View Full Version : KotF Successor game rules, draft one.
Game setting rules and ranks done so far, with shameless use of the LOTR ruleset as a base (with TinCow's permission). My goal has been to add some of the strong base missed from KOTR to the greater fluidity and far greater understandability of LOTR"s rules (which I know well, having tried to slog through KOTR's rules for comparison...:sweatdrop:).
Major changes vis a vis LOTR: The faction leader has more power, mainly with the addition of being able to allocate new lands. Houses are a little more rigid but provisions for starting new ones are still included. Somewhat fewer ranks although this can be changed quite easily.
I'll be trying to finish the rules draft within the next day or so, but wanted to open up what I had to discussion. This is all in the draft stages, so changes can still easily be made if there are any problems. :clown:
1. General
(a). - Game Settings:
M2TW Kingdoms with the 1.5 patch
Lands to Conquer Gold Mod
Very Hard Campaign, Very Hard Battles.
Large Unit Size
Battle Timer On
Show CPU Moves
Manage All Settlements
Only two land units (including a general) may travel on each ship.
(b). - Avatars: Each player will roleplay a Noble of the mighty nation of France. On joining the game, each player will choose an avatar to represent this Nobles. Avatars can be ‘family members’ or recruitable generals. Players are reminded that due to limitations imposed by the M2TW engine, only avatars on the family tree will be able to marry, have children, and have a chance of becoming Prince and King. Recruitable generals can be spawned at any time, but family member creation is beyond our control. Players may only use agents as avatars with permission from the GM, since agents cannot fight battles and have a different set of stats from family members and recruitable generals. If a Man of the Hour adoption is offered to an avatar, the choice of whether to accept it is entirely up to the avatar who is the adopter.
If a player character is killed, there is a 5 turn wait to have an rgb spawned for him. He may immediately take any available fms, however.
(c). - 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.
(d) - 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 at least 24 hours to download the save, and make their personal moves. Players can move their avatars, move any unit or fleet their avatar owns, and fight any battles against the AI that they are capable of fighting with their avatar’s army. Player may also move any unit, fleet, or avatar they have been given specific permission to move by the respective owner, as long as that permission is posted in a public thread. The 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. Players may not move avatars or armies into the territory of a neutral or allied faction without the permission of an edict. Nor may they attack the settlements or armies of neutral or allied factions without a declaration of war resulting from an edict.
(e) - Events: Whenever they desire, but no more often than once every 10 turns, Zim, TheFlax, or anyone they choose may create an in-game Event. Events are not limited in scope, subject matter, or method of implementation. All game rules can be violated to implement an Event. The players can prevent the implementation of any single Event through a simple majority of unweighted votes.
(f) - Game Master: Zim will serve as Game Master and is responsible for management of the game and enforcement of the Game Rules. Zim can delegate any of his powers to another person whenever he chooses. Zim has the ability to create stacks for the AI.
2. Houses
(a). - Starting Houses: There are four starting Houses, named The Duchy of Bourgogne, The Duchy of Aquitaine, The Duchy of Lorraine and The Duchy of Bretagne. These starting Houses are to be initially led by Raymond de Provence, Prince Louis, Hugues de Champagne and Alain de Rohan, respectively. The leaders of these starting Houses are exempt from any obligations to join the Houses of their parents, and are the first Dukes of their respective Houses.
All other family members start in the House of their parents and are considered to have sworn an oath of fealty to their "parent", regardless of whether they are born into the family, are adopted, or marry into it. They are able to break their familial oath and attempt to join another House, start a new one, or remain independent. However, this brings with it the chance of Civil War as laid out in rule 6 (b).
(b). - RGBs: Recruitable generals start off in the game as independent Knights, excepting the first two as per rule 2 (a). From this position they are free to remain independent or join any of the existing Houses. Should they join an existing House and own land, they will be counted as landed vassals for the purpose of determining ranks within their House, but are unable to inherit leadership of the House. Should a Knight receive an adoption or marriage offer, they will be required to join the House of their new parents, if said parents have one. If they are already members of another House this will still carry the risk of Civil War as per Rule 6 (b).
(c) - New Houses: Any independent land owning Noble may attempt to start a new House by proposing a Codex Amendment at the Council of Nobles. Should their Codex Amendment pass, they automatically attain the rank of Duke of their new House. They may name it whatever they please. Recruitable generals who become Dukes in this manner are exempt from any requirement to join a parent's House if they are adopted or become an FM through marriage.
3. - Feudal Hierarchy
(a). - Rank Gain and Loss: All Nobles enter the game at the rank of Knight. Nobles will be promoted to a higher rank as soon as they meet the requirements for that rank. If, at any point, a Noble ceases to meet the requirements of their existing rank, they will be demoted to the highest rank whose requirements they meet.
(b). - Gaining and Losing Provinces: All conquered provinces must be ratified by an edict, which can be passed at the session before the conquest or be applied retroactively at the first session after. If a province is not ratified in this manner by the end of the very next session after it was made, it must be given away or abandoned. While a province is not ratified taxes must be set to the highest level possible and no recruitment can be made in that settlement. Any province conquered and ratified becomes part of the King's Demesne. At the time of conquest, the conquering noble can refuse to hand the province over to the King, but this puts him in a state of Civil War with the King. The King can be prevented from giving any province in the Demesne to another Noble by a two-thirds majority vote of the Council.
The King's choice of who to give the province can be blocked by a 2/3ds majority of the Council (excluding the King himself, except as a tiebreaker). For this to happen a Duke must declare an emergency session to have the matter voted on.
At the start of the game, Zim will determine which Nobles receive control of the starting provinces, to a maximum of one province per Noble. Nobles lose control of one of their provinces if they voluntarily give it to another Nobles, if it is conquered by an AI faction, if it is occupied by the army of a Noble who has made a Declaration of War against them, or if they break an oath of fealty (however, if a civil war results they can regain the province either in the war or through a treaty).
(c). - Retinue: At any time, a Noble may give any retinue item/member they possess to another Noble 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.
(d) - Wills & Inheritance: Upon the death of a noble his land goes to the highest member of his feudal chain. If he is independent the land goes to the King. All land in the King's Demesne is passed to the new King. Duke's can pass on their rank to a House member of their choosing, by naming a successor in a valid will. Wills must be PMed to Zim before the Avatar’s death to be considered valid. If a Duke dies without naming a successor, the King picks the successor from among the highest ranked Nobles in their House.
(e) - Oaths of Fealty: Any Independent Noble may swear an oath of fealty to any Noble whenever he wishes. In order to become a vassal of another Noble, a Noble must take an Oath of Fealty by specifically swearing allegiance to that player in a public thread. The prospective Lord has the right to refuse to accept the Oath. An Oath of Fealty can be broken if either the Lord or the Vassal specifically revokes it in a public thread. 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. A Noble can only have one Lord at a time, but he may have an unlimited number of Vassals. Oaths of Fealty cannot be sworn or broken while the Council is in session.
(f) - Feudal Ranks: In the event of a conflict, Rule 3 (f) takes priority over all other rules. The feudal ranks and positions are as follows:
Knight:
Requirements: None
Influence: 1
Powers:
(1) Can propose one Edict per Council Session.
Penalties:
(1) Cannot run for Chancellor.
Baron:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province.
Influence: 1
Powers:
(1) Can propose one Edict per Council Session.
(2) 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.
(3) If this rank is held during a Normal Council Session, can Prioritize a total of 1 units per full 10 turn Chancellor term.
Penalties:
(1) Loses control of all provinces if they fail to vote in two consecutive Normal Council Sessions. All provinces lost in this way are given to the Baron's Duke. If the Baron is not in a House, the provinces are given to the King.
Count:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one landowning vassal. Must be a member of a House.
Influence: 1
Powers:
(1) Can propose one Edict per Council Session.
(2) 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.
(3) If this rank is held during a Normal Council Session, can Prioritize a total of 2 units per full 10 turn Chancellor term.
Penalties:
(1) Loses control of all provinces if they fail to vote in two consecutive Normal Council Sessions. All provinces lost in this way are given to the Count's Duke.
Duke:
Requirements: Must be one of the beginning Dukes as per Rule 2 (a), have become Duke as per the will of a deceased Duke as per Rule 3 (d), have been given the title by a resigning duke, have attained the title of Duke by Rule 2 (c) or gained the title as part of a peace agreement at the end of a Civil War.
Influence: 1 + 1 for every Count in his House.
Powers:
(1) Can propose three Edicts or Amendments per Council Session.
(2) 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.
(3) Can call Emergency Council Sessions if another Duke seconds the call.
(4) May at any time rename their House.
(5) Cannot be banned from a Council Session.
(6) If this rank is held during a Normal Council Session, can Prioritize a total of 3 units per full 10 turn Chancellor term.
(7) Can voluntarily resign and pass on their title to any land owning Noble of their choosing.
Penalties:
(1) Cannot hold any other rank except those of Chancellor and Prince.
Prince:
Requirements: Must be the in-game faction heir.
Influence: 2.
Powers:
(1) This rank is always held at the same time as other feudal ranks. The Influence and Powers of the Prince are added on top of the Influence and Powers of the Prince's other rank(s), unless the Power specifically states otherwise.
(2) In the absence of the King, the Prince can ban nobles from a Council Session. Banned Senators cannot speak or propose legislation, but they are permitted to vote.
(3) In the absence of the King, the Prince can adjudicate on rule disputes. However, if a rule dispute directly involves the King or the Prince, the Chancellor will be the adjudicator.
(4) If this rank is held during a Normal Council Session, can Prioritize a total of 1 units per full 10 turn Chancellor term. This power is cumulative with the ability to prioritize units under any other rank held by the Prince.
King:
Requirements: Must be the in-game faction leader.
Influence: equal to authority stat.
Powers:
(1) Can propose an unlimited number of Edicts or Amendments per Council Session.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for all settlements in the King's Demesne. Can destroy any building in those settlements and can rename any of them at any time.
(3) Can call Emergency Council Sessions.
(4) Cannot be banned from a Council Session.
(5) Can prioritize 4 units per term.
(6) Can declare war on any faction at any time, for any reason.
(7) Can veto one Edict or Amendment per 3 ranks of Authority.
(8) Decides which noble, if any, a Princess should marry.
(9) Can allocate all newly conquered land, or let it remain within the King's Demesne if he wishes.
(10) Once during his reign, the King may automatically assume the post of Chancellor for a single term. The King must declare that he is exercising that right at a Council Session; He will then be appointed Chancellor with no election. This right can only be invoked once, but the King can also compete in normal Chancellor elections.
(11) Can ban Nobles from a Council Session. Banned Nobles cannot speak or propose legislations, but they are permitted to vote.
(12) Can adjudicate on edicts and amendments. However, if a rule dispute directly involves the King or the Prince, the Chancellor will be the adjudicator.
(13) Can rename the faction at any time.
(14) Can move the Capital at any time, as long as the new Capital is within the King's Demesne.
Penalties:
(1) Cannot hold any other feudal rank except that of Chancellor.
(2) Cannot swear an Oath of Fealty to another Senator and cannot have any Vassals.
Inheritance: On the death of a King, all Oaths of Fealty pertaining to the Noble who is now King are instantly broken, with no penalties. The new King takes control of any provinces in the King's Demesne, as well as retaining those under his control at the time of his ascension. If he was Duke of his House, his named heir for that post attains the rank. In the absence of a named heir, the second in charge of the House becomes Duke.
Chancellor:
Requirements: Must have been elected Chancellor or attained it through declaration under King's Power (10).
Influence: For every term a noble serves as Chancellor, he gets a permanant +1 to his influence. This bonus is cumulative for nobles who serve multiple terms as Chancellor. This bonus does not apply to the King or any Chancellor who was removed by being impeached.
Powers:
(1) This rank is always held at the same time as other feudal ranks. The Influence and Powers of the Chancellor are added on top of the Influence and Powers of the Chancellor's other rank(s), unless the Power specifically states otherwise.
(2) The Chancellor is repsonsible for all monetary expenditures in the game. The choice of what to build/recruit is entirely up to him, except as stated in the Limitations on Powers.
(3) The Chancellor can move all armies that start a turn outside a settlement and led by a captain.
(4) The Chancellor can move all fleets, unless they started the turn inside a port in the realm.
(5) The Chancellor can move and use all agents.
Limitations on powers:
(1) The Chancellor must respect all settlement tax rates and build queues. The Chancellor is not required to build anything, but if he does build in a settlement, it must be the first item in the build queue. If no build queue is posted for a settlement, the Chancellor may build whatever he wishes.
(2) The Chancellor must respect all requests for the transfer or deletion of retinue members/items, as long as these requests comply with the rules.
(3) Prioritized Units - No money can be spent on any recruitment until all Prioritized Units have been funded, unless the Nobles who Prioritized them agree otherwise. If there are multiple Prioritized Units, and not enough funding for all of them, the Chancellor may choose which to recruit first. Nobles may specify any of his settlements for the unit to be recruited from, and any unit available for hire in that settlement to be recruited. Artillery and mercenaries cannot be Prioritized. A unit may be retrained instead of recruited if the unit is already located in a settlement where it can be retrained in some fashion.
(4) Cannot remove a building from any build queue if construction has already begun on it, unless the owner of the province agrees otherwise.
No problems with the changes in the House rules then? I'll try to finish up the rest in the next few days and leave that open for more discussion.
4. - Government
(a) - Sessions: The Council of the Realm (Conseil du Royaume) will meet in a Normal Session every 10 turns. Out of session, there can be open debate and deliberations. Each Normal and Emergency Session consists of 3 real time days of debate, followed by 2 real time days of voting. Zim or anyone delegated by him can change the length of individual sessions at will.
(b) - Proposing Legislation: During each session, Nobles may propose Edicts and Amendments, up to the limit allowed by their rank. Edicts and Amendments must be seconded by two other Nobles before they can be put to the vote.
(c) - Edicts: Edicts require a simple majority of weighted votes to pass and remain in effect until the next normal session of the Council. Tied Edicts fail. If contradictory Edicts are passed, the one with the most votes takes priority. Edicts can only be enforced by IC means. Edicts cannot contradict the Game Rules.
(d) - Codex Amendments: Amendments require a two-thirds majority of weighted votes to pass and remain in effect permanently, or until repealed by another Codex Amendment. Codex Amendments can only be enforced by IC means. Codex Amendments cannot contradict the Game Rules.
(e) - Rule Changes: Rule Changes require a two-thirds majority of unweighted votes (1 vote per player) to pass. Rule Changes can permanently change the Game Rules. Any player can propose Rule Changes, regardless of IC rank. Zim can veto any proposed Rule Change, but does not vote. Game Rules are enforced by IC or OOC means, as Zim sees fit.
(f) - Influence: Each Noble’s voting power is equivalent to his total Influence. No Noble's Influence may ever be lower than 1. Influence is increased permanantly by 1 if a Noble marries a Princess of the royal family and 1 for each term a noble serves as Chancellor.
(g) - War: Except as allowed by rank powers under Rule 3 (f), any declaration of war must be authorized by an Edict.
(h) - Elections: At each Normal Session, on the death of the Chancellor, or on the impeachment of the Chancellor, there is an election for the post of Chancellor. Ties lead to a fresh ballot. A second tie is decided by seniority (avatar age).
(i) - Impeachment: The Chancellor can be impeached and removed from office by a two-thirds majority vote of the Council. Impeachment takes effect immediately after the vote is passed. After impeachment, a fresh election is held to elect a new Chancellor, although the King may also exercise his power to become Chancellor at that point. The Noble replacing the impeached Chancellor serves out the remainder of the impeached Chancellor's term. All Edicts passed in the Council session that elected the impeached Chancellor remain valid, unless overturned by new Edicts at the Emergency Session that impeached him.
5. - Armies
(a) - Armies: Except as stated in Rule 5 (b), all Nobles own all army units that begin a turn in a stack led by their avatar, in the garrison of a settlement they own, and in the garrison of a fort inside a province they own, regardless of how the units got there. Nobles instantly own any Captain-led stack that their avatar moves onto. No one may move or disband any units owned by a Noble without his permission.
(b) - Seizing Armies: Any Noble may move his avatar onto an army owned by another Noble from the same feudal chain. If this occurs, the Noble with the highest feudal rank instantly owns the entire combined army. If both Nobles are of the same rank, the eldest Noble will own the entire combined army. The King may instantly seize any army his avatar moves onto, regardless of the status of the Noble that previously owned it, unless that Noble is in a state of Civil War against the King. A Noble may not move his avatar onto an army owned by a Noble from outside his feudal chain unless both Nobles agree to the move beforehand. If there is a subsequent disagreement about who owns the units in the army, where the army is to move, or who commands the army, the King will decide. This Rule does not apply to garrisons of settlements or forts. Avatars may never be seized.
(c) - Naval Fleets: All Nobles own all fleets that begin a turn in the port of a settlement they own, regardless of how the fleet got there. Otherwise, naval fleets are owned by the Noble with the highest feudal rank who is onboard the fleet. If there are multiple Nobles of the same rank, the eldest Noble will own the fleet. No one may move or disband any ships in a fleet owned by a Noble without his permission.
(d) - 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.
6. - Civil War
(a) - Declaration of War: A Noble must make a Declaration of War towards a specific Noble in a public thread before they can attack any of that Noble’s armies or settlements. A Declaration of War applies to all Nobles of lower rank in the vassal chains of both the Noble who makes the Declaration and the Noble who is the target of the Declaration, including vassals who swear an Oath of Fealty after the Declaration of War has been made. A Declaration of War does not apply to any Nobles in the vassal chain who are above the declarer or the target.
(b) - Civil War through Oath Breaking: If a Vassal breaks an Oath of Fealty, anyone above him in the feudal chain may choose to instantly enter a state of Civil War. For the purposes Rule 6 (a), the Noble who broke the Oath of Fealty will be considered the person who issued the Declaration of War, and the Noble who chooses to enter the state of Civil War will be treated as the target of the Declaration of War.
(c) - Ending a Civil War: A Civil War will end when all Nobles on one side are dead or all living Nobles on both sides publicly agree to a Peace Treaty. A Noble's public agreement to a Peace Treaty will also remove all Nobles below him in his feudal chain from the Civil War, unless the vassal Nobles specifically state otherwise in a public thread. So long as it is limited to changes to the provinces, settlements, armies, Oaths of Fealty, retinue, or the title of Duke of the Noble(s) signing the Peace Treaty, it will be considered binding law. All terms of a Peace Treaty that go beyond these limits, particularly those that increase a Noble’s influence or powers beyond those allowed by the rules, will only be binding if adopted by a two-thirds majority of the Council at the next normal session. Individual Nobles may unilaterally remove themselves from a Civil War within one turn of the Declaration of War that brought them into it by breaking all Oaths of Fealty that tie them to any Noble involved in the War and by publicly declaring Neutrality. Neutrality cannot be claimed by a declarer, a target, or any Noble who has been involved in a PvP Battle during that specific Civil War.
(d) - Civil Wars on the Campaign Map: While a Civil War is in progress, all players involved in the Civil War will lose their ability to make any moves on the campaign map. On every game turn, all players involved in the Civil War will submit a PM to Zim giving movement orders for that turn. These movement orders can include up to a maximum of two of the following orders:
(1) - Gather: The player may gather units he owns that are located in the same province as his avatar, but which are not currently located in his avatar's army. All units specified in this manner will be teleported into the avatar's army.
(2) - Move: The player may move his avatar's army into any adjacent province. If a player desires to cross a body of water, Zim will determine how many Move orders are required to cross it, and whether the player can end a turn at sea.
(3) - Defend: The player fortifies his army in a specific province, providing a terrain advantage if a battle occurs in that province before the player moves again.
After the turn ends, Zim will implement all moves for players involved in the Civil War, utilizing the console. The orders will be executed simultaneously for all players, but in the sequence they were listed in the PMs (i.e. Order 1 will be implement for all players, followed by Order 2 for all players). If this movement results in a player entering a province with a hostile AI-controlled army, Zim will determine whether a battle against the AI will occur. Movement will continue in this manner until two hostile player-controlled armies enter the same province. When this occurs, a PvP Battle will begin. All PvP Battles will be considered Meeting Engagements, in which neither side has a terrain advantage, unless one of the armies was Defending the province where the battle occurred. If this happens, the defending army will get a terrain advantage in the following manner: (1) If the province is owned by the Defender, the battle will be a siege assault of the settlement. (2) If the province is not owned by the Defender, the battle map will be chosen such that a terrain advantage, such as a high mountain, fort, or bridge is given to the Defender. The Umpire of the battle will determine the precise nature of the terrain advantage.
(e) PVP Recruitment: Recruitment during Civil Wars will take place through a draft system, outlined as below.
(1) Each turn of civil war, players can prioritise recruitment (draft) one unit for every settlement they own or have conquered during the war, replacing their normal prioritizations until the next Council session (normally 10 turns).
(2) Drafts take precedence over ALL other monetary expenditures in the game and are executed by the GM when implementing combatants' move orders, recruiting by settlement in a random order, but with priority given to settlements that did not draft in the previous turn.
(3) When the civil war is over, each player must give orders to the GM to disband one full strength unit for every unit drafted during the war (the GM will umpire any unit transfer exploits designed to evade disbandment).
(f) - PvP Battles: Whenever a PvP Battle occurs, if both players agree, the battle will be fought via multiplayer, with Zim or anyone he chooses acting as umpire. The umpire will determine the map and the precise composition of the armies. If the battle is not fought via multiplayer, there will be a 24 hour voting period to determine how the battle will be fought. The voting options will be (a) Tabletop Battle (b) Abbreviated Tabletop Battle and (c) AI Battle. All players may vote, even those not involved in the battle, all votes will be unweighted, and the option that receives the most votes will be chosen. Tabletop Battles will be in the style of the The Battle of the Iron Bridge and the Battle of the Basileis and will be umpired by Zim or anyone he chooses. Abbreviated Tabletop Battles will be identical to a Tabletop Battle, but will be 1 turn in length. Players will determine their starting positions and outline a general strategy for the battle. The umpire will then play out the battle and determine the victor. The umpire may allow a maximum of 1 or 2 additional turns beyond the starting turn if they so choose. The Abbreviated Tabletop Battle will be run by Zim or anyone he chooses. AI Battles will be custom battles in the TW engine in which the AI will control all units on both sides. AI battles will be umpired by Zim or anyone he choose. The umpire will determine all settings to be used in the battle, including the map and the precise composition of the armies. Regardless of the type of battle chosen, the umpire must attempt to have the battle replicate the in-game state of affairs to the best of his ability. Regardless of the type of battle chosen, the umpire will determine the results, including, but not limited to, units to be disbanded as casualties, avatars to be killed off as casualties, and changes in the control of provinces. Console commands may be used to implement the results.
So...no problems with the rules?
I'd definitely play with those rules. Seems a good reflection of what was discussed towards the end of LotR.
Thanks, that's what I was going for. :yes:
What about the prioritized units for more ranks than just the House leaders? I thought it would reflect how decentralized militaries were in a feudal system, and give players a little extra something to call their own in this slightly more House-centric rule system.
n the other hand, would it be too much of a pain for the Chancellor?
Here's something I didn't consider at all that TinCow posted in the old discussion thread. He had mentioned the vast majority of players never made it past 1 influence and that the influence rules didn't seem to impact the game much.
Based on what I saw in LotR, I think it might actively be good to completely abolish stat-based Influence. Just give everyone one vote and be done with it.
I editted the rules a bit, adding to the will section (mainly just that Dukes choose their successors in their will), and cleared up a few thing in the ranks so that it was clear that to hold the rank of Count one had to be a member of a House and that Dukes couldn't hold another rank in addition to the rank of Duke, excepting that of Chancellor or Prince.
Can Counts create Houses? But without the legitimacy of the "First Four"? Can a Duke utterly disown his own House and provide said legitimacy to the upstart Count led House?
If so - fun times indeed :yes:
Here's something I didn't consider at all that TinCow posted in the old discussion thread. He had mentioned the vast majority of players never made it past 1 influence and that the influence rules didn't seem to impact the game much.
I think this is a good idea. It simplifies things for the purposes of record-keeping and makes pre-election vote counting easier for people who are trying to push through (or block) legislation. At the same time, I didn't feel like the stat-based influence really had any impact on role-playing, which is the most important part of the game.
What DID have an impact was influence earned by player actions. This was most notable in the bonuses for the Ex-Megas and for people who managed to marry a Princess. I think that it would work well to give everyone a base vote of 1, and only allow additional influence beyond that due to similar in-game actions. Other options along these lines that could be explored:
1) Influence granted by the consent of the Senate, such as a 'triumph' for a great military victory or some other significant achievement.
2) Influence granted to someone who has won a PvP battle.
I also think your truncated rank system is a big improvement. LotR ended up having too many ranks and it was too difficult to reach the highest ranks. Reaching a high rank should be hard, but not impossible which is how it turned out in LotR. I think your system will work better.
AussieGiant
06-18-2009, 19:59
I like the rules.
I like anything that is codified as game rules that refer to actions and things that can use the game engine to easily manage.
Also things that are simple.
As it currently stands if a Count successfully became independent they would go down to Baron status until they managed to convince the Council to vote into creation their new House. They'd be free to create a defacto House, but would be blocked off from the higher ranks until their House gained legitamacy.
I had done that to make the Houses more stable in that one would need to join one to gain access to the higher ranks. Maybe that's going too far?
In your scenario is the Duke dropping his own House to rule the new one? Or dropping his rank to bestow it on the Count? The former is easy enough but I hadn't even considered the latter. I can see a Duke losing their title as part of a peace agreement in a Civil War.
Can Counts create Houses? But without the legitimacy of the "First Four"? Can a Duke utterly disown his own House and provide said legitimacy to the upstart Count led House?
If so - fun times indeed :yes:
As it currently stands if a Count successfully became independent they would go down to Baron status until they managed to convince the Council to vote into creation their new House. They'd be free to create a defacto House, but would be blocked off from the higher ranks until their House gained legitamacy.
I had done that to make the Houses more stable in that one would need to join one to gain access to the higher ranks. Maybe that's going too far?
In your scenario is the Duke dropping his own House to rule the new one? Or dropping his rank to bestow it on the Count? The former is easy enough but I hadn't even considered the latter. I can see a Duke losing their title as part of a peace agreement in a Civil War.
The idea is that a Count fights for his right to have a House, but he isn't as strong, but he isn't subjected to the whims of the First Four.
The second part is the idea that a Duke could disown his own House in favor of another, such as said Count above, for his own reasons - thus stripping one of the First Four of it's legitimacy, and granting it to the Counts House, who is now a Duke. This would allow for a dynamic change in the Houses and for some interesting storyline. This would of course be a part of the Dukes will, so death or retirement must come first.
Also, yes, that was also implied - what if a Count defeated a Duke and demanded the title for peace?
I know I didn't pay much attention to stat influence, don't think I ever qualified for more than one until I became Megas. :clown:
It would simplify things greatly as long as the list of ways to gain influence was kept fairly small. The influence from marrying a Princess and ex-Megas/Chancellor ones you mentioned from LotR are a good start. I wonder if the Prince should get a boost if he marries a foreign princess..
Should Princes get 1 extra influence?
The Triumph idea is neat. I wonder if there's something similiar that would fit in with the likely more western faction I suspect will be picked...
I really like the idea of some kind of influence reward for successful pvp/civil wars. I would be at least partly concerned about an automatic +1 influence for winning a battle. If a Civil war went back and forth a fair deal that could be a lot of battles. Then again, that hasn't happened yet in two games (I guess the Swabian Civil War had the greatest number of battles, although the War of the Basileis had the potential for more). Do you think that would be an issue?
What do you think of the number of ranks? As it stands except for Duke the ranks listed are pretty easy to attain (A House that managed to get 5 people counting the Duke could have two counts), but I did want to make it fewer than LOTR. I've been thinking over whether one more might be appropriate. Definitely not any more than that.
I think this is a good idea. It simplifies things for the purposes of record-keeping and makes pre-election vote counting easier for people who are trying to push through (or block) legislation. At the same time, I didn't feel like the stat-based influence really had any impact on role-playing, which is the most important part of the game.
What DID have an impact was influence earned by player actions. This was most notable in the bonuses for the Ex-Megas and for people who managed to marry a Princess. I think that it would work well to give everyone a base vote of 1, and only allow additional influence beyond that due to similar in-game actions. Other options along these lines that could be explored:
1) Influence granted by the consent of the Senate, such as a 'triumph' for a great military victory or some other significant achievement.
2) Influence granted to someone who has won a PvP battle.
I also think your truncated rank system is a big improvement. LotR ended up having too many ranks and it was too difficult to reach the highest ranks. Reaching a high rank should be hard, but not impossible which is how it turned out in LotR. I think your system will work better.
Well, as it stands a Count could fight to leave a House and even form a defacto House of new members or fellow deserters, but would lose access to the higher ranks (busted down to Baron).
So said Duke would be giving his title of Duke to the Count? If he dies he can make anybody he wants his heir. I'd be interested in hearing whether people think Dukes should be able to "retire" while still alive and give his title to another.
I definitely think an addition to the rules should be made to allow losing the title through civil war.
The idea is that a Count fights for his right to have a House, but he isn't as strong, but he isn't subjected to the whims of the First Four.
The second part is the idea that a Duke could disown his own House in favor of another, such as said Count above, for his own reasons - thus stripping one of the First Four of it's legitimacy, and granting it to the Counts House, who is now a Duke. This would allow for a dynamic change in the Houses and for some interesting storyline. This would of course be a part of the Dukes will, so death or retirement must come first.
Also, yes, that was also implied - what if a Count defeated a Duke and demanded the title for peace?
Hmmm...you mentioned another rank as a possibility...maybe we should have a rank that a King can bestow, that adds power and prestige to a House, or some other function, that another House would want, creating friction through sucking up and power gain? I keep thinking Archduke or Master of Arms as possible titles.
That might not be a bad idea, although we should take care to keep things from getting too complicated. Maybe the Mast of Arms to lead the King's army (on that note I don't think I gave the king any prioritized units, better fix that).
AussieGiant
06-18-2009, 22:45
I'm not trying to be rude here,
but,
I think everyone should just stop talking about more rules. :egypt:
Just play the damn game and if you want more rules, then do it "In Character" as part of the frame work already created. :balloon2:
That was nearly the single most effect aspect of KotR.
-EDIT- The "egypt" and "balloon" is to ensure those of you that know me well enough realise this is a bit of friendly slapping.
Would you say that the rules are properly balanced right now then? With no rank needed between Duke and Count?
As it is I'd be perfectly happy just making a few minor adjustment before finishing up everything we need to start the game. The main last few changes I'm considering are:
1. Allow Dukes to lose their title through Civil War
2. Prioritized units for the King, something I just forgot writing up that rank.
3. "Possibly" scrapping the somewhat confusing stat influence system for something simpler, one vote per person plus a few titles (Duke, having been Chancellor, King, marrying the Princess) adding a bit of influence.
Would you say that the rules are properly balanced right now then? With no rank needed between Duke and Count?
As it is I'd be perfectly happy just making a few minor adjustment before finishing up everything we need to start the game. The main last few changes I'm considering are:
1. Allow Dukes to lose their title through Civil War
2. Prioritized units for the King, something I just forgot writing up that rank.
3. "Possibly" scrapping the somewhat confusing stat influence system for something simpler, one vote per person plus a few titles (Duke, having been Chancellor, King, marrying the Princess) adding a bit of influence.
Sounds fine to me - a Master of Arms title should be something we should fight over ingame, not pregame I suppose.
and AG, does this mean your in?
GeneralHankerchief
06-19-2009, 00:04
Upon a quick read, I like what I see, and I'm in favor of there being fewer ranks as opposed to more. Even the highest-attaining players in LotR couldn't sniff Exarch.
Did you not like the idea to limit expansion and strengthen the legislative body by requring "annexation" votes, which is that each conquered province has to be annexed by an Edict or given back?
Did you not like the idea to limit expansion and strengthen the legislative body by requring "annexation" votes, which is that each conquered province has to be annexed by an Edict or given back?
Could you elaborate on the overall amount of steps for this? To me it sounds as if your saying that each province captured is only captured until the next Chancellor phase unless it is ratified in - considering the King himself gets the provinces this game and then doles them out how he sees fit, that might curb expansion by Houses that do not share good feelings with the King, while allowing another House to literally explode overnight.
That's what happened in KOTR, isn't it? How did it work out?
I joined during the Cataclysm, and then in the period after there was an edict for me and OK to take back Outremer so I never really had to chance to run up on limits on taking territory...
Ignoramus
06-19-2009, 03:22
I think limiting expansion is vital. If we get too big too quickly, then we end up with what happened to LotR - there was simply too much wealth and land to go around. Hence no one really bothered to pick a fight, because there was more to lose than to gain from doing so.
Also, I say we try and get some newer players to the series to be the King and Prince. It helps get them into the game more. And we should advertise around for players soon, if we want a good number.
Thing is, we don't want someone who will just disappear from the game after a few turns.
If everyone's ok with it I could add that requirement for an edict for annexation.
As far a who gets the beginning fms, I was thinking of giving some of them to players who made it to/near the end of LOTR but hadn't gotten to play the Basileus, Caesar, or a House leader, if nobody objects.
The requirement of an edict for annexation sounds good.
I'm wondering at the moment, how many players are we aiming for?
For the very beginning of the game I don't expect a ton of players (although the response has been greater than I anticipated :yes:). In the long term, I'd be very happy if we had 10-14 players or so at most times. Of course, the more the better.
Just did a rules update.
Changes:
1. Allow Dukes to lose their title through Civil War
2. Prioritized units for the King.
3. Scrapped the somewhat confusing stat influence system for something simpler, one vote per person plus a few titles (Duke, having been Chancellor, Prince, King, marrying the Princess) adding a bit of influence. Also I specifically weakened Ducal influence a little by changing it to 1+1 for every Count in their House rather than every vassal. I want the Dukes to be powerful but not thought 1 influence for every landed noble might be a bit much, unless Houses are very small...
4. Set an edict requirement for keeping conquered provinces.
Also, TinCow and I have been talking about new House creation and came upon the idea of maybe having Kings be allowed to create new Dukes and Houses, with the possibility of being blocked by a 2/3ds majority of the Council. I think there'd be some limit, one per term, or maybe even rarer to prevent the position from being spammed. I could also keep to the 50% majority that can currently create a House, or up that to a 2/3rds.
What does everyone think of that and the changes made thus far?
Ignoramus
06-19-2009, 07:58
It's pretty good, except I think that being a family member should be a requirement for the formation of a new house. Houses represent the major nobility, and historically most of them were blood-related to the current king.
Other than that they're great!
Also, if possible, try to make the number of unchangeable rules as small as possible. That way most ammendments can be dealt in an IC fashion, avoiding personal disputes and animosities.
well, iif ur playing an RGB, your options are limited then...
Everyone is going to want a FM.
_Tristan_
06-19-2009, 08:57
I'm not too keen on two ideas posted here :
1 - Edict for annexation : while I understand the concern for fast expansion, I don't like the idea of having to battle in the Senate (or Council or whatever it will be called) to keep a Province in the bosom of the Empire. It makes no sense historically. Powerful vassals (and sometimes even less powerful ones) ignored the will of their King and conquered/annexed provinces for their own gain, often requiring military pressure of their Lord to release them and not some court order...
2 - Possibility for FM only to create new Houses. With the limits and caps set by Zim rules, I don't think we'll see new Houses appear overnight so restricting the possibility of creating them to FM might be just a touch too much and might deter people who have had access to a RGB only from grasping power into their own hands.
Otherwise, I think it is a fine set of Rules and I particularly like the way Influence is planned as is. My main fear is that if a power blocks forms, it could enact Edicts/CA granting Influence from particular causes benefiting their numbers thus raising their power even more (I haven't decided yet if this is rather good or bad...)
Ignoramus
06-19-2009, 09:28
Perhaps we can fix the expansion problem by allowing nobles to keep the provinces they conquer, but make it very hard to defend them without the king's support. But that should probably be an IC game action.
In my mind, requiring an edict to annex a province and the king acquiring all conquered provinces seems contradictory.
I'd prefer a system where the province was acquired by the conquering noble, but required annexation through an edict for legitimacy - until it is annexed, the chancellor does not have to fulfill any prioritization that deal with the province. You still have to be a kiss :daisy: but there is more freedom involved.
Ignoramus
06-19-2009, 12:06
Great idea, YLC!
so a noble conquers a province, and it is his after the annexation is approved.
What happens if the annexation is not approved?
so a noble conquers a province, and it is his after the annexation is approved.
What happens if the annexation is not approved?
Oh no, it's his period if he conquers it - but until he gets approval for it in the Council, the Chancellor can freely ignore the entire province, including taxes, prioritization, building queues, etc, without penalty.
This makes it difficult to hold onto - it cannot be properly reinforced except from within the kingdom/empire, is subject to higher levels of revolt and generates less income.
AussieGiant
06-19-2009, 13:31
One of the most balanced aspects of KotR was that all expansion needed to be legislated through the Diet. Meaning edicts to attack and a second CA (or was it another edict) to ratify the province and absorb it into the Kingdom was required.
This prevented players who are good at the game from literally tearing across the map. It also politicised land and made the politics about acquisition and allocation of land very interesting and very significant. This by extension focused everyone very squarely on the Diet sessions and what was going on in them. A complaint of the last game I believe was a lack of focus in the political threads.
I can't emphasis enough just how important land is to a feudal empire and how the game supports this in so many ways. The Diet was THE MAIN platform in KotR and it was hugely entertaining because it really meant something to go into that Thread and present your case, argue, threaten and bribe your way to success.
The second aspect of this concept was all land, once ratified, went to the King, who then allocated it to a House/Duke who then kept it himself or allocated it to one of his nobles. Again hugely appropriate both in the game and historically. The Kings position in this critical aspect of power countered the extreme executive but transient power of the Chancellor and made the King an ongoing important figure for people to constantly be forced to deal with. As a nice tie in, the Prince would one day be King so playing ahead of the succession tree was always another sub level of politics. Duke's by extension were allocated this power base to use as they see fit. At that point the land issuance was finished.
I strongly recommend this system is replicated, in a simple, effective and easy to understand format.
I think my idea replicates it well enough - you can't go on a conquering spree in the first place because conquered provinces would revolt one right after another or become very vulnerable to attack, while still allowing people to do something. IMO, requiring double legislation to conquer a province is cumbersome. This one still allows for a lot more freedom on politics as well.
The annexations rules are probably the ones I'm the most unsure of. As mentioned, I never really had much experience with having to push annexation edicts through in KOTR. I'm glad AG spoke up as someone with experience with it am curious how the debate goes.
I do want something to limit expansion as it seemed to get a little out of control in parts of LOTR. How we do so isn't a big deal to me so any further suggestions for alternate systems are welcome. :yes:
I do think it's a good thing to have conquered land go to the king before being dispensed to Houses. When it comes down to it it's the only power he has that really forces nobles to deal with him.
I should note that at the moment separate edicts to conquer and ratify annexation are not required as per KOTR, only a single annexation edict made before or after the conquest.
Of course, sooner or late a noble told to abandon his conquest or give it to a rival might say "over my dead body", a situation I would liekly let get resolved in-game rather than through gm fiat... :juggle2:
The annexations rules are probably the ones I'm the most unsure of. As mentioned, I never really had much experience with having to push annexation edicts through in KOTR. I'm glad AG spoke up as someone with experience with it am curious how the debate goes.
I do want something to limit expansion as it seemed to get a little out of control in parts of LOTR. How we do so isn't a big deal to me so any further suggestions for alternate systems are welcome. :yes:
I do think it's a good thing to have conquered land go to the king before being dispensed to Houses. When it comes down to it it's the only power he has that really forces nobles to deal with him.
I should note that at the moment separate edicts to conquer and ratify annexation are not required as per KOTR, only a single annexation edict made before or after the conquest.
Of course, sooner or late a noble told to abandon his conquest or give it to a rival might say "over my dead body", a situation I would liekly let get resolved in-game rather than through gm fiat... :juggle2:
Hmmm...I think I have an idea, although it might be construed as more complex.
We want people to take personal initiative, and disobedience should be an open option.
We want to limit expansion at the sametime.
We want to give the king some form of power.
So I propose we blend them together. by allowing anyone to conquer any province they see fit. however, taxes must be set to high until and the province can be ignored by the Chancellor, until the said conqueror hands the province over to Royal authority or an edict is passed with 2/3rds majority that annexes the territory.
Thoughts?
Posted the final mod poll thread. It appears we will be playing France, and 90% likely that we will be using the Kingdoms version of whichever mod we pick. :yes:
AussieGiant
06-20-2009, 09:00
The main issues I see with your suggestion YLC is that it is not an absolutely certain situation for the King and in fact the Chancellor can get involved without his consent. In effect the Chancellor has even more power.
I also think this rule was put into the game IC...can someone confirm?
I'd prefer to wait and see what NN, TC or GH have to say before commenting anything further.
The main issues I see with your suggestion YLC is that it is not an absolutely certain situation for the King and in fact the Chancellor can get involved without his consent. In effect the Chancellor has even more power.
I also think this rule was put into the game IC...can someone confirm?
I'd prefer to wait and see what NN, TC or GH have to say before commenting anything further.
That was one of my main issues with my idea - the Chancellor seems to be able to just simply ignore the rule, so why not change it to the Chancellor can't do ANYTHING with the province besides send troops/agents into it under his control? And the province has taxes set to high, or very high?
I've seen several requests for my input in this thread. Apologies, but I'm out of town on business this entire week. I have internet access, but don't really have time to do much more than skim the forums. I will be happy to respond, but you'll have to wait until next weekend or early next week.
Any more opinions on the issue at hand? I admit at the moment I am still leaning towards the system currently in place in the rules over YLC's somewhat more complicated system.
Does anyone else prefer the latter, or just generally dislike the idea of either type of limit on annexation?
maybe the conquered province shouldnt be given to the king obligatory...
More a kind of unwritten tradition. Another tradition is the handing back of the province by the king.
So, a duke may not give the city to the king. The king may now force the surrounding dukes upon this renegade and put pressure.
or a duke hands over the city, but the king just gives it to another house. The conquering house is pissed, and will not hand over the next conquered city, and will plot some kind of revenge against both king and the other house who got th city by buttkissing with the king.
Could lead to various interesting plots, intrigues and civil wars :p
Ignoramus
06-23-2009, 12:05
I say that in civil wars the duke gets to keep the province, otherwise the king gets to dictate who owns it. If you don't like it, say so with your sword.
To refine my rule further, when a noble conquers a province -
He can keep it, but cannot adjust tax rate, produce agents & troops, or construct buildings, until:
A) He hands the province over to the King, who then does with it as he sees fit.
B) He gains 2/3rds support from the Council to ratify his sovereignty over the province.
Ignoramus
06-23-2009, 12:28
I think it's actually a good idea to have a very basic set of rules for things like this, and then develop it in-game.
Maybe it's good to say that a noble can conquer a province, but like YLC said he cannot adjust tax rate, produce agents & troops, or construct buildings, unless he hands it over to the king or rebels.
That way, he is actually creating a burden for himself. It also doesn't invalidate the worth of the king, as getting his approval will be vital to legitimately utilising that province. If you don't, you may have to throw off the king's authority and try and force an agreement.
I think that the game is served best by short sharp civil wars which result in a decisive battle, and then an agreement is made between winner and loser. This set-up should encourage that.
Cecil XIX
06-23-2009, 22:24
YLC's ideas intrigues me. It gives players more freedom in a way that is sure to provoke intrigue. I specifically like how it sets up conflict between the King and the Council. I quite like it.
On another note, I still like the idea of an 'Archduke' rank or somesuch. It's be a nice way for a Duke to gain enough power to rival the King, which should lead to interesting drama. Perhaps if two of the starting Duchies where unified under one man?
Speaking of which, it's possible for two Duchies to have a 'personal union', isn't it?
There's certainly nothing preventing one Duke from swearing fealty to another. I'd like to see any new ranks appear out of in game conflicts. Say, for example, a despotic king becomes so unpopular the Council creates the rank of Archduke as a counter.
That said, if everyone wants me to I can create a new rank easily enough.
One thing about YLC's proposal is that if you have 2/3ds of the votes of the Council on your side, you could just create a rule change making an exception of your settlement...
At any rate it isn't unbalanced. A King with decent authority and any support at all among one or more Houses would have a good chance of blocking the Council vote method. One lacking both might very well deserve the Council going over his head.
Let's keep the discussion open to refine the ideas proposed thus far. Once TinCow returns from vacation we can get his opinion as an experienced gm and look at having a forum created for the game and getting started. :yes:
One issue I've been thinking about is piicking who gets the starting characters and, if in the chosen mod France doesn't start with enough fms, who gets the RGBs lucky enough to be Dukes. I could just assign the starting characters, or we could go with something like LOTR where those with the most votes in the previous game choose first. Alternatively, we could come up with some kind of method for randomizing...
KnightnDay
06-24-2009, 04:11
After the mod is identified as the winner, I would suggest identifying what's available, identify who is in, and if they want to come in right away or would be willing to wait. Then you can determine who gets what at the start. Random seems fair and the people signing up are for the most part going to be established players from previous games. My $.02
Cecil XIX
06-24-2009, 05:06
It's also worth noting that LTC Gold has three possible starting dates, like the first MTW. I know for a fact that the 'Early' period France starts with five generals.
AussieGiant
06-25-2009, 07:48
I have to mention that reading the Diet sessions from KotR is pretty entertaining.
Diet Session V in which the reunification event is the main topic, is what these games are all about.
Worth a read from about page 12 onwards.
GeneralHankerchief
06-25-2009, 22:10
I love how the very first post on that page has the following:
It seems the "highway of death heads" has not had the desired effect.
All in a matter-of-fact tone too. :laugh4:
Cecil XIX
06-26-2009, 06:20
Heh, good times.
This may be slightly OOC, but I've been thinking about things that made LOTR different from KOTR. Many have been discussed, but as far as I remember one aspect that hasn't been talked about as much is the change in policy regarding avatar acquisition.
In this, KOTR (at first) and LOTR were at opposite extremes. In KOTR you had to take what the game offered, and if it wasn't offering anything you had to wait. In LOTR you could not only get an avatar at any time, you could even get options!
If those were the only two options, I think I'd prefer the former. For most of KOTR, every Elector who joined the Reich started off linked to certain people and a certain House. That was a foundation upon which to build other relations, which were, of course, what made KOTR so great. I think LOTR suffered a bit from having people able to get RGBs whenever they want. When there's no restriction on getting Avatars, the avatar you have doesn't mean as much. A lot of avatars in LOTR were just abandoned, either by people who stopped playing or people who wanted to start fresh with a new avatar. I don't think this reflects poorly on the players themselves (at least I hope not, since I myself belong to the latter group), but I do think it reveals a flaw in the incentives the rules gave the players. The avatar situation needs to be more orderly and still.
I think a middle path is best. At the very least, if a someone want to play as an RGB he should have to take the first one that pops up. There some be some limit to the availability of avatars in order for them to be seen as valuable.
Heh, good times.
This may be slightly OOC, but I've been thinking about things that made LOTR different from KOTR. Many have been discussed, but as far as I remember one aspect that hasn't been talked about as much is the change in policy regarding avatar acquisition.
In this, KOTR (at first) and LOTR were at opposite extremes. In KOTR you had to take what the game offered, and if it wasn't offering anything you had to wait. In LOTR you could not only get an avatar at any time, you could even get options!
If those were the only two options, I think I'd prefer the former. For most of KOTR, every Elector who joined the Reich started off linked to certain people and a certain House. That was a foundation upon which to build other relations, which were, of course, what made KOTR so great. I think LOTR suffered a bit from having people able to get RGBs whenever they want. When there's no restriction on getting Avatars, the avatar you have doesn't mean as much. A lot of avatars in LOTR were just abandoned, either by people who stopped playing or people who wanted to start fresh with a new avatar. I don't think this reflects poorly on the players themselves (at least I hope not, since I myself belong to the latter group), but I do think it reveals a flaw in the incentives the rules gave the players. The avatar situation needs to be more orderly and still.
I think a middle path is best. At the very least, if a someone want to play as an RGB he should have to take the first one that pops up. There some be some limit to the availability of avatars in order for them to be seen as valuable.
We could have a requirement - one must pass an edict to recruit avatars. I am thinking limiting it to one per session, so there isn't a terrible issue with shortage. Once the family true becomes large enough, then I don;t think we will have to spawn any avatars.
_Tristan_
06-26-2009, 08:43
I do not think that the larger availability of avatars in LotR was the cause of the difference in involvement of the players.
However, the fact that you could just drop your avatar because you got fed up with it or reached its RP limits (YLC :wink:) was the main difference.
From what I saw of KotR while I was following on the sidelines (before joining), the avatars seemed to last forever, whatever they had to confront, and when one got killed it was generally either traumatic or cataclysmic...
In LotR, after a time, it was difficult to interact with some characters because you couldn't know if they'll be still there come next turn and not through some bad turn of luck but because of players' lack of interest in them...
One requirement we could enforce on players wanting to play a RGB avatar would be to post a short story depicting their avatar' s former history, ambition, etc... fleshing it out...
I remember that the story I wrote for Hugo in KotR or Methodios in LotR endeared them to me and made me want to have them live forever whatever stood in their way...
Had they died early, I'm not even sure I could have jumped back into the game immediately as has been proven by my lackluster play of Georgios Angelos...
AussieGiant
06-28-2009, 22:29
I think Cecil is onto something.
I remember waiting and waiting and waiting. Once the game finally allowed me to join I was highly motivated in making sure the character was fleshed out and I certainly had a vested interest in his well being, career and advancement.
Play an "non character elector" was a good way to be part of the action and allowed you to get your feet wet and not sit on the side lines, but once you got yourself an avatar, then it was certainly an event in itself and created a large amount of "significance" in what you did.
I played the "Merchant of Venice elector" character until Arnold arrived...it was a very good experience.
I think that would be an ideal situation.
I think Cecil is onto something.
I remember waiting and waiting and waiting. Once the game finally allowed me to join I was highly motivated in making sure the character was fleshed out and I certainly had a vested interest in his well being, career and advancement.
Play an "non character elector" was a good way to be part of the action and allowed you to get your feet wet and not sit on the side lines, but once you got yourself an avatar, then it was certainly an event in itself and created a large amount of "significance" in what you did.
I played the "Merchant of Venice elector" character until Arnold arrived...it was a very good experience.
I think that would be an ideal situation.
Hmmm...would it then be possible to actually designate a character for yourself who has not yet matured and roleplay him? Just thinking aloud.
Cecil XIX
06-29-2009, 04:43
Hmmm...would it then be possible to actually designate a character for yourself who has not yet matured and roleplay him? Just thinking aloud.
Like this? (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1780509&postcount=249)
That's the only time it ever happened as far as I know, but I think it would be a fine thing to do. There's hardly anything written about a character before they become active, despite the potential for unique stories.
I'm glad you chimed in AG, I think your experience was the best-case example of what happens when people have to wait, both with your 'Merchant of Venice' character Arnold himself.
Like this? (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1780509&postcount=249)
That's the only time it ever happened as far as I know, but I think it would be a fine thing to do. There's hardly anything written about a character before they become active, despite the potential for unique stories.
I'm glad you chimed in AG, I think your experience was the best-case example of what happens when people have to wait, both with your 'Merchant of Venice' character Arnold himself.
Yes, that's what I mean - if I can do that, then I am absolutely positively for it. It will attach you to the character even more and create a grander background then even KOTR!
And I've gotten better at the whole PBM mindset, I believe - had LotR not ended so quickly, Helarionas would have developed into a fine character I believe.
You guys really want to do away with/limit rgbs? I can do it although it will likely mean about half the people that have expressed interest thus far would have to wait on an avatar.
I'm going to try to get TinCow to weigh in on the annexation issue since there have been good arguments on both sides. I'll also see if a forum can be set up for the game. I think we're about ready to get everything together to start.
You guys really want to do away with/limit rgbs? I can do it although it will likely mean about half the people that have expressed interest thus far would have to wait on an avatar.
I'm going to try to get TinCow to weigh in on the annexation issue since there have been good arguments on both sides. I'll also see if a forum can be set up for the game.
It's okay to limit them, but freely given you have less of a connection with them. Just a thought, we could "create" our own field promotions instead of relying on the randomness of the AI for them, and they could also be "sponsored" - not sure how that would work precisely, but it would get you in and rolling with a House and army fairly quickly, but with the obvious setback of being very limited in upwards mobility.
GeneralHankerchief
06-29-2009, 11:47
I'm going to try to get TinCow to weigh in on the annexation issue since there have been good arguments on both sides. I'll also see if a forum can be set up for the game. I think we're about ready to get everything together to start.
From what I know, in terms of this game's location on the .Org, I think it's likely that this LotR forum will just be renamed to the abbreviation of whatever we decide this game's name is.
I'll also take a closer look at the rules in the meantime, as I haven't really gone over them in-depth yet.
From what I know, in terms of this game's location on the .Org, I think it's likely that this LotR forum will just be renamed to the abbreviation of whatever we decide this game's name is.
I'll also take a closer look at the rules in the meantime, as I haven't really gone over them in-depth yet.
I am back and will read through this thread and respond more fully later this evening. However, on the subforum question, GH is correct. This forum will be renamed. I had previously some other TR house-cleaning, including closing the TVS forum, but the forum implosion got in the way and Tosa has been busy since then. Once the name is decided upon, I'll put in another request to rename this forum and get the whole TR cleaned up properly.
Note, I am reading the rules as they are posted at the moment, which I gather includes updates. However, I am responding to all comments I see which may include some what have since become irrelevant due to rule changes. Thus, disregard anything that is now moot.
Should Princes get 1 extra influence?
Princes already get a bonus to influence since their influence is on top of their normal rank influence. Remember that when determining balance.
I really like the idea of some kind of influence reward for successful pvp/civil wars. I would be at least partly concerned about an automatic +1 influence for winning a battle. If a Civil war went back and forth a fair deal that could be a lot of battles. Then again, that hasn't happened yet in two games (I guess the Swabian Civil War had the greatest number of battles, although the War of the Basileis had the potential for more). Do you think that would be an issue?
In hindsight, probably best to keep the rules simple and not put this in at the moment. If someone wins a civil war and something like this is felt to be warranted by the players at that time, it can always be added in with a rule change.
What do you think of the number of ranks? As it stands except for Duke the ranks listed are pretty easy to attain (A House that managed to get 5 people counting the Duke could have two counts), but I did want to make it fewer than LOTR. I've been thinking over whether one more might be appropriate. Definitely not any more than that.
I like the number of ranks the way they are. Simple and stable. It's also easy to add more in later if they are found to be needed. Focus on getting the basic solid, the frills can be added in once it is found to be working well.
Hmmm...you mentioned another rank as a possibility...maybe we should have a rank that a King can bestow, that adds power and prestige to a House, or some other function, that another House would want, creating friction through sucking up and power gain? I keep thinking Archduke or Master of Arms as possible titles.
I think this would be best added in with a Rule Change if/when it is found to be needed.
I think limiting expansion is vital. If we get too big too quickly, then we end up with what happened to LotR - there was simply too much wealth and land to go around. Hence no one really bothered to pick a fight, because there was more to lose than to gain from doing so.
I agree completely. Internal interaction and competition is where the fun comes from, competition against the AI is always secondary to this. Gaining power should thus be focused mainly on internal politicking, with the wars with the AI being only an after-thought (since we're bound to win them).
Also, if possible, try to make the number of unchangeable rules as small as possible. That way most ammendments can be dealt in an IC fashion, avoiding personal disputes and animosities.
The old WOTS/KOTR system of * marked rules that couldnt be changed was done away with halfway through LotR. Zim's current system allows any rule to be changed, which I agree is how it should be.
I'm not too keen on two ideas posted here :
1 - Edict for annexation : while I understand the concern for fast expansion, I don't like the idea of having to battle in the Senate (or Council or whatever it will be called) to keep a Province in the bosom of the Empire. It makes no sense historically. Powerful vassals (and sometimes even less powerful ones) ignored the will of their King and conquered/annexed provinces for their own gain, often requiring military pressure of their Lord to release them and not some court order...
I see this is a balance between realism and gameplay. The simple fact is it is easy to conquer province, and easy expansion makes the game less enjoyable IMO. Thus, it would be best to require the conquest of provinces to not only necessitate military prowess, but also a run through the internal political system as well. If the players constantly stop a certain House or Houses from expanding, that makes for good RP conflicts.
2 - Possibility for FM only to create new Houses. With the limits and caps set by Zim rules, I don't think we'll see new Houses appear overnight so restricting the possibility of creating them to FM might be just a touch too much and might deter people who have had access to a RGB only from grasping power into their own hands.
I'll discuss this below with comments on RBGs.
Oh no, it's his period if he conquers it - but until he gets approval for it in the Council, the Chancellor can freely ignore the entire province, including taxes, prioritization, building queues, etc, without penalty.
This makes it difficult to hold onto - it cannot be properly reinforced except from within the kingdom/empire, is subject to higher levels of revolt and generates less income.
Despite my statements above, this is an interesting idea. A hostile Chancellor could pump the taxes to Very High and make it hard to hold onto. A friendly Chancellor could make it easy to hold on to an 'illegal' province. I'm not sure whether this is the best way to go or not, but it's worth more discussion. I will think on it more before commenting further.
Two final issues which I will address in greater detail later (have to run at the moment and can't finish this post in detail):
1) RBGs - I am in favor of allowing RBGs. I generally feel the same way I did at the start of LotR. Refer to my comments on the subject in the next-gen rules thread for more insight before I can finish this train of thought.
2) Civil Wars - These need a functional overhaul. In LotR most Civil Wars lasted for years with no fighting. The system needs to be changed to that wars result in battles quickly and a resolved within a short period of time. This will make civil war far more serious of a threat than it was in LotR, where it was something of a joke for most of the game. Civil Wars needs to result in battles every single time, unless one side surrenders. My suggestion in brief is that both sides get 1 turn to assemble their allies and forces, then they are all tossed into a PvP battle (or battles) as the GM sees fit, regardless of where the avatars are on the in-game map.
On the RBG issue, here are my old comments on the issue after KOTR was over:
First, while it was nice to have a ‘family tree’ of avatars with each group descended from one of Heinrich’s four children, it turned out to be far more of a pain than it was worth IMO. Some people had to wait several months just get their first avatar and we suffered serious problems with supplying people with avatars in their desired Houses for most of the game. There were also some major problems with unbalanced Houses, since the game did not spawn avatars equally amongst our four custom-made divisions. The only positive side of maintaining the family tree was having it look nice in the Library. That seems like a small benefit to me, considering the major inconveniences.
We have already concluded long ago that allowing recruitable generals is a good thing. By scrapping any formal House system, we also eliminate the risk that the adoption of a recruitable general will screw up the family tree. If the position on the family tree has no real purpose other than for role-playing, it won’t create any major problems if the general is added on in the wrong spot.
IMO, all of the above remains true. I do not doubt that AG valued Arnold a lot more once he got his hands on him because of the wait required for the avatar. However my recollection of KOTR is that there weren't many people who reacted in the same way. As far as I remember, most people simply found it annoying to have to wait and did not like being unable to pick which House they could join. If you need any more proof about how unpopular it was, keep in mind that in KotR we actually enabled RBGs about 2/3 of the way through the game. This was not a LotR-only thing.
