Guilds and the Council of Nobles

[Zatoichi]

New info from Shogun over at the .Com in the latest FAQ:

http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm55.showMessage?topicID=1127.topic

Of particular interest to me are the following:

Q. What types of new buildings are being added?

A. One of the most significant additions we’ve made to the tech tree for Medieval 2 is the addition of Guild halls. There are various different types of guild that give different bonuses to your settlements. Each city can have only one guild that will give local bonuses to that city. As examples the assassin’s guild will increase the skill of assassins and some guilds will give access to extra units too.

In addition each faction can have one master guild for each guild type that gives bigger bonuses, some of which may apply across all the faction’s cities. Further to this, it is possible to build a grandmaster guild that is a sort of global HQ for that guild type. There can only be one grandmaster building for each guild in the world, so whoever gets it first will have an edge in that particular area.


Q. How will missions be assigned?

A. Missions are assigned by the Council of Nobles - this represents the great nobles who’s main role is give the player some guidance throughout the campaign by suggesting missions. Catholic nations will also be given missions by the Pope, with rewards or punishment depending on your standing with him.


This seems to open up a whole new chunk of strategy to the campaign game. The Council of Nobles is an intriguing idea - it may provide some interesting GA type incentives to spice up campaigns, and would appear to be for all factions, so the Orthodox and Islamic factions needn't feel bitter about missing the Papal missions the Catholic factions get.

The Guilds system seems to indicate a return to region specific bonuses, and adds an element of the arms race. It will be interesting to see if they've ensured the AI can keep up with the player when it comes to 'Guild-grabbing'.

All good stuff though!

[spmetla]

Sounds like good news to me. Wish I knew how varied the guilds are in addition to Council of Nobles. I assume that not working for the nobles will lower loyalty and increase dissension and the possibility of civil war.

And as usual I'm curious how moddable these are, sounds like they'd be simple text edits but for the Council of Nobles I'm curious whether this will be changeable also so that I can make the various governments have some with more power with the nobles and the others with more power to the crown.

[Quietus]

Thanks for the link Zatoichi :).

If a player can simply build a trade network and pump out troops,

-The princesses won't matter.
-The Grandmaster Guilds won't matter.
-The New World won't matter.
-The Council of Nobles won't matter.
-etc.

It will all be superficial. The campaign map require a limiting aspect (eg. supplies/logistics/recruitment restrictions/slow economic build-ups etc.)

Why would one use Princesses in MTW1 if you can simply take provinces away?

Why use assassins in RTW if you can field troops and easily kill the AI general in the filed AND then take settlements as well?

Hence for one, They should considerably weaken the economy compared to MTW/RTW so the player has no option to churn-out troops, take provinces at-will and make any gameplay improvements irrelevant/moot.

[NagatsukaShumi]

Sounds like some interesting new features to be fair, its good to see that they are modifying their idea's and looking at new ways to further the engine, we will see how well they do at this when the game ships, battles can wait for the demo I am sure, campaign has always really been a gold version only deal.

[Dead Moroz]

I'm 100% sure that Council of Nobles will be reincarnation of RTW's Senate. This Council will mostly produce weird useless tasks, such as: "Take city which is far far away from your land and which you don't need at all and we will give you a unit of outdated troops which you also don't need at all. You have 3 turns. Take it for the sake medieval nothingness or we will be very very angry!".

Btw, just think over it - the guild of assassins... Killers trade union.

[Geoffrey S]

Heh, this "assassins guild" brings visions of Ankh-Morpork to mind.

[littlebktruck]

I don't quite get the council of nobles idea. How beholden should you, as King/Khalifah/Sultan/Emperor/etc, be to the whims of your nobility?

[econ21]

I don't quite get the council of nobles idea. How beholden should you, as King/Khalifah/Sultan/Emperor/etc, be to the whims of your nobility?

Quite a lot, I should imagine. Most European Feudal Kings were far from the ideal of an absolute monarch. In England, they probably came closest to that at the end of the medieval period with the Tudors but a hundred or so years later, the King got his head cut off. So the idea didn't really last.

But I would not worry too much - I suspect the council will be like the Senate in RTW (without the threat of civil war). It will give you missions and rewards for doing them, but they will be optional.

Personally, I liked the Senate missions - they often prodded me to go in a sensible direction and the rewards were the closest RTW got to "goodie huts".

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Pretty easy questions; coulda answered a lot of them myself from the previews.

I though I remembered reading about attracting guilds, instead of building them. :book: As in, you can't just build "Teh Pwnerer's Guild" in your city, but that you had to earn it. Which would be more interesting, I figure.

I suspect that once you get your economy rolling, there will be a propensity for a "Guild Rush" to get all "gold" units...

[Divinus Arma]

Thanks for the link Zatoichi :).

If a player can simply build a trade network and pump out troops,

-The princesses won't matter.
-The Grandmaster Guilds won't matter.
-The New World won't matter.
-The Council of Nobles won't matter.
-etc.

It will all be superficial. The campaign map require a limiting aspect (eg. supplies/logistics/recruitment restrictions/slow economic build-ups etc.)

Why would one use Princesses in MTW1 if you can simply take provinces away?

Why use assassins in RTW if you can field troops and easily kill the AI general in the filed AND then take settlements as well?

Hence for one, They should considerably weaken the economy compared to MTW/RTW so the player has no option to churn-out troops, take provinces at-will and make any gameplay improvements irrelevant/moot.

You are so right. Allow me to echo this.

[Edited by moderator to avoid migraine.]

[Zatoichi]

Ow, my eyes hurt.

I'm sure the gameplay will be tweaked and balanced, but if you play aggressively, you will win any TW game without relying overtly on the strategic elements.

Anyway, as for the Council of Nobles, I wonder if you refuse their missions you'll be punished through lower loyalty, eventually leading to civil war?

[Trajanus]

Sorry could you make the font a little bigger I can't quite read it! ~D

But its a damn good point none the less. But would perhaps remove the idea of the 225 turn campaign that MTW2 is supposedly setup for.

[Mooks]

Heh, if theres a option in there (which there should be) for "Kill the council of nobles" Ill press it every game. The senate was hugely annoying and in this new game im not having a bunch of british rich dukes and earls with fancy names and extremely ugly wives tell me what to do. I think they should veer away from this course, or make it optional, not EVERYONE wants some AI tell them what to do and adding a consequence or reward on it.

[Trajanus]

I think its a move towards realism. Even if a King was a King he still had to keep his nobles happy or they would put someone else on the throne. The King needed them to raise armies and pay taxes to him etc.

But I would prefer to be able to ask their advice on certain topics instead of take orders from them also.

[Samurai Waki]

heh. if your nobles don't like you, chances are they'll try to remove you for power. But I do like the idea in general, however, I also agree that the economics need to be tweaked. You should be able to call your nobles to arms, and they provide you with their armies, then you can merge them or send them off separately, when you are officially done with your tour of duty, the nobles and most of the men will go back home to raise crops and income for your kingdom again. When at war there should be a serious hamper on your economy, because all of your land owners and administrators will be off waging war, so you won't have the necessary men, nor acumen to properly handle your income.

[hellenes]

Quite a lot, I should imagine. Most European Feudal Kings were far from the ideal of an absolute monarch. In England, they probably came closest to that at the end of the medieval period with the Tudors but a hundred or so years later, the King got his head cut off. So the idea didn't really last.

But I would not worry too much - I suspect the council will be like the Senate in RTW (without the threat of civil war). It will give you missions and rewards for doing them, but they will be optional.

Personally, I liked the Senate missions - they often prodded me to go in a sensible direction and the rewards were the closest RTW got to "goodie huts".

But what about the Eastern Roman Empire? They werent as feudalised as the West so if they will have this feature is something that we dont know, but im sure if they do itll go against anything we know...

Hellenes

[Prince Cobra]

In the East for example Byzantium the nobilty was not so powerful. Although in some cases dinattes (the Byzantine noblemen) achieved their aims the absolute power remained in the hands of the emperor. They were not the powerful vassals of the West. So refusing to follow your noblemen advices should have smaller impact than in the west. Maybe I want too much but it will be great if your attitude to the noblemen affects your economy i.e. following their will increase their loyalty but your economy will get weaker ( bec. of the lands and privilleges you give to them). And relying too much on your nobles can lead to problems with the influence. The same is for the other Orthodox states (not quite sure about Russia) and for the Muslim states (the nobles should the weaker than these of Orthodox and Catholics). And IMHO nothing can replace the Glorious Achievements.

[Peasant Phill]

The same is for the other Orthodox states (not quite sure about Russia) and for the Muslim states (the nobles should the weaker than these of Orthodox and Catholics).

I thought that the Boyars had a lot to say in Russia

[Rufus]

I think its a move towards realism. Even if a King was a King he still had to keep his nobles happy or they would put someone else on the throne. The King needed them to raise armies and pay taxes to him etc.


I agree - This is a welcome nod toward a more realistic portrayal of feudalism, one of the most important historical phenomena of the period.

[anti_strunt]

I agree - This is a welcome nod toward a more realistic portrayal of feudalism, one of the most important historical phenomena of the period.

I'm not so sure about that; local princes and other tennants-in-chief were usually just that, great local landowners primarily intereted in maintaining and expanding their personal estates. Kings were usually left to prosecute foreign policy relatively freely, although their vassals could of course stay home come war-time. It was certainly very, very rare for nobles to dictate the policy of the monarch in the way the Senate of RTW did, usually during times of weak government, and even then the princes would be equally likely to just ignore the king altogether and go about their own business.

Long story short; porting the Senate and applying to every faction does not an accurate portrayal of feudalism make.

[professorspatula]

I don't like the idea of a council of nobles giving you missions et al if you're supposed to be leader. I'd prefer you were the one dishing out orders to your minions and those orders they choose to perform whether or not it's in their interest and they like you. I always think you really have too much direct control over everything in TW games, which doesn't seem particularly realistic even if you make a 'realism' mod out of CA's efforts. A king isn't particularly powerful if he doesn't have his nobles on-side, and surely much of the standing armies of the era aren't directly under king's command anyway, so good relations with them should be a must. I'd rather you influence their armies and political stance through a series of requests/bribes/suggestions etc, but certainly not through doing silly assassination missions or whatever for them whenever they ask you to roll over like a dog for them. Tis embarassing for a sovereign of a state.

Still, hopefully it's all an improvement over RTW's pretty shallow gameplay.

[Mooks]

The senate was just that...a SENATE!! Theres a big diffrence between a republic and a medieval monarchy. There is barely any relation between the 2 goverments.

[littlebktruck]

I don't mind the idea of your nobles having some say, perhaps leaning on you to go to war/get peace/etc., but I don't think it makes sense for them to give you petty missions like the RTW senate.

[Alim]

What I would really like to see is the Council of Nobles being linked to the recruitment of some units.
In the original MTW at the beginning the only units you could train as Catholic factions would be town militia and basic spears (sometimes archers and light cav as well for some factions). However by the end of the game if you teched up and had enough money you could have armies consisting entirely of knights if you wanted to. This is unrealistic, since only the nobles could afford to fight as heavy cavalry, so you couldn't just freely recruit them anywhere, but at the same time in 1088 (or whenever the games starts) you already had knights so they should be available ot you at this point. So perhaps the recruitment of some units (especially heavy cavalry) should not be tied to the buildings in your provinces but be recruitable from a limited pool (perhaps as a special kind of mercenaries?). Also, maybe it could be influenced by your standing with the Council of Nobles, for example if you failed to keep the nobillity happy they could refuse to follow you to war (resulting in the knights becoming unavailable for recruitment), or maybe even some of the existing units could leave your army and go home.
It certainly doesn't make sense to have the Council of Nobles be the MTW2 equivalent of the RTW Senate. The Senate could give you missions because it was in charge or Rome and you were just a head of a wealthy family (likewise in MTW the Pope could order you to stop attacking a Catholic neighbour because he was a spiritual head of the Catholic world). If you have the vassals start giving their King missions to perform and give you a few florins or a unit of feudal sargeants as a reward the whole thing becomes ridiculous and rather undignified. The monarchy in those times wasn't of course absolute but it wasn't that weak. But maybe the Council of Nobles could e.g. ask you to lower the taxes or express their dissatisfaction with your foreign policy.
And on the offtop note I really hope they make the turns display on the UI moddable (so it could display years instead).

[anti_strunt]

Yeah, rebuilding the whole army recruitment system so that you can't build a regular army in 1077 (since you recruited them and then kept them around for as long as you liked and could keep them paid, every army in MTW was essencially a regular army...) would certainly go a whole lot further towards an accurate portrayal of feudalism than some sort of proto-parlamentarism...

[mfberg]

There can only be one grandmaster building for each guild in the world, so whoever gets it first will have an edge in that particular area.


It looks like there will be a rush to build the grandmaster buildings. I worry that that may make it difficult for the AI to even keep up. However I suspect that modders may change this making the possibility of more grandmaster buildings, or giving certain grandmaster buildings to certain factions.

mfberg

[anti_strunt]

It looks like there will be a rush to build the grandmaster buildings. I worry that that may make it difficult for the AI to even keep up. However I suspect that modders may change this making the possibility of more grandmaster buildings, or giving certain grandmaster buildings to certain factions.

mfberg

Or just remove them altogether since they are nonsensical, and add some other form of balancing should it be needed...