantagenet was in the areas after returning from Wales after shafting a few Welshmen as a bit of summer sport. The Earl of Cornwall who's oath belonged to Edward was in desperate need of the troops for his expedition into France.

Some time later.

Low and behold up ahead the colours of Edward's personal guard could be seen riding towards the now unsure captain.

"Ah ha, my dear Captain, it's good to see you. You have quite a small army here hey. I'm giving you new orders. You're to accompany me to Oxford and then we are heading north to Scotland."

"But my lord, we're ordered to London on the Earl's behalf, and then off to France, here take a look. He paid a mighty fortune for equipping us and training." The regimental captain hands the official orders to the Prince.

Ripping them up expertly Edward sighs in frustration and at the naivety of the young captain.

"My dear Captain. I'm sure the Earl will understand, I'll send word he has to make other arrangements. It's good to be the Prince no?"

-----------------

It is the middle ages guy's. This was exactly what it was like.

[Ramses II CP]

I really like the new system. I believe it's going to be much less stable than the previous one because of the way units work now. The only real downside is the reduction in the importance of middle ranks, but there are several not-quite-obvious aspects of the rules that offset this:

1. A House leader can order units trained at a vassal's settlement, but he can't order them surrendered to his control even if he marches down to the settlement himself. This gives vassals an important way to force their Lord to listen to them, and a role to play in setting House politics and strategy.

2. You must use an avatar to escort troops to armies 'at the front' for an offensive, otherwise even a friendly Megas from a different House is probably going to divert them or move them such that another avatar gets a shot at them.

3. Forts are also going to become more important for moving troops, but troops deposited in a fort become the possession of the owner of the fort. If your House leader wants to move his troops from fort to fort he will need the active permission of his vassals.

The system can still be more top heavy than the old one if vassals permit it to develop that way, but the tools are there IC to prevent it.

I also want to point out the significance of fleets being controllable. If you manage to get your hands on a fleet and an army you can effectively go out and carve yourself a place anywhere in the world.

:egypt:

[Ituralde]

I also want to point out the significance of fleets being controllable. If you manage to get your hands on a fleet and an army you can effectively go out and carve yourself a place anywhere in the world.

:egypt:

If you don't forget the SS supply system. Despite the strange things it sometimes does I'm really glad we have it as a further game mechanic check on possible exploits. I think theses rules could really tie it all together.

Of course that's what I thought about the initial Army Rules too, but then change happens! :2thumbsup:

[Ramses II CP]

Heh, I haven't noticed any significant effects of the supply system. What is this 'supply system' you speak of, and what are it's effects? :laugh4: :clown:

I think Vissa has had 'troops despondent' or similar since the 8th turn. If I needed to command a large stack I'd split it out and call it as reinforcements to duck the penalty. At this point I'm not sure I'd accept resupply even if it was offered, but now that you bring it up, fleets can automatically resupply you if you move out of them and back into them (I think you have to end the turn there though, so it does cost you some movement).

I don't know if that gets rid of the supply trait that requires you to spend some time in the homelands or not, however, so it's entirely possible that negative effects would still accumulate.

:egypt:

[AussieGiant]

The supply system essentially prevents your avatar from parking himself somewhere outside a settlement for turns on end.

Variables make this a long time in homelands and a reduced amount of time in other provinces that don't have the same religion, there are more variables than I mention here of course.

If you do, you will see a gradual decline in your readiness levels which will affect moral and other factors quite a lot.

If you go and fight a battle with a -8 moral modifier then I'm sure you will notice a difference.

[Ramses II CP]

The supply system essentially prevents your avatar from parking himself somewhere outside a settlement for turns on end.

Variables make this a long time in homelands and a reduced amount of time in other provinces that don't have the same religion, there are more variables than I mention here of course.

If you do, you will see a gradual decline in your readiness levels which will affect moral and other factors quite a lot.

If you go and fight a battle with a -8 moral modifier then I'm sure you will notice a difference.

Actually I've had the -8 morale mod since before the Crusade even started, IIRC. I have no doubt it would be an annoyance in a large battle, but we're doing all the fighting with our generals anyway, and they have sky high morale.

Actually, now that I think of it, that was one of the things I never realized about SS when I first gave it a test run for some solo campaigns, how tough the generals are. Once I saw that a general could handicap his own troops I just stopped using them.

That's beside the point, however; the point I'm making is that I don't think the supply system would handicap a person from expanding. I'd hate to have that mod factor into a Civil War/PvP battle, but otherwise I don't think it matters.