I think the current trend towards reminiscing about the old system is more due to the inability of many people to get into their LotR characters. I think the RBGs are getting slandered by these legitimate complaints when I think LotR's failures were in other areas. I strongly urge that RBGs be kept, though I do support the idea of making it more difficult to leave a House once you join one. Not using RBGs would be particularly bad if we also use a system that restricts expansion. The game spawns avatars based on the number of provinces controlled by the faction. If we achieve our goal of limiting expansion, there will be almost no new faction member spawns which will essentially wreck the game by leaving it depopulated.
AussieGiant
06-29-2009, 23:49
Well I'm in total legal negotiation mode right now. :balloon2:
If we go with RGB's then I would reiterate the massive significance of how the KotR system handled land, its acquisition and its distribution.
To quote TC:
*** I agree completely. Internal interaction and competition is where the fun comes from, competition against the AI is always secondary to this. Gaining power should thus be focused mainly on internal politicking, with the wars with the AI being only an after-thought (since we're bound to win them).
*** I see this is a balance between realism and gameplay. The simple fact is it is easy to conquer province, and easy expansion makes the game less enjoyable IMO. Thus, it would be best to require the conquest of provinces to not only necessitate military prowess, but also a run through the internal political system as well. If the players constantly stop a certain House or Houses from expanding, that makes for good RP conflicts.
The way it functioned in KotR was very impressive in my view.
And finally, the rule set should be kept as basic as possible and be structured that we find in the first instance an IC solution and in the second instance, another IC solution and then perhaps finally an OOC rule change. Make the formulation and rule set part of the legislation process, which is essentially what we are all doing as nobles of a Empire.
in this vein, ranks should be short, simple and few. If we need more then lets IC the thing. That in itself creates interest and action.
The KotR system was simple: the Emperor gets the provinces and hands them out as he pleases, though once given to a House they cannot be taken back without war. This worked fine in the game, though I do recall the people playing the Kaiser handing them out rather evenly instead of exploiting the system for partisan benefits. Since paritsan play by the King may be more likely in the new game (it was specifically stated in the KotR rules that it should not occur there), it makes sense to allow for an alternate route around the King. This fits historically as well, since the French Kings were pretty weak in 1080 AD and took a long time to consolidate their power. The simplest solution is to allow a 'Council of Nobles' vote to override the King. If the King allocates a province and a Duke protests this allocation, a Council of Nobles vote is called and can veto the allocation by a 2/3 vote. The Nobles can't pick WHO gets the provinces, but they can block it until the King gives it to someone they approve of.
The KotR system was simple: the Emperor gets the provinces and hands them out as he pleases, though once given to a House they cannot be taken back without war. This worked fine in the game, though I do recall the people playing the Kaiser handing them out rather evenly instead of exploiting the system for partisan benefits. Since paritsan play by the King may be more likely in the new game (it was specifically stated in the KotR rules that it should not occur there), it makes sense to allow for an alternate route around the King. This fits historically as well, since the French Kings were pretty weak in 1080 AD and took a long time to consolidate their power. The simplest solution is to allow a 'Council of Nobles' vote to override the King. If the King allocates a province and a Duke protests this allocation, a Council of Nobles vote is called and can veto the allocation by a 2/3 vote. The Nobles can't pick WHO gets the provinces, but they can block it until the King gives it to someone they approve of.
Which is essentially my suggestion, although the province immediately goes to the conquer instead of the King in my suggestion, and mine increases the Chancellors power - however, this may make for a more heated debate as to whom gets elected, and if at any point the King is the Chancellor, then the situation becomes pretty hopeless.
About that has been said recently, in a nutshell:
RGBs: I completely agree with TC, I'd rather not make players wait for the game to spawn avatars. Interacting purely in the senate for a few terms takes a great deal of dedication. I do think there should be some sort of restriction on people ditching their avatar (through carelessness or because they simply want to change) getting another one immediately after. Just a thought.
As far as new players going inactive, I think that stems mostly from feeling out of the loop. In my opinion it is up to the players in positions of power and importance to involve these new players.
Edicts for annexations: I'm partial to TC's proposition, mostly because even though I liked YLC's idea, I don't think the chancellor needs more power. I also feel its more simple to implement. YLC's idea would mean tracking which provinces are legit, which are not.
Civil Wars: I agree we need to avoid another War of Words. I liked the civil war event which ended LotR, a sort of special campaign mode for Civil War. Would this be too complicated to be used in every civil wars? If so, than the next best thing IMO is what TC proposed. How would the terrain of battle be picked? The side who has the avatar with most command stars could possibly chose the terrain of battle, representing a better strategist?
I'll likely go with the simpler annexation rules for now...
RE:Civil Wars, I kind of like being able to hold ground (like a bridge) or settlements but hated the War or Words. While I don't think things would be quite as bad here (the Basileus in Const versus and Egyptian House with neutral houses in between did not make for an easy war) I can still see why people have concerns.
Something like the system for the war in the last game could work, or just a "gather armies for one big battle". Alternatively, we could just punish people who stall. X turns with no hostile moves means an instant white peace with all captured settlements going to whoever is currently holding them.
About that has been said recently, in a nutshell:
RGBs: I completely agree with TC, I'd rather not make players wait for the game to spawn avatars. Interacting purely in the senate for a few terms takes a great deal of dedication. I do think there should be some sort of restriction on people ditching their avatar (through carelessness or because they simply want to change) getting another one immediately after. Just a thought.
As far as new players going inactive, I think that stems mostly from feeling out of the loop. In my opinion it is up to the players in positions of power and importance to involve these new players.
Edicts for annexations: I'm partial to TC's proposition, mostly because even though I liked YLC's idea, I don't think the chancellor needs more power. I also feel its more simple to implement. YLC's idea would mean tracking which provinces are legit, which are not.
Civil Wars: I agree we need to avoid another War of Words. I liked the civil war event which ended LotR, a sort of special campaign mode for Civil War. Would this be too complicated to be used in every civil wars? If so, than the next best thing IMO is what TC proposed. How would the terrain of battle be picked? The side who has the avatar with most command stars could possibly chose the terrain of battle, representing a better strategist?
I agree with most points, except -
It would be rare to have an illegitimate province, and it could be kept track of easily on a list of conquered provinces among the KotF Library. Second, we can take away a chancellors ability to decide whether or not to fund it, simply by stating he can't until it is legitimate, hence my refinement of the rule - a friendly chancellor is still important, but not overpowering. Again, not very hard, since legitimizing a province is usually a once off thing - essentially like keeping track of Chancellors.
I dislike the idea of simply making a single battle of it, simply because it removes any strategy on the map. I wouldn't mind it if it became localized however - a fight in one area or over one settlement, while skipping movement to and from. I would never, if war was declared upon me, ever summon up all my forces and bet it on one battle in the middle of nowhere - it's war, I'm not going to be a gentleman about it! I'm going to try and use tactics to bleed my opponent dry first, force small battles, or costly ones. What TC is proposing is basically the opposite and limits tactical choice - again, the basis is solid, but I'd like to be able to pick and choose my fights instead of rumbling it out in the ring with what will almost always be a 600 pound gorilla.
Why would it be rare to have illegitimate provinces? Unless I understood something incorrectly, people could just rush castles, which are pretty easy to keep in good order since we couldn't raise the taxes. I'd much rather give some more power to the king, which can be contested by the more powerful nobles, makes for good politicking.
As for the Civil War rules, I think I won't get into that right now, too tired.
Why would it be rare to have illegitimate provinces? Unless I understood something incorrectly, people could just rush castles, which are pretty easy to keep in good order since we couldn't raise the taxes. I'd much rather give some more power to the king, which can be contested by the more powerful nobles, makes for good politicking.
As for the Civil War rules, I think I won't get into that right now, too tired.
Simply giving it to the King makes it hard to defy him outright, and prevents essentially rebellious nobles - case in point, the Dukes of Aquitaine and Bavaria are very good examples.
Simply giving it to the King makes it hard to defy him outright, and prevents essentially rebellious nobles - case in point, the Dukes of Aquitaine and Bavaria are very good examples.
But Dukes can defy him pretty well, if they stir up support. Rebellious nobles usually are rebellious because they have power (I.E. Dukes). One lone knight with his small troupe taking a city for himself and keeping does not only break immersion (in my case) but also does not make much sense IMO.
But Dukes can defy him pretty well, if they stir up support. Rebellious nobles usually are rebellious because they have power (I.E. Dukes). One lone knight with his small troupe taking a city for himself and keeping does not only break immersion (in my case) but also does not make much sense IMO.
Yes, yet said Knight is basically helpless once he does so and is a nonfactor, and most likely will gain enemies instead of friends.
However, would you agree to the idea that the province comes before the Council, and that province allocation is either by the King, or the Council can give it to whom they please if they have 2/3rds majority?
Cecil XIX
06-30-2009, 07:23
TheFlax makes a good point about how players might still 'rush the map'. YLC response is sound as well, I think it all depends on how the players as a whole decide to act. With that in mind, I like Tincow's idea of having the Council block the King. I think it might be better if the Council could override the King's decision AND give it to someone else in particular, but I don't feel to strongly about it either way. I like the fact that Tincow's idea lets the King retain more power.
As to RGBs: I think they should just be limited, something of a middle ground between LOTR and the beginning/middle of KOTR. Here's a thought though, that may or may not be true: Is it possible that by forcing people to wait for avatars, the ones most likely to stick around were also most likely to be active and participate? The guys who played KOTR from beginning to end would know more about this, but to me it seems like the least active avatars appeared more around KOTR's end than it's beginning.
TheFlax makes a good point about how players might still 'rush the map'. YLC response is sound as well, I think it all depends on how the players as a whole decide to act. With that in mind, I like Tincow's idea of having the Council block the King. I think it might be better if the Council could override the King's decision AND give it to someone else in particular, but I don't feel to strongly about it either way. I like the fact that Tincow's idea lets the King retain more power.
Which is what my idea has basically come down to - seems fair, and realistic to me. You can still rush, but you will need the Council or Kings support. This increases dependency on established Houses, or the King himself to gain any power.
to RGBs: I think they should just be limited, something of a middle ground between LOTR and the beginning/middle of KOTR. Here's a thought though, that may or may not be true: Is it possible that by forcing people to wait for avatars, the ones most likely to stick around were also most likely to be active and participate? The guys who played KOTR from beginning to end would know more about this, but to me it seems like the least active avatars appeared more around KOTR's end than it's beginning.
My idea is that they are promoted or sponsored - possibly a House is allowed to sponsor a new general (RGB) once per term, with the condition that the new RGB is attached to the House.
AussieGiant
06-30-2009, 09:34
At the very least, I'd go with TC's version of land management.
Anything more is neutering the King too much. He is the King.
At the very least, I'd go with TC's version of land management.
Anything more is neutering the King too much. He is the King.
If 2/3rds of his own Nobles disagree with him, I think realistically, he wouldn't have much say anymore in how the affairs taken care of in his Kingdom, and France was a prime example of this.
AussieGiant
06-30-2009, 09:48
If 2/3rds of his own Nobles disagree with him, I think realistically, he wouldn't have much say anymore in how the affairs taken care of in his Kingdom, and France was a prime example of this.
The Council can veto it, but not force it to a certain House or noble. The King still decides. I think that is appropriate.
The Council can veto it, but not force it to a certain House or noble. The King still decides. I think that is appropriate.
Hmm...I still think we need people to pander to Houses more, and thus become dependent on them for power or any kind of gain. We also want to stir inter house rivalry. Being able to fight over who gets what could help, and it shouldn't always be the backers of the King that get everything.
My 2 cents.
Also, what do you think of my idea concerning RBG's?
if we force rgb's to be sponserd (linked to a house) we will have more civil wars, as people might want to move up in the world. That may not always be possible if ur forced to part of a certain house ;p
I joined Lotr fairely late, but did manage to fight a battle (and lose :p) and got involved in the 4 basilei war.
I hope i can get my hands on one from the start this time ;p
RBGs:
There are two main concerns that seem to be expressed regarding using RBGs. First, that players consider them disposable. There's no way to make someone keep an avatar alive when they don't want to, so it's pointless to try and do that. However, we can encourage someone to be more dedicated to their present avatar, regardless of the circumstances they're in. I see two ways of doing this:
1) Respawn timer. After a player dies, a new RBG cannot be spawned for them until X turns have passed. 5 seems reasonable to me. This would prevent avatar swapping unless you're moving from a RBG to a family member, which should probably not be blocked since those avatars stick around even if they're not being used. This also allows someone who won a battle in a civil war (and killed an enemy avatar) time to exploit their opponents temporary weakness before the player gets a chance to respawn and sign back up to fight for the same side.
2) No more multiple RBG spawns. Instead of spawning 3-6 RBGs and letting a player pick from them, a single RBG is spawned and that's what you have to take, regardless of traits, etc. This will make respawning risky because you might well get stuck with a crappy avatar or one you don't particularly like. It might also encourage more interesting roleplaying, forcing a player to take a character in a different direction than they had otherwise planned.
A combination of both 1 and 2 might be effective while still being simple to implement.
The second RBG concern that has been expressed is house instability, which I frankly think is an issue for family members as well. The best way to solve this is simply to make it hard to leave a House once you've joined one. In feudal societies, changing allegiances was a major thing and it would make sense to have major consequences. The most basic idea is simply to prevent any player from breaking an Oath except (1) if he has a dispensation from the King or (2) he declares war on his former Lord. While it makes sense to allow an Oath break if the Duke agrees to it, if the Duke and the vassal are in agreement, I suspect most Kings will give a dispensation. If the King won't allow it, it's just good IC politicking. This also gives the King a second way to manage Houses in addition to the land allocation power we are discussing.
Civil War Mechanics:
This seems to be a question of balancing strategic complexity with efficiency. I can think of many different ways of managing this. The more strategically complex it is, the slower and less likely to result in a battle it is. Here are the various systems I can think of off the top of my head, in decreasing order of complexity (and thus increasing likelihood of battles occurring).
1) Basic LotR system, as the rules are currently written. Players move normally on the map and battles occur when they encounter one another. This allows total freedom of movement in the game and is thus the most strategic, but as we saw in LotR in-game movement speeds often result in 'phony' wars with no fighting whatsoever. This system thus makes civil war almost completely harmless to an enemy whose lands are not near your own, which reduces their impact and makes them less serious. This system has the advantage of allowing gameplay to continue relatively normally while the maneuvering is in progress.
2) Phased Movement system, as was used in the LotR War of the Four Basileis. Essentially, players submit movement orders by PM to the GM or battle Umpire, who then makes all the moves simultaneously, using the console to allow multiple movement phases without advancing the game year. Only combatants submit orders, with all neutrals remaining frozen while the war takes place. This is faster than (1), more likely to result in battles due to the ability to allow increased movement ranges, and still allows moderate strategic movements, such as occupying bridges or defending certain settlements. However, players can still run away from one another or otherwise refrain from fighting if they want to. This also makes everyone else sit around and twiddle their fingers waiting for it all to be over, which can be a pain if it lasts a long time.
3) Phased Movement system, as was used in the KotR Cataclysm. Pretty much the same as (2), but everyone submits movement orders, even neutrals, and the game year keeps advancing. Has the advantages of (2) without making people twiddle their fingers. However, it's a lot more work for the GM/Umpire and it risks exploitation if the neutrals use this period of time to beat up the AI with their bonus movement.
4) MTW/Risk-style system. Similar to phased movement, but players submit orders to move based on province proximity. For instance, any player can move their army up to two (or one, or three, or whatever) consecutive provinces per phased turn. When players enter a province with a hostile force, a battle occurs. Battles are treated as they are in MTW, namely that if one army is moving into a province with the enemy, but the enemy was stationary that turn, the moving army is the attacker and the stationary army is the defender and may get a terrain/settlement advantage. If both armies were moving, it is a meeting engagement and occurs on an open battlefield without one side getting a terrain advantage. This is even faster than (2) and (3) and very likely to result in a battle, since people don't need to move close to each other in a province, they just need to be in the same province. However, this doesn't allow for the same level of strategic detail as (1) through (3) and generally limits people to deciding whether to attack or defend. This also will make the neutrals sit around watching for a while, though for not as long as (2).
5) Instant battle system. As soon as a civil war is declared, all players declare who they support or whether they are neutral. When this is completed, a battle instantly occurs with all participants on both sides showing up. When the battle is over, the war is over. This is the fastest method possible and will ALWAYS result in a battle, making civil wars very serious things. However, it allows for pretty much no pre-battle strategy beyond politically recruiting allies.
Please feel free to discuss these options or otherwise propose your own systems.
AussieGiant
06-30-2009, 14:27
As a basic premise, KotR had more interaction and IC politicking than I could handle. Therefore to me the system supported this aspect extremely well. I know it's just my experience but I did play both extremes of the spectrum, unnamed elector, then a family member.
A bit of light reading of the Diet sessions can confirm this.
RBG's are nice, but not a "must have" in my view. At the very least it's a one shot spawn in order to ensure the disposability of the RBG is not exploited.
Civil Wars...again I thought the KotR system was a nice blend of characteristics.
Civil Wars...again I thought the KotR system was a nice blend of characteristics.
The only KotR civil war system was the Cataclysm, and that took so much time to implement that I had to promise my wife I would never do it again. Just a warning to anyone considering running that kind of thing. :laugh4:
AussieGiant
06-30-2009, 14:45
The only KotR civil war system was the Cataclysm, and that took so much time to implement that I had to promise my wife I would never do it again. Just a warning to anyone considering running that kind of thing. :laugh4:
Well lets strike that from the list of options then. :beam:
Vladimir
06-30-2009, 16:28
4) MTW/Risk-style system. Similar to phased movement, but players submit orders to move based on province proximity. For instance, any player can move their army up to two (or one, or three, or whatever) consecutive provinces per phased turn. When players enter a province with a hostile force, a battle occurs. Battles are treated as they are in MTW, namely that if one army is moving into a province with the enemy, but the enemy was stationary that turn, the moving army is the attacker and the stationary army is the defender and may get a terrain/settlement advantage. If both armies were moving, it is a meeting engagement and occurs on an open battlefield without one side getting a terrain advantage. This is even faster than (2) and (3) and very likely to result in a battle, since people don't need to move close to each other in a province, they just need to be in the same province. However, this doesn't allow for the same level of strategic detail as (1) through (3) and generally limits people to deciding whether to attack or defend. This also will make the neutrals sit around watching for a while, though for not as long as (2).
This seems like a simple yet flexible system. If the player does not specify the umpire will assume they are taking the most direct route. However, the player can also specify tactical moves to end their movement on a hill, hidden in forests, and etc. The presence of a spy in an army should allow it to avoid ambushes, choose favorable terrain, and etc.
Maybe I’m thinking of a merger between (1) and (4). A hostile army shouldn’t be able to move freely through a hostile province. Simple turn-based movement doesn’t account for the use of watchtowers, spies, and scout reports that allow the defending army to react to the threat in real time. The defender should have the advantage, say, in a weighted dice role with the above sensors figured in.
Concerning the RGBs, I am in agreement, although I thought having a choice was nice.
As for the Civil War system I like option 4 the best. It seems to be a good compromise between strategy and efficiency.
Cecil XIX
06-30-2009, 17:02
I remember that at the beginning of LOTR Tincow had the swell idea of having the players vote on what type of PVP battle would be fought, with the idea of keeping things moving. Could we do something like this here?
At the start of each PVP war, there could be a poll of the choices Tincow listed, minus whatever Zim doesn't want to do. Perhaps restrict the voting just to the combatants, since they'd presumably want to get it done quickly while still caring deeply about the outcome. Zim could cast the tiebraker.
This could allow for a trial-and-error process to see which of the five systems work best, and would also allow us to adjust to the fact that some wars are more suited to the more interactive methods due to closer proximity. For example, a war between Bohemia and Austria would be resolved fairly quickly even in option one since Prague and Vienna are so close.
I remember that at the beginning of LOTR Tincow had the swell idea of having the players vote on what type of PVP battle would be fought, with the idea of keeping things moving. Could we do something like this here?
At the start of each PVP war, there could be a poll of the choice Tincow listed, minus whatever Zim doesn't want to do. Perhaps restrict the voting just to the combatants, since they'd presumably want to get it done quickly while still caring deeply about the outcome? Zim could cast the tiebraker.
This could allow for a trial-and-error process to see which of the five systems work best, as well as the fact that some wars are more suited to the more interactive methods due to closer proximity. For example, a war between Bohemia and Austria would be resolved fairly quickly in option one since Prague and Vienna are so close.
That actually seems like wonderful compromise, and I'll support it! I also like 1 and 4 from the list, but 4 only if we can have the ability to specify strategic movement.
Vladimir
07-01-2009, 20:20
Can independent knights be given forts at strategic locations to simulate the feudal system? Successful defense of those areas should allow the knight to gain status or join a house.
I'm not sure about giving them special legal status but it would be nice to see forts being used. Does LTC add the stone forts from Kingdoms or two free upkeep slots?
I think I'll have the rules done tonight.
I like TinCow's idea about a respawn rate for RGBs and only 1 at a time being recruited.
I assume for the start of the game we're recruiting enough RGBs to go around? Should this happen before or after Council session number 1?
GeneralHankerchief
07-02-2009, 00:11
I assume for the start of the game we're recruiting enough RGBs to go around? Should this happen before or after Council session number 1?
IIRC, the first turn in LotR (1080) was used specifically to recruit all the RBGs, so it would be easier to RP and such for the initial Magnaura session, which happened the turn after. Your call, but if we are doing an RBG blitz then it would probably be best to get it out of the way ASAP.
I'm not sure about giving them special legal status but it would be nice to see forts being used. Does LTC add the stone forts from Kingdoms or two free upkeep slots?
I think I'll have the rules done tonight.
I like TinCow's idea about a respawn rate for RGBs and only 1 at a time being recruited.
I assume for the start of the game we're recruiting enough RGBs to go around? Should this happen before or after Council session number 1?
I see no reason we can't do the same for this game as we did for LotR: spawn a large number of RBGs and then put them up with the pre-existing family members for selection by lottery. Even if we choose not to allow selection from multiple RBGs later, this is just the easiest method of distributing a large number at once. It does require that the game be advanced one turn before we start though, so that the RBGs can be spawned.
One idea that might be worth considering is developing a system for resolving "duels" between characters. There are some situations in which verbal blows escalate to the point where some physical combat is fitting, but a full blown "civil war" is not - mainly because it is a matter of personal "honor" rather than rebellion per se. In KotR, I remember the Arnold/Jan feud raising this kind of issue - also I think Lothar made some duel type challenge at one point.
Duels would require mutual consent (I don't think we want to go down the road of allowing our characters to murder others). To resolve a duel, I think I could put together some kind of quick umpired system. To make it involving, players could give the umpire some kind of basic order each "round" and the outcome be resolved depending on chance and relevant character stats, traits and experience etc. The possible outcomes could involve death, wounding and new traits (dread for killers, chivalry for merciful victors etc).
Ideally, I would base it on some workable existing skirmish type rule set. (Anyone want to recommend one?) If not, I daresay I could come up with some passable system - e.g. based on some rock-paper-scissors gameplay. Move orders could perhaps include posture: defensive/cautious attack/all out attack; perhaps direction (strike left/right/high/low); and perhaps some "special moves" - e.g. disarm, immobilise.
While in real life, duels might depend heavily on personal skill, in game, I'd be inclined to make it fairly random (you lose either because you rolled low or because you played paper to your opponent's scissors) as the character stats are not focused on physical attributes and anyway the game would suffer if one player emerged as an uber duellist who could slay all others STW geisha style.
I'd also be inclined to allow champions to be nominated as combatants - either NPCs or players - although the rewards would be reduced in line with the risks and players may take a dim view of knights hiding behind their NPC champions. The quality of the NPC champion could vary with rank - it would be a bold man who duelled the king's champion (and an equally bold king who personally duelled rather than relied on such a champion).
Any interest?
We don't need to sort this out in advance of the game as hopefully no one will emerge newborn with a deadly vendetta. Indeed like the table top battle rules, the duel system need not be part of the core rules anyway. But it should not take too long to devise and would be useful to get finalised before any particular duel arises (so the system is not biased towards a particular combatant).
Cecil XIX
07-03-2009, 01:00
While I'd like for such a system to exist, I fear there's too little in MIITW for a basis, and since duels are decided more by physicality than battles I'm not sure any system would recognize who is the best duelist.
Nevertheless, just having the option would be a great boon to roleplaying. I don't know if you've read about it yet econ, but Tincow came up with a marvelous system for simulating chariot races for LotR. I think if it can be done for one, it can be done for the other. I'd say it's definitely worth a try. To iron out kinks, how about the first few duels in the game can't be to the death, and/or we do some test duels first?
That could certainly be fun. In LotR I developed a rule set to run chariot races with random results but with enough detail to produce interesting and unique outcomes each time. I posted the rules here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2224877&postcount=75). A similar system could be used for dueling if you do it in a 'fencing' system, a lot like boarding ships in Sid Meier's Pirates (if you ever played that). The basic idea being that you've got a game board of 7 squares in a single row. Both duelists start in the middle, on square 4. Die rolls are used to determine what happens. For instance, on a roll of 1, duelist A pushes his oppenent back a square, or on a roll of 6, duelist B pushes his oppenent back 2 squares. For flavor, there can be other effects, like an injury which reduces someone's chances in future rolls, or perhaps someone owns an excellent sword which gives them an advantage on a roll once or twice in a duel. When a person is pushed off their last square, they lose. There is then a roll to determine whether they were injured or killed in the process.
Cecil XIX
07-03-2009, 01:05
Tincow's use of the word 'fencing' made me wonder: How exactly did duels work in the middle ages, particularly the 11th-13th centuries that will likely make up most, if not all of KotF. Does anybody know what weapons, equipment etc. were used. I wouldn't want realism to detract from the fun and functionality of the dueling system, but I'd rather avoid us fighting with rapiers and epees and smallswords.
One idea that might be worth considering is developing a system for resolving "duels" between characters. There are some situations in which verbal blows escalate to the point where some physical combat is fitting, but a full blown "civil war" is not - mainly because it is a matter of personal "honor" rather than rebellion per se. In KotR, I remember the Arnold/Jan feud raising this kind of issue - also I think Lothar made some duel type challenge at one point.
Seconded - my first character Iakovos in LotR tried to get this done multiple times with at least Elite Ferrets character.
would require mutual consent (I don't think we want to go down the road of allowing our characters to murder others). To resolve a duel, I think I could put together some kind of quick umpired system. To make it involving, players could give the umpire some kind of basic order each "round" and the outcome be resolved depending on chance and relevant character stats, traits and experience etc. The possible outcomes could involve death, wounding and new traits (dread for killers, chivalry for merciful victors etc).
Ideally, I would base it on some workable existing skirmish type rule set. (Anyone want to recommend one?) If not, I daresay I could come up with some passable system - e.g. based on some rock-paper-scissors gameplay. Move orders could perhaps include posture: defensive/cautious attack/all out attack; perhaps direction (strike left/right/high/low); and perhaps some "special moves" - e.g. disarm, immobilise.
Brainstorm - we could resolve it similarly to Swords in the Moon, using Command as a rating for their duel score, with other stats such as chivalry, dread, and piety coming into factor.
Command - Basic stat? Command could be both number of hitpoints, with each turn could be alternating rounds of offense and defense, and represent number of dice rolled - 1 die for every 2 command stars, minimum 1 maximum 5.
Chivalry - defense bonuses? So whoever has higher chivalry gets a +1 bonus when defending from an attack.
Dread - offense bonuses? So whoever has higher dread gets a +1 bonus when attacking?
Piety - increase die size? Who ever has the most piety gets a bump in their die size, from a standard 1d6 to a 1d8?
Loyalty - Comes into play only when one is a champion? Gives a +1 offense and defense bonus, if the champions loyalty is higher?
While in real life, duels might depend heavily on personal skill, in game, I'd be inclined to make it fairly random (you lose either because you rolled low or because you played paper to your opponent's scissors) as the character stats are not focused on physical attributes and anyway the game would suffer if one player emerged as an uber duellist who could slay all others STW geisha style.
I'd also be inclined to allow champions to be nominated as combatants - either NPCs or players - although the rewards would be reduced in line with the risks and players may take a dim view of knights hiding behind their NPC champions. The quality of the NPC champion could vary with rank - it would be a bold man who duelled the king's champion (and an equally bold king who personally duelled rather than relied on such a champion).
Any interest?
We don't need to sort this out in advance of the game as hopefully no one will emerge newborn with a deadly vendetta. Indeed like the table top battle rules, the duel system need not be part of the core rules anyway. But it should not take too long to devise and would be useful to get finalised before any particular duel arises (so the system is not biased towards a particular combatant).
Aye!
I don't know a whole lot about medieval duels, but they definitely were not like fencing. I just used that term because it has a similar physical setup, with both fighters starting in the middle, and people spar forward and backward without variation to either side. That's easy to keep track of in a numerical system.
An alternative to dueling that might get used a bit more would be drinking challenges. Have an argument? Settle it by drinking your opponent under the table.
Cecil XIX
07-03-2009, 01:20
Brainstorm - we could resolve it similarly to Swords in the Moon, using Command as a rating for their duel score, with other stats such as chivalry, dread, and piety coming into factor.
Command - Basic stat? Command could be both number of hitpoints, with each turn could be alternating rounds of offense and defense, and represent number of dice rolled - 1 die for every 2 command stars, minimum 1 maximum 5.
Chivalry - defense bonuses? So whoever has higher chivalry gets a +1 bonus when defending from an attack.
Dread - offense bonuses? So whoever has higher dread gets a +1 bonus when attacking?
Piety - increase die size? Who ever has the most piety gets a bump in their die size, from a standard 1d6 to a 1d8?
Loyalty - Comes into play only when one is a champion? Gives a +1 offense and defense bonus, if the champions loyalty is higher?
I like most of these, and would definitely prefer to see our character sheets matter as much as possible so the duel seems more 'real'. I'm not sure if it makes much sense for command to give a bonus to duels, wouldn't valor be better? I also can't see any logic in having piety affect battles, except maybe morale? One thing to consider is traits that give a bonus to hitpoints, that translates from battles to duels the easiest.
While in real life, duels might depend heavily on personal skill, in game, I'd be inclined to make it fairly random (you lose either because you rolled low or because you played paper to your opponent's scissors) as the character stats are not focused on physical attributes and anyway the game would suffer if one player emerged as an uber duellist who could slay all others STW geisha style.
I would prefer the opposite. Unlike the geisha (shudder), you can simply choose not to engage in a duel. I also don't think it would get used much, who'd be willing to risk their character/empower their opponent by placing things mostly in the hands of fate? Characters would need to be largely in control, like they are in the tabletop battles.
I like most of these, and would definitely prefer to see our character sheets matter as much as possible so the duel seems more 'real'. I'm not sure if it makes much sense for command to give a bonus to duels, wouldn't valor be better? I also can't see any logic in having piety affect battles, except maybe morale? One thing to consider is traits that give a bonus to hitpoints, that translates from battles to duels the easiest.
I would prefer the opposite. Unlike the geisha (shudder), you can simply choose not to engage in a duel. I also don't think it would get used much, who'd be willing to risk their character/empower their opponent by placing things mostly in the hands of fate? Characters would need to be largely in control, like they are in the tabletop battles.
Makes sense - Valor then, with every 3 Valor giving a single die, from 1-4 dice.
Piety is a representation of intellect as well in M2TW, so expanding on that idea, an intelligent persons ability to quickly think would open up a greater chance for them to react to new situations - but would not guarantee any hard advantage, hence why the die is still entirely random. This would also only apply for one die.
I think I'll make a list of a all traits that would be relevant in a duel from the vnv.text and post it with it's ingame modifier and possible duel modifier, should be fun.
Cecil XIX
07-03-2009, 01:35
Piety is a representation of intellect as well in M2TW, so expanding on that idea, an intelligent persons ability to quickly think would open up a greater chance for them to react to new situations - but would not guarantee any hard advantage, hence why the die is still entirely random. This would also only apply for one die.
I think I'll make a list of a all traits that would be relevant in a duel from the vnv.text and post it with it's ingame modifier and possible duel modifier, should be fun.
Is it? Not to get into a philosophical debate of course, I just haven't noticed that. If anything I remember traits that suggest the opposite, although maybe that was only in the first MTW. Regardless, I like your explanation very much and would gladly read your report on the relevancy of the traits.
Is it? Not to get into a philosophical debate of course, I just haven't noticed that. If anything I remember traits that suggest the opposite, although maybe that was only in the first MTW. Regardless, I like your explanation very much and would gladly read your report on the relevancy of the traits.
Ingame, an increase in piety equivilates into an increase in the ability to generate tax revenue, and it appears the two via stats are not mutually exclusive ingame.
Getting on that report, give me an hour or 2
woad&fangs
07-03-2009, 01:50
In Lady Frog's story, there was a part where the Scottish king held a tournament between Fulk and some random noble. Basically, each side hand picked ten knights and then they fought a mini-skirmish with blunted weapons. If a knight got captured he had to pay off a set "ransom price" to whoever captured him. The skirmish was fought until one side captured all the knights on the other side. This could also give the chance for other players to get involved to increase their own standing by fighting in the tournament for one of the two fighting parties.
Or else we could just do jousting. Everybody likes jousting.
Edit: I'd be totally happy with the other ideas discussed so far. I'm just throwing in my :2cents:
Trait list, and my take on them. Warning - very long.
GoodCommander/BadCommander
Traits that effect command shouldn't be added - why? Because command is far different then actually fighting. Not everyone who was a brilliant commander was a brillaint fighter, and not all brilliant fighters were good commanders - in short, it's far to situational to give any defintive ground as to why it gives a bonus.
Drinker
It's possible this one could give a penalty - fighting drunk is likely to get you killed, and alcohol thins the blood, meaning you will bleed more easily.
Feck
Besides the humor interjected in a fight description, I am not sure how well smack talk translated during a duel, so...
Arse
Definitive penalty to combat, possibly increasing the chance of failing an attack or defense
Girls
I honestly can't see this becoming involved in a duel at all...
Sobriety
A Bonus to dueling, for keeping a clear and level head?
GoodAmbusher/BadAmbusher
This may or may not give some form of slight of hand bonus, enabling you to "cheat" in a duel, or suffer from not understanding how to cheat in the case of badambusher.
Disciplinarian/BadDisciplinarian
Could possibly give an excellent bonus to insure that your actions almost never fail, since the character has trained very, very hard. An opposite effect for being a bad one.
Good/Bad Seiger
Same issue with the GoodCommander/BadCommander traits
Brave/Coward
Bonus/penalty to attack, or simply a similar bonus to Disciplinarian? Nonetheless, an important trait in a duel.
Slothful/Energetic
Changes in priority when attacking and defending, possibly allowing energetic avatars to be able to reroll a die, with slothful being forced to reroll their highest die. It could also translate into a loss of a die or an increase in number of dice. powerful, and usually rare trait.
Berserker
Definite bonus to attack and penalty to defense
Xenophobia/Xenophilia
No effect in a duel, except some smack talk...
PublicFaith/Atheism
I'm not sure this would ever factor into a duel, besides how the avatar ended up in it.
Good/BadAdministrator
Unless it's a duel to see who can transcribe the bible faster...no bonus or penalty.
Inspiring/BoringSpeaker
A possibility for morale, if it's involved - otherwise, no effect
RhetoricSkill
Bonus only if we can bore our opponent to death
StrategicSkill
Possibly a larger die size as a benefit.
TacticalSkill
Allows you to reroll those dice if they are not to your liking - limited by your level in this trait. Possibly being able to reroll one die per round, per level in the trait.
MathematicsSkill
Again, no effect in a duel
PoliticsSkill
Isn't that why we are fighting the first place? Because you have none?
LogisticalSkill
No effect
Rabblerouser
Great way to get the crowd on yourside, otherwise not sure this would help.
VictorVirtue
Same as Rabblerouser, although it may give some kind of intimidation factor
Epicurean/Stoic
Have no clue how this would work out, both only effecting loyalty and the ability to be bribed.
Austere/Aesthetic
Similar issue to Epicurean/Stoic
Ignorance
Lower success rates, but with a bonus to morale?
Gambling
Reroll everything, but only once per duel
SpyMaster
No foreseeable benefit, except for trying to cheat or be able to negate cheats
AssassinMaster
Understanding how to kill someone is of a great benefit - possible attack bonus, or ability to ignore your opponent highest die roll.
CounterSpy
This would probably work better for being able to catch cheaters then SpyMaster
AssassinCatcher
Possible defense bonuses with the ability to ignore your opponents highest attack roll?
High/LaxPersonalSecurity
Defensive penalty/bonus?
Trusting/Paranoia
Same as above
Liar
Increased ability to "cheat"?
Embezzler
This isn't so much a good trait for dueling, as a good way to end up dueling
DeceiverVirtue
High potential to be a good "cheat" trait
Upright
Good anti-cheat trait potential
Corrupt
Another good cheating trait, although this one could have the possibility of backfiring compared to DecieverVirtue
Authoritarian/Nonauthoritarian
I don't see this coming into play ina duel very much as a deciding factor
Disloyal/Loyal
Again, not sure
Cuckhold
Your not fighting with THAT sword...so, no effect
GoodFarmer
Trimming a plant is a bit different then trimming a bush - no effect
GoodMiner
No idea how on earth this could help...
Good/BadEngineer
Catapults and Seige Towers are bit of a no go in dueling...
Good/BadTrader
This would never come into play in a duel
Just/Unjust
No bonus beyond what each trait gives, although this may count if we also include regular jousting for a morale bonus
Harsh/LenientJustice
Same as above
Harsh/KindRuler
Same as above
Good/BadBuilder
Not important during a duel, unless you designed the arena in which your fighting
Generous/Miserly
If we involve a crowd, this is a definite morale bonus
Noctophobia/philia
A time of day bonus/penalty? only if your opponent is foolish enough to challenge you when you have advantage
Perverted
This, should, never come up. If it does, then...I think we will have far greater issues then deciding who is the winner of the duel...
Scout
Gives an opening duel bonus to attack and defense
BattleScarred
Possibly a trait which reduces the randomness of your own rolls? And adds a Hp bonus?
Good/BadInfantryGeneral
You understand the dynamics of an infantryman and the tactics inherent in dismounted combat in the medieval era - I say a signifigant dueling bonus, or penalty
Good/BadCavalryGeneral
Same as above, but only for Jousting.
Fears and Hates "InsertFaction"
No effect
Inbred
Your momma jokes may be taken to a whole new level, but your comabt skills won't be - no effect.
Handsome
A pretty face isn't going to duel for you, but may get the crowd on your side
Ugly
If you have a third arm or second head, this may help. otherwise, I see no effect
Fertile
Nope, not going there...
Infertile
No effect in dueling
Good/BadTaxman
No effect
Divorced
Lots of openings for humor, little openings for actually effecting who is going to win - no effect
Good/BadRiskyAttacker
Should give a hefty bonus/penalty to attacking, with the penalty of making it more random.
Good/BadRiskyDefender
Same as above, but gives a bonus/penalty to defense, and a morale bonus/penalty instead of making it more random
Pragmatic/Superstitious
Not sure what this would do...
ExpensiveTastes/Cheapskate
Same as above...
Hypochondriac/HaleAndHearty
Modifies Hp? and Morale?
TouchedByTheGods
No clue
Sane/Insane
Not sure
Deranged
This is probably one to leave alone, since it's very subjective
Bloodthirsty
Attack Bonus?
Haemophobic
Attack Penalty?
Anger
This could grant a bonus to damage - where once you did only 1 damage (to morale or HP) per success, you now do 2, at the cost of making your attacks and defenses more erratic.
Lewd
No effect
Prim
Anti-cheating effect?
IndecisiveAttacker
Attack penalty?
Intelligent
A small, but general bonus to everything
Despoiler
Unless your fighting a Venetian or playing American Football, there really is no need to sack your opponent...
Genocide
This shouldn't effect the outcome of a duel
NaturalMilitarySkill
Unsure, but possibly a similar effect to having "Intelligent"
ForcedReligious
No effect
CrusaderHistory
Hmmm...a morale bonus?
BattleDread
Enhanced ability to cheat? Ability to reduce your opponents morale?
BattleChivalry
Exact opposite of BattleDread?
StrategyDread/Chivalry
Same as above?
CaptorDread/Chivalry
Same as above, or not involved at all?
RansomChivalry/Dread
Same as above?
Good/BadArtilleryCommander
Again with the catapults! No means no!
Good/BadGunpowderCommander
Cannons included!
Cursed
The dice usually decide this anyway, so - no effect
StrickenSilly/Serious
Possibly allowing you to use a Champion with no penalty?
Gregarious/Introvert
Another crowd pleasing trait, possible morale bonus
Dis/ContentGeneral
No effect
WifeIs "etc"
No effect
FactionKiller
No effect
Good/Bad Diplomacy
Obviously didn't work before you ended up in a duel...
Legacy traits
No effect
TourneyKnight
Good for Jousting, and for morale
AcademyTrained
Maybe reduce the randomness of your dice?
GloriousFool
Unsure - most likely no effect
TooOldtoFight
Ability to use a champion without penalty
Senile
Same as above
Cecil XIX
07-03-2009, 05:21
Trait list, and my take on them. Warning - very long.
GoodCommander/BadCommander
Traits that effect command shouldn't be added - why? Because command is far different then actually fighting. Not everyone who was a brilliant commander was a brillaint fighter, and not all brilliant fighters were good commanders - in short, it's far to situational to give any defintive ground as to why it gives a bonus.
Drinker
It's possible this one could give a penalty - fighting drunk is likely to get you killed, and alcohol thins the blood, meaning you will bleed more easily.
Feck
Besides the humor interjected in a fight description, I am not sure how well smack talk translated during a duel, so...
Arse
Definitive penalty to combat, possibly increasing the chance of failing an attack or defense
Girls
I honestly can't see this becoming involved in a duel at all...
Sobriety
A Bonus to dueling, for keeping a clear and level head?
GoodAmbusher/BadAmbusher
This may or may not give some form of slight of hand bonus, enabling you to "cheat" in a duel, or suffer from not understanding how to cheat in the case of badambusher.
Disciplinarian/BadDisciplinarian
Could possibly give an excellent bonus to insure that your actions almost never fail, since the character has trained very, very hard. An opposite effect for being a bad one.
Good/Bad Seiger
Same issue with the GoodCommander/BadCommander traits
Brave/Coward
Bonus/penalty to attack, or simply a similar bonus to Disciplinarian? Nonetheless, an important trait in a duel.
Slothful/Energetic
Changes in priority when attacking and defending, possibly allowing energetic avatars to be able to reroll a die, with slothful being forced to reroll their highest die. It could also translate into a loss of a die or an increase in number of dice. powerful, and usually rare trait.
Berserker
Definite bonus to attack and penalty to defense
Xenophobia/Xenophilia
No effect in a duel, except some smack talk...
PublicFaith/Atheism
I'm not sure this would ever factor into a duel, besides how the avatar ended up in it.
Good/BadAdministrator
Unless it's a duel to see who can transcribe the bible faster...no bonus or penalty.
Inspiring/BoringSpeaker
A possibility for morale, if it's involved - otherwise, no effect
RhetoricSkill
Bonus only if we can bore our opponent to death
StrategicSkill
Possibly a larger die size as a benefit.
TacticalSkill
Allows you to reroll those dice if they are not to your liking - limited by your level in this trait. Possibly being able to reroll one die per round, per level in the trait.
MathematicsSkill
Again, no effect in a duel
PoliticsSkill
Isn't that why we are fighting the first place? Because you have none?
LogisticalSkill
No effect
Rabblerouser
Great way to get the crowd on yourside, otherwise not sure this would help.
VictorVirtue
Same as Rabblerouser, although it may give some kind of intimidation factor
Epicurean/Stoic
Have no clue how this would work out, both only effecting loyalty and the ability to be bribed.
Austere/Aesthetic
Similar issue to Epicurean/Stoic
Ignorance
Lower success rates, but with a bonus to morale?
Gambling
Reroll everything, but only once per duel
SpyMaster
No foreseeable benefit, except for trying to cheat or be able to negate cheats
AssassinMaster
Understanding how to kill someone is of a great benefit - possible attack bonus, or ability to ignore your opponent highest die roll.
CounterSpy
This would probably work better for being able to catch cheaters then SpyMaster
AssassinCatcher
Possible defense bonuses with the ability to ignore your opponents highest attack roll?
High/LaxPersonalSecurity
Defensive penalty/bonus?
Trusting/Paranoia
Same as above
Liar
Increased ability to "cheat"?
Embezzler
This isn't so much a good trait for dueling, as a good way to end up dueling
DeceiverVirtue
High potential to be a good "cheat" trait
Upright
Good anti-cheat trait potential
Corrupt
Another good cheating trait, although this one could have the possibility of backfiring compared to DecieverVirtue
Authoritarian/Nonauthoritarian
I don't see this coming into play ina duel very much as a deciding factor
Disloyal/Loyal
Again, not sure
Cuckhold
Your not fighting with THAT sword...so, no effect
GoodFarmer
Trimming a plant is a bit different then trimming a bush - no effect
GoodMiner
No idea how on earth this could help...
Good/BadEngineer
Catapults and Seige Towers are bit of a no go in dueling...
Good/BadTrader
This would never come into play in a duel
Just/Unjust
No bonus beyond what each trait gives, although this may count if we also include regular jousting for a morale bonus
Harsh/LenientJustice
Same as above
Harsh/KindRuler
Same as above
Good/BadBuilder
Not important during a duel, unless you designed the arena in which your fighting
Generous/Miserly
If we involve a crowd, this is a definite morale bonus
Noctophobia/philia
A time of day bonus/penalty? only if your opponent is foolish enough to challenge you when you have advantage
Perverted
This, should, never come up. If it does, then...I think we will have far greater issues then deciding who is the winner of the duel...
Scout
Gives an opening duel bonus to attack and defense
BattleScarred
Possibly a trait which reduces the randomness of your own rolls? And adds a Hp bonus?
Good/BadInfantryGeneral
You understand the dynamics of an infantryman and the tactics inherent in dismounted combat in the medieval era - I say a signifigant dueling bonus, or penalty
Good/BadCavalryGeneral
Same as above, but only for Jousting.
Fears and Hates "InsertFaction"
No effect
Inbred
Your momma jokes may be taken to a whole new level, but your comabt skills won't be - no effect.
Handsome
A pretty face isn't going to duel for you, but may get the crowd on your side
Ugly
If you have a third arm or second head, this may help. otherwise, I see no effect
Fertile
Nope, not going there...
Infertile
No effect in dueling
Good/BadTaxman
No effect
Divorced
Lots of openings for humor, little openings for actually effecting who is going to win - no effect
Good/BadRiskyAttacker
Should give a hefty bonus/penalty to attacking, with the penalty of making it more random.
Good/BadRiskyDefender
Same as above, but gives a bonus/penalty to defense, and a morale bonus/penalty instead of making it more random
Pragmatic/Superstitious
Not sure what this would do...
ExpensiveTastes/Cheapskate
Same as above...
Hypochondriac/HaleAndHearty
Modifies Hp? and Morale?
TouchedByTheGods
No clue
Sane/Insane
Not sure
Deranged
This is probably one to leave alone, since it's very subjective
Bloodthirsty
Attack Bonus?
Haemophobic
Attack Penalty?
Anger
This could grant a bonus to damage - where once you did only 1 damage (to morale or HP) per success, you now do 2, at the cost of making your attacks and defenses more erratic.
Lewd
No effect
Prim
Anti-cheating effect?
IndecisiveAttacker
Attack penalty?
Intelligent
A small, but general bonus to everything
Despoiler
Unless your fighting a Venetian or playing American Football, there really is no need to sack your opponent...
Genocide
This shouldn't effect the outcome of a duel
NaturalMilitarySkill
Unsure, but possibly a similar effect to having "Intelligent"
ForcedReligious
No effect
CrusaderHistory
Hmmm...a morale bonus?
BattleDread
Enhanced ability to cheat? Ability to reduce your opponents morale?
BattleChivalry
Exact opposite of BattleDread?
StrategyDread/Chivalry
Same as above?
CaptorDread/Chivalry
Same as above, or not involved at all?
RansomChivalry/Dread
Same as above?
Good/BadArtilleryCommander
Again with the catapults! No means no!
Good/BadGunpowderCommander
Cannons included!
Cursed
The dice usually decide this anyway, so - no effect
StrickenSilly/Serious
Possibly allowing you to use a Champion with no penalty?
Gregarious/Introvert
Another crowd pleasing trait, possible morale bonus
Dis/ContentGeneral
No effect
WifeIs "etc"
No effect
FactionKiller
No effect
Good/Bad Diplomacy
Obviously didn't work before you ended up in a duel...
Legacy traits
No effect
TourneyKnight
Good for Jousting, and for morale
AcademyTrained
Maybe reduce the randomness of your dice?
GloriousFool
Unsure - most likely no effect
TooOldtoFight
Ability to use a champion without penalty
Senile
Same as above
Generally speaking, I agree with your comments. It's very helpful to have all these traits compiled.
I think haleandhearty/hypochondriac should definitely be included, since hp is the one stat the translates directly into dueling. I think it would be best if characters in duels had the same HP that they did in battles, since continuity between in-game mechanics and PBEM rules is usually for the best.
EDIT: I think I'll do the file for ancillaries myself.
Generally speaking, I agree with your comments. It's very helpful to have all these traits compiled.
I think haleandhearty/hypochondriac should definitely be included, since hp is the one stat the translates directly into dueling. I think it would be best if characters in duels had the same HP that they did in battles, since continuity between in-game mechanics and PBEM rules is usually for the best.
Hence, never challenge the guy with Hale and Hearty, Battle Scarred, and Fine Plate Armor to a duel - ever.
Personally, I would rather see a system like econ proposed, detached from M2TW and with tactical options during the fight.
Cecil XIX
07-03-2009, 06:21
Hence, never challenge the guy with Hale and Hearty, Battle Scarred, and Fine Plate Armor to a duel - ever.
Indeed. In otherwords, you need to be an irresistable force in order to have a chance against an immovable object.
Personally, I would rather see a system like econ proposed, detached from M2TW and with tactical options during the fight.
Certainly it's a matter of opinion. Mine is that since MII:TW is the reality upon which we build the rest of the game, we should stay as true to it as possible. I do want to include tactical options regardless though, as I wouldn't want be able to tell who's going to win before the fight even starts!
Its obvious both of you have put some thought into this and I have to commend YLC's dedication in writing out all those traits with a comment attached. I agree with Cecil about M2TW being the reality our characters live in, but its a pretty flawed and limited reality.
My two biggest qualms about this idea is firstly its complexity. That's a lot of date to take into account and I've always been a proponent of simple game systems. (When they are handled by humans) Secondly, when does adding data like traits, ancillaries and stats stops? For example, what of age? Surely experience isn't everything and a 20 years old has an advantage over a 60 years old in the physical department. I'm sure others could come up with a few other things like that which aren't represented in M2TW.
Cecil XIX
07-03-2009, 06:54
Indeed, there have to be limits. I wouldn't want to speak for YLC, but I think it's important to determine every possible factor we could implement, and from there narrow the focus down to what's feasible. I think we're just giving whoever creates the rules material he can choose to work with, not everything has to be included.
For a moment there I had a vision of horror; a system with about 50 to 60 modifiers for each characters. :laugh4:
For a moment there I had a vision of horror; a system with about 50 to 60 modifiers for each characters. :laugh4:
Hey now, better watch it - I'm starting to have fun organizing the system and choosing which stats to incorporate - no more then 20 will be in, and I am awaiting Cecil's ancillary list (and Save my Senator!).
I think in creating any dueling system it might be best to err on the side of simplicity... very few
MTW2 stats relate to personal combat anyway. Bonuses for special weapons and armor might be interesting, though.
Woad That's pretty much how tournements were done through most of the Middle Ages, I believe. :yes:
_Tristan_
07-03-2009, 08:40
From what I know of French history, dueling per se didn't appear until the 16th century when swords got lighter.
What we had before was the "Jugement de Dieu" (God' s Judgment) in which the aggrieved party met its opponent on the field to settle their dispute before God, the will of God being expressed by the gift of victory.
Most times, this judgment was first conducted on horseback with lances and if necessary was prolonged with whatever weapons were chosen, axes, swords, maces...
I fully agree that implementing such a system could be a great addition to the game.
Cecil XIX
07-03-2009, 08:49
All right, here's what I got for ancillaries. This analysis doesn't include the ancillaries effects on the four basic stats or valor, if those stats end up mattering. I didn't include unique ancillaries like religious artifacts for historical persona, they can be dealt with as they occur. Since there's a limit to how many ancillaries a character can have, unlike with traits, it may be practicle to factor in them all. If nothing else, this could serve as an RP guide for people who want to write stories about the run-up to a duel.
academic_advisor - Unless he can find you some 'fighting manuals', he won't be very useful.
actor - Could help you get the audience on your side, otherwise useless.
adultress/foreign/she-male - Could affect the audience, but that's it.
alchemist - HP bonus is definitely applicable, and if we allow dueling with pistols later he'd help you get high-quality weapons.
apothecary - HP bonus is helpful, perhaps he gives a stat boost via ye olde energy drink?
architect - Only way this would help is if you were fighting in an arena built by this guy, and he included
trap doors and giant blades coming from the ceiling.
armour_custom - This is probably the most obviously beneficial ancillary in the game. Armor is important, right?
armour_ornate - Worse than your average noble's armor, but could help get the crowd on your side. I suppose you could choose not to wear it, but then you can't choose in a real battle.
artist - I can't see this guy being helpful at all during the battle, but if he immortalizes your victory afterward that could increase certain rewards.
astrologer - I suppose if you believe this guy, his predictions could affect your performance.
bard - This guy would be a real crowd pleaser, if that matters. And like the artist, it's always nice to have someone immortalizing your past victories, right?
biographer - Again, this guy could only be helpful after the duel; always will to write of battle in the best terms.
black_stallion - Helpful in a joust, useless outside of one.
bodyguard - A sparing partner for better practice, or perhaps an above average champion should you choose to decline.
brilliant_inventor - Conceivably he could invent some fancy do-hicky to surprise your opponent with.
caravan_driver - He could bring you something useful from a distant land, if that isn't streching things.
crooked_judge - He could do something cheesy like have your opponent arrested, but I doubt that'd be allowed in the rules.
doctor - Having the best available personnel to give you care and a good once-over after a duel has obvious benefits, what those are depends on the rules.
drillmaster - Undergoing an intense physical regimen is a good way to train body and mind to operate calmly and effectively in a fight.
evil_mother-in-law - Having her in the audience, cheering on your opponent, could either be a real downer or a keen way to focus your anger.
foodtaster - If your opponent tries to poison you before the duel, this guy could be really helpful.
fool_brilliant - Perhaps this idiot savant has noticed something about your opponent in a moment of clarity...
fool_usual - A warm-up act for the audience, if nothing else.
harsh_judge - Probably not the best time to remind the audience who this man's patron is...
herald - The closest thing you can get to entering the field of honor with your own theme song playing.
intrepid_explorer - If you chose to join this man on his expeditions through rediculous terrain, it is child's play to move deftly through a flat arena.
knight_beserker - A good champion to fight in your stead, and sparring with this man will definitely help you defend against your opponent's attacks.
knight_chivalrous - Another fine champion, and a good sparing partner who will get you used to fighting someone *else* who's chivalrous.
knight_dread - Same as a knight_chivalrous, just with dread instead of chivalry.
knight_santiago - Again, a fine champion to fight in your stead and a good sparing partner. Perhaps his dedication to the Lord will inspire you as well?
knight_stjohn - See 'knight_santiago'
knight_templar - See 'knight_santiago'
knight_teutonic - See 'knight_santiago'
lancebearer - If you're jousting, it's good to know someone who can get the best lances.
librarian - Perhaps some ancient sword treatise could ensure your victory...
magician - The audience is sure to support a noble who employs a miracle worker...
magician_pagan - But not someone who defies the word of god.
master_mason - See 'architect'
master_of_archers - Unless duels involve bows or crossbows in some way, this guy isn't going to be very useful.
master_of_assassins - This is someone who can definitely teach you how to end a fight quickly. Perhaps he knows a way to disable someone without killing them?
master_of_horse - A good horse is of great benefit in a joust, but only their.
master_smith - Making sure your weapons and armor are of good quality is quite a boon.
mathematician - If only he could calculate kinetic energy and the pressure at the tip of an opponent's weapon fast enough to be of help..
mentor - Old men with experience can have all kinds of useful information.
mercenary_captain - This guy can set you up with some sparing partners, and even find a top-class warrior to fight in your stead.
military_engineer - Unfortunately, this guy's engineering is useless for personal combat.
money_counter - Unless you need help getting enough money for arms and armor, this guy can sit on the sidelines.
musician - A good choice to warm up the audience. And people will remember who his employer is!
nosy_mother - This is not a distraction you want when you're preparing for a fight, but at least she stands between you and your enemies.
ordinance_master - If only, if only...
overseer - Good management can't help you in the heat of battle, not unless you're in need of a quick mob.
pet_guarddog - Restrained or not, if he sees your opponent going for the coup-de-grace...
physician - See 'doctor'
priest - Having a man of god on hand can help your peace of mind. At least he can quickly administer last rites.
quartermaster - Perhaps this man can quickly acquire high-quality arms & armor for you?
royal_escort - Stand in, sparing partner and someone you can keep an eye out for fishy business. It's good to royalty.
runner - Athletics are a good way to prepare for battle.
scout - A man who's used to scouting out the enemy in preperation for battle, where ever the field lies.
scribe_ancillary - Not much use for writing in battle, unless he can find you a book on techniques.
shieldbearer - When your shield stand between you and the enemy's blade, you'll be glad you had a man who could get you the best shield.
siege_engineer - See 'ordinance_master'
soothsayer - See 'astrologer'
spymaster - The perfect choice to find your opponent's weaknesses, as well as safeguard your own.
swift_steed - A good horse is invaluable in a joust.
swordbearer - The more swords you have access to, the more you can have faith in the best of the bunch.
tax_farmer - If you need money for bribes, this guy's your man. But would you?
torturer - No matter how badly you beat your opponent, you can't sick this guy on him. Still, he can teach you a few tricks on how to cause pain your opponent can only imagine.
treasurer - See 'tax_farmer'
trusty_steed - To you and your horse, a joust is just another battle.
tutor - See 'mentor'
veteran_warrior - Perhaps the best champion and sparring partner a nobleman could ask for.
I was actually thinking of narrowing down the list, and basing it off of TC's Chariot Race Rules, but allow the players to influence it in a RPS fashion, and then rolling dice based upon valor.
Thus, in the following fight, we have two knights
Knight Cecil has 2 HP, as dictated by his avatar, and 6 valor (3 silver chevrons), which would give him 3 dice per phase.
Knight Flax has 4 HP, as dictated by his avatar, Fine Armor, and Hypochondria, with 4 valor (1 silver chevron), giving him 2 dice per phase.
Knight Cecil has the trait "Scout", giving him the opening move - he chooses attack, and his stance type - High, Mid, and Low - Mid.
Knight Flax chooses his stance type - High, Mid, Low - Low
Low>High>Mid>Low for reference, with the superior stance gaining a +1 bonus to all it's rolls
Knight Cecil rolls 4, 1, and 5, and each die gets +1 due to his superior stance, giving him rolls of 5, 2, and 6
Knight Flax rolls a 4 and 3 - not enough to beat either of Knight Cecil scores. Knight Flax is soundly beaten this phase, losing 2 HP.
Knight Flax then goes on attack, rolling 4 and 3 yet again, this time with Mid as his stance.
Knight Cecil defends with 4, 6 and 1 with his stance set to High, giving him advantage, with 5, 7, and 2.
Knight Flax is unable to damage Cecil, who is fighting superbly and easily countering everything being thrown at him.
Knight Cecil then launches into his own string of attacks - 5, 4, and 5 - with his stance set to Mid.
Knight Flax flounders under the withering series of blows - rolling 1 and 1 - and even screws up his stance, having it set at Low, giving Cecil +1 to his attack (6, 5 and 6). Knight Flax loses 2 HP, is on his knees, and is at the mercy of Knight Cecil's masterful handling of combat.
Okay, yes, a bit cheesy, BUT, this was all decided by random.org, so blame chaos if you so wish. This is the very basic setup, and the only current changes I am thinking of is "expanding" upon the idea of chivalry and knavery actions, and having every 3 chevrons add another die and hitpoint.
AussieGiant
07-03-2009, 10:02
Yes so why don't we just play AD&D on line?
You guy's are going rule mad.
Yes so why don't we just play AD&D on line?
You guy's are going rule mad.
Thats where I thought this dueling thing was going, although in a far and away simpler format. Suddenly I am tempted to duel everyone from KotR against each other :laugh4:
It's fun though, and it will most likely happen rarely. Most extremely simple systems have to much random chance in them.
And this will mostly be a write up of how everything plays out, with me or whomever as arbiter.
You know what, I'm going to go do that - pit the old electors against their hated rivals and see who wins :laugh4:. It's just to tempting to pass up.
Yes so why don't we just play AD&D on line?
You guy's are going rule mad.
I thought you would be interested in the idea of rules for duels, as it was the memory of Arnold impotently pursuing Jan that made me suggest the idea. I agree there is a risk of over-complexity, although with duels requiring mutual consent, it will be easy for a player to opt out if the rules just do their head in. Let's ponder on it for a few days and then when we have one or two specific proposals, we can decide.
Most times, this judgment was first conducted on horseback with lances and if necessary was prolonged with whatever weapons were chosen, axes, swords, maces...
That's exactly what I had in mind - I like grounding rules in history, otherwise everything risks seeming arbitrary. My thinking is that the opening jousting would be relatively bloodless and with few modifiers (they would primarily relate to experience, age and any traits relating specificallly to riding). The fun - risk of death and rules compexity - would really start if it got to combat on foot, although I take AGs point that we don't want to go overboard.
I like TCs and YLCs ideas. I'll do some research on the history and possible rules, then come back in a couple of days with a proposed system that steals draws from them. Once we have exhausted discussion, we can put any specific proposals to Zim for approval and if they receive it, organise a poll if there is a choice or disagreement among other players.
GeneralHankerchief
07-03-2009, 11:07
I thought you would be interested in the idea of rules for duels, as it was the memory of Arnold impotently pursuing Jan that made me suggest the idea. I agree there is a risk of over-complexity, although with duels requiring mutual consent, it will be easy for a player to opt out if the rules just do their head in. Let's ponder on it for a few days and then when we have one or two specific proposals, we can decide.
One of the biggest problems in LotR was a sort of rule overload in which the complexity and sheer volume of things we had to familiar with was bogging down the game. Midway through the PBM, TinCow called a time-out and a group of us worked together to streamline things. Since then, there's been a kind of spoken and unspoken consent to make it as KISS as possible.
One of the biggest problems in LotR was a sort of rule overload in which the complexity and sheer volume of things we had to familiar with was bogging down the game. Midway through the PBM, TinCow called a time-out and a group of us worked together to streamline things. Since then, there's been a kind of spoken and unspoken consent to make it as KISS as possible.
I'm hoping that I can do a KISS for the participants, and handle the rules complexity on my side - this way, the participants would only need to play a rock paper scissors game, and try to focus on the psychology of their opponent. It's proven that you can consistently win at RPS, through strategy :laugh4:
If any duel system is picked, I'd say the easiest thing to do would be to place it outside the official KOTF rules, rather like TinCow's race in the Hippodrome. A "tournament field" thread could be created to act as both an IC thread and site for duels. Anyone wanting to fight one would then have to agree to go by the ruleset presented, or do it all as a story or whatever they prefer. I could implement any in-game changes they agreed on (say one character died, or they were betting a province or something).
That way the main rules don't get cluttered up, and if certain things worked or didn't it would be much easier play around with the duel rules.
If any duel system is picked, I'd say the easiest thing to do would be to place it outside the official KOTF rules, rather like TinCow's race in the Hippodrome. A "tournament field" thread could be created to act as both an IC thread and site for duels. Anyone wanting to fight one would then have to agree to go by the ruleset presented, or do it all as a story or whatever they prefer. I could implement any in-game changes they agreed on (say one character died, or they were betting a province or something).
That way the main rules don't get cluttered up, and if certain things worked or didn't it would be much easier play around with the duel rules.
I'm already adapting my rules to take this into account, which will centralize each characters stats for the duel system and will allow fair creation of Champions. We could go one step further and create full tourneys with the system, both for mounted and unmounted combat.
If any duel system is picked, I'd say the easiest thing to do would be to place it outside the official KOTF rules, rather like TinCow's race in the Hippodrome. ...
That way the main rules don't get cluttered up,...
In that spirit, it's probably best to split off discussion of tournament rules into a separate thread, so it does not crowd out or over-shadow consideratin of the core game rules. I'll start a new thread for it.
One of the biggest problems in LotR was a sort of rule overload in which the complexity and sheer volume of things we had to familiar with was bogging down the game. Midway through the PBM, TinCow called a time-out and a group of us worked together to streamline things. Since then, there's been a kind of spoken and unspoken consent to make it as KISS as possible.
QFT, though I don't generally think this applies to ancillary rule systems like the chariot races. The biggest problem I see with the duels is not that they will be too complex (only one person really needs to understand them anyway) but that they won't be used. I originally imagined the chariot races as a way for people to gamble their possessions with others and to resolve disputes by seeing whose team won a race. It was never used for that.
If there is a serious risk of death from dueling, I doubt we'll see it used too much. I don't know about you, but I'm not likely to risk my avatar's life on a roll of the dice. If I'm going to get myself killed, it will be in a PvP battle. This is the reason I suggest drinking challenges instead.
QFT, though I don't generally think this applies to ancillary rule systems like the chariot races. The biggest problem I see with the duels is not that they will be too complex (only one person really needs to understand them anyway) but that they won't be used. I originally imagined the chariot races as a way for people to gamble their possessions with others and to resolve disputes by seeing whose team won a race. It was never used for that.
If there is a serious risk of death from dueling, I doubt we'll see it used too much. I don't know about you, but I'm not likely to risk my avatar's life on a roll of the dice. If I'm going to get myself killed, it will be in a PvP battle. This is the reason I suggest drinking challenges instead.
Oh, I see how it is - exclude those who can't or won't drink. And what if I dislike the alcohol in question?How fair of you :laugh4:
AussieGiant
07-03-2009, 14:37
The new thread is covering this gents.
And I make the same issue TC just did. It's a nice threat to have, which maybe all it needs to be as if someone in the Diet session has enough steam up he can use it as a leverage point.
Can you imagine Arnold with good duelling characteristics in a Diet session....sweat lord, it could have been a blood bath...literally.
Having said that...it's a hell of a risk.
_Tristan_
07-03-2009, 15:00
I originally imagined the chariot races as a way for people to gamble their possessions with others and to resolve disputes by seeing whose team won a race. It was never used for that.
I hate to contradict but I can remember at least one instance of this : settling the dispute between Methodios (myself) and Nikiphoros (Warmaster Horus) over Scopia of all provinces (:laugh4:).
And I must admit that I rather like the idea of non-lethal (but shameful, for the loser) "trial by god".
I hate to contradict but I can remember at least one instance of this : settling the dispute between Methodios (myself) and Nikiphoros (Warmaster Horus) over Scopia of all provinces (:laugh4:).
And I must admit that I rather like the idea of non-lethal (but shameful, for the loser) "trial by god".
So you like my rule set? Anything you'd like to see, amended, added, removed? Posted in the correct thread of course
_Tristan_
07-03-2009, 15:21
See my post in said thread :yes:
we can always add that in later...
let's just get the game main rules out of the way so we can get started ;p
I am about done with my proposal on a system for duelling - we can see if rival systems are proposed and decide on how to go forward on the duelling "mini-game" in due course. It looks like we have some time before all the players have Kingdoms, so it might be good to review the core rules, which are much more important than any mini-game. I was struck by what TC said recently in another thread:
... how I feel about LotR in general: many improvements that made the game better, but lots of flaws with the system that prevented it from really coming into its own. Fortunately, a lot of those problems were ironed out along the way so we don't have to deal with them anymore. The 'Royal Army' system that was pioneered in KotR has transformed into an excellent and very efficient system for private ownership of military units, as have the rules for IC legislation and OOC rule changes. The built-in ability for the GM to launch 'events' at will also helps a great deal. However, the House structure and the PvP mechanics were never properly polished up during the game and we're still trying to resolve the problems with them now.
Maybe I am reading this wrong, but I wonder if this implies we need to do more work on House structure and PvP mechanics? Reading this thread, I can see the point about the latter, at least. Do other people think there are problems? Are there solutions? I'm coming late to this discussion and without the benefit of following LotR, so forgive me if I am asking to go over old ground.
EDIT:
On other matters, a few minor points on the rules:
3 (d) Wills and inheritance: insert Wills must be deposited with Zim before the character's death to be considered valid.
Ducal succession was an issue in KotR and personally I don't like players making key decisions after their avatar is dead. Do we explicitly allow Dukes to resign? If not, I think we should.
3 )(f) Rules disputes : maybe state that Zim's ruling can over turn that of the King/Prince/Chancellor? this is to avoid a player who really abuses this power in an OOC way. Also, I am leery of giving the Chancellor sole power over the disputes involving the King/Prince. Wouldn't a council of Dukes plus the Chancellor be better?
3(f) Emergency sessions I am leery about allowing Dukes to call these. They really slow the game down and I would rather not let one partisan player do this. Maybe require a second Duke to agree? Two Dukes shouting stop sounds like an emergency - one not so much.
On impeachment, presumably it requires an emergency session, if it is to be done out of full session?
5 (b) army ownership: what's a garrison? any pre-existing stack in a settlement? or just free upkeep militia?
French terminology - now we have selected our faction, does that mean we should change some terminology to fit the context? e.g. do we need titles for some of our concepts, e.g. should it be Senate or Parliament or Assembly or what? What are our 4 Houses going to be called and which provinces will be in which? My preference is for something regional, roughly corresponding to east, west, north, south, but I don't know the details.
Cecil XIX
07-04-2009, 01:36
The problems with Houses in LotR was that they were so fluid that they didn't have much meaning, pretty much the opposite of what the problem was in KotR. Since the system in KotR seemed to work a bit better, the current version of KotF's rules are mixed between the two, but leaning towards KotR. I think we're satisfied with that, right?
As for PVP, the issue there was that in LotR most of the civil wars ocurred across distances so great that you could spend a whole Chancellor's term marching without getting to your enemy. That hasn't been fully resolved, although I think part of the problem was that we never got around to building paved roads through Anatolia. Also, we used Stainless Steel for LotR, which might have different movement rates than LTC. Perhaps LTC will be better?
In any case, my prefered solution is this: At the beginning of a civil war, either the combatants or all players will vote on the movement system to use that's most suitable for the war to be fought. The options are those Tincow outlines here:
1) Basic LotR system, as the rules are currently written. Players move normally on the map and battles occur when they encounter one another. This allows total freedom of movement in the game and is thus the most strategic, but as we saw in LotR in-game movement speeds often result in 'phony' wars with no fighting whatsoever. This system thus makes civil war almost completely harmless to an enemy whose lands are not near your own, which reduces their impact and makes them less serious. This system has the advantage of allowing gameplay to continue relatively normally while the maneuvering is in progress.
2) Phased Movement system, as was used in the LotR War of the Four Basileis. Essentially, players submit movement orders by PM to the GM or battle Umpire, who then makes all the moves simultaneously, using the console to allow multiple movement phases without advancing the game year. Only combatants submit orders, with all neutrals remaining frozen while the war takes place. This is faster than (1), more likely to result in battles due to the ability to allow increased movement ranges, and still allows moderate strategic movements, such as occupying bridges or defending certain settlements. However, players can still run away from one another or otherwise refrain from fighting if they want to. This also makes everyone else sit around and twiddle their fingers waiting for it all to be over, which can be a pain if it lasts a long time.
3) Phased Movement system, as was used in the KotR Cataclysm. Pretty much the same as (2), but everyone submits movement orders, even neutrals, and the game year keeps advancing. Has the advantages of (2) without making people twiddle their fingers. However, it's a lot more work for the GM/Umpire and it risks exploitation if the neutrals use this period of time to beat up the AI with their bonus movement.
4) MTW/Risk-style system. Similar to phased movement, but players submit orders to move based on province proximity. For instance, any player can move their army up to two (or one, or three, or whatever) consecutive provinces per phased turn. When players enter a province with a hostile force, a battle occurs. Battles are treated as they are in MTW, namely that if one army is moving into a province with the enemy, but the enemy was stationary that turn, the moving army is the attacker and the stationary army is the defender and may get a terrain/settlement advantage. If both armies were moving, it is a meeting engagement and occurs on an open battlefield without one side getting a terrain advantage. This is even faster than (2) and (3) and very likely to result in a battle, since people don't need to move close to each other in a province, they just need to be in the same province. However, this doesn't allow for the same level of strategic detail as (1) through (3) and generally limits people to deciding whether to attack or defend. This also will make the neutrals sit around watching for a while, though for not as long as (2).
5) Instant battle system. As soon as a civil war is declared, all players declare who they support or whether they are neutral. When this is completed, a battle instantly occurs with all participants on both sides showing up. When the battle is over, the war is over. This is the fastest method possible and will ALWAYS result in a battle, making civil wars very serious things. However, it allows for pretty much no pre-battle strategy beyond politically recruiting allies.
To use KotR as an example, this would allow us to use a different rule set for a war between Austria and Franconia than Austria and Outremer, where distance and time could really harm things. I think deciding on a system on a case-by-case basis really helps keep things flowing well.
Thanks, Cecil. I agree we have probably solved most of these issues. I am still wondering about unit recruitment in a civil war though. This goes back to my view about tabletop battles which is that it is the pre-battle army strength rather than the battle itself which determines the outcome. What we seem to have now is that the Chancellor can decide to pick which priority recruitments to make - so having the Chancellor on your side in the war seems crucial. I might be ok with that [1] but I just want to check that is intended.
[1] It seems to imply rebels will need to have mustered their men before declaring war, or planted a compliant chancellor. I guess the rule requiring all prioritised units to be recruited before any others is some constraint on the chancellor - as is the threat of impeachment - but still. One reason why it may be ok is just the logistical hassle of decentralising unit recruitment and the associated economic model. We trialled such a thing in a co-operative concept before Kotr, but it was just spreadsheet hell.
On choosing the system for resolving PvP strategic movement, my preference would be for Zim to make the call rather than have a vote. Particular systems are likely to favour one side more than another (e.g. the strong initial faction will want a quick resolution, the underdogs may want a guerilla war). We can't expect players to vote impartially in that situation. I would rather Zim decide what is best from the point of view of a realistic simulation and from the point of view of keeping the game moving in a fun manner. He could change things mid-stream too, if the guerilla was just stalling and it was a war of words etc.
GeneralHankerchief
07-04-2009, 02:17
I would like to comment on the issue of PvP, more specifically the battles:
(d) - PvP Battles: Whenever two hostile armies enter adjacent squares, a PvP Battle will occur, even if the armies have movement points remaining. If both players agree, the battle will be fought via multiplayer, with Zim or anyone he chooses acting as umpire. The umpire will determine the map and the precise composition of the armies. If the battle is not fought via multiplayer, there will be a 24 hour voting period to determine how the battle will be fought. The voting options will be (a) Tabletop Battle (b) Abbreviated Tabletop Battle and (c) AI Battle. All players may vote, even those not involved in the battle, all votes will be unweighted, and the option that receives the most votes will be chosen. Tabletop Battles will be in the style of the The Battle of the Iron Bridge and the Battle of the Basileis and will be umpired by Zim or anyone he chooses. Abbreviated Tabletop Battles will be identical to a Tabletop Battle, but will be 1 turn in length. Players will determine their starting positions and outline a general strategy for the battle. The umpire will then play out the battle and determine the victor. The umpire may allow a maximum of 1 or 2 additional turns beyond the starting turn if they so choose. The Abbreviated Tabletop Battle will be run by Zim or anyone he chooses. AI Battles will be custom battles in the TW engine in which the AI will control all units on both sides. AI battles will be umpired by Zim or anyone he choose. The umpire will determine all settings to be used in the battle, including the map and the precise composition of the armies. Regardless of the type of battle chosen, the umpire must attempt to have the battle replicate the in-game state of affairs to the best of his ability. Regardless of the type of battle chosen, the umpire will determine the results, including, but not limited to, units to be disbanded as casualties, avatars to be killed off as casualties, and changes in the control of provinces. Console commands may be used to implement the results.
I think that we may have to rework how we choose exactly what style of battle we fight. In LotR, I count a total of six battles being fought, if we divide the Battle of the Basileis into three separate engagements. Four were tabletop and two were MP. As the umpire for all of the tabletop battles (even though I had help thanks to Zim and TinCow), I was pretty blown out by the end of the PBM.
Now, we do have, by my reckoning, four players that have experience umpiring battles: Myself, Zim, TinCow, and econ21. That *should* be enough to cover everything. But in the case of, say, a Franconia/Austria Civil War that doesn't utilize the "everybody load up and throw it in" mechanic, there might be a string of battles at once. If they're all tabletop, that could seriously slow things down and kill the umpires. Naturally, every player is going to want to fight the full-on tabletop, but sometimes I think that shouldn't happen.
Instead, I propose the following:
If the engagement isn't MP, then there is a vote to determine the exact style, as before. However, it is divided three ways:
- 33% of the vote goes to the participants.
- 33% goes to the entire player base.
- 33% goes to the GM.
In my opinion, this would give a fairer representation to the relative weight of the player base and perhaps work to streamline things.
I am still wondering about unit recruitment in a civil war though. This goes back to my view about tabletop battles which is that it is the pre-battle army strength rather than the battle itself which determines the outcome. What we seem to have now is that the Chancellor can decide to pick which priority recruitments to make - so having the Chancellor on your side in the war seems crucial. I might be ok with that [1] but I just want to check that is intended.
Yes, having the Chancellor be your ally is crucial during a Civil War and it was intentionally created that way. The way I saw it in LotR (and still do) a properly prepared civil war involves political campaigning to put yourself into a position where you can then seize whatever you want with military power. For the same reason, it is also important to stockpile military units when you can get them so that if an enemy comes after you while a hostile Chancellor is in power, you can still survive. I like this kind of system very much, because it forces people to use politics (and thus IC moves) in order to win civil wars. This seems realistic to me and focuses the game towards domestic interaction rather than attacking the AI.
The end of LotR was a direct result of such a situation. Zim was a heavy backer of Ignoramus, who was the son of the previous Emperor, but had not inherited the throne due to game mechanics. Zim and Ignoramus made sure that Zim got elected as Chancellor, and then Zim used his time to build up massive armies for Ignoramus. When the final war started, this resulted in Ignoramus having such a large force at his disposal that he was essentially invulnerable unless all his foes united against him from the start. They did not do this, and thus Ignoramus was the victor... all because he made sure to get an ally elected as Chancellor and that Chancellor specifically used his powers to boost Ignoramus.
Yes, having the Chancellor be your ally is crucial during a Civil War and it was intentionally created that way. ...
Ok, that's very illuminating. I am a little worried that creating a very powerful strategy like this might distort the game. Now people have seen Ignoramus do it so successfully, there may be a scramble to repeat the trick and make civil war the focus of the game from the outset. I'm not sure that is wise given the problems we have implementing PvP mechanics (not to mention my personal tilt towards cooperative rather than competitive play). I wonder if we should muddy the waters a bit so that "get a Chancellor, then declare civil war" is not guaranteed to be so effective next time? One possibility would be to introduce some kind of "loyalty test" mechanic with units - so that some units may defect or desert from an army. The likelihood of such attrition could depend on the political balance of power. That might make the Chancellor's mega army less likely to conquer all, if he lacks political support.
I guess one basic question to ask is why do we want civil wars in the game? We did not allow for them in the WotS and KotR rules and only really used them to make the bring the game to a conclusion. A good reason for allowing for civil wars is to deal with massive divisive conflicts that get so heated, they can only be resolved by war. The English Civil War and the American Civil War are examples of such things. An additional reason would be for allowing for more minor disputes etc between nobles, but I am not convinced that is the way to go (hence the duelling idea). If we just want civil wars to be "big", we could require some political prerequisite - e.g. only Dukes or higher can declare civil war. That also might be a good way of allowing for some but not all lesser disputes. Personally, I think the competition between players is more fun when done via politicking and jockeying for influence rather than engaging in open warfare.
While talking of declaring war, what are the rules about declaring wars on (edit) civil foreign powers? I see the King can do - is it only the King? Or can the Senate vote for a war?
Cecil XIX
07-04-2009, 04:48
Ok, that's very illuminating. I am a little worried that creating a very powerful strategy like this might distort the game. Now people have seen Ignoramus do it so successfully, there may be a scramble to repeat the trick and make civil war the focus of the game from the outset. I'm not sure that is wise given the problems we have implementing PvP mechanics (not to mention my personal tilt towards cooperative rather than competitive play). I wonder if we should muddy the waters a bit so that "get a Chancellor, then declare civil war" is not guaranteed to be so effective next time? One possibility would be to introduce some kind of "loyalty test" mechanic with units - so that some units may defect or desert from an army. The likelihood of such attrition could depend on the political balance of power. That might make the Chancellor's mega army less likely to conquer all, if he lacks political support.
I guess one basic question to ask is why do we want civil wars in the game? We did not allow for them in the WotS and KotR rules and only really used them to make the bring the game to a conclusion. A good reason for allowing for civil wars is to deal with massive divisive conflicts that get so heated, they can only be resolved by war. The English Civil War and the American Civil War are examples of such things. An additional reason would be for allowing for more minor disputes etc between nobles, but I am not convinced that is the way to go (hence the duelling idea). If we just want civil wars to be "big", we could require some political prerequisite - e.g. only Dukes or higher can declare civil war. That also might be a good way of allowing for some but not all lesser disputes. Personally, I think the competition between players is more fun when done via politicking and jockeying for influence rather than engaging in open warfare.
While talking of declaring war, what are the rules about declaring wars on civil powers? I see the King can do - is it only the King? Or can the Senate vote for a war?
I think the chancellor is a little too important in civil wars. While he certainly should be a factor, it seemed like having him on your side was all that mattered. I'm also rather concerned that the results of endgame PVP in KotR and LotR were so obvious in hindsight, rather than closely contested matches. Obviously there's no reason that can't happen some of the time, but if it keeps happening it may indicate a problem.
To answer your question about Civil Wars, we want them for the same reason we want duels. It's odd to not have the option when it makes sense that such things could happen. I like your idea for restrict people's ability to declare though. Perhaps counts can only start civil wars in order to break away from the Houses, either to join another House or to start a new one.
I think the chancellor is a little too important in civil wars. While he certainly should be a factor, it seemed like having him on your side was all that mattered. I'm also rather concerned that the results of endgame PVP in KotR and LotR were so obvious in hindsight, rather than closely contested matches. Obviously there's no reason that can't happen some of the time, but if it keeps happening it may indicate a problem.
To answer your question about Civil Wars, we want them for the same reason we want duels. It's odd to not have the option when it makes sense that such things could happen. I like your idea for restrict people's ability to declare though. Perhaps counts can only start civil wars in order to break away from the Houses, either to join another House or to start a new one.
Which is what I saw as an inherent problem of the civil war system as of now, and it was my opinion that we some how balance this, possibly through a militia or mercenary recruitment, for those who had civil war declared upon them - possibly 2 militia of the highest quality from each settlement under the declared's control, be it a House, the Duke himself, or any of his underlings.
Those changes seem reasonable. I hadn't really expected many rules disputes to happen, I think about that one...
2 Dukes to call an emergency session makes sense.
Impeachment does indeed require an emergency session.
A garrison is any units inside of a settlement, at least for the purposes of the rules.
EDIT:
On other matters, a few minor points on the rules:
3 (d) Wills and inheritance: insert Wills must be deposited with Zim before the character's death to be considered valid.
Ducal succession was an issue in KotR and personally I don't like players making key decisions after their avatar is dead. Do we explicitly allow Dukes to resign? If not, I think we should.
3 )(f) Rules disputes : maybe state that Zim's ruling can over turn that of the King/Prince/Chancellor? this is to avoid a player who really abuses this power in an OOC way. Also, I am leery of giving the Chancellor sole power over the disputes involving the King/Prince. Wouldn't a council of Dukes plus the Chancellor be better?
3(f) Emergency sessions I am leery about allowing Dukes to call these. They really slow the game down and I would rather not let one partisan player do this. Maybe require a second Duke to agree? Two Dukes shouting stop sounds like an emergency - one not so much.
On impeachment, presumably it requires an emergency session, if it is to be done out of full session?
5 (b) army ownership: what's a garrison? any pre-existing stack in a settlement? or just free upkeep militia?
French terminology - now we have selected our faction, does that mean we should change some terminology to fit the context? e.g. do we need titles for some of our concepts, e.g. should it be Senate or Parliament or Assembly or what? What are our 4 Houses going to be called and which provinces will be in which? My preference is for something regional, roughly corresponding to east, west, north, south, but I don't know the details.
I think befriending the Chancellor or making careful use of prioritized units before a Civil War should give some advantages. I should note my case in LOTR was somewhat exaggerated. Nobody seemed to pay attention to my gross overspending and recruitment of troops in the middle of the Empire where they weren't needed (or if they did noone objected) and noone but Rossahh called in any prioritized units, which would have made things tougher.
I'm not sure about artificially buffing the defending side... maybe due to civil unrest units can't be recruited in provinces involved in a Civil War? This would have the side benefit of punishing anyone engaged in a long war, and mean that once it began, the advantage of having a Chancellor friend decrease greatly.
GH I fear that might be getting too complicated. I'd like the deciding phase for battles to go quickly, especially since a day or so of voting could easily take longer than many of the pvp battle methods (excepting tabletop of course). It is something to think about though...
I'm not sure about artificially buffing the defending side... maybe due to civil unrest units can't be recruited in provinces involved in a Civil War? This would have the side benefit of punishing anyone engaged in a long war, and mean that once it began, the advantage of having a Chancellor friend decrease greatly.
That sounds like a fair compromise, and actually stresses House alliances more, who can give units from their lands, where they can still be recruited. It can also setup another House, such as those who prepared the whole thing, to suddenly be backstabbed and lose another Houses support who had been supplying them with troops.
I just don;t want our civil wars to all be "coups"
I'm not sure about artificially buffing the defending side... maybe due to civil unrest units can't be recruited in provinces involved in a Civil War? This would have the side benefit of punishing anyone engaged in a long war, and mean that once it began, the advantage of having a Chancellor friend decrease greatly.
From what I understood from TC, the issue is not so much what the Chancellor does during the civil war - although that is an issue - but what he has done before. You recruit a big army and then declare civil war, not declare first and then recruit. If anything, freezing recruitment during the civil war could aggravate that, not address it as it makes permanent the initial advantage. (If the attackers were very unpopular, an emergency diet could impeach the Chancellor and the defenders could then use their own Chancellor to start recruiting troops). It would also seem wholly ahistoric - in the ECW, ACW etc, the starting armies were rather pitiful in size and quality. It was during the war that the sides recruited and trained masses to their side.
One step might be to say that Civil Wars are always "events" in which the gamemaster has the right to intervene by conjuring up and moving forces as he sees fit. That would remove the need to have complex rules to cover a tricky area, but by puts a lot of responsibility/pressure on Zim (and potentially turns it into a game of who has Zim's ear).
But I still like the "desert-deflect" mechanic I suggested. The idea would be that, whenever a noble joins a civil war, each of their units are subject to a "loyalty" test, which would be harder if the noble's side lacks political support. It would not be to artificially buff the defending side, but to allow for the fact that not all troops could be relied upon to fight against their brothers - especially if the cause was unpopular. (I am thinking of Russia in 1917 and also in the failed "coup" against Gorbachev amongst countless other examples here). The tricky part would be to gauge the degree of political support. What I would suggest is a secret ballot made at the start of the hostility where people voted for side A, B or abstained. The results would modify the loyalty test. This ballot would be a one shot affair, so it would be in civil warrior's interests to build up the popularity before the war - a good thing, IMO, because it would encourage "big" divisive civil wars as opposed to small coup like grabs for power. It would be secret so that people can declare their true sympathies, even if at the start of the war they are remaining neutral (or even playing a double game).
The test could be something simple - e.g. roll a D6.
0 or less defect
1 desert
2 desert
4+ pass
Modifiers could be:
If you have 75% or more support: +2
If you have 50% or more support: +1
If your opponent has 40% or more support: -1
If your opponent has 60% or more support: -2
Note these are percentages of all votes cast - including neutrals.
So in a balanced civil war, both sides would lose 1/3 of their starting units to desertion - making initially massing of a force a bit less effective. Defection would only occur when your opponent has considerable political support. Desertion would not be a problem if a strong majority rally around you.
This mechanic could either be formally in the rules or just one option open to the gamesmaster when running the civil war event. My preference would be for the former, so people can make informed plays and not be tempted to work behind the scenes to influence game mechanics, but adherents of KISS would prefer the latter.
From what I understood from TC, the issue is not so much what the Chancellor does during the civil war - although that is an issue - but what he has done before. You recruit a big army and then declare civil war, not declare first and then recruit. If anything, freezing recruitment during the civil war could aggravate that, not address it as it makes permanent the initial advantage. (If the attackers were very unpopular, an emergency diet could impeach the Chancellor and the defenders could then use their own Chancellor to start recruiting troops). It would also seem wholly ahistoric - in the ECW, ACW etc, the starting armies were rather pitiful in size and quality. It was during the war that the sides recruited and trained masses to their side.
One step might be to say that Civil Wars are always "events" in which the gamemaster has the right to intervene by conjuring up and moving forces as he sees fit. That would remove the need to have complex rules to cover a tricky area, but by puts a lot of responsibility/pressure on Zim (and potentially turns it into a game of who has Zim's ear).
But I still like the "desert-deflect" mechanic I suggested. The idea would be that, whenever a noble joins a civil war, each of their units are subject to a "loyalty" test, which would be harder if the noble's side lacks political support. It would not be to artificially buff the defending side, but to allow for the fact that not all troops could be relied upon to fight against their brothers - especially if the cause was unpopular. (I am thinking of Russia in 1917 and also in the failed "coup" against Gorbachev amongst countless other examples here). The tricky part would be to gauge the degree of political support. What I would suggest is a secret ballot made at the start of the hostility where people voted for side A, B or abstained. The results would modify the loyalty test. This ballot would be a one shot affair, so it would be in civil warrior's interests to build up the popularity before the war - a good thing, IMO, because it would encourage "big" divisive civil wars as opposed to small coup like grabs for power. It would be secret so that people can declare their true sympathies, even if at the start of the war they are remaining neutral (or even playing a double game).
The test could be something simple - e.g. roll a D6.
0 or less defect
1 desert
2 desert
4+ pass
Modifiers could be:
If you have 75% or more support: +2
If you have 50% or more support: +1
If your opponent has 40% or more support: -1
If your opponent has 60% or more support: -2
Note these are percentages of all votes cast - including neutrals.
So in a balanced civil war, both sides would lose 1/3 of their starting units to desertion - making initially massing of a force a bit less effective. Defection would only occur when your opponent has considerable political support. Desertion would not be a problem if a strong majority rally around you.
This mechanic could either be formally in the rules or just one option open to the gamesmaster when running the civil war event. My preference would be for the former, so people can make informed plays and not be tempted to work behind the scenes to influence game mechanics, but adherents of KISS would prefer the latter.
Yes, but the system is comparativly complex compared to ceasing all unit production within the provinces directly controlled by those involved in the civil war.
I swear, there is a non-complex way to solve this, without overburdening the GM, without overpowering the Chancellor, and I will find it!
Wait! What if we allow for the possibility of having those whom war is being declared upon be able to call an emergency session?
*reaction to Econ's last post, YLC hadn't posted yet when I wrote this...
I guess I'm a little confused. Given that the Chancellor is the guy who can recruit soldiers (true in KOTR and LOTR, although the former didn't have a regular civil war system) it makes sense that getting him to recruit troops for you before declaring war is a good idea.
If after the war the winner succeeded because he managed to ensure he had more troops at the outset...well, that also makes sense to me.
I suppose there are a lot of conditions that maybe should effect how loyal the instigator's troops are. Whether he's seen as a legitimate authority figure, the popularity and perceived righteousness of his cause, his personal charisma and likelihood of attracting supporters... heck, I spent a good time in college studying civil wars and what affects their perceived legitimacy, it's part of earning a degree in Political Science, but I can't see representing those accurately without making things too complicated.
If such a system as suggested were put in place and it was up to me to decide I'd likely make the chances of desertion equal on both sides. If left to the players....well, I'm not sure whether or not that would be a good measure of the popularity of noble x's cause among the common people, who are the majority of the army, not the nobles voting (not to mention that more votes means more time with the game frozen, something I'm trying to avoid in deciding in both this and choosing the Civil War method...).
Wait! What if we allow for the possibility of having those whom war is being declared upon be able to call an emergency session?
To say, try to impeach or get forced support for troops?
From what I understood from TC, the issue is not so much what the Chancellor does during the civil war - although that is an issue - but what he has done before. You recruit a big army and then declare civil war, not declare first and then recruit. If anything, freezing recruitment during the civil war could aggravate that, not address it as it makes permanent the initial advantage. (If the attackers were very unpopular, an emergency diet could impeach the Chancellor and the defenders could then use their own Chancellor to start recruiting troops). It would also seem wholly ahistoric - in the ECW, ACW etc, the starting armies were rather pitiful in size and quality. It was during the war that the sides recruited and trained masses to their side.
I have no better response to the first bit except Sun Tzu:
"The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory."
As for the second part, what you say is true about historical accuracy. However, it is also historically inaccurate during these time periods to have standing armies of any kind. I have no ideas about how to solve this problem that do not make the game too complex. After LotR, I am very wary of complicated rule systems.
KnightnDay
07-04-2009, 15:20
Couldn't agree more.
Cecil XIX
07-04-2009, 15:25
"The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory."
That's very true, but to me seeking battle after victory is really boring. Perhaps I'm the only one who thinks that way, but since this is first and foremost a game what's boring or not is a concern.
I guess I'm a little confused. Given that the Chancellor is the guy who can recruit soldiers (true in KOTR and LOTR, although the former didn't have a regular civil war system) it makes sense that getting him to recruit troops for you before declaring war is a good idea.
If after the war the winner succeeded because he managed to ensure he had more troops at the outset...well, that also makes sense to me.
It makes sense from the point of view of rational player behaviour given our rules. I am just questioning whether the game played by those rules is the most fun. "Get a Chancellor elected; recruit; win civil war" sounds a less interesting game than "Get a lot of powerful players on your side; win civil war." But that's just my opinion.
One thing I would like to explore is what we want the PvP system to be for. What kinds of conflicts do we want to lead to PvP action? Then we can review what rules would make them play out the best. Perhaps we could brainstorm on that question and see where it leaves?
Let's start with a few possibilities:
EDIT: 0. War of secession: one party wages war to break away from the faction. This is very historical, but does not really fit M2TW. We don't have a good way to split up the finances etc of a single faction. So I think we should allow this only if it marks the end of the game, ie is of the next type...
1. Terminal civil war: a climactic struggle to end the game, leaving one side utterly victorious and the other dead or exiled. This is the WotS and KotR civil war. Given that such a conflict will be a one off, I think we don't need to worry too much about it - we could improvise as we have done and it would be pretty ok.
2. A grab for power: maybe to depose a King? or a Chancellor? The difference from the terminal war is that it is expected that the game continue after the war is won. In this case, we might want to work out clear rules as it will happen several times. Also, we might want to consider safeguards so that the losers are willing to play on. Perhaps limits on the fate of their avatars or their lands?
3. A war of principle: to me this would be the most fun kind of war to play, where there is a cause beyond self-advancement. An example might be the American Civil War. I am not sure what the principle might be with us - republicanism is what we fixed on in WotS and KotR, but religion and foreign entanglements were also themes. Functionally, this kind of war would look rather like the grab for power. But it would be different in that the "coup" type mechanics we currently have don't feel very right for it. The war of principle should depend more on the allegiances of the many - hence the loyalty test mechanic etc.
4. A war between Duchies: one or more Duchies wanting to weaken a rival Duchy, by taking their land. This might lead to a lot of neutrals or interesting "semi-neutrals. Personally, I am leery about allowing this kind of war. It seems both too big and too messy. I'd rather a civil war was national or limited wtihin a Duchy. Otherwise, we could end up playing 4 or more factions rather than one, and M2TW is just not set up for such decentralisation.
5. A grab for power within a Duchy: this would be like the Swabian Civil war, where different players fight to be Duke. This might lead to some interesting meddling from outside, like Lothar helping the Swabian rebels. But there might have to be some constraints if we are ruling out wars between Duchies - like no noble from another House can fight.
6. An attempt to break away from a Duchy: like Becker in KotR. Again, this seems interesting but perhaps hard to balance.
7. A war between minor nobles. Personally, I would not want to see this - too much effort OOC for too little gain IC.
Anyone have anything to add to this list?
If we identify what kind of wars we want, we can choose rulesets to deal with them.
For example, my preference would be to have one set of rules for "real" civil wars of type 1-3; rules to deal with intra-Duchy conflicts of type 5-6; and not allow 0, 4 or 7.
With real civil wars, we might consider:
(a) there can only be two sides: you are with us or against us. A three or more sided war would just be complicated and ahistorical. This would imply the war would have to be resolved before any other civil wars and indeed intra-Duchy fights.
(b) the Chancellor should not be the only player recruiting units: it just feels utterly wrong. In the ACW, only Washington DC could recruit units...; or worse, IMO, no one could recruit units.
(c) strategic movement could be of the first type TC listed - using in-game restrictions on movement. The war is big enough and important enough that we can take our time.
With intra-Duchy civil wars, we could consider:
(a) there could be multiple conflicts coexisting and inter-mingling: neutrality would make more sense than in a real civil war, where soldiers would probably end up taking sides.
(b) again, the Chancellor recruiting all units does not feel right to me: we could introduce rules to allow local recruitment based on lands and perhaps mercs.
(c) given that these wars are more local, I still think strategic movement of the first type TC listed would be fine. The distances woudl presumably be short, so there would be less risk of a war of words.
Any thoughts? I think if we clarify what we want to simulate, we will be able to identify suitable rules. I am not terribly sympathetic to the KISS argument here, as I think at the moment it's not a question of rule complexity but us not having any rules to cover some of the issues.
GeneralHankerchief
07-04-2009, 16:44
I'm not really sure we need to limit PvP here. Eventually, the concept becomes pretty self-policing. LotR, while an extraordinarily lethal game, was especially so when it came to matters of PvP. As a matter of fact, the climatic Battle of Antioch actually stands out in my mind because, if memory serves, every general was actually able to come out alive, and this was only because the dice were exceptionally kind.
If you get into PvP, avatars *will* die, that's a fact of life. I think that concept alone will prevent people from engaging in a war just because they feel like it and compel them to work in more subtle channels to get what they want.
Cecil XIX
07-04-2009, 18:46
An interesting categorization of possibilities econ. I actually like the idea of having seperate rule sets for different kinds of conflict, since you'd only have to consider one set of rules at the time it'd still allow us to keep things simple.
Since PVP is the one major issue we have left to resolve, perhaps it should have it's own thread?
Since PVP is the one major issue we have left to resolve, perhaps it should have it's own thread?
I was thinking about that. When I get a little more feedback, I may try to draft some possible PvP rules that put a little more structure on what we have.
On non-PvP matters, re-reading the rules, I had the following comments/queries/suggestions:
1. (f) The Games master insert ”Can use the console to add money or units to AI factions and to move AI stacks.”
2 a. Starting Houses I think we have three, not two, starting RBGs - see the Frenchifying thread. Can we introduce some concept of Duke as Steward so these initial Dukes are replaced when the King’s sons come of age? Should we ban adoptions until the King has a fourth child?
2 b RBGs: what does it mean about an RBG marrying a King’s daughter being free to “attempt to create his own House”. What is involved in the attempt? Is it just 2c getting a 2/3 majority edict to be a Duke? Is so, why mention the marriage, as all can become Dukes by 2c? Maybe it is better to drop this bit about marriage and instead talk about the missing 4th line on the family tree - it could be filled by a son or a daughter. Anyone marrying said The 4th son or anyone marrying the daughter would automatically become head of the 4th House.
3a Gaining and losing provinces what’s the point of “While a province is not ratified taxes must be set to the highest level possible and no recruitment can be made in that settlement.” Is it to put a break on expansion? Otherwise, it is simpler to say that before the full session, the province is royal and can be taxed/recruit freely. After the full session, if not ratified, you have said it must be abandoned - which means no recruitment (and max taxes if you like).
3 c retinue: why allow people to remove retinue? are we condoning killing mother in laws here? It seems to lose some RPG character if we allow that. Your character has ornate armour, live with it. What is the meaning of the “title” retinues?
Prioritising units: what is to say these units become owned by the player who prioritised them? Suppose player X has Toulouse, the only castle we have. All units in Toulouse are garrisons by definition and so may not be taken by lieges. Should we say explicitly these units belong to the player prioritising them and should be moved by his instruction? And are exempt from seizure even if led by captains?
Seizing armies: perhaps clarify that you can’t seize armies outside of your feudal chain?
Can we “protect” some national armies from seizure or must they always be led in person? What I am thinking of is suppose the King or Chancellor or Prince want to stay at home, for whatever reason, but get a noble to lead “their army”. Can we allow for that somehow? Allow these figures - only - to “lend” their armies to another noble without surrendering ownership? It will require some book keeping I know.
On a related point, I am not seeing any power of the Chancellor to move armies led by nobles. So if he wants anything reliably doing, he must do it himself? This is rather stifling if he is relatively minor and does not have much of a personal army (he must recruit all prioritised units before he can get more men for himself).
fleets what about fleets that don’t start their turn in a port or with a noble? do you mean they are owned by the person owning the last port they were in? I am wondering whether they should owned by Houses, to simplify matters.
Ibn-Khaldun
07-04-2009, 19:44
I can say my opinion about that retinue matter..
If you start roleplaying a pious character and all of the sudden you receive a pagan magician then I guess you really want him to be removed because this would affect your RP. The game shouldn't control our RP that way.
Edit: I'll get back to other points soon..
Seizing armies: 5(b) "A Noble may not move his avatar onto an army owned by a Noble from outside his feudal chain unless both Nobles agree to the move beforehand."
I do like the option of seizing Captain led armies though.
fleets: fleets that do not start a turn in a port or with a noble are there for chancellor to move around.
If you start roleplaying a pious character and all of the sudden you receive a pagan magician then I guess you really want him to be removed because this would affect your RP. The game shouldn't control our RP that way.
Well, I can you see your point but personally I like trying using the traits and retinue as some of the fixed points that you have to RP around - kind of like an actor being given a script. Your example puts me in mind of TCs first character in KotR who was a lecherous sob (Lothar mkI) who then got a holy woman character as a retinue - he then had an epiphany and became a holy warrior. He was one of the most memorable characters in the game because he got an "odd" retinue. Also, I had great fun with my King Henry getting a pagan magician - Overknight ended up sticking him (in the leg).
But I guess we can keep our retinue if we choose, so allowing others to dispose of them is ok.
I was thinking about that. When I get a little more feedback, I may try to draft some possible PvP rules that put a little more structure on what we have.
On non-PvP matters, re-reading the rules, I had the following comments/queries/suggestions:
You have a strangely high amount of questions - next time, don't disappear ~;p
1. (f) The Games master insert ”Can use the console to add money or units to AI factions and to move AI stacks.”
As Gamemaster, I thought this was a given?
2 a. Starting Houses I think we have three, not two, starting RBGs - see the Frenchifying thread. Can we introduce some concept of Duke as Steward so these initial Dukes are replaced when the King’s sons come of age? Should we ban adoptions until the King has a fourth child?
The King has 4 children - one son and daughter of age, and two sons coming of age. I think that immediately replacing each Duke once a son of the King comes to age simply does not make sense - the House does not belong to them, it belongs to the RBG Duke. They may inherit it, but that is all. One Royal House, led by the Prince, is more then enough.
2 b RBGs: what does it mean about an RBG marrying a King’s daughter being free to “attempt to create his own House”. What is involved in the attempt? Is it just 2c getting a 2/3 majority edict to be a Duke? Is so, why mention the marriage, as all can become Dukes by 2c? Maybe it is better to drop this bit about marriage and instead talk about the missing 4th line on the family tree - it could be filled by a son or a daughter. Anyone marrying said The 4th son or anyone marrying the daughter would automatically become head of the 4th House.
Marrying the Princess simple gets you a free ticket for a House, bypassing the 2/3rds requirement otherwise needed.
3a Gaining and losing provinces what’s the point of “While a province is not ratified taxes must be set to the highest level possible and no recruitment can be made in that settlement.” Is it to put a break on expansion? Otherwise, it is simpler to say that before the full session, the province is royal and can be taxed/recruit freely. After the full session, if not ratified, you have said it must be abandoned - which means no recruitment (and max taxes if you like).
To limit expansion, without being forced to give it up, which leaves it in the players hands. This allows player freedom at the cost of becoming bogged down y their own success, most likely doing more harm then good.
3 c retinue: why allow people to remove retinue? are we condoning killing mother in laws here? It seems to lose some RPG character if we allow that. Your character has ornate armour, live with it. What is the meaning of the “title” retinues?
If I have Ornate Armor, I'm not going to ride with into battle. I would also not wear ornate armor period, if it went against my characters type which has already been established. Title Retinues are provincial titles that came with SS4.1, and were vastly annoying to keep track of.
Prioritising units: what is to say these units become owned by the player who prioritised them? Suppose player X has Toulouse, the only castle we have. All units in Toulouse are garrisons by definition and so may not be taken by lieges. Should we say explicitly these units belong to the player prioritising them and should be moved by his instruction? And are exempt from seizure even if led by captains?
Units are owned by whomever controls them - so if they are in a players stack, or settlement, or fort, then they belong to him. Prioritization has nothing to do with whom controls the units, it is simply players asking for units to be train at X location - for instance, player A could use his unit prioritizations in city B, which belongs to player C. The Units, once trained, belong to player C, not A.
Seizing armies: perhaps clarify that you can’t seize armies outside of your feudal chain?
Can we “protect” some national armies from seizure or must they always be led in person? What I am thinking of is suppose the King or Chancellor or Prince want to stay at home, for whatever reason, but get a noble to lead “their army”. Can we allow for that somehow? Allow these figures - only - to “lend” their armies to another noble without surrendering ownership? It will require some book keeping I know.
On a related point, I am not seeing any power of the Chancellor to move armies led by nobles. So if he wants anything reliably doing, he must do it himself? This is rather stifling if he is relatively minor and does not have much of a personal army (he must recruit all prioritised units before he can get more men for himself).
fleets what about fleets that don’t start their turn in a port or with a noble? do you mean they are owned by the person owning the last port they were in? I am wondering whether they should owned by Houses, to simplify matters.
You are allowed to seize armies led by another noble of lower rank then you inside your feudal chain, and avatarless stacks as well. The King, Chancellor, or Prince must find someone they trust to lead said army, otherwise it becomes fair game. That is the only way to protect your soldiers and fleets from being taken.
The Chancellor cannot get what he wants done, then he must deal with it - you can have an ineffectual Chancellor afterall. We are already giving the Chancellor position significant power, he does not need to suddenly take control of someones army unless explicitly allowed to.
Fleets belong to the owner of the port they are in, until they are moved out, at which point they are now the Chancellors. If at anytime an avatar would to be onboard, that avatar controls those ships instead.
I'm not really sure we need to limit PvP here. Eventually, the concept becomes pretty self-policing. LotR, while an extraordinarily lethal game, was especially so when it came to matters of PvP. As a matter of fact, the climatic Battle of Antioch actually stands out in my mind because, if memory serves, every general was actually able to come out alive, and this was only because the dice were exceptionally kind.
If you get into PvP, avatars *will* die, that's a fact of life. I think that concept alone will prevent people from engaging in a war just because they feel like it and compel them to work in more subtle channels to get what they want.
I completely agree. LotR had total freedom on PvP, and people were still very wary of engaging in it. I think there's too much thought going into when and why it should occur. Just let it occur as it will, the risks involved themselves are enough to keep it from getting out of hand. Most players are not interested in upsetting the system in this manner, which results in a powerful collective security system where aggressors quickly find themselves opposed by a large number of people. PvP is thus more of a risk for the attacker, not the defender. Let those who want to take the risk do so when they feel like it. It's mainly their own necks on the line and it makes the game more interesting for everyone.
YLC actually has everything pretty much as my answers, with just a few small differences.
I was thinking about that. When I get a little more feedback, I may try to draft some possible PvP rules that put a little more structure on what we have.
On non-PvP matters, re-reading the rules, I had the following comments/queries/suggestions:
1. (f) The Games master insert ”Can use the console to add money or units to AI factions and to move AI stacks.”
To be honest I kind of thought of that as a given, but I can add it to the rules.
2 a. Starting Houses I think we have three, not two, starting RBGs - see the Frenchifying thread. Can we introduce some concept of Duke as Steward so these initial Dukes are replaced when the King’s sons come of age? Should we ban adoptions until the King has a fourth child?
Starting RGB Dukes (2 or however many we need to get 4 houses) are real dukes and exempt from any of the special rules regarding joining the House of any adopted parents. Adding stewards as in KOTR is easy enough but I didn't see any reason to...having all four Houses going to the King's first 4 male children doesn't sit well with me. :clown:
2 b RBGs: what does it mean about an RBG marrying a King’s daughter being free to “attempt to create his own House”. What is involved in the attempt? Is it just 2c getting a 2/3 majority edict to be a Duke? Is so, why mention the marriage, as all can become Dukes by 2c? Maybe it is better to drop this bit about marriage and instead talk about the missing 4th line on the family tree - it could be filled by a son or a daughter. Anyone marrying said The 4th son or anyone marrying the daughter would automatically become head of the 4th House.
That part is pretty confusing, and likely didn't need put in the rules. I just meant that if you marry into the royal family in such a way you're exempt of the requirement to join your new parent's house, so you've started a new line of sorts that hasn't been placed by default into the House structure. It probably didn't need to be added since King's aren't member's of a House any way so becoming one's son-in-law wouldn't force you into one.
3a Gaining and losing provinces what’s the point of “While a province is not ratified taxes must be set to the highest level possible and no recruitment can be made in that settlement.” Is it to put a break on expansion? Otherwise, it is simpler to say that before the full session, the province is royal and can be taxed/recruit freely. After the full session, if not ratified, you have said it must be abandoned - which means no recruitment (and max taxes if you like).
Mostly I wanted to make it tough on a player who decided to go along with the option to refuse to hand over a settlement. Until things are resolved and the settlement ratified he gets no use out of it. Otherwise a friendly Chancellor could just treat it as if it belonged to the squatter.
3 c retinue: why allow people to remove retinue? are we condoning killing mother in laws here? It seems to lose some RPG character if we allow that. Your character has ornate armour, live with it. What is the meaning of the “title” retinues?
Title revenues were some from the mod we used for SS. The purpose of being able to move retinues was to allow avatars to make gifts of say a crusader relic or fine sword, and to allow the removal of pagan magicians, which were a huge pain in LOTR, at least in the early days.
One player (Tristan) rolled with it but most found them an annoyance and out of character. And they threatened to drop players out of the crusader House in LOTR as there was a minimum piety requirement.
Prioritising units: what is to say these units become owned by the player who prioritised them? Suppose player X has Toulouse, the only castle we have. All units in Toulouse are garrisons by definition and so may not be taken by lieges. Should we say explicitly these units belong to the player prioritising them and should be moved by his instruction? And are exempt from seizure even if led by captains?
Players can only recruit prioritized units from their own settlements. If they have no castles, then they have no castle units unless they make an agreement with some other House.
They're only immune to seizure if in a settlement owned by the player or led by him or an ally.
That was one thing that worked very well in LOTR with no problems that I recall...
Seizing armies: perhaps clarify that you can’t seize armies outside of your feudal chain?
Can we “protect” some national armies from seizure or must they always be led in person? What I am thinking of is suppose the King or Chancellor or Prince want to stay at home, for whatever reason, but get a noble to lead “their army”. Can we allow for that somehow? Allow these figures - only - to “lend” their armies to another noble without surrendering ownership? It will require some book keeping I know.
If armies are sent led by captain they can be seized by any noble. That's a risk players need to consider (as is the fact the Chancellor has to move them for you).
On a related point, I am not seeing any power of the Chancellor to move armies led by nobles. So if he wants anything reliably doing, he must do it himself? This is rather stifling if he is relatively minor and does not have much of a personal army (he must recruit all prioritised units before he can get more men for himself).
He has command of all captain led stacks. If people are seizing them he has to figure something out, but in LOTR this was never a huge issue. Nobles move their own armies.
fleets what about fleets that don’t start their turn in a port or with a noble? do you mean they are owned by the person owning the last port they were in? I am wondering whether they should owned by Houses, to simplify matters.
Fleets outside of port with no noble leading them can be moved or disbanded at the will of the Chancellor, as in LOTR... We can make them House (or King) owned, but that will remove some of the Chancellor's power to manage the affairs of the Kingdom, while adding comparatively little to the game, in my opinion.
On the king's four bloodlines automatically becoming Dukes, the key point is that this will lead to the four starter Houses being visible as the four branches of the family tree. I think that is really neat. It will also encourage more "familial" role-playing if Houses each have a core group sof blood relations (I am thinking here of the von Kastiliens, the Steffens). With Houses led by starter RBGs, there will be no inheritance by blood unless RBGs marry into the King's family tree. Duchies will just be political collections of players rather than family-based groupings - that may be what people want but I prefer the more organic KotR model. There will be enough starting RBGs that the "political collection" feature of Houses will still be there.
A Steward Duke mechanic would tide us over nicely until the four branches are established on the map. It is not complex and worked pretty well in KotR.
EDIT: On another matter, what are the rules about converting cities to castles and vice versa? Owner's discretion?
I'm not too worried about having stewards making the rules too complex but am not sure doing so will add much. Several players will end up playing in an almost Duke sort of position for a lengthy amount of time while the King's young children come of age. I suppose it looks neat and orderly on the family tree page, but it rubs me the wrong way to have all four Houses run by the King's children. It seems at odds with the decentralized feudal feel I believe we're going for. Never mind that since Dukes can name anyone they want their heir the neat 4 branched tree could break down.
I suppose the fact that I played an RGB for the majority of my time in KOTR and didn't pay much attention to the family tree in LOTR (beyond the immediate Imperial family) colors my perspective...
All in all I think it's a fairly minor point so I'll make the change if most players prefer it.
As far as changing castles to cities and the reverse, I think that would fall under the rules for players setting the build queue for their settlement. It did happen once or twice in LOTR but wasn't much of an issue. All Houses were able to obtain at least one castle early on.
Just to clarify a couple of points where YLC and Zim's answers may differ.
On marrying into royalty:
Marrying the Princess simple gets you a free ticket for a House, bypassing the 2/3rds requirement otherwise needed.
Versus:
That part is pretty confusing, and likely didn't need put in the rules. I just meant that if you marry into the royal family in such a way you're exempt of the requirement to join your new parent's house, so you've started a new line of sorts that hasn't been placed by default into the House structure. It probably didn't need to be added since King's aren't member's of a House any way so becoming one's son-in-law wouldn't force you into one.
I am still a little lost, can we reword or delete the relevant part of 2a to clarify this? The passage as it stands is:
2a ....Should a recruitable general become married to any of the daughters of the current King, he is considered to have started a new noble line and is free to attempt to create his own House or have his family join an existing one as he sees fit.
On prioritisation:
Units are owned by whomever controls them - so if they are in a players stack, or settlement, or fort, then they belong to him. Prioritization has nothing to do with whom controls the units, it is simply players asking for units to be train at X location - for instance, player A could use his unit prioritizations in city B, which belongs to player C. The Units, once trained, belong to player C, not A.
Players can only recruit prioritized units from their own settlements. If they have no castles, then they have no castle units unless they make an agreement with some other House.
How about letting players "give" their prioritsation to another player? So if they have no castle, they can let a friend with one recruit for them. Of course, the recruited units belong to the friend unless and until he honours the deal. Saying you can only prioritise units in your own settlements seems to make agreements with other Houses too difficult, if that other House has to give up their quota to implement it.
I am suggesting rewording item 3 under the rules for the Chancellor:
"Except for the King, the Location is restricted to any settlement owned by the Noble requesting the units or owned by a vassal in his feudal chain."
to by adding:
"or owned by another Noble who consents to it."
The point about the consenting Noble still owning the prioritised unit is implicit in the rest of the rules.
KnightnDay
07-05-2009, 15:00
On prioritisation:
How about letting players "give" their prioritsation to another player? So if they have no castle, they can let a friend with one recruit for them. Of course, the recruited units belong to the friend unless and until he honours the deal. Saying you can only prioritise units in your own settlements seems to make agreements with other Houses too difficult, if that other House has to give up their quota to implement it.
I am suggesting rewording item 3 under the rules for the Chancellor:
"Except for the King, the Location is restricted to any settlement owned by the Noble requesting the units or owned by a vassal in his feudal chain."
to by adding:
"or owned by another Noble who consents to it."
The point about the consenting Noble still owning the prioritised unit is implicit in the rest of the rules.
This is the sort of rule we should not include as it lends little to the game, but rather makes things more confusing or complex. Yes, a player can build a unit and give it to another. Nuff ced.
This is the sort of rule we should not include as it lends little to the game, but rather makes things more confusing or complex. Yes, a player can build a unit and give it to another. Nuff ced.
Why not just have it that your ability to prioritize units can target any province owned by your faction? Simple, and flexible.
Cecil XIX
07-06-2009, 04:43
Why not just have it that your ability to prioritize units can target any province owned by your faction? Simple, and flexible.
I'd prefer things to stay as they are. If you want to acquire the best units without asking for outside help, make sure you own the settlements where they are produced!
I rather like the recruitment rules as they are as well. It worked very well in the last game without complaints...
Truthfully very little recruitment seemed to be done with prioritization in LOTR, mostly it helped out Houses who may not be friendly with the Megas, who would otherwise tend to recruit more troops than could be prioritized for everyone anyway.
I'll delete that one line on marrying the princess that seems confusing, Econ.
Just in case anyone missed it in the rules I wanted to announce that TheFlax is the cowriter for events in the game, although I would need to implement them due to some troubles with his version and the console. Also once the game starts, should some emergency take me away from my computer for any great length of time, all questions and disputes that require gm assistance can be referred to him. :bow:
Ignoramus
07-06-2009, 07:25
Whoa! I'm way out of the loop here. See what happens when you go away for 5 days...
I agree with econ with regarding the four houses. I think having the four Duchies controlled by the king's children is fine. Remember that many of the major nobility had blood-ties to the ruling king, and one of the houses won't be controlled by a blood heir, because it will be the princess' husband.
Regarding civil wars, I hope that we can engineer more petty disputes, which result in a quick battle and then a political settlement. But they shouldn't occur too often.
I kind of wonder if duels will take the place of the more petty conflicts. It could be one beneficial side effect of adding in that option.
Remember that many of the major nobility had blood-ties to the ruling king, and one of the houses won't be controlled by a blood heir, because it will be the princess' husband.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves here, shall we? :clown:
Ignoramus
07-06-2009, 07:35
One must plan ahead...
Ok, two people have spoken out in favor of the Steward holding rule for the young starting FMs side, with none (that I see, might be missing a post...) against.
Given that we're closing in on the end of the planning stage and may be starting when we get the minimod worked out, and this is a fairly minor issue in the very long run (albeit one with quite some importance in the short run) I'd like to get it out of the way.
Having stewards does spread the chance to play a House leader a bit in the early game (since first the Stewards get quite some time as a leader, then the newly come of age princes), and does make the Princess very important in game, so I think I will take accepting that suggestion as the default decision. Does anyone have any major worries about such a system. It may seem to add some complexity but wasn't an issue in KOTR, so we know it works.
Bah, beaten to it by a poll.
I have an objection! What about new houses? Are they going to be subsumed by the Royal House as well? Honestly, leave it up to the Dukes on whether or not to pass on their Ducal title to a member of the Royal Family.
We have Noble Houses, and it doesn't make sense to me to hand it over to some twerp who has no idea how to govern a House just because the rules say so - that's an immediate civil war brewing. If I had contorl of a House, I would not, under any circumstances, surrender my title to the royal line.
And if a RBG wishes to make his House hereditary, he has to marry into the family or be adopted, which already takes care of keeping the Houses in the family.
Houses wouldn't be hereditary beyond Duke #1, and RGBs that fight their way to attaining a Dukeship would have nothing to fear about being replaced by some royal brat. :clown:
It's part of the reason I didn't think the neatened family tree would matter in choosing a system, since it may or may not last long. :yes:
Houses wouldn't be hereditary beyond Duke #1, and RGBs that fight their way to attaining a Dukeship would have nothing to fear about being replaced by some royal brat. :clown:
It's part of the reason I didn't think the neatened family tree would matter in choosing a system, since it may or may not last long. :yes:
So just let it be and stop trying to clutter the rules :wall::smash::laugh4:
Hey I didn't suggest it. :clown:
At any rate it would all climax (or not, if the handover goes smoothly) with the coming of age of the two young Princes. One fairly short paragraph in the rules and the effects would end in under 16 years into the game.
Funny idea, say people vote for the Stewards. Well, unlike KOTR all rules are changable, so a very, very powerful steward could not only refuse to hand over the title, but have the rules changed so noone could do anything about it. :laugh4:
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but there seems to be a contradiction in the rules on the rank of Count:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one landowning vassal. Must be a member of a House.
Influence: 1
Powers:
(1) Can propose one Edict per Council Session.
(2) 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.
(3) If this rank is held during a Normal Council Session, can Prioritize a total of 3 units per full 10 turn Chancellor term.
Penalties:
(1) Loses control of all provinces if they fail to vote in two consecutive Normal Senate Sessions. All provinces lost in this way are given to the Count's Duke. If the Count is not in a House, the provinces are given to the King.
By definition, a Count is in a House, so the "if the Count is not in a House" seems contradictory.
Picking up something from the PvP movement thread:
(Note to econ21: Be aware that the whole * marked rule system has been abolished. Rule Changes can now change any aspect of the rules at any point. Rule Changes are also now completely divorced from IC business and are passed by unweighted votes, with the GM having a veto over any Rule Change proposal before it even goes to the vote. Edicts and Amendments are now wholly IC in nature, and are considered temporary IC laws and permanent IC laws respectively. Rules can still require OOC enforcement of the unpleasant kind, which you are familiar with, but Edict and Amendments are now enforced only IC. If someone breaks an Edict or Amendment, they are perfectly free to get away with it unless the players make moves to enforce a punishment.)
Thanks - I confess I am almost completely ignorant of the LotR experience and I did miss the above from reading the KotF rules. To clarify, does this imply that everything in the rules can only be changed OOC by rules changes? Or can some/all of it be changed by amendments?
I am just thinking that some rules are about what you could regard as "physics" (e.g. how far can an army move); others are more about political rules (e.g. a Count must be in a House). It would seem inappropriate to vote IC on the former, but appropriate on the latter. If so, is it worth labelling some rules as IC and some as OOC?
House/Rank changes are still major works in progress
I've probably asked you this before, but are there any issues with the draft rules on House/Rank that we should give a little more thought to before we start? Are they unchanged from LotR? Andres has picked up one point, but there are probably others - the rules are quite complex.
Finally, some comments about House/Rank not specifically directed to TC:
I wondered about the rule that RBGs cannot inherit Duchies. This implies that - once the three starter generals are dead - the four starter Houses must all become "Royal" in some way. And RBGs who aspire to be Dukes must start their own House (and then ultimately bequeath it Given the vote on Steward Dukes, is this intended?
Related to Andres' question, on the same quoted rules for Count - I wonder if we could substitute "Baron" for "landowning vassal" under requirements? Presumably, you can only be a vassal to someone of higher rank and only Barons are lower than Counts and can hold land.
I wonder, do we need Counts to be part of Houses? If we remove that requirement, then new Houses may be able to be formed more "organically".
The rules on requirements for a Duke don't see to include the possibility of becoming a Duke via a 2/3 vote (2c).
A somewhat unrelated point - is there a reason for not allowing players to state which unit to prioritise? The quotas are not that generous, so I don't think the Kingdom would suffer too much from letting them pick (and presumably get the best available). If it is just economics, bear in mind that unit upkeep - which in the long run dwarfs purchase cost - seems pretty unrelated to combat power. (For example, armoured spearmen and sergeant spearmen have the same upkeep.) And I think most of us, in SP games, would try to recruit the best available units. At the very least, I think there should be a clause about not recruiting militia or peasant units if there are superior ones available. (It would be frustrating to ask for infantry and be given peasants, when armoured spears were available).
Thanks - I confess I am almost completely ignorant of the LotR experience and I did miss the above from reading the KotF rules. To clarify, does this imply that everything in the rules can only be changed OOC by rules changes? Or can some/all of it be changed by amendments?
Nothing in the rules can be changed by Edicts or Amendments, nor can Edicts or Amendments contradict the game rules. If it's written in the rules, you have to use a Rule Change to alter it. For a long time now I've thought of it like a D&D rule set. The rules are the mechanics that define the world we roleplay in, and thus they cannot be altered by the characters within that world. I see what you mean about Counts having to be in Houses, and that is a bit more of an IC intrusion into the rule system than LotR had, however it's one of the only ones and it isn't too bad. In any case, my experience from LotR was that people were extremely good at differentiating IC and OOC when it came to tweaking the rules. When a problem became apparent with the rule system, or an improved method was proposed, people very often voted for it even if it went against their interests. As such, if it becomes a problem to have House membership requirements for Counts (or anything similar) I would be very, very surprised if it was difficult to pass a Rule Change to modify this.
This whole shift was the result of some... difficulties... with players taking IC issues OOC and vice versa. A lot of that was due to the added tension caused by the built-in PvP mechanics. With the potential stakes upped, people got more passionate about things that occurred to their avatars. Attempts on my part to fix the problems with a combination of Moderator/GM powers did not satisfy everyone. If you hadn't noticed, Privateerkev has not logged onto the forums since last September. That is directly related to the problems we had. After the new system was introduced, we never had a single problem like this again.
I've probably asked you this before, but are there any issues with the draft rules on House/Rank that we should give a little more thought to before we start? Are they unchanged from LotR?
They are significantly simplified from LotR, which is a good thing and is an improvement in itself. The current draft of the system is experimental in its own way, but the entire rank structure is very modular and easy to tweak as the game goes along. In LotR, several ranks and many rank powers were added or altered in mid-game without it causing any problems. I think we'll be fine, because the current system leans more towards the basic than the complex. From experience in these games, it's pretty easy to add in more detail mid-game, but it's very hard to strip it out. Best to keep it simple and build than go the other direction.
I wondered about the rule that RBGs cannot inherit Duchies. This implies that - once the three starter generals are dead - the four starter Houses must all become "Royal" in some way. And RBGs who aspire to be Dukes must start their own House (and then ultimately bequeath it Given the vote on Steward Dukes, is this intended?
This is new in KotF, best if Zim or someone else answered that one. In LotR, RBGs were not handled any differently from family members except to the limits imposed on them by the game engine (can't become Heir, Faction Leader, etc).
Related to Andres' question, on the same quoted rules for Count - I wonder if we could substitute "Baron" for "landowning vassal" under requirements? Presumably, you can only be a vassal to someone of higher rank and only Barons are lower than Counts and can hold land.
Sounds sensible to me.
I wonder, do we need Counts to be part of Houses? If we remove that requirement, then new Houses may be able to be formed more "organically".
This is a change from LotR, which allowed "organic" House formation. After the game was over, the consensus was that LotR allowed too much freedom in this area and a desire was expressed to return to the more structured KotR system. I personally am still fond of the free-form LotR system, but I think I'm in the minority.
The rules on requirements for a Duke don't see to include the possibility of becoming a Duke via a 2/3 vote (2c).
This needs to be fixed. It appears to be an inconsistency due to modifications to the LotR rules that haven't been uniformly implemented throughout the set.
A somewhat unrelated point - is there a reason for not allowing players to state which unit to prioritise? The quotas are not that generous, so I don't think the Kingdom would suffer too much from letting them pick (and presumably get the best available). If it is just economics, bear in mind that unit upkeep - which in the long run dwarfs purchase cost - seems pretty unrelated to combat power. (For example, armoured spearmen and sergeant spearmen have the same upkeep.) And I think most of us, in SP games, would try to recruit the best available units. At the very least, I think there should be a clause about not recruiting militia or peasant units if there are superior ones available. (It would be frustrating to ask for infantry and be given peasants, when armoured spears were available).
In LotR, it was to allow the Megas (Chancellor) to 'stiff' his opponents and to keep the emphasis on the Megas being a powerful friend and a dangerous enemy. Given that we're backing away from that now, this can probably be changed without having an impact on rule complexity. If you're curious, here is the formal discussion (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=107440) that was had on the changes to the army rules. It was a group effort and massively simplified the system, which was becoming extremely difficult to deal with because of the large number of 'Royal Armies' and 'Private Armies' roaming around. The old army rules were actually the area of the rules that caused the OOC/IC conflicts I mentioned earlier.
Thanks, TC, - the thread on army ownership was very insightful. Some others unfamiliar with LotR might want to read it to better understand how this game will work. I don't think I have fully got my head around the army ownership and rank rules yet, but I am getting there.
Ironically, the reason for not specifying the prioritised unit(s) - to allow for getting stiffed by the Chancellor - was the reason I queried it. I was seeing the whole point of prioritisation as a protection against being stiffed by the Chancellor.
The "rules change" procedure is very sensible. We muddled through the IC/OOC ammendments in KotR well enough, but the mish-mash was ungainly.
I used "landowning vassal" to more easily allow for the creation of any new ranks between Count and Baron without having to both make a rule change adding the new one and changing language in the old one. There is also the issue of counts swearing to eachother, likely to happen with larger Houses (at least if their dukes try to keep them very hierarchical, you could also just have multiple branches down from the Duke).
With prioritized units the Chancellor loses some of his power. I'm not sure we should take away his power to control what exact units are recruited. If the position gets too weak people might be less inclined to run for it. It's a lot of work as is...
There is also the issue of counts swearing to eachother, likely to happen with larger Houses (at least if their dukes try to keep them very hierarchical, you could also just have multiple branches down from the Duke).
So oaths of fealty can be between players of the same rank? I thought the whole point about different feudal ranks was to identify where you stood on the vassalage chain. It might be better to restrict oaths of fealty to be to players of higher rank on the KISS principle. New ranks can always be introduced by rules changes, but what we have seems ample to me.
With prioritized units the Chancellor loses some of his power. I'm not sure we should take away his power to control what exact units are recruited. If the position gets too weak people might be less inclined to run for it. It's a lot of work as is...
From a rules design point of view, priorisation just seems meaningless if you ask for infantry and are given peasants. And from a historical plausibility point of view, it does not seem to fit the decentralised feudal vibe we are going for. With about 25 players signed up, at the moment, I would not worry too much about a lack of candidates for Chancellor yet.
In medieval France feudal chains could be quite confusing, with two equals holding land as "vassals" of eachother...
If I change it we still won't have a neat hierarchy, and Houses over 3 or so people will likely end up with the Duke and several different branches (in fact, they would have to). Not neccessarily a bad thing, but for something like the Order from LOTR, which was a House set up as a military order, it might make sense to keep the chain as a neat line rather than a little tree like the family one.
Re: Prioritization I'm reluctant to change something that worked fine in LOTR and received no complaints. It gives the Chancellor a way to passive aggressively retaliate against a House he dislikes, without going to outright war (and with the way our pvp rules are shaping up, he has almost no role during a civil war). It was never a heavily used power, not even that strong of one, and using it likely makes you a permanant enemy.
Do we want to change the FM requirement for heirs of Dukes? I didn't anticipate so many people. Not sure how long it will take to get adoptions, and we're going to have starting permanant RGB Dukes anyway...
I think it would be a good idea to allow a Duke to name anyone as his successor - nothing like a Mini-Siegfried event to stir things up :beam::laugh4:
Cecil XIX
07-08-2009, 01:38
From a rules design point of view, priorisation just seems meaningless if you ask for infantry and are given peasants. And from a historical plausibility point of view, it does not seem to fit the decentralised feudal vibe we are going for. With about 25 players signed up, at the moment, I would not worry too much about a lack of candidates for Chancellor yet.
I don't know if I argued this very strongly back when we were deciding it (or at all, man that seems like a long time ago), or even at all, but I agree completely. Since no player can prioritize a large number of units quickly, you're still pretty vulnerable if the Chancellor isn't spending any money on your armies and provinces. Even a King only gets 5 units per term, which averages to 1 regiment every two turns. And most avatars will probably be Barons, who only get 2 units per Chancellor's Term. That works out to getting one unit every 5 turns! That may be all right for FH with his lancers, or Ramses with his HA, but for the most of us that's not enough to get by on even if we could choose what we got!
Currently, you can specify whether you're prioritizing infantry, cavalry, or archers right? That means at most the chancellor just has to give you is units of peasants, peasant archers or mounted sergeants. I'm guessing mounted sergeants are the most useful, but still. You can hardly call that insurance against a hostile chancellor, especially if he's pumping money in to the armies and provinces of your enemies while your getting nothing. (Sound familar, Zim? :beam:)
I would propose that we alter the rule to allow players to prioritze units, but give them the option to choose what units they want, providing that those units can be recruited from settlements they control. If you have a good castle or the like, it should help your ability to prioritize.
No matter who strong you are, you're at a big disadvantage if you're not getting any money. That's still true under this proposed change, with the bonus that players and houses that have a Chancellor who's their determined enemy can still maintain a reduced, but not impotent power base. In my opinion, this is the change that is most essential to KotF.
And as econ said, this is more in line with the fuedal feel we're going for. :knight:
In medieval France feudal chains could be quite confusing, with two equals holding land as "vassals" of eachother...
I can imagine. It's common in developing countries for people to loan each other money (simultaneously), essentially to establish a relationship of mutual support. But please, Zim, trying to simulate something that was "quite confusing" at the time is not always a virtue. I guess it's because I missed LotR, but I am struggling to understand our House/Rank rules and I doubt I am the only one. We surely don't want to allow two Barons to promote themselves both to Counts just by swearing allegiance to each other? It's starting to do my head in.
If I change it we still won't have a neat hierarchy, and Houses over 3 or so people will likely end up with the Duke and several different branches (in fact, they would have to). Not neccessarily a bad thing, but for something like the Order from LOTR, which was a House set up as a military order, it might make sense to keep the chain as a neat line rather than a little tree like the family one.
I think a military order could work out their own seniority rule informally, we don't need to have it in the game rules. In every military, there is a tree like structure of ranks (multiple sergeants, captains etc) but then additional rules to establish chain of command. At least, that's what I remember from innumberable viewings of the film Zulu, when the two British lieutenants at the start establish who's in charge by date of commission.
Do we want to change the FM requirement for heirs of Dukes? I didn't anticipate so many people. Not sure how long it will take to get adoptions, and we're going to have starting permanant RGBs anyway...
I'm tempted to go for KISS again and drop all distinctions between FM and RGBs except those created by the game engine. I like the idea of Dukes being FMs, as then the game engine will allow them to start dynasties. But I think you are right and the number of players could put a strain on such a requirement.
with the way our pvp rules are shaping up, he has almost no role during a civil war.
To be honest, we have not got very far with the PvP rules yet. But if prioritisation is left as it is, then the case for introducing some mechanic for non-Chancellor recruitment in a civil war seems overwhelming.
Two barons can't swear fealty to eachother...
I don't like the idea of forcing a certain type of feudal chain structure. If changed, imagine a four person House, with a Duke, Count, Baron, and Knight, all sworn in that order. The Knight literally cannot gain land by the rules before breaking his oath, because that would result in two Counts, one sworn to the other...
I just fear turning the Chancellor position more and more into busy work. It was hard to get them late in LOTR and the more powers we take, the weaker he becomes.
I"m a little tired and I just found out I was hired for a new job. I'm going to celebrate with my wife and come back to this tonight or tomorrow. I'll just go with whatever everyone wants...
Another option for the prioritization issue: Keep the rules as is, but allow a person to spend two prioritizations to get a specific unit instead of leaving it up to the Chancellor's whims. Also, specifically exclude Peasants from being recruited as infantry units for prioritization purposes. A minimum level of Town Militia, Peasant Archers, and Mounted Sergeants for the three respective categories isn't really that bad. We regularly beat up the AI with stuff like that.
Cecil XIX
07-08-2009, 04:36
I suppose that would be better, but I still prefer my proposal. And I've thought of another reason: A sense of ownership.
Prioritized units, under my system, would be choosen entirely by the avatar at rare intervals. This would give those units a sentimental value to players that we have not seen. I think that would be good for immersion, by providing a connection with regular soldiers.
Banning peasant recruitment would definately be needed.
If we did allow them to recruit any unit from a settlement they owned does everyone think the nmber of prioritized units is small enough that wouldn't cause problems if, say, every picked high end, expensive units?
And would Dukes be able to recruit from anywhere in their House? If so should they be able to get around the fact that units belong to the owner of their settlement upon spawning?
Ignoramus
07-08-2009, 06:56
Regarding House chains, why don't we try something like this?
Dukes can have unlimited number of Counts swear fealty to them, Counts can have unlimited number of Barons swear fealty to them, Barons can have unlimited number of Knights swear fealty to them.
That way, only Counts can swear to Dukes, Barons to Counts, and Knights to Barons.
Regarding the prioritised units, I reckon that each player should be able to prioritise a specific unit once per term. Maybe 2 for dukes, 2 for a prince, and 3 for a king?
AussieGiant
07-08-2009, 07:59
Try and keep in mind the Chancellor position when coming up with all these ideas and concepts that need to be tracked and managed.
We've gone through this before.
I have to agree. While for immersion purposes it would be awesome to give higher ranks more power to choose their prioritized units, for simplicity we will probably have to go all the way one direction or the other...
It's kind of like the House names, I've love to have Houses named after families, but it would be impossible to keep the DUcal lines to those families, so regions work well as a second option.
The House chain idea seems fine to me. From the looks of the recent posts having the branching House trees seems popular so I might as well give in. :clown:
I wanted oath breaking to be rare but it may be needed for organizational purposes early on as the Houses are worked out...
If we did allow them to recruit any unit from a settlement they owned does everyone think the nmber of prioritized units is small enough that wouldn't cause problems if, say, every picked high end, expensive units?
You mean a problem like bankrupting the nation? :inquisitive:
And would Dukes be able to recruit from anywhere in their House? If so should they be able to get around the fact that units belong to the owner of their settlement upon spawning?
That would make things very complex. Dukes should only be able to recruit from the provinces they actually own, just like everyone else. No reason the Duke can't use his authority over his vassals to get them to give him military units when he wants them.
You mean a problem like bankrupting the nation?
Unit upkeep is not really tied to unit quality (for "realism" reason, I guess: a knight is just a knight, whatever the armour etc). So in the long run, I don't think recruiting the best in class would cause a big economic problem and indeed probably would be most cost-effective for the faction.
In the short term, there is an issue as purchase price is closely tied to unit quality (for MP reasons, I guess). However, the Seneschal can sequence and authorise prioritisations as he sees fit, so I don't think it would be a big deal.
Being able to choose your unit may be important if you want spears rather than swords or 2-handers etc.
Being unable to choose may also give players incentives to request cavalry, which is more expensive. Any cavalry can get the job done as flankers and router chasers vs the AI while early infantry units become obsolete as you move down the tech tree.
I think he's just making a joke about how my last character brought the Empire into debt out of fear of a Chancellor hostile to his Lord being elected...
Yes, that was just a dig at Zim for his actions in LotR. I actually have no problems with cost of any kind, including bankrupting the faction. I didn't do anything to intervene when LotR plunged into 60k+ of debt. That's an IC issue and should be resolved as such. If people are prioritizing too many expensive units and it is causing financial problems, deal with it IC.
On reflection, I also have no problems with prioritization allowing specific unit selection from any province a player owns. It's no more difficult for the Chancellor to implement than the current system and would indeed give players slightly more independence from a hostile Chancellor, which I am increasingly tending to see as a likely improvement in game mechanics.
OverKnight
07-09-2009, 15:30
I have a question about Impeaching a Seneschal.
4. - Government(i) - Impeachment: The Chancellor can be impeached and removed from office by a two-thirds majority vote of the Council. Impeachment takes effect immediately after the vote is passed. After impeachment, a fresh election is held to elect a new Chancellor, although the King may also exercise his power to become Chancellor at that point. The Noble replacing the impeached Chancellor serves out the remainder of the impeached Chancellor's term. All Edicts passed in the Council session that elected the impeached Chancellor remain valid, unless overturned by new Edicts at the Emergency Session that impeached him.
So, if I get this, an Emergency Session has to be called to conduct an Impeachment vote?
Also an Emergency Session may only be opened by the King or a Duke with the second of another Duke?
So, if I get this, an Emergency Session has to be called to conduct an Impeachment vote?
Also an Emergency Session may only be opened by the King or a Duke with the second of another Duke?
That's how I understand it. I don't see how we would have a "constitutional" IC vote without either a regular or emergency session. The Council is just a talking shop out of session.
As we are nearing the beginning of the game, we should do some final checks on the rules to make sure we fix any small tweaks that need to be made. I encourage everyone to look over what is currently posted and comment on anything they think needs to be altered.
One I have already noticed is King's power #12:
(12) Can adjudicate on rule disputes. However, if a rule dispute directly involves the King or the Prince, the Chancellor will be the adjudicator.
This is inherited from the original version of the LotR rules, where it was itself a holdover from KotR. Since that time, we have split the rules apart from IC legislation. I no longer think it is appropriate for the King to adjudicate on rule disputes, since the rules are now inherently OOC in nature. The King should adjudicate all IC disputes, especially conflicts over interpretation of Edicts and Amendments, however I think the GM should be the only person adjudicating disputes about the actual OOC rules themselves.
Vladimir
07-10-2009, 13:59
Should we create a rule on allowing the AI a few turns to develop? I’m in favor of taking five settlements in five turns but wonder if other players want to give the game more time to develop. Should this be handled IC or out?
Has a determination been made on which avatar gets what starting settlement?
AussieGiant
07-10-2009, 14:02
As we are nearing the beginning of the game, we should do some final checks on the rules to make sure we fix any small tweaks that need to be made. I encourage everyone to look over what is currently posted and comment on anything they think needs to be altered.
One I have already noticed is King's power #12:
This is inherited from the original version of the LotR rules, where it was itself a holdover from KotR. Since that time, we have split the rules apart from IC legislation. I no longer think it is appropriate for the King to adjudicate on rule disputes, since the rules are now inherently OOC in nature. The King should adjudicate all IC disputes, especially conflicts over interpretation of Edicts and Amendments, however I think the GM should be the only person adjudicating disputes about the actual OOC rules themselves.
Agreed. All those in favour say "aye".
Aye.
Aye to TinCow, let's change the wording from "rule dispute" to "edicts and proclamations" (I think that is the French coloured term Tristan suggested for amendments)
Should we create a rule on allowing the AI a few turns to develop? I’m in favor of taking five settlements in five turns but wonder if other players want to give the game more time to develop. Should this be handled IC or out?
I suspect we will handle this IC, but I would put the case again to Zim for buffing up the AI forces on our borders, as it is hard to make a convincing IC argument for letting your enemy develop.
Has a determination been made on which avatar gets what starting settlement?
I assume this will just be by avatar starting location. King gets Paris, Dauphin gets Toulouse as capital of his Duchy; 3 starter generals get their starter settlements by virtue of being its Duke.
The rules do need a little rewording to allow for the French specific information and colour.
AussieGiant
07-10-2009, 14:13
Econ's on point now about expansion.
Keep it IC and make sure the GM does more than enough in game console work to ensure we deal with it as an IC topic.
Vladimir
07-10-2009, 14:35
I suspect we will handle this IC, but I would put the case again to Zim for buffing up the AI forces on our borders, as it is hard to make a convincing IC argument for letting your enemy develop.
I assume this will just be by avatar starting location. King gets Paris, Dauphin gets Toulouse as capital of his Duchy; 3 starter generals get their starter settlements by virtue of being its Duke.
The rules do need a little rewording to allow for the French specific information and colour.
As much as I like to have every advantage possible, I agree that buffing AI (i.e. English) settlements would add a challenge. What do you think Zim?
Also: Are there some settlements which start out without a general? I suppose settlements should go to the more experienced players, however, I've always wanted to go to southern France. :cool:
Rewording of the rules is necessary before we agree on them.
Are there some settlements which start out without a general?
It's 5 provinces and 5 generals (inc King and Dauphin) at the start, so it's nice and balanced.
I suppose settlements should go to the more experienced players, however, I've always wanted to go to southern France.
Yes, Dukes are very important for driving IC politics, so giving them to players with a track record makes sense. What we've tried to do in the past is favour the long stayers who did not make it to positions of influence in the predecessor game. For the rest of us, I think Zim will create some RBGs and then when we have picked, use the teleport to place them in the provinces that people want to be placed in. I guess we need to allow some real time interval for Houses to try to recruit RBGs before location is finalised.
For the rest of us, I think Zim will create some RBGs and then when we have picked, use the teleport to place them in the provinces that people want to be placed in. I guess we need to allow some real time interval for Houses to try to recruit RBGs before location is finalised.
Yep, I think that's the best method. In LotR, I allowed all players to pick any settlement owned by the faction as the starting point for a new avatar and simply teleported them to whatever place they chose. Beyond the obvious benefits to roleplaying of being able to start in a particular spot instead of having to cross half the empire to get there, this also allows the RBG recruitment to be done in any sleepy, backwater settlement so that it doesn't risk interfering with normal recruitment that might otherwise be going on at the chosen destination.
AussieGiant
07-10-2009, 15:46
In addition it might be worth waiting until the suggested tournment is over.
Everyone can congregate IC at the tournament and feel each other out and then declare allegiances.
Then mass teleportation can begin. :balloon2:
That's a very good point, the tournament might be an excellent opportunity for Houses to recruit. So...
1) RBG spawning/selection
2) Tournament
3) Teleportation of avatars to chosen starting spot
4) First Council session
That's easily the most interesting method of starting one of these games that I've ever seen.
AussieGiant
07-10-2009, 15:53
That's a very good point, the tournament might be an excellent opportunity for Houses to recruit. So...
1) RBG spawning/selection
2) Tournament
3) Teleportation of avatars to chosen starting spot
4) First Council session
That's easily the most interesting method of starting one of these games that I've ever seen.
Yeah Baby...that's going to be just very very entertaining.
deguerra
07-10-2009, 15:55
i hope you realize how difficult you are making it for me not to join up right this second. if i wait until the game progresses, i miss out on tournament mayehm and fun...what good is that...conundrums...gah...:clown:
_Tristan_
07-10-2009, 16:04
Thank the French for their sense of fun ... :france: FTW :2thumbsup:
Ramses II CP
07-10-2009, 16:11
Should we create a rule on allowing the AI a few turns to develop? I’m in favor of taking five settlements in five turns but wonder if other players want to give the game more time to develop. Should this be handled IC or out?
Has a determination been made on which avatar gets what starting settlement?
I took a look at what AI England does with their first five turns, and it's, uhm, dumb. In my run at least they withdrew most of their forces back to the island (Hey, at least they used one of their ships for some troops) and did very little development. Bordeaux and Anger would be considerably easier to capture on turn 5 than on turn 1, while Caen was about the same.
I'm sure if we started a war on turn 1 and could skip to turn five things would be different, but that makes little sense. :thumbsdown:
:egypt:
Vladimir
07-10-2009, 16:15
I took a look at what AI England does with their first five turns, and it's, uhm, dumb. In my run at least they withdrew most of their forces back to the island (Hey, at least they used one of their ships for some troops) and did very little development. Bordeaux and Anger would be considerably easier to capture on turn 5 than on turn 1, while Caen was about the same.
So then, to begin, we ATTACK! :charge:
I was in the process of assembling an updated rule set to account for the changes made since the current draft was posted. However, I have noticed more issues while doing this.
In Rule 2(c) - New Houses, it is worded that an edict needs to pass, but requires a 2/3 majority. Since a 2/3 majority is required and presumably the new house would be permanent (as opposed to lasting 10 turns, like an Edict does), why not just say it requires a Codex Amendment and leave it at that?
In Rule 3(a), the word "Knight" in the second and third sentences should probably read "Noble." As it currently reads, Barons and Counts cannot be promoted, and no one except Knights can ever be demoted (and Knights can't go any lower).
Rule 3(b) has a few issues. First, the ratification bit as worded requires that taxes be jacked up to the maximum immediately on conquest, even if the Council hasn't had an opportunity to ratify the conquest because a Council session hasn't occurred yet. Is this intentional? Who owns the province before it is ratified, in the time period between its conquest and the next Council session?
(b). - Gaining and Losing Provinces: All conquered provinces must be ratified by an edict, which can be passed at the session before the conquest or be applied retroactively at the first session after. If a province is not ratified in this manner by the end of the very next session after it was made, it must be given away or abandoned. While a province is not ratified taxes must be set to the highest level possible and no recruitment can be made in that settlement.
Second, the line about the King's ability to give provinces away seems redundant:
Any province conquered and ratified becomes part of the King's Demesne. At any point he may give a province to any House (in which case the Duke decides to allocate it to himself or another member of his House) or to any individual noble he favors. At the time of conquest, the conquering Noble can refuse to hand the province over to the King, but this puts him in a state of Civil War with the King.
First, the second bit about an individual noble makes the first bit about the Duke pointless, as 'any individual noble' includes all Dukes. In addition, the ability to give away provinces to other people is already covered later in the rule with this:
Nobles lose control of one of their provinces if they voluntarily give it to another Noble...
As such, I think that line can be completely eliminated without any impact whatsoever, unless it was not intended that the King be able to give his Demesne to whoever he wants.
Also in Rule 3(b), there is the following bit:
The King's choice of who to give the province can be blocked by a two-thirds majority of the Council (excluding the King himself, except as a tiebreaker). For this to happen a Duke must declare an emergency session to have the matter voted on.
In re: the above, the tie-breaker bit is unnecessary, as it's impossible to need a tiebreaker with a 2/3 vote. Either 2/3 agree to it, or they don't. A simpler wording of the above would be: "The King can be prevented from giving away a province by a two-thirds majority vote of the Council."
For Rule 3(c) - Retinue, does LTC include province titles as retinue? If not, the rule can be simplified by stripping out that language (which was added for SS 4.1 in LotR).
For Rule 3(d), it appears Wills are now pointless, as all inheritance issues are automatic. Was this intentional? If so, the last line can be stripped out and the word Wills should be removed from the title of the rule:
(d) - Wills & Inheritance: Upon the death of a noble his land goes to the highest ranking member of his feudal chain. If he is independent the land goes to the King. All land in the King's Demesne is passed to the new King. Dukes can pass on their rank to a House member of their choosing. Otherwise, the second in charge in their House's feudal chain takes their place as Duke. Wills must be deposited with Zim before the character's death to be considered valid.
For Rule 3(e) - Oaths of Fealty, the rule was changed from its LotR wording to read "Any Independent Noble may swear an oath of fealty to any Duke whenever he wishes." There are no provisions for a Noble swearing to anyone but a Duke, but a Count cannot exist unless someone has sworn an Oath to him. Under the current rules, it is thus impossible to become a Count.
Rule 6(a) will likely need some extra editing because the proposed changes to PvP campaign movement make the bit about who moves first obsolete.
Rule 6(b), IMHO, could be better adapted to KotF. I think it would be nice to do more to force House warfare. If you declare war on someone in another House, you declare war with the entire House. In addition, I don't think vassals should be able to 'peace out' without the permission of the Duke of their House.
---
[edit] A few other questions:
(1) Why was the Prioritized Construction system removed? That worked fine and seemed popular in LotR and was one of the effective methods of avoiding a totally partisan Chancellor.
(2) Is it intentional that pretty much every player gets prioritized units? In LotR, the system allowed only the 'top dog' in a feudal chain to get prioritized units, though he could prioritize them in his vassals settlements. This was designed to make Houses more cohesive and create a more important relationship between the top-most lord and his vassals. By giving EVERYONE prioritized units, you are actually making the Houses more decentralized and less reliant on the Duke, which I think is the opposite of what people wanted. In addition, we're going to be bleeding Prioritized Units out our eyeballs once the initial expansion is over and everyone has a province. You're looking at upwards of 80 prioritizations per term!
That's a lot of questions, TC. :sweatdrop: To be honest, I suspect Zim and most of us would be happy for you to present your preferred rewording as in most cases it sounds like its a question of tidying up and logic.
A number of the questions are substantive and should be discussed. Of those you mentioned, I would offer an opinion on two - wills and unit prioritisations.
Personally, I prefer Dukes wills over automatic inheritance. Wills are "realistic" and also fun, as they create Edward the Confessor type conflicts where people vie for the inheritance and don't know who has it till the Duke croaks. I asked for extra text to cover depositing wills with the GM as in KotR I was very leery of dead Dukes declaring heirs. I confess I missed the rule on automatic inheritance. I think this may have originated in the idea of very heirarchical House structure in which there was a clear number 2. However, I have pushed for a more "family tree" like House structure, so there may be more than one person on the second rung of the House ladder (more than one Count). I thought we had gone with that kind of structure and made it so that a Count cannot be a vassal of a Count, in which case I think the automatic inheritance idea falls by the wayside. Anyway, Zim and others can chime in, but that's just my explanation of the confusion.
On unit prioritisations, I personally would like to keep the current rules so that the lower ranks are be able to prioritise their own men. One unit per settlement per 10 turns does not seem excessive for the lowest landed noble (Baron). If you are worried about 80 units in a term being a lot, I am tempted to do an AG and say let's sort it out IC. I hope it will be a while before we get so many provinces.
That's a lot of questions, TC. :sweatdrop: To be honest, I suspect Zim and most of us would be happy for you to present your preferred rewording as in most cases it sounds like its a question of tidying up and logic.
I'd be more than happy to. Indeed, I started to do so while consolidating them, but realized I was changing things without approval and I didn't want to do that. Thus the above list. I want to give people some time to chime in on things before I whip out the editing pen on the actual draft.
Personally, I prefer Dukes wills over automatic inheritance. Wills are "realistic" and also fun, as they create Edward the Confessor type conflicts where people vie for the inheritance and don't know who has it till the Duke croaks. I asked for extra text to cover depositing wills with the GM as in KotR I was very leery of dead Dukes declaring heirs. I confess I missed the rule on automatic inheritance. I think this may have originated in the idea of very heirarchical House structure in which there was a clear number 2. However, I have pushed for a more "family tree" like House structure, so there may be more than one person on the second rung of the House ladder (more than one Count). I thought we had gone with that kind of structure and made it so that a Count cannot be a vassal of a Count, in which case I think the automatic inheritance idea falls by the wayside. Anyway, Zim and others can chime in, but that's just my explanation of the confusion.
For your edification only, here's the Wills rule from LotR:
2.4 – Wills & Inheritance: On his death, all of a Senator’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 Senator’s death. 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. A Will may name multiple Senators as inheritors, so long as each province and/or retinue is only bequeathed to a single Senator. 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 Senator’s immediate Lord gains possession of the province. If the Senator also has no Lord, the Basileus gains possession of the province.
On unit prioritisations, I personally would like to keep the current rules so that the lower ranks are be able to prioritise their own men. One unit per settlement per 10 turns does not seem excessive for the lowest landed noble (Baron). If you are worried about 80 units in a term being a lot, I am tempted to do an AG and say let's sort it out IC. I hope it will be a while before we get so many provinces.
That's fine, I'm comfortable handling this IC, I just want to make sure people are aware of just how many prioritizations there are going to be in this game. For the record, the lowest rank gets TWO prioritizations, not one. As I understand it (we start with 5 provinces, right?) on the very first turn of the game, there will be 26 (8 for King, 4 each for 4 Dukes, +2 for one Prince) prioritiziations available. Quick expansion to 10 provinces is likely, and that would potentially increase the number of prioritizations to 41. That's more than we ever had in LotR, and, with few exceptions, you're essentially going to keep adding 2 every time you conquer a province, until you hit the player limit.
OverKnight
07-11-2009, 00:32
Don't forget that any estimates of expansion have to take into account the Pope. We're under his tender mercy again.
Speaking as the first Megas in LotR, I think it would be vastly easier to track recruitment and prioritisation if it remains confined to Royalty and the House leaders. I think that units will trickle down to the Counts and Barons, but that will be a task for the Dukes as a sort of middle mangement. This will alleviate some of the bookkeeping and organizational duties of the Seneschal.
I don't remember any complaints about recruitment from LotR. So if it's a satisfactory system, I don't think we should alter it.
That's fine, I'm comfortable handling this IC, I just want to make sure people are aware of just how many prioritizations there are going to be in this game. For the record, the lowest rank gets TWO prioritizations, not one. As I understand it (we start with 5 provinces, right?) on the very first turn of the game, there will be 26 (8 for King, 4 each for 4 Dukes, +2 for one Prince) prioritiziations available. ... Quick expansion to 10 provinces is likely, and that would potentially increase the number of prioritizations to 41.
Um, good point. I think the King is 5, but still, it is a lot. I guess it may lead to a situation of excess demand - the Seneschal can't afford to or does not want to give everyone their prioritisations. That will mean no "national" army that the Seneschal can give himself above and beyond what he gets from his title. And it would mean prioritisations are more like bids than entitlements - you are trying to get the troops, not sure to get them. How the Seneschal juggles those demands will be quite an interesting political issue.
To ease the situation, we could subtract 1 from all numbers:
Baron: 1
Count: 2
Duke: 3
King: 4
Prince +1
So at start, it would be 17 prioritisations. 17 units over 10 turns from 5 settlements does not sound excessive. Then if we expand to 10 provinces, perhaps we would have 5 new Barons, giving us 22 prioritisations.
Compeletely disenfranchising those below the Dukes would not help at the outset, as there are no landowners below Duke.
On reflection, I think I would advocate the -1 across the board, as I would prefer prioritisations to be closer to entitlements than to bids. (You can bid anyway, regardless of prioritisations).
Cecil XIX
07-11-2009, 01:45
Looking at the numbers, I second econ's proposed reduction.
Perhaps that also makes people more amenable to having nobles choose what units they get with their prioritization? Or was that already agreed to? I'm starting to have trouble following the discussions here and in the PVP thread. :confused:
Yes, I think we've agreed to allow specific unit selection via prioritization as a method of making Houses more resistant to a hostile Seneshal.
The above reduction does fit better and I will accept it, though I still think that having the Duke be responsible for his entire House's priortizations (as in LotR) would be better for RPing and for organization.
I'm a bit busy for the next day or so as the Sheriff's Department is doing a gun auction... I'll give the rules a good look and editting tomorrow evening.
To answer those last few questions real quick:
"(1) Why was the Prioritized Construction system removed? That worked fine and seemed popular in LotR and was one of the effective methods of avoiding a totally partisan Chancellor."
Was it popular? During the time I played (with a big chunk missing in the middle fo the game when I didn't have internet access) virtually noone used it...
I removed it because I thought almost noone used it and I wanted to simplify the rank powers a little (same reason I took out a few of the other powers).
"(2) Is it intentional that pretty much every player gets prioritized units? In LotR, the system allowed only the 'top dog' in a feudal chain to get prioritized units, though he could prioritize them in his vassals settlements. This was designed to make Houses more cohesive and create a more important relationship between the top-most lord and his vassals. By giving EVERYONE prioritized units, you are actually making the Houses more decentralized and less reliant on the Duke, which I think is the opposite of what people wanted. In addition, we're going to be bleeding Prioritized Units out our eyeballs once the initial expansion is over and everyone has a province. You're looking at upwards of 80 prioritizations per term! "
I liked the idea of decentralizing it a bit and giving lower ranks a chance to prioritize a small number of movements. I did mention it and ask if anyone had concerns, quite some time ago, which would have been a nice time to raise them. :clown: However, I did not do the number crunching needed to forsee if it would be a problem...
It might be worth noting that I had exactly one request for something like 3 prioritized units during my term as Megas, even though many, many more could have been made. Seeing the low use rate for that power, I guess I didn't think too much about the ramifications if everyone used it.
At any point anyone is free to put up their own rule system or volunteer to take over gm duties. I put my own efforts towards doing so because nooone else seemed willing to at the time and I've found these games to be a big part of the fun I've had since coming to the Org. I'm not a lawyer and I've never written rules for a complex game before. I'm just doing the best I can...
At any point anyone is free to put up their own rule system or volunteer to take over gm duties.
I think I speak for everyone when I say we very much appreciate your volunteering to be the GM. It's big undertaking and I don't think anyone expects the GM to write all the rules - you just get to have the last say if you want it. I appreciate your consensual approach and your giving us time to brainstorm even at this late hour. :bow:
I am trying to avoid going to bed, so I can make a contribution on some of TCs other queries. One or two do raise issues that might merit more discussion, but most seem straightforward:
In Rule 2(c) - New Houses, ... why not just say it requires a Codex Amendment and leave it at that?
Yes, BTW, are we - as per Tristan's suggestion, going to call Codex Amendments, Proclamations?
In Rule 3(a), the word "Knight" in the second and third sentences should probably read "Noble."
Indubitably.
Rule 3(b) has a few issues. First, the ratification bit as worded requires that taxes be jacked up to the maximum immediately on conquest, even if the Council hasn't had an opportunity to ratify the conquest because a Council session hasn't occurred yet. Is this intentional? Who owns the province before it is ratified, in the time period between its conquest and the next Council session?
I queried this earlier and apparently it is intended. I think the VH taxes are partly to slow expansion. I am inferring ownership lies with the conqueror, but because he can't recruit, it's not a very juicy prize. I think the wording was the result of some to and fro, though, so if you want to propose one or more alternatives, that might be helpful.
The other queries you raise on 3b look like sensible cleaning up.
For Rule 3(c) - Retinue, does LTC include province titles as retinue? If not, the rule can be simplified by stripping out that language (which was added for SS 4.1 in LotR).
No and yes.
For Rule 3(d), it appears Wills are now pointless, as all inheritance issues are automatic. Was this intentional? If so, the last line can be stripped out and the word Wills should be removed from the title of the rule:
I suggest:
(d) - Wills & Inheritance: A landowning noble can bequeath his land if he deposits a will with the GM before his death. If there is no will, all land goes to his House or, if he has no House, to the King. All land in the King's Demesne is passed to the new King. A Duke can name his successor in his will; the King will choose one if he does not.
You could use the LotR clause, but it just fried half my brain, so caveat emptor, dear readers.
For Rule 3(e) - Oaths of Fealty, the rule was changed from its LotR wording to read "Any Independent Noble may swear an oath of fealty to any Duke whenever he wishes." There are no provisions for a Noble swearing to anyone but a Duke, but a Count cannot exist unless someone has sworn an Oath to him. Under the current rules, it is thus impossible to become a Count.
I wonder if you could redraft that to allow nobles to swear oaths to nobles of higher rank (only)? Also, could you clarify where the King stands in relation to oaths, as I recall - with some pique - Lothar saying he did not recognise the King as his liege; is that the official KotF position on Duke-King relations?
Rule 6(a) will likely need some extra editing because the proposed changes to PvP campaign movement make the bit about who moves first obsolete.
Yes, pls do include PvP movement Risk-style.
Rule 6(b), IMHO, could be better adapted to KotF. I think it would be nice to do more to force House warfare. If you declare war on someone in another House, you declare war with the entire House. In addition, I don't think vassals should be able to 'peace out' without the permission of the Duke of their House.
I thought 6(a) gets close to House warfare - all those below in the House are targets. Personally, I would rather make states of war totally free: you can declare war on anyone and that is it. If your vassal does not declare war on the person who is attacking you, that should be regarded as breaking an oath, but they should have that option IMO and if you are willing to let it go, so be it. (Presumably, a coup will start with one person declaring then some of the rats deserting the sinking ship).
(1) Why was the Prioritized Construction system removed? That worked fine and seemed popular in LotR and was one of the effective methods of avoiding a totally partisan Chancellor.
I have not heard of this system - sounds interesting.
Cecil XIX
07-11-2009, 02:46
Don't worry about it Zim, we're happy to have you as our GM. As for construction prioritization, didn't PK use that to construct the Huge Walls at Antiokheia? Or was that when he was Megas Logothetes?
At any point anyone is free to put up their own rule system or volunteer to take over gm duties. I put my own efforts towards doing so because nooone else seemed willing to at the time and I've found these games to be a big part of the fun I've had since coming to the Org. I'm not a lawyer and I've never written rules for a complex game before. I'm just doing the best I can...
I didn't mean to cause offense, I was just trying to spot potential problems before they occurred. I can tell you for a fact I wouldn't touch the GM spot with a 10 foot pole. I spent a year doing that for LotR, and for this game I just want to be a player. It is definitely a rewarding and fun job, particularly with the event system, but it does cause fatigue and I am currently fatigued.
I queried this earlier and apparently it is intended. I think the VH taxes are partly to slow expansion. I am inferring ownership lies with the conqueror, but because he can't recruit, it's not a very juicy prize. I think the wording was the result of some to and fro, though, so if you want to propose one or more alternatives, that might be helpful.
No, it's fine, I just wanted to make sure the wording was doing what it was intended to do. As it stands, it will certainly slow expansion. Towards the end, LotR instituted a rule system for full-on independence movements that split off sections of the Empire from the rest and gave them an element of autonomy. Part of that included jacking up taxes to VH, and that resulted in serious unrest and rebellions in any province without a major garrison. This will will probably have a greater impact on slowing expansion than anything else proposed, simply because after we've expanded beyond the most immediate territories, the conquering army will have to remain as a garrison until the next Council session due to the unrest level. It will be a very effective method of expansion control.
I wonder if you could redraft that to allow nobles to swear oaths to nobles of higher rank (only)? Also, could you clarify where the King stands in relation to oaths, as I recall - with some pique - Lothar saying he did not recognise the King as his liege; is that the official KotF position on Duke-King relations?
In LotR, no one could swear fealty to the Emperor, because nominally everyone was supposed to be a vassal of the Emperor. I think it would work the same way here. By allowing oaths to the King, you essentially imply that anyone who doesn't swear the oath isn't subordinate to the King, which just isn't true in our game.
I didn't mean to cause offense, I was just trying to spot potential problems before they occurred. I can tell you for a fact I wouldn't touch the GM spot with a 10 foot pole. I spent a year doing that for LotR, and for this game I just want to be a player. It is definitely a rewarding and fun job, particularly with the event system, but it does cause fatigue and I am currently fatigued.
It's not a matter of being offended, more becoming weary. It seems I come home to ever growing lists of where I messed up. Rules changes are being proposed at a dizzying rate, and I've had trouble keeping up with edits, which have to be made hastily and then contain even more mistakes and contradictions. I'm just tired... I'm sure much of it is that now far more people are much more interested in the game, so more are sharing their input on problems.
I'll try to compile a list of changes tomorrow evening after work
"For Rule 3(d), it appears Wills are now pointless, as all inheritance issues are automatic. Was this intentional? If so, the last line can be stripped out and the word Wills should be removed from the title of the rule:"
The last line about wills was meant to refer to Duke's passing on their titles. There was a lot of discussion in the pregame thread about making the game more like KOTR. I had thought land in KOTR tended to stick with houses, so wrote up the rules to make it go straight to the Duke of the noble's House. I also thought this might avoid the issue of someone leaving their land to another House with no perceptible reason, which their new character then immediately joins.
Changing it to allow anyone to leave their land to whomever they wish is easy enough, but creates the chance of making the Houses a huge jumble landwise if players go crazy with their wills. It's certainly not a big risk, but from past experience neither is abuse of prioritizations, which we're discussing changing the rules to prevent.
Since we're apparently now going away from the linear feudal chain system of LOTR, the part about Dukes without wills having their House go to the second in charge will no longer work. I intended it to be in case we end up with an inactive Duke who doesn't leave a will...
Don't worry about it Zim, we're happy to have you as our GM. As for construction prioritization, didn't PK use that to construct the Huge Walls at Jerusalem? Or was that when he was Megas Logothetes?
Was PK Megas for a term? It probably happened that two months I was away...
Were there other instances of building prioritizations being used?
Edit: Made some revisions to rules. There's still a lot to catch up on, though, which I'll work on tomorrow.
As much as I like to have every advantage possible, I agree that buffing AI (i.e. English) settlements would add a challenge. What do you think Zim?
I think it was suggested some time ago an addition be made to the rules allowing me to create armies for AI factions if need be. Not sure which post number, though.
At the least I could add some troops to Normandy to make it tougher to take, and maybe eventually some to England as well if it's invaded, although I'll be adjusting the King's Purse of AI factions as well, so hopefully they'll be building enough already.
Ignoramus
07-11-2009, 09:47
Don't worry Zim, you're doing a great job. We're nearly at the end of the rules phase, and then the fun will begin!
I am a bit worried about the possibility of Nobles being able to switch houses. One of the great things about KOTR was the factional squabbling between the houses. It was great! In LOTR, however, houses were too fluid, and it killed any real friction, because as soon as someone got sick of the house leader, they just formed their own house.
On reading the rules, it doesn't look too worrying, as long as it's not abused.
At the least I could add some troops to Normandy to make it tougher to take, and maybe eventually some to England as well if it's invaded, although I'll be adjusting the King's Purse of AI factions as well, so hopefully they'll be building enough already.
My recommendation would be to at least give every faction some starting troops equivalent to the RBGs we spawn for ourselves - remembering they have 2hps. Afterall that is what each of us would insist on, if we were each asked to play one non-French faction competitively. I guess it would equate to about a couple of balanced, good quality stacks per faction. I would be happy to spawn the stacks myself if it was approved - putting them next to capitals or some such - as I worked out the composition of those stacks for most factions while running KotR. I suspect players might prefer the stacks be there at the beginning, so they can make strategic choices, rather than spawned at the last minute and breaking immersion & scuppering a strategic ploy. I would also be willing to playtest the change to see what the world looked like after 10 or 20 turns compared to without the stacks.
I think it was mentioned that we treat bodyguards as heavy cavalry for the stack composition rule for a number of turns (30?). That would be good and should be written up in 5d. But I don't think it is enough, as the AI factions don't start with any heavy cavalry at all, except their generals. We should at least give them what we are giving ourselves, IMO.
I am a bit worried about the possibility of Nobles being able to switch houses. One of the great things about KOTR was the factional squabbling between the houses. It was great! In LOTR, however, houses were too fluid, and it killed any real friction, because as soon as someone got sick of the house leader, they just formed their own house.
That's an important issue to consider - especially if the noble leaving, leaves with their lands, as presumably they will. I did not play LotR so I am not sure how this will all play out. Under the current rules, as I understand them, the person leaving the House will take their land? The Duke will have the right to declare war on the departing noble on the grounds that he is oath-breaker and if so all the Dukes other vassals will also be at war (at least in name, I cant see we can force them to fight or switch sides). The Duke will presumably have a military edge, so any conflict would presumably depend on the attitude of the other Houses. If they support the breakaway noble, then I imagine he could get away with it.
If all of the above is true, it sounds reasonably ok to me - the penalties are very politically dependent, with some weight in favour of the Duke but not insurmountable. If a Duke alienates all his vassals, he could be deposed - which again seems ok. We could hardwire more support for the Duke into the rules, but I think governing (by Dukes etc) does require some consent.
Is the above how other people see things? How does it relate to what happened in LotR? Were the same rules in play there, but there was too much fluidity between houses?
Ignoramus
07-11-2009, 12:03
I agree. Also, we will consistently have around 20-30 units of heavy cavalry due to RBG and family members.
Ignoramus
07-11-2009, 12:08
That's an important issue to consider - especially if the noble leaving, leaves with their lands, as presumably they will. I did not play LotR so I am not sure how this will all play out. Under the current rules, as I understand them, the person leaving the House will take their land? The Duke will have the right to declare war on the departing noble on the grounds that he is oath-breaker and if so all the Dukes other vassals will also be at war (at least in name, I cant see we can force them to fight or switch sides). The Duke will presumably have a military edge, so any conflict would presumably depend on the attitude of the other Houses. If they support the breakaway noble, then I imagine he could get away with it.
If all of the above is true, it sounds reasonably ok to me - the penalties are very politically dependent, with some weight in favour of the Duke but not insurmountable. If a Duke alienates all his vassals, he could be deposed - which again seems ok. We could hardwire more support for the Duke into the rules, but I think governing (by Dukes etc) does require some consent.
Is the above how other people see things? How does it relate to what happened in LotR? Were the same rules in play there, but there was too much fluidity between houses?
In LotR, I think it was the same, but it was really hard for house leaders to stomp on rebellious vassals. The large distances involved really added to this problem. When I was Emperor, trying to attack rebellious players was impossible, due to the large distances. In KotF, we shouldn't have as big a problem.
My main concern is that without players being really committed to a particular house, things can sometimes get disorganised and it's hard to find something to fight for.
Changing it to allow anyone to leave their land to whomever they wish is easy enough, but creates the chance of making the Houses a huge jumble landwise if players go crazy with their wills. It's certainly not a big risk, but from past experience neither is abuse of prioritizations, which we're discussing changing the rules to prevent.
Good point, I withdraw that suggestion. How about:
(d) - Wills & Inheritance: Upon the death of a noble his land goes to the highest member of his feudal chain. If he is independent the land goes to the King. All land in the King's Demesne is passed to the new King. Duke's can pass on their rank to a House member of their choosing, including by naming a successor in their will. Wills must be deposited with Zim before the character's death to be considered valid. If a Duke dies without naming a successor, the King picks the successor from among the highest ranked in their House.
Changes in italics.
Ignoramus
07-11-2009, 14:25
Excellent. I would just add a clause allowing a noble to leave a province to his natural son. I think we had this in KotR.
_Tristan_
07-11-2009, 15:37
Excellent. I would just add a clause allowing a noble to leave a province to his natural son. I think we had this in KotR.
...or to any avatar of his choice, thus leaving the ability for a player to leave a province to his next avatar.
It's not a matter of being offended, more becoming weary. It seems I come home to ever growing lists of where I messed up. Rules changes are being proposed at a dizzying rate, and I've had trouble keeping up with edits, which have to be made hastily and then contain even more mistakes and contradictions. I'm just tired... I'm sure much of it is that now far more people are much more interested in the game, so more are sharing their input on problems.
I'll try to compile a list of changes tomorrow evening after work
I really don't mind doing the edits on the starting game rules, to help keep make things easier for you. I've already got a partially finished version completed anyway.
On that note, I'd like to state that I really don't want to do the Library again for this game. I've now done WotS, KotR, and LotR. I need a break from the Library.
I really don't mind doing the edits on the starting game rules, to help keep make things easier for you. I've already got a partially finished version completed anyway.
On that note, I'd like to state that I really don't want to do the Library again for this game. I've now done WotS, KotR, and LotR. I need a break from the Library.
You need a break period from anything GM related TC :laugh4:
Speaking of which, I have nothing letf to argue out in the rules, except for dueling mechanics.
Cecil XIX
07-11-2009, 16:17
I'd be willing to take over the Library... Assuming people are okay if I don't do those 'Current Extent of the Kingdom' and the maps of the areas of the world. Those seem like the most work, and I know I never used 'em.
...or to any avatar of his choice, thus leaving the ability for a player to leave a province to his next avatar.
I thought that was what we trying to avoid with the whole "land goes to the Duke" thing?
Igno's idea of leaving land to your natural son is very characterful.
But leaving it to your reincarnation does not feel right to me. I'd prefer a new avatar to mean a new start. Apart from it just feeling "gamey", I am worried about players becoming one man dynasties that come to exert a stranglehold on the game. Death is a great leveller.
I'd be willing to take over the Library... Assuming people are okay if I don't do those 'Current Extent of the Kingdom' and the maps of the areas of the world. Those seem like the most work, and I know I never used 'em.
Tables are currently broken anyway, so the method I used to do that wouldn't work. That stuff was largely a holdover from WotS, where we had players who didn't have in-game avatars and never loaded up the game. They needed a method of knowing what was going on in the game. Since everyone now has to be able to load up the save in order to be able to play in the first place, there's no serious need for them.
That said, the most work is by far the mugshots.
Cecil XIX
07-11-2009, 22:55
Tables are currently broken anyway, so the method I used to do that wouldn't work. That stuff was largely a holdover from WotS, where we had players who didn't have in-game avatars and never loaded up the game. They needed a method of knowing what was going on in the game. Since everyone now has to be able to load up the save in order to be able to play in the first place, there's no serious need for them.
That said, the most work is by far the mugshots.
Hmm, I suppose so. Anyway, sounds like fun. I'd definitely like maintaining the Library.
OverKnight
07-12-2009, 04:54
I'll do a History again unless someone else really wants to bang out a lot of links with semi-clever titles.
OverKnight
07-12-2009, 05:42
I thought that was what we trying to avoid with the whole "land goes to the Duke" thing?
Igno's idea of leaving land to your natural son is very characterful.
But leaving it to your reincarnation does not feel right to me. I'd prefer a new avatar to mean a new start. Apart from it just feeling "gamey", I am worried about players becoming one man dynasties that come to exert a stranglehold on the game. Death is a great leveller.
I agree.
In KotR, if I remember correctly, with the exception of the Prinz, who inherited all royal lands when he became King, a character had to be knighted before he could be assigned land by a Duke. So passing on land to your next avatar was nigh impossible. I remember that Stig's plan, as Duke of Franconia, to make his daughter his heir so his next avatar could presumably marry her and inherit the Duchy, raised some eyebrows.
In LotR, I admit to taking part in land fraud by passing on Constantinople from Aleksios to Tiv, my next avatar, rather than to Ioannis, as one would expect. Which in hindsight was a bit sleazy of me, though at that point Al was terrified of civil war occurring after his death.
Personally, I think not keeping territories in the exact same hands from generation to generation encourages cooperation amongst House members. You scratch someone's back now, and they'll take care of your next avatar later. It promotes House cohesion rather than individual accumulation.
Perhaps, as mentioned earlier, there should be a few turns gap between the death of a player's old character and the spawning, or assumption, of his new one. Thus ensuring that everyone starts out with no inherited land. This, also discussed earlier, would encourage players to maximise and preserve their current character since death would become more of an impediment.
Ibn-Khaldun
07-12-2009, 05:50
Tables are currently broken anyway....
Any idea when they will be fixed?
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.