KotR KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion [Archive] - Page 2

Zim

04-25-2008, 09:41

I suppose it wasn't a very good idea. I just understand the worry about a single player death destablizing a House. The reswearing thing would be more of an issue if someone from the middle died rather than someone at the top. Would the guys below the now dead avatar still be beholden to the higher ups? Or would the higher ranks have to do some quick bargaining to keep them in the House with a new oath? I'd like the House to stay together, with an actual oath breaking needed to break it apart. If this has been addressed I've missed it. :dizzy2:

If the recently ascended heir was a vital part of the feudal chain then the top rank of the House would still drop, but he'd be propelled from wherever he is to the top, over the former second in comand (assuming the second wasn't the heir). For the life of me I can't decide whether this would be a cool opportunity for RPing (if the second was popular he could take the other vassals with him and threaten civil war if the heir claims his title) or an incredibly stupid idea and rotten thing to do to the second in command.

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.

Privateerkev

04-25-2008, 09:42

I think I have my head around it.

Lets say the Grand Duke dies, the Duke has a chance to inherent the Grand Duke title, even if he wouldnt have enough vassals?

just a thought I had, when the leader of the house dies, should all vassals have an option to leave the house for no penalty? I can see IC justifications.

The modding is easy enough to do to add starting generals. You get to choose attributes etc.

Yeah, that is what I thought he meant but I never could figure out for sure. I couldn't tell if he was advocating for vassals to be done away with as a requirement or to just waive the requirement under specific circumstances. From re-reading his posts, it seems he meant the latter.

What might be confusing things is the use of the word "house". We don't have "houses" in the rules because it is an IC construction. In the rules we have "chains". The chain forms a house. It could be 3 people or 12 people. Now, the titles are based on vassals but a house can be anything.

So, if the Grand Duke died, there would be no real inherent reason for all 6 people to break off. The only difference would be the Duke would now have no lord and would be the "head" of the chain. Everything else in terms of oaths would be the same.

Privateerkev

04-25-2008, 09:46

I suppose it wasn't a very good idea. I just understand the worry about a single player death destablizing a House. The reswearing thing would be more of an issue if someone from the middle died rather than someone at the top. Would the guys below the now dead avatar still be beholden to the higher ups? Or would the higher ranks have to do some quick bargaining to keep them in the House with a new oath? I'd like the House to stay together, with an actual oath breaking needed to break it apart. If this has been addressed I've missed it. :dizzy2:

The current rule covering a death in the middle, is this. Say there is a Viscount, Baron, and Baronet. It is a 3 person House. If the Baron died, both surviving people would become Baronets. Because the chain would be broken. No one would be sworn to anyone with the remaining 2 people in a 3 people chain. Then one could swear to the other if they wished and one would be a Baron and one would be the Baronet.

If the recently ascended heir was a vital part of the feudal chain then the top rank of the House would still drop, but he'd be propelled from wherever he is to the top, over the former second in comand (assuming the second wasn't the heir). For the life of me I can't decide whether this would be a cool opportunity for RPing (if the second was popular he could take the other vassals with him and threaten civil war if the heir claims his title) or an incredibly stupid idea and rotten thing to do to the second in command.

Under the current rule, the 2nd down the chain would simply become the top of the chain. If the characters agreed to rearrange the chain so the "heir" is on top, that can be done IC but there is no current rule requiring it. Right now, you can pick an "heir" all you want but there are no rule mechanics to enforce the choice.

_Tristan_

04-25-2008, 09:48

One thing I have also been wondering is what happens if one of our nobles' vassals meets his untimely death at the hands of the enemy ?

Does our Duke fall one rank for having lost his Marquis or does he remain a Duke ?

I was thinking of House Austria in KoTR where the high mortality rate of avatars would make for a very instable house due to reasons having nought to do with internal political struggle...

This would lead to some houses ready to risk the lives of only the lowliest of vassals (whose death would not matter much) to keep the highest ranking avatars in power thus creating castes of high-ranking "political" avatars and low-ranking "fighting" avatars...

I may be all wrong in my reasoning but if I'm right in anyway that would be a source of unfun for me...

Zim

04-25-2008, 09:51

I think that is what is worrying people like Ituralde and me. It seems like a House has a potential breakdown every time some guy in the middle dies. for a three person House this wouldn't be a huge deal but for bigger Houses it would throw things in turmoil. I think Houses should be a little more stable than that, even if the rank of the guy on top changes from time to time.

The current rule covering a death in the middle, is this. Say there is a Viscount, Baron, and Baronet. It is a 3 person House. If the Baron died, both surviving people would become Baronets. Then one could swear to the other if they wished and one would be a Baron and one would be the Baronet.

That one I knew. :yes: I was just explaining my poorly thought out idea of what would happen if the heir receiving the title was a neccessary part of the feudal chain, preventing his getting the rank of his father :clown: (he'd replace the second in command for top rank, unless the second was willing to fight for it).

Under the current rule, the 2nd down the chain would simply become the top of the chain. If the characters agreed to rearrange the chain so the "heir" is on top, that can be done IC but there is no current rule requiring it. Right now, you can pick an "heir" all you want but there are no rule mechanics to enforce the choice.

Privateerkev

04-25-2008, 09:51

Privateerkev

04-25-2008, 09:54

Zim

04-25-2008, 09:54

You're a replying machine, PK. See above your post for an apparently just too slow response to your last post to me. :clown:

Privateerkev

04-25-2008, 09:56

You're a replying machine, PK. See above your post for an apparently just too slow response to your last post to me. :clown:

I did see it. As you can see, it is quoted in my prior post. :D

_Tristan_

04-25-2008, 09:56

Zim

04-25-2008, 09:58

I'm not so much worried about the whole chain shrinking by a link so much as it breaking entirely.

If players a, b, c, d and e are linked together in that order (e at the top) and c dies, do we get a pair of tiny chains consisting of two barons and viscounts (going by Tincow's new rank rules with the baronet cut out) or does the chain contract? I think a and b should remain part of the total chain through their prior oaths (which already tie the whole chain together in certain rank powers, like only the top noble being able to use prioritize building powers).

It's possible. Under the current rules, your House will go up and down unless you have extra nobles to form "branches". Like have a spare Baronet to plug into the chain if a noble dies.

Privateerkev

04-25-2008, 10:01

So at one point, big "chains" will have to rely exclusively on "cannonfodder" avatars for their fighting unless the players controlling the higher-ups are willing to put themselves at risk...

What I wouldn't like to see is a case where I want to have a go at an AI army or city and be forbidden to do it by my Lord on the grounds that my death could ruin his position... This without having to resort to oath-breaking or civil war, my avatar in that case being loyal to his "chain" nevertheless...

This is where the fun would go for me...

With the ranks requiring a type of vassal, this is possible. Which is why there might not be too many long chains. Instead, people would form pyramids so they can get stability. But that will require more people.

The alternative is to come up with a hybrid (like FH or Ramses did) or do away with vassal requirements completely. Personally, I rather see a hybrid if we are going to change it. I actually don't mind if the titles required vassals solely but many others are worried about stability. I guess I just wouldn't mind a slightly less stable game than some others. Which is cool. We'll just try to figure out what will work for us.

Privateerkev

04-25-2008, 10:05

I'm not so much worried about the whole chain shrinking by a link so much as it breaking entirely.

If players a, b, c, d and e are linked together in that order (e at the top) and c dies, do we get a pair of tiny chains consisting of two barons and viscounts (going by Tincow's new rank rules with the baronet cut out) or does the chain contract? I think a and b should remain part of the total chain through their prior oaths (which already tie the whole chain together in certain rank powers, like only the top noble being able to use prioritize building powers).

e
-d
--c
---b
----a

would become automatically:

b
-a

and

b
-a

They can then re-form if they choose:

d
-c
--b
---a

But the re-forming would be voluntary and the initial breaking would be automatic.

See, in the initial chain, one person only swore to one person. You cut the middle, and you just have those that have previously sworn to each other. You would then have to swear a new oath if you wanted to reform the new (smaller) chain.

Zim

04-25-2008, 10:07

I'm not asking for an explanation, I'm expressing a preference for the chain automatically contracting rather than break apart. :clown:

e
-d
--c
---b
----a

would become automatically:

b
-a

and

b
-a

They can then re-form if they choose:

d
-c
--b
---a

But the re-forming would be voluntary and the initial breaking would be automatic.

See, in the initial chain, one person only swore to one person. You cut the middle, and you just have those that have previously sworn to each other. You would then have to swear a new oath if you wanted to reform the new (smaller) chain.

Privateerkev

04-25-2008, 10:08

I'm not asking for an explanation, I'm expressing a preference that I would like the chain to automatically contract rather than break apart. :clown:

Your use of the question mark led me to believe you were asking a question. :clown:

Well, then oaths would have to be automatic at least under certain circumstances to pull that off.

I don't think I want automatic oaths. I want to choose who I swear to.

Zim

04-25-2008, 10:12

AussieGiant

04-25-2008, 10:13

In a chain situation, then if someone leaves or dies, the one's under should have the opportunity to gain promotion by restating their oath.

Then of course the issue is finding someone at the bottom level to fill the new gap.

Privateerkev

04-25-2008, 10:16

I wasn't entirely sure if Tincow had ever addressed that issue, but I understood the reasoning that would go behind the feudal chain breaking apart. The question part of the post really just needed an answer of "The former is correct" or "The latter is right" rather than a long explanation. The last sentence showing which way I preferred it to be was the one I was hoping would inspire debate. :clown:

Well, my diagrams help me think stuff out so maybe it will help others. :clown:

As for the rules, they state currently that the moment you lose a requirement for a rank, you lose the rank. And that is what I have been going off of when I give my answers. That is why a chain breaks apart.

A contraction would force players into oaths they never agreed to. Same with forcing the heir to move to the top. Right now we have a very voluntary system. But what you and Ituralde have proposed has an element of involuntary oath swearing. At first glance, that is not a road I'd like to go down.

In a chain situation, then if someone leaves or dies, the one's under should have the opportunity to gain promotion by restating their oath.

Then of course the issue is finding someone at the bottom level to fill the new gap.

Yup, that is the current system. It is all IC.

Ituralde

04-25-2008, 10:17

Alright, I seem to have caused some confusion here. Firstly because I'm throwing around different ideas, and secondly you all seem to be tired, while I just got up. It's good living in different time zones. :2thumbsup:

So let me just present you with two example scenarios that I will first describe with the current system and then describe with my system, which will allow titles to passed on.

We will be dealing with House Amazing, which consists of Duke Adam, Marquess Bertram, Count Charles, Viscount Dave, Baron Ethan, and Baronet Friedrich.

Current Rules:

Example A: Duke names Heir

Duke Adam names his Heir, which leads to two scenarios:

Scenario A: Internal Heir
Duke Adam has made a Will where he names Marquess Bertram to be his heir.
Adam dies and Bertram gets his land. He is now a Marquess at the head of House Amazing. The death of Adam has caused the whole House to loose its Ducal powers. The Ducal Army will probably have to be disbanded.
Marquess Bertram can now use the additional territory he has to either gain a new vassal for himself, making is House a litte bit more stable or he trades the land in exchange for Knight George swearing fealty to Baronet Friedrich, thus pushing everybody up the ladder one step.

Scenario B: External Heir
Duke Adam has made a Will where he names Knight George to be his heir.
Adam dies and George gets his land, making him Baronet George. Baronet George can now go ahead and swear fealty to everyone he likes. He could swear fealty to Baronet Friedrich of House Amazing, pushing Marquess Bertram to the position of Duke. But he could also choose to remain without a House or just swear fealty to someone from House Boring, or House Chivalry.

Example B: Count names Heir

Count Charles names his Heir, which leads to two scenarios:

Scenario A: Internal Heir
Count Charles names Marquess Betram to be his heir. (Seems to be a nice chap) Charles dies and Bertram gets his land. Bertram is now a Baronet (!). Former Duke Adam is now a Baron with his trusted vassal Bertram.
Viscount Dave is now head of his new little House Daring.
Bertram can now at least use his one province to get Knight George to swear fealty to him. The once grand House Amazing has been split into the two smaller Houses Amazing and Daring through the death of Count Charles.

Scenario B: External Heir
Count Charles names Knight George to be his heir. Charles dies and George gets his land, making him Baronet George. Duke Adam is a Baron with his trusted vassal Bertram. Viscount Dave is head of House Daring.
I'm not gonna list all possibilities here, but they are plentifold!

Inherited Title Rules:

Example C: Duke names Heir

Duke Adam names his Heir, which leads to two scenarios:

Scenario A: Internal Heir
Duke Adam names Marquess Bertram to be his heir. Adam dies and now his land, title and private army are given to Marquess Bertram. He is now Duke Bertram and controls a total of two Private Armies, two regions and still has his loyal vassals. BUT he will loose all this when the requirements for Duke are checked the next time, because he clearly doesn't meet them. He needs to either find himself a new Marquess, or which is more likely convince Knight George to swear fealty to Baronet Friedrich, pushing everybody up the ladder and making Bertram a proper Duke.

Scenario B: External Heir
Duke Adam names Knight George to be his heir. Adam dies and now his land, title and private army go to Knight George. He is now Duke George and controls one Private Army and one region. Marquess Bertram can now decide to swear fealty to him, if he does not this will not be counted as a declaration of Civil War. George can now decide to go down fighting by declaring Civil War on Marquess Bertram instead, trying to find another Marquess to swear fealty to him or just accept the fact that he will at least be a Baronet after the next time Rank requirements are checked and start from there.

Example D: Count names Heir

Count Charles names his heir, leading to two scenarios:

Scenario A: Internal Heir
Count Charles names Marquess Bertram to be his heir. Charles dies and now his land, title and private army go to Marquess Bertram. Viscount Dave can now decide to swear fealty to him, if he does not this will not be counted as a declaration of Civil War. Bertram however together with his Lord Adam now controls three private Armys and could now declare Civil War on Viscount Dave who still celebrates his newfound House Daring!

Scenario B: External Heir
Count Charles names Knight George to be his heir. Charles dies and now his land, title and private army go to Knight George. He is now Count George (time-in-rank requirements are ignored) and can decide to swear fealty to Marquess Betram. At the same time Viscount Dave can now decide to swear fealty to Count George. If everybody swears fealty House Amazing is saved and Duke Adam can go on as before, if not. Well the possibilities for Civil War are manyfold. Alternatively Count George could try to find a Viscount somewhere and create House Gavelkind with him on top.

Writing those examples above I realized several things. Inheritance is a nightmare no matter which system we use. Just try to imagine what happens if Duke Adam had chosen Viscount Xaver from House Xanthen to be his heir.
I'm not saying my system is perfect, I actually realized it's far rom that, but especially Example A Scenario B shows to me where the problem with the current system lies. House Daring consisting of three people suddenly is more or equally powerful than House Amazing. Strange things are bound to happen and I believe that the whole inheritance issue has not been discussed enough yet! I'm really open to suggestions here.

I hope this has given you some food for thought.

Zim

04-25-2008, 10:24

My issue is that not only would Houses be tremendouly unstable, but the problem Tristan mentioned comes into play. If I'm a Marquess at the top of a chain, I can fight as many battles as I want, and if my character dies the House will probably stay together. I can also let the lowest ranks fight, as their dying might lower me a rank if they're a vital part of the chain, but would probably not break up the House.

On the other hand, there's no way in Heck I'll let my middle rank players fight unless they do something drastic like threaten to leave, because one of them dying would throw the House into chaos.

I guess in the end it will turn out to be a largely imaginary fear. If the top ranking member was a good leader the lower ranks will probably not mind reswearing oaths, and Houses that last any length of time will likely develop a sense of comradery and shared purpose making them more likely to stay together. If either ends, then it deserves to fall apart.

Well, my diagrams help me think stuff out so maybe it will help others. :clown:

As for the rules, they state currently that the moment you lose a requirement for a rank, you lose the rank. And that is what I have been going off of when I give my answers. That is why a chain breaks apart.

A contraction would force players into oaths they never agreed to. Same with forcing the heir to move to the top. Right now we have a very voluntary system. But what you and Ituralde have proposed has an element of involuntary oath swearing. At first glance, that is not a road I'd like to go down.

Yup, that is the current system. It is all IC.

Privateerkev

04-25-2008, 10:25

Ituralde:

I like your post, it helps me visualize some things you have been talking about.

Here is my problem with your proposed rules. They do not require rank to be checked constantly. In the current rules, we check for rank every second of every day. The moment you meet the requirement, you make the rank. The moment you miss a requirement, you go to the highest rank you qualify for.

For yours to work, you would need to have us only check rank periodically. I rather things be more flexible and fluid. The potential problems with chains breaking just don't bother me. I figure we will just RP around any breaking and figure things out. Sure it won't be as historically accurate but I don't mind much.

Privateerkev

04-25-2008, 10:27

Ituralde

04-25-2008, 10:30

Seems like it took me so long to post my thoughts, that you already had a discussion about it without me starting it. :2thumbsup:

And yes, I was going from a system where rank requirements are only checked periodically, say at every LEGAL BODY session. I think one of the problems of checking constantly would be what to do with the Private Armies that become free and occupied and so on.

Also to your former question, I never intended for rank requirements to be altered through inheritance, apart from the time-in-rank one. So you still need all those vassals.

As a last note I slowly see where those wanting a hybrid system are coming from. I need to think on that some more.

Privateerkev

04-25-2008, 10:35

And yes, I was going from a system where rank requirements are only checked periodically, say at every LEGAL BODY session. I think one of the problems of checking constantly would be what to do with the Private Armies that become free and occupied and so on.

Maybe it would be helpful to have rank checked only periodically. Maybe split it down the middle and have it every 10 years? So once in the middle of the term and once right before the governing body session? That would allow both a little stability and a little flexibility.

Is having the ranks updated constantly effecting any other part of the rules? I am tired and afraid I'm missing something.

Zim

04-25-2008, 10:40

The need to interact with your vassals and RP to keep a House together is one of the most exciting things for me about the new rules. :2thumbsup:

I do wonder if we may have a tiny bit of nostalgia for the old KOTR days, though. :clown: Chances are under the new system stable Houses will have active, personably leaders. One may deserve the name House Chivalry Ituralde used, and another House Dread, but both will likely have leaders who respect and reward their vassals. In this big respect stable Houses will be similiar.

In KOTR Dukes had so little to fear from other House members that Houses developed their character from their Dukes. I can't imagine it was great fun to serve under an inactive Duke, or Duke Ansehelm, but their Houses were vastly different from the well run Austrian and Bavarian ones. You knew in the end if you joined House Swabia you'd have little recognition from your Duke but no micromanaging either, and if you joined Franconia in the Ansehelm days, well, if what i hear is true you deserve whatever happens. ~;p

So Franconia could produce people like Peter, and Swabia at one point had most of it's avatars considering going to Outremer without damaging the House. Now, Houses like that would probably die outright.

Not advocating a return to the old rules at all, I just think it's kind of interesting.

This is where RP'ing comes in. It forces players to communicate with their people and rewards active players. We will have no more inactive Dukes like we had in KotR. If you RP enough and communicate, I think you'll have no problem getting your chain to re-arrange itself. :2thumbsup:

Privateerkev

04-25-2008, 10:48

The need to interact with your vassals and RP to keep a House together is one of the most exciting things for me about the new rules. :2thumbsup:

I totally agree. That is why I fear us implementing any rule that might remove the incentive to RP.

I do wonder if we may have a tiny bit of nostalgia for the old KOTR days, though. :clown: Chances are under the new system stable Houses will have active, personably leaders. One may deserve the name House Chivalry Ituralde used, and another House Dread, but both will likely have leaders who respect and reward their vassals. In this big respect stable Houses will be similiar.

I suspect that will happen. Like minded folk will go find others similarly minded. I think some Houses will be very stable and others will rise and fall. I can't wait for us to start so I can see how this all unfolds. The test game is tiding me over a little though. :D

In KOTR Dukes had so little to fear from other House members that Houses developed their character from their Dukes. I can't imagine it was great fun to serve under an inactive Duke, or Duke Ansehelm, but their Houses were vastly different from the well run Austrian and Bavarian ones. You knew in the end if you joined House Swabia you'd have little recognition from your Duke but no micromanaging either, and if you joined Franconia in the Ansehelm days, well, if what i hear is true you deserve whatever happens. ~;p

Yup. The Duke was written into the rules, and if he became Duke, he had it for life unless he resigned. With the position being impossible to lose, a Duke did not really have to interact with others to keep their position. So, players tried different things with being Duke. Some tried to keep their House happy and their members busy. Some tried the dictator approach since they couldn't be fired. Some players pretty much left the game for long spans of time, only returning to fight a battle or vote.

So, I like that the ranks are contingent on making people happy. It might not be totally accurate but it should be more fun. :yes:

Zim

04-25-2008, 10:58

I think so, too. That post was a little tongue in cheek. Note both of the examples of Houses with "character" for a time were negative ones. :clown:

I'm especially curious to see what will happen once semi-stable Houses are formed. What will happen if one gets a leader that's a little rough around the edges, or perhaps unstable? Will the other members break their oaths and leave a less than optimum leader, or will their be a strong enough taboo against breaking oaths that a less than optimum leader could still keep enough support that the threat of civil war would deter the others? How far can boundaries be pushed before leading to rebellion?

Despite having tried to throw around some ideas tonight, I think I've decided that to really know whether what I and a few others have been trying to fix is even broken will require us to start the actual game and play it a while. Then if these fears become big problems we can do something about them.

You've convinced me. :yes:

So, I like that the ranks are contingent on making people happy. It might not be totally accurate but it should be more fun. :yes:

_Tristan_

04-25-2008, 11:03

On a practical note, I prefer the rules as proposed by Ituralde...

Let's imagine a situation where Duke Archibald (being the only convenient avatar) is en route to Bern to take on the Mongol stacks that materialized there, threatening the citadel. He has taken with him his Ducal army and the private army of his Marquis.

Now, during the battle with the nomads, Duke Archibald meets his creator but scores a victory against one stack. Now we have a stack (which might still have an avatar at its head) that through the death of the Duke has no reason for existence and should be disbanded... This leads to the destruction of Bern by the Mongols...

Now, if we apply Ituralde's rule, even with the death of Duke Archibald, Baronet Bohemond, his second in command in the stack, can take over and hope he will eventually prevail against the Horde.

This doesn't prevent us from checking every two years for rank requirements (thus allowing enough time for the feudal chain to reform, or not) and allowing enough time for strategic decisions to be implemented...

What I wouldn't like to see is armies dissolving into thin air simply because
a noble fell one rank... It would wreak havoc on our economy...

I have to admit there would much more challenge fighting the AI, though...

Just my :2cents:

Privateerkev

04-25-2008, 11:04

Despite having tried to throw around some ideas tonight, I think I've decided that to really know whether what I and a few others have been trying to fix is even broken will require us to start the actual game and play it a while. Then if these fears become big problems we can do something about them.

You've convinced me. :yes:

That's a good point. No matter what, we can always change this stuff later.

What's funny is that you guys have been convincing me. Slowly of course. Excruciatingly slowly... :clown:

But I am becoming more and more convinced that a hybrid with checks/balances and the all important caveat that we can just change it OOC later, will be the best bet for making a fun game.

I first wanted something like the current rules where things are fluid. But you guys have expertly poked enough holes in the rules to show that a certain amount of instability would be un-fun even for me.

Yes, even I want a small measure of stability.
(but just a small amount... :clown: )

On that note, I think it is time for me to go to bed. I need to get up in a couple hours for work. :dizzy2:

Thanks to everyone for a fast-paced and productive rule conversation. :2thumbsup:

*edit*
Tristan: I'm slowly being convinced that we might want a "periodic" rank check instead of the current "constant" rank check.

I liked the "constant" rank check but you guys bring up good points on what happens to armies if people die or Houses fall. Currently, it would be up to the whim of the Chancellor if an army stopped being "official" due to death.

Zim

04-25-2008, 11:05

I don't think personal armies are disbanded automatically if their owner dies. I think they just revert to Chancellor control. :yes:

On a practical note, I prefer the rules as proposed by Ituralde...

Let's imagine a situation where Duke Archibald (being the only convenient avatar) is en route to Bern to take on the Mongol stacks that materialized there, threatening the citadel. He has taken with him his Ducal army and the private army of his Marquis.

Now, during the battle with the nomads, Duke Archibald meets his creator but scores a victory against one stack. Now we have a stack (which might still have an avatar at its head) that through the death of the Duke has no reason for existence and should be disbanded... This leads to the destruction of Bern by the Mongols...

Now, if we apply Ituralde's rule, even with the death of Duke Archibald, Baronet Bohemond, his second in command in the stack, can take over and hope he will eventually prevail against the Horde.

This doesn't prevent us from checking every two years for rank requirements (thus allowing enough time for the feudal chain to reform, or not) and allowing enough time for strategic decisions to be implemented...

What I wouldn't like to see is armies dissolving into thin air simply because
a noble fell one rank... It would wreak havoc on our economy...

I have to admit there would much more challenge fighting the AI, though...

Just my :2cents:

Zim

04-25-2008, 11:11

What? Does that mean I'll have to go to bed or, worse, work on my resume for the job I'm applying for tomorrow?

Nooooooooo! (http://darthno.ytmnd.com/)

On that note, I think it is time for me to go to bed. I need to get up in a couple hours for work. :dizzy2:

FactionHeir

04-25-2008, 11:12

This is all getting rather confusing.

Here is how a more or less real feudal system would look like (ignore title names):

Grand Duke: Needs 24 land of which 14 must be given away to bond Counts. If a Count renounces or dies without a natural/adopted heir, the rented land returns to the Grand Duke.

Duke: Needs 16 land of which at least 7 must be given away to bond Counts. If a Count renounces or dies without a natural/adopted heir, the rented land returns to the Duke.
When two counts decide they wish to move up and create a Ducal house or a large house led by a count wishes to move everyone up a step, a charter of a Ducal house is formed that must pass with absolute majority (1 house) or agreement of 2 counts to settle inheritance and other matters. As the position of Duke requires giving up land to at least 1 Count vassal, this charter is to ensure that the Ducal house doesn't just collapse out of nowhere. Once you become a Ducal house, the lands combined to form a Duchy. Counts under a Duke may not renounce they loyalties but may attempt to topple the Duke if supported by the FactionLeader in a civil war.

Count: Needs 7 land of which at least 3 must be subletted to create Marquess. If a Marquis renounces or dies without a natural/adopted heir, the rented land returns to the Count.
Starting from Count, a charter of a house must be created to create the Count of House. This can be a simple piece stating that House X has formed or also create rules for inheritance disputes etc. Charter must pass with absolute majority by the applicant house. Amendments must pass with absolute majority.

Marquis: Needs 3 land of which at least 1 must be subletted to create Barons. If a Baron renounces or dies without a natural/adopted heir, the rented land returns to the Marquis.

Baron: Needs 1 land, subletted or otherwise

Note that this system is top down rather than bottoms up. If your vassal renounces or dies, the rented land is returned to you as it is your land with all vassals to it still attached under a minor house. In a house or Duchy, the charter rules inheritance but otherwise defaults to the above.

The "at least" requirement gives added stability to the structure if you have 2 vassals to your rank and one renounces. A grace period of say 10 turns could be imposed during which you need to regain lands in a civil war or otherwise for instance.

Ignoramus

04-25-2008, 11:30

Zim

04-25-2008, 11:38

Well, a knight couldn't do that, but a baronet might be able to. :clown:

I think with the Viscount thing, the Viscout would have to convince everyone else to join him. otherwise he'd be a very lonely rebel. Sure, the Count would drop at least one rank, but if most of the House are on his side he'd likely initiate a civil war to bring the Viscount back into the fold or take his land. If the Viscount did convince all of the House to rebel, he'd deserve that kind of bargaining power. :yes:

Speaking from a rebel's point of view, I don't think it is good to allow a potential rebel so much bargaining power. If he was a Viscount, he could effectively bring the house down by breaking his oath, thus holding the house to ransom.

That's the problem with our system at the moment. The lower ranks are too crucial to a house. Why should a knight be able to threaten a Duke?

_Tristan_

04-25-2008, 11:44

Ituralde

04-25-2008, 11:51

Speaking from a rebel's point of view, I don't think it is good to allow a potential rebel so much bargaining power. If he was a Viscount, he could effectively bring the house down by breaking his oath, thus holding the house to ransom.

That's the problem with our system at the moment. The lower ranks are too crucial to a house. Why should a knight be able to threaten a Duke?

I think Ignoramus touches on the real gripe I have with the current system. Right now it doesn't really matter who becomes Lord so much. Like PK said earlier, as long as a certain amount of people want to share the power they can push one of their own to the top. But it doesn't matter whom they push. In the end everyone in the group enjoys the same privileges. Some directly, because they hold the respective position, some indirectly because they are responsible for letting their lord hold the position.

I agree that every vassal should count and be important for the Duke. That's why the Duke has to keep his vassals happy. The indifference whether you're ruled by Adam, Bertram or Charles bothers me somehow. I guess this is a thing though that can't really be pushed into rules but needs to come from the IC part of the game.

However this turns out I look forward to toying around with this!

Ituralde

04-25-2008, 11:56

Still, a Viscount could bring down his Duke and by defecting to another House, gain that new house support...(even without a new oath...)

Now that new House should prove more powerful than the Viscount former one and enable it to "attack" it...

It seems a lot of power for a single avatar

Two pages ago we were complaining that the middle ranks didn't have enough power, now they're having too much. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. If it's too risky you can always try to get more vassals and form a tree rather than a ladder.

On another note seeing how unstable this can all get I think it wouldn't hurt to go back to the initial requirements for Dukes and above, without the branch under Count TinCow suggested recently. The way I see it, it will be hard enough to get up and especially hard to stay up if you don't invest in a tree anyway. So I see no need to force people to do it.

Zim

04-25-2008, 12:04

I've been rethinking the branching requirements as well, but I'm not sure what to think. It's hard to say how unstable the new system will be. Houses with good leaders could end up very tight knit groups with little chance of rebellion, or they could be very unstable. We won't know until we play a while.

Personally I think there should be a strong IC taboo on breaking oaths for anything other than voluntary House restructuring, and any character of mine with high loyalty and/or chivalry will likely see oathbreaking as a very serious offense.

I'd consider lower requirements to stay in a position than to attain one if it wouldn't make things entirely too complicated. :dizzy2:

Two pages ago we were complaining that the middle ranks didn't have enough power, now they're having too much. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. If it's too risky you can always try to get more vassals and form a tree rather than a ladder.

On another note seeing how unstable this can all get I think it wouldn't hurt to go back to the initial requirements for Dukes and above, without the branch under Count TinCow suggested recently. The way I see it, it will be hard enough to get up and especially hard to stay up if you don't invest in a tree anyway. So I see no need to force people to do it.

AussieGiant

04-25-2008, 13:55

Having seen some of these examples I think we need to be really conscious of not making things too complex.

I know that is hard to do but...we will put people off this game if you need to be a quasi lawyer just to survive in the game, or in fact be able to achieve any progress.

I think at some point we will all wonder about how KotR worked in hind sight.

In as many instances as possible we need to let IC work handle things.

Keep in mind we are ONLY now talking about the OOC game rules...can you imagine the IC legislation on top of what we have OOC?

Ituralde

04-25-2008, 13:58

I really hope we won't see as many rule changes, now that the ability to propose them is limited to the top ranks. They really got annoying in KotR.

AussieGiant

04-25-2008, 14:00

I really hope we won't see as many rule changes, now that the ability to propose them is limited to the top ranks. They really got annoying in KotR.

It really did and I like that TC has put CA's in only the top ranks. It's a nice touch.

TinCow

04-25-2008, 14:19

Egads... three pages pop up over night. I haven't read page 10 yet, but there's a couple things I want to respond to.

First, I really don't think the death of any single member of a House will 'destabilize' the House. Whether it's the top rank, a middle rank, or a bottom rank, all the death will do is decrease the power of the House by a small to moderate amount. Is that really instability? It just seems to me that it's a temporary loss in power and influence as the result of the death of an important nobleman. Seems fair to me. Also, keep in mind that the dead person can reincarnate the very next turn. If they prepared properly and gave their lands to other House members via their Will, then they could simply rejoin the House as a brand new nobleman and restore it to its original power the very next turn. That's not exactly the end of the world, is it?

Sure, the House will lose power for a longer period of the person does not return to it on reincarnation, but I see that as an IC issue. The point is that there's a perfectly useful and easy method for the House to retain exactly the same level of power without many problems at all.

Second, I'm really interested in hearing about how we can mod the family tree. Any more specifics we can get on that would be useful.

TinCow

04-25-2008, 14:24

My issue is that not only would Houses be tremendouly unstable, but the problem Tristan mentioned comes into play. If I'm a Marquess at the top of a chain, I can fight as many battles as I want, and if my character dies the House will probably stay together. I can also let the lowest ranks fight, as their dying might lower me a rank if they're a vital part of the chain, but would probably not break up the House.

On the other hand, there's no way in Heck I'll let my middle rank players fight unless they do something drastic like threaten to leave, because one of them dying would throw the House into chaos.

I guess in the end it will turn out to be a largely imaginary fear. If the top ranking member was a good leader the lower ranks will probably not mind reswearing oaths, and Houses that last any length of time will likely develop a sense of comradery and shared purpose making them more likely to stay together. If either ends, then it deserves to fall apart.

That's the entire point of the rules. I specifically stated in my commentary that I wanted people to be afraid of dying once they reached a high rank. The idea is to make battles too risky for Dukes and Grand Dukes and such, so that battles are given to the low level ranks like Knight and Baron/et. This was to spread out some of the action in the game and ensure that it wasn't monopolized by people who grabbed the first few provinces early.

I was working for a system which would have heavy and immediate involvement for new players who joined mid-game. A brand new Knight character that popped up would be courted by multiple Houses, all of whom want him, and he would get to see immediate action leading armies. I created it like that to keep the game interesting for new people and to make it easy for people to join in mid-way through.

FactionHeir

04-25-2008, 14:26

Not much you can do with the family tree. You can increase the number per branch, but this causes endless bugs as those further branches will not show up in the tree view and thus their kids and adoptees won't either even though they will be counted as family members. I'm not sure if that's what is really wanted.

Making more princesses...can only be done temporarily, i.e. at start of game by changing what the faction starts out with. Note that doing so will make some starting characters quite old as father-offspring needs at least a 16 year difference.

TinCow

04-25-2008, 14:29

I don't think personal armies are disbanded automatically if their owner dies. I think they just revert to Chancellor control. :yes:

This is exactly correct. A sympathetic Chancellor could even let a House continue to use an army as if it were their 'lost' Private Army. The point is simply that the House can no longer do it without the Chancellor's permission.

Ramses II CP

04-25-2008, 15:28

Whew, that was a lot to read through. My thoughts:

1. Why is instability a bad thing? If a substantial house falls apart that sounds like a fun gameplay experience, with people scrambling for power and lower nobles getting a chance to move up (Or higher ones down!). Realisitic? No, but I don't care, it sounds like fun.

2. A higher rank should be able to designate only the recipient of his own land, the lower ranks in the chain should have the choice of whether or not to continue their service to the new Duke or etc.

3. The in character consequences of breaking an oath casually will be unpleasant. We know the group we have here, making an OOC rule to place time limits on oath breaking is just going to end up limiting gameplay unecessarily.

So put my vote in for maximum OOC instability and using IC pressures to maintain loyalty and faith.

:egypt:

Privateerkev

04-25-2008, 15:41

1. Why is instability a bad thing? If a substantial house falls apart that sounds like a fun gameplay experience, with people scrambling for power and lower nobles getting a chance to move up (Or higher ones down!). Realisitic? No, but I don't care, it sounds like fun.

I totally agree. But others are showing some real reservations towards that. I would prefer to keep it as close to the current rules as possible.

To me, instability will provide for more RP opportunities. And it will reward active players. If you want to be able to take advantage of the unstable moment, like when a House falls apart, you need to be active.

In my opinion, encouraging and rewarding active RP'ing will be a good thing.

2. A higher rank should be able to designate only the recipient of his own land, the lower ranks in the chain should have the choice of whether or not to continue their service to the new Duke or etc.

Currently, that is pretty much the system. The Duke can leave the land in a will. When he dies, everyone in the chain can break their oaths to each other at will, with the possible civil war consequences of course.

3. The in character consequences of breaking an oath casually will be unpleasant. We know the group we have here, making an OOC rule to place time limits on oath breaking is just going to end up limiting gameplay unecessarily.

I think your right. I think TC envisioned his rules as providing you with an idea of what is "possible". I don't think we should limit that OOC. IC however, we should feel free to limit that a good amount. That way it comes about organic in the game itself and it is not just us putting limits on possibilities.

So put my vote in for maximum OOC instability and using IC pressures to maintain loyalty and faith.

preach on brother Ramses... :clown:

OverKnight

04-25-2008, 15:48

I'm still having a difficult time wrapping my head around all the rules, much less the debates about the rules. :dizzy2: I won't have a true appreciation for the game until we start playing.

My personal preference is to keep things as simple as possible. The Chancellor will be doing the heavy lifting on keeping track of all this, so we should avoid over burdening that position.

It seems even more than KotR the emphasis will be on role-playing, and the rise and fall of Houses and characters will depend on it. I'm all for that. The strength of countries and noble Houses often depended on the charisma and command abilities of their leaders. All the land in the world won't mean anything if you can't keep vassals. For this and simplcity, I'm opposed to adding land into the equation for titles.

If any glaring weakness emerge in game play, we can address them then.

Ituralde

04-25-2008, 15:53

I must say that the recent discussions have helped me get a much better understanding of the rules. For this alone they have been worthwile to me. Right now I've toyed enough with the system in my head that I'm ready to put it to the test. All things that bothered me have been adressed and the system seems to come out okay. Really a great job you did with the rules there TinCow!

I'm really looking forward to hearing from the people in the Test Game how their experiences are. After that I'm good to go! :2thumbsup:

Zim

04-25-2008, 16:03

Ah, but in my post I said it was not the person at the top who would fear death. If he dies, or his immediate subordinate, the whole House might lose a small amount of power as a whole (probably not, if he rejoined it with his new character) and he would lose the hard work invested in his character, but the House would remain substantially intact. If I were a Duke or a Grand Duke I'd probably lead some battles myself and rejoin at the bottom if my avatar died. I'd also let those in the lower ranks fight a lot, as you made the rules to encourage. It's the counts and viscounts and such in the middle I'd be reluctant to let fight, as a death of someone in the middle completely throws off the chain and creates (hopefully temporarily) two mini-Houses. If I were one of the midle ranks, I'd want to fight battles but would be surprised if the guy on top was eager to let me.

Of course, this is from the same Zim who, after losing his first character in battle, refused to let knowing the game was about to end and final lines be drawn prevent him from throwing his second avatar into a battle he thought it would be IC to take, and then lost that guy. Truth be told, assuming I ever found myself in a top rank it wouldn't be fear of destroying my accomplishments regarding a single avatar that would prevent me fighting battles, but the sense of responsibility in ensuring everyone in my House has fun and gets to fight them. :yes:

Anyway, I imagine in the game this won't matter with tight-knit Houses, and the bottom people will generally reswear loyalty an relink the chain. If not, then it may result in an interesting power play. ALl my fears will likely be for nothing, and now I'm advocating a wait and see position on most of these issues. We'll have to play for a while to really see the ramifications of some rules. :yes:

That's the entire point of the rules. I specifically stated in my commentary that I wanted people to be afraid of dying once they reached a high rank. The idea is to make battles too risky for Dukes and Grand Dukes and such, so that battles are given to the low level ranks like Knight and Baron/et. This was to spread out some of the action in the game and ensure that it wasn't monopolized by people who grabbed the first few provinces early.

I was working for a system which would have heavy and immediate involvement for new players who joined mid-game. A brand new Knight character that popped up would be courted by multiple Houses, all of whom want him, and he would get to see immediate action leading armies. I created it like that to keep the game interesting for new people and to make it easy for people to join in mid-way through.

Zim

04-25-2008, 16:17

Seconded. And every change I seem to suggest not only makes things more complicated but causes its own problems, increasing my appreciation even more for the rules as is. :yes:

I must say that the recent discussions have helped me get a much better understanding of the rules. For this alone they have been worthwile to me. Right now I've toyed enough with the system in my head that I'm ready to put it to the test. All things that bothered me have been adressed and the system seems to come out okay. Really a great job you did with the rules there TinCow!

I'm really looking forward to hearing from the people in the Test Game how their experiences are. After that I'm good to go! :2thumbsup:

Privateerkev

04-25-2008, 16:24

Seconded. And every change I seem to suggest not only makes things more complicated but causes its own problems, increasing my appreciation even more for the rules as is. :yes:

Your not the only one. Pretty much every "hybrid" or "revision" causes us to keep more things in mind every time we do something in the game.

Another reason why I like the current rules is because they are simple. I think the OOC rules should be very simple.

IC however, we can make things as complicated as we want as long as it is still fun.

I can see you and I taking our RBG's and passing horribly complicated legislation that mandates that "for flemish cloth" should be our warcry and that flemish pikemen should be given to each noble on the first monday of the year of the monkey when the moon is in it's 3rd phase and Jupitar aligns with Mars. Buried in that horribly complicated CA will be a small footnote directing you to another piece of legislation we will pass. In that 2nd CA will be a tiny fine print buried in a footnote in the index that says that all RBG's have 200 influence. :clown:

Zim

04-25-2008, 16:29

That's not complicated, that's just common sense. :clown:

For Flemish cloth!

So, is it just me or did almost all of that discussion end with most people just liking things as they are? :dizzy2:

Your not the only one. Pretty much every "hybrid" or "revision" causes us to keep more things in mind every time we do something in the game.

Another reason why I like the current rules is because they are simple. I think the OOC rules should be very simple.

IC however, we can make things as complicated as we want as long as it is still fun.

I can see you and I taking our RBG's and passing horribly complicated legislation that mandates that "for flemish cloth" should be our warcry and that flemish pikemen should be given to each noble on the first monday of the year of the monkey when the moon is in it's 3rd phase and Jupitar aligns with Mars. Buried in that horribly complicated CA will be a small footnote directing you to another piece of legislation we will pass. In that 2nd CA will be a tiny fine print buried in a footnote in the index that says that all RBG's have 200 influence. :clown:

AussieGiant

04-25-2008, 16:32

It seems where are naturally coming back to the beginning which is a testimony to TC and his subtle but clear vision of what he wants to create.

I'd say we can leave the basic building block rules alone, now that we've had a good intellectual tilt at them and found them to be a very good base to build our IC world on.

Nice work TC. I’ll send you the usual retainer for your services in the mail. :clown:

TinCow

04-25-2008, 16:34

Privateerkev

04-25-2008, 16:38

It seems where are naturally coming back to the beginning which is a testimony to TC and his subtle but clear vision of what he wants to create.

Somewhere in DC, a man is sitting at his desk cackling madly as he sees that we have all fallen into his carefully prepared trap. :clown:

So, is it just me or did almost all of that discussion end with most people just liking things as they are? :dizzy2:

I've always liked things as they were. I've just been trying to see if everyone else can like them. :clown:

On a more serious note, you guys did point out a lot of holes and I'm glad some of this is figured out. You also convinced a little bit of stability might be a "good thing".

In general, it seems that people just wanted to "understand" the rules. Of course it took us over 10 pages of discussion, but hopefully everyone has a better grasp on what it is we're getting ourselves into. I know it's helped me figure things out.

Zim

04-25-2008, 16:50

I thought the new structure you came up with was good. In the end it would take what, about 3 more vassals to reach Grand Duke?

I haven't said much because I'm not sure how to tell when we've made it hrad enough to reach the higest ranks. The test game shows that with a decent number of players (I think during my KOTR career 15 active players was a norm) we not only had no Grand Dukes but no Dukes. Without knowing for sure how many active players we'll tend to have, and how likely people are to coalesce into a couple very large Houses versus multiple smaller ones, it's hard to say that what the best level of branching. :sweatdrop:

I trust you judgment, and am happy with the revised rule. :yes:

How are people feeling about the alternate branching Feudal structure? The vast majority wanted it in the poll, but I haven't heard many positive comments since I posted the draft. If we want branching, but don't like the current proposal, how should it be changed to make it better?

Privateerkev

04-25-2008, 16:50

How are people feeling about the alternate branching Feudal structure? The vast majority wanted it in the poll, but I haven't heard many positive comments since I posted the draft. If we want branching, but don't like the current proposal, how should it be changed to make it better?

I think that we should make the rank that requires a branch, in consideration of how many people we want it to take until you can be a Grand Duke.

Currently, from the rules on top of the page, it just takes 7 people. Some have feared that is too few.

In TC's revision, Baronet got knocked off and Marquess needs 2 Counts. It will take 9 people total to have a Grand Duke.

I'm worried that might be too hard. Especially if we keep the time requirements.

Since Count seems to be the first mid level rank, maybe make that the one that needs a branch? Or would that make it too hard to get a private army? On one hand, it would only take 8 people to make a Grand Duke but it would take 5 people to get a private army. Which would be bad since we want small Houses of 3 to form and go off to explore strange new worlds.

So um.. my answer is I don't know... :embarassed:

FactionHeir

04-25-2008, 17:15

My proposal on page 10 basically allows both branching and a ladder structure with branches being more stable. Did anyone actually read it? :tongue2:

Privateerkev

04-25-2008, 17:19

My proposal on page 10 basically allows both branching and a ladder structure with branches being more stable. Did anyone actually read it? :tongue2:

I read it but you have the land go back to the Lord. Since I had made my opinion of that clear before, I didn't want to "beat a dead horse". :clown:

FactionHeir

04-25-2008, 17:23

Only at the lower levels does it go back though.

Privateerkev

04-25-2008, 17:48

Only at the lower levels does it go back though.

Yeah and I still don't like it. If I'm a Baron, I want to be able to take my piece of land and leave my chain if I want. If my Lord has a problem with it, he can declare a "oath-breaking caused civil war" and come get me. :balloon2:

Northnovas

04-25-2008, 17:57

AussieGiant

04-25-2008, 17:59

Yeah and I still don't like it. If I'm a Baron, I want to be able to take my piece of land and leave my chain if I want. If my Lord has a problem with it, he can declare a "oath-breaking caused civil war" and come get me. :balloon2:

You're such a rebel PK :clown:

and yes OK has summed up things nicely from where I'm sitting.

Privateerkev

04-25-2008, 18:05

You're such a rebel PK :clown:

Well, it depends on my avatar's traits and how I feel like RP'ing them. Basically, I want the option... :clown:

I imagine it would not be a decision taken lightly since it could very well end in my avatar's death. I don't plan on doing it on a whim (unless I have some serious disloyal traits or madness traits).

But I like that we have the option to do so if we feel we have to for IC reasons. There are severe consequences of course and there should be. But it would be up to those in my former chain to figure out what to do about it IC. :yes:

Ignoramus

04-26-2008, 09:18

I'm just a bit worried about the lower ranks having a bit too much power. Part of the fun of a rebel is knowing your facing huge odds. I knew that Wolfgang hadn't a hope of being able to single-handedly conquer Swabia, but the fact that my rebellion lasted 16 years is what it made so fun. I never knew whether the current turn would be my last.

If your friends with the Chancellor, you are basically safe from retribution from your own house, as the Chancellor can throw all sorts of obstacles in the house's way.

(Side note: Has anyone else noticed that TC used the rank names from EUII?)

TinCow

04-28-2008, 13:39

Wow, I was busy over the weekend and avoided coming onto the forums last night because I was afraid I would have 700 posts to catch up on. Turns out this thread had a grand total of 1 new post. So much for my fears.

I am going to put up a poll on the draft changes I wrote up last week, along with several of the changes that other people have proposed. Once we get a feel for where we stand on those, we can push forward on any areas that remain unresolved.

(Side note: Has anyone else noticed that TC used the rank names from EUII?)

That's pretty amusing actually. I had never played a single EU game until about two weeks ago, certainly not when I wrote the rules. However, I recently picked up EUIII and have been addicted to it since then. That' why I didn't want to read 700 posts last night... it would have cut into my EUIII playtime! :laugh4: I'm currently trying to figure out how I can cut France down to size, when it has an army twice as large as the next largest army in the world.

TinCow

04-28-2008, 14:57

I have just removed a post from this thread. This discussion is complex enough without it being inundated with completely off-topic posts that exist only to spam smileys. Please do not post in this manner again.

Zim

04-28-2008, 20:04

I think a lot of us are waiting to see how the test game turns out before discussing the rules again. Or maybe we've just temporarily run out of things to nitpick about. :clown:

Re:EU3, One of the best ways I've found to take on monster factions like France is to wait until they're at war with a major power (preferably Castille or Burgudy if you're not playing one of them, and they hasn't kicked the bucket yet). Then declare war one them and take a few of their settlements as fast as possible. They probably have high war exhaustion and will take a deal that isn't too outrageous. I find getting them to release factions is easier than getting land off of them, at least early on. Normandy is nice, in that it's just big enough to be a challenge for France to retake. Have France release as many nations as possible, each province that goes to one is one less province for France and another ally for you. Repeat until you can take them one on one.

If they have extensive colonial holdings, however, it's extremely hard to grab enough territory off of them to get them to take a deal. :furious3:

Ituralde

04-29-2008, 15:06

I agree with Zim. I'm really looking forward to hearing about the experiences people have in the Test Game. After obsessing about the rank system in my mind and in this thread it will be interesting to see how the Civil War mechanic works. I hope they fit in smoothly and make Civil War a viable extension of internal politics. It will be interesting to see how the parties at war, the Chancellor and also the Faction Leader play together in this.

Concerning the Votes on rule extension. After familiarazing myself with the rules more and more I now tend to keep the ruleset as is. Most of the time additional rules tend to overcomplicate the matter and instead of preventing abuse more often than not open up avenues for even more abuse. So from my point no additional rule changes are needed right now. IC actions and reactions should suffice in most cases. I'd rather see some wonky bit of changing loyalties that gets the respective IC reaction, than having to make up some strange IC reasons for OOC rules.
I would even go further and tone down the current inheritance rule a bit. There are already too many clauses in that one. Since only land and no titles can be inherited I find the risk of someone hogging one province to be neglectable.

On a general note, the underlying fear of that rule is that people might limit the OOC fun of other players. In these games I have always found it important to keep a good OOC relation with everybody within the game. This should stand above all decisions within the game! It's sad that special rules should be needed to make this happen. If somebody is really just out to ruin the game for the majority, I have always thought it nice that we have two Mods within our ranks. :2thumbsup:

Kagemusha

04-29-2008, 15:44

Privateerkev

04-29-2008, 15:49

Exellent set of rules TC and gentlemen attending the discussion. Now i see the possibilities of feudal infighting which i longed for before i had to stop playing KOTR. These rules sounds almost like it would be too much fun to play.:2thumbsup: One question, what is the role of the King in all this?

Kag! :balloon2:

I thought you'd like these rules because this stuff is what you were asking for back when we had the KotR cataclysm discussion. :2thumbsup:

As for the King, he has some power but it will probably decrease a little over time as people go up in feudal ranks. In the beginning of the game he'll be able to mold things to his vision but later on it will get harder.

TinCow

04-29-2008, 16:04

One question, what is the role of the King in all this?

The Faction Leader is the single most powerful rank in the game. However, he's essentially alone and cannot have formal allies. One on one he can take on anyone and win, even a Grand Duke. However, he can be overpowered by large Houses or other alliances of lesser nobles. These will require time to develop, though, so at the start of the game the Faction Leader will have almost absolute power, especially when he chooses to become the Chancellor. Over time, as the faction gains more provinces and other nobles rise in rank, the Faction Leader will have to ally himself with at least some segment of the nobility in order to see his will done. If played well, the Faction Leader role could dominate the entire game. However, he could also be marginalized to a less powerful position like in KOTR if he backs the wrong side or angers too many nobles.

Kagemusha

04-29-2008, 16:12

Kag! :balloon2:

I thought you'd like these rules because this stuff is what you were asking for back when we had the KotR cataclysm discussion. :2thumbsup:

As for the King, he has some power but it will probably decrease a little over time as people go up in feudal ranks. In the beginning of the game he'll be able to mold things to his vision but later on it will get harder.

Hi Privatererkev!~:)

I have a thought about the king, which i hope you would consider.
Now since we are really going into a feudal structure and internal wars will be option for everyone, it would be pretty easy to have Kings, pretty much like they really were during the feudalism. This can be done with a single rule, which would give a King huge amount of possibilities in order to manipulate the different houses (factions), but it wouldnt be game spoiler anymore, because if King would be too authoritarian, he could be done away by his own subjects in revolt. Please consider giving the King power to veto any edict made by the Diet.
With this power, he could both support the ones who support his policies and also make life miserable for those who oppose his policies.
This would create a character, which could not dictate what the houses could or could not do, since a single powerful or alliance of houses could in fact attack the King and kill him, if they would be too disgruntled of how they are treated. So by giving the King veto over diet, we would create a feudal king, who could rule through manipulation of the competing factions, but couldnt dictate his power over everyone, because of his own limited power base.:yes:

OverKnight

04-29-2008, 16:17

I've got my first rules question from the test game:

As Chancellor I am authorized to do this:

The CHANCELLOR may move any avatar or army that has not been moved in this way [during the 24 hour free move period] 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.

Certain parties wanted me to move Michiel and Marcel, currently in Iberia, east. However in their SOT entries I have these orders.

No units may be removed or disbanded.

Please do not remove or disband any of my units.

So I can't move the garrisons of the two cities, but can I move the two avatars? What complicates this issue, is that both avatars are in the cities with the garrisons. Would the orders, as given, allow the Chancellor to move just the avatars while leaving the other units in place?

Thoughts?

Ramses II CP

04-29-2008, 16:45

I would have done exactly what you did; when player's orders are ambiguous err on the side of caution. If those men's Lord had informed them of his intent for them they could've altered their orders accordingly.

:egypt:

Privateerkev

04-29-2008, 16:49

Sorry, I assumed "avatars" are different from "garrisons". If I knew they would be seen as one and the same, I would have asked my people to be more clear. :bow:

Trust me, "those men's Lord" informed them of his intent many many times. I think they just assumed that they could give an order for their garrison to stay put while their avatar could still be moved.

At least that is how I read the rules.

Cecil XIX

04-29-2008, 17:39

Overknights decision seems to be the correct one. The orders issued refer to 'units', which the nobles in question definitely are.

TinCow

04-29-2008, 17:57

I also concur. I always considered avatars to be separate from garrions or other terms for military units. I think you're ok to move them.

Please consider giving the King power to veto any edict made by the Diet.

He already has that power.

(9) Can veto one Edict or Amendment per 3 ranks of Authority.

One veto per 3 ranks of Authority, so from 0 to 3 Vetos per session, depending on his Authority stat.

Cecil XIX

04-29-2008, 18:06

I always considered avatars to be separate from garrions or other terms for military units. I think you're ok to move them.

But then, what if an avatar doesn't want to be moved? Can he stop the Chancellor from doing so?

Privateerkev

04-29-2008, 18:10

But then, what if an avatar doesn't want to be moved? Can he stop the Chancellor from doing so?

Yeah but it is a separate order.

You can say whether you want your garrison moved/not moved/not disbanded/ect...

You can say whether you want your army units moved/not moved/not disbanded/ect...

You can say whether you want your fort units moved/not moved/not disbanded/ect...

And you can say whether you want your avatar moved/not moved/ect...

They are all separate orders. Since the nobles in question did not give an order for themselves and did not specifically forbid avatar movement in the SOT thread, then it fell to Chancellor discretion.

TinCow

04-29-2008, 18:19

But then, what if an avatar doesn't want to be moved? Can he stop the Chancellor from doing so?

Definitely. That's specifically stated in the rules.

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.

The Chancellor has to do what you say with your units and avatar. If you don't give any orders at all, or your orders leave some room for flexibility, he can do whatever he wants as long as they don't violate your orders.

The current situation is more a situation of potentially conflicting orders. The players submitted orders saying not to move the garrisons, but also to move their avatars. The question is which takes precedent, not whether the Chancellor can do whatever he wants. I think we're all in agreement that there actually isn't a conflict in these orders at the moment. Hypothetically, if there was a conflict, I would say that the most recent order takes precedent.

Privateerkev

04-29-2008, 18:24

The current situation is more a situation of potentially conflicting orders. The players submitted orders saying not to move the garrisons, but also to move their avatars. The question is which takes precedent, not whether the Chancellor can do whatever he wants. I think we're all in agreement that there actually isn't a conflict in these orders at the moment. Hypothetically, if there was a conflict, I would say that the most recent order takes precedent.

Just to be clear, the two players did not ask for their avatars to be moved. (I don't want to get them in trouble.) I did. They gave no orders for their avatars and had no restrictions listed on avatar movement in the SOT so I told OK I wanted them moved. I figure it fell to "Chancellor discretion" if those avatars were to be moved or not. Therefore, the Chancellor could choose to listen to his ally with regard to vassal movement.

But, OK thought an avatar was part of a garrison which they did indeed say should not to be moved.

And from other posts on here, I get the impression that others had the same confusion. And that is the belief that when an avatar is in a settlement, it is a garrison and does not need a seperate order directing it's non-removal.

TinCow

04-29-2008, 18:39

Ah, well that's a little different. Even so, I'd say it's ok because I consider settlement garrions, fort garrisons, Private/Royal armies, and avatars to all be separate groups that can be given separate orders. If you give no orders whatsoever, the Chancellor can do whatever he wants. Thus, the movement of the avatars would be perfectly legal.

It's essentially an opt-out system. You can control every last detail about your avatar and his armies if you want to, but you have to make the effort to do so. If you do not do so, you are essentially letting the Chancellor do whatever he wants. The burden is on the player to make his wishes clear, because doing otherwise would slow the game down too much.

The removal or non-removal of an avatar from a garrison is also a relatively minor thing, because the Chancellor can't disband the avatar and any 'erroneous' movement can simply be reversed by the player himself the next turn. This is in direct contrast with the garrisons, which are completely out of the player's control once they leave the settlement or fort. Those are lost to direct control when moved into the field if they do not end in a Private/Royal army. Avatars remain under direct control at all times.

Kagemusha

04-29-2008, 19:03

He already has that power.

One veto per 3 ranks of Authority, so from 0 to 3 Vetos per session, depending on his Authority stat.

Thats fair already and i like the tying of veto´s to authority, but i think that 0-3 veto´s might not cut enough influence to him, with that amount certain parties could "spam" similar edicts in order to get one through in any case, but of course i might be be just as well wrong about it. Personally i would give him authority to veto each and every edict in diet if it would come to that, of course that kind of behavior could lead into very short number of days of his remaining reign. Im sure the game will eventually show us how it will play out.:2thumbsup:

deguerra

04-29-2008, 23:45

Sorry, should prbly have posted in this thread.

I understand the rules now. I did not ask for Michiel to be moved, because I did not specifically want him to be moved. It would not have mattered much if he was moved, but that was not my intention.

I recognise, however, that this should have been made clear in my orders. I'm still getting my head around the rules :2thumbsup:

I agree that avatars should be different from garrisons etc.

What are the rules on a player personally moving their avatars? Is that only if they are commanding an army?

FactionHeir

04-30-2008, 00:02

Hypothetically speaking, since the chancellor by law is allowed to move characters and armies for which there are no orders to the contrary and may engage them in battles, couldn't he use someone's avatar to declare war on another house or send someone on a boat trip or somesuch? Sure, its not something you'd normally do, but chancellors sometimes have an agenda too...

Regarding orders, might it be good to allow higher ups to command what their vassals should do? If the vassal also sends in orders, the vassal's take precedence, but if there are no conflciting (or no orders) from the vassal, his liege lord's orders would be binding.

PrinceofTroy

04-30-2008, 00:15

I guess I don't understand a bit of the rules, can I move my Avatar and garrison out of Pamplona? Or does the Chancellor do it for me? :egypt:

OverKnight

04-30-2008, 04:25

PrinceofTroy,

My understanding is that during free move period, the one we're in right now, you can take the save and move your avatar and the garrison of your province. However, those men are not an assigned army, ie royal or private army, so if they end their turn outside the walls, the Chancellor has final say on their disposition. You always control your own avatar however.

If you don't feel like moving yourself by taking the save, you can always leave specific movement orders for the Chancellor and he is required to do them. However, if the moves are precise or tricky, you may want to do them yourself, as it might be difficult for the Chancellor to replicate exactly what you have in mind.

Edit: To clarify, you always have the option of controlling your own avatar, but if you don't leave orders for their disposition, the Chancellor can move them.

deguerra

04-30-2008, 04:34

Ok, I think I get the idea.

I am not too sure about having the chancellor move avatars about at his own discretion thought.

If orders are left to the chancellor, everything is obviously fine.

However, it seems that if they are not, and I wanted to move, then that is completely in my control (via doing it myself)

Why then should it be beyond my control not to move?

It's a very minor point, but I foresee many a situation where people forget to update orders along the lines of "dont move me" because it may only apply for a turn.

I understand that we want to encourage people to keep up to date, but is there really any reason for the chancellor moving avatars without the players wanting it.

Note that this is not considering the above suggestions about lieges being able to move their vassals. That is somewhat less arbitrary, although it may still need to be discussed.

I just think the situation where someone inadvertedly forgets to explicitly state: "I dont want to be moved" will come up too often and cause frustration.

:egypt:

am plagiarising above symbol from ramses, because the post sounds a bit critical to my liking, and i want to remind people i'm only throwing ideas about in a good natured sort of way, and not to be upset :2thumbsup:

Privateerkev

04-30-2008, 05:06

I am not too sure about having the chancellor move avatars about at his own discretion thought.

If orders are left to the chancellor, everything is obviously fine.

However, it seems that if they are not, and I wanted to move, then that is completely in my control (via doing it myself)

Why then should it be beyond my control not to move?

It's a very minor point, but I foresee many a situation where people forget to update orders along the lines of "dont move me" because it may only apply for a turn.

I just think the situation where someone inadvertedly forgets to explicitly state: "I dont want to be moved" will come up too often and cause frustration.

I think it is done to save the Chancellor some work. Otherwise, the Chancellor would have to guess what it was you wanted. The rule of thumb is, if you don't forbid something, the Chancellor can probably do it. If you don't want it done, then forbid it. That way, the Chancellor only has to keep track of what not to do. And then he has a free reign on the rest.

I understand that we want to encourage people to keep up to date, but is there really any reason for the chancellor moving avatars without the players wanting it.

There are plenty of reasons and few of them are good for our characters. It is a good habit to get into giving very very clear and precise orders. :yes:

What are the rules on a player personally moving their avatars? Is that only if they are commanding an army?

You can post in the SOT. If you want to be sneaky, you can PM the Chancellor. If you want to be sneaky from the Chancellor, you can PM the player who plays the Chancellor and ask him OOC.

Hypothetically speaking, since the chancellor by law is allowed to move characters and armies for which there are no orders to the contrary and may engage them in battles, couldn't he use someone's avatar to declare war on another house or send someone on a boat trip or somesuch? Sure, its not something you'd normally do, but chancellors sometimes have an agenda too...

Regarding orders, might it be good to allow higher ups to command what their vassals should do? If the vassal also sends in orders, the vassal's take precedence, but if there are no conflciting (or no orders) from the vassal, his liege lord's orders would be binding.

While I can certainly see the merit in allowing the Lord to give orders in the Vassal's absence, I am worried it might be a bit over-powered. If the lord and the Chancellor are allies, then the lord can just ask him to move the vassal. So far I think that works fine.

Ituralde

04-30-2008, 07:34

Just a reminder to those that seem afraid of havin the Chancellor control their actions to some extent. This is actually how it worked in KotR all the way up to the cataclysm. You never moved anything. You just suggested to the Chancellor and he could possibly do as he liked. There were rarely any problems with it.

I understand that the current system evolved after the cataclysm and I like it very much, though I never actually played under it. I just wanted to reassure people that giving the Chancellor the possibility to move your avatar isn't all that bad as it's made out here.

Furthermore coming back to deguerras example. Say you never want the Chancellor to move you. Just post a standing order in the SOT stating that the Chancelor may not move your avatar. That would be your default setting then. This does not prevent you from moving him around at will.

deguerra

04-30-2008, 07:40

Yeh fair enough. All right, another point down. :2thumbsup:

AussieGiant

04-30-2008, 08:44

Guy's,

Being nearly the first chancellor in KotR to have this 24 hour rule in place I'd like to say that the players do not have a strong case to argue movement issues given the opportunities being given to them.

Firstly you have 24 hours to do whatever you want, that may get extended, so if you are feeling a little "anally retentive" then do it yourself.

Secondly you have an Orders thread in which you have the capacity to provide as much or as little detail as you want.

With these two option open to a player, then I'd caution against any further rules trying to clarify this issue. There is little else that can be done to resolve the perceived problem further with these two options open to a player.

Again I'm also putting in a ":egypt:" because even I can see this sounds harsh...sorry guy’s, but it's pretty clear to me that we are splitting hairs to a degree.

If I was a "IC/OOC Chancellor/Player" I'd be a little short with people who can't manage themselves well enough with those mechanisms in place, and then wanted to "chat" with me about movement issues.

And Kag,

You wrote:

"Thats fair already and i like the tying of veto´s to authority, but i think that 0-3 veto´s might not cut enough influence to him, with that amount certain parties could "spam" similar edicts in order to get one through in any case, but of course i might be be just as well wrong about it. Personally i would give him authority to veto each and every edict in diet if it would come to that, of course that kind of behaviour could lead into very short number of days of his remaining reign. Im sure the game will eventually show us how it will play out."

TC has regulated that issue by limiting the numbers of Edicts and CA by ranks.

If you want to waste your finite ability to draft legislation then that can be a "game inside the game"...:2thumbsup:

deguerra

04-30-2008, 09:00

Point taken AG.

My only issue ever was that you can't not move yourself, by yourself, without going through the chancellors thread, because theres no in-game way of locking your character.

But I am happy enough with everyone just posting a "don't move me without a specific order" order in the Orders thread (damn I was hoping I could work another "order" into that sentence :inquisitive: ), just so long as that is made clear to everyone.

:2thumbsup:

AussieGiant

04-30-2008, 09:13

I agree deguerra, I think in the end there will be an agreed set of "legalised" statements that mean certain things when posted in the Orders thread.

TC could come up with a water tight sentence that prevents any loopholes being used by the Chancellor. Players can then just cut and paste that into their orders.

Anyway that's what I'd do if I had a hyper sensitive period in the game due to civil war or other potentially dangerous issues...of course I'd pay TC his usual fee for getting that wording set out for me :clown:

FactionHeir

04-30-2008, 10:43

I understand that the current system evolved after the cataclysm and I like it very much, though I never actually played under it. I just wanted to reassure people that giving the Chancellor the possibility to move your avatar isn't all that bad as it's made out here.

Actually I found it quite annoying during Ignoramus chancellorship where my avatar was moved towards Vienna against my wishes. Sure, he could have moved my army and it would have been borderline OK, but if it is my avatar and I don't want to be moved, then I don't think the chancellor should be allowed to move me.

What was worse with that was that he never actually replied to PMs or public concerns I sent his way about it.

AussieGiant

04-30-2008, 10:51

Actually I found it quite annoying during Ignoramus chancellorship where my avatar was moved towards Vienna against my wishes. Sure, he could have moved my army and it would have been borderline OK, but if it is my avatar and I don't want to be moved, then I don't think the chancellor should be allowed to move me.

What was worse with that was that he never actually replied to PMs or public concerns I sent his way about it.

Actually....:shame:

I believe Igno was under extreme duress from the Order to do just that...at least that is what I recall. I don't think he replied to you because of that reason also...the Chronicles can confirm I think.

OverKnight

04-30-2008, 11:03

If you don't want your avatar moved, simply put it into writing in the SOT. Unlike the example FH gave about KotR, in this game you can do something about it.

TinCow

04-30-2008, 12:10

Yep, if you don't want your avatar moved, it is very simple. Just write "Do not move Count Dracula in any way" or something along those lines. That's a hell of a lot faster than doing something inside the game and then re-uploading the save.

Hypothetically speaking, since the chancellor by law is allowed to move characters and armies for which there are no orders to the contrary and may engage them in battles, couldn't he use someone's avatar to declare war on another house or send someone on a boat trip or somesuch? Sure, its not something you'd normally do, but chancellors sometimes have an agenda too...

No, war on another house requires a Declaration of War in a public thread. Players can only make Declarations of War for themselves, though those declarations may also apply to their vassals. There is no way for a Chancellor to start a PvP war between two other people unless one of them is his vassal and he personally declares war on the other.

He can definitely send people on boat trips though. And, more likely, the notorious watchtower building expedition. :laugh4:

Ignoramus

04-30-2008, 13:12

Actually I found it quite annoying during Ignoramus chancellorship where my avatar was moved towards Vienna against my wishes. Sure, he could have moved my army and it would have been borderline OK, but if it is my avatar and I don't want to be moved, then I don't think the chancellor should be allowed to move me.

What was worse with that was that he never actually replied to PMs or public concerns I sent his way about it.

Sorry about that FH. AussieGiant's right, it was "required by the Order", and Ulrich was quite stoked at getting elected so he obliged. I understand how annoying that would be, just as Stig got very annoyed when I effectively ruined the first attempt of the Russian Crusade(another of the Order's "requests"). To try and explain such a bizarre act is impossible, so in order not to betray the hand that fed me I had to remain silent.

Privateerkev

04-30-2008, 16:52

Sorry about that FH. AussieGiant's right, it was "required by the Order", and Ulrich was quite stoked at getting elected so he obliged. I understand how annoying that would be, just as Stig got very annoyed when I effectively ruined the first attempt of the Russian Crusade(another of the Order's "requests"). To try and explain such a bizarre act is impossible, so in order not to betray the hand that fed me I had to remain silent.

When I ignored people IC, I made sure to reply to them OOC. I understand that there are many reasons for one character to ignore another, but I don't like it when one player ignores another.

I share FH's frustration because I would send IC PM's just to watch them get lost in the .Org void. When I would finally send a frustrated OOC PM, I would be informed by someone that they were just ignoring me for IC reasons.

This happened multiple times with multiple people and I started to find it quite annoying and unfriendly. From then on, I vowed to answer every query. If I want my character to ignore someone, then I'll just PM them with a nice OOC letter saying, "you don't know why, but you never receive a reply from character X".

This allows for IC ignoring while still fostering a friendly game environment. :yes:

Ramses II CP

04-30-2008, 17:08

Privateerkev

04-30-2008, 17:19

I suppose I should say here that King Philip ignored your avatar's private communication solely because if we actually managed to work out a solution the test game wouldn't be much fun, and our public discussion essentially covered the same ground. :laugh4:

:egypt:

Nah, I didn't mean you Ramses. :beam:

I don't expect people to reply to every single IC PM I send. I just meant that when my character asks specific questions, I'd at least like an OOC PM if the other person wants to ignore my character. If my letter is simply an announcement or statement, then I simply track them on the board to make sure they were received.

I do agree that it would be too easy for us to find reconciliation which is why I have limited my IC correspondence with Guillemot's enemies.

I find very little IC motive to continue a civil war and am only pursuing it for OOC reasons. Because if we're going to have a test game to test the civil war rules, then we actually need to have a civil war. :D

Ramses II CP

04-30-2008, 17:24

Privateerkev

04-30-2008, 18:42

Yeah, and Philip's traits are such that I honestly think he would've offered you Marsellies and Ajaccio both to try to avoid a war. Then we trail down into trying to incorporate OOC forced moves into our character's personalities. It's definitely an odd situation.

Thats funny because I was thinking of having Guillemot ask for both. But that would have made for a really boring civil war... :laugh4:

Kagemusha

05-03-2008, 02:33

GeneralHankerchief

05-03-2008, 04:27

Oh wow. Just popping in to say that I totally agree with this post made a couple of pages back:

I'm still having a difficult time wrapping my head around all the rules, much less the debates about the rules. I won't have a true appreciation for the game until we start playing.

My personal preference is to keep things as simple as possible. The Chancellor will be doing the heavy lifting on keeping track of all this, so we should avoid over burdening that position.

It seems even more than KotR the emphasis will be on role-playing, and the rise and fall of Houses and characters will depend on it. I'm all for that. The strength of countries and noble Houses often depended on the charisma and command abilities of their leaders. All the land in the world won't mean anything if you can't keep vassals. For this and simplcity, I'm opposed to adding land into the equation for titles.

If any glaring weakness emerge in game play, we can address them then.

Gentlemen, let's keep in mind that while this discussion can and should be as dense as possible, the end result should be a lot more user-friendly than the KotR Charter was.

AussieGiant

05-03-2008, 09:33

So it must be like that i havent read the new rules at all. I really appreciate that im being talked like a 4 year old.:beam:

:shame: Kag, I'm sorry. I was PMS'ing and not dealing with work very well. I decided to apologies rather than edit it. :2thumbsup: I'm sorry if it came out too harsh.

And I have to agree with GH and OK. While the conversations are excellent I'm concerned that because the "Cray Computer" minds here are able to process and handle this amount of information, "others" with Core2Duo's or even Quad Cores will have trouble with this.

A thought I had was:

"I wonder if I can just play the game and not study the rules to any great depth, and actually BE effective in the game?"

If the answer is: "Not really, and you better realise you could easily get shafted."

Then I'm worried..but hey...I worry a lot. :clown:

Zim

05-03-2008, 09:42

AussieGiant

05-03-2008, 12:32

I don't know. I think the debate has actually made a lot of things much clearer to me.

If I were to answer that question of yours, I'd say "yes". It's one I've considered through the debates, and part of the reason I've backed off on suggesting lots of rules changes. :yes:

I think more than a few of us have been very pleased with TC's explanations, as once his understanding of the rules has been made clear to us, the checks and balances built into his system become apparent. This seems to have left more than a few of us saying as you just did: "Lets leave them as they are and see what happens in the game."

OK's comment about being able to change things as the game progresses is the most sensible approach. :2thumbsup:

I think I've found a general theme for my next character, so the decompression process is going well. I never realised how much time I was investing until I stopped. God knows what will happen if/when I get a girlfriend...hmmmmmmm:inquisitive:

Privateerkev

05-03-2008, 14:37

And I have to agree with GH and OK. While the conversations are excellent I'm concerned that because the "Cray Computer" minds here are able to process and handle this amount of information, "others" with Core2Duo's or even Quad Cores will have trouble with this.

If my Pentium 60 can figure it out, anyone can. :beam:

A thought I had was:

"I wonder if I can just play the game and not study the rules to any great depth, and actually BE effective in the game?"

If the answer is: "Not really, and you better realise you could easily get shafted."

Then I'm worried..but hey...I worry a lot. :clown:

Depends what you mean by effective.

I believe that with very little understanding of the rules, you can create and role-play a great character that is a valuable member of a feudal chain. You can command an army, run a province, and interact with other characters.

Now if you actually want to rise up the chain, you need to know more and more about the rules. If you want to be at the top of a feudal chain, you need at least a fairly good grasp of the rules because you will need to know what the Chancellor can and can not do. And if you want to be an effective Chancellor, you need to understand the rules pretty deeply just so you understand the loopholes that are available for you to implement your own designs.

So, I believe you can walk in "off of the street", plug yourself into the game, and start having fun. And as your character rises in rank, you'll need a progressively deeper understanding of the rules in order to be effective at your rank.

So, that's my take on it from my own limited test game experience. :book:

AussieGiant

05-03-2008, 14:45

PK, you definitely don't have a P60 in that brain of yours. :balloon2:

You're description is good to hear. That's about what I would hope for.

Privateerkev

05-03-2008, 14:54

PK, you definitely don't have a P60 in that brain of yours. :balloon2:

Your very kind but grad-school has rotted my little Pentium into a little pile of dusty processor particles.

I'm taking a "break" from school right now and I'm finding I need to re-learn basic skills like... speaking with other humans. And reading a whole book cover to cover. :book:

:clown:

As for your previous concern about how to integrate a gf into your online life, you just have to have priorities. My gf knows that no matter how furiously I am typing up an IC rant on the keyboard, she can come over and interrupt me to ask me something. :beam:

OK's post should almost be the pre-amble to the rules. I think it is a very good thought-piece on this stage of the rule-making process. :2thumbsup:

OverKnight

05-03-2008, 16:15

I have a question:

Let's say as Prince Louis, I ask Henry to join House Normandy and make him my second, with the promise that when I ascend to the the throne, he will become the leader of the House.

How would I go about doing this? First, could Henry bring his vassals into my house structure without their say, or would they have the option of declining? Would this be considered a breaking of their oath?

Second, what would needed to be done to integrate their chain into Normandy's?

How would we go from this:

Baronet Hermant Tanlay < Baron Hugues de Poitiers < Viscount Henry

Baronet Bertin de Plaisians < Baron Perrin Gassou < Viscount Louis

To something like this (assuming we stick with chains and not branches):

Baronet Hermant Tanlay < Baron Bertin de Plaisians < Viscount Hugues de Poitiers < Count Perrin Gassou < Marquess Henry < Duke Louis

I'm assuming it would take a voluntary breaking of the two chains, and then each person would swear fealty to the one above him. Everyone gets bumped up a rank or two except poor Hermant. Now, would this include a 5 turn cooling off period even if it's voluntary oath breaking?

Is this feasible?

If the chains are rigid, it seems the only way an outsider could enter a house is at the lowest level, a small reward for turning his coat depending on his former rank. It reminds me of a pyramid scheme, where the only way to advance is to bring someone in under you.

Just a hypothetical question. . .:beam:

Zim

05-03-2008, 18:52

From my understanding of the rules Henry can swear fealty to whoever he wants, and would bring his vassals with him (although talking to the vassals a bit as well, or encouraging Henry to, would be a good idea, to make things run more smoothly).

Henry and his vassals would either have to come in under Baronet Bertin, form some sort of heavily branched feudal tree, or a lot of breaking oaths and reswearing them would have to be worked out to get the structure you wanted.

The five turn cooloff might or might not make the voluntary oath breaking thing work, depending on whether it gets in and how it's worded (current wording in rules change poll thread and rationale given for the rule suggest it will apply to voluntary oath breaking/remaking), but I don't think it affects the Test Game anyway. :yes:

AussieGiant

05-03-2008, 20:40

Certainly a good question OK.

Honestly I'd like the rule set to support that but leave IC negotiations determine the "details", of that deal.

I'd equate it to simple popular politics you see here in Europe. Anythings possible as long as you come to an agreement with all the nobles concerned.

Zim

05-03-2008, 20:56

But most of us (including me and you) voted for a rule that would prevent that, barring heavy editting of the proposed rule. :clown:

Change 1: Cool-Down Period on Oaths. This slows down reorganization of Houses and increases stability at the cost of some freedom. The general effect is likely to be that people do not leave powerful Houses unless they have the backing of another House. Implemented by adding the following line to Rule 2.5:

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.

Certainly a good question OK.

Honestly I'd like the rule set to support that but leave IC negotiations determine the "details", of that deal.

I'd equate it to simple popular politics you see here in Europe. Anythings possible as long as you come to an agreement with all the nobles concerned.

TinCow

05-03-2008, 21:47

The Cool-Down rule does not apply to the Test Game. Even if it did, all of the oath breaking would be consensual to allow for a re-arrangement, so it wouldn't even apply to such an organized re-structuring. The simplest method is simply to agree what the structure will be beforehand, and then have everyone do a post like:

I break my Oath of Fealty with X.
I swear an Oath of Fealty to Y.

If everyone does that properly, the entire re-arrangement can be done in one turn without any problems.

Zim

05-03-2008, 23:23

AussieGiant

05-04-2008, 08:40

And so I miss the most important section of the proposed rule. :clown:

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.

Exactly.

But it still took me twenty minutes to read all the rules to then realise that "with consent" then IC work can solve the problem...hence my post. :balloon2:

Sometimes I'm told I would make a good lawyer.

I keep telling them I'm too aggressive though :clown:

Zim

05-04-2008, 08:43

Exactly.

But it still took me twenty minutes to read all the rules to then realise that "with consent" then IC work can solve the problem...hence my post. :balloon2:

Sometimes I'm told I would make a good lawyer.

I keep telling them I'm too aggressive though :clown:

And I sadly managed to quote the rule and miss that part. :sweatdrop:

Would you believe that despite a tendency to glance over things too quickly and miss details, I actually did very well in the law classes I had to take for my degree? :clown:

AussieGiant

05-04-2008, 08:52

And I sadly managed to quote the rule and miss that part. :sweatdrop:

Would you believe that despite a tendency to glance over things too quickly and miss details, I actually did very well in the law classes I had to take for my degree? :clown:

I believe you Zim :beam:

I was two minutes from writing something completely different until I read the rule 'out loud', yes you read correctly. I read the rules "out loud" and at that point it dawned on me.

Zim

05-04-2008, 09:09

I should probably have tried that. :yes:

I believe you Zim :beam:

I was two minutes from writing something completely different until I read the rule 'out loud', yes you read correctly. I read the rules "out loud" and at that point it dawned on me.

AussieGiant

05-04-2008, 10:38

I should probably have tried that. :yes:

I find it does help.

Although you need to accept people that can hear you wonder just how insane you are going to get. :2thumbsup:

TinCow

05-06-2008, 14:05

The first post has been updated again to reflect the most recent additions and changes to the rules. These changes are 1, 2, 3, and 5 from the Misc Rule Changes Poll, as well as the two changes recently discussed in the Test Game OOC Thread. Those two OOC Thread changes are the addition of this line to Rule 1.4:

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.

and the editing of the second to last line in Rule 5.1 to read as follows:

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.

Ituralde

05-06-2008, 15:06

Interestingly enough I am not too fond of too many added rules. I can accept them now, but have arrived at a stage where I could have lived without them.

On another matter, I have been thinking about the way the PVP battles are fought. From what I've seen the tendency goes towards the Custom AI battles made by TinCow. I realize that they're the best compromise between time needed and a reasonable realistic approach. Will they become the standard operating procedure or will the eventual game allow for votes?

I mean it'll probably slow down the game if you waited for everyone to cast their vote with which method the parties are allowed to use. How will this be handled in the game. I'm currently imagining a situation where two rivaling Viscounts decide to solve their problems once and for all on the battle field. Say they can't decide who is to be the leader should their feudal chains merge.

Now that would be something of an agreed Civil War. Most of this can be worked out IC and maybe both sides would make assurances that they will be chivalric on the battlefield. This is where I see the Custom AI battles to become problematic as the players have no control over the exact behaviour of the Armies. How would something like this work out under the current Civil War rules?

GeneralHankerchief

05-07-2008, 00:08

I've been thinking for a bit and going back among the Illuminati deliberations. From what happened post-Cataclysm in KotR, I think there needs to be a little extra incentive added to become Chancellor. You'll note that the final two elections of KotR were both rigged by the Illuminati out of a desire to first reform the Reich and then ensure their plan.

So, here's what I've come up with:

Rule x.x: Upon ascendency, the CHANCELLOR is immediately granted, by use of the console, a CHANCELLOR'S army, consisting of X units and answerable to no one but himself. During that time, the CHANCELLOR still controls his Private/Royal army/ies if applicable. At the close of his duties, the CHANCELLOR'S ARmy will be disbanded and an exact copy will be granted to the incoming CHANCELLOR via the console.

The idea of this is to first give the CHANCELLOR something of an executive arm in a decentralized society and also to give the lesser nobles of the CHANCELLOR'S house incentive to be nice (temporary command of an army while Count Dracula is running things).

OverKnight

05-07-2008, 01:35

An interesting proposal, but a couple of considerations:

1. A Chancellor can already recruit an army for his own use. He's likely to have his own settlement for some manpower and can negotiate to recruit the rest, if he doesn't own a castle for example, from friendly nobles.

2. If the test game is any indication, military expenditures are going to be huge. With so many armies mandated already, there is a possibility that there will be no florins for building.

deguerra

05-07-2008, 04:50

although less florins for building would give us a nice disadvantage over the AI. which as well all know needs all the help it can get. it's an interesting proposal.

TinCow

05-07-2008, 11:54

On another matter, I have been thinking about the way the PVP battles are fought. From what I've seen the tendency goes towards the Custom AI battles made by TinCow. I realize that they're the best compromise between time needed and a reasonable realistic approach. Will they become the standard operating procedure or will the eventual game allow for votes?

The current rules provide for a vote each time. I'm considering (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1912457&postcount=176) revising the PvP rules to re-add Custom Battles (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1912444&postcount=174) as an option and then to make a vote required only for Tabletop and Abbreviated Tabletop Battles. Multiplayer Battles, Custom Battles, and AI Battles could all be selected if all the combatants agreed to one of them amongst themselves. Those three types would all be pretty fast, so I have no problems with ignoring public opinion in their selection. I only really think we need a vote on the battle systems that would require a long pause in the game.

An interesting proposal, but a couple of considerations:

1. A Chancellor can already recruit an army for his own use. He's likely to have his own settlement for some manpower and can negotiate to recruit the rest, if he doesn't own a castle for example, from friendly nobles.

Not just "likely." Knights can't run for Chancellor. Therefore the Chancellor must be ranked Baron or higher, which means he has to own at least one province.

Zim

05-09-2008, 22:44

Privateerkev

05-09-2008, 23:00

Alright, if I understand correctly this coming week and a half is the time to bring up any last minute rules issues.

Thought I'd start by making Tincow curse the name of Zim by raising concern about a rule I fought hard for. :clown:

That is the branching rule. The idea everal of the peope who suggested it had was that it might be too easy to get the highest ranks, and the need to do so to catch up to rival Houses might weaken the viability of smaller Houses. Branching the feudal chain accomplishes both to an extent by making it much harder to get the highest ranks, and making it so that between the number of vassals needed to get one Marquess (above which is the branching point, I think) and getting a second one to bump up one avatar to Duke the advantage of one or two more vassals in one House versus another is relatively minor, and a number of Houses of varying sizes can exist where the highest member is a Marquess.

It sounds good, but a couple things worry me. One is that we also pased a rule adding a "time in x high office before being able to move up" rule to low down advancement a little. Together these rules might make it too hard to move far up the ranks.

The other thing is it hit me that the number of active members in the original KOTR tended to hover around 20 during the time I was in the game. If it did in this game as well the rules might make it nearly impossible to get to the highest ranks without destroying the small Houses I'd hoped to encourage. If the numbers are higher this game, as Tincow intends, then that is less of an issue. A Grand Duke could still appear from time to time while there couldt still potentially be a number of other Houses.

What do you guys think?

While I have given my opinion on mandatory branching, I will point out that I think the branching point is Marquess because it is the one that will require 2 Counts. Count will probably be the standard rank many people will reach because it will just require 3 people and 3 land. And it is the rank where you get an army.

So, under the current rules, I think it will be common for there to be 3 person teams who unite under a common goal but ranks higher than Count will be fairly rare. To be a Count, you just need 3 people. But if you want to go up just one rank, you need 4 more people, 4 more land, and 5 turns as a Count.

We'll probably see quite a few "stable Counts" who have more than 3 people but only 1 army. They won't get that extra army until another one of them becomes Count. And then they'll get another when a Count becomes the Marquess. So, at 7 people, they'll have 3 armies. But 4 will be without unless they have the Chancellor as a member/ally.

In the linear system, a Marquess had 3 armies but only 5 men. So only 2 were left without armies.

I'm not quite sure where I'm going with this but those are my thoughts. :beam:

Zim

05-09-2008, 23:20

I see. Branching occurs one level lower than I thought.

So it takes 3 people to get one private army, 6 to get to, and 7+ get 3 or more.

Around three members per House probably will be the most stable arrangement, although any House that hits 7+ will have big advantages over the rest, with the consequence of having to keep a lot of armyless lower level nobles happy.

Privateerkev

05-09-2008, 23:34

I think this would be as good a time as any to update the "minimum House power" table so we can compare the minimum amount of strength and power each kind of House would have.

Old linear system:

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

Current system: (Remember, this is the bare minimum each type of House would have.)

Baron- 1 person
1 Influence
no forces
one Edict

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

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

Marquess- 7 people
2 Influence
11 stat Influence
3 private armies
2 Edicts
6 Edicts or CAs

Duke- 8 people
2 Influence
15 stat Influence
4 private armies
2 Edicts
9 Edicts or CAs
can call emergency session
can't be banned from "governing body" session

Grand Duke- 9 people
2 Influence
20 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

Cecil XIX

05-10-2008, 06:39

Reposted for discussion:

Looking back, the issue to me isn't whether the system should be linear or branching. We should have the option of going either way in our feudal chains, where a linear chain is more powerful but a branching chain is more stable for the one on top. As long as it's merely an option, it can be done without weakening the current, mandatory structure. If one type of chain is better than the other, that's what we'll get regardless. If they're relatively balanced, then having options is the better choice.

From my experience so far with the test game I've found it extremely discouraging to know that if I want to increase my rank and power it is against my interest to have another noble swear fealty to me directly. I'd like to have the choice between a linear, more powerful house and a branched out house that's more stable for the person at the top. The way things are now, many people will end up swearing fealty to a person they have no loyalty to just to benefit the person to whom they are loyal. I'd like to see the structure of the feudal trees be motivated more by the actual relationships between characters and less by the need to push everybody up the ranks as much as possible.

Privateerkev

05-10-2008, 06:56

From my experience so far with the test game I've found it extremely discouraging to know that if I want to increase my rank and power it is against my interest to have another noble swear fealty to me directly. I'd like to have the choice between a linear, more powerful house and a branched out house that's more stable for the person at the top. The way things are now, many people will end up swearing fealty to a person they have no loyalty to just to benefit the person to whom they are loyal. I'd like to see the structure of the feudal trees be motivated more by the actual relationships between characters and less by the need to push everybody up the ranks as much as possible.

I think the feudal chain will end up like counties in KotR.

The idea behind counties, and knighting for that matter, were that they were to be story devices. I remember Econ making a big IC deal about handing Hans a county because he was Henry's son. It was something you were supposed to earn or inherit. Later in the game, it just became something you got because your King/Duke wanted the extra voting power. Little attempt was made to make a story out of it. At least until Becker came along and made his county the center of his world. But he was an exception for the most part.

I suspect feudal chains will be the same way. The idea of one person swearing to another and making a long story of it in the game sounds appealing. But I suspect that if you make it worthwhile to rise in rank, then people will skip the story and just rise in rank. And that means little attempt at stories and people will be plugged into a chain where they are needed much like a Lego block. Partly it is a "race to the bottom". People will try to build taller chains because if they don't, the other group will and they will be the ones with the political power. So, like counties in KotR, feudal chains will be used by some as a mechanism to achieve political power for their avatar.

Is this a problem? I don't know if it is. Not everyone is in to making stories. Some just want to play. I guess if the mechanics are sound, people can decide if they want to make a story out of it.

pevergreen

05-11-2008, 12:32

Although i did not see the end of KOTOR, I can see that happening here. I for one would love to write long beautiful stories, but I cant write for tripe. So I will either have no story or very little (and very bad).

Im sure im not the only one either.

Cecil XIX

05-11-2008, 17:37

Indeed, I think what PK said makes a lot of sense. That's why I like the idea of having more options, for people who prefer story and character-based feudal chains over power-based feudal chains. It seems to me we can have the option of having the former without limiting one's ability to have the latter.

TinCow

05-12-2008, 13:39

Are there any suggestions on how this balance can be obtained?

AussieGiant

05-12-2008, 14:38

I certainly can't work one out...which is why I'd prefer to simplify.

In theory what Cecil is saying would be perfect...but I'm struggling to come up with a solution myself.

Privateerkev

05-12-2008, 14:40

I believe going back to linear might help. Those that want to rise up, can do so. And those that want more stability, can have it. We have now made it harder to rise up without making it more stable. We still have the "oath cooldown" rule and the "time served" rule so I think we don't need the branching requirement.

I don't know how to revise the current branching system we now have. Moving the "required branch" down would make it harder to get the 1st army. Moving the "required branch" up would require the upper ranks to need more people.

Ituralde

05-12-2008, 19:01

I would also say that it might be a good idea to revoke the branching decision and make it a free choice for people to branch, if they want stability. Our main fear for stability comes from the fact that we anticipate that most people will only use the minimum number required to run a feudal chain. So by making branching mandatory we raise the minimum number required even further, making a rather large House of 7 people quite unstable.

If we would remain with a linear system those 7 people would then have a choice. Do we make a more powerful but less stable feudal chain or do we make a less powerful but more stable feudal chain.

Another problem I see in the current system is the fact that six people have little reason to stay in one feudal chain. They would be far better off, if they were two separate Counts, giving them two armies. Or would one Count then swear fealty to another Count? Making one of them the Leader-Count and the other the Follower-Count? Which kind of goes against the whole feudal structure behind it.

I already fear that we'll see some cross-swearing nightmares cropping up and if the make a part of them mandatory the complexity will increase even more. Really, once you move away from the ideal straight chain, things suddenly become way complex.

Zim

05-12-2008, 19:57

I'm not sure branching the feudal chain was meant to provide more stability. It only really does so if you're chain happens to be in that range where gaining or losing a member doesn't change the rank of the highest member.

I had thought it was meant more to make smaller Houses more viable. In a way it might do that. There are now more "useless" (defined rather narrowly as not adding another army or significant rank powers :clown: ) slots between your first and second private army, making it harder to get a larger House together. Even if someone does succeed in doing so, there will be fewer armies to pass around, making it tougher to keep vassals happy. I actually kind of like that aspect, but I worry a bit that depending on just how many active players we get, that we have possibly made the highest ranks too hard to get.

I like the oath cool down and time served rules, and think they do a better job of adding stability. :yes: As for the viability of small Houses, the test game made me rethink that. Small Houses will likely crop up anyway, and flourish or fail depending on their relations with the other Houses. I no longer think tilting the rules in their favor will be necessary.

If we do return to a linear system, though, I wouldn't expect many people to take the "more stable" route. Generally speaking, it will always be better to stretch out your chain and have, say, a House with a Count and Marquess than one with a Count and a redundant Baronet. Even if both Houses lose a member the first will have presumably had some time to take advantages of the extra private army and other features of having a Marquess, and will be no weaker than the latter after losing a member and seeing their highest ranked avatar drop down to Count.

I expect the likelihood of Houses with redundant avatars will depend on how much people metagame more than anything else. If people take early feudal oath seriously, and/or members of a chain do a lot of separate competing for vassals, we might see some odd feudal structures (and possibly some conflict in the latter case). On the other hand, if people break and rearrange oaths in order to form the strongest chain possible (in terms of private armies, rank powers, etc.) we will see a lot of straight, linear chains. Neither style is really better or worse, but it is something to think about.

Anyway, to sum up for those not interested in my long winded post, I agree about rethinking the branching attempt. :yes:

TinCow

05-13-2008, 15:13

So do we want another poll on the branching vs. linear system?

Privateerkev

05-13-2008, 15:15

So do we want another poll on the branching vs. linear system?

I suspect your asking the people that voted for branching the 1st time but I'll answer anyways.

My answer: :yes:

AussieGiant

05-13-2008, 16:00

So do we want another poll on the branching vs. linear system?

"That's a 10-4 Rubber Ducky...we're needing another Poll just to be sure.

Big Daddy Out".

TinCow

05-14-2008, 13:56

Not an enthusiastic response, but since I would gladly return to the linear system, I will put up a new poll anyway. Yay for biased supervisors!

Also, as I mentioned before, I will be out-of-town from Thursday through Saturday. I want to get the game moving after that, so I am going to start finalizing things once I return from my trip. My objective is to start the first 'Diet' session of the new game on the weekend of the 24th-25th.

AussieGiant

05-14-2008, 15:02

Well that's just bloody great :balloon2:

On the 25th of May I travel to South America for two weeks...I'll be online but working my little trousers off...god damn it.

Ah well, I'll be interested to see how this is handled again...I'm sure I can contribute as I usually do but fighting battles will be impossible.

Ferret

05-14-2008, 16:22

looks like I wont need an avatar at the start of the game then, which is good for me, I'd prefer to join in once it's got rolling anyway.

Ituralde

05-14-2008, 16:44

So while we're still in the phase were rule changes don't need a 2/3 majority to pass I'd like to raise some points concerning inheritance, seems to be my favourtie topic. :2thumbsup:

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. 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.

So I have some OOC and IC thoughts. First the OOC things.

I realize that the current complexity of the whole rule comes from the fear that people will hog on certain positions. I already noted earlier that I don't see a big risk of that as long as titles are not inherited. Furthermore I always misunderstood the paragraph to mean that only one province can be inherited per heir. This is wrong I think, but keep this in mind as I go along.

I'm interested in a scenario where I as a player intend not to take over a leading role in a feudal chain, but want to give a certain longevity to a dinasty within one single province. I like the idea of having the possibility to identify other players also over the one province they control. Right now this sort of thing is discouraged by the rules. So if there was a situation where every available avatar already had their own province. Under the current rules my death would always result in someone else getting control of two provinces. So there are no really unaffiliated heirs, and I will always start with a new avatar that will own nothing. I kind of dislike how this is forced upon the players. The most memorable example of what I have in mind would probably be what happened with Prague and its surroundings during KotR.

The chance for a single player to carve out one province for himself and identify oneself with it, is a thing I always appreciated in KotR. It lends to a certain type of regionalism that I like. I just haven't come to grasps yet how to incorporate all the OOC mechanics and rules we have into an IC framework that will work for me within my stories. Every time I play some scenarios/stories through in my head I come up with problems to explain all the intricaties of inheritance, especially in a feudal society, where the whole matter of inheritance was hugely important.

I feel like I completely failed to bring my point across, but to those that were able to follow me I fear that the restrictions put upon playeres through the complexity of the inheritance will outweigh the benefits I tried to lay out above. This is with the restriction that only one province can be given away freely, i.e. to an avatar one might control later.

What are the others feelings on this?

The second matter is just curiosity how the inheritance will be handled IC with RGBs. The only examples I can draw from KotR are Otto von Kassel and Maximilian Mandorf. Where the former managed to secure a princess and the latter decided to 'marry god' instead. So how will you handle the prolems presented by not being on the family tree IC? Will you just play your way around it, not mention it, or come up with some explanation why none of his sons was suitable enough to be heir?

I would like to hear your thoughts on both matters.

Cheers!

Ituralde

Privateerkev

05-14-2008, 16:53

I realize that the current complexity of the whole rule comes from the fear that people will hog on certain positions. I already noted earlier that I don't see a big risk of that as long as titles are not inherited. Furthermore I always misunderstood the paragraph to mean that only one province can be inherited per heir. This is wrong I think, but keep this in mind as I go along.

Currently, you can leave any amount of territory you like to a single person. If your a Duke with 4 territories, you can leave them all to your Baronet. It's up to you. The mention of a "single province" means that a province can only have one owner. You can't leave the same province to two people.

I'm interested in a scenario where I as a player intend not to take over a leading role in a feudal chain, but want to give a certain longevity to a dinasty within one single province. I like the idea of having the possibility to identify other players also over the one province they control. Right now this sort of thing is discouraged by the rules. So if there was a situation where every available avatar already had their own province. Under the current rules my death would always result in someone else getting control of two provinces. So there are no really unaffiliated heirs, and I will always start with a new avatar that will own nothing. I kind of dislike how this is forced upon the players. The most memorable example of what I have in mind would probably be what happened with Prague and its surroundings during KotR.

You can get a third party to agree IC to pass on the territory to yourself and your new avatar. The third party could always change his mind and keep them for himself. So, it is a risk but it is doable.

The chance for a single player to carve out one province for himself and identify oneself with it, is a thing I always appreciated in KotR. It lends to a certain type of regionalism that I like. I just haven't come to grasps yet how to incorporate all the OOC mechanics and rules we have into an IC framework that will work for me within my stories. Every time I play some scenarios/stories through in my head I come up with problems to explain all the intricaties of inheritance, especially in a feudal society, where the whole matter of inheritance was hugely important.

With the exception of Becker, I actually saw very little of this. To most people, counties seemed to mean nothing besides the extra vote they got. Of course I came in later but that is what I noticed.

The second matter is just curiosity how the inheritance will be handled IC with RGBs. The only examples I can draw from KotR are Otto von Kassel and Maximilian Mandorf. Where the former managed to secure a princess and the latter decided to 'marry god' instead. So how will you handle the prolems presented by not being on the family tree IC? Will you just play your way around it, not mention it, or come up with some explanation why none of his sons was suitable enough to be heir?

I think we just make it up. Just claim that it is done in return for loyal service or something. We're going to be very "RGB heavy" for a long part of the game so I don't see a good way around it.

Cecil XIX

05-14-2008, 19:15

I certainly can't work one out...which is why I'd prefer to simplify.

In theory what Cecil is saying would be perfect...but I'm struggling to come up with a solution myself.

Having put some more thought into it, I find myself going back to my original idea of changing the requirements to be more flexible. Rather than requiring a specific sequence of nobles, each rank would require any combination of however many land-owning nobles. Take for example a Grand Duke, who under our current rules requires eight land-owning nobles. My idea is that instead of requiring a Duke, a Marquess, two Counts, two Viscounts and Two Barons he could instead have eight Barons, or four Viscounts and Four Barons, or a Marquess and a Baron, or two Counts and Viscount or any other combination you can think of.

In all cases the Grand Duke would have the same amount of territory under his control, as well as the same number of nobles in his feudal chain, so it makes sense that his own power would be the same. Under this system the original arrangement would still have the most power, but people who don't want to be shoehorned into a particular spot just to get more power.

Privateerkev

05-14-2008, 19:23

Having put some more thought into it, I find myself going back to my original idea of changing the requirements to be more flexible. Rather than requiring a specific sequence of nobles, each rank would require any combination of however many land-owning nobles. Take for example a Grand Duke, who under our current rules requires eight land-owning nobles. My idea is that instead of requiring a Duke, a Marquess, two Counts, two Viscounts and Two Barons he could instead have eight Barons, or four Viscounts and Four Barons, or a Marquess and a Baron, or two Counts and Viscount or any other combination you can think of.

In all cases the Grand Duke would have the same amount of territory under his control, as well as the same number of nobles in his feudal chain, so it makes sense that his own power would be the same. Under this system the original arrangement would still have the most power, but people who don't want to be shoehorned into a particular spot just to get more power.

If a Grand Duke needs any kind of noble, then what do the lower nobles need?

Do all nobles just need a certain number?

Like, if a Grand Duke needs 2 Counts and Viscount, what do the Counts need? Just three two of anything?

There would still be differences in power. A linear Grand Duke would have more power than a Grand Duke with 8 Barons. More armies, more votes, more edicts, ect...

Cecil XIX

05-14-2008, 19:34

Like, if a Grand Duke needs 2 Counts and Viscount, what do the Counts need? Just three of anything?

A Duke would just any combination of seven land-owning nobles, a Marquess would need six, and a Count would need either a Viscount or two Barons.

There would still be differences in power. A linear Grand Duke would have more power than a Grand Duke with 8 Barons. More armies, more votes, more edicts, ect...

Indeed, and I said as much. It's not a perfect solution, but it moves us closer in the direction we want without sacrificing anything.

Privateerkev

05-14-2008, 19:45

Interesting.

So it still allows linear chains for those who want to grab power.

And it allows branches and actual roleplaying for those who want to roleplay oaths more seriously as part of a story.

So what your saying is, change every title requirement to read, "Requirement: x number of landowning nobles"

It would certainly give us a greater variety of Houses.

I still think the majority would go as linear as possible for political power but this does give people the option to go another route.

Zim

05-14-2008, 20:19

The second matter is just curiosity how the inheritance will be handled IC with RGBs. The only examples I can draw from KotR are Otto von Kassel and Maximilian Mandorf. Where the former managed to secure a princess and the latter decided to 'marry god' instead. So how will you handle the prolems presented by not being on the family tree IC? Will you just play your way around it, not mention it, or come up with some explanation why none of his sons was suitable enough to be heir?

I've been thinking about this a little. Even if your character dies without evering coming into the family tree (likely in the early game when we have lots of players and little land) there's nothing stopping someone from writing a story that their character was married (just not to a member of the Emperor's family) and saying that RGB x who inherits their land doesn't share their name because he married the character's daughter. There's also the illegitamate son angle for explaining a different last name. The new character could also be a distant relation like a cousin or something, or maybe the dying character's Lord pressured him to will his land to someone he owed a favor.

They're not perfect solutions but they could add some variety in addition to the "return for loyal service" story. Really, the reason can be anything you want, and one of the biggest advantages of being a RGB is that your family is anyone you write it to be. :yes:

AussieGiant

05-14-2008, 20:36

I think you maybe onto something Cecil.

PK's comments also give additional clarity on how it would work.

I'd like to hear a few other people pick at the concept though. I can't see anything obvious and it seems easy to track for TC.

I do feel like I'm in a Poker Game though :beam:

"I've got 4 barons and 2 Counts..!!"

"We'll I've got 4 Counts and a 2 Baronets!"

"We'll I've got 1 of a kind of everything!!!"

:clown:

As for the inheritances thing...I'm not sure I get your point Iturlade...and that is probably my fault. All I would say is that the rule should not be too complex and simply provide a framework in which we can roleplay the situation in its entirety.

Family is family as far as the tree is concerned but that never stopped family from hating each other and deciding to give something to someone out of the family for a variety of reasons. That would explain that in my view.

PK's concept of an intermediary taking the land first and then handing it over to the person's next character seems like a good 'check and balance' on hogging...which I really don't like in principle. People should be working to create alliances with like minded people, therefore it shouldn't be a problem to leave them land based on loyalty or family reasons. Or any other motivation for that matter.

The rule seems well worded and not too legalised for my tastes...I always like the idea of the average man being able to make sense of rules. There's nothing like equal understanding to keep everyone honest :2thumbsup:

TinCow

05-14-2008, 21:18

Regarding Inheritance:
I see Ituralde's point about role-playing, and I definitely do not want to do anything that discourages that. At the same time, owning provinces is a very direct route to power. I do not want players to be able to simply pass on 8 provinces to their next avatar, as it will prevent other people from gaining power and thus make the game less interesting. I would be willing to do a compromise, though, by altering the rules so that players can pass on one (and only one) province directly to their next avatar. That would allow for consistent role-playing that was centered around a favorite province, but would prevent any significant maintenance of power through reincarnation.

Regarding Feudal Structure:
I think Cecil XIX's suggestion is perfect and is the solution we've been looking for. As far as I can tell, it will balance itself out very easy, since having a Grand Duke with one of each rank below him is far more powerful than a Grand Duke with only Baronets as vassals. This would thus make it possible for there to be two Houses with the same top dog, but where one was still stronger than the other. This would also allow for easy temporary alliances between Houses, as two Houses could both swear to a third person, thus generating a high rank, but they would not have to disassemble their internal structure in order to accomplish it. Such a situation would be best suited for temporary alliances, as it would be out-gunned in the long-run by an equivalent House with all of the ranks filled.

Unless I hear a good argument otherwise by the time I get back from NYC, I am going to adopt Cecil XIX's suggestion without bothering with a vote.

AussieGiant

05-14-2008, 21:23

I'd say we've just about hit the proverbial "nail on the head" here guy's!!

Well done Cecil for a simple yet effective solution.

As for inheritance discussion, one province sounds like a nice limit. I'm really not keen on anyone holding power by that method. In effect, making sure family member avatars are controlled by people will ensure most of this doesn't happen. RBG's on the other hand fall outside this but will have their own set of IC aspects that will I'm sure mean this doesn't happen often.

Privateerkev

05-14-2008, 21:29

I like both suggestions. Very balanced and very workable.

It seems like our Rulemaking by Committee experiment has worked out quite well. :2thumbsup:

Ituralde

05-14-2008, 21:44

Regarding Inheritance:
I see Ituralde's point about role-playing, and I definitely do not want to do anything that discourages that. At the same time, owning provinces is a very direct route to power. I do not want players to be able to simply pass on 8 provinces to their next avatar, as it will prevent other people from gaining power and thus make the game less interesting. I would be willing to do a compromise, though, by altering the rules so that players can pass on one (and only one) province directly to their next avatar. That would allow for consistent role-playing that was centered around a favorite province, but would prevent any significant maintenance of power through reincarnation.

That's exactly what I had in mind and what my first thought was when I misread the section. Limit it to one province only. And remember that just because you can do it, doesn't mean everybody'll do it!

Regarding Feudal Structure:
I think Cecil XIX's suggestion is perfect and is the solution we've been looking for. As far as I can tell, it will balance itself out very easy, since having a Grand Duke with one of each rank below him is far more powerful than a Grand Duke with only Baronets as vassals. This would thus make it possible for there to be two Houses with the same top dog, but where one was still stronger than the other. This would also allow for easy temporary alliances between Houses, as two Houses could both swear to a third person, thus generating a high rank, but they would not have to disassemble their internal structure in order to accomplish it. Such a situation would be best suited for temporary alliances, as it would be out-gunned in the long-run by an equivalent House with all of the ranks filled.

I like this too, but since you mention the temporary alliances. Are we still keeping with the rank requirements? So the Grand Duke would still need five Baronets to become Marquess then wait five turns, then another Baronet to become Duke and wait five turns, then another Baronet to become Grand Duke*, am I getting this right?

*This is just an example, so don't quote me on the exact rank names or number of Baronets needed. It's just to get the general idea across.

Zim

05-14-2008, 21:53

I really like both ideas. :2thumbsup:

Cecil had actually brought that up before, I believe, but at the time so many ideas about the feudal system were flying around it might have gotten lost among them. :clown:

TinCow

05-14-2008, 22:04

I like this too, but since you mention the temporary alliances. Are we still keeping with the rank requirements? So the Grand Duke would still need five Baronets to become Marquess then wait five turns, then another Baronet to become Duke and wait five turns, then another Baronet to become Grand Duke*, am I getting this right?

As it stands, yes, though you don't have to add new nobleman after your time-in-rank is up. I will be restoring the old linear structure, which will mean re-inserting the Baronet rank. The ranks and requirements will be as follows:

Knight - Nothing
Baronet - 1 Province
Baron - 1 Land-owning Nobleman
Viscount - 2 Land-owning Noblemen
Count - 3 Land-owning Noblemen
Marquess - 4 Land-owning Noblemen. Must have served 5 consecutive turns as a Count at some point in time.
Duke - 5 Land-owning Noblemen. Must have served 5 consecutive turns as a Marquess at some point in time.
Grand Duke - 6 Land-owning Noblemen. Must have served 10 consecutive turns as a Duke at some point in time.

(Plus the usual 1 province for everyone as well)

Baronet could theoretically get 7 other Baronets to swear to him at the same time. This would bump him up to Count instantly. Then all he has to do is sit around and wait. After 5 turns, he's auto-promoted to Marquess. Another 5 turns and auto-promotion to Duke. Another 10 turns and auto-promotion to Grand Duke. All this without further swearing required.

Ituralde

05-14-2008, 22:12

Maybe clarify that the land-owning noblemen don't need to swear fealty to the leader directly. They only need to be in the same feudal chain.

Privateerkev

05-14-2008, 23:14

Maybe clarify that the land-owning noblemen don't need to swear fealty to the leader directly. They only need to be in the same feudal chain.

what do you mean?

we still have people swearing directly to each other.

Zim

05-14-2008, 23:22

But not everyone is neccessarily swearing directly to the top guy. The Grand Duke could have six direct vassals who have sworn fealty directly to him, or one Duke, who has amarquess for a vassal, etc.

The new wording of the rank rules is a little unclear on this point, which could confuse new players, or mean a disaster should some avatar be interested in engaging in a bit of lawfare. :clown:

His his request that the rules be clarified a bit.

what do you mean?

we still have people swearing directly to each other.

TinCow

05-14-2008, 23:57

Ituralde's 'clarification' request is not only necessary for this to work, it is actually the major difference between this proposed system and the previous one that just had multiple people swearing directly to one Lord. For the record, though, I have not drafted the rule yet, what I posted above was just a quick sketch of the system, not a rule draft.

Cecil XIX

05-15-2008, 00:13

what do you mean?

we still have people swearing directly to each other.

In other words, it should be clear that when a Baron swears to a Count who swears to a Duke, both the Baron and the Count are the Duke's land-owning vassals.

Ramses II CP

05-15-2008, 01:52

The way the time in rule is worded a person who has been demoted from a time in required rank can instantly re-assume that rank by assembling a new group of vassals. Do we want that to be possible, or do we want the time in requirement to be per promotion?

For example Grand Duke Doofus has his whole chain abandon him. The next turn he's a Knight (Or Baronet, whichever) but he gathers a new group of vassals and, because he 'at some point' had his turns in as a Duke he can immediately bounce back up to Grand Duke.

I still favor a simpler system with no tracking required, i.e. a player can only advance one rank per turn, or per year, or etc.

(If you couldn't guess I'm still hoping for at least some instability!)

:egypt:

Ituralde

05-15-2008, 07:44

I think we discusses this the first time the time-in-rank requirement was mentioned. TinCow pointed out that it would take quite a long time for people to meet those requirements and having them meet them again would take too long a time. After all it would require a total of 15 turns in the lower ranks to become Grand Duke. So once you invested that much in your feudal career it's harsh to have to do it all over again. Characters won't last forever.

I initially raised the same point you did though. So I'm not dead set against it. Either way would make sense to me, but I can't really estimate which amount of time would be a good choice.

Edit: Here's the relevant post from TinCow

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.

AussieGiant

05-15-2008, 09:31

Time in rank should be a "one time" thing.

Easy to track and makes sense to me.

Ituralde's comment about indirect and direct oath giving is the main difference between the basic linear system and the new "advanced linear" system Cecil has proposed.

I'm sure TC will make things very clear in his legislated wording version.

I like it...things seems to be coming together well gentlemen. Good work.

Reaching concensus in my view is all about the "desire" to do so, if there is desire, then it will be reached...if there isn't, well take a look around the world for some examples of "terminal" anti-desire.

A bit heavy I know but, it's held true in my experience.

_Tristan_

05-15-2008, 09:45

On the subject of time requirements, the term "consecutive" terms is what worries me the most...

It allows for some metagaming insofar as rivals may very well "bribe" vassals in another feudal chain on turn 4 of the requirements simply to prevent the leader of that chain from reaching his new higher status...

I don't know if I would like this either IC or OOC...

I personnally think that any 5 turns served in a rank (consecutive or not) should suffice...

But I like Cecil's suggestion, which brings us nearer to what would have happened in RL...

And the one-province inheritance rule will help in creating a "family" feeling for all those RGBs :2thumbsup:

AussieGiant

05-15-2008, 10:25

Regarding the "time in position" then yes metagaming does seem an option Tristan . But there is never a clean way around everything...and if someone want's to do that then "notes" will be taken I'm sure. :smash:

_Tristan_

05-15-2008, 10:34

I think that simply removing the "consecutive" requirement should prevent such metagaming... and keeping the number of turns required

Ituralde

05-15-2008, 10:54

But that means the one guy who gets himself pushed up to Duke for one round, before his feudal chains collapses, and does this five times has achieved as much as someone who managed to stay on top of his feudal chain for five consecutive turns.

Five turns shouldn't be that long and sure some people might make a little abusive meta-gaming, but if your followers are that disloyal I think it doesn't matter whether your feudal chain collapses right after the first round or after four rounds. I mean the reason for the rank-time requirement is to eliminate those people that can't satisfy their followers for even five turns from reaching the top, because honestly, they don't deserve it then!

Cecil XIX

05-15-2008, 20:23

This is just a quick thought but, does the FH and the FL have to be determined by MIITW's inscrutable mechanism? We could just have the FL choose his own heir, and then use the console command to transfer FH and FL related traits and retinue to the right person. All it would require is a bit of work to determine what needs to be added and what needs to be removed, which is something I could do myself and then PM the Chancellor.

Privateerkev

05-15-2008, 20:32

Privateerkev

05-15-2008, 20:40

You know what, I've been thinking. What is it exactly that we have to change in the rank requirements? Indirect oath swearing? What?

Why does it matter who swears to who as long as someone swears to someone.

We could just make the new rule say: "RANK requires X landowning vassals in their CHAIN." "Where CHAIN is your vassals and your vassal's vassals."

Thats it. People still just swear to one person. No other rules need to be changed that I know of.

Current rule has:

Count
-Viscount
--Baron
---Baronet

New rule would still have this but would also allow the options of:

Count
-Viscount
--Baronet
--Baronet

Count
-Baron
--Baronet
-Baronet

Count
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet

See? Now have I totally messed this up or am I right that we are in danger of severely overthinking and overcomplicating this new rule? I don't understand this whole "indirect swearing" thing. If your in a chain, your in a chain because you swore to someone. Adding Cecil's fix doesn't change that.

*edit*

Let me try to say this another way. Cecil's rule is just a cleaner version of the OR rule. Saying that a Count has to have 3 landowning nobles in their chain is just a short way of saying a Count has to have 1 Viscount OR 1 Baron AND 1 Baronet OR 3 Baronets.

There is still "direct oath-swearing".

*edit 2*

:clown: <--- obligatory smiley

Ituralde

05-15-2008, 21:20

That's what my clarification post was all about, because it can easily be misunderstood and made overcomplicated, while in fact it's exactly the way you described it in your post. :2thumbsup:

Each rank requires x landowning nobles in their feudal chain, meaning that somehow you have to have x nobles under you that have sworn to you, or to someone that has sworn to you.

I said it before and I say it again, these feudal chains will be nightmares!

AussieGiant

05-15-2008, 21:43

They will Ituralde so that is why it needs to be as simple as possible.

PK you're right. Someone is always swearing to someone. What we are doing is saying that any combination is fine. There's essentially no rule on how to count then all up...it's just a sum total.

The flavour in the chains will be the various ranks and what they bring to the chain...some flavours will be stronger than others while others will be more stable while others less.

They are all permutations of how the chain is constructed.

All we care is that the total numbers add up...

see, now I've just gone a repeated myself :egypt:

Privateerkev

05-15-2008, 21:46

Both of you are making complete sense.

It was just the term "indirect swearing" that made my eyes glaze over and my "fight or flight" response kicked in when I realized just how amazingly confusing such a term could be.

My desire to take an ax and simplify the rules by chopping them to little bits overtook me and led to the above post.

I feel better now...

:clown:

AussieGiant

05-15-2008, 21:51

God I'm glad to hear that.

Here I was wondering if you'd just driven a truck through some gaping hole in our logic.

Great news, so I'm off to bed. :beam:

Cecil XIX

05-15-2008, 22:43

I personally like having our FH and FL determined by the game. Call it "divine right" and consider the game to be "God".

It adds some randomness and spice. And rewards people who are on the family tree which some here have said is ignored.

Fair enough, though I think that extra amount of control would be very useful in ensuring the FL isn't a political pushover or a virtual absentee, and it sure would make for some excellent roleplaying as well. Also, I agree that only members of the Royal Family can be FL.

Privateerkev

05-15-2008, 23:25

Fair enough, though I think that extra amount of control would be very useful in ensuring the FL isn't a political pushover or a virtual absentee, and it sure would make for some excellent roleplaying as well. Also, I agree that only members of the Royal Family can be FL.

I don't mind them being a political pushover as long as it comes about IC.

As far as absenteeism, if it is really bad, we can just kill the avatar like we did to Siegfried.

deguerra

05-16-2008, 04:33

also AFAIK, even moving around the "faction" leader trait, does nothing in terms of game mechanics (ie the "King" addition to the name and the authority rating). I could be wrong though.

How was inheritance handled in the ERE? Salic Law? Male Primogeniture?

AussieGiant

05-16-2008, 08:34

How was inheritance handled in the ERE? Salic Law? Male Primogeniture?

I think it was determined by the old game called "Soggy Biscuit". Although you'd have to check the history books for that.

this might get edited :shame:

Ituralde

05-16-2008, 08:58

I think he got elected, or just usurped the throne. At least that's what happened several time just before the timeframe of M2TW.

So this would fit well, and of course having the Emperor be decided by voting and intrigue from all people involved would be the most acurate depiction of the ERE we could get. But unfortunately when we raised the issue back in KotR our resident modding guru FH made us aware that its not as simple and neat as just setting and removing the appropriate traits. I believe it causes a whole new set of problems to crop up and is just way too much hassle all in all.

So as in KotR we'll just have to live with the Emperors the game throws at us. Only this time we can kill em! :evilgrin:

AussieGiant

05-16-2008, 09:04

So as in KotR we'll just have to live with the Emperors the game throws at us. Only this time we can kill em! :evilgrin:

uhmm, I think we killed one last time...although the difference this time is that we don't have to ask first :whip:

OverKnight

05-16-2008, 12:49

The ERE never established primogeniture. While sons did inherit from fathers, often it was nephews, brothers, wives or daughters. The closer you were related to the previous Emperor, the more legitimate your claim to the throne. Father to son was usually the most stable transfer of power.

Due to this, we'll have to fanwank the computer's odd selections less. Of course one of the FL's powers could have been dangling the position of FL to various factions, but c'est la vie.

In fact Alexius Comnenus or Aleksios Komnenos, according to SS 4.1, usurped the Throne from Nicephorus III. He was a popular and competent General and after putting down several rebellions as a army commander, he finally marched on Constantinople to seize the throne himself at the request, and with the aid, of the Ducas family. Granted the Emperors around that time were incompetent and short lived, but his claim to legitimacy is shaky, particularly since the game starts one year before he actually became Basileus. Historically, Alexius passed the throne to his son John, Ioannis according to SS.

If we do have to remove an Emperor for inactivity, hopefully it will be done in game. A coup against an incompetent Basileus is not unprecedented. Of course, some houses might take the opportunity to settle scores against each other in the chaos. A leader is never removed lightly.

Privateerkev

05-16-2008, 14:55

Removing a FL in the game is now a lot easier. If you don't like how a FL is running things, declare war on him and kill him. We saw this in the test game. The FL has no vassals and only one army. Any House could kick the FL's butt unless the FL has allies. This encourages the FL to be active and diplomatic.

I rather see us use the IC mechanic than mod the game further for our own convenience.

Ituralde

05-17-2008, 21:32

With the start of the game drawing nearer I have had some thought about our first Diet session, RGBs and the start of the game.

KotR has proven that Diet Session are an important part of the game that help define characters and their own political convictions. Of course PMs and the inter-Diet debates are also used for this, but the strongest impression is made during the Diet Session. With the new system this becomes more important as the performance during the Diet Session will give vital clues to forming alliances and ultimatively swearing oath to another person.

With this in mind we have a currently planned situation where we would start recruiting RGBs after the first Diet Session which would remove a large part of the players from the initial scheming and planning phase. Of course they could just play along as nameless electors, but it could become hard transferring their initial playstyle to a general with completely opposite traits.

So what I would really like to see for the beginning of this game is that we start to play at least one turn and go ahead to recruiting as much RGBs as possible and then start distributing them to the players before the start of the first Diet Session. That way a larger group of players can immediatelly dive into the full gameplay, play out their characters according to their traits and become directly involved into the important scheming and allying of a Diet Session.

Also, considering the history of the ERE a game start in the year 1081 would fit much neater into the history of the Empire, considering this is the year Alexios Komenos ascended the throne. Maybe someone could make a little history overview to set the background for everyone involved and then we could go ahead to plan our intrigues in the year 1081, fully equipped with RGBs and ready to go!

Cecil XIX

05-17-2008, 22:55

I agree. Another turn for us to get more avatars would indeed benefit the gameplay experience.

flyd

05-18-2008, 00:16

Save Dietrich von Saxony

(This joke has been brought to you at the expense of Elite Ferret).

Ramses II CP

05-18-2008, 00:22

Hmm, if we're going this route, I have a suggestion as well. Rather than randomly draw our FL and have the game advanced until we're ready for a Diet session let's vote for which (Naturally out of the pool of players who would've, by experience, gotten a family member in the first place) player gets the FL position and call him the initial Chancellor as well, with his term lasting only until we have the number of RBGs we want to have that Diet session.

This gives the FL a little extra oomph to set the stage and develop a personality at the start, while also rewarding one of the senior members from the first game.

If we'd rather do it by raw seniority I'm fine with that as well; it makes no personal difference as I'm not one of those senior members and have deferred from a family member in any case.

:egypt:

Ferret

05-18-2008, 10:06

Save Dietrich von Saxony

(This joke has been brought to you at the expense of Elite Ferret).

don't know how I managed that one :embarassed:

Ituralde

05-18-2008, 10:54

@Elite Ferret:

The way we would have done it initially would have given us enough RBGs within the first few turns anyway, so most people will definetly have their characters long before all the rebels around us have been crushed.

@Ramses

I wouldn't mind something like that at all. Although my initial plan would only be recruiting of RBG nothing more. Then the debating over where to push expansion can begin.

I haven't followed the Army Composition discussion too closely, but I hope we have some way to check RBG only armies roaming the field. :inquisitive:

Ignoramus

05-19-2008, 08:48

Also, I'm worried about mass recruiting of RBGs. If we're not careful, we could kill the family tree and then the game will automatically end. Not the kind of exit we enjoy.

Ituralde

05-19-2008, 09:25

But isn't that exactly what the game is built on? I think the goal is to provide every player with a character via RBGs. We don't want to have people waiting months on their avatar like happened in KotR.

We already said pages ago that our family tree will most likely be a very confused affair, but I don't think you can actually die out, can you? Adoptions would just pop up, I reckon.

AussieGiant

05-19-2008, 09:33

This really is an issue regarding the family tree. I believe what Igno says is true.

By recruiting a boat load of RBG's we will at the very least hamstring the family tree dramatically and possibly shoot ourselves in the foot.

I'm not sure but do all RBG's appear in the family tree?

Zim

05-19-2008, 09:50

RGBs don't appear in the family tree unless they get a MotH, adoption, etc.

Not sure what happens if you just recruit a bunch of them right away. Does the game count them for purposes of deciding whether to grant births, etc, or only after they've joined the royal family?

AussieGiant

05-19-2008, 10:14

Therefore that is Igno's point.

If we recuit a number of RBG's then we will have only the starting nobles in the family tree.

If they die the game ends...creating a very artificial situation for us...hmmm very interesting.

Privateerkev

05-19-2008, 10:45

The pre-mature death of the family tree would be a problem. But I think we can stave it off.

1.) If we conquer a lot, and I'm sure we will, this won't be much of an issue.

2.) Even though natural births will be slowed down, we can adopt once we get more land.

3.) If we get princesses, we can marry people into the tree.

The RBG's would only be a problem if we never expand. But since we're a bloodthirsty group, and power in the game is tied to land, I see us expanding a lot. Especially in the beginning.

So I think we'll be fine but if someone with more knowledge of SS wants to speak up and let us know if anything is different with family tree growth, that would help.

Ignoramus

05-19-2008, 11:11

Normally I'd think that player expansion would fix the problem, but with civil wars enabled, people are going to prioritise strengthening their borders near other houses' lands, which will be internally. And especially with the ERE, as the struggle will be on Constantinople, which will most likely be dead bang in the centre of our empire.

And the AI will be left alone after the first burst of expansion, as most likely the chancellor will have favoured one or two houses, and the rest will be wanting to strike before the other houses get too strong.

Also, remember that FM's are inevitably going to be involved in civil wars, and if one of them dies, the player isn't going to wait around for 32 turns to get another FM, but will just have a RBG spawned for them. Thus, each time a FM dies, it will get replaced with a RBG avatar.

And the problem with relying on princesses is that only the Faction Leader's daughters are considered princesses by the game engine. If the FL didn't have any daughters then we'd be stuck.

pevergreen

05-19-2008, 11:25

Ferret

05-19-2008, 11:46

of course you could, no one forces you to take an avatar :clown:

edit: and I'm sure everyone would respect your reservation.

AussieGiant

05-19-2008, 13:18

Just a personal question, if i was General X on the family tree. I die, widowing a son of 2 or something. Could I abstain from a character until he came around? Kind of like drop back in the queue but reserve a guy? Would help me rp a bit more, create a family storyline etc

Weeelll...it would depend on supply and demand...while it is possible and probably likely that it would be fine, the timing of what is going on in the game can affect things.

In the end we've always found a solution for all parties involved.

Privateerkev

05-19-2008, 13:23

Since being on the family tree might be a sought after position, and the only way to get on there would be to wait for a family member to appear, I'm not sure if it would be fair to let people "lock in" family members for themselves.

Remember, family members are the only ones who can be FL's or FH's. Letting someone lock in another family member will give that person a good shot at one of those two positions.

Letting the starting FM's go to those with seniority makes sense. But maybe the ones that come up later should be decided by lottery. Make everyone an RBG by default but put people's names in a hat whenever a FM comes available.

FactionHeir

05-19-2008, 13:29

I think its fair to lay claim onto an underage FM (male or female) with the restriction that your own character is dead already. Once the claim is laid, you must wait until the character comes of age (or marries) to resume playing.

AussieGiant

05-19-2008, 13:41

Oh dear...do we need a rule. :inquisitive:

And without having this come out the wrong way...it would be really good to have a few female board members join in the game this time.

Do we have any idea whether this might happen?

TinCow

05-19-2008, 14:03

I'm not concerned about losing the game through death of all family tree members. While recruiting boatloads of RBGs will slow or completely stop births, the likelihood of us not expanding rapidly is essentially nil. At the same time, we have many good players and it is very common for us to get heroic victories in battle. With lots of provinces, few family members, and lots of RBGs winning heroic victories, we'll probably see a lot of MoH events, which should keep the tree healthy and the game alive. It's also an incentive for people to want to fight battles.

AussieGiant

05-19-2008, 14:15

Cecil XIX

05-19-2008, 18:29

Just a personal question, if i was General X on the family tree. I die, widowing a son of 2 or something. Could I abstain from a character until he came around? Kind of like drop back in the queue but reserve a guy? Would help me rp a bit more, create a family storyline etc

I would still like an answer to peverpink's question, as I've been thinking about doing just that. It seems pretty fair to me, given that you'd have to sacrifice your ability to fight battes for quite a while.

Ferret

05-19-2008, 18:43

I think reserving them when they are underage is fine as no one else can take them even if they want to, that is providing someone else hasn't already reserved them and how early on you reserve them (eg if you reserve your son when your current avatar is still young and it doesn't look like he'll die soon it may be unfair to block them off). Also it may be a little unfair if you try to reserve a character that is already of age while your original is still alive as many would doubtless rather have someone on the family tree rather than a RG. I think this needs to have an iron decision :yes:

TinCow

05-19-2008, 19:13

Like in KOTR, I have no problems with anyone reserving characters, so long as they only do so when they are dead. People can 'prepare' other avatars for themselves (e.g. FactionHeir and Ehrhart Ruppel, Northnovas and Johann Zirn) but those won't count as 'taken' characters until the original avatar is dead. If you're dead, you can reserve whoever you want. If you're alive, you can simply request that other people respect your wishes and not take the character, but other people will still be free to take it. I'd prefer not to write a rule about this, though.

AussieGiant

05-19-2008, 20:31

I think TC's summary is the best way forward.

You can't reserve until you die. If you're alive, then, you have to expect others to be able to take a family member if they wish.

Just like inheritance, the idea of monopolising a family is a little unfair.

TinCow

05-20-2008, 00:37

Regarding advancing the game so that a few RBGs can spawn before we actually start, if you guys want I can do that myself by just clicking forward the first few turns without fighting any battles or building anything. I would then bump the treasury back down to its starting levels, resulting in AI factions that are a couple turns ahead of us in 'development' but with more starting avatars. We could then assign those that are available and go into the first Senate session. However, keep in mind that we may have 30 people at the start of the game. It would take about 7 turns to spawn avatars for everyone. If we're not spawning avatars for everyone, why is it fair to spawn just a couple for a few people?

At the same time, I understand the problems of not having an avatar to roleplay at the first session. Another option would be to simply start the game on turn 1, but to skip the first Senate session. The FL player can play the first Chancellorship with his 'auto-Chancellorship' power, and we can just give him a non-legislated blank slate to start with. This will essentially result in one term of absolute monarchy during which the early development and RBG spawning occurs. The first term of a game always goes quickly anyway. After that, we'll go into a Senate session and all will proceed as normal.

FactionHeir

05-20-2008, 01:02

Well its certainly moddable that you can hire 9 RBGs per settlement per turn...

TinCow

05-20-2008, 02:27

Yeah, but wouldn't that make each settlement have 9 recruitment slots? We don't want to change that part of the game.

Ituralde

05-20-2008, 07:44

I started up a game of SS4.1 with the Byzantines to check that and you have 15 recruitment slots available throughout the Empire from the very beginning. You start out with 4 generals, including two family members. So we could have 19 characters available in 1081, which is a significant enough number to start with.

I just want to avoid that those 15 RBGs or even 30 RBGs recruited within the first two turns will kind of feel empty until the second Diet Session, because it's hard to establish an agenda and get your character into play while the game is steaming past. The preparation you get through Diet Sessions was always important to form alliances and such. With just four characters and a horde of Electors the first Diet Session could become a little boring.

AussieGiant

05-20-2008, 10:27

It's certainly an interesting situation.

Can't we define a few different solutions based on varying demands for RBG's and then see how many "actual" people we get and select the most appropriate?

FactionHeir

05-20-2008, 10:48

You can set recruitment to 9 for a few turns to get everyone the RBGs and then set it back to 3.

TinCow

05-20-2008, 12:05

FH, could you do that? Create two mods, one that sets recruitment to 9 for all settlements, and one that leaves settlement recruitment as normal. Both mods would change the RBG cost to 1, upkeep to 1, pool cap of ~3, and replenishment to max each turn? If you did this, we could just have everyone else install the normal version, I would install the 9 slot mod. I would then run the game for a single turn, spawn 9 RBGs at each settlement, then switch back to the normal mod and begin the game with a Senate session with everyone having avatars.

TinCow

05-20-2008, 14:10

I have updated the first post with the new draft of the rules. This reverts the rules back to the linear style, but changes the requirements wording to allow for Cecil XIX's system. I avoided using the 'direct' and 'indirect' swearing language, as that seemed to require further explanation for clarity. The language I used was:

Must have a total of at least X noblemen as vassals, vassals of vassals, etc.

That is simple and I think it explains it well enough. Let me know if it can be improved.

I also revised the Wills and Inheritance rule for that roleplaying exception we discussed. The relevant changes to the rule are bolded:

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.

I allowed for a single retinue in addition to the single province, as it is conceivable for people to have a roleplaying attachment to a particular bodyguard or an item like the Holy Grail.

I have also replaced econ21 with TinCow in Rule 2.2, since econ21 still isn't around.

Unless more discussion begins on other rule changes by Friday, I will consider the current draft listed in the first post as the final version. A new version will then be made to change the generic terms/titles to faction-specific ones.

Privateerkev

05-20-2008, 14:45

I have updated the first post with the new draft of the rules. This reverts the rules back to the linear style, but changes the requirements wording to allow for Cecil XIX's system. I avoided using the 'direct' and 'indirect' swearing language, as that seemed to require further explanation for clarity. The language I used was:

Thank you for removing any possibility of "indirect swearing". I shudder at the possibility of having to somehow define it. I'm glad it's gone and I can finally get some sleep again. :beam:

I also revised the Wills and Inheritance rule for that roleplaying exception we discussed. The relevant changes to the rule are bolded:

I allowed for a single retinue in addition to the single province, as it is conceivable for people to have a roleplaying attachment to a particular bodyguard or an item like the Holy Grail.

Since the higher ranks can force a transfer of retinue, I don't see any problem with this. It seems balanced. I was originally worried about people handing 6 land and all retinue to their next avatar but this seems to be a good compromise.

I have also replaced econ21 with TinCow in Rule 2.2, since econ21 still isn't around.

And with that, TC's coup for the throne room is complete.

*hears imperial march in the background*

:clown: <--- I'm sooooo just kidding...

AussieGiant

05-20-2008, 17:14

Looks good guy's.

I'll be travelling for two weeks starting this Sunday the 25th. I'll be online but in South America with little chance to do stuff IC...

...I'll be a delayed starter I'd say.

Which might be for the best given the RBG situation.

TinCow

05-20-2008, 17:32

AussieGiant

05-20-2008, 17:37

I may give the game one extra week for further advertising and recruitment, and also because my wife and I may go backpacking this weekend if the weather is good. I'd prefer to start it at a time that I'll be around.

Hi TC,

If you do that then I'm pretty sure I'll jump in straight away and will simply need a weeks worth of battle amnesty...but, are you going to introduce anything like last time in regards to temporary absentee's?

While I'll never be actually absent due to the online nature of my work it's all about grabbing the save and sticking your nose into the battles...thoughts "Oh Grand Master Extraordinaire"? :clown:

TinCow

05-20-2008, 18:05

are you going to introduce anything like last time in regards to temporary absentee's?

This was discussed in my original post w/ commentary:

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.

It essentially boils down to this:
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. If you expect to be involved in a battle, it may be a good idea to take another player with you in your army stack, so that he can fight the battle if you are unable to.

AussieGiant

05-20-2008, 19:53

Thanks TC.

Apologies for not being across that rule.

I'm fairly sure I can manage those requirements at the beginning while I get my travel finished for the year.

Cheers

Ituralde

05-21-2008, 14:55

Regarding the Rules in Rules and FAQ (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=103874).

Under section 2.7 under the vassal requirements you forgot to add that the Senator has to own land. Otherwise 6 Stratos would make an Exarch.

Privateerkev

05-21-2008, 14:59

deguerra

05-21-2008, 15:04

I do think a Senator specifically does not have to own land. Only Comes and above do. At least the way I remember the discussion, it was always the plan to leave the lowest title landless.

_Tristan_

05-21-2008, 15:07

I think Ituralde meant the Strator has to hold land... That is the lowest landowning level...

Senators are like Electors in KotR, simple voices...

TinCow

05-21-2008, 15:08

"Senator" is just a term I substituted for "nobleman." It's not an actual rank. All players in LotR are Senators, just as all players in KotR were Electors. I made the change because referring to everyone as "noblemen" seemed strange given our choice of faction.

NM, I understand what he means and he is correct.

This:

Must have a total of at least X Senators as vassals, vassals of vassals, etc.

Has to be changed to this:

Must have a total of at least X land-owning Senators as vassals, vassals of vassals, etc.

deguerra

05-21-2008, 15:12

Ah. The titles had me fooled as well. All good :2thumbsup:

Ituralde

05-21-2008, 15:24

What I meant is the following, sorry for not making myself clear.

[...]
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least 1 Senator as a vassal.
[...]

This passage should read the following:

Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least 1 landowning Senator as a vassal.

Because the intention is that only vassals who actually own land of their own, meaning anyone above the rank of Stratos, can push other Senators up the feudal chain.

Edit: TinCow was faster!

And while I'm going over the rules.

Basileus:
Requirements: Must be the in-game Faction Leader
Influence: Authority Stat
Powers:
[...]
(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 are units on board that are not controlled by someone in the Basileus’ feudal chain. Ships seized in such a way cannot be moved by the Megas Logothetes without the Basileus’ permission, unless they are outside a controlled port and do not have a Senator on board that is in the Basileus’ feudal chain.
[...]

Maybe the bolded part should be removed, just to avoid confusion, since a Basileus can't have any vassals.

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.

[...]

4.4 – 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.

I have some questions regarding 4.1 and 4.2.
What happens in the beginning of the game where we can't recruit any cavalry units yet? Will the Megas Logosthetes be forced to recruit mercenaries to supply those armies or can he just ignore it for the time being?

And with our planned mass recruitment of RBGs I'm a bit worried about 4.4. I don't want to see us roaming the map with RBG-only armies and I had hoped that 4.4 would prevent that.
Maybe RBG should count as heavy cavalry and we have to raise the total number? Or we could go with a hybrid system where you're allowed 3 RBGs plus one heavy cavalry or 2 RBGs and 2 heavy cavalry and so on?

Suggestions? Thoughts? :inquisitive:

TinCow

05-21-2008, 15:34

The problem Ituralde noted about Basileus Power 14 actually pervaded the entire power. I re-wrote the whole thing to make it more clear. New version:

(14) May seize control of any ships that start the turn in a port inside a province the Basileus controls. Ships may not be seized if there are units on board that are not controlled by the Basileus. Ships seized in such a way cannot be moved by the Megas Logothetes without the Basileus’ permission, unless they are outside a controlled port and the Basileus is not on board.

For 4.1 and 4.2, that's a temporary situation, so I'd prefer to let it be resolved IC. There are multiple ways around it. The Basileus and Caesar could both voluntarily waive that requirement, which is allowed by the rules. As noted, mercs could be hired. Alternatively, the Megas could simply refuse to recruit anything for anyone until the Basileus and Caesar agreed to the first solution.

RBG-only armies cannot assault cities and they are almost certain to result in multiple avatar deaths in battle. Anyone who feels like taking such a risk by letting their avatar be used as someone else's army is free to do so IMO.

AussieGiant

05-21-2008, 17:29

TC and everyone:

Questions:

3.3 – Edicts: Edicts require a simple majority of votes to pass and remain in effect until the next normal session of the Senate. 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 *.

1) In 3.3 when you are talking about "simple majority" you are talking about the voting influence of each senator being counted up and "first past the post" wins. "First past the post" is in fact the number of influence points past 50%. Correct?

2) In 3.4 the 2/3 majority is again the "First past the post" number of influence points past 66%. Correct?

TinCow

05-21-2008, 17:43

I'm not quite sure what "first past the post" means, but this is the same language we used in KOTR and WOTS. In previous games, the rule has been 50%+ and 66.6%+ of the votes cast, not the total votes available. If only one person votes, his vote alone would be enough to get the legislation through. We can't really make it 50%+ and 66.6%+ of the total votes available due to the tendency of many people to go inactive and miss some voting periods.

The clarification that votes are equivalent to Influence is located in Rule 3.5:

Each Senator’s voting power is equivalent to his total Influence, as defined by Rule 2.7.

For the record, the term Influence is used because of WOTS. In RTW, all family members have an Influence stat and we just used that to determine voting power. M2TW dropped the Influence stat, but the term stuck around for KOTR.

AussieGiant

05-21-2008, 17:56

It's hard to explain.

I understand it's only those votes cast as some people don't. I remember vividly PK addressing that issue in one of our Diet session.:beam:

I'm just checking that is the total influence being counted from all the voting senators.

I guess it's clear but I just wanted to make sure.

First past the post simply means that if there is 43 points of influence in the pot, then for an edict it needs 22 total influence points to pass and 29 total influence points for an Amendment. As soon as those number are reached then it's through.

Am I making sense?

TinCow

05-21-2008, 18:15

Yes, we could certainly declare an Edict or Amendment 'passed' the instant it secures the proper proportion of the total number of votes theoretically available. That said, there's not much point in closing a vote early, because time limit for them is pretty short anyway. Even with unanimous votes, we still give it the full 48 hours, especially now that the Baronet rank (can't remember IC name ATM) can lose his provinces if he doesn't vote in two consecutive polls. Also, it's possible for a vote to pass with fewer than 50/66% of the total votes available if not everyone votes (which is usually the case).

AussieGiant

05-21-2008, 18:28

Zim

05-21-2008, 21:32

"First past the post" usually refers to elections in which whoever gets the most votes reaps all of the benefits while the other candidates get nothing.

A good American example would be electoral votes in the Presidential election. In many states whichever party's candidate gets the most votes in the election receives all of the electoral votes. In at least a few, electoral votes are split between the candidates in proportion to the percentage of votes each got. The former would be an example of a FPTP election (also known in Political Science nerd circles as a "plurality" system because whoever gets the most votes, even if it is under 50% of the total cast, wins), as opposed to the latter proportional system. Of course, the U.S. Presidential election as a whole is a FPTP election, as there is no runner up prize (not any more at least, although the 2nd place candidate used to get to be VP a long time ago :clown: ).

I have never heard the term applied to laws, and I'm not quite sure what AG means. If a law gets a majority of votes, other laws behind them don't automatically lose, which is the point of FPTP as both the political term and horse racing term from which it is derived. :sweatdrop:

/end political nerd-speak.

I'm not quite sure what "first past the post" means, but this is the same language we used in KOTR and WOTS. In previous games, the rule has been 50%+ and 66.6%+ of the votes cast, not the total votes available. If only one person votes, his vote alone would be enough to get the legislation through. We can't really make it 50%+ and 66.6%+ of the total votes available due to the tendency of many people to go inactive and miss some voting periods.

The clarification that votes are equivalent to Influence is located in Rule 3.5:

For the record, the term Influence is used because of WOTS. In RTW, all family members have an Influence stat and we just used that to determine voting power. M2TW dropped the Influence stat, but the term stuck around for KOTR.