:egypt:

[AussieGiant]

Actually I've had the -8 morale mod since before the Crusade even started, IIRC. I have no doubt it would be an annoyance in a large battle, but we're doing all the fighting with our generals anyway, and they have sky high morale.

Actually, now that I think of it, that was one of the things I never realized about SS when I first gave it a test run for some solo campaigns, how tough the generals are. Once I saw that a general could handicap his own troops I just stopped using them.

That's beside the point, however; the point I'm making is that I don't think the supply system would handicap a person from expanding. I'd hate to have that mod factor into a Civil War/PvP battle, but otherwise I don't think it matters.

:egypt:

Yeah if you are using BG's then you wont see a difference. If you actually have an army though, then watch out.

If you stay in the field for a long time even professional troops will balk at the slightest thing. It's a good system really. If forces you to support your troops and manage wars in more of a "surge, resupply, surge, resupply" fashion. Of course there is no solution preventing demi god players from ignoring it all and just plowing ahead.

I've been playing this game for bloody ages now and the one thing I would really love to see is FactionHeir with one BG against a late era 20 unit stack on open ground...just once.

And an open question to you all. It seems I have a corrupted save, not this game but a Spanish long campaign in which I was trying to play with purely gun powder and pike units as fast as possible.

I've gotten to 1293 and I'm well on the way...I click end turn, it goes through the AI moves and then the whole screen goes black...nothing. If I hit escape then I'm taken back to the desktop...it's really frustrating...and help would be greatly appreciated.

[Privateerkev]

Where the supply system really hurts you is in your traits. The negative traits kill your stats. Which hurt your voting influence because they knock off "stat influence" you would otherwise have. There have been votes where Mak has been sick and it lowered his stats just enough for him to miss getting 20+ stats which killed one of his influence. As we've seen, even one vote matters...

The morale effect is less of a problem than the hit your influence takes. I've had my whole army melt away but could still take on a full stack because I'd just set up a "charge relay" with my RBG's. If you have 3 avatars, you just have one charging, one preparing to charge, and one retreating from his previous charge. You basically end up hitting the enemy with a jackhammer. If you have 6 RBG's, you can set up 2. One on either side of a battle line. The AI really doesn't know how to handle it and the units start routing.

[_Tristan_]

Frankly, to accomplish this, you don't even need so many RBG's...

Belgrade was fought with only two of them and one unit of HA against 1600 rebels...

Power to the RBGs !!!! :charge:

[Privateerkev]

Frankly, to accomplish this, you don't even need so many RBG's...

Belgrade was fought with only two of them and one unit of HA against 1600 rebels...

Power to the RBGs !!!! :charge:

I'm not good with battles so I need 6 RBG's to accomplish what you can do with 2. :shame:

[_Tristan_]

Not implying anything, PK... :stupid:

It is just an example of how powerful these little men can be :charge:

[Privateerkev]

Not implying anything, PK... :stupid:

No offense taken. It's just that not all of us are super-generals like you. :beam:

*edit*

Now go and fight your battle super-general. :whip:

[TinCow]

I don't mind the Jedi Generals, simply because they aren't keeping people alive. We've already exceeded the rate of death in battle from KotR. The generals are powerful, which makes people want to use them in battle, which in turn always risks a death due to bad luck. I think it balances well.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Yes they don't. I know it very well. :yes:

But I like actually like the new system. This always makes it possible to get an army.. and a lot of enemies by doing so :beam:

[ULC]

I am probably being thick headed right now, but how do the new rules deal with being in someone else's city/castle and declaring war on them? or you suddenly kicked out of their castle? Do you now own it? Do you now control the troops within it?

[TinCow]

You're talking about being inside someone else's settlement when a war breaks out between you? If so, it's a simple situation. Everything in a settlement belongs to the owner of the settlement except for other avatars, period. There are never any exceptions to that rule. So, if a war breaks out and you are in a 'hostile' settlement, you had better use your one turn of free movement to run away really fast. That assumes that you were the target of the declaration, and not on the side that made the declaration. If you are on the side that made the declaration, you are well and truly screwed. Lesson Learned: Don't declare war on someone when you are inside one of their settlements.

[ULC]

Well the reason I ask is because it feels kinda..strange I suppose...to have to step out of the castle you were just in, then turn around and attack it. I would think you would be able to "seize" the castle. You wouldn't own it, you wouldn't gain anything from it (no recruiting, no building, and especially no rank increase), but it would technically be under your control until you left it. I can understand the reason's why it doesn't work like that, but it just feels weird...

[Ramses II CP]

Does it seem more likely that you would be instantly captured by your enemy's men? I mean, you're in his heartland and you just, for some reason, declared yourself a hostile. His men aren't exactly going to hand you and your 20 guards the keys to the city.

:egypt:

[ULC]

Taking into consideration an empty settlement? Rare but possible. I was actually thinking about betrayal from within a House.

[TinCow]

Yes, an empty settlement would be instantly captured if there were no other units in it except a hostile avatar. If you can figure out how to get your enemy to let you be alone in his city, you've earned that capture.

Betrayal within a House can easily occur, it's just advisable to exploit your situation by seizing large armies in the field first so that the settlements fall easily. Most settlements have very small garrisons, so a 10-15 unit army could easily conquer several.

[AussieGiant]

Good god. There is some much common sense involved now.

It's just plain scary :egypt:

[_Tristan_]

Yes... And you thought it was a rare commodity...

[AussieGiant]

Yes... And you thought it was a rare commodity...

the rarest Tristian :egypt:

[Ferret]

What's with the Egyptians? Ramses won't be pleased :egypt:

[_Tristan_]

What's with the Egyptians? Ramses won't be pleased :egypt:

See this post (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2009182&postcount=1197)..

[AussieGiant]

:egypt::egypt::egypt:

[Ramses II CP]

Pfft! Cairo wasn't stolen, it was surrendered to rebellion and reconquered. Plus, if it hasn't been obvious via the stories, the only things Vissa cared about in Cairo, and most of the things he cared about in life, are gone. :yes:

Besides, you can't handle the Egypt smiley! He will eat your brains if you're not careful...

(Okay, that's zombies, but what the heck are Mummies known to do except be slower, stiffer, stupider zombies?)

:egypt:

[TinCow]

If anyone has any other comments on this, I urge you to post them. If nothing else comes up, I will propose these changes as a single CA in the 1140 AD session.

[_Tristan_]

My only comment would be :"Too bad we didn't think about this when we started..."

Nice revision of the rules

[Rowan]

I haven't read the quick topic so apologies if this has already been discussed.

I like the new army rules but I think the middle ranks lose a lot of their power. After the rule changes it doesn't matter if you have a house with 4 comes and a patrikos or a linear progression with all the middle ranks. On one hand that is good as it allows for different hierarchies' without penalizing them, but on the other hand we still lose a lot of the appeal of the middle ranks and gaining power by advancing through the ranks. If an avatar is not going to do any army seizing there's really not much difference being a comes than being a patrikios if you are not the top dog. (Ok, there's potential for influence).

One idea that someone proposed was that the maximum stack size would be limited by the ranks of the avatars in the stack. Maybe have an S-shaped curve with strator and comes 3, domestikos 6, hypatos 10, antypatos 12, patrikios 14, dux 16, md/ex 18 (or whatever the full stack size is). The point being that the lower middle ranks gain the most in ability to safely transfer troops. Since Megas has the control of all captain stacks the most common loophole of having a separate reinforcement stack becomes contingent of having a friendly Megas. Size limits would of course be cumulative so a beginning house with a comes and 2 strators would still be able to field a respectable army of 9 units.

Comments?

[Privateerkev]

The middle ranks are important to keeping vassals happy. Most people don't want to be a comes. And the ones that do are highly sought out since every House needs a Comes at the bottom. But having the middle ranks being low-powered forces the House Leader to use his powers to keep the middle ranks happy. If the House Leader can't keep his middle ranks happy, then they might leave and take a sizable chunk of the chain with them. This gives people in the middle an amount of pull with the House Leader.

With the influence boost, it is still to a House's advantage to "straighten the chain."

[TinCow]

Yes, that was brought up in the QT, but it is a good point and is worth discussing here. The middle ranks will certainly lose some power. However, limiting armies like you suggest requires tracking who has what army at all times, which destroys the simplicity of the situation. My opinion is that at this time everything else needs to give way to simplicity to make the system work. Complexity can be re-introduced to the army system once the basic system is working well.

At the same time, while there are fewer direct benefit for obtaining the middle ranks, those middle ranks really are needed to keep a House strong. It's up to the leader of the House to keep his vassals happy. The top ranked Lord will have a very large array of powers at his disposal to reward his followers. He just needs to figure out how to apportion them properly. If the middle ranks aren't happy with their reduced powers, they can simply split off and form their own House. A Hypatos who leaves with two vassals will suddenly gain a lot of power just by going it alone. This subjugation of individual power to the leader of the House will make IC House politics more interesting and has the potential to incite more conflicts than the current system.

[Ituralde]

You should also keep in mind that even the lowest rank can wreak havoc if he gets his hands on an army! In the current system it doesn't really matter to whom you give command of your army, since you have the ability to just reassign that Army back to yourself. Now you have to be much more careful who you choose to run around with your troops. Who you trust enough. So that's a lot more power for all of the lower ranks.

I have brought this up in the QT too, so I can understand the appeal. But by now, I think it is more interesting when the only ones who desire a higher rank than Comes are the vassals. This should heighten the internal interaction in the Houses. It's not in everybodys interest anymore to "straighten out" the chain, which creates tension within the House, which is good! The Lord can play favourites, because every rank higher than Comes mean you can seize the Army of a Comes. The Lord also needs to watch out who owns the top recruitment facilities. If that vassal decides to just lock in the garrison and tries to use it for himself, he's suddenly got a lot of power!

So I think there's lots of dynamic created through these simple rules within one single House. All the ranks will have the ability to achieve their goals in much better ways than they could now, while also keeping it simple enough (on paper) to be managable for everyone!

Cheers!

Ituralde

[Rowan]

I think I have a peculiar way of playing this game, concentrating mostly on co-operating and communicating with the people in the same house and that shapes how I see this. Plus, I have the viewpoint of the guy at the bottom who is finally starting his journey if not to the top then at least up.

And the problem is that as a motivational reward the higher rank loses most of it's concrete benefits. It's like giving someone a new title while their responsibilities, pay and benefits stay the same.

Would you rather take promotion to hypatios (without the private army) or have some concrete prioritized units or a prioritized building in your settlement. Even the increased influence requires the stats to use it and the main way to increase those stats is by fighting battles (which requires an army) and getting stuff built where you are.

So what I'm trying to say (not very coherently, though) is that if the rank becomes an empty title then it loses it's value as a motivational tool, which makes it even more meaningless.

And I don't think the max-stack-size rule requires too much bookkeeping. Everyone knows their avatar's rank and are responsible for only traveling with a stack that is not too big. Besides, we have several people downloading and viewing the save every turn so there would be a sizable risk that someone would notice a too large stack. Peer-pressure works :smash:

[Rowan]

Ituralde: It is evident that we are playing in totally different houses :laugh4:

And the huggy-feely-everyone-pull-together-Order is also something that is coloring my opinion.

[Privateerkev]

Again, it is up to the House Leader to make the rank more than an empty title. The second position in the Order has power and responsibilities even though we totally made them up and they have nothing to do with the game rules at all.

If someone in the middle is disgruntled, they should ask for things or start looking elsewhere.

Keep in mind, even with the new system decreasing the power of middle ranks, it is still a heck of a lot better than KotR. In KotR, you had one person in charge for life. And the rest simply had to bow to him and hope he made them heir one day.

Now, you have so many more options. And so much more bargaining power with the House Leader. It is in the House Leader's interests to keep you happy.

[AussieGiant]

I look at it like this.

Burger analogy:

Top Bun = House leader

Bottom Bun = Comes

Meat patty, salad etc = Middle rank(s)

If you want to ignore the middle you'll end up with two buns and no burger. That's not really a burger (House) and it certainly is no where near as good as the very tasty "proper" burger.

The middle ranks are the glue that keep the top and the bottom joined.

That by itself makes them a key ingredient.

[Privateerkev]

I like the burger analogy. (Though if someone calls Mak "top bun," he will hurt them...) :clown:

Also people should keep in mind that the stat-influence in middle ranks can only be used if the avatar has stats. That means another way to keep the middle happy is to give them opportunities to gain stats to make use of the cap their rank gives them. This will probably lead to House Leaders sitting back more and letting their vassals do the fighting (since it is one of the main way to get stats.)

I'm pretty sure this will shake itself out through trial-and-error and roleplaying.

[Rowan]

I guess in the end it comes to that I'd like to see some concrete benefit for the middle ranks while the consensus here seems to be that the houses will take care of it internally and IC. Fine by me.

[Privateerkev]

I guess in the end it comes to that I'd like to see some concrete benefit for the middle ranks while the consensus here seems to be that the houses will take care of it internally and IC. Fine by me.

I think I see where your coming from. Here is how I see it:

The benefit of being in the middle is actually the benefit of being a vassal. Being a vassal gives you a certain amount of pull. Being in the middle is a way of rewarding a loyal vassal. So, while being in the middle just increases your stat-influence, it allows you to have pull within the House. And the more pull you have within the House, the more likely you will get support from the top of the House.

This game was conceived around the idea of forcing House Leaders to actually work for their position. My biggest beef with KotR was that the Houses were pretty static. A Duke was a Duke for life or unless they died against the AI. At least until the end of the game. So, there was very little incentive for Dukes to be nice to their vassals. Some Dukes were downright abusive. And some of the players of Dukes felt quite secure in taking off for days or even weeks at a time. This was not good for the game.

Now, a House Leader needs to keep his people happy. Or they will leave. By being a vassal, you have power because you are the reason your House Leader has power. You yourself might not use that power because you happen to be in such a "happy-touchy-feely-cooperative" House. But do not forget that you always have that power.

So, I see the middle ranks as a reward that the House Leader encourages in order to keep his vassals happy. I don't think there needs to be concrete benefits for those in the middle because it should be the House Leader's responsibility to provide those benefits. As long as we keep "landed vassals" as the building block to power, and we allow almost "at-will" House switching, I think this will even out.

Please let me know if any of that was confusing. :beam:

[TinCow]

And the problem is that as a motivational reward the higher rank loses most of it's concrete benefits. It's like giving someone a new title while their responsibilities, pay and benefits stay the same.

Would you rather take promotion to hypatios (without the private army) or have some concrete prioritized units or a prioritized building in your settlement. Even the increased influence requires the stats to use it and the main way to increase those stats is by fighting battles (which requires an army) and getting stuff built where you are.

So what I'm trying to say (not very coherently, though) is that if the rank becomes an empty title then it loses it's value as a motivational tool, which makes it even more meaningless.

If it turns out that the middle ranks simply don't have enough power in them and people are unhappy with the way it is balanced, it would be very easy to alter those ranks to give them increase in power. I think it would be best for the sake of simplicity to try out the proposed system as it stands for one Megas term. If the majority think the middle ranks need to be boosted after that, it shouldn't be too difficult to increase their influence and/or powers in various ways.

[Cecil XIX]

Well, I finally got around to reading this thing. :juggle2: Figures it wasn't fifty posts of multi-paragraph rules discussion like I thought. I'm not even surprised, as the rules are very strong as-is.


In general, I expect people to start relying on their provinces a lot more than they used to. This system really makes your province your lifeblood. It is your base of power and the thing that allows you to accumulate military strength. Poor towns that can only produce town militia will generally limit a person to owning a poor quality army, unless they can make powerful friends who will give them better units that were produced elsewhere. As a result, not all provinces are going to be the same anymore. Heavily upgraded castles like Corinth will be very valuable because they will provide a means for private production of good armies without relying on anyone else.

It's like I'm back in Prague during The Cataclysm. :thumbsup: That's a very good thing, because I never enjoyed KOTR more than I did then, and basically for the reasons you listed. The sense of accomplishment you get by surviving only with what is yours is like nothing else.

I do have a few ideas, however.

1. All land-owning ranks should have be able to prioritize some units, to represent that any land-owning noble could and did raise soldiers for his own defense, both in the feudal-system the rules were modelled after and in the faction we're actually actually playing. I would suggest that vassals should only be able to prioritize half as many units as they would otherwise, or each vassal can prioritize only one or two units regardless of rank.

2. Nobles should be able to choose specific units to prioritize, so long as those units are trained in a settlement that the noble in question owns. This would shift the IC haggling over prioritization, while at the same time representing the fact that during the time period land-owning nobles were able to raise soldiers independent of central authority. This and my last suggestion tie in to Tincow's belief that nobles should be attached to the provinces they own, and I can say from experience that if every Senator has one or two units that they can raised themselves, in their own lands, they will cherish those units like their own bodyguard. And they'll have a lot of fun.

3. Fleets owned by a Senator should remain in his possession when they are
docked inside a province he owns. If I read the new rules correctly, they abandoned the idea of powerful nobles having a 'standing navy' to go along with their armies. Why not give only Dukes and Exarchs this ability, since before it was one of the best abilities they gained?

[TinCow]

1. All land-owning ranks should have be able to prioritize some units, to represent that any land-owning noble could and did raise soldiers for his own defense, both in the feudal-system the rules were modelled after and in the faction we're actually actually playing. I would suggest that vassals should only be able to prioritize half as many units as they would otherwise, or each vassal can prioritize only one or two units regardless of rank.

2. Nobles should be able to choose specific units to prioritize, so long as those units are trained in a settlement that the noble in question owns. This would shift the IC haggling over prioritization, while at the same time representing the fact that during the time period land-owning nobles were able to raise soldiers independent of central authority. This and my last suggestion tie in to Tincow's belief that nobles should be attached to the provinces they own, and I can say from experience that if every Senator has one or two units that they can raised themselves, in their own lands, they will cherish those units like their own bodyguard. And they'll have a lot of fun.

These two suggestion mimic some of my own thoughts on ways to improve the system. However, I'm afraid of making it too complex and thus screwing it all up. I would very much like to explore more with tweaking the exact recruitment abilities of the various nobles, but I would personally like to see us get one term under our belts with just the basic system. After one term, we'll have a better idea of how well the system works and whether further complexities can be added without slowing it down.


3. Fleets owned by a Senator should remain in his possession when they are
docked inside a province he owns. If I read the new rules correctly, they abandoned the idea of powerful nobles having a 'standing navy' to go along with their armies. Why not give only Dukes and Exarchs this ability, since before it was one of the best abilities they gained?

This is very interesting and is essentially applying the auto-seizing rule about garrison units to fleets. This would probably work very well and I don't think it would add any further confusion to the game. We could just make it like garrisons, so that if a ship starts a turn inside a port, the owner of that port controls the ships. The Megas would need to get permission to remove them, but once removed they would be his. I would, however, not include the garrison rule about other people being unable to seize the fleet. I think no matter what happens, whoever is on board should be in control of the ships. So, you could accumulate a small personal fleet for yourself, but any yahoo could come along and gank it if they wanted to.

This could be accomplished with the following simple changes (in bold) which are essentially just a c&p of the 4.1 rule language:


4.3 – Naval Fleets: All Senators own all fleets that begin a turn in the port of a settlement they own, regardless of how the fleet got there, unless a Senator is aboard. Otherwise, naval fleets are owned by the Senator with the highest feudal rank who is onboard the fleet. If there are multiple Senators of the same rank, the eldest Senator will own the fleet. No one may move or disband any ships in a fleet owned by a Senator without his permission.

[_Tristan_]

About the "fleet rule", if I read it right, it should be necessary to make possible for a port owner to forbid a fleet to enter his port because of the "merging of fleets" mechanism, otherwise if there was an avatar on board, he could then add any ships in the port to his own fleet and go wherever he likes with it, thus limiting somewhat the scope of the rule.

[flyd]

Indeed, anyone with one ship could go around picking up everyone's fleets from their ports. I don't see why this is acceptable for ports, but not for garrisons. The two cases should be treated uniformly. I understand the rule that you always control the ship you are on is to prevent people from being stranded at sea, but if you're in port, you can always get off. Fleets in port should be fully owned and movable by no one, or not owned at all.

[_Tristan_]

Or would SOT prevail in that case ? thus stranding avatar-owned fleets in ports ?

One final solution would be to keep track of which ships belong to whom, but that defeats our purpose of simplifying the army rules (though ships should be easier to keep track of)

One last observation on this : with how fleets work in game, admirals are always aboard the last ship moved from a stack so any plyer whose fleet has had victories would do well not to enter a potential adversary port.

[AussieGiant]

ahhh Jees.

It seems we are 'off to the races' again.

:shame:

[TinCow]

Tristan and flyd's points are accurate and easily solved simply by deleting the words "unless a Senator is aboard" from the rule. I like deleting.


4.3 – Naval Fleets: All Senators own all fleets that begin a turn in the port of a settlement they own, regardless of how the fleet got there. Otherwise, naval fleets are owned by the Senator with the highest feudal rank who is onboard the fleet. If there are multiple Senators of the same rank, the eldest Senator will own the fleet. No one may move or disband any ships in a fleet owned by a Senator without his permission.

This still seems pretty clean and elegant to me.

[_Tristan_]

Makes sense, now... :2thumbsup:

That's some nice deleting, TC...

[AussieGiant]

Fair enough.

I'm just being paranoid.

:balloon2: