Printable View
This thread is for the Rule Change proposals and discussions over the Rules. Any player can propose Rule Changes regardless of IC rank. Rule Changes can be proposed during Council or Emergency Council Sessions.
Rules can be found in here.
Proper way to propose a Rule change
Rule Change(RC) X.Z: Text of you RC. (X = Number of the Council session, Z = Number of the RC within the Council session.)
Possible changes:
1. Changing the rules that Eleutheroi are mentioned as a neutral faction?
2. Giving the power to sign peace treaties to the Council?
3. Specifically mentioning that Basileus and the Heir can command full stacks? (12 units are just the minimum for Royal army)
4. Changing the Chancellors power #7 ((7) Can declare war on any faction who have an army in a Ptolemaioi province. ) and giving him the power to declare war on any faction OR leaving that power as it is?
1. Yes.
2. Yes, with the exception granted in the Chancellor's power #7, the factional diplomacy should be squarely in the hands of the Basileus and the Council.
3. Sure.
4. As I've said, I think #7 is fine as is. I don't think he should be allowed to declare war against anyone, though; that would just be too much .
1. I'm new to EB. Aren't they just the slave/rebel faction we normally have in a TW game? If so, then they should be enemies by default.
2. Yes
3. That makes them much more powerful than anyone else but ok.
4. Declare war on any army that has an army in our province that is obviously threatening (ie. not just passing by) or declare war with the permission of the Basileus or 2/3 of the council.
Not really, the game treats them as one faction, but EB tries to make them seperate city state type dealies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myth
Shouldn't they be much more powerful than anyone else?Quote:
Originally Posted by Myth
1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. Leave.
I was wondering about the ship trading contract having to be signed every month, is that really necessary? Seems a bit fiddly to me, not that it affects me in any way... Also, surely the trading ships would need some upkeep even if they weren't being used, perhaps half when not in use rather than none.
Like johnhughthom said, EB tries to represent all the Eleutheroi provinces as independent city states. So, if we declare war on Pergamon then we shouldn't automatically be at war with Massalia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myth
Basileus and Heir are not that overpowered in this game. With private units people have always a good chance to get rid of any Basileus. It just needs some co-op between players.
That's once a year(4 turns). I don't think it's that difficult to resign it after every 4-5 days. Considering that sea trade generates 2-3 times more money(with 15 ships) than estates then I'm not going to change it. You can also take it as an activity control. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by johnhughthom
Do you think it would be possible for new ancillaries to be created at random? Then we can bid on them secretly and the highest bidder gets it? That's going to spice things up in the agora.
I don't think there's anyway to spawn ancillaries, apart from creating RGBs and seeing what they get. I don't think there's more than three or four different ancillaries a character can receive on creation though. Family Retainer, Clerk and Spear Carrier are pretty much all I can think of.
edit: Re Myth's victory over the bandit army, the rules state he doesn't receive any loot from the battle. That seems a bit odd, we're talking about an army that has just cut off our supply lines and trade, therefore it must be assumed they had gathered up a sizable amount of booty. It doesn't really make much sense only to get money from defeating factional troops, perhaps armies below a certain size not giving money would be a better idea (I don't expect to gain anything from having defeated three units of slingers, bandits or otherwise, for example).
I think the idea is game balance rather than RP. If people got loot and victories towards gaining the RP military ranks from bandits then, considering the amount of them, it would be rather silly. However, a rebel stack with a General/Family member inside could give loot. I think that sounds sensible.
It's possible to create ancillaries via "create_ancillary" console command. However, I really don't want to create ancillaries this way.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnhughthom
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnhughthom
I'm going to agree with Leo. Rebel armies lead by a General instead of a Captain could give loot. However, I see the brigands robbing products(grain, wine, livestock etc) rather than money or valuables.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeoCordis
Actually I agree with Leo's idea as well, income from defeating rebel armies led by FMs sounds good to me.
I propose the following rule changes:
RC 2.1: In the rules a line should be added that specifically identifies the Eleutheroi settlements are considered neutral.
RC 2.2: The rules should be changed so that diplomats are controlled by the Basileus, and that the diplomacy is governed by the Basileus and the Council through Edicts/Laws.
RC 2.3: Just for the sake of clarification, the Basileus rank shall be given another power that specifically says that the Basileus can command a full stack. The same should be done for the Kleronomos Basileios rank, which is in the same situation.
RC 2.4: The Kleronomos Basileios's first power shall be altered so that it specifically says that it is only applicable if the Basileus qualifies for that power.
(It doesn't make sense that the Kleronomos Basileios could do something the Basileus can't when he's away.)
Can I state that RC 2.1 should mention that each Eleutheroi settlement is considered an independent faction and should be treated as every other faction in the game as well?
Just a quick edit - sorry for double post.
I don't think it changes the dynamic of the rule that has been proposed, which is why I think it should be added like I stated. Along with saying the Eleutheroi settlements/regions should be considered neutral.
Yes, that would have been better. Unfortunately, I had to close the session already (which should've been done two days ago) and make the poll, so it will have to wait until the next session to get that. At least the important thing is covered as is.
No problem then, it's still only open to abuse from limited angles now though.
I don't know why rule changes have to be in-session of the Ingame council, but I'd like to propose a rule that I really think would be helpful to the game:
The Game Master PM's all active players at every turn change. This will keep everyone up to date, and help make sure nobody misses a turn.
Don't think it needs to be put as a rule, but it's a great suggestion. I'm sure TCV will be able to do this. :D
I can do so, sure, though technically a new turn will be each day. Might be too frequently, don't you think?
Maybe we should stagger turns out to every other day then, so that way if someone is afk for an extended period they don't miss the entire game.
I think the point is that you can put in as little or as much as you want. The game would be incredibly slow on a two day basis, and as it's 4 turns-per-year, even missing a week isn't too terrible a loss.