View Full Version : KotR KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion
Ituralde
05-22-2008, 13:23
Another thing I noticed from the advanced start we're doing is that all the Title ancilliaries are being spawned after round one. :2thumbsup:
Which raises a few questions though. How are we going to handle those titles? They only give little OOC bonuses so I'm more interested in the IC handling. We can transfer them just like normal retinues, but we can't control their initial allocation. They seem to be given to any character that starts their turn in the corresponding settlement. So do we plan to tie them to the actual land ownership? It would make the most sense, but can become clunky when you conquer a town and your lord, who would now own this land is at the other end of the map.
Thoughts? Suggestions?
And regarding my previous comments about 4.1/2 it's actually a non-issue since Corinth Castle can in fact recruit cavalry units from the get-go.
_Tristan_
05-22-2008, 13:27
About the retinue, one simple solution would be to access the console and delete the retinue from the avatar giving or forced to give it away and add it at the other end to the beneficiary with the same process...
[EDIT] The commands being give ancillary "ancillary" or remove ancillary "ancillary", IIRC
Another thing I noticed from the advanced start we're doing is that all the Title ancilliaries are being spawned after round one. :2thumbsup:
Which raises a few questions though. How are we going to handle those titles? They only give little OOC bonuses so I'm more interested in the IC handling. We can transfer them just like normal retinues, but we can't control their initial allocation. They seem to be given to any character that starts their turn in the corresponding settlement. So do we plan to tie them to the actual land ownership? It would make the most sense, but can become clunky when you conquer a town and your lord, who would now own this land is at the other end of the map.
Thoughts? Suggestions?
I noticed this too, and was pleased with it. First, the Emperor spawns several unique 'position' titles on himself. This is perfect, since he can then keep them for himself, or hand them out to other noblemen as rewards, which is exactly how they are intended to be used.
Second, I will manually configure the starting settlement titles so that they are placed on the right avatars. However, this seems like an area that we might want to make a rule about, to ensure that it is handled properly. As I see it, the IC owner of a province should be the only person who is able to hold the in-game retinue title to that province. It's a nice bonus, and allowing non-IC owners to use those titles may get confusing. We could simply write an addendum to the Retinue rule while requires people to instantly transfer any titles they possess to the IC owner of the province if they do not own it themselves. If the recipient has a full retinue, they can either delete one of their own retinue to make room for it, or choose to have the title itself deleted.
Thoughts?
Ituralde
05-22-2008, 13:54
I didn't mention the 'special titles' the Faction Leader gets, because they are covered by our existing retinue rules. It also gives more weight to the forced retinue transition of higher ranks.
My vassal is on the Privy Council? No way, I am!
We should make a rule though about the region specific titles and tie them in with actual land ownership. They would have to be exempt from the retinue transfer rule too. Otherwise it would become a title transfer rule. :beam:
That's why I keep bringing these things up. Right now it's only a added line here or there, once we've started it's a full-blown Charter Amendment which needes a 2/3 majority.
I fully agree with you on both the title rule and the continued discussion. I'm specifically keeping this going at a slower pace to ensure that we take a good hard look at everything before the game finally starts. We could start the entire thing and open the first Senate Session tonight if we really wanted to, but one more week of examining the rules in detail will be of far more benefit to us IMO. I very much encourage everyone to look at everything and comment/criticize any problems, inconsistencies, or loopholes they see. The rules will never be perfect, but the better they are from the start, the less 'rules lawyering' we'll have to do later on. I'll draw up some language for the rule edit on retinue titles in a moment.
I made the rule as an addition to 2.3, since it fits nicely there. The new language is bolded:
2.3 – Retinue: At any time, a Senator may give any retinue item/member they possess to another Senator or remove it from their avatar without giving it to anyone else. If a retinue item/member cannot be transferred or removed due to game coding or distance between avatars, console commands may be used to allow the transfer or removal. If, at any time, a Senator possess a retinue 'title' to a province they do not own, that Senator will be required to immediately transfer that retinue 'title' to the Senator who controls that province. If the Senator who controls the province already has a full retinue, he may either transfer or remove one of his own retinue to make room for the 'title' or have the 'title' deleted.
That look good to everyone?
_Tristan_
05-22-2008, 14:12
Fine...
Privateerkev
05-22-2008, 14:26
I didn't mention the 'special titles' the Faction Leader gets, because they are covered by our existing retinue rules. It also gives more weight to the forced retinue transition of higher ranks.
My vassal is on the Privy Council? No way, I am!
So, a FL can bestow certain titles on people but a high-ranking noble can then force the transfer of that title to someone else?
At first I balked at this because it seems to degrade the FL's power. But, on second thought, this might be a good idea. It will show the FL's power as degrading if a high-ranking noble can move these titles around.
Plus it will lead to some interesting IC negotiations I think. :yes:
_Tristan_
05-22-2008, 14:33
I can't remember the right saying about the weight of a crown, but I'm beginning to feel like I wuld never pick it up if it were to fall at my feet...
FL, pfah !!!
So, a FL can bestow certain titles on people but a high-ranking noble can then force the transfer of that title to someone else?
At first I balked at this because it seems to degrade the FL's power. But, on second thought, this might be a good idea. It will show the FL's power as degrading if a high-ranking noble can move these titles around.
Plus it will lead to some interesting IC negotiations I think. :yes:
Keep in mind that poaching a nice title from one of your vassals will probably piss them off. Actions like that have their own innate checks and balances.
Privateerkev
05-22-2008, 15:17
Keep in mind that poaching a nice title from one of your vassals will probably piss them off. Actions like that have their own innate checks and balances.
That's very true. That's why my "balking" was only temporary. :yes:
Kill me off somebody please, this is more than I can take :drama2:
Cecil XIX
05-22-2008, 18:29
Keep in mind that poaching a nice title from one of your vassals will probably piss them off. Actions like that have their own innate checks and balances.
Not only that, but the Basileus could just remove the title if that happened, couldn't he? I mean it's not like someone could be on his special council without his permission.
Not only that, but the Basileus could just remove the title if that happened, couldn't he? I mean it's not like someone could be on his special council without his permission.
There are no provisions in the rules to allow for the Basileus' absolute control over those titles. However, he does have a double-strength 'force retinue transfer' power that can be used on any player in the game (Basileus' Power #7). He could use that to grab the title back from the thief.
Ituralde
05-22-2008, 18:34
Not only that, but the Basileus could just remove the title if that happened, couldn't he? I mean it's not like someone could be on his special council without his permission.
Those are the loopholes we're looking for. It depends how much power you intent to give the Basileus over the titles. I believe he already has a power where he can force-transfer a retinue member? Is this enough or should he be given additional power over these special 'titles'? Or should they be non-removable after all?
edit: nices simultaneous posting there. :2thumbsup:
Is this enough or should he be given additional power over these special 'titles'? Or should they be non-removable after all?
I'm happy with them the way they are. The Basileus' power makes it impossible for someone to permanently steal such a title. At worst, the Basileus would have to wait 10 turns to correct the error, but that's an extreme case and it would likely be far shorter, if not an instantaneous correction. This alone will make 'theft' of the titles rare simply because it would damage relationships with the vassal and the Basileus, and it wouldn't accomplish much in the long-run.
AussieGiant
05-22-2008, 19:52
Good re-write TC. It looks nice and tidy to me.
Good 'spot' as well Ituralde. I like having your keen mind around again after so long.
I like the delayed start idea too. This is quality stuff being able to "see" how things are looking before actually jumping in.
Cecil XIX
05-27-2008, 01:57
It just ocurred to me that since Tincow will be setting this up as a hotseat, it should be possible to change the name of our faction. I suggest that the Faction Leader be empowered to do this at any time.
It just ocurred to me that since Tincow will be setting this up as a hotseat, it should be possible to change the name of our faction. I suggest that the Faction Leader be empowered to do this at any time.
Faction names can be changed in Hotseat games? How is that done?
_Tristan_
05-27-2008, 12:55
I believe they can even be changed in the SP campaign, simply by double-clicking on the faction name in the Overview Scroll... They can be changed in the Hotseat for sure, though...
Ask EF... He is very proud of his "Ferret" Sultanate in the BC hotseat
It works the same as renaming a settlement...
deguerra
05-27-2008, 13:14
I don't think its possible in SP, but I'm not sure. But it is definitely doable in hotseat games. I've expanded on both my Danes and Oman already :laugh4:
Hmmm. That's an interesting ability. We could give everyone the ability to change the name of any settlement they own, and give the Basileus the ability to change the name of the faction. Minor stuff like this can be great for IC flavor.
Thoughts?
Ignoramus
05-27-2008, 13:50
An interesting idea. It might provide an excuse for some nobles to revolt if the think that the Basileos is casting aside the old traditions of the Empire.
Ah Iggy, always thinking of revolt aren't you :clown:
Name changing is as simple as clicking on the name and typing a new one, the name in the faction overview scroll that is, and no it cannot be done in SP as there is no name in the overview scroll.
Well, we're using a hotseat game, so that's not an issue.
Yeah I was just clearing it up for Tristan, changing settlement names is going to be very fun though, I'm sure I can bribe OK with some cookies so that the faction is renamed the 'Ferret Empire' and the capital is 'Ferret City'. Which is of course the most historically accurate names, as you all know the ferrets had a lot of influence of the history of you humans.
Here is my post in the Username thread if you seek more information.
Your parents named you Elite Ferret!?!
well not exactly, it all started back in the year 1066, when William was busy invading England. My ancestors were a group of warrior ferrets under the command of Edward the Confessor, before he passed away. They decided to side with the Normans as they had more 'ferret friendly' policies than the Saxons or Danes.
Then after the war was won my ancestors were rewarded by having a prosperous town in Bedfordshire, South East England, named after their race and being given the title 'of ferrets'. Over the years that title simply merged into a surname such as Smith or Wright, and newborn ferrets were given Christian names as well. My parents were the ones who relinquished control of Ferret Town (as featured in the BC hotseat game - ask phonics or Ramses) in favour of settling down to a quiet life in a country manor. They named me 'Elite' in memory of the brave elite ferrets who performed a crucial role in conquering England from the weasels Saxons.
And that is where my name originates from
More info here:http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Ferrets
edit:or maybe I'm insane...
The OOC thread question about province assignments reminded me of something that had been briefly discussed and forgotten about. I think we need to link the Basileus and the Capital together in some formal manner. My thoughts:
1) The Capital cannot be shifted to a different settlement unless it is owned by the Basileus.
2) The Basileus can move the Capital at will.
3) The Basileus cannot give away the current Capital settlement in his Will. The Capital settlement must be inherited by the Caesar.
Thoughts?
Privateerkev
05-27-2008, 16:24
The OOC thread question about province assignments reminded me of something that had been briefly discussed and forgotten about. I think we need to link the Basileus and the Capital together in some formal manner. My thoughts:
1) The Capital cannot be shifted to a different settlement unless it is owned by the Basileus.
2) The Basileus can move the Capital at will.
3) The Basileus cannot give away the current Capital settlement in his Will. The Capital settlement must be inherited by the Caesar.
Thoughts?
What if the Basileus moves the capital, then gives away the old province to someone? That pretty much prevents the Caesar from inheriting the old one.
So? The Caesar will inherit the new Capital. If he really dislikes the new Capital, he needs to figure out a way to get the old Capital back under his control so that he can move it back.
Privateerkev
05-27-2008, 16:30
So? The Caesar will inherit the new Capital. If he really dislikes the new Capital, he needs to figure out a way to get the old Capital back under his control so that he can move it back.
But does that bypass the very thing your trying to do? I assume we're talking about Constantinople. It is the plum province and will probably be sought after.
I just wanted to know if it was a loophole you had not thought of or was something you rather see resolved IC. It is obviously the latter.
(you did ask for our thoughts)
I expect Constantinople to remain the capital for a long, long time, if not permanently, but the idea wasn't designed with that settlement in mind. The idea is just another thing to increase IC roleplaying options and possibilities for plotlines. In KOTR it was very natural to move to capital to Rome after it was conquered, and Frankfurt was quickly forgotten about by the subsequent Emperors. I could imagine similar IC situations in which movement of the capital would occur.
The basic 'movement' power was simply to avoid any OOC debate over whether such a move was legal. The 'inheritence' power was designed to maintain Imperial power over the capital, wherever it might be. The limitation on movement of the Capital to only Basileus-owned provinces was to prevent exploitation of the rule and to require some fun politicing if the Basileus doesn't have control of a province that he wants to move the Capital to. For instance, Rome is once again a completely viable target for the Capital, if some future Basileus wants to try and recreate the Roman Empire (again). If some random House conquers Rome, some fun IC politics result where the Basileus tries to get that province from its owner. Perhaps the Basileus could even be the person who encourages the conquest in the first place. Perhaps he offers a province and the marriage of a Princess to the man who manages to gift it to him, resulting in a mass scramble by several Houses to conquer the place, perhaps even mini Civil Wars to stop competitors from reaching there first. All good fun!
Ituralde
05-27-2008, 17:19
This is interesting news, I think. Up to now I didn't even consider that the Basileus might have an actual Will. I thought all the settlements he owns would go to the Cesar anyway. Apparently this isn't the case.
I agree with Privateerkev that the current wording points 3) can easily be circumvented, meaning if the Basileus really wants to deprive the Cesar of owning Constantinople he can do so anyways. So I'm really not sure what to think of this. I agree that the Basileus should be able to change the capital to another settlement he owns.
The whole inheritance stuff has me confuse though. :inquisitive:
What's confusing? As it stands at the moment, the Basileus has the same inheritance ability as anyone else. I wanted him to keep it because it seemed realistic to allow a Basileus to reward a loyal follower by naming him heir to a particular province or retinue. The suggested rule change would simply prevent the Basileus from giving away the current capital, if he owned it at the time of his death. While there are ways to circumvent this rule, they all require the reigning Basileus to disadvantage himself in order to spite the Caesar. I see no problems with that.
Ituralde
05-27-2008, 18:02
But then the Basileus wouldn't really disadvantage himself. For example if the Basileus owned Constantinople and Rhodos and wanted to spite the Cesar while at the same time rewarding a loyal follower. He could then just move the Capital to Rhodos during his lifetime and give away Constantinople when he dies.
That way he would retain control over Constantinople during his lifetime and keep the Cesar from having that province. All of this his highly theoretical though, since all benefits from a Capital come from IC issues, none of them give a OOC advantage as such. It might even be more profitable in the long run to have a Castle than having a City, so I'm really not sure about this.
The rule addition is needed, since it obviously fixes a very important point, that makes sure that the Cesar will always get at least one province, this province being the capital (for whatever that's worth) after all.
I'm not concerned about the Caesar not having any provinces. The Caesar keeps all of his provinces when he becomes Basileus. So, even without this rule the only way that the Caesar could possibly become Basileus and yet have no provinces at all would be if he was a lowly Strator and the Basileus made a Will and intentionally did not name the Caesar as heir to a single province. This would be very unlikely to happen and even if it did it would mean the Caesar was a pretty unpopular and powerless guy, so leaving him with no control over any provinces even when he is elevated to Basileus would make sense IC.
You're right about the movement of the Capital not being a major disadvantage, though. If we want, we could make ownership of the Capital a bit more important in a very simple manner: we give a free Prioritization to the Capital settlement itself, regardless of who owns it. Since this would almost always be the Basileus, we could balance it out by reducing the Basileus' Prioritization power to only 1 use per term. So, the result would be one prioritization for his Capital, and one for anywhere else (including a second use in the Capital). Moving the Capital to a less important city would prevent him from using the prioritization in a more useful manner and giving the Capital city away altogether would completely deprive him of a prioritization.
Kagemusha
05-27-2008, 18:21
Of course if the Caesar would be disgruntled by his fathers decision of moving the capital, he could always ally with enemies of his father, rebel and kill off the Basileus, before any will would take place, or die trying.:evil: I dont see this rule hampering the game.
EDIT:
By the way. Im sorry to bring this up during this late time, but earlier when it was talked about, what was the reasoning behind banning Basileus having direct vassals? If there is not anyone who can protect him, other then his own Imperial army, this could turn into Basileus killing fest, also that hampers a lot any kind of centralization of power trends.
Ignoramus
05-28-2008, 03:51
Ah Iggy, always thinking of revolt aren't you :clown:
Don't worry, unless OK snub's Ionnis, Ionnis will be loyal, as in history.
By the way. Im sorry to bring this up during this late time, but earlier when it was talked about, what was the reasoning behind banning Basileus having direct vassals? If there is not anyone who can protect him, other then his own Imperial army, this could turn into Basileus killing fest, also that hampers a lot any kind of centralization of power trends.
Simply because it's pointless. Nothing can be gained by swearing to a Basileus, since the Basileus cannot be advanced in rank and his powers generally apply to every Senator anyway. There's nothing to gain from swearing to a Basileus. At the same time, the Basileus is supposed to be the head of the entire faction. While Civil Wars are possible, they will almost certainly be the exception, not the rule. Removing the Basileus from any House gives him some nominal impartiality. It's the same thing we did in KOTR. There's nothing stopping a Basileus from favoring one House over another, but it will have to be done with informal arrangements.
Ok, since we've had few comments on my proposed RP-boosting rule changes, I'm going to simply add them in. If anyone has any protests, speak now or forever hold your peace.
Change #1: The following power will be altered to read as follows for all ranks that posses it (bolding is the added portion):
Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control. Can destroy any building in their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control. Can rename any settlement under their control at any time.
Change #2: Two new Powers given to Basileus:
1)
Can rename the Byzantine Empire at any time.
2)
Can move the Capital at any time, as long as the new Capital is controlled by the Basileus.
The above comments convinced me that the Inheritance provision of Change #3 wouldn't accomplish much and would likely add confusion to the game. Therefore I am not including it.
Ignoramus
05-28-2008, 13:26
Can I just say that perhaps there should be some OOC understanding not to rename settlements or the faction after silly things? We don't want Athens, for example, to be renamed by me to Ignoramus's Little City or something like that. That would kill the roleplaying and turn the game into chaos.
I completely agree, but we'll leave that as an unwritten rule. I doubt we'll see anyone do that, though. We've got a good group of players.
Ramses II CP
05-28-2008, 13:41
Oh yes, there's no way we'd get any absurd names from this bunch. :cough: Ferret City :cough:
The way I would phrase it is thusly: City and Faction names should be drawn directly from in the game or other plausible sources. If you start a ferret worshipping cult in the game and rebel to form the Ferret Empire then you can rename you cities something dumb, but otherwise refrain, eh? :laugh4:
:egypt:
Don't worry I'll try to control myself, it's just in a ferret's nature to try and conquer the world and name it after his race :yes:
pevergreen
05-29-2008, 03:02
I hope that the players would just rename it to something related to their house, I know I would.
Its so close to starting ~:cheers:
I think we're on track for a weekend start. To save time I will probably allow oaths to be sworn (but not broken) during the first Senate Session. There are only 5 characters with provinces who are capable of swearing anyway, so swearing is unlikely to make much of a difference for vote counting. Otherwise, we'd have to wait a good 48 to 72 hours to give any starting Houses a chance to form properly.
Ituralde
05-29-2008, 09:08
I'm a bit confused, but surely a Strator can also swear an Oath of Fealty if he so wishes. Of course the impact won't be as noticeable as with a Comes swearing to another but it is possible.
I think what he meant is there are only 5 characters that could gain a change in ifluence if they swear to each other, Strators swearing wont make a difference for anyone.
EF has it spot on. One of the main reasons the rules prevent people from swearing during Senate sessions is that it will change players' influences and powers. Since almost everyone in this session will be a Strator, that won't happen. They can (and probably will) swear, but it's not going to change anything. The only possible rank changes that can result from swearing at this point are swearing between the five landed nobles. So, in the interests of efficiency, I may allow swearing for the first 24 to 48 hours of the Senate session, if I think it's needed. It all depends on when avatar selection finishes.
Just noticed something from the Retinue section in rules:
If the Senator who controls the province already has a full retinue, he may either transfer or remove one of his own retinue to make room for the 'title' or have the 'title' deleted.
Having the title deleted wont work due to the sripting of the titles. If no one has it then the title will be given to the govenor of the relevant settlement. This could be worked around by leaving the settlement with no govenor but that may not be practical.
Not a very important thing but I just want to make sure I haven't missed something.
If such a situation occurs, the rules would require us to simply delete the title from the other guy every turn. I would probably resolve this by smacking the player who has the real Lord with a stick until they agreed to take the title instead of deleting it. :whip:
Northnovas
05-30-2008, 15:23
As for the titles it would be a good reference if the member who owns the province has the title associate to the avatar to show possession. Disregarding the title "Duke" before it.
The only thing about transferring titles is the avatars have to be together to switch or pass on titles. Though I guess if it really need to be done the move counsel command could be used. Not an important issue but just so everyone knows how the game works for titles.
Titles can (and usually should) be moved around using the console. Just add it to the person who should have it and remove it from the person who shouldn't. I'll take care of that if the Megas player has difficulty with it.
_Tristan_
05-30-2008, 15:37
Simplest way to do it would be to use the console command remove ancillary to remove the title from the first avatar and the give ancillary command on the avatar will get the title.
This way with the title still attributed to an avatar there would be no need to erase it every single turn...
EDIT : TC beat me to it...
Ituralde
06-01-2008, 19:16
I am pretty late, but I just thought of something that always campe up in my mind but I didn't get around to mentioning it.
Is there a rule in place that describes the special place RGBs have within our game? Especially in regards to their recruitment, that it's only allowed when one is needed by a player. And that there are no such things as RGBs that are not owned by a player.
Maybe I missed some part, but right now the Megas Logosthets could just make huge armies of RGBs, seeing as they're so cheap, and would not even be breaking a rule as such.
No, that's not in the rules. I think we've got a dependable enough group of people to live it as an unwritten rule, though. If not, we can deal with it when the problem arises.
Ituralde
06-01-2008, 19:47
Just making sure...
I've just been wondering about impeachment and noticed that only Duxs and Exarches can call emergency sessions, does this mean it is impossible to impeach the Chancellor if no one is currently at these ranks?
Privateerkev
06-01-2008, 19:52
I've just been wondering about impeachment and noticed that only Duxs and Exarches can call emergency sessions, does this mean it is impossible to impeach the Chancellor if no one is currently at these ranks?
6 land-owning nobles can get together and agree to make one of them Duke. That person can then call a session and ask for impeachment.
Of course, we only have 5 land-owning nobles that are not the Emperor at the moment...
So, until we get one more land-owning noble, it seems absolutely impossible to impeach the Megas.
*edit*
Of course the Besileus can still do it as TC just said. But since the Besileus IS the Megas, it seems unlikely he would impeach himself. ^_^
The Basileus can always call Emergency Sessions (Power #3), so there is always one player who can do it.
Ah right forgot to look there, that's okay then :yes:
OverKnight
06-03-2008, 05:19
Also if the Basileus has 5 or more authority, he can banish someone. The leader of the banished senator's feudal chain then has the option of calling an emergency session.
Of course Aleksios only has 2 authority so that convoluted option for an Emergency Session being called is off the board.
Askthepizzaguy
06-09-2008, 12:10
If the House of Tepaki gains a settlement, impeachment will be possible!
:wink:
Privateerkev
06-09-2008, 13:38
yeah, if you can somehow convince every land-owner to swear an oath to a specific person that in turn pushes one of them up to the position of Duke. ~;p
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